General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Just last week, Pattrick Smellie said that the National Government was wise to go to the election early because the economic news from here on gets worse. In other words, this is as good as it gets. In a year when 46 percent of New Zealanders got no increase in their wages, his message to New Zealand is that National has gone early because it gets no better than this. The economic recovery is built on a housing bubble in Auckland and the Christchurch rebuild. Exports have peaked; from here, they go down.

You might think “Well, Pattrick Smellie—a trusted economic adviser.”, but who else is saying this? Just yesterday, Shamubeel Eaqub, the chief economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, said that raising interest rates is a huge mistake at a time when inflation is incredibly low and you are doing it only because of the housing market in Auckland. He said: “It scares the hell out of me because the collateral damage rises with each increase. You risk tipping them [the regions] into recession.” He said that, yes, house prices are out of control in Auckland—that is me saying that—and that they have gone up by 20 percent in real terms since 2007, but in the rest of the country they fell by 21 percent during the same period. That is, of course, excluding Canterbury. He then said that the gaps opening up in New Zealand are really big across geographical, race, and education lines, and that one of the biggest issues of this generation is the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. That is from the chief economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. That is his conclusion after 6 years of a National Government.

Across both sides of the House—Labour and National—we favour consistently stronger economic growth. Indeed, since World War II, the rate of economic growth in real terms has been slightly higher under Labour than under National. We both stand for economic growth. I do not deny that. National does stand for it; we do too. Of course we do. We are the party of labour and we need jobs and higher incomes. But the bigger difference lies in our desire to share that around fairly so that the economy is stronger and everyone gets ahead. It is Labour that always brings forward the long-term structural changes that reduce inequality. National is not worried about that. It denies it is occurring. Despite decreasing homeownership rates—the lowest in 50 years—increasing child poverty, an increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots, and the refusal to tax capital gains, National denies that inequality is getting worse, despite the fact that someone like Shamubeel Eaqub, the chief economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, says that those gaps are widening in every way.

We believe that long-term solutions are important. That is why we introduced KiwiSaver, which National voted against. We believe in making long-term savings through the Cullen fund, which Bill English described as a dog when he voted against it and now says is a good idea. It is now time to move to universal KiwiSaver. New Zealand is dissaving again at the moment. We are actually borrowing more money from overseas because we are not saving. We are spending more than we earn. We are dissaving. One of the answers to that is a capital gains tax. Another important answer to that is a universal KiwiSaver scheme. That is what they have got in Australia. That is one of the reasons why they have got higher wages in Australia. It is one of the reasons why they own their banks, plus ours, plus so much of our corporate sector. They have a work-based savings scheme. Everyone in Australia has to be in it.

We hear National saying that the low-paid should not be able to afford to save. We think differently on this side. We think that everyone needs a nest egg. We think the economy is stronger as a consequence. If people at the bottom end cannot afford to save, they need a lift in the minimum wage and a push towards a living wage. Higher wages is what they will get under Labour. Following through on that we will have higher growth rates. We will have a lower exchange rate, higher values in exports, and more high-value jobs, all at the same time as avoiding this ridiculous housing bubble in Auckland that has arisen under National.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just concerned that perhaps we need to turn up the heating in the House because Mr Henare is obviously very, very cold over there. I just wonder whether you might like to increase the heating so that he can take that scarf off.

I cannot see a valid point of order coming out of that, but I will comment that the level of interjection through that speech from David Parker was unreasonable. I hesitated over whether to assist the member, but I did not want to—

💬 Hon David Parker: I didn’t need your assistance.

I agree he did not need it. I did not want to interrupt his speech. It is a robust debate—it is the general debate—but the level of interjection must be reasonable.

In the next few days the Labour Party has to come clean about every contact with Mr Donghua Liu and every donation from him, because if it does not come clean, it may be unable to save its leader. That is where it has got to. The reason the Labour Party has to explain all those contacts and donations is that no one trusts what David Cunliffe says about the donations and the contacts with Mr Donghua Liu.

It is not as if this House has not had the opportunity for every member to understand that Mr Liu has been active in the political scene. Partly as a result of declarations of donations from Mr Liu, Maurice Williamson stepped down from his job, so it is not as if no one knew that Mr Liu was about. There does appear to be one person who either did not know or did not care, and that is David Cunliffe, the leader of the Labour Party. The reason no one trusts him is this: “Do you recall ever meeting Mr Liu?”. “I don’t recall ever meeting him, no.” “Did you have anything to do with granting his permanent residency?”. “No, I did not.” “Did you advocate on his behalf at all?”. “No.” “Were you aware of any advice against granting him permanent residency?”. “Not to my recollection.” That was yesterday. Today, of course, we have the letter that he wrote advocating exactly for his permanent residency.

