General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Emerging out of the fog is the shape of the Opposition monster that is going to put itself before the New Zealand public. Well, what we do know is that the public need to trust the Opposition, so let us just have a quick look at whom it might be. The Labour leader, David Cunliffe, knows about trust because he has got a secret one and he still will not reveal the donors to his secret trust. He is going to be in coalition with the “cash-for-clemency” Green Party, which went to the Dotcom mansion and promised that it would oppose the extradition of Kim Dotcom in return for something, and we are not sure what that is. So the leader with the secret trust is in coalition with the party with the cashed-up clemency, and that still does not get them there. We then have to add on—

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is making an allegation of corruption. I take offence—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! There was no allegation of corruption that I heard. This is a robust general debate. The member will have his opportunity to respond.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that this is not in any way relitigating a ruling I have just made.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I am seeking a clarification as to whether you believe “cashed-up clemency” is an allegation of corruption.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not.

You have to add—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s outrageous!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Ha! Coming from Trevor Mallard! What you then need to add to that mix is New Zealand’s first—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Would the Hon Trevor Mallard stop that barracking and get himself under control; otherwise, he will be asked to leave the Chamber.

Well, it is a bit rich hearing the “Member for Outrageous Lies” getting upset.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

💬 Grant Robertson: There are two points of order. The first of those is that the last comment by the Minister of Finance was completely outside of the Standing Orders. The second is that previously, just recently, you have ruled in this House about the kinds of comments that will lead to disorder. Mr English’s initial comment about so-called cashed-up clemency clearly is within the realms of one of those. It is disparaging towards members in the House, in the same way—[Interruption] They are very quiet during the point of order here, as usual. That is in the same way that you accused Opposition members of doing last week.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It would be inappropriate to rule out “cash for clemency” or “clemency cash payments”, for example, while the House has been so ready to listen to allegations from the Opposition of cash for access.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The House does need to settle down. The final comment that I heard from Bill English was not going to lead to disorder. I am not sure whom it was directed to or whether anybody took offence. That would be one way of moving it forward. But I ask the whole House to tone itself down and for Bill English to be allowed to continue his contribution.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. I require it to be heard in silence.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You heard the Minister address a member of this House as the “Member for Outrageous Lies”. That is unparliamentary. No one—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just addressed that. It was a remark that will lead to disorder; I accept that. I do not know whom it was directed to—[Interruption] I am deciding this, not the Hon Trevor Mallard. If it was directed to someone who took offence, then that person can stand and acknowledge they have taken offence, and then I might be inclined to ask the member to withdraw it. I do not think it was directed at anybody, but I am unsure of that. At this stage the House needs to settle down. This is a general debate, which is always going to be a lively debate, and we are not going to get much further if we are going to have pointless points of order attempting to interrupt a member’s speech.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear Grant Robertson, but it will be heard in silence.

💬 Grant Robertson: Bill English quite clearly said “That’s rich coming from Trevor Mallard, the ‘Member for Outrageous Lies’.” That is what he said.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear that interjection. If Mr Mallard heard it and he has taken offence, he knows the way to progress this.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am getting to the stage where my patience is running very thin with this waste of time in the general debate. I will hear from the Hon Trevor Mallard.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I take offence at that outrageous—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The Hon Trevor Mallard has taken offence at a comment made by the Hon Bill English. I ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. The member can continue his speech.

Then we add to the mix New Zealand’s first foreign-owned political party, the Mana party. It wants to ban foreign owners of houses; we want to ban foreign owners of political parties. It is a party that I understand has received $500,000 and is going to join an alliance.

That is before you get to New Zealand First. All we can say about New Zealand First is that when it is not making gratuitous and excessive allegations about members of Parliament, the like of which I have never heard in the House before, it is being investigated for the dodgy use of parliamentary cash.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can anticipate the point of order. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am asking that Minister to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And I agree. I will ask—[Interruption] Order! I will ask him to do so. The Hon Bill English will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark. It is an investigation that has nothing to do with this House. It is a matter for me to determine. The Hon Bill English will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. If that collection of individuals—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Thin-skinned individuals.

—clearly thin-skinned individuals. Imagine how they will get on with each other when it comes to—[Interruption] We will start with the Labour Party members and how they are getting on with each other. Let us listen to Labour’s immigration policy. On Saturday on The Nation, David Cunliffe said that the Labour Government tried to manage immigration of, say, between 5,000 and 15,000 net positive. On Monday, 25 May Phil Twyford said on Radio New Zealand National that David Cunliffe had said that weekend that Labour will get to a stable number between 5,000 and 15,000 net migration. This is starting to sound like a coherent policy with some numbers. We have not had one of those before. But on Tuesday—oh, wait! To bad weather and such disappointment, David Cunliffe said those were not his words and that was not Labour’s position. And there we were thinking that it had finally got it together. Further pressed on what Labour’s net migration target would be, he had a better idea: “We’d have to work that out.” So that is what you do. You announce the policy, make sure your spokesman endorses it, change it, say you did not have one, and then at the end of it say “No, we haven’t talked about a numerical target.”

