General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. What an Opposition in complete disarray, from one end of this House to the other. They are floundering. They are snappy. They are really, really in some distress. They are showing signs of desperation and division, while on this side of the House we are focused on what matters. I have got to say that that is a party opposite that seems to be run by the three “S’s”. They are making up spy stories. They are sneaking up to meetings without telling each other. They are swinging dead fish around the Chamber. Well, frankly, they stink. And that is what we have seen from the Opposition. Are they focusing on getting our finances in order?

💬 Hon Members: No.

Are they focused on building a competitive, growing economy?

💬 Hon Members: No.

No. Are they focusing on better public services for families?

💬 Hon Members: No.

No. And are they focusing on rebuilding our economy, providing opportunities for New Zealand families? No. And I actually see every day that our nation’s newspapers and websites show New Zealanders are not interested in these distractions. They are seeing through the intensifying grandstanding of the Opposition parties, and they understand how well New Zealand is doing in a world where so many nations are struggling. So today I am going to talk about the things that matter to New Zealand.

One of those things that matter to New Zealand is growing our debt, avoiding international borrowing, and investing in our nation—controlling our debt, avoiding borrowing, and investing in our nation. That is what we are going to talk about, because this Government is focused on what is necessary. Every day those parties opposite rail against our Government controlling our nation’s debt. They rail against our Government controlling our nation’s debt. Yesterday the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and I announced the next stages in the float of Meridian Energy. The Mighty River Power float has been very successful for New Zealand. Almost 80,000 were first-time shareholders. That is the largest register of shareholders on the New Zealand stock market, a majority New Zealand ownership, and that is despite the economic vandalism of the parties opposite. Yesterday we announced details of our float programme.

Look, I have got to say that I think instalment receipts are a great part of this strategy. They are a great part because they are going to provide opportunities for more New Zealanders to take a bigger stake in this company if they want to. It is pretty orthodox. These sorts of instalment receipts have been used in the past—Westpac Trust, Capital Properties, PGG Wrightson, a number of companies. They are part of our plan to control debt and invest in the New Zealand economy. We will be taking that money, including the $1.7 billion in cash that we got from the sale of 49 percent in Mighty River Power, putting it in the Future Investment Fund, and helping build our nation with roads, schools, and hospitals. That is $1 billion in 21st century schools, including, as in the announcement yesterday, $15 million into Tarawera High School in Kawerau. What a fantastic investment by Hekia Parata, the Minister of Education.

We in this party are focused on that, and we are focused on better public services for New Zealanders. In health we are providing more services for New Zealanders faster and with better access—providing the services they need. We are also focusing on that big priority of rebuilding Christchurch. It is a huge focus for our Government, and it is a really good example of how all our policies have been working together to benefit the people of Christchurch. The proceeds from the mixed-ownership model can be invested, and are being invested, in rebuilding our nation’s second-biggest city. Just look at Christchurch Hospital—we are going to invest $426 million from the mixed-ownership model. That is money that has come from—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

This Government is engaged in a consistent attack on basic democratic rights. It is a Muldoonist-type Government, which is something I said back in June. Since then, pretty much a week does not go by without proving me to be right.

I think it was very useful that The Economist gave an editorial about democracy and majoritarianism in June this year. I quote from The Economist, which said: “Majoritarianism—the credo of an expanding group of elected but autocratic rulers around the world, which holds that electoral might always makes you right—is not true democracy,”. It is one of the fundamental principles of this Government that all it needs to do is get a single-vote majority in this House and it can ram through anything, whether it is asset sales against the will of the vast majority, or whether it is mass surveillance under Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation, which the Government will be attempting to pass this afternoon. A single-vote majority is enough for it to force that legislation through.

But majoritarianism, the idea that “electoral might makes you always right”, is not true democracy, as The Economist pointed out. Independent courts and free media are a critical part of that, and yet this Government has consistently attacked those basic democratic rights and freedoms. Think about the Prime Minister’s response to the Human Rights Commission when the Human Rights Commission dared to threaten the Government’s GCSB legislation. The Prime Minister threatened to cut its funding. That is the reality of modern-day democracy in New Zealand. The Prime Minister said: “If you disagree with me, I’ll cut your funding.”

Think about the Henry inquiry. The Prime Minister’s inquiry went after the records of journalists’ movements in this building. The Prime Minister’s inquiry went after Ministers’ email records, and got them. The Prime Minister’s inquiry went after journalists’ records, and got them. This is the kind of Government that we have. It is engaged in consistent attacks on democratic rights and principles.

Think about the right to access the courts. In a deep democracy, a resilient democracy, people would have the right to go to court to challenge the lawfulness of the Government’s actions. This Government is consistently removing your right to go to court to challenge them. If you think about the carers’ bill, that was purposely put in place so that those people can no longer go to the courts to challenge whether the Government is acting in a lawful manner. The independent judiciary has not been abolished by John Key; he has simply made it inaccessible to the citizens so that they can no longer get there.

The Government has done a similar thing with the Environmental Protection Authority—or, really the “Environmental Pollution Authority”. It has removed the right to access the Environment Court. Instead, problems end up at the Environmental Protection Authority, which simply rubber-stamps it all. Think about the Government’s actions in Canterbury—and this was before the earthquake—when it removed the right of Cantabrians to elect their regional council. The reason it removed that right was that the elected regional council was doing too much to protect the environment and was insufficiently pro-irrigation. That was the reason why John Key removed democracy for the people in Christchurch and Canterbury.