Any member of Parliament can say: “I don’t remember writing a letter some time ago on behalf of a constituent.”, but the problem is that when David Cunliffe says that, who will believe him? You cannot believe him. This is the man who set up his own personal trust as part of his leadership campaign precisely to hide donations—precisely. When asked to reveal those donations, as his leadership rival Grant Robertson did, he still would not reveal those donations, so how do we know that one of the donors is not Mr Donghua Liu? How do we know? We do not know.

So Mr Cunliffe has a very simple problem. If anyone trusted him before—and who knows how many of those there were—will anyone trust him now? I am not talking about the public. I am not talking about the Government. I am not talking about the media. I am talking about his own caucus. So as the champagne is popped in Grant Robertson’s office today and David Parker wanders off on his intellectual journey across the Sahara trying to find something that might mean something to being in a future Government, do the rest of the members of the caucus trust what David Cunliffe says?

💬 Hon Members: No.

And you can tell that by looking at them. You can tell that by looking at them. So the Government has made up its mind, the public have made up their minds, and the media have made up their minds There is only one question left: when will the Labour Party caucus make up its mind?

Was that not very interesting—that Bill English had nothing to say about what that Government’s future is for this country? All that Government members could do was get very excited about a letter about an MP advocating for a constituent. That is all they can get excited about. Well, I can assure New Zealanders that on this side of the House we are excited about the future of this country under a Labour-led Government, because it is under a Labour-led Government that we will actually get that brighter future, that so-called brighter future that that lot have been promising for year after year but most New Zealanders are yet to see. What New Zealanders see instead is those at the very top getting more and most New Zealanders going without and struggling every day to make ends meet.

Those are the issues that concern us. Those are the issues that concern the Labour Party. So we are doing something about it. We are not going to go into this negative sort of picture that the Government members are going into. Their politics is the politics of negativity and of trying to muddy the waters. Ordinary New Zealanders know that they will not make progress until there is a change of Government, and they know very clearly now that it is a Labour-led Government that will actually look after the interests of ordinary New Zealanders—actually look after the interests of ordinary New Zealanders.

New Zealanders have seen our fabulous Best Start policy. They have seen it and they know it means that families with newborn children will get $60 a week extra for the first year of that child’s life, and if they are low-income families, they will continue to get that $60 extra a week until that child’s third birthday. Those are the sorts of things that New Zealanders want to hear about when they switch on their TVs and watch Parliament TV. They want to know what that lot over there are doing to make ordinary New Zealanders’ lives better, and the conclusion they are coming to is that most New Zealanders need a change in Government to actually get a fair go in this country.

It is clear that the economy is starting to improve. It has taken far too long, but it is starting to improve, and what ordinary New Zealanders want to know is whether they are going to get their fair share. Under a Labour-led Government they know they will. They know that a Labour-led Government is one that actually knows that investing in the early months of New Zealanders’ lives is going to make a big difference. That is actually smart economics and smart politics, and ordinary New Zealanders know that if we get it right in those early months and early years, all of us get to reap the benefits.

I was dismayed to see the games that have been going on about our bill to extend paid parental leave to 6 months. The Government has got nothing better to do than to try tricks and games to stop that bill from going through. Despite the majority of parliamentarians wanting it and despite the majority of New Zealanders wanting it, that Government is putting all of its energies into stopping that from happening. Well, here is good news for New Zealanders: the bill can go through now with a two vote majority and there is time for that to happen before Parliament rises for the election.

I look forward to the National Party trying some positivity for a change. Try to do something positive and stop filibustering on that bill. Stop trying all your tricks. You might think it is smart to have those tricks here in Parliament, but New Zealanders are watching. It is absolutely offensive to try that sort of trickery around a bill that is important for New Zealand families. You might think that you are funny having a go at the Labour Party, but, actually, if you get in the way of support for ordinary New Zealand families, they will not forgive you for that.