OK, so now we have got a four-party mixed-ownership model coalition, partly foreign-owned—the mixed-ownership model. It could be 15 percent foreign ownership. Our target was always 85 percent New Zealand ownership, and I think—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Of all the offences, the worst one that one can allege against another party is that it is foreign-owned. That is against the Standing Orders and has been for decades.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. This is a general debate.

Clearly, the economic caucus of that Opposition being Kim Dotcom, the secret leader of the Mana party—no, is it the Internet Mana—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Well, we might have a number of potential coalition partners, but none of them is in the dock and none is going to jail. None of them is a Minister who has got such a gaping conflict of interests that they cannot even show up at, and stay in, the House. “Emerging from the fog”, the Minister of Finance said. That sounds like a description of the Budget he brought down 2 weeks ago. Polluting our democracy we have Oravida, John Banks, Cabinet clubs, cash for access—business as usual from a squalid Government. Six long years is enough of this lot.

This year New Zealanders have a choice. They have got a choice between politics as usual with this National Government or a better way that puts people first. They have got a choice between the growing gap between two New Zealands from that side of the House, or a new Government that will put New Zealanders first, put people first, with secure jobs, good homes, and healthy families. In National’s New Zealand wage rises are barely keeping up with inflation—is that not right? In National’s New Zealand half of New Zealanders did not get a pay rise at all last year. Unemployment is still 6 percent, and Treasury says we will be lucky to ever get it down to the level it was before John Key became Prime Minister.

Labour is going to put people first. Labour pledges to get unemployment down to 4 percent, and we have got the policies that will deliver that. In National’s New Zealand the bulk of economic growth is going to the top few percent, and that is why National’s cronyism supports the few against the many. GDP has gone up 8.5 percent, but wages have gone up only 5 percent since National has taken office. National spent 5 long years doing nothing about the housing mess.

💬 Hon David Parker: What does Bill English say about this?

Bill English’s “emerging from the fog” Budget seemed to miss the housing chapter.

💬 Grant Robertson: It wasn’t printed.

It is like it was not printed. It is like he is still looking for it now. He is asking the Minister next to him where the housing policy is in the Budget. Auckland house prices, while he has been looking, have risen 40 percent—40 percent—and Christchurch prices have risen over 30 percent. There is a housing crisis. Kiwis cannot get affordable homes.

Labour has got positive solutions: KiwiBuild’s 100,000 new homes over 10 years; monetary policy that will keep interest rates, mortgages, and rents affordable; a capital gains tax that does not give special favours to speculators; and new rules that mean that people who never want to live in New Zealand will not be able to trade the homes of those who do. We will take away the 20 percent deposit rule for first-home buyers. That is squeezing a generation of young Kiwis out of the market, meaning that they cannot pursue the Kiwi dream that their parents believe is their birthright.

Labour will bring in a healthy homes guarantee so that every child growing up in a rental property will have a warm, dry home. We will address the Canterbury housing crisis, building 10,000 new homes over 10 years, and we will support a strong social housing sector.

Under National’s New Zealand a quarter of a million kids are growing up in poverty. The best thing National could do in the Budget was bring in a family policy that left out the children of the poorest by forgetting to cover people on benefits. It is a growing gap. It is a widening gap. It is two New Zealands. Bill English might be emerging from a fog; New Zealanders are going to be emerging from 6 long years of a National Government.

Well, I think that was the doom and gloom face of David Cunliffe. He has got a few different faces. I think that was the doom and gloom face, while his caucus all sat around him really feeling the doom and gloom. His caucus kind of sat around, looking up and going: “Is this as good as it gets?”. They should seriously be asking themselves that.

Let us talk about some of the different faces of David Cunliffe. We have got the man, of course, who puts on a lei and a really bad Samoan accent at the Avondale markets, but, by the way, he does not like migration and does not want family reunifications or Samoan people actually getting their families here and getting ahead. But then he is the first one to go to an ethnic event. I have certainly seen him at the Waitakere Indian Association. He is the first one to say “Namaste”, but, by the way, he does not support Indians migrants actually being here—skilled migrants or, I do not know, the 120 Indian engineers I met in Christchurch who are actually helping its rebuild and are playing a critical role in its development. That is another face of David Cunliffe. I bet my colleague Melissa Lee must have seen the Chinese lantern face of David Cunliffe as he runs around finding any Asian person he possibly can to get a photo with so that he can show how diverse he is and how in touch he is with modern Auckland and that beautiful multicultural environment that we have there. But then, by the way, he does not support them actually being here. He does not want to see their families actually able to move here.

Now he is, in my opinion, going for the cheapest politics he possibly can to actually try to get himself anywhere near the line. But mark my words: the other face of David Cunliffe will come out very shortly when he again runs to an ethnic group or to someone he think he needs to get on board. There, again, he will be saying “Namaste”. There, again, he will be telling them how wonderful they are and how much he needs them. The truth of where he actually stands has come out in the last week with the cheapest politics that I think I have seen from the supposedly biggest Opposition party in a very long time. We kind of expected it from some of the others here, but, quite frankly, I think this is a new low.