Think about the Government’s actions in removing the right to protest at sea—the Anadarko amendment. That was an amendment that came after Simon Bridges’ meeting with the oil industry. That is removing people’s right to protest at sea. Think about the history of nuclear-free New Zealand. How did we end up with a nuclear-free New Zealand? It was because of people like that protesting at sea against the US submarines and frigates that were visiting our country. The Government is consistently and persistently attacking basic democratic rights like the right to protest.

Think about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. The Government is refusing to release the text or any information about New Zealand’s position to the New Zealand public, even though that information is being made available to the other Governments with which New Zealand is negotiating. Those other Governments know more about the negotiating position of the New Zealand Government than New Zealand citizens themselves.

Think about the MMP review. MMP won in the referendum, and there was supposed to be an independent review by an independent umpire, the Electoral Commission. The commission came back with a series of recommendations. The National Party and John Key rejected every single one of them for purely partisan, political reasons—because it did not suit them to actually improve MMP, as was recommended by the independent umpire.

And, of course, then we come to the GCSB legislation. This legislation enables the GCSB to engage in mass surveillance of New Zealanders. The Government pushed it through under urgency, and this afternoon it will try to push it through again. This Government has a consistent approach. It attacks democratic rights at every turn.

When I first came into this House, it did not surprise me that I came across robust debate and people taking reasonably coloured positions on various issues. But I have to say that in recent weeks and months I have been appalled by the level of debate and the level of deliberate twisting and misrepresentation of what is going on in this country, merely to score political points. Our Opposition has become so desperate and so aware of its irrelevance and its failure to connect with the New Zealand public. It knows that our agenda of getting on and getting things done, making life better for New Zealanders, creating jobs, and creating opportunities is talking to what New Zealanders want to hear. So Opposition members come into this House, they go to the public, they go to the media, and they keep repeating statements that are so wrong and are designed solely for scaremongering, simply to push their own agendas.

To hear the last speaker, Russel Norman, describe the Government Communications and Security Bureau and Related Legislation Bill as allowing mass surveillance is an appalling misstatement of what the bill does. The bill is about tidying up an inefficient, inconsistent law passed by the Labour Government in order to make it clear that the way our agencies work together can continue lawfully, as it has done for the past 10 years. We know that no more than nine New Zealanders a year, on average, are subjected to warrants that would allow their communications to be looked at. More important, we know what it is about: it is about protecting the security of my family, the family of everyone in this Chamber, and the family of everyone in New Zealand. I think that New Zealanders care about the security of their country. I think they know that our agencies do a fantastic job of supporting it, and I think that is why you are seeing a complete disconnect between the rhetoric being driven by a few and the reality of what is going on.

It is appalling to see Opposition members who simply seek to denigrate everything and anyone who does not agree with their world view, and the last speaker’s speech was riddled with it. How he can stand there and denigrate independent decision makers like the Environmental Protection Authority simply because he does not like the outcome is an appalling misuse of his position, and how dare he describe the actions of this Government as an attack on democracy. It is our job as a democratically elected Government to ensure that the processes deliver for New Zealanders, and when they do not, we have a duty and an obligation to step up, and step up we do.

Let us just remember that when central governments are elected, the turnout for those elections is more than double, on average, the turnout for the local body elections—more than double. All the power that local government has devolves from central government. We are statutorily obliged to consider and review the way that local government performs its functions. We must, and we will, because this is a Government that is not afraid of taking action to do what needs to be done. I have very little time for the people who would play fast and loose with our international reputation, which underpins the security and the economic future of all New Zealanders. They would play games with our international brand reputation merely to score points. That is appalling. It shows a serious lack of patriotism, in my view.

We are a Government that is about getting on with things. We are about delivering jobs to New Zealanders. We are about getting rid of the wastage in the processes in our system. I have heard the Green Party recently criticise changes to the Resource Management Act as being just about getting quicker decisions. Well, yes, they are. I know that the Greens have never met a process they did not want to drag out, but on our side of the House, we do not want to see people having to spend $3,500 to get a resource consent to remove a dangerous chimney. That is appalling, it is unnecessary, and we are going to change it. I have heard every party in this House—except possibly the Greens—talk about the need to improve the Resource Management Act. They accept that it is not working well, but which one of them has ever had the fortitude to get in and actually do it? None of them—none of them.

It is the National-led Government that is now delivering the third stage of Resource Management Act reforms, which will stop hundreds of millions of dollars, year after year after year, being wasted on lawyers, consultants, and planners, and will let that money go instead to things that New Zealanders care about—having cheaper homes, having jobs, and having communities that work well, as well as protecting our natural environment. That is why this Government is committed to reforming the Resource Management Act. We are going to ensure that we get better planning outcomes. We will continue to protect our environment.

This is the Government that cares about everything that matters to New Zealanders—natural, social, cultural, economic, and environmental. That is what you will get from a National-led Government.