So I look forward to the Government actually getting its act together, using the next two members’ days properly, and not trying to get in the way of a very good bill that should have its support. If the Government is trying to convince New Zealanders that it prioritises families and children, then here is its chance to prove it. It has a chance in the next 5 weeks to prove that it will let democracy take its course, that it will let children have that support of 6 months’ paid parental leave in the first year of their life, and it has a chance to prove that it is worthy of leading this country.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1

I ask the previous speaker, Ms Moroney, who said that we in this Parliament should be focusing on the things that matter, where on earth was that speech a month ago, when the Labour Party spent 2 weeks railing against sideshows? If there was a textbook for beginning MPs, the very first teaching in that textbook would be this, I suggest: if one is going to throw stones, be very careful to ensure that one is not standing in a glasshouse. I have run that gauntlet in those 2-week periods. I have been accused of all manner of things and I have responded with an absolutely straight bat, declaring everything, listening to people on immigration policy without fear or favour and without any knowledge of donations. So it absolutely amazed me when I heard today that the Labour Party has not been quite as consistent with the solid ground that it wanted us to be on as it should.

Apparently, the Labour Party has been receiving donations from a Mr Donghua Liu, not that anybody from the Electoral Commission would know, because it apparently has not been declared. So I ask the House whether that failure is imposture or incompetence, because either way, for a party that aspires to lead this country, whatever the answer is, it is not a good look. And it is certainly not a good look for a Leader of the Opposition who has spent not only the last week but this morning denying unequivocally having had anything to do with Mr Liu—“Do you recall ever meeting him?”, “I don’t recall ever meeting him.”, “Do you have anything to do with the granting of his permanent residency?”. I have to say I do not normally disagree with the Deputy Prime Minister, but when he said that Mr Cunliffe said: “I don’t remember.”, actually, Mr Cunliffe said: “No, I did not.” It was not as if he could not remember. He said: “No, I did not.”

Imposture or incompetence? Either way, this fellow aspires to lead this country, and what we have is a man who would change his register of pecuniary interests—no, he will pay the money back before he discloses who supported him in his leadership campaign. He stands in this House and says that Martians are more likely to come here than a boat from Indonesia and then he dog whistles on immigration policy, but does not say what he would do to reduce the number of migrants in this country. That is not the behaviour of somebody who should aspire to lead this country.

But do you know what? He is not alone.

Five months before Mr Cunliffe advocated on behalf of Mr Liu, his ministerial colleague Chris Carter—who was not the constituent MP for Mr Liu, it appears; so why he would, who knows—wrote a letter to Immigration New Zealand saying this: “Look, I know things are a bit slow at Immigration at the moment, but Mr Liu has put $3 million in a bank account”—I hope it was not the Labour Party’s bank account—“and is keen to purchase a particular building for redevelopment. I would be grateful for any consideration that could be given to expediting this application.” That was Mr Chris Carter, on behalf of Mr Donghua Liu.

But here is where it gets really murky. What on earth was the Hon Rick Barker doing—a Minister of the Crown on holiday in China? He did not have a ministerial responsibility for economic development. He was not responsible for immigration. He was not responsible for trade, and he went and visited a concrete factory. He took time out of his own holiday to visit a concrete factory, for a person he claimed not to know and cannot recall. Well, I can tell you there appears to me to be a lot of Labour Party members and former members who are very, very forgetful.

Remember about that consistency—about not throwing stones if you are standing in a glasshouse? Which was the party that accused this side of being a little forgetful? Well, I am sorry, but it must be contagious in this House, because those members appear to me to be a heck of a lot more forgetful, or are they forgetful? I think the public is entitled to ask how forgetful Labour Party members really are. With the benefit of hindsight they seem to remember things only when they are publicly disclosed. This party, this Government, has played a straight bat on every single disclosure it was meant to make. When it comes to the ballot box—

💬 Hon Annette King: Whose great-uncle was it?

My grandfather’s first cousin. That has been absolutely cleared up. Clark knows it; Curran knows it—stop telling fibs. The public has a right to know the truth, and they will make it known at the ballot box.

That member, Michael Woodhouse, is a Minister in the Government, but his mouth so often works for the Opposition.

I want to talk about something that actually matters. I want to talk about jobs, because we are being told that we have a rock star economy. We have a rock star economy. As David Parker pointed out, it is lucky we are having an early election because all the indicators are that it is downhill from here.

So who has benefited in this rock star economy that we are seeing so far? I think the questions New Zealanders are going to be asking themselves are: “Do I feel better off?” and “Have I got my fair share of this rock star economy recovery?”, and overwhelmingly the answer is no. Yes, there have been some people who have done very, very well out of this current Government, but for the average Kiwi family they are struggling to stand still, and too many are going backwards. That is the reality of a so-called recovery under the National Government, and it is only going to go downhill from here.

