General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātau. Kei te pīrangi au ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tō tātau Reo Māori, kōrero i tō tātau Reo nā te mea, nō Aotearoa tonu tēnei Reo, nā tātau katoa e noho ana i Aotearoa nā reira, tēnei au e tū atu ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tō tātou Reo Māori.

Nā, kua puta mai te pūrongo Wai 262 o Te Taraipiunara, i roto i tērā pūrongo ka kiia, kei te ngaro haere tō tātou Reo. Ā, nāku i whakatū tētahi komiti, ngā tohunga matatau ki te kōrero Māori, ki te whakaako i Te Reo Māori kia haere ki roto i ngā iwi ki te kimi i ō rātou whakaaro, me aha tātau ki te whakaora i tō tātau Reo Māori. Anā, kua ārahina tēnei rōpū e Tā Tāmati Reedy. He komiti tokowaru kei roto i tēnā rōpū. I haere rātau ki ngā iwi ki te kimi i ō rātou whakaaro mō tō tātau Reo, me pēhea ka taea e tātau te whakarauora i tō tātau Reo. Ahakoa tō tātau kaha ki te whakatū kōhanga reo, puna reo, kura kaupapa, kura ā-iwi, whāre wānanga, whare kura, ātaarangi, kura reo, ā, Panekiretanga. Ahakoa tō tātau kaha ki te whakatū i ēnei āhuatanga, ngaro haere tonu tō tātau Reo. Ka mate tō tātau Reo nei i tēnei wā.

Nā reira, ka tipu te pātai me aha tātau, me aha tātau? Nā reira, kei roto i taku mahi Minita mō ngā take Māori, tukuna atu tēnei rōpū, Te Paepae Motuhake, ki te kimi i ngā whakaaro o ngā iwi o te motu nei. Kua hoki mai rātau, kua whakatakoto ai i tā rātau pūrongo, Te Reo Mauriora, te ingoa. Kei roto i tēnā pūrongo ētahi kōrero kia whakatū tētahi rautaki kia whakaora ai tō tātau Reo Māori. Ēngari i te mutunga ake mehemea kāre mātau, tātau rānei e kōrero Māori i ngā whare, i ngā kāinga, tamaiti ki te koroua, koroua ki te tamaiti, ka ngaro hoki tō tātau Reo. Nā reira, tēnei ahau e tū nei ki te kōrero pēnei ki a tātau me te pātai, kia whakarau ora i tō tātau Reo kei roto i tēnei wā.

Nā tēnei pūrongo, ka kōrero rātau kia whakatū tētahi waka hou, ko Te Mātāwai te ingoa mai i ngā mema o ngā rohe Reo. Kia whakatū tēnei rōpū, kia riro te mahi o te Minita Māori mō tō tātau Reo ki a rātau, kia whakahokia te mana i runga ake i tō tātau Reo ki te iwi Māori nā te mea, nō wai tō tātau Reo, tō tātau Reo Māori? Nō ngā iwi, nō ngā hapū. Ka heke iho i ngā tīpuna Māori mātua, ēhara no konei i tēnei wā ēngari, nō ngā tīpuna mātua heke iho; he taonga tēnei. Nā reira, nāku i haere ki roto i ngā iwi i tēnei wiki, ki Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tai Rāwhiti, Te Wai Pounamu, Taranaki, Parihaka, ā, Te Arawa. Āpōpō ki Te Tai Tokerau anō, ā, Tāmaki-makau-rau ā te Paraire kia tuku atu aku whakaaro, ngā whakaaro o Te Paepae Motuhake hoki ki te iwi, ki te kite mēnā e tautoko ana rātau i tēnei rautaki Māori.

Ēhara māku e whakaroatia ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te rautaki, heoi anō kei te kōrero au mō te pai o te whakahoki ki te iwi Māori, te kī mō tō tātau Reo. Te mana, ka pupuritia e te Minita Māori, ahakoa, ko wai te Minita, he Māori, he Pākehā, he Hainamana, he aha rānei, kei a ia te mana i runga ake mō te whakahaere i Te Reo mō te Kāwanatanga, arā, Te Taura Whiri i Te Reo, Te Māngai Pāho, Te Pouaka Whakaata Māori me ērā atu. Nā reira, ākuanei ka whakahokia tēnā mana ki te iwi mā rātau e kawe tēnei. Nā reira, he tīmatanga tēnei kōrero i roto i tēnei Whare mō tēnei wā, ā, tēnā koe, tēnā tātau e whakarongo ana ki a ahau.

[Greetings to you and to us. I want to speak about our Māori language, our language, because this language actually belongs to New Zealand, to all of us living here. So this is why I rise to talk about our Māori language.

The Wai 262 report of the Waitangi Tribunal has been released and in that report it states that our language is on the decline. So I set up a panel of experts fluent in the language and skilled at teaching the Māori language to go out amongst the Māori people and seek out their views on how the revitalisation of our Māori language might be addressed. Sir Tāmati Reedy leads this panel, which is made up of eight members. They went out amongst the tribes and sought out their opinions about our language and how we might rejuvenate it. Despite our efforts to establish language nurseries, language pools, Māori-medium schools, tribal schools, Cuisenaire methodology learning schools, language schools, and Excellence in Māori Language Institutes, these kinds of institutions, our language continues to decline. In time and at this rate our language will become extinct.

And so emerged the question of what we should do, how we address it. So in my role as Minister of Māori Affairs, I empowered this panel Te Paepae Motuhake to seek out the views of Māori tribes from this nation. They have come back and presented their report called Te Reo Mauriora. In that report are some recommendations about establishing a strategic plan to restore our Māori language, but, ultimately, if we or all of us do not speak Māori in homes and houses, a child does not speak Māori to grandad, and grandad to the child, our language will disappear. So this is the reason why I am standing here and addressing you in this manner with the request to have some input in reviving our language at this point in time.