What about the other face of David Cunliffe that you see, that he is in touch with the blue-collar worker? He does not like rich people—those rich people. He says: “Bill English, that’s all you care about—those awful, awful rich people.” But, by the way, he lives in Herne Bay and has a combined income of more than—

💬 Hon Bill English: A doer-upper

A doer-upper, sorry—a doer-upper in Herne Bay and a combined income that means, quite frankly, he is, in his own words, “doing OK”. I love it that he gets all uptight about a Cabinet club. We heard him a couple of weeks ago saying it was cash for access and it was the worst thing possible. But, of course, then he has got his own anonymous donors whom he will not disclose and his own anonymous trusts, but then that is another face. Oh, and he cares for the poor. We know that. He tells us quite often how much he cares for the poor. However, his baby bonus is going to families earning $150,000-plus. That is the kind of Opposition policy there is.

I just want to pick up on the Hon Bill English’s speech. I think that coalition of the unwilling has just got—I did not think it could get crazier. I thought we were kind of there. I mean, who are we throwing in the mix this week? Are we throwing in John Tamihere as the new leader of the Internet Party? Have we got Annette Sykes as the new leader of the Internet Party? I mean, who is about to step up there?

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Laila Harré.

Laila Harré—is she about to step up as the new leader? Is that whom we throw into the crazy coalition of the unwilling? Really, let us picture what that Cabinet might look like. We have supposedly got David Cunliffe, with many different kinds of faces; Russel Norman, sitting there churning out his money, because we have got to spend, spend, spend; Winston Peters, who does not seem to like anyone except himself, and he has got a good relationship with that mirror; then we throw in the Mana party and now its new leader who is coming in, so we have got that party’s whole foreign ownership; and then, of course, we have got the Greens. Who else have we got there? I mean it is kind of a crazy coalition, and these are the people who supposedly want to lead New Zealand. So while they are wondering about the two faces of David Cunliffe—and I think I am being generous there, by the way—we are getting on with an outstanding Budget and actually celebrating New Zealand and all it can be.

That was a lot of rubbish from a member of Parliament, Paula Bennett, who was supported by society to get to the heights of privilege where she now sits. Unfortunately, once she got there she pulled up the ladder. It did not matter whatsoever. She did not think about the rest of society, which is, indeed, in need at this particular time. I would say to the residents of Upper Harbour that they will have a choice this coming election: more of the same from that Minister or a new member of Parliament for Upper Harbour in the name of Herman Retzlaff.

The other day when I asked the Prime Minister some very serious questions about the state of affairs in our country in terms of jobs, in terms of income, and in terms of homeownership, he acted like a clown. He did not treat that seriously. I presented to the Prime Minister some worrying figures that the census result had shown us in terms of the high unemployment of Pasifika, the low incomes that are earned by Pasifika families, and the low homeownership rates that are experienced by Pacific people in New Zealand. I did say that it is the hope of Pasifika people that when we succeed, the rest of New Zealand succeeds, and that many of our families are failing at the moment—failing not necessarily from a lack of hard effort but from a lack of support in policy from this particular Government. I am going to go through that just to outline why I think it is so. This Government now is creating a New Zealand of two societies—a society for those at the top end of town, who know which Minister to rub shoulders with, and a society for the rest of us, who are just struggling to make ends meet.

Incidentally, where those fine people are now sitting in the gallery, a group of students from Southern Cross Campus were sitting. I met them later on at the airport and I asked them what they thought. One of the young ladies said that she wanted to throw something at the Prime Minister because of the way he was fudging the answers, acting like a clown, and not treating seriously what we were asking him about. I said: “Don’t do that. The thing that you can do for our communities is to make sure you do not vote for him. That will hurt him the most come this election.”

Another young woman said to me that he is the same Prime Minister who promised their school back in 2008 that the Government would invest $6 million in a trade school. The Government used the likes of sports icons “Inga the Winger” and Michael Jones to promote that. That young woman said to me that today that school is still waiting for that $6 million trade school. It is an empty promise like the Building a Brighter Future empty promises that National made.

National said that New Zealanders would have a brighter future—all New Zealanders. What we did not understand and what the community is now recognising is that it was referring only to people with whom it is in cahoots. It was referring only to the top end of town—people who have the privilege of rubbing shoulders with the right Minister and who are able to provide cash for its upcoming election war chest. Look at what is happening. As my colleague Grant Robertson said earlier, chief executive officers have received increases in their salary 26 times greater than anyone else’s.

What about the rest of New Zealand? Well, 46 percent of working New Zealanders did not receive an increase last year. As for Pasifika, we had a median weekly income in 2008 of $455. That has declined in the figures that have been provided by the census, to $388. For Aucklanders it is worse.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: It’s gone backwards.

It has gone backwards under this Government. As for housing affordability, 18.5 percent of Pasifika own their own home, compared with what it was back in 2001—close to 40 percent. For the rest of New Zealand, homeownership has now fallen. Again, it has gone backwards. The latest Salvation Army report again highlighted unemployment—the fact that we need jobs but the jobs are not there, that we need higher incomes but incomes are not there, and that we need affordable housing. Unless those things are fixed, almost 50 percent of our current population will never ever be able to see that brighter future.

