General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is increasingly clear that this Government is not governing in the interests of everyday New Zealanders, and nowhere is that clearer than in respect of asset sales. It is always about ideology and always about growing the gap between the rich and the poor, delivering to the sector that National so plainly governs for. Only 3 percent of New Zealanders have purchased shares in Mighty River Power. We know that it increases the Government deficit by $100 million a year. We know that there are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who have been willing to sign a petition that is now requiring the Government to hold a referendum as to whether asset sales proceed, but still the Government proceeds remorselessly with its asset sales programme. It has been willing to run roughshod over the interests of New Zealanders.

It has been willing to push up the price of power. It has done that just recently in order to get Meridian Energy off the block. It has given a $30 million subsidy to Rio Tinto, the effect of which is to intervene in the pretend electricity market that we have in a way that is increasing electricity prices, which is a double blow to New Zealanders at the very time when they are suffering the loss of these assets, which they hold dear.

Selling what already exists does nothing to increase New Zealand’s economic output, and the Government knows it. It shows the paucity of its vision for New Zealand, and it is one of the reasons why a third of all New Zealanders have not had a pay increase for 2 years. It is one of the reasons why the median wage has gone down in real terms since 2009.

Then we have the excuses that are put out by the Government for the asset sales programme. It says that it had a Government debt problem. Well, despite this Government’s unaffordable tax cuts, because it inherited such low Government debt from the Labour Government—and despite the fact that this Government has run five deficits in a row—New Zealand’s Government debt remains low by international standards.

The money that National members said they needed from the assets programme has been spent a hundred times. They said that they were going to use it for debt reduction. That was Tony Ryall. Then Mr English said that it was going to be used for Kiwibank recapitalisation. Then Nathan Guy said that it was going to be funding irrigation schemes. Then we had John Key come in and say that it was going to be funding schools and hospitals, and Gerry Brownlee came in with something similar. He said that it was going to rebuild Christchurch. Then we had Minister Joyce. He thought: “Well, look, I’ve got to get in on this game.” He said that it was going to fund KiwiRail.

💬 Hon Members: Six.

Six. Then we had Mr Key come along, and he said that it was going to fund the City Rail Link.

Then, of course, Mr Finlayson—you know, a bit player in the Government—thought that he would have his little bit of it, too. He said: “Oh, the Future Investment Fund. This is fundamentally important, because it is going to fund the National War Memorial.”—the National War Memorial. The Future Investment—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The “Future Fraud Fund”.

The “Future Fraud Fund”—well, that might be right. It is a slush fund. It is a political slogan that they trot out to try to justify this unpopular policy, which is so unpopular that more than 300,000 New Zealanders have independently signed a form saying: “Please don’t do this. Hold a referendum.”, and what is the Government doing? It is ignoring it. Having spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the asset sale process—hundreds of millions of dollars on the asset sale process—it says that it is irresponsible of the Opposition parties to cause a referendum, where New Zealanders are exercising their constitutional right to try and tell the Government that they do not want it.

This Government has tried to hide from the New Zealand public the true effects of this. At the time of the last election, it denied that its Budget went backwards by $100 million per annum. It had booked the proceeds of sale. It did not take any account of the loss of revenue it suffers as a cost of a loss of profit shares.

This Government’s economic programme is failing. We have got rampant house price inflation, we have had more than 200,000 people go to Australia, and we have got decline in the provinces because the economic promises of this Government are not being made good.

If there is a moment of truth about asset sales, it will be the three Labour candidates out on the road campaigning for the leadership, because they make one simple, effective promise: that they will borrow $5 billion to $7 billion from foreign bankers and buy the Government shares back—that they can buy them back. That is the true test of leadership. I think that they will fail that test. I do not believe for a moment that David Parker believes what he said. What Labour is hoping is that National will complete the asset sales, so that Labour members do not have to go out and say “We will borrow $5 billion to $7 billion from foreign bankers to fulfil all the nutty promises our leaders are making out on the campaign trail.”

The fact that that is the issue today tells you that Labour has not had a new idea since 1994, when Mike Moore left the leadership. I have listened a little bit—as much as I can stand it—to the three leadership candidates out there. What it tells us is that the cream of Labour’s crop is stale, completely unimaginative, and utterly disconnected from economic reality.

The worst bit of it is the complacency. Labour Party members believe that National has done such a good job of getting the economy back on its feet that they can now go, like a P-crazed Santa Claus, throwing lollies to the natives. That is what their leadership candidates are doing. They clearly believe that all of the hard work has been done. They clearly believe that now that we are going up the competitiveness rankings, and now that we are ahead of Australia, we can put our feet up as a country and go on a lolly scramble. Well, they are wrong.

What it shows is they do not understand what has happened in this economy in the last 6 or 7 years. They do not understand how hard normal working New Zealanders have had to try to adapt to a changing world—to change the way their households work, the way their workplaces work, and the way their lives work—so that they can have more jobs and better incomes.

The list of promises from the Labour candidates looks like some kind of leftovers from their candidate selection in the seat of Sydenham in the mid-1960s, except they have got some new words. They are “smart, regional, innovative, strategic planning partnerships”—whatever they are—“with local government”. It just goes on and on. The main feature of it is that they now believe they can legislate wealth and incomes in New Zealand. Cheap houses by legislation, cheap electricity by legislation, and higher incomes by legislation.