As a consequence of this report, they talked about establishing a new governance body with the name Te Mātāwai, comprised of members of language regions. This governance body would take over the role that the Minister of Māori Affairs has in terms of our language and returning the mandate over it to the Māori people, because who does our language, our Māori language, belong to? It belongs to the tribes and subtribes. It was passed down to us—it is not from here and now, but was handed down from ancestral fathers. This indeed is a treasure. Therefore, I have personally gone amongst tribes this week, to Northland, East Coast, the South Island, Taranaki, Parihaka, and Te Arawa. Tomorrow I am going back again to Northland and then to Auckland on Friday to impart my views, and those of Te Paepae Motuhake as well, to the people, and to ascertain whether they support this Māori language strategy.

In regard to the strategy, I will not labour on about that, and instead I will talk about the positive effect of returning the mandate over our Māori language to the Māori people. That control is held by the Minister of Māori Affairs, regardless of who is the Minister—be it a Māori, a New Zealander of European descent, a Chinese person, or whatever—they have the mandate to administer the Māori language in Government entities such as the Māori Language Commission, the Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency, the Māori Television Service, and so on. Therefore, that mandate will soon be returned to the tribe for them to administer. And so this address to this House at this point in time is just the beginning. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to us all for listening to me.]

Twelve months on, some things have not changed about the Labour Party. I think I have said this before. The leader is still called David. Most of his caucus still do not support him.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Probably more.

Probably more, actually. Grant Robertson is still going around the country undermining a leader called David. But one thing has not changed: this David is a tricky David. With the other one, you at least kind of knew what he was—and at least he knew. But, of course, David Cunliffe is not quite so sure. This is a man who is a unionist with the unions, a Māori with the Māoris, and a farmer with the farmers. But one thing that he tried not to be was a leafy suburb guy in the leafy suburbs. But what happened? He got caught standing in front of a yacht—a picture he could not get them to delete in Taranaki, unlike the other ones. It turns out that for all of his references to large homes in leafy suburbs, he has one. And, of course, being the working-class hero with the working class does not quite fit with being the leafy suburbs guy in the leafy suburbs.

So what I thought I would do is have a quick look at the latest update on his CV, because, as we know, that is a dynamic document, to say the least. Bits appear on it and then disappear. He is the founder of Fonterra—actually, he is not; he is something else now. I came across this thing called DavidCunliffe.com—a digital identity. He is a digital guy when he is with the digital natives. This is a DavidCunliffe.com website, and I thought maybe I had found him. It says: “David has guided and supported individuals with matters of the soul for decades,”. I thought maybe he is a monk with the monks.

But then his CV goes on to say he has “become a respected figure …”—well, that does not sound quite like the person we are after. It says he is “often described as a … insightful individual,”—and he is, in his CV, described that way often. But the next one killed it: “refreshingly humble”. That was when we knew this was not the real David Cunliffe, because although he may be refreshing, it is not with humility. That is absolutely sure. Then I knew for sure when it said: “Surprisingly, his spiritual path has remained … refreshingly unboastful.”

This is a party that cannot boast about its leader—that is for sure—and does not want to. But usually in the Opposition when the leader is having a bad patch like he is, the front bench does the work. It actually took Shane Jones to show everybody just how weak and lazy the Labour front and middle benches are, because when they should be carrying their leader—because he is going to need a lot of that—by running issues that put pressure on the Government and attract the public’s attention, they are not doing any of that. They are not focused on anything that matters.

In fact, it is infecting David Cunliffe. On my little phone I got a tweet from David Cunliffe that was about a big issue of the day. It said something like: “I am very sorry to see the end of @massivemagNZ.” What the hell is that? It is the big issue—and not for just the Leader of the Opposition, because he also says to refer to Grant Robertson.

I think it must be a student magazine. That is the big issue of the day.

I know that Grant Robertson never really left student politics, so the end of Massive Magazine from Massey’s campus probably is the biggest single issue that has preoccupied him all week. But he should be doing more than that to carry his leader, who needs guidance, who needs to be carried, and who needs a team around him to feed him issues instead of him making them up as he goes.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He kupu hei tīmata. Ka nui noa atu taku whakahē ki te tū mai o tō tātou Minita Take Māori me ēnā kaupapa ōna, ka ora tō tātou Reo i roto i ēnei tūru e whakanekenekehia ana e ia. He kupu whakarite nōku tūpuna o Ngāpuhi: ka oti tetahi mahi ware, ka kainga e te hau. Me pēnā taku whakamārama.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. Some words to start with. I utterly condemn our Minister of Māori Affairs greatly for standing before us with those proposals of his that our language will survive in these pews that he is merely moving around. My Ngāpuhi ancestors have a saying to compare it against: when something completed is substandard, the wind gobbles it up.]

After having just reminded our Māori listeners that anything Dr Sharples believes he is doing to save the Reo is sadly misguided, I cannot wait to have the opportunity to dismantle whatever other foolish notions he is going to proceed with. I have been accused of being intemperate. I have been accused of abusing parliamentary privilege. But I want you, Mr Speaker, and my fellow parliamentarians to know that this privilege is a key feature of our culture, of our tradition. It is traceable right back indeed, I should say, to Thomas More, along with our Westminster traditions. So I know it is fair enough that we must not use or abuse this position of bringing issues of significance.

But it is not this side of the House that has had secret meetings with the chairman of Woolworths; it is the Prime Minister. It was not this side of the House. When the Prime Minister met with the chairman, he unfortunately came home empty-handed from meeting with one of the most powerful commercial men in Australia and New Zealand. That is his problem. Our problem, our challenge, is to highlight issues but avoid any suggestion that we are being excessive in what we say and do under the cloak of privilege. People from Countdown went on national television last night and accused me of lacking specifics. They sought to derogate what I was saying. They know exactly whom I have been talking to. They know exactly who the shadowy characters are in that windowless Countdown room, putting the squeeze on our fair-minded, garden-variety New Zealand businessmen. It is not Dave Chambers; he can warble all he likes. I want to remind those people that they have managers who will face the music.