I am speaking for the first time on the Budget in this general debate, so I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance, not just because he is a good bloke, which he undoubtedly is, but also on the sheer consistency of his leadership of our economy over successive Budgets. Now we can begin to see actual results and, if we stick to the course—if we stick to the course—the prospect of further steady gains for our people. We know what the main results are. We have seen a $3,000 increase in the average wage, with the prospect of slightly over $7,500 in the next 4 years if we stick to the course. We have seen 84,000 jobs created in the last year, with the prospect of over 170,000 in the next 4 years if we stick to the course. We have seen in the figures that came out 2 days ago a balance of payments surplus of $1.3 billion as export growth to the year to April 2014, increasing by 9.1 percent, and Crown debt projected to get down to 20 percent if we stick to this course.

With the words “stick to the course” I am thinking also of that phrase that we have debated a lot in the last few months, about the rock star economy. I just want to reflect on why I think that although with human nature being such as it is, it was nice to hear it, a lot of us on the Treasury benches are not entirely comfortable with it, precisely because of the obvious retort from its critics that it could be a one-hit wonder. If I take a one-hit wonder, “How Bizarre”, you have to ask yourself whether it would be bizarre if we get another vote from the New Zealand people in September that means that we do not stick to this course. It would not be bizarre at all, because this is hard-wired into the position of our Opposition. I know there has been a tendency to take this way back into ancient debates. I am now going to go really extreme. I know that you will stop me before I kill again, of course, Mr Speaker.

I want to go right back to 1973 before I get to the year 2000 because we had, again, exactly the same pattern. In 1973 I was a junior investigating officer in Treasury and we had had a period of long stability and then the election of a Labour Government. I went to Hansard from 1973 and looked through the debate on the Appropriation Bill to the statement of the then Labour Minister of Finance. He said: “New Zealand’s balance of payments position is one of strength unparalleled in our previous experience.” Warming to the theme, he then said: “Economic activity and business confidence have recovered strongly.” I do not think he added: “thanks to years of stable National Government rule.” And then he introduced a series of policies that are quite intriguing to look at now: a property speculators tax; further extension of price controls; he repealed the Remuneration Authority to give more strength to the “FOL”, the Federation of Labour; selective depreciation; export subsidies; and interest-free suspensory loans—the usual formula.

Then we have the 1974 Budget, which I call the “Oops I Got That Wrong Budget”, when the Labour Minister of Finance had to admit: “The sudden massive increase in oil prices has led to a highly unstable international trade and monetary situation.” That Government lasted one more Budget. So we have seen this before, where you get consolidated progress followed by the assumption that these are good times that are going to roll for ever, and then you set in place policies that are sometimes augmented by adverse economic external circumstances, which, of course, none of us can foresee but which, in the absence of proper conservative fiscal management, can lead to a situation being undone in very short order. You know and New Zealand knows that this is also describing exactly what happened in 2000, when after a long period of difficult adjustment we started to average growth in the late 1990s in the last 3 years of 4 percent, the terms of trade were looking very good, unemployment was starting to come down, everything was looking rosy, and we know what happened when Labour took over that.

I just add the following final thought. What this would be like with the addition of the Green Party is really quite a scary prospect. So I hope that New Zealanders focus on not just the achievements of this Budget but on the prospect that if we stay the course, we will get steady prospective gains, and there is every reason to believe that—provided we stay the course—and on the dangers of departing from that course, against the background of well-known history.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. There is a whakataukī in Māoridom that goes something like this: “Kai ana ngā kākā, noho ana ngā kererū.”

[When the native forest parrots settle down to feast, the pigeons settle down.]

In essence, it suggests that while the kākā are eating noisily so that everyone notices, the pigeon gets on with the mahi, gets on with the job, without any fuss, and that pretty much describes where the Māori Party has been at. We have been getting on with the mahi. Today we want to share with you some of the work that we have been involved with, acknowledging also that later today we will bring to the House the 21st bill that has been presented by the Māori Party under the Māori Party name over the first 10 years of our movement.

I am really proud of the work that we have undertaken to advance the aspirations of whānau, hapū, and iwi in the interests of a stronger, more diverse Aotearoa. There are three broad categories into which this wealth of legislation fits, and I want to go through them. The first category is around building resilience within whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. We have a suite of legislation associated with the drive for Aotearoa to be smoke-free by the year 2025. There is legislation to increase the duties on all tobacco products, to remove tobacco displays from shops, and to introduce plain packaging of tobacco products. In that social hazard area of legislation, we also had one of my bills, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Bill, which was passed in September last year.

The second grouping is around maintaining the ground that Māori have already gained. A key one that was passed into law late last year was the amendment to the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act put forward, of course, by the Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples. There are also various Acts now on the statute that Pita has sponsored around the Māori Trustee, Māori development, and Māori corporations. We have progressed a whole series of different bills, some on behalf of specific iwi, such as Ngāti Tapu, Ngāi Tamarāwaho, and Ngāi Tūkairangi, who are actually with us right now in the gallery to witness the third and final reading of their bill. That will be later on this afternoon.