The people in those audiences know, I think, that that is a hoax. They would like to think that that could be the way it is, and they like to see these fresh-faced, young, keen prospective Labour leaders, Cunliffe and Robertson. They like to think that those young men aspire to just pass a law to make us all wealthier. But in the back of their minds, they are thinking “That chap Jones—he’s better than I thought.” That Woman’s Weekly reader—he knows what happens in the real world, while the rest of them are reading Fabian Society monographs, repeating leftovers from the 1930s Communist Party in the UK. Shane Jones is the dark horse coming through, and I hope he does because he has got a few ideas.

The other striking thing about that contest is that nothing is being said about social policy. The reforming Labour Party, the socially aware carers in the Labour Party—and their leadership contestants have nothing to say about health, education, welfare, or justice. The reason is that this Government is doing such a good job of changing our social policy and the lives of disadvantaged New Zealanders for the better that Labour Party members cannot even bring themselves to criticise it. Even if they have no new ideas and even if they are still peddling 1960s policies, could their leadership contenders at least bother criticising National’s social policy?

That speech almost made Nick Smith look stable. Can I say this: that Minister of Finance is the Minister who proves he could not run a bath, let alone a State-owned enterprise. Under that Minister’s watch, Solid Energy, an export award - winning company, was driven into the ground because that Minister went to sleep at the wheel and it is costing New Zealanders in excess of $350 million. Then we get to the Tīwai deal. Mr English stood up yesterday, on Radio New Zealand with Kathryn Ryan, and keeps saying every day that the great deal he did with Tīwai—a multibillion-dollar company. He halves its notice period, it gets cheaper electricity, and then, just because he is Santa Claus—talk about us taxing and spending—he lobs in another 30 million bucks just to make it feel warm and cosy, of course, after the billion-dollar profits it makes. And then he says to us all: “The reason we had to do this was we had to protect the jobs in Invercargill and Tīwai.”

Then he got caught with his trousers around his political ankles by Kathryn Ryan, when she asked him: “Did you get a guarantee for Tīwai? Did you get a guarantee that they will keep every job, up until 1 January 2017?”. The answer, in that sort of laconic Southland lilt, was “No.” The second question: “Did you bother to ask for a guarantee?”. Again, in that swede-like Southland fashion, he said “No.” He did not even have the gumption, but he was honest enough at that point to tell New Zealanders, to even ask Rio Tinto: “Boys, would you hang on to the jobs at least until 1 January 2017?”. What he also knew was that before the ink was dry on the deal on the Tuesday, it was already sacking maintenance workers, and that is a fact in the media. It was already announcing restructuring.

I say to that Minister of Finance: “What a legacy.” Solid Energy—could not do anything, would not do anything; just let it all happen. There was $123 million of bonuses, not to the boys in the coal-pit. Oh no. It went to the white-collar fellers who actually ran the company into the ground. Then, of course, on asset sales, trumpeting the Future Investment Fund, we find out, after the Prime Minister makes it up, that, oh no, it is not going to hospitals and schools. The $100 million allocated, which the poor old Prime Minister did not even know he had signed off in his Budget—$100 million to Solid Energy to bail it out.

And then we find the other little gift that was thrown in. Where is the money coming from, we found out, for the Mighty River Power free shares? Oh, out of the Future Investment Fund. So there is $100 million, there is another $40 million, from the slush fund, and a couple of other little doozies—things like “strengthening capability on security and risk management”. God help us, if anybody needed to do that, that mob does, but it should not come out of the Future Investment Fund. Then there is another one: “Analysis of outcomes, Cabinet investment function”. I do not know what that means, but it sounds quite trendy. But what does it come out of? The Future Investment Fund. Not a hospital, not a school, not a bridge, not a roadway. I will tell you what, Mr English, you never have the guts to tell that to the people of New Zealand—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

When that Minister said he was going to sell off—[Interruption] Oh no, he did not. He never said it was going to go for free shares. He never said it was going to go to bail out Solid Energy. We all remember the photo of that member, with the platinum-plated spade, at the briquette plant down in Southland, saying how wonderful it was, as he let the bonuses be paid out. This is the same plant, of course, that Mark Ford is having to close down and sack workers from. Oh, he was very proud there. He was a lion in his constituency—a lion—but he and old Liberace, his Minister for State Owned Enterprises, of course said: “Oh no, nothing we will do. We will not intervene.” But when it came to Meridian Energy, of course—

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Annette King: Stop chewing.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: In this speech from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove twice he used unparliamentary language: once in reference to the Hon Bill English, accusing him of being untruthful, and, secondly, when he referred to a member over here as Liberace.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. The member did not use the word I think the Hon Chester Borrows has raised: “lying”. He used the word “lion” in the electorate.

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: Yes, it is. It was not the word “lion”. It was further back in his speech when he related comments made by the Hon Bill English, and it was not the word “lion”. I was not confused by that word.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am unsure what the word was, but the member to whom it was directed certainly did not take any offence. I think he was quite enjoying the debate. It was a robust debate, and this is the general debate. The member can carry on.

I do not know what the Minister for Courts was chewing. It might have been some sort of medication, or whatever, I do not know, but obviously it has got to him. The point here, despite all the silly points of order because they want to hide this away, is that the Minister of Finance went to the country on a spurious claim, saying that he would sell assets to buy other assets—sell revenue-generating assets, of course, to buy non - revenue-generating assets. He never told the people of New Zealand that the slush fund would be used for $140 million—$100 million to Solid Energy to bail out his mess-up, and $40 million for the free shares.