Let me just give you an example of three specifics so I can move beyond these gratuitous criticisms that I lack specifics. Specific No. 1 is an email I look forward to handing on to the Commerce Commission, subject to suitable anonymity protections. Countdown demanded tens of thousands of dollars from a supplier by 5 o’clock that day as payment for insufficient sales achieved in the previous month from the supplier’s product lines, or it was goodnight Irene. Specific No. 2 is that my source told me that even to get into Countdown—to get anywhere near there—he had to pay 7 percent of his turnover back to the company. When he spoke to the Aussie supplier—to Countdown—it said it had never heard of this policy. Do not, out there, accuse this parliamentarian of not having detail.

Specific No. 3 is a family-owned business with a $4.5 million turnover—[Interruption] Now, that side of the House might sneer at these people with small businesses. I accept that National is the party of big business, but do not sneer at undercapitalised small businesses trying to make an honest living and gain access into what is a tolling operation, the duopoly structure of our supermarkets. The business had a $4.5 million turnover and 30 employees. What happened when they stood up to Countdown tactics? The result is that they lost their business, have now moved, and are living in Australia.

They would love to come back, but they are fearful because of the inability—the disinterest—of the Minister of Commerce to grapple with this problem. What did he say today? He has done absolutely nothing as the New Zealand Minister of Commerce in dealing with his counterparts in Australia. He did not know that sections 98, 99, and 100 of the Commerce Act actually enable him to get the Commerce Commission to work collaboratively with the Australian equivalent, which is now conducting that investigation. The person at the centre of these allegations fled from Australia. He fled from the investigation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. He fled into Woolworths and Countdown here in New Zealand. He is the person who has caused these dramas—an Australian merchandise manager—and I look forward to providing his identity to the Commerce Commission.

Well, we can see what is happening over there in the Labour Party. There is the true emerging leader of the Labour Party, Shane Jones. Where is David Cunliffe leading off this general debate today for Labour? He is nowhere to be seen. Where are the other front-bench members? There we have—

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Repeatedly today we have had Ministers questioning the absence of other members. It is well established that that is not acceptable, and I am surprised that you have not stopped them from doing it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has not been a repeated practice of the day at all—that is the first time I have heard it—but it is out of order to refer to the absence of any member.

There we have the emerging leader, Shane Jones. The person sitting behind him today and last week, smiling away there, was the former leader of the Labour Party, David Shearer. Of course, he backed Shane Jones for the leadership bid, so he is loving it now. We heard that Labour had a very robust caucus this week—very intense discussions in there. We know that the blood has started dripping on the floor already. There is a lot of doubt about David Cunliffe’s leadership already emerging, and it is starting to be unpicked by the New Zealand public, starting to be unpicked by the press gallery. There is a lot of doubt emerging now about tricky David Cunliffe. We now have the emerging Labour Party leader of the future, and it might be this year, in 2014, that Shane Jones steps up to the plate.

Things are not looking good for the Labour Party. What a woeful couple of weeks it has had: a baby bonus policy where every backbench member of this House would get $60 a week—what an embarrassment that was—and, of course, Labour’s poll rating, when we had the Prime Minister out there in a recent poll with a trust rating of around 60 percent and a likeability factor that is very similar. Is that not fantastic?

But, importantly, today what I want to talk about is the backbone of this New Zealand economy, and that, indeed, is the primary industries. Today I released a very significant update: a 6-monthly update for the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries report through to June 2014. What did it say? Primary industry exports are up nearly $5 billion on forecast. Is that not fantastic? Of course, the heads go down on the other side of the House.

💬 Hon Annette King: Oh no, they don’t.

Yes, they do. Those members do not care about exports, because they know their policies are going to damage the productive sector of the New Zealand economy. They do not care about and do not support our dairy exports, which are up $2.7 billion. They do not care about the fact that our meat industry and our meat exports are returning more to farmers—$1.2 billion. Of course, logs are up $0.8 billion. Is that not fantastic news?

Well, what is Labour all about? National has got a plan. We have got a clear plan. The Primary Growth Partnership is investing with industry in research and development, encouraging irrigation and water storage projects, working hard on more free-trade access agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and lifting the performance of Māori agribusiness. What have Labour and the Greens proposed? Let us hear it. They are against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They are against water storage projects. They are already talking about capping the dairy industry and its growth. They are against the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. They do not want our rural communities or New Zealand businesses to be able to connect not only with other suppliers here in New Zealand but also internationally. They do not have a plan for lifting the performance of Māori agribusiness. We do. We care about job creation. We care about supporting the regions. We back our exporters.

Labour is just going to roll out a capital gains tax. It is going to propose this living wage of $18.80, which will lift the unemployment benefit numbers. It does not care about the productive sector. It is not interested in the roads of national significance, in supporting them and getting our products through to ports and airports. It does not care about the Kapiti Expressway in my region. Labour does not give a damn. We do not even know whether it supports Transmission Gully. It does not have a clear plan for the productive sector apart from lifting tax and saddling our exporters with more regulation and compliance. We back our primary industries, the backbone of the New Zealand economy.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member. There is a Standing Order that says that you cannot move from your seat in order to get a better position to barrack. Right through my colleague’s speech, Andrew Little was calling out and barracking and has actually made a change of seat to do so.

Order! It is the general debate, which is normally a fairly robust debate, and to date that has certainly been the case. I will watch further the behaviour of all members.

I am very happy to have as many interjections as that lazy Government over there can provide. I want to start off by asking why this debate included Nathan Guy today, because why would you put up a loser as a member to speak—the losing member for Ōtaki? I was in Levin yesterday. I went up there to service his electorate because he does not. Ten members of the public came to see me in Levin yesterday. Why? Because they cannot get an appointment with him. You see, he is too important to see the people of Ōtaki. In fact, he does not give a damn. To use his own words, he does not give a damn about the people of Ōtaki. Bye bye, Nathan Guy, I say to him. He reflects the week after week arrogance of the National members of Parliament. You know, they are so puffed up these days.