We had a rare candid moment from the National benches when the Hon Tony Ryall was speaking. He told the House that the National Government’s priority was “growing the debt”. We on this side of the House really appreciate that level of honesty. We appreciate the National Government’s finally coming clean and admitting that it is, in fact, the gold medallist of debt. It has borrowed more than any Government in New Zealand history. It is doing it week after week after week—billions of dollars put on the credit card for future generations to pay. I only wish that we could look forward to that kind of candid honesty from the National benches when it comes to housing, because this is an area that New Zealanders care deeply about.

As the New Zealand Herald commented a few days ago, the National Government’s policy on housing is “as ill-directed as it is insipid.” That is the New Zealand Herald. The National Government is floundering around. It has no idea what to do about the housing crisis that is afflicting our nation. First-home buyers are being locked out of the housing market in ever-growing numbers. Our rates of homeownership are going through the floor. We used to pride ourselves as a country on our rates of homeownership, but in Auckland recently the homeownership rate dropped below 60 percent for the first time in a century. It is a curious thing to see a Government actually seeming to deliberately make matters worse for the people, for the community that we are here to serve, but you can take only that interpretation out of what is happening for first-home buyers under this Government.

I want to make some comments about this issue of loan-to-value ratio limits on mortgage lending, or LVRs, as they are commonly called. The Reserve Bank finally announced a few days ago that it is instituting these so-called speed limits, which will have the effect of putting limits on home mortgage lending. The effect of it is that 90 percent of new home mortgage lending by the banks will be required to have a deposit of 20 percent or more. That is a massive reduction in the size of the home mortgage market. It is going to mean that first-home buyers and low-income home buyers are going to be disadvantaged. It is the speculators and the well-off, who can leverage their assets, who will not be affected by this. In fact, the speculators and the well-off will be advantaged by this policy because they are no longer going to have to compete with so many first-home buyers.

I want to remind the House that in question time the Minister of Finance, Bill English, tried to shrug off the responsibility for this policy, when, in fact, in May the Government had negotiated with the Reserve Bank a memorandum of understanding giving the Reserve Bank the powers to use these so-called speed limits on home mortgage lending. The Reserve Bank Governor’s own words said that the bank negotiated a memorandum of understanding to agree with the Government that it would be able to use these powers and to say how those powers would be outlined. Yet we saw the Minister of Finance shrugging off responsibility and saying: “No, it’s nothing to do with the Government. It’s the independent Reserve Bank.” Well, what a load of rubbish.

This is the Government’s policy. It negotiated an agreement with the Reserve Bank. It is going to damage the interests of first-home buyers in this country, and it was only after John Key had negotiated that memorandum of understanding with the Reserve Bank that he had an afterthought and started publicly musing about having an exemption for first-home buyers. Well, it is too late. Once that memorandum was in place, the Reserve Bank Governor did not have to worry about that. The Reserve Bank, understandably, is more concerned about financial stability, and it is not good enough for National Ministers to come to this House and cry crocodile tears about first-home buyers. They handed a loaded gun to the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank has pulled the trigger, and now the Government is offering band-aids to the first-home buyer, who is lying on the ground bleeding. It is offering tinkering changes to Welcome Home Loans and KiwiSaver. It is an absolute joke.

The Government has stuffed up the management of this issue. First-home buyers are getting it in the neck, and it is the Government that has responsibility.

This Government’s policy on housing can be summed up by saying that it is to trust the market and blame the councils. It has nothing to offer Kiwi first-home buyers, unlike Labour, which will crack down on speculators and build 100,000 affordable homes.

On Friday at 2.30 p.m. on 16 August a 6.6 magnitude earthquake struck the top of the south, effectively under Lake Grassmere. This is on top of a 6.5 magnitude earthquake 3 weeks earlier, which has totally turned the rural communities of Seddon and Ward upside down. I had to make a dash to Seddon to support those who were distressed and traumatised. The emergency response team out of Blenheim set up a welfare centre at the primary school. The Red Cross team out of Christchurch set up a very well-equipped support truck. They set to work to support those who were being affected. The Minister of Civil Defence, Nikki Kaye, along with Gerry Brownlee, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, began to make their way down to Marlborough to show their support for and their solidarity with the people who were so gravely affected.

It was my wife’s and my own privilege to be able to spend a night with those affected at the welfare centre to give support and comfort. It is worth bearing in mind that the aftershocks were raining in at a tremendous rate. They were measured at forces of between 5 and 6 magnitude and were adding to the already fearful situation. Over the night we were well supported by the Red Cross. They did a wonderful job and people took great comfort out of that. However, when we woke up in the morning, the situation was considerably worse. Heavy rain had set in and that was adding to the difficulty of the situation. The next morning was even more depressing than the night before, considering the amount of shock that came with the beginning of the earthquake effects.

Large teams, however, of the civil defence volunteers reported in under the control of the Marlborough District Council, under its response manager Dean Heiford, and that was quite heartening to see those people moving around. Ministers Kaye and Brownlee were also very positive and had a very uplifting effect on the spirits of those who were present. It had been announced that there would be a public meeting at the school assembly hall and the community turned up to hear and be reassured. We have been well recorded with the photographs in the Dominion Post and throughout the Marlborough Express showing the damage that occurred between Ward and Seddon. The enduring memory will be of those photographs that were shown in the Dominion Post yesterday with regard to the railway line in that area, just illustrating the force and magnitude of that earthquake.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution that the Ministers have made in assuring the community that all will be done within the Government’s power to put things right. That is very, very important. But, in saying that, we recognise the limitation that will apply to that putting right. You can certainly put the buildings and the infrastructure together and make that right, but the human toll of anxiety, fear, distress, and resulting depression will need ongoing monitoring and support.