Now we have got Meridian Energy—you know, buy now, pay later, get a set of steak knives. That boy should be on “As Seen On TV”—the Shopping Channel. He would sell anything. He made it up. He was not honest with the people of New Zealand. He should pull the pin and allow the people to have their say through a referendum.

Yesterday I had delight and pride in publishing these infographics on the New Zealand Education Profile. But what question do we get today from the Opposition? A pathetic question on the integration of Wanganui Collegiate School, which happened over 8 months ago, and that is all that Opposition members can talk about. What this infographic shows in one sheet is the distinction between this Government and the Opposition and the three contenders for the leadership out there. First of all, we are aspirational. We want five out of five kids to be successful, yet in the entire 9 years of that administration, those members were happy to wring their hands over one out of five kids being failed by our system, yet they were going out and telling their traditional roots how committed they were to them. In 9 years they made not a dint of effort or difference to those people. This Government, in the 5 years we have been in office, has tackled the hard questions. We are aspirational.

Another distinction is that we are accountable. We are prepared to say what we are going to do, which is to ensure that 85 percent of 18-year-olds should have the minimum qualification so that they can participate in the labour market, so that they can earn the incomes they want for their own homes, and so that they are independent of government. This is all completely opposite to what the Opposition wants. It wants unhappy, undereducated, aggrieved, dependent people, because that is whom it relies on in order for it to suck votes out of people who deserve better. We are giving them better.

We are transparent. We report on what we are trying to do. We identify the challenges still ahead of us, and they are significant. Although on average four out of five kids are being successful, and that is great and we want them to do better, that masks another picture, where there are too many young people who are still failing, and too many of those are Māori and Pasifika, have special education needs, or come from poorer homes. This Government is dedicated to delivering to all of them.

We are detailed. We know how many boys, how many girls, what ethnicity, and in what part of the country, because the more precise we can be, the more targeted and responsible we can be with taxpayers’ money. We are not a lolly scramble Government, unlike the members on the Opposition side, who are out and about across the country promising things that they have no costings for and, indeed, have no policy framework for, let alone a budget. We are committed to a world-class education system, and we know that one of the characteristics of that is a data-rich environment. We know that the ability to operate effectively—with what the evidence tells us—will be important for raising the educational status of every one of our New Zealand children.

Each of the three Labour members who are out there auditioning to become the next leader of the Labour Party got a great education—each and every one of them. Is there one promise they have made about education? Not at all. Have they mentioned it all? Not once. No, they talked about full employment—yes, full employment requires skilled, qualified young people. That is the big step that the Opposition has not fully understood. This side of the House has, and we are dedicated to it. It is committed to a Pasifika television channel, but not to Pasifika education. We, too, are committed to the culture, the language, and the identity of the wonderfully diverse Pasifika community that is contributing to this country. But guess what? Their contribution to themselves, their own aiga, and their communities is going to be stronger on the back of a good education. That is what we are committed to, long before we get a television channel.

What else have Labour members promised to do? Well, they have promised a 50 percent female quota for caucus, but they have not looked at how well girls are doing in our education system. They have promised not to block the man ban if the party wants it, but they have not focused on what we need to do for boys in education, and for brown boys in particular, which our system has not yet proved it is able to deliver to. So, yes, we have got Labour-lite leaders out there talking, and talking, and talking, based on having had an excellent education themselves, but there is not one word and not one commitment to education for New Zealanders.

This Government puts its money where its mouth is. We have put $9.7 billion into Vote Education this year. That is a 74 percent increase on early childhood education, and a 30 percent increase on schooling. This Opposition has talked about the closures of schools by this Government. Well, let me—

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

This country has a most serious situation on its hands. Once more a top security agency has acted illegally, and it is time for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to front. In July last year the Fijian military dictatorship contacted the New Zealand Government regarding the freedom and democracy movement. Some kind of deal was struck. The Security Intelligence Service and police raided a house in Auckland where former Fiji Cabinet Minister Rajesh Singh was living. The SIS officer refused to produce a search warrant. They took a computer and a cellphone, and, by some strange coincidence that only the Prime Minister cannot explain, a Fijian military officer sent a text to the former Cabinet Minister subject to the raid that showed that he knew the SIS was raiding that place—his place—at that very time. In short, the Fiji military knew the SIS was raiding an Auckland property.

There were other texts a couple of days later. They were chilling, and I want to repeat them exactly as they came. This is from the same person in Fiji: “Hmm … yeah all over Fiji news … Fiji One … your name and picture came up … we telling Fiji One”—this is actually as he wrote it—“did they get facts tight according to media decree … cause you can sue them …”.

Another text: “… don’t know why Fiji tarnish ur name. Don’t worry we defend you.” Third one: “Yes, media”—

💬 Paul Goldsmith: This is more confusing than usual.

It is not confusing, because it is evidence, for his sake. The third text: “Yes, media have branded u as terrorist. There is word you could be deported.” Text No. 4: “Fiji-NZ Talks—-Foreign Affairs Minister Rātū Kubuabola has met in suva with his New Zealand counterpart Murray McCully to discuss rebuilding diplomatic relations between the countries. NZ, Fiji holding positive talks—Fiji and New Zealand have held talks to rebuild diplomatic relations.”