The old egos are very bloated, and they are the know-it-alls of Parliament. We have Judith Collins. Judith is here to give advice on what we all should wear and what our attire should be. She is the know-all of the attire of Parliament. She knows what makes a nice jacket and what makes an ugly one. Then we have Tau Henare. He is here to lecture us about media neutrality. The old talkback host—of course, he knows a lot about that.

Then we have my cousin—you cannot pick your relatives—Chris Finlayson. Of course, he inherited the nasty gene of the family, unfortunately. I have beaten him twice, and I increased the majority last time. I gather he is going to stand against me for a third time in Rongotai. Bring it on, because the majority will be even bigger. He is here to lay down the rules on where to put your commas and whether you should wear jandals.

Then we have Gerry Brownlee. He places a ban on any interview with any media person who happens to question him. Then we have the junior Minister Simon Bridges, who often loses his rag in this place. Now he is so important that he will not even answer questions.

But the doozy of them all has to be the Prime Minister, John Key. Well, I have noticed over the last few weeks that he has become totally fixated, manic, and paranoid about the Green Party. He manages to include them in just about every sentence that he uses. But whom do National members listen to for advice? They are certainly not listening to the people you would normally expect that they would listen to. They are experts on everything! But whom are they listening to for advice? It is not the Salvation Army, because John Key said it ought to get out and look at what is happening on the street. He said that to the Salvation Army. I have to say that they are not listening to the Children’s Commissioner, because they are taking no notice of his ideas about poverty. They are not listening to the New Zealand Police, which is telling them that it is short of cash and it cannot fund front-line police. They are not listening to health professionals, who are telling them that there are problems in our health system. In fact, it is reflected, I have to say, in an aid that I am using today.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And the member is using it well too, might I add.

This aid reflects the fact that Tony Ryall is slipping in popularity with our health professionals, because obviously they find his health policies very, very poor indeed.

So who are National members listening to? Well, we now know whom they listen to. The Prime Minister told us. They listen to Cameron Slater. For those who do not know who Cameron Slater is, he is that infamous blogger called Whale Oil Beef Hooked. The Prime Minister has admitted that he talks to Cameron Slater a lot about political events because he has got an insightful mind. Cameron Slater is the man who calls people “feral” when they die, when they are killed in car accidents. Well, he is Paula Bennett’s bestie. Here I have a little photo of them together. He has been advising Paula Bennett on her policy on children. And what does he say about children? Well, here is some of his advice, especially if a child dies. He calls them “SOCKs”. If you do not know what “SOCKs” are, I have to tell you that it is so obscene and it is so offensive that I could not use the word in the House. But that is what Cameron Slater, who advises the Prime Minister and Paula Bennett, says about children when they die in New Zealand. He also says that if children have a silly first name, then that leads to their death, so somehow it is their fault. The last thing he says is that Māori are not caring for their kids. That advice is what goes to the National Party members from its main adviser, Cameron Slater. They should be ashamed of themselves.

That was a particularly awful and distasteful intervention from Parliament’s most prominent landlady, Annette King. You know, the truth is that if you cannot run your own caucus, then you simply cannot hope to run the country. It is as simple as that. We on the National side of Parliament are working hard around the traps, day after day, and the message coming back to us loud and clear, day after day after day, is: “What on earth is Labour up to? Has it not learnt a thing since the last time it was in Government?”.

At the very moment that we get a lift in the economy—and that is thanks to John Key and Bill English—Labour just wants to start spending the money all over again. So it is just a couple of weeks into the new year and Labour and the Greens have promised to spend the thick end of three-quarters of a billion dollars a year. That was just their spending promises in January—that was just January. Three-quarters of a billion dollars of extra spending—that is Labour and the Greens. But even with his rather transparent election bribes, Mr Cunliffe simply cannot get it right. Do you remember his baby bonus policy?

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Baby bribe.

Baby bribe bonus policy—thank you. Well, it certainly sounded very generous. In fact, I was almost contemplating restarting my family. I mean, it is never too late. I could have done with the bonus. But, anyway, it certainly sounded really generous, and he certainly let the media think so. In fact, they printed all the lines.

But he got offside with them after that, of course. Read the fine print, and it ended up being just a little bit tricky—and then he blamed his staff. Oh, what a guy. He got found out for being tricky with his policy. What did he do? Did he front up like a man? Did he front up like a true leader? Did he what! What did he do? He blamed his staff. Oh, how appalling. Gosh, no wonder they are all leaving. You know, it must be absolutely gutting to have Shane Jones hogging the media for—how long has it been? Nearly a week—nearly a week with Shane Jones hogging the media. There must be a lot of those in the Labour caucus with absolutely sinking hearts. Do you think that in their heart of hearts they are beginning to realise that, once again, they have just chosen the wrong guy? Well, the latest Fairfax poll has Labour at around 30 percent. That is one off from 29 percent. That is not very good. That is no better than it was under David Shearer. [Interruption] So over on the other side of the House those members must be really worried. You are right—their heads are down.

Do you know what? New Zealanders are not stupid. They can see what they would get under a Labour-Greens Government. What they would get are big spending promises that mean big borrowing. That would mean big taxes, which, of course, those members would give back to us as welfare and policies that will utterly shut down the productive sector. So mining, agriculture, and fisheries will all have this great, big, green, sanctimonious hand come right down on top of them with policies that are centred around what they cannot do any more for the New Zealand economy. Both parties want less competition in the energy market. So, obviously, electricity prices will go up and, obviously, investment will go down, and they will implement an emissions trading scheme that will put household energy bills up by—how much? By $500 a year.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: How much?

By $500 a year. What they should be talking about—what this Government is talking about—is growing the economy, creating new jobs, getting the crime rate down, getting more bang for your buck from our public services, getting more elective surgeries, getting welfare dependency down, and getting more kids leaving school qualified so that they can get further training and have the brighter future that they are having under this Government.