So I would like to take the opportunity to express the community’s heartfelt thanks to those who came along to support it during its hour of need. The police, who got out very, very quickly, checked all the rural roads, and all the bridges. A number of those bridges had popped and were anything between 150 millimetres and 200 millimetres above the road level, and needed to be corrected so that if there was going to be any movement it could be done safely. The road between Ward and Seddon was closed. I want to say a special thankyou to the police for letting me through at the Ward end. It was quite an eye-opener to see the cracks and the undulations in the road as the consequence of those shakes, and we have had many, many more since then. So thank you to the police.

Thank you to the Red Cross for coming up from Christchurch with that well-equipped truck, and also the Marlborough Red Cross, the civil defence volunteers who came along with the plywood and the tarpaulins, the fire brigades at Seddon and Ward for the building supplies and the tarpaulins, the tradesmen, the plumbers, the carpenters, and the electricians, and, of course, the engineers. It is good to report that the Earthquake Commission is out on the ground at the moment, working along with the tradespeople. We just want to put a message out and put it on record that all New Zealand supports the efforts in Marlborough and Seddon. Thank you.

There are two things that this Government will go down for in recent times. There are many others to add to the list, but in the near future one will be allowing the Government Communications Security Bureau into Kiwis’ homes. The second, however, will be reducing the chances and the ability of Kiwis to even have a decent home that they can either rent or own. That is a situation that has patently become much, much worse under this Government. That will be just part of its dark legacy. We know that homeownership in Auckland alone is now at levels below 60 percent. That is the first time ever that we have become that distant from what used to be a part of the Kiwi dream in New Zealand, and it is happening right now in the city in which I live. Prices in Auckland under this Government have gone up by 30 percent. It is no wonder that people are finding it so difficult to get into homes.

💬 Maggie Barry: Have you got a home yet?

This actually is not about the ability of Kiwis to get into their quarter acre dream. I am being asked by a member of Parliament whether I have a home yet. Most politicians on this side know that this debate is not just about themselves and their own personal interest but about the ability of New Zealanders to own a home or rent a home. That is something that is becoming much more difficult under this Government. I am appalled that the Government would want us to reduce this down to our own trivial examples in light of what other people are facing out there.

The flow-on effects of what is happening in the market at the moment are hitting the rental market. That is something that I want to talk a little bit about today. We are 30,000 homes short in Auckland—30,000 homes. Anyone who is trying to rent in a city like Auckland right now knows that that means they are facing higher rental prices and frequent rental reviews, and as a consequence they are much more transient than they have ever been.

Ultimately, that means that children living in Auckland are suffering the consequences of our housing market. Why is that? Well, 70 percent of children in poverty in New Zealand are living in rental properties. They are the ones who are living in families who are paying a high proportion of their income towards the cost of having shelter. Even though we as a country continue to pour $1.2 billion into accommodation supplements, those are essentially getting sucked up by these increases in rental prices. The consequence is that as people get more desperate they are renting homes that are barely inhabitable. We are paying the price of that via the health of our children. Annette King is likely to touch on this more, but diseases like rheumatic fever, bronchiectasis, infectious skin diseases, and meningococcal are all illnesses that are worsened by poor-quality housing.

💬 Maggie Barry: Rheumatic fever we’re doing something about. Immunisation we’re doing something about. Your Government did nothing.

I have mentioned rheumatic fever, and swabbing for rheumatic fever, Ms Barry, does not fix the problem. Anyone who works in this field knows this. Any MP who is doing their job, who walks around our streets, would know this, as I found out recently in one of our poorer neighbourhoods. I saw houses that were literally raining from the inside—such is the poor quality of the housing that some of families are living in. If a child suffers from something like a respiratory disease, it is ludicrous to hospitalise them for a few days and then send them back to the damp, dingy home from which they came, when it costs about the same amount just to insulate that home as it would be to keep them in hospital.

The Government’s solution to all of this is to allow the council to bypass consent processes, not to build affordable houses but just to build whatever house the developer might want to build. The second thing is to open up KiwiSaver a little. Eventually I am waiting for this Government to say that the next option is for us to live in shipping containers or zeppelins in the sky.

What we need is step change. That is why Labour is supporting building 100,000 new houses, bringing in a capital gains tax, having a healthy home guarantee, and ending overseas speculation. What we need for our renters, for our first-home buyers, and for kids in this country is a vision and step change, and that is something that this Government knows nothing about.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the speech, and it was well handled, but I think you may have noticed that a member shifted from her seat and, more or less, constantly interjected from the moment that she shifted. That is against the rules, and it seemed to be an indication of an excessive lunch.

Order!

💬 Maggie Barry: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

No, there is no need to speak to the point of order. I certainly do not agree with the member that there was continuous and excessive interjection. There was certainly some interjection. This is the general debate. It is a robust debate. I suspect that although the member to whom you are referring has moved, and I accept she has moved, it is possibly because she is going to make a contribution to the general debate. I find that absolutely acceptable. [Interruption] Order!