The fifth one: “Bro you not worth a bullet cause u don’t deserve it.” It goes on to say—and the sixth, the seventh, and the eighth texts are all of the same tenor—“Don’t worry about us … u becoming a thorn in NZ govt … ”. No. 9: “Reality check bro … u the culprit now … NZ [Foreign Affairs Minister] met ours in suva last week … hmm.”

Then there is No. 10 and No. 11, but No. 12 is the one: “Bro, terrorist? We did raid you,”—do you hear this? It says: “We did raid you, it was NZ SS, so ask them …” Then, going on to No. 13, where the guy is alleging he is a terrorist in the text—and he goes on to say this here, in No. 14: “NZ SIS raid Rajesh Singh house for plotting to [assassinate] Fiji PM. Well you will be deported soon for being threat to the NZ govt.”

No. 15: “That’s a process of restoration of democracy … nz is funding … so any unnecessary comments from you in NZ will be treated as impeding this process … so NZ will [be] informed … hehehe … pliz don’t disturb my mtg with my NZ counterpart.” No. 16, the last text, says: “I don’t talk to terrorist … as branded by nz govt …”.

That is all evidence of the knowledge of the Fijian Government before the raid happened, as the raid happened, and after the raid happened. This is a military dictatorship that this Government is cuckolding our country with. The texts leave no doubt that the Fiji dictatorship knew what was happening and that the Fiji military had contacts in high places in New Zealand. I want to know how far the SIS was involved, and what on earth is the Prime Minister doing parked up there in Majuro in the Marshall Islands, shouting out to somebody in this Parliament—who has got the facts and evidence, which I will table to the media—to put up or shut up. It is time for him to put down the mai tais in Majuro and to stop acting as some potentate with his feet above the heads of other people, to start acting like a Prime Minister, and to get back to this country and tell us why he has got the Fijians involved in conspiracies to break the law in our country with the SIS and Government Communications Security Bureau as well.

Why did the Government drop its defence over this matter, and a court case, when one of the participants sued the Minister of Internal Affairs when he took action? It got to within a week of the court case and the Department of Internal Affairs dropped its defence because it knew that the illegal SIS involvement was about to come out. Why did the inspector-general throw out Mr Singh’s complaint? He talked to the police. What happened? Nothing. Only the Ombudsman showed any sympathy. Nothing has happened against the agencies or the Ministers involved. This raises even more questions. To close, it is time for answers, and we will get them.

The Dominion Post the other day had the headline “Rivals’ policies out of touch, out of time”—out of touch and out of time. That really does sum it up. I want to talk about Shane Jones, who I actually think should be the leader of the Labour Party, because at least he has got a few ideas. He has got a few ideas. You know, he knows how to talk the language of the everyday New Zealander, the Joe and Mary Bloggs out there. But guess what? I am appalled by what is happening in the Labour Party, because we have got David Cunliffe, supported by Louisa Wall and Nanaia Mahuta; we have got Grant Robertson—I will talk about Grant Robertson’s little cameo on TV the other night very shortly—supported by Moana Mackey and by Meka Whaitiri; and then we have got poor old Shane, supported by only Rino.

You know, for the first time in the party’s history, tangata whenua has put his hand up and said: “I would like to be the leader of one of New Zealand’s major parties. I would like to be the leader.” You would have thought that this was the opportunity for Labour to grab the Māori vote back from the Māori Party and grab the Māori vote back from the Mana Party in the north and say that it is speaking the language of the Māori electorate and that that is why it has a Māori leader of the Labour Party, and actually one who has a few clues about where the battle will be won. As sure as hell it will not be won out on the extreme left, where Mr Cunliffe and Mr Robertson are pushing themselves because they want to be with their mates over here, the Green Party.

I saw something the other night. I was absolutely gobsmacked. People do not want to talk about it. Here was Grant Robertson on TV being asked by the interviewer: “Where is your partner?”. Grant Robertson said, as bold as Larry: “Oh, he’s not here. He’s got something else to do.” But roll back the videotape and you can see that Alf was behind him, wandering past, over to another table. Why would you do that? Why would you lie in front of national TV? He must be embarrassed. I do not know. I do not know. The fact of the matter is that what we have seen is one of the candidates telling a bold-faced lie on national TV. He wants to represent this country. That says to this country that it is OK to lie on national TV and not even apologise for it.

A day later, 2 days later, questions have been asked in the Twitter world about why he said that. I never thought that Grant was a liar, until I saw that video clip. It sends a message. It sends a—

💬 Hon Annette King: You’re wrong.

Am I wrong? Oh, I am wrong. Oh, I am wrong. It must have been computer-generated imagery. It must have been computer-generated imagery, the way they put Alf in the picture. Poor old Grant did not even know that his partner was behind him, even though 5 seconds before that he was having a beer with him. And even when he was asked about it, they both smiled at each other. Oh no, that smile was computer-generated imagery as well.

I have got news for the Labour Party, and I am afraid that it is all bad. Labour members have been running around saying what a great election campaign it has been. Two hundred people turned up—200 people—to a meeting to elect the leader of the Labour Party. For goodness’ sake! And I tell you what, I saw it on Te Karere and I recognised some of these people. Some of those people have been in more parties than I have, and that is saying something. For goodness’ sake!

It has been great, but I tell you what, I want to finish by saying that the last speech made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters is a sad indictment on how things have really, really got out of hand for that old chap. Thinking of and believing in conspiracies is just wrong.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you heard the reference to the right honourable member, who should be addressed in that way and not in the way that the member just did.