In this Parliament today, as veterans’ affairs spokesperson for New Zealand First, I tabled the following letter from Viet Nam veteran and medic John “Doc” Mountain, and I would like to now read this letter to the House: “The Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament. In October 2013 party representatives stood in this House and lavished praise upon New Zealand veterans who trained to serve in the armed forces. These men and women—ordinary New Zealanders—were prepared to do the extraordinary in the service of their nation. They were proud to be deployed, without hesitation, into harm’s way. In October 2013 MPs promised unqualified support to war veterans. However, I and many other military personnel, both current and veterans, express our bitter disappointment at the ongoing failure of MPs to honour this promise.

Unsatisfactory outcomes include the Nepata brothers’ claim for further compensation being declined and the recent unfavourable decision and despicable treatment of Jason Pore, an SAS trooper disabled in combat whilst serving our nation. Jason Pore received his injuries in combat but was cast aside like unwanted flotsam, without the compensation he was so deservedly entitled to. We believe that distressing outcomes such as these imply that the Ministers and members are not in possession of the full facts and are not receiving the comprehensive advice needed to provide the support veterans have been promised.

The military is the only occupation where one loses basic human rights accorded to normal citizens, thereby effectively nullifying any means of redress. Military personnel are required to sacrifice their lives in the execution of their military duties on the orders of an immediate superior. Surely such a profound commitment requires an equally profound response. Men and women in the armed forces must be able to have faith that no matter what happens, they and their families will be looked after. We ask the House to consider the ongoing miscarriage of justice regarding declining war disablement pensions based on incomplete military medical records linking the claimed condition to the claimants’ service. This claim rejection practice continues to be applied by Veterans Affairs New Zealand (VANZ) in spite of the Crown’s formal acknowledgment that medical records were poorly maintained and that Defence let veterans down.

During Tribute 08, a welcome home parade for Viet Nam veterans, in a public apology by the Crown to Viet Nam veterans, the then Chief of Defence and now Governor-General, Sir Jerry Mateparae, made a public apology to assembled veterans and Government visitors. He said: ‘I acknowledge here your concern about the maintenance of your personal and medical records. I believe your expectations around the integrity and completeness of your files were both fair and reasonable. NZDF let you down.’ He then went on to say: ‘You should not be concerned that this situation will affect you, as you are protected by the War Pensions Act, which provides that any benefit of doubt will be upheld in your favour.’ In such cases any benefits of doubt of a linkage to service are to be upheld in the veteran’s favour, as provided under sections 17 to 18 of the War Pensions Act 1954.” In conclusion, John Mountain said: “We implore members of this House to honour this promise and revisit these inequitable situations. We respectfully request that any such claims be reviewed and that those declined on the basis of missing medical records be accepted.”

Attached to that letter was an Official Information Act response from Veterans Affairs New Zealand that showed that in the period 2010 to 2013 some 7,412 claims were accepted, but 6,953 were declined—almost 50 percent were declined. Of those, a significant percentage was declined on the basis of the medical records being inadequate, missing, or incomplete. Those veterans deserve better. We have challenged the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs to take this up, to look into this properly, and to find out why many of these veterans’ claims are being declined and why so many of them are not receiving their due entitlements in terms of additional disablement payments. New Zealand First will be following this through with the Minister and with the ministry because we do believe that there are many thousands of veterans out there who have been hard-done-by through this whole process. It is time that this Parliament honoured its promise, as it has in the past, and honoured the commitments that Sir Jerry Mateparae made in Tribute 08.

There is something really rotten going on in the Labour Party at the moment. No, I am not talking about its leadership, although you do have to ask yourself where its top three are. Cunliffe, Parker, and Robertson are nowhere to be seen today.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is just out of order to refer to the absence of members within the Chamber.

Certainly. But there is a silence from the Labour leadership, which makes a change from the sorts of gaffes that it is normally associated with. I could talk today about Labour’s total lack of policies that will grow our economy. I could dwell on those members’ financial mismanagement—buying the votes with the baby bonus. It is all very fertile ground for dwelling on their failings, but no. Today I am going to ask them to answer another case. It is one they are trying to duck and distance themselves from, but I think they really need to stand up and answer questions about their role.

I would like to ask them, and especially their leader—for the time being anyway, for today—David Cunliffe, to explain his role as the puppet master of a Television New Zealand (TVNZ) head of department, Shane Taurima. This is a man who was head of TVNZ’s Māori and Pacific unit, and at times he was a front-line television news and current affairs interviewer. This is a series of positions that have given him unbridled power, setting the agenda for news and current affairs programmes such as Waka Huia, Te Karere, and Marae Investigates. This is an individual whom his organisation, TVNZ, trusted.

As you all know, I think in this House at least, he was the unsuccessful candidate for the by-election selection for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. Then he went back to his old job at TVNZ, saying, when he was asked by his bosses, that he was putting journalism ahead of politics. Well, that was a Tui billboard moment, because as it turns out that was not so. What he was doing was that he was up to his neck in organising political meetings in the buildings of TVNZ.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Whereabouts?

Indeed, at TVNZ, in Hobson Street in Auckland. I worked there for many years myself. In fact, I worked in television news and current affairs for the State broadcaster, for both Radio New Zealand and television, for the best part of 30 years. It would never have happened then—absolutely never. We had journalistic principles, we had fair balance, we had integrity, and we did not overstep the mark. This man did. When he was asked by his employers at TVNZ whether he had chosen journalism over politics, he said journalism. Their only mistake in this, in my view, is that they trusted him. They took him at his word because he had been in the job for 12 years, and he was somebody whom they thought knew which way was up. Well, as it turns out, he did not.