Tariana Turia has put forward a series of bills to give effect to a deed of settlement for the original owners of Maraeroa A and B Blocks in the Maniapoto area, and in 2012 I sponsored a bill that successfully repealed the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act. This was a really constructive relationship between the Tauranga City Council and mana whenua through the initiative of the council and Ngā Pōtiki. I have to say that there is nothing more satisfying as a member of Parliament than to be doing the business that your constituency wants to see happen.

There are a number of bills in this category that are about rectifying a wrong, an act of grave injustice by the Crown. Uppermost in my mind is the bill led by Pita Sharples, the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character, Mana, and Reputation) Bill. Another important milestone was the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill and, of course, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, which followed on from our very first bill introduced in the House, the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill.

The third grouping of bills that we have advanced comes through the focus of developing and advancing new spaces for Māori development. We have not always been able to progress these ideas with the support of the wider House, but the important principle for us is that the discussion has been raised.

Into this area, of course, I would mention the following: the Te Rā o Matariki/Matariki Day Bill in 2009, which was to acknowledge the significance of Matariki and Puanga as our own unique cultural markers in Aotearoa; the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill, which would establish Māori wards and constituencies and is particularly important in light of the way in which we are seeing our tūpuna seats, the Māori electorate seats, becoming pawns for other parties to come into Parliament under a mainstream agenda, which diminishes and reduces the whole potency of those seats to represent Māori interests; the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill in 2010 was another one; the introduction in August 2012 of the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill; and the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill in 2010.

We also had built in specific support in our relationship accord with the National Party around legislation related to Parihaka, which has been an important benchmark for our discussions with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. This is just a sampler of the range and complexity of issues we have been able to bring to the House to do the business that our people have sent us to do. I am sure I have forgotten a lot of things that we should have put in, but nevertheless we will pick those up and continue as we move into Parliament the next time around.

In light of the rushed Budget legislation recently that targeted Kyoto foresters for arbitrage, we all need now to focus on the fraud that has become New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme—a case of fraud through “sticking to the course”, to quote Mr Groser from a moment ago. There are, as we all know—except this Government—structural flaws in the emissions trading scheme. One is the scope for arbitrage. This has not been remedied, simply distorted. It selectively halted the ability of foresters to leave the emissions trading scheme one day and rejoin the next, making a windfall profit. That has now been fixed. But emitting industries remain free to game the scheme through arbitrage involving New Zealand Units.

Through Government disregard and incompetence, the emissions trading scheme has become ineffective. The collapse in local carbon prices from $21 to $4 provides little disincentive for carbon emitting and no incentive for mitigation or storage. The collapse of our national carbon market is linked to the collapse of the international carbon price. Linkages between New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme and the global market are maintained by allowing into the scheme overseas units such as certified emission reduction units and emission reduction units.

Emission-intensive, trade-exposed entities, which include aluminium, iron, steel, cement, whey, wood, and paper, are free to bank profits from the emissions trading scheme—cash for pollution. They receive free allocations of New Zealand Units as compensation for any energy price rises brought about by the emissions trading scheme—not cash for clemency, cash plus clemency. These industries are also required to surrender units to clear liabilities. This is dependent on calculations based on their emissions profile. They can surrender New Zealand Units or Kyoto Units, such as emission reduction units and certified emission reduction units.

These overseas units are valued between 10c and 40c. They are engaging in the arbitrage by receiving free New Zealand Units from the Government, then selling them at market prices of $3 to $4, then buying cheaper overseas units such as the certified emission reduction units and emission reduction units for anything from 10c to 40c to surrender back to the Government. They bank the profit. In some cases, this is in addition to existing tax-paid subsidies running into the tens of millions of dollars. Let me acknowledge that these activities are entirely legal, but they are morally reprehensible and they reflect Government stupidity and cynicism of the highest order. They amount to the moral crime of ecocide.

The Government is aware of this activity while choosing to discriminate against forestry. This is ironic given that those who actually grow trees, which are good for the environment, are being targeted while an industry that continues to pollute profits from a scheme that was meant to curb its pollution—“sticking to the course”, to quote Mr Groser. This activity demonstrates the unpredictable sham that New Zealand’s climate change policy has become, and especially its emissions trading scheme. The emissions trading scheme currently does nothing to mitigate climate change, but instead places a cost on taxpayers while enriching certain industries—sticking to the course.

Let us now consider the fiscal risk to the Crown under the emissions trading scheme. Note that since action was taken to close arbitrage opportunities from one sector post-1989 forestry, the price of the New Zealand Unit has risen about 60 percent, from $3.10 on Budget day to $5 today. That is good, but emission reduction unit prices have dropped from 17c to 12c over the same period, as post-1989 forest owners sell units they can no longer use.