Yes, I accept the point. The member has now finished his speech, but it is certainly not helpful and it does lead to disorder.

It is 4 September today, and for those of us from Canterbury it is time for us to recall that on this day 3 years ago we started our series of very significant earthquakes. For the rest of the country, I think most people think “I wish you’d get over it.”, but, actually, as I think Wellingtonians are starting to understand, it is not the quakes that have the huge impact on people; it is dealing with the bureaucracy. That has been the hardest part. I have a friend who has a T-shirt that says on the front: “I survived 10,000-plus quakes.”, and on the back it says “But dealing with EQC and IAG is killing me.” Actually, quite literally, that is the case for so many people. I want to acknowledge the citizens of Canterbury, the emergency services, the military, our social services, our health care workers, and our community leaders. They have been extraordinary throughout a very, very long and hard 3 years. I know also that for many this 3-year anniversary today triggers the hardest and saddest of memories for many people in Canterbury.

It was not just the people of Canterbury who responded so well in the initial period after both our September and February quakes—looking after each other, even letting cars in ahead of you in traffic, which, as you will know, Mr Speaker, is an extraordinary occurrence in Canterbury—the way that people in our towns and cities throughout New Zealand, and actually internationally, responded was overwhelming. The outpouring of support for us was huge, and it was greatly appreciated. It came from many people who could barely afford to support themselves, but they were so generous that they supported us in our hour of need.

The Prime Minister came to Christchurch and he said to people in one of the most broken suburbs that nobody would be worse off in Christchurch as a result of these quakes. Those words had huge significance for people. People clung on to that as a commitment from the Government that nobody would be worse off. On reflection, I think it was a poorly chosen phrase to use when, I guess, not many people envisaged the challenge ahead. But the Prime Minister did say that, and people clung to that throughout a lot of hard times.

One of the areas where people are worse off is with the offer that the Government has made to people who are in the red zone who have bare land or commercial property. The Government has offered those people in the red zone 50 percent of the rating valuation of their land—the 2007 rating valuation of their land. They took that offer to court because they did not think it was fair, and the judge just last week came back and said that that is true, that that is not a fair offer, and he told the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to go back to the drawing board and start again. He also said that the zoning, which has caused such trauma for so many people, was done outside the law. These are very big and significant issues for people.

The Prime Minister was then confronted by media about Justice Panckhurst’s decision overturning the 50 percent bare land offer and the zoning, and noting the zoning as being made outside the law. The Prime Minister said: “Oh, well, we could just walk away. We could say that it has been a bit of fun but now we are over it, and the Government could walk away.” That expression—the Prime Minister saying to Cantabrians that the Government might walk away and saying that “It’s been a bit of fun.”—was one of the most insensitive, hurtful, and, actually, cruel comments that he could have made, because it has not been fun for any of us. If anyone thinks that we are bleating, they are wrong. It certainly has not been fun.

In the paper this morning Kendra Street was quoted. She said: “I am cold. I am tired. I am frustrated. My government has forgotten me and my insurance company is slower than snails racing through peanut butter.” And she does not speak alone. She said: “This is not what I wanted for my child. But it is what he got. I cannot blame mother nature—we survived the earthquakes. It is our government and our insurance company’s lack of empathy, and stalling, stalling, stalling that keep us in this stress.” What she said is “What I want is a warm house to live in. What I want is my child to not be afraid of [our arguments or] the dark … I want to not fight with my husband about money, the insurance, and when to turn the heater on.” Kendra Street said: “I want my life back.” Her son was just 22 months old. He is now nearly ready to start school. The difference is that in the first quake her son was 22 months old, and now he is about to go to school—there is no progress. It is time for the Government to step up and help.

It is my pleasure to take a call in this general debate today. On 15 September the weird and wacky reality TV show has its finale, and a new leader of the Labour Party will emerge. Not only that but we have only 11 more episodes of this TV show to go.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Has this member ever won an election?

The question, Mr Mallard, is whether contender Grant, contender Shane, or contender David will be the winner of this contest. The question the Labour caucus members are asking themselves is when one of these contenders, Grant, Shane, or David, does become the leader of the Labour Party—and they have been going around creating these policies on the run, which they are going to have to stand by in the 2014 election and which the caucus has not bought into, which the party has not bought into, which they have not costed, and which they have not consulted on with the sector—in 2014, when the caucus has to stand united behind this leader with policies that the caucus has not bought into and has not discussed, what is going to happen? I can tell you right now. The caucus will not be united. There will be infighting, and Labour will not be the Government in 2014. There is no way it possibly can be, not when those contenders are making policy on the run like this, by one person in isolation.

It is really interesting when you look at these policies of contenders No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, because these policies do not reflect what New Zealanders are concerned about. They do not reflect education. They do not talk about health care. They do not talk about crime and law and order. They do not talk about job growth. They do not talk about housing affordability. All the big issues that face New Zealand, contestants No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 do not even address. That shows you how out of touch the Labour Party is and how out of touch the potential leaders of this Labour Party will be.

We listen to and we read and we hear all the commentary from the contenders about what these policies are going to look like, and the one really interesting policy they all have is creating wealth through legislation. How do you do that? How do you create wealth through legislation?

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: You can’t.

You cannot. How do you create wealth? You create it through companies. You create it through the companies and their investing in themselves, emerging companies going to markets, companies creating products that are high tech and high value, then employing more people in high-growth areas in high-growth jobs that pay a lot of money. That is how you create wealth for a country, not through legislation.