When the co-leader of the Green Party spoke earlier he made reference to the Electoral Commission as being the independent umpire. It reminded me that when the commission was established in 1993, in the lead up to MMP, that was indeed the intention—that it would be the independent umpire that would oversee the administration and the running of our electoral system. But a couple of recent incidents have demonstrated that it has lost its way in that respect, and it is time for reform.

Dr Norman referred to the MMP review. When that review was completed and the recommendations of the Electoral Commission were put forward, they came with a rider from the commission that its changes were designed not so much to facilitate the administration of the electoral system, which would have been within its brief, but to stop the proliferation of small parties in Parliament. Some might argue that that is desirable. That is a legitimate political point, but it is not the role of the Electoral Commission to seek to design the electoral system in such a way that determines the choices that voters will make. If the voters of New Zealand want to elect 120 small parties to Parliament, each having one member, that is their prerogative. It is not for the Electoral Commission to say they cannot do it.

There were similar overtones of the Electoral Commission overstepping that brief of being the independent umpire in the way that it handled United Future’s re-registration process. I want to draw some of those to the attention of the House this afternoon. The most ludicrous one of all is that under the Act as it stands at the moment parties seeking to register or to renew their registration have merely to sign a statutory declaration that they have the requisite number of current financial members. The Electoral Commission has no power at all to verify whether that declaration is correct. It simply relies on the word of the parties concerned. So if a party filled in an incorrect declaration, there is no power on the part of the commission to take action. But when, as happened in our case, we said we were not able to comply at that time and we needed a period of grace, the commission simply said “We will deregister you.” So the penalty was for being honest.

When I said to the president of the commission, Justice Williams, that this was an absurd situation and that if we had simply signed the declaration no one would have been any the wiser, he said: “But Mr Dunne, that would have been the wrong thing to do.” I said: “Absolutely, precisely—that is the point that I am making.” And he said: “But you would not want to be party to a dishonest action.” The point that he failed to get and that his commission failed to get was that the penalty for actual honesty is quite perverse.

The second area where the commission showed that it is completely out of touch with contemporary reality was the matter that I raised during question time today. Since 2002 we have had legislation in New Zealand providing for the recognition of electronic transactions. Across a whole range of commercial and Government activities there is now provision for the recognition of the validity of such transactions. Indeed, at the very height of our dispute with the Electoral Commission the Government released its own policy advocating greater use of electronic technology for transactions within Government agencies. But the Electoral Commission said: “No, we are not interested in that because we are not bound by the Act. We will not accept online memberships as being legitimate. You have to provide memberships signed with quill pen and on parchment before we will accept these as being legitimate.”

The implications of that go well beyond our particular case. They go to every political party in this House, because I have checked all their websites and every political party in this House provides for online memberships. Be warned that if you ever get into a situation where you are going to be challenged by the Electoral Commission, those memberships will count for nothing.

I was talking to a senior member of the Labour Party recently. We were just recalling the days—and I am sure my colleague Annette King will remember—when we used to go around and sign up members, with a little card. The person who signed someone up—if I signed Annette King up, for instance—would be the person who signed the membership card. There was no requirement for her to do so, so that membership, even then, would be invalid in the eyes of the Electoral Commission.

The point I am making is that recent events have shown that far from the claim of Dr Norman that the Electoral Commission is an independent umpire, it has ceased to be that. It has actually become a rather rampantly disturbed player in the game. Its powers need to be curbed. The Electoral Act needs to be brought into line with the original intention. I was one of those on the Justice and Electoral Committee way back at the time that it was promoted. I think the Hon Murray McCully and I are two people responsible for the Electoral Commission ever being established. We wanted it to be an independent umpire. It is time it returned to its roots. It is time the law was updated to make sure that common sense prevails in the way that the commission runs our electoral system, because otherwise we will get to a point at some stage where the entire integrity of our electoral process is questioned because of its absurd behaviour.

Yesterday I think we saw a couple of the best own goals that this country is probably ever likely to see. One of them I saw on the network news and was by a Peruvian soccer team. By fate, as it were, the teams were coloured one in red and one in blue. There was a cross to the midfield right in front of the goal. The player in the red shirt, as fate would have it, turned to his own goal and, faced with only his own goalkeeper, kicked it immediately into his own goal, not realising, of course, that it was, in fact, his own goal and that what he had actually done was score a goal for the opposition. That was held up as probably one of the greatest own goals in history.

But I think we can ask ourselves whether it really was, because, as fate would have it, on that very same day in this very House we saw the Leader of the Opposition, one David Shearer, kick what could be considered only to be an amazing own goal of his own. That was when he stood and had a very similar brain fade standing in front of his own goalmouth. He stood and confidently asked of the Prime Minister whether he or any of his staff had asked him or other members of the Labour Party to engage in broader conversation about, or to seek support for, the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill. The Prime Minister, leaping to his feet and no doubt feeling sorry for the Opposition leader, who was standing in his own goalmouth about to kick his own goal, said “Do you seriously want me to answer that question?”, or words to that effect, to which David Shearer rose back to his feet and even more confidently asked exactly the same question. That question was answered by the Prime Minister when he said “Well, actually, yes, I have done. We met after I invited”—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s a lie. That’s a lie.