Whom do they sell them to? They sell them to sectors that can still take advantage of arbitrage. This includes energy-intensive, trade-exposed, industrial emitters that are gifted free New Zealand Units each year under the emissions trading scheme pastime of carbon polluting. As a result, the potential arbitrage on allocated New Zealand Units, still permitted, has widened from $2.93 a unit to $4.88. So the regulation introduced on Budget day has increased potential profit for industry by almost $2 million for every $1 million of New Zealand Units allocated—in other words, in total, $70 million on the $35 million units allocated in the past year.

This increase alone dwarfs the fiscal risk to the Crown that had to be so urgently dealt with in the last amendment to the post-1989 deregistration. Of course, the answer was to have prohibited all arbitrage opportunities in the one bill. That really would have been sticking to the course. What have we done to deserve this Government?

Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. It is very clear that this Government has delivered a confident Budget for a confident nation. It is very much reflected in your communities when you are in and about your electorate, because you can actually feel the confidence growing. After 6 years of a National Government that has worked incredibly hard to get the books balanced, New Zealanders know and they can feel that confidence. They know the economy is growing, they can see that their incomes are rising, and they can see that the number of jobs is growing. All of those things give them a fantastic, confident, positive feeling.

Unfortunately, if you look across the other side of the House, there is not a skerrick of confidence. I think if you actually look at the make-up that the Hon Bill English talked about before, you potentially have this kind of crazy-shaped Opposition potentially made up of Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, and Internet Mana. So it is fairly obvious why there is not a lot of confidence over there and why there is not a lot of positivity. Actually, if you look at those members, they seem to just shrink further down each time they come in to the House, and they have less and less to say and contribute, whereas this side of the House is focusing on New Zealanders and what is actually important to them.

I want to talk about a couple of things in particular. I want to talk about a couple of things in the area of health and pay tribute to our Minister of Health, the Hon Tony Ryall, because as he leaves Parliament, having come in in 1990, he leaves health in a much better condition than any Government previously. In just this Budget alone, there is $500 million for families, which includes an increase for under-13s getting access to free general practitioner visits and prescriptions. There are a couple of things that have not got too much attention that I would like to bring to the attention of the House. One of those is the $40 million that has gone into Healthy Families New Zealand. Often, when you are talking to people, they want to know that you are actually addressing the underlying causes of issues. With this $40 million into Healthy Families, we are actually looking at the causes of poor health, which include being overweight, smoking, and excessive drinking. We have found an initiative that actually works, that actually produces results in terms of community health, and that actually addresses the very underlying issues so that we can address these concerns. We are rolling out this Healthy Families initiative to 10 communities around New Zealand, and I think it is going to be absolutely fantastic. Families will see a significant difference.

The other initiative in the Budget that I do want to bring to the attention of the House is the $20 million into rheumatic fever. This is an initiative that was jointly supported by the Māori Party. If you look at a place like Tokoroa, where we launched it with Minister Turia, it is focusing specifically on an issue that affects the most vulnerable families and families that do not have high incomes. Absolutely, we are addressing the issues concerning our most vulnerable families, and one of these is rheumatic fever.

I think we are doing fantastically well. The response and the confidence that New Zealand communities are showing as a result of these very sensible initiatives that really get to the heart of some of the communities’ concerns—that is why New Zealanders are feeling more confident and feeling more comfortable. I am pretty sure that that will also be reflected when we go to the ballot box.

I do want to finish my contribution today in this general debate by paying tribute to a constituent. I want to pay tribute to a constituent, Keith Crate QSM—awarded for cycling—who passed away in my electorate this morning. He was the former Deputy Mayor of the Taupō District Council, and really, I would say, was the father of cycling for anyone who has participated in the round-the-lake cycling challenge. He led the Lake Taupō Cycling Trust for 15 years. So he will be a huge loss to the Taupō community, and I want to just pass on my concerns and put them on record for the House. Fa‘afetai.

Speaking of crazy-shaped coalitions, let us look across the other side. National is going to have to look and see whether ACT is out of the dock before it goes into coalition negotiations, but that is while it is dealing with a guy who is howling at the moon and who is not sure whether or not there has been a man put on it but meanwhile sure he has seen Elvis down at the supermarket. If you want to talk about crazy-shaped coalitions, the other side of the House should look in the mirror.

On 20 September New Zealanders face a very real choice. And what do they face? They face a choice between two New Zealands. They face a choice where only a few are getting ahead. The previous speaker, Louise Upston, talked about the confidence that she is feeling while she is out there. Well, I suggest she is talking to the very few people who are getting ahead under this Government. She certainly is not talking to the 46 percent of New Zealanders who have not seen a pay rise this year but have seen a rise in their cost of living. She has not been talking to the New Zealanders who are struggling. She is not talking to the New Zealanders for whom housing is increasingly becoming a luxury they cannot afford. There is no air of confidence when you are talking about that.

But New Zealanders face a very stark alternative on 20 September. They can elect a Government that is willing to tackle these problems. They can elect a Labour Government that does have a solution to the housing crisis and is not going to sit back and think some kind of magic market with fairies at the bottom of the garden is going to fix this problem. Maybe this is in between howling at the moon.