What are some of these policies? Well, why do I not start with Shane Jones? I like his. He has got a couple of really good ones. I like it when he says: “I will not write one single cheque the Labour Party cannot cash.” I believe in that. I believe that that is right. You should not promise something you cannot deliver. But then he goes on to say, unfortunately, that he will increase the minimum wage. I do not quite know how that is going to flow out. He says he is going to give tax incentives for businesses to invest in the regions. Yes, we all want to grow businesses. We agree with that. But tax incentives—has he costed that out? I think maybe not. He is going to extend the rail link to Northport.

The one thing I do really like about his policy is supporting mining. In his words, “I’d rather have the young people of the north with a shovel in their hand rather than wandering around picking locks.” He says that this should not be a shocking stance from someone in the Labour Party, as it was born from mining. He said: “I want to see little brown Kiwis staying at home and not going to Australia. If that means offending the Greens from time to time, such is life.” I will tell you what—that is about the most sensible thing any of these potential leaders have said yet.

When I look over at the Labour caucus sitting opposite me, the members who are in the House, none is engaged in this conversation. None is jumping up and saying: “I support this contender.” They are all silently sitting there, looking down, embarrassed, knowing that the potential leader has committed that caucus to policies it has not bought into. Thank you.

It may not realise it, but this Government has ruled out New Zealand’s support for any military action in Syria that is not authorised by the United Nations Security Council. Let me read out to the House the Government’s answer to my question on action over Syria of 15 February 2012: “7. Dr Kennedy Graham (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will he give an assurance that New Zealand’s armed forces will not be used in any possible military intervention in Syria in violation of the United Nations Charter? Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes. Dr Kennedy Graham: Is he then, … in a position to confirm that the Government does not support external military involvement in Syria unless it responds to a United National Security Council resolution authorising it—that is to say, no coalition of the willing is legal without that mandate? Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: New Zealand always follows the United Nations Security Council resolutions, so we would not be doing anything in violation of that.”

I congratulate the Government. Let me point out why it was so insightful 18 months ago. Syria is a global human tragedy in a defining moment in the modern struggle for global peace and justice. There can be no lawful military action in Syria without proof to the United National Security Council of chemical weapon use and by whom. And even if proof is provided, there can be no military action without authorisation by the council. That is not a matter of political judgment; it is a non-negotiable legal requirement. The US is advancing the argument that there is a legal justification based on humanitarian intervention. That is incorrect. That doctrine, more appropriately known today as responsibility to protect, does not trump the United Nations Charter. That was made clear in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/1, paragraphs 138 and 139, in 2005. The US is being somewhat disingenuous here. Even if the UN were to authorise military action, thereby making it legal, it would require a separate decision on the part of each country as to the political merit of becoming directly involved. The doctrine lays down six criteria for such a judgment. The critical issue is whether the action proposed would relieve suffering rather than cause more. It is almost certain it would not.

If we ever needed a lesson in caution, it was the illegal military action against Iraq by the US, the UK, and Australia in 2003. The evidence adduced to the council as proof of a nuclear weapon programme proved to be false—indeed, part-fabrication. For its part, the much maligned United Nations Security Council declined to agree to such an invasion. That was not simply a French veto. A majority of the council opposed military action, yet those three countries proceeded without UN authorisation, and illegally. If, in the case of Syria, the council chooses not to act because of a veto, it does not mean the council is dysfunctional and not doing its job. It means the council has decided not to act. The council would actually be doing its job, just as it did with Iraq in 2003. Many in the West might resent that fact, retaining a 20th century sense of moral and political superiority. But they cannot disown the fact—indeed, they created it. They created the UN, and they refuse to this day to change the charter when the prospect of doing so is before them. They refuse to surrender or even circumscribe their veto, and then, when they confront a situation, when another permanent member casts a veto, they seek to circumvent that veto by acting around it. So, if the US and the UK are concerned about vetoes impeding Security Council action, they can rectify the situation by agreeing to surrender the veto, or, at least, by agreeing to its strict circumscription to only when their vital interests of survival are at stake. Let this Parliament have a chance to debate this matter when it next meets.

What an unedifying spectacle we have before us, watching the three candidates from Labour—Cunliffe, Robertson, and Jones—crawling all over each other to offer more to their mates. The unions will be happy, but the rest of New Zealand will be wondering who is going to foot the bill. It is a lolly scramble, said John Armstrong in the New Zealand Herald this morning, and I found myself agreeing with him.

So what are they going to do? They are going to immediately lift the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Well, that is up 9 percent on the current minimum wage. On top of that, the privileged Government workers—I have not quite worked out why Government workers need to be so much more privileged—are going to have their wages lifted up to $18.40 an hour. That is a 34 percent increase on the minimum wage, tomorrow. Is that not wonderful? That is up by a third. It is going up faster than the Auckland rates. Now all you have to do is vote for Cunliffe and vote for Robertson and your wage magically goes up by 34 percent. I wonder who amongst them is going to commit that they would reject any cascade of relativity agreements about this. The people who are currently earning $18.40 an hour will think “OK, well, it’s gone up so we should go up to $22.”, and the people earning $22 an hour will think “Well, that’s not fair. Mine should go up to $26.” And what about the Public Service Association members working for the Government who are earning $100,000 a year? They will be asking: “Well, theirs have gone up 34 percent. Why shouldn’t mine go up 34 percent?”—and so on and so on. Where will it end?