Stand up and say that. Mr Shearer himself conceded later in his speech, actually, that that was exactly the case, because he then went on to ask about the conversation that he denied having in the first place. So, anyway, standing in front of his own goalmouth, he asked the Prime Minister “Have we ever had any conversations?”. The Prime Minister said “Absolutely we did. We snuck up the stairs to avoid your brothers in arms, Russel Norman over there and the Green Party.” They made their way up to the Prime Minister’s office and had a 30-minute conversation, in which time the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shearer, said “Let us just keep this on the down low, because it would not be a good look and I would not want you, Prime Minister, to be shouting it out around the House.” Then he comes into this House and asks the Prime Minister whether that conversation has ever occurred.

I think when it comes to own goals there can be no greater own goal, there can be no greater example of brain fade, than that of that member, who would have himself be the Prime Minister of this country but who cannot even recall having a conversation with the Prime Minister about something. At least the Peruvian soccer player actually had the dignity to publicly apologise for what he had just done and what he had got so wrong, whereas the Leader of the Opposition, David Shearer, went straight out on to the black and white floor, stared down the barrel of a camera, and said “Oh, I told the Prime Minister to keep that secret.” It is strange, that, because he was just asking a question in the House 20 minutes earlier about that very same thing. If there has ever been an own goal, that was a very good one.

While this is all going on, of course, what is this side of the House getting up to? Well, we are doing what we were elected to do, what Kiwis placed their faith in us to do, and that is to manage the Government’s finances, to ensure that we are building a more productive and competitive economy, to deliver better public services, and to rebuild Christchurch. We are making fantastic progress across all those scores. What we see from the Opposition is Grant Robertson, who seems to be the tail wagging the dog—

💬 Dr David Clark: Worst economic record in 50 years.

Come up with a different line—come up with a different line. You are going to have to renew the material, Mr Clark—you are going to have to renew the material. Mr Robertson is all about the conspiracy theory around the Government Communications Security Bureau and Andrea Vance. Kiwis care not—Kiwis care not about that. What they are seeing is the manufacturing sector improve. What they are seeing is this economy growing at a faster rate than any other economy in the world. What they are seeing is economic performance. That is what they want to see.

Meanwhile, Mr Shearer is out there. His latest is snapper. He comes in here with a bit of show and tell—a couple of dead snapper. Well, I have got news for Mr Shearer. He should not be concerned about snapper, because it is not the snapper that is dead in the water; it is that member and that member’s party—dead in the water.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the speech from Mr Sabin, a member of the Opposition was using some terms that clearly are unparliamentary. Can I ask that you consider asking him to withdraw and apologise to Mr Sabin.

I know the remarks the member is referring to. On this occasion he was not accusing anybody of being a liar; he was simply saying “That’s a lie.” It is a robust debate. I do not think that on this occasion it was out of order.

We have had the truth of the week today. We have had the moment of truth today. In fact, we have had the quote of the week and it came from Tony Ryall. For the members opposite who did not hear it, Tony Ryall said: “We are focused on growing our debt.” That is what he said. He said: “We are focused on growing our debt.” Yes, and he is absolutely right. He is focused on growing our economic debt, our social debt, and our moral debt. That is what this Government has been doing.

Let us start with housing. What a slap in the face for New Zealanders. What a boot in the backside for the first home owners who received this Government’s feeble, pathetic, and belated attempts at trying to put housing policy in place. It had 5 years to look at housing policy in New Zealand, but in the last year it has been floundering around, trying to find a policy. For 5 long years in Government, National could not give a damn about first home owners in this country. For 5 years it was not interested in affordable housing for New Zealanders. In fact, it was not interested in healthy homes for low and modest earners in this country.

We heard excuse after excuse. We were told that there is no housing crisis. Well, that was said many times about Christchurch after the earthquakes—“There is no housing crisis.” Of course, that is ostrich-like behaviour, because now National has had to pull its head out of the sand and admit that there is a housing crisis in Christchurch, and now it is belatedly trying to find some ways to address it.

Then we had the Minister of Finance saying low interest rates mean that New Zealanders are getting into more homes. Well, we have fewer homes being built in this country and fewer people getting into homes because of the so-called low interest rates.

💬 Hon Craig Foss: That’s a lie.

Yesterday was the final insult to first home owners, Mr Foss—and you would know a lot about it being a lie. You would certainly know about that with your background. But you would want to know what this Government finally did to first home owners yesterday. It is prepared to subsidise wealthy New Zealanders with enough spare cash to be able to buy shares in assets that they already own, while opposing a policy that would assist the building of more affordable homes in New Zealand, under KiwiBuild.

The Government can subside the wealthy to get shares in an asset that all of us own, and God knows how much this subsidy is, because what did we hear today? No costings have been done. Ministers take a Cabinet paper to Cabinet with no costings of what this subsidy is for the wealthiest New Zealanders who are going to buy shares. The Government has no idea what the poor hard-working taxpayer is going to stump up with so that some people who have got a bit of money in their pocket can buy a share, but the Government denies that we need a policy in this country to build more affordable homes.

Well, it has been called the “Harvey Norman”—pay now, no interest. Of course, they are even going to get two or three dividend payouts before they have to cough up with all the dough for the shares that they are getting. Well, I think I agree with Brian Gaynor. Brian Gaynor, whom National members like to quote when it suits them, said it is desperate. He called it a desperate policy—buying votes. But National is not prepared to help those buying houses.