Labour does have a plan. We are going to roll up our sleeves and we are going to build 100,000 houses over 10 years that will be available to New Zealanders as affordable homes. We simply have to increase the supply of housing in this country, and this Government does not have big-picture thinking that sees a way to do that. It just howls that it is unachievable and it is unaffordable. Well, I am sure they would have told Michael Joseph Savage in the 1930s that that was the case too. It is time to be brave and it is time to fix things. We will also re-gear our economy so it is geared to the productive sector, and we will stop people investing in the housing market and driving prices up, through the introduction of a capital gains tax. We make absolutely no apology for the fact that we will disincentivise absentee landlords from driving up the price of houses.

On Monday, in my electorate office in Hoon Hay in Christchurch, it was 3 degrees outside. I had several visitors to my office that day. One visit that has stuck in my mind all week was that of three young people who came in to get a cup of tea and get warm because they were living in a car with another one of their friends. They had been living like this off and on for over a year. It is shameful that this is happening in our country. Meanwhile, this is a Government that is telling beneficiaries to come to Christchurch and it will give them a thousand bucks, but that it has no plan to house them. This is not good enough. But what do we have? In my electorate I have a 70-year-old constituent who, at the moment, is couch surfing. This is not the kind of circumstance that I want anyone to live in—let alone elders—in our community. We need to have a plan.

What have we had from the National Government in response to Labour’s plan? It has had the audacity to pull the racist card on us. I refuse to listen to that kind of hypocrisy from the party of the dawn raids. I refuse to listen to that kind of hypocrisy from a party that is willing to sit by and watch the income gap in this country grow between Pacific Islanders and non - Pacific Islanders. When that Government has a plan around housing, then maybe it can do something other than come up with distractions. This is a Government that has failed to do anything to address the housing crisis in this country. This is a Government that sits back, and its Ministers tell us: “No, we’re not going to have problems, because the market is magically going to come in and put it right.” The shrieks and hysterics we are hearing are not credible, and I want to start hearing from the Government members some answers to the housing crisis.

This is a Government that has had four priorities in this, its second term. The first is to responsibly manage New Zealanders’ finances, because, of course, we need to remember that the Government’s finances are New Zealanders’ finances, and we have done that. The Hon Bill English should be congratulated on returning the Government’s finances to surplus in a context of the worst of economic times, having inherited a basket case economy from Labour after 9 years of the best of economic times.

I am reminded of the contribution made by my colleague sitting in front of me, the senior whip, Louise Upston, when mentioning the initiative for rheumatic fever and conquering that terrible disease. What did Labour do when it had 9 years in Government? What did it do about rheumatic fever? Absolutely nothing. So it is a good idea to remind the House and remind New Zealanders that in this term of the National Government we have addressed some of those difficult and very meaningful issues that beset New Zealanders.

We have built a more productive and competitive economy. I have already said that we inherited an economy that was going into recession, even though Labour would not acknowledge that fact. Now, 6 years later, under the constant and stable stewardship of this Government, we are looking for an economic growth rate of between 2 and 4 percent in the next year.

This Government had a priority of delivering better public services and it is that that I really want to delve into a little more, but I first want to say that the fourth and, arguably for us Mainlanders, most important priority is the rebuild of Christchurch. I have to congratulate housing Minister Nick Smith, who this morning, when speaking to the Social Services Committee, outlined this Government’s plan to address the housing issues in Christchurch. It runs from things like introducing special housing areas to making sure that the Christchurch City Council is up to speed in its consenting processes, because it has not been. The plan has been around social housing and making sure that there is enough affordable housing for the people of Christchurch.

It is so easy to forget now, is it not—it is so easy to forget—that 3 years ago there was a series of major earthquakes that absolutely shattered the city and its infrastructure. This Government, as one of its main priorities, has put so much focus on, and effort into, the rebuild of Christchurch for all New Zealanders.

I did say that I wanted to concentrate a little on public services. It has been our public services that have delivered wonderful education and health services for New Zealanders. I want to talk about another of this Government’s priorities, and that is supporting children and families. This Budget contains a $500 million package of support for children and for families. This Budget is focused on families and on those most vulnerable children who most need our care and protection.

It has got five elements. First, this Government—and it is this Government—will extend paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks. That is 4½ months that new parents will have with their newborns. Second, the Government will significantly boost the parental tax credit. That is something that this Government is doing. Third, the Government will invest $90 million over 4 years to make doctors visits and prescriptions free for children under the age of 13. What a wonderful, wonderful policy for the children of New Zealand. Fourth, there will be an increase in funding in early childhood education. We want most kids to go to early childhood education before they go to school. Finally, there are measures to protect vulnerable children. This is a good Budget. Malo.

I wonder where we are going as a nation and what is important to us. I asked this question of some university students just yesterday, and here is what they said. They said that they need pathways into young people owning a home. Currently, they are priced out of the market. They need coding in schools to learn how to make their own operating systems and to learn how to protect their privacy as a nation and as citizens. These university students said to me that nobody represents them in Parliament and that they are a youth of great ideas, wanting to be equal and wanting to be represented. They also said that we need to address underemployment. There is work, but much of it is for little pay with inconsistent hours. We funnel fresh adults into university with no direction, loading them with debt before they know what they want. They said to me that as young people and teenagers they are not taught anything about the political process, nor do they feel like they are able to have an effect. Most of all, they want a forum through which they can express their well-informed views, and to feel as though they can effect change by voicing their opinions. They asked me to note that it is not very promising when our Government ignores the overwhelming majority of opinions in referendums.