His staff also have a case to answer because they used their TVNZ emails to organise branch meetings in the building of TVNZ. All of this is terrible. It is a disgrace, actually. TVNZ—because the Minister of Broadcasting, Craig Foss, has asked them as well—are calling a review into this. They are very disappointed, and admit that in retrospect they should not have reappointed him to that job. But I ask the Labour Party this, and in particular David Cunliffe and the leadership, such as it is in Labour: what was their role in all of this? What were they doing, allowing this to happen? We have Mr Cunliffe, an individual who perhaps was about to be the new boss of Mr Taurima. Did he give him assurances that he would get the nod at the next candidates’ selection that he was contesting? Were there undertakings given that his bosses-to-be at the Labour Party would give him favourable treatment? It could really be a battle of two Shanes, could it not, if he does go against Shane Jones. And he has declared pretty much that he is going to be doing that. I think it is “Shameful Shanes” times two—[Interruption] It is all of the above, Mr Calder—absolutely so.

I think that when you have an individual who ought to know better, who has made his living as supposedly an investigative current affairs journalist and news interviewer, it is an absolute disgrace. In the 30-odd years I spent in the business, somebody like him would not have been tolerated. I do not know how duplicitous he must have been or how arrogant he and his staff must have been to think that they could have got away with it.

Someone like Paul Henry has been an individual who has a late-night show, and it is a bit of an old chat show. He is a known opinionator—a known guy to peddle his views, and he is someone whom I suppose you could call a bit of a shock-jock, really. Shane Taurima, on the other hand, was a self-styled individual who had integrity and who supposedly held journalistic integrity close. I do not think he did. I think he has let his colleagues down. He has let the profession of journalism down.

If Labour is foolish enough to allow an individual like that to be selected, and allows someone as dishonourable as that to become a member of Parliament, then it has outdone itself. I think, and I put it to the House, that Shane Taurima, having betrayed the professional journalism code of ethics—fairness, impartiality, honesty, and integrity—is not a man who should be considered for higher office. David Cunliffe needs to be here to answer those questions about the role that he played in that situation. He has blood on his hands.

You can see the desperation and hysteria setting in on the other side of the House. This is a Government whose members have become used to the ministerial BMWs and their leather seats and to the ministerial houses, and they do not want to give them up—they do not want to give them up. They can see them slipping away, and as they can see that the hysteria grows—the hysteria grows on the other side of the House, and the desperation grows.

You can see how desperate they are simply by looking at whom they are reliant upon and whom they are willing to do deals with. They will do deals with anyone if it improves their chances of holding on to the ministerial BMWs and the Treasury benches. They are willing to deal with that twice-convicted criminal John Banks. They are quite willing to take his vote. They are willing to make a Minister out of somebody who leaked Government information. What did John Key say about him less than a year ago? Less than a year ago, John Key said: “I want to believe him.” He was talking about Peter Dunne. He said: “I want to believe him, but the inquiry doesn’t rule him out.” He used that as the justification at the time for accepting Peter Dunne’s resignation as a Minister. There is a simple question that John Key has yet to answer: what has changed? What has changed?

Peter Dunne has repeatedly been given opportunities in this House to deny that he leaked the report, and he has repeatedly refused to take those opportunities. Why is that? Why is it that Peter Dunne will not stand up and say that he did not leak the Kitteridge report? Why is it that John Key thinks that someone who leaked confidential Government information to a journalist is an appropriate person to have as a Minister? There is a simple answer: he is desperate. He desperately wants Peter Dunne’s vote, he desperately wants to stay in Government, and he will deal with anyone in the process. He is quite happy to do a deal. There will be a cup of tea deal coming with Colin Craig, that homophobic misogynist who I do not think has any role in this Parliament. He wants to ban unisex toilets. That will be part of the Government’s agenda if Colin Craig gets his way in a future National Government. But John Key is quite happy to deal with him. He is quite happy to deal with anyone, as long as it keeps him in Government.

This is a Government and a Prime Minister that have completely lost their moral compass. There was a time when John Key did stand up and rule some lines in the sand around whom he would and would not deal with—but that is all out the window. It has all gone out the window now, as long as he can stay Prime Minister. It does not matter whom he is going to deal with. As long as he can stay Prime Minister, John Key will do a deal with anyone.

I listened before to one of those National members over there talking about fiscal responsibility. It was Jacqui Dean, the one who wants to ban water. She was talking about fiscal responsibility. I will tell you what, I will not take a lecture from the National Government about fiscal responsibility. This is a Government that will leave as its legacy at the end of this term of Parliament the biggest debt in New Zealand’s history. Let me say that again: this Government has clocked up the biggest Government debt in New Zealand’s history. It is bigger than Muldoon’s. At the end of 6 years National will leave a debt for future generations of New Zealanders that will be even bigger than the debt that Rob Muldoon managed to clock up. That will be this Government’s legacy to New Zealand.

I will not take lectures on fiscal responsibility from that Government, because we know that the last Labour Government left New Zealand with a Crown debt that was net zero—none. The debt was gone. The last Labour Government paid it off, and in a short space of time—in the 6 years that National will have been in power—it has managed to clock up the biggest debt in New Zealand’s history. National members are in no position to be lecturing anyone about fiscal responsibility.

And, of course, we know that they have got their priorities all wrong. Take education. They want to spend more money on charter schools than they are willing to put into the State school system. That is simply wrong. They are quite happy to plough money into the ideological experiment that is charter schools as part of their desperate deal with John Banks and the ACT Party, but they are not willing to put that level of funding and that level of support into our existing public school system. That is wrong, and it is simply another example of how this Government is willing to do a deal.

It is that desperate to stay in Government that it is willing to do a deal with anyone. There is no principle behind this Government’s decision making—no principle, no moral compass. It is just simply doing whatever it takes to stay in Government. That is the John Key mantra. Whatever it takes to stay in Government, John Key is willing to do it. And, of course, we know he is getting his advice from Cameron Slater. This is the guy who thinks it is OK to make fun of children dying—to make fun of children dying. John Key rings him up all the time, because he thinks he has “great insights”. Those were John Key’s words. He thinks Cameron Slater, the guy who makes fun of dead kids, has got great insights that are useful for the Prime Minister. How demeaning to the office of Prime Minister for him to be ringing up someone like Cameron Slater on a regular basis to ask for advice. He should be ashamed of himself. He should be ashamed of the type of people whom he is willing to associate with.