The biggest joke of all today was hearing Tony Ryall saying that he is on the side of nation-building—he is on the side of nation-building. He is not on the side of building houses. We need to build some warm, dry, affordable homes for New Zealanders. If this Government is really interested in having warm, dry, affordable homes, why not put it in legislation that they all must be insulated and they all must have heating? Why is that not part of its agenda? No, it is all fluff for the Government. It is all blatherskite, and there is no substance. There are lots of pieces of paper, lots of little meetings, lots of little committees, but when it gets down to the hard detail, National is not prepared to have homes built that low and modest income New Zealanders—

💬 Hon Craig Foss: All State houses insulated under National—it’s called nation-building.

This will not worry Mr Foss, who has probably got many homes—a millionaire. It is of no interest to him. All that he can do is interject. But it is time that this Government took housing seriously, and it certainly does not.

Well, New Zealand is not at all well served by its Opposition members. What a woeful lot of wallies they turned out to be. They flounder, they snap, they carp, and they work their way round the sidelines, but they do not deal with anything important. We, as a Government, focus on what really matters, which is the economy, which is families, which is housing, and which is jobs. We are a Government that is getting on with the job, and I will give you some examples.

We just need to look at the environment and conservation. The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act is a particularly fine example. This is a piece of legislation that has been passed. Unfortunately, of course, for 9 long years the Labour Government, propped up by its buddies the Greens, did absolutely nothing while 46 wells were drilled with absolutely no legislation and absolutely no protection for the environment whatsoever. Then what did it do? It compounded the problem. When we put through the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, which was a piece of legislation designed to fill that gap, Labour blocked it. It tried to stop it. It argued against it. So it has absolutely no moral high ground whatsoever around this, and I am very, very proud that we put that legislation through despite its pathetic opposition.

The Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, said earlier that the quality of debate in this House has gone downhill in the time that she has been here, and listening to the quality of the debate from the opposing benches today, I can see why she says that. But why is that? Are the members deliberately misinformed and malevolent? Are they just politicking? Or are they woefully ignorant? I am tending to think with the Resource Management Act reforms that they are absolutely woefully ignorant. We have created a system with the Resource Management Act reforms that creates more certainty. It is less costly, it enables growth, and it protects core environmental standards. It is fantastic. The Resource Management Act is A-OK. That is what we think. The Opposition says “Not at all.”

Opposition members are obviously not well-informed. In April Statistics New Zealand’s Business Operations Survey cited that the Resource Management Act led to uncertainty, which in the past 2 years alone—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: She’s reading the research unit notes.

I am reading from the statistics. You would do well, member, to actually inform yourself and read a bit more, because you speak constantly from a position of ignorance. For 2 years the cancellation of projects, worth potentially $800 million, has occurred. What was the uncertainty that led to the cancellation of about two-thirds of these projects put down to? The Resource Management Act and its costly, cumbersome reforms, which do not work.

The way that the system works currently needs to be changed. A dangerous brick chimney—one of my favourite examples—is an $800 demolition job, basically, but requires, in terms of its resource consents, more than $3,000 worth of costings. This is the kind of stuff that actually has to stop. Some businesses, would you believe, have spent up to 25 percent—a quarter—of their total expenditures on just applying for the resource consents. The most damning of all, I suppose, in the business survey is that only 3 percent of businesses that were surveyed said that the current Resource Management Act enhanced their business. It does not work.

Our record is a proud one. When it comes to water, we introduced the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. We committed $340 million to cleaning up some of our most iconic rivers and lakes. We also introduced a national objectives framework. We have done more to clean up our waters to make good the problems from past generations than Labour ever did. In fact, we have spent more than five times the amount that the Labour Government spent, so it is simply farcical for the Greens and Labour to assume that we are not doing the right thing in this space. We are, and they should be ashamed of themselves. They have gone a bit quiet, which is a refreshing change.

When we look at waste management—which is something they ought to know a lot about because they have wasted a lot of time with their mismanagement—this Government invested $43 million on 82 waste minimisation projects across the country in 2009. When it comes to contaminated sites, we have spent $5.65 million on cleaning up those contaminated sites. Environmental reporting has been much improved under this Government and under the able leadership of our Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams. When it comes to hazardous substances, there was no movement in this area from that failed Labour Government and its buddies the fruit loop Greens. When it comes to the compliance of hazardous substances, we have done excellent work in this space. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. “100% Pure New Zealand” is a goal worth fighting for, and I urge this Parliament to take every opportunity to play its part in making this real, not only in terms of regulation but also in terms of supporting an industry to innovate and clean up its act. This can be done. “100% Pure New Zealand” seems to be 100 percent ambivalent in this Parliament.

I want to address a specific opportunity to support a clean-up of a river. We have just heard the previous speaker, Maggie Barry, say that it is all happening, but I challenge this Parliament and every party. What about our rivers? What about the “black drain”? The “black drain” is a name of shame because of this country refusing to deal with an issue that has been going on since 1955. You ask the tangata whenua of the Mātaatua waka what they think about their river being called the “black drain”. Above Kawerau, imagine a sparkling waterfall from a river that disappears underground for several kilometres from Lake Tarawera and comes out at Kawerau in a sparkling waterfall. That is as close as “100% Pure New Zealand” as we are possibly likely to see. This beautiful river, full of fish and life, is clean and oxygenated until you reach Kawerau, and below the river it is brown. For many, many years it was black and covered in contaminated foam, and now it is brown and still very, very dirty.