Plato said that one of the penalties for not taking an interest in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. I have got great news for those students. There is a fresh new breeze on the political landscape. It is being formed at the moment, and it is called the New Zealand Independent Coalition. It is a collective of people who recognise that we need to plan for our future and that the future is our own. Nobody is going to give it to us; we have to plan it and make it ourselves. If we plan it correctly, it can be magnificent. We need to value young people. We need to look to the future. In 2020 there will be 6 billion people with 75 billion devices connected to the industrial internet. We need to isolate the jobs that will be lost, because thousands of jobs will be lost with the new technologies. In 2020 there will be 3-D printers, and we will have them just like we used to have fax machines. We could be having a birthday party and we could just plug in and say: “OK. Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.”, and out will come cups and glasses saying “Happy Birthday, Mr Speaker.” Manufacturing as we know it will be turned on its head. As I said, thousands of jobs will be lost. But thousands of jobs will also be created. We need to be planning for children, young people, and existing workforces so that we can give them the skills and competencies so that we as a nation can compete in that new world.

The industrial internet is the internet of everyone and everything, on every screen. It is coming. There may be some dinosaurs here who try to make snide comments, but they will be gone at the next election. They do not realise the massive change that is coming. It is quite interesting because down there is a party that purports to represent seniors, but what has it done for seniors? In the 1960s we had a situation where we had this much tax going into this much societal need with senior citizens and those who were unemployed. But now it has been inverted, and we have this much tax. In 2020 over 20 percent of our citizens will be senior citizens, and we need to plan. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. I have heard a party say that we need more retirement homes. What a lot of rubbish. What a crock. What we need to do is plan. Japan recognised this problem 15 years ago and it has done something about it. Japan values its senior citizens, and it values the integrity and the dignity of senior citizens. Of course, there are some exceptions, but on the whole that is what we need to do. I will repeat again—the future is ours. Nobody is going to give it to us. We need to plan and make it ourselves, and for New Zealand it can be magnificent.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the general debate today. I would like to join the long line of others in congratulating our Minister of Finance, Bill English, on a great Budget 2014. It was a confident Budget and one that shows that the National-led Government is continuing to support jobs and higher wages and to help New Zealanders and families get ahead. These things really matter to us all. Budget 2014 shows New Zealand is heading in the right direction. It is the National-led Government that has an economic plan to help get New Zealanders ahead.

I have had a lot of feedback from the Chinese community and it has been very positive. Members of the Chinese community have expressed their strong confidence in the National-led Government. It is clear to them that the National-led Government is committed to economic development and it is able to deliver. Why? Because many of us experienced the disastrous years before 1978 when China was closed and the Chinese socialist economy was on the verge of collapse. In those years everyone was equal, but everyone was poor. New Zealand’s economy grew by 3.1 percent in 2013 and is forecast to reach 4 percent growth next year. This is despite the global financial crisis and the devastating Christchurch earthquakes. It is growing because the Government has taken the helm and has responsibly managed the economy over the last 6 years. We have not gone on a spending spree like Labour did when it was in Government. We are fully aware that there is not an unlimited pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, yet our books are now back to surplus, to the tune of $372 million, growing to $1.3 billion in 2015-16 and $3.5 billion in 2017-18. We have achieved this by working hard to responsibly manage the economy.

We need to continue to build a more productive and competitive economy, and I am confident that we will be able to do even better. This is partly because New Zealand is well positioned to strengthen its economic relations with Asia-Pacific countries, which include the largest economies in the world, including the United States, China, and Japan. We have excelled at expanding our trade relationship with China. China was our second-largest trading partner over 2 years ago, when I had just become a member of Parliament. Now it is our largest trading partner, with a trade volume of over $18 billion. I have no intention to take credit for that. However, I did make a contribution to that.

In 2010 the Prime Minister, John Key, and the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, had a meeting. At the meeting they set a target. The target was to double our bilateral trade of $10 billion in that year to $20 billion by 2015. Obviously, that target will be behind us very soon. This year in March, when the Prime Minister was visiting China, he had another meeting with the Chinese leader, this time with President Xi Jinping. He proposed a new target of $30 billion by 2020. Now we have a new target, and I am very confident that we will be able to meet the target. Just today the New Zealand Herald published an article entitled “China vital to export growth plan”. So it is very clear that China is particularly important.

We used to have a trade deficit with China. Now our imports from and exports to China are largely balanced. Looking ahead, it is very clear that we will have a surplus and it will continue to grow. However, we should not take our strong economic trade relations with our trading partners for granted. We need to continue to work hard and invest more. For that reason, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will have $69 million extra funding. With that extra funding, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will be able to grow New Zealand’s—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.