I think New Zealanders should be able to expect better from their Prime Minister than that. I think John Key should have more respect for the job and the office that he holds than that. Clearly, he does not. He is simply willing to do a deal with anyone as long as he remains Prime Minister. He is willing to talk to anyone as long as he remains Prime Minister.

Of course, this is not a Prime Minister who has had a particularly honest or robust relationship with the truth in the past. Let us not forget about the Tranz Rail shares, where John Key deliberately tried to mislead New Zealanders about the number of Tranz Rail shares he had, or about him appointing his childhood friend—what’s-his-name Fletcher—as the head of the Government Communications Security Bureau and then pretending he did not know anything about it. They get memory loss over there on that side of the House every time they are confronted with something that is a little bit inconvenient. There is the whole Kim Dotcom saga, and John Key’s and John Banks’ memory lapses. Every time there is something—

It is an extraordinary pleasure to rise to take a call in this debate. We have to acknowledge—and a number of speakers have alluded to this—that the third Labour Party leader in as many years is struggling. I take no pleasure in saying that. I am not into schadenfreude. I take no pleasure in it but he is struggling. We have noted that he has not been asked to take a call today. He has not been asked to take a call today in this debate. Instead, the debate has been led off by the Hon Annette King, who, it has to be said, is one of the better performers in the House. I think that members of the Labour caucus are probably rueing the day that the Hon Annette King said that she did not want to be leader, because I think that it is possible that they are overlooking one of their more able performers, because the others are in disarray.

The others are in disarray, and the third Labour leader in as many years made a stuttering start to the year. A Best Start? How could it be anything like that? It was nothing like that. It was a stuttering start, talking about middle-class welfare. It was poorly delivered and poorly costed and, of course, it just goes on from there. So are the members of the Labour caucus disheartened? Well, of course they are. Are they scratching their heads? Is there massive debate? Are they saying: “Shane, can you take a bit more pressure off the leader?”, or “Grant, what are you going to do about it?”. Yes, we know there are big problems.

On this side of the House, the Government is managing the economy in a fiscally prudent way. We have managed the recession well and now the economy is making encouraging progress, and we are reaping the benefits. This is the stark decision for New Zealand. We have to have the same probity and fiscal rectitude that managed the recession to manage the period of growth that we are entering into. The economy is building good momentum. It is generating more jobs, which lifts people out of welfare dependency, and is providing more opportunities.

💬 Sue Moroney: Come to Hamilton. Come to Hamilton and see.

It is generating higher incomes, and as the member across the House alludes to, it is broad-based in the regions. It is broad-based in the regions and more and more New Zealanders are reaping the benefits. They are reaping the benefits from that economic growth. From September 2012 to September 2013 growth was 3.5 percent. The OECD is forecasting that in the year ahead it is going to be even better. But it has to be managed— it has to be managed.

The stronger economy, improving business and consumer confidence, has translated into more jobs. We heard that last year in the September quarter there was a huge increase in growth, with 27,000 more jobs for New Zealanders—new jobs for New Zealand. The increase in jobs over the year to last September was 53,700. There were 53,700 more jobs in that September than in the previous September. So employment levels increased by 2.4 percent. This is at the same time as participation increasing to almost 69 percent. So we have been fiscally prudent in our management of the recession and New Zealand now needs prudent management of the period of growth.

We have a plan. We have a plan for this, with key inputs to lift business opportunities, jobs, and growth. I refer, of course, to the Business Growth Agenda, where we are going to grow the export markets available to us. Tim Groser is doing a great job on that. Capital markets are going to increase, we are sponsoring a massive amount of investment in innovation, we are investing in skills and safe workplaces, we are exploiting in an appropriately environmentally sound manner our myriad of natural resources, and, of course, we are building infrastructure. So we have a responsible plan to go forward.

What about the Opposition? Well, we have heard from a number of speakers that in the first few weeks Labour, with its Green acolytes, has been promising even more spending. It has been promising $750 million more spending. It is uncosted, untargeted, and it is more spending. It is ill-conceived middle-class welfare. Really, it is a fantasy world that those members are living in. We are back into this tax more, borrow more—

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Despite all the negative politics, and despite all the doom and gloom and negativity of the National Party, the Green Party has a simple message in this election: here comes the sun. The Greens want to give Kiwis energy choices, more competition, and make it cheaper for them to produce their own power from the sun. I do not know whether members have noticed today but outside we have seen a massive solar spill in Wellington. Unlike a deep-sea oil spill, the only impact we are seeing is a lovely day and Kiwis producing their own electricity.

On Sunday, as you all know, Green Party co-leader Russel Norman launched the Greens’ Solar Homes package, to help Kiwis access low-cost loans to face the upfront barrier of the capital cost of solar panels. Solar is one of the greenest forms of generation we have and we have ample sunlight in New Zealand. It gives Kiwis independence from the big electricity companies, and with no fuel cost it insulates Kiwis from relentless electricity price rises. We all know about those price rises. We all get that sinking feeling in our guts when another power bill arrives in the post.

What we have seen under National is our power prices increase by 22 percent. This year, despite demand going down, the prices keep going up and up. It must be clear to everyone by now that National’s electricity system is not working for New Zealand and is not working for New Zealanders. Under the Greens’ Solar Homes initiative, Kiwis will be able to go to the Government to access a low-cost loan to be repaid through their rates so they can purchase solar panels or batteries.

The loans will be cost-neutral to the Crown. There is a small administration cost to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority of under $1 million, and the net Crown fiscal position is still neutral. Once the loan is repaid, the families own the panels and batteries in full. They can make money by selling excess generation into the grid. I think that this is an example of smarter, greener economics in action. I think that this is an example of energy freedom in action. I think that this is an example of new jobs and clean energy in action.