It is not the only option. We can work towards that “100% Pure New Zealand” by taking the modern opportunity to clean up and work with companies to use new technology, not by allowing the courts to give people 25-year consents to contaminate but to actually stop this kind of gross pollution. I have a bill, the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, that would do that, and I challenge the members of this House who are in doubt about their position on this issue to support my bill. I know that National and ACT have no ambivalence; they are simply going to oppose it. I am calling on the other parties. Do the right thing. Show some courage and recognise that the people of the Bay of Plenty and the environment of the Bay of Plenty deserve more than rhetoric about investment in jobs. They deserve to know that that mill will continue and that my bill will protect them from having to clean up for another 25 years, and then some. In actual fact, there is something we can all do here—those of us with the will and the courage—to clean up that river, so that we can make this “100% Pure New Zealand” closer to reality.

But will we? Do we have the willingness and the courage to stop gross pollution in the 21st century, or are we going to keep going with allowing the name “black drain” to be a shame on our national reputation? I challenge people to work with the mills of the Bay of Plenty to stop the idea that they have to close. They do not have to close; they have to modernise. They have to take those 25 years to invest in clean technology. We do not hear them talking about biochar and activated charcoal. We do not hear them talking about modern filtration. All we hear them saying is “Do not push us. Don’t draw a line in the sand.” Well, we are drawing a line with this bill. The Green Party is drawing a line and saying that we know you can do better. We will work for the “100% Pure New Zealand”. We will work with you to do better, but we need the other people in this House to support an opportunity to make positive change.

Our rivers are not just about a slogan and they are not just about visitors; they are about a commitment to future generations, to tamariki and mokopuna. They deserve a clean environment and rivers that sparkle and are full of life. Rivers are not drains. I believe that industry in the 21st century does want to invest in turning rivers into drains. I believe—and that is why I have put my bill up—that there is an opportunity to clean up the anomalies, to support the very few that are still abusing and that the courts have not addressed, by changing the exceptional circumstances clause and giving them, plus their consent, another 5 years. That is fair, and that is reasonable. I challenge New Zealand First and Labour, in particular, to step up to this opportunity and support industry to do its best for our environment, for the sake of everybody.

I would like to mihi to the tangata whenua whom I have worked with for many years on this issue. He mihi nui. Kia kaha. Although it appears that we do not have many days left to keep this alive, I know that you are fighting hard. I know that you want this done. I know that you are looking to this Parliament to stand up and start working—

The time for this debate has expired.

💬 Mark Mitchell: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Oh, I am sorry. I apologise. I call the honourable member Mark Mitchell. I am excited about what is coming next, Mark.

I would like to talk about something that has been in our media a lot over the last few months, and that is our national security. In 2006 in An Nasiriyah, Iraq, a supply convoy carrying food for coalition troops was attacked by al-Qaeda. During the attack, al-Qaeda operatives took a satellite phone from a dead driver. Before the account was cancelled, there were over 200 calls made. The calls were spread around countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UK, some European countries, the United States, and 14 calls were made to New Zealand. Why were terrorists who were attacking and killing our allies in Iraq making calls to New Zealand? That is why we have agencies like the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)—so they can find out who and why, and so they can protect us.

Mr Shearer said yesterday that when he was the victim of a terrorist attack, he witnessed the death, the human suffering, and the carnage that that brings. I am sure he has played over in his mind many times how that attack might have been prevented or stopped. The quickest way to invite a terrorist attack is to become complacent and to say “It can’t happen to me. Why would anyone attack us?”. Is that what happened to Mr Shearer? Was he a victim of “It can’t happen to me.”? Had complacency crept in? Mr Shearer indicated yesterday that he had to witness death and suffering before he became serious about security. Well, our Prime Minister has shown that he cannot, and will not, wait for people to die before he becomes serious about our security. He takes our security seriously right now.

We are incredibly lucky in New Zealand that we have the most transparent and open political system in the world, which allows us to debate and challenge ideas and legislation. The GCSB legislation has been a classic example of this. The legislation has had the full blast of sunlight on it for all to see. It has been debated until the cows come home. It is good legislation, which has created certainty and clarity where there was none. It provides rigorous checks and balances and multiple hoops to jump though before any information is able to be obtained by the agencies tasked with protecting us.

Finally, I would like to share some of my own observations. I do not want to be an alarmist but, on the other hand, I do not want a malaise to become part of our psyche—a malaise that tells us that somehow we have become immunised against the threats that the global community faces. We have not. For a decade I witnessed the pain, suffering, and fear that come with terrorism. I was forced to deal directly with groups like al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and the Lord’s Resistance Army. Sometimes they are brutal and unsophisticated in the way they operate. At other times they have the use of the best and the most sophisticated technology available. Sometimes terror attacks are planned sitting on a dirt floor in a shanty town in Mogadishu. At other times they are planned in a penthouse in a European city. But one thing they have in common is a desire to defeat security measures that Governments put in place to protect their people. They can sniff out weakness and complacency at a thousand miles.

I would like to acknowledge our Prime Minister, who is making sure that we are not an easy target and who is taking the steps necessary to ensure that someone like Mr Shearer does not become a victim again. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.