You have to go back to 1985 to see such a reckless inflationary piece of public policy put on this country. I think it was Stan Rodger and David Lange—the lady there in charge of the health policy in Labour these days, Annette King, was in Parliament back then, and Phil Goff, but nobody else was around since we have had such a reckless inflationary piece of public policy put on the parchment as what we are talking about here. We expect it from Mr Robertson. He is a public sector union man through and through. He is all about spending and redistributing money, not about earning it. But I am surprised that we see it from Cunliffe, a man with some business experience.

David Cunliffe, the Quade Cooper of New Zealand politics, should know better. He should know that you cannot pass off this kind of thing as costing $20 million, when we know that it could be $2.5 billion, which is our expectation of the increase in minimum wages if they are going to give everybody who happens to work for Parliament a minimum wage of $18.40. Why would they do that? It is not as if we do not have very, very generous redistribution arrangements with Working for Families so that anybody on the minimum wage with dependent children in New Zealand receives credits rather than tax and gets a significant boost from the rest of New Zealand.

It is very worrying watching this lolly scramble that we are seeing on the other side, because it reflects a world where, by magic, wages can be put up, and where, by magic, Mr Jones can walk into the supermarket and reduce the cost of food everywhere by dealing with the so-called duopolies. I do not want that man anywhere near my chickens. It is all about pandering to the entitlement culture that bedevils New Zealand. This is the truth. New Zealand as a nation is not entitled to anything. We are not entitled to any standard of living, other than what we go out and earn. We have to earn our way. The Government must manage its finances, it must operate its Public Service in a way that is focused on results, not just spend money for the sake of it, and it must focus on building a more productive and competitive economy. That is what National is doing, and that is why it continues to enjoy such success and why it is making great progress to get us back to surplus and to get this country growing effectively—so much more effectively than so many other countries in the OECD.

We are living in a golden age right now, notwithstanding the terrible events in Syria that the previous speaker, Dr Kennedy Graham, alluded to. When we look around our region we see India and we see China growing; hundreds of millions of people are being lifted out of poverty as we speak. They are looking for products. They are looking for the sorts of things that New Zealand produces. This is a wonderful time to be living in New Zealand and it is a very positive time for this country, but we have to grasp it. We need to reward enterprise, we need to celebrate entrepreneurship, and we certainly do not hear any of that from the Labour Party. Instead we have a parade of dinosaurs pandering to the insular, unrealistic, entitlement culture that is holding us back as a country, and it is time we heard the end of it. Thank you.

This Government is a two-trick pony. It has only two things to sell: they are assets and the hope that the Christchurch rebuild will stimulate our economy. This Government is a two-trick pony. I would line up our three thoroughbreds any day against that other side. They are doing a fantastic job.

I would like to talk about a few things: Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, and Tīwai Point. Those names will go down in history as the disaster that sunk this Government. We have had some contributions this afternoon that have been absolutely dreadful. Hekia Parata tried to say that this Government is detail conscious and that it is accountable. It does not even know how much it is going to raise from the asset sale programme. It is just a best guess—$5 million to $7 million. It does not even know what it is going to raise. It does not know when it is going to sell. It does not know how it is going to sell it. It tries to put out discounts and carrots to the investing public. The public of New Zealand know that they do not want these asset sales. We already own these assets. The public of New Zealand know that they do not have the funds. There is only a 3 percent uptake from retail investors from the float. Do you think that Meridian Energy is going to achieve a wonderful bounce in the market? Absolutely not. It is the wrong time to be selling, and New Zealanders are telling the Government that through their call for a referendum. Again, that is just one trick from the two-trick pony that is an absolute disaster for this Government.

I would like to move on to Mr Tau Henare, a whanaunga of mine from up in the mighty Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Hine. Mr Henare said some disgraceful things about lies being said on TV. John Key lies to New Zealand every single day. This Government lies to New Zealand every single day. Tau Henare was once a fine member of the Labour whānau. He is old-school Labour. He has played every position. He has played every position in the backline. He has played in New Zealand First. He has played in Mauri Pacific—what was that one? And now he is playing in the National Party. All I can say to my whanaunga is “Come back to mother ship Labour. Come back to mother ship Labour, e hoa.”

💬 Chris Hipkins: No!

No, that is all right. I retract that. I definitely retract that. I do retract that.

Then we had dear Miss Katrina Shanks—a very, very nice lady—but she would have to go down as the main contender for New Zealand’s next worst politician. That was an absolutely dreadful contribution from her. We know that Miss Shanks is a star on YouTube. She is a star. She knows what being a contender is like. She actually topped Miss South Carolina with her absolutely intelligent debates and thoughtful and intellectually robust debates on information technology matters. That was a dreadful contribution. But she is a very nice lady. Again, we will leave that as it is—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I wouldn’t go that far.

OK, Mr Mallard, maybe not that far. But getting back to my debate, I go around my big electorate—it covers two-thirds of the land mass of Aotearoa—so I get to go around and I talk to a lot of people. The people whom I meet are scared because not a month goes by—especially when I have been down in Invercargill, where we have seen a $30 million handout to Rio Tinto and to the aluminium smelter at Tīwai Point down there. But what has that given the people of Southland? Sure, it has given them a slight relief, but there is uncertainty in the lives of those people because they do not know what is round the corner. Rio Tinto could come back in 2050 and it could play the Government in terms of this shocking deal that it has bought into. That is a shocking deal.