We estimate that we could see 1,000 new jobs created from Kiwis helping Kiwis to go solar. When you look around the world, in America, every 4 minutes a new home or business goes solar. Across the Ditch in Australia there are 1 million homes with solar panels on the top. New Zealand has a tremendous opportunity to grow jobs, help Kiwis save money, and save carbon. So, predictably, the Government came out with its negativity, with its shrill screaming of “Subsidies!”—never mind that it is not a subsidy; it is a loan. I think the reason why the Government screams “Subsidies!” as a knee-jerk reaction is that subsidies are on its lips.

💬 Hon Annette King: So what did it give to MediaWorks?

That is exactly right, Annette King. Subsidies are on its lips—look at the $30 million it has just paid out to Rio Tinto, despite Rio Tinto making a $3.7 billion profit in the last year. When I look at the $46 million in tax breaks and the $25 million in seismic survey subsidies for the oil industry, or the dodgy deals National members are entertaining for the Choruses and the Skycities of this world, I think the word “subsidies” is on the tip of their lips.

Then they started to scream about renewables. Never mind that under National Huntly power station has just had a 25-year extension to burn more coal and gas. Never mind that under National the Prime Minister is going around Taranaki opening gas-fired peaking power stations powered by the controversial fracking practice. And never mind that the Government’s own officials advised the Government that it is not on track to meet its 90 percent renewables target. So this policy from the Greens is a good example of smarter, greener politics and it is a bright start towards getting 100 percent renewables.

What we know is that in terms of energy National is stuck in the dark age. But the good news for New Zealanders is that here comes the sun. We are giving Kiwis a real choice this election. Under National there are more excuses for power price rises, more risky deep-sea drilling, more assets flogged off. Or, on the other side, the Green Party is offering cheaper power from NZ Power, insulation under your roof, and a solar panel on the top. If National wants to be the party of big oil and big power company profits, so be it. We are going to be the party offering Kiwis cheaper, cleaner, smarter power, and we are going to give the power back to New Zealanders. We think that is the real brighter future for New Zealand. Kia ora.

It is a great pleasure to have the final slot in today’s general debate. It has been a week of very interesting facts and quotes. The one that I was most interested in was the Fairfax poll that indicated that most New Zealanders do not want more tax and spend. Funnily, there was also a poll that said that National was riding a wave of soaring optimism, which I thought was rather good. The poll said that 67 percent opposed, and only 27 percent were in favour of, raising taxes to fund new initiatives, which must have come as a bit of a shock to the Labour Party and the Greens. But what I found most interesting was the quote from David Cunliffe. He said the question was unfair because the vast majority of New Zealanders would not be affected by its planned tax rises, which would include a higher top tax rate and a capital gains tax. I thought: “Well, there it is. There’s the Labour philosophy in a nutshell. It is perfect: you’re going to give lollies to everybody, but you’ll make only a few people pay for it. There’s the way to win political salvation.”

But of course nobody believes that. They all know that we all end up paying for it in the end. We already have massive redistribution in this country where we have the top 6 percent of income tax payers paying nearly 40 percent of the tax—more when you take Working for Families into account. And do not forget that about 70 percent of taxpayers in New Zealand pay a 17.5 percent tax rate or less. So this is a Government that has been very successful at keeping taxes down and New Zealanders like it. It is interesting when you drill down to the figures. Funnily enough, it is the under 30s who are strongly opposed to higher taxes and more spending, and, funnily enough, more Māori. There is 50 percent net disapproval amongst Māori. More Māori than Europeans opposed raising taxes to pay for spending. Those with no qualifications at all were most stridently against paying more taxes and having more spending by the Government. Those with household incomes below $50,000 were more opposed to paying more taxes than higher-income ones.

New Zealanders have realised that they are better equipped to spend their money than the Government, and that is because money is very hard to find and it is hard to earn, and it is annoying to see it being wasted by councils and Governments. That is why this Government has being so disciplined in its spending, has been so disciplined in the way it has gone about making sure the Public Service gets results for the best prices, and that is why this Government enjoys the level of support that it has.

I must say I found it positively weird listening to Mr Hipkins’ contribution on debt, saying that National is being bad because it has left a high level of debt. Well, he seems to ignore the Christchurch earthquakes and the billions of dollars that were spent, he has ignored the global financial crisis, and he ignores the lag effect. Yes, Labour inherited a well-run economy in 1999 and held things reasonably firm for a few years. But it left a country pregnant with 10 years of future deficits in 2008 and massively unfunded spending schemes, which has meant that if the Government carried on the policies that we inherited in 2008, we would have massive deficits and massive debt. But National did continue spending to protect the vulnerable and to deal with the earthquake but, importantly, it has set a path back to surplus, which we are going to achieve this year, and it has got a path back to paying back debt, and that is why New Zealanders trust National with the economy.

It is also weird to hear from the Greens. They spend their whole time arguing for measures that will increase the cost of energy in the economy, yet they jump up and down with a couple of gimmicks about somehow subsidising solar energy, as if that is salvation for a problem that they have created themselves by advocating for policies that increase the price of energy.

Finally, I do not want to comment particularly on Mr Shane Jones’ claims. There have been lots of allegations, lots of innuendoes, and not many facts, but I am sure there will be due process. It will be very carefully figured out. All those issues will be taken seriously to get to the bottom of them. But I must say that there is a strong anti-Australian strand coming through everything he said. He was standing there this morning in the Finance and Expenditure Committee going on about Aussie banks and he was going on about Aussie companies all the time. Well, I do not think there is a hang of a lot in favour of this country taking on an anti-Australia campaign such as has been carried out by Mr Jones. There is that old saying that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I have never really understood that until now, but when we look at Labour, when it is on to the third leader and we have got Mr Cunliffe, it is a bit like the words of the singer Pink.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.