I am going to go on to another matter because I am short of time. I want to pay tribute to the people of Christchurch, the heart of Te Tai Tonga. This is a very significant day. It has been a real rough 3 years. I do think of all the resilient whānau who have been working through these difficult times—many Māori whānau—especially those with a lot of housing difficulties and troubles. We are standing by them. I know that my colleagues are also doing a lot of work. I mihi to them on this day. Kia ora tātou.

Malo e lelei. It is Tongan Language Week, so I want to acknowledge our Tongan community that are out there. In fact, I was honoured to be here in the House on Monday, when we celebrated the launch of Tongan Language Week. One of the things I talked about then with our Tongan community was how they ignited the Rugby World Cup. What they did was gridlock Auckland Airport. There were 4,000 or 5,000 Tongans—you talk to many of them and they say there were 20,000 Tongans—out there. There was a sea of red, a wave that was going on to celebrate and ignite the world cup. It was great. The point of difference was this: it was the use of cultural capital to make a difference.

Here is the interesting thing about that point: everybody wanted to own them. Labour said: “Isn’t that great?”. Those members looked at the colour and thought: “That represents us.” But here is what we are now hearing from our Tongan community, and also from our Māori community: “Has Labour taken us for granted?”. Has it taken them for granted? The answer is, yes, it has.

Where is the evidence for this? Well, there is what Willie Jackson said. He may not always be loved and liked by the Labour Party, but this is what he said. He said that in this contest of choosing a new leader, it was time that the Labour Party, which has for 80 years enjoyed the support of Māori, made a difference. It is time for Labour to put its money where its mouth is and say: “Let’s elect a Māori leader”. Will it do it? No, it will not.

What about Haare Williams, who is there in the Labour Party? He is the vice-president for the Māori elect. He said that it is time for Labour to stand up and take account. Māori have supported Labour for 80 long years, Mr Clark—80 long years. Will Labour stand up? Will it take account? No, it will not.

Why will it not? I will tell you the reasons why. Labour has taken Māori and Pasifika for granted. Well, I tell you what, here is the writing on the wall, and it is not from us; it is from your own. Josie Pagani on Q+A on Sunday, looking at the debate, said: “Labour has lost touch, like what Shane Jones said, with the common people. It is about time we went back to where we are from.”

💬 Dr David Clark: They don’t like your casino deal. The Pasifika communities are betrayed.

💬 Carol Beaumont: How do you feel about having lost touch? You’ve lost touch.

So here is the interesting thing, Mr Clark, that you need to listen to—and Mrs Beaumont. Here is the interesting thing that she said, and you have got to take note of this: “Out of the 800,000 votes that we potentially have lost”—because, remember, only 18 percent actually supported the Labour Party at the last election. This is what was said by Josie Pagani. She said the information that they have and the surveys said that “they’re brown, they’re young, and they’re living in the regions.” She asked who, when you look at the three contestants, would best reflect the leadership that the young, brown, and in the regions could support. Guess what? It is Shane Jones. But will Labour members support him? No, they will not. No, they will not. No, they will not.

Your time has come. The time has come when Māori and Pasifika—and let us take a look at this. In 2005 Mike Williams, a former president of the Labour Party, said that the only reason why Labour won that election was South Auckland Pasifika voters, who came up, who showed up, and who put their money where their mouth was. But guess what? You have taken them for granted. So guess what? Your days are over. And here is the reason why. I was over—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although you might have announced your retirement, I think it is inappropriate for the member on his feet—[Interruption] Which of us is standing, me or him? It is inappropriate for him to suggest that your days are over.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that that is a frivolous interjection. That is absolutely not necessary.

The only reason why that member stood up is that it is getting under his skin. It is getting under his skin. But guess what? Your skin is a white skin; this is a brown skin.

Here is what you have got to know. I was at Caritas. There we were. Grant Robertson was there. Guess what they said? Labour is happy to show the statistics for Māori and Pacific. It is happy to say that it wants to do everything for you. But guess what? The new generation of Māori and Pacific say that they have had enough of you saying that you’re doing it for them.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I apologise. We have had enough of the Labour Party saying that it is doing it for us. It is time that we want to do it for ourselves, and that is the reason why you will no longer have favour. That is the reason why you are going to lose Māori and Pasifika votes coming to your table. This is the—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I apologise. I am getting a little bit excited here, but here is my final point, which I want to put through. I just want to finally summarise with this.

The problem with the Labour Party is this: I was born to a mother who was a cleaner—who had been a cleaner all her life—and a father who was a labourer, and he was in unions. I am the reality of their aspiration and their dream. But guess what? Now that I have become the success of my family, you do not know how to talk to us. You do not know how to talk to us. You don’t know how to work with us.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

The Labour Party does not know how to talk to us. The Labour Party does not know how to work with us, and that is the reason why you will no longer have the favour—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

—of Māori and Pasifika who will support you. Thank you.

Can I just say to the member that I know that he was robust and passionate about his speech, but every time the member mentions the word “you”, you actually bring the Speaker into the debate. You can refer to a member on the other side or to the member’s party, but you must not bring the Speaker into the debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is very good of you to give that ruling. Why did you rule that my point of order, which made exactly that point, was frivolous earlier? The member, because you let him get away with it, did it 18 more times.

Order! The member is a very experienced member.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.