If we put Christchurch aside, because we all accept that Christchurch is a special case, I sometimes feel as though this Government thinks that New Zealand ends at the Bombay Hills and that the rest of us do not really matter. It has been a long time since I have heard the words “regional economic development” coming out of the mouth of a National Government Minister. I am not surprised that it took an election year for regional economic development to suddenly be paid lip-service to by this National Government.

When we were in Government we had a Minister for regional development. We prioritised it. As members will know, much of the wealth in this country comes from the provinces of New Zealand. If they are in trouble, we are in trouble. We recognised that 9 years of a National Government in the 1990s had put our regional economies and regional communities at risk, and so we did something about it. We invested in rural and provincial economies.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Does this member read the regional development stats?

Regional economies, Mrs Tolley. Well, she would not know anything about that. If Mrs Tolley thinks that things are going great on the East Coast and in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, then I suspect that shows how arrogant and out of touch she is.

What have we had in Gisborne? In Gisborne we used to have a rail line. There was a washout on that rail line, and instead, when you put this in the context of the billions and billions of dollars being spent on roads of national significance around Auckland, all we asked for was less than $4 million to fix the rail line from Gisborne to Napier. Everyone wanted it—everyone except Mrs Tolley. Everyone wanted that rail line reopened, and the National Government said no. It said to the Gisborne community: “No. We don’t care that you are the most isolated district in the country. We don’t care that you’ve had enormous success at getting traffic back on that rail line. We say no, we won’t fix it, but here you go. Have $14 billion more for roads of national significance up around Auckland.”

In the Labour Party we think that is not fair. We think that regional New Zealand deserves the same kind of attention that Auckland gets, and it is important that Auckland gets attention—it is our only international city; I absolutely support that—but the rest of us matter as well.

So, in lieu of our rail line, the National Government said: “Instead of a rail line, you can have an economic development potential report.” So we got this report. It cost $200,000—$200,000—to tell us what we already knew. It would have been better to give that $200,000 to our council to actually do some good with in terms of economic development, instead of having the Government tell us—and this was great—“The East Coast suffers from a perception of deprivation.” No, we do not. We suffer from deprivation. That is the whole point. It is not a perception; it is a reality, and this Government is doing nothing about it. Inequality is getting worse. The gap between the haves and have-nots is widening, and unfortunately we have far too many have-nots on the East Coast and in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

So, basically, we knew what the report would say. It would say that if you do not want jobs in the oil and gas industry, stop whingeing about being unemployed. That is essentially what it said. Any jobs that come from that industry would be very welcome on the East Coast, provided the environmental protections are there. I think that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s recent report showed that there are big gaps in that, but the chances of us finding something commercial are very small.

Do you know what? We in the provinces think we deserve a plan B. We deserve a plan B in case plan A, which is the only plan the Government has, does not come to fruition, and it is more likely that it will not than it will. So where is the plan B for the provinces? Where is the plan for those communities that make up the backbone of this country? It is not there.

A Labour Government would play an active role in regional economic development. We funded forestry roading in Gisborne last time we were in Government. That is the kind of thing we would look to do again. We would work with the provinces, rather than working against them, as this Government does every day.

It is a difficult day for Mr Cunliffe when the C-team is being rolled out in the general debate. We had David Parker and then we had Sue Moroney and then Moana Mackey, a list MP for Labour. They are hardly a ringing endorsement from the Labour front bench. Look, I know what they are going through. Having been in Parliament for 24 years, I have seen a lot of this—leaders in terminal decline. You get your normal blusterers on the front bench who just keep chipping and chirping the whole time and not making any sense, and then the only people who will front up in the debate to back you are the people who installed you as the leader. No one else will front. No one else will take a call. No one else will defend what has gone on here.

What we have seen happen in the last 2 days—2 hours, even—is another example of the fact that David Cunliffe lacks situational awareness. He never understands the fact that you cannot say one thing to somebody one minute and then another thing to somebody else a few moments later. We have seen it time and time again. Whether it is talking to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, whether it is talking to the teachers, whether it is talking to people in business, or whether it is talking to journalists, there is a lack of situational awareness. There is a lack of actually knowing that what you say to one group is going to be reflected upon by another. We have seen that time and time again with David Cunliffe. We are seeing it time and time again with the Labour Party. It is spiralling out of control. It has a complete lack of leadership and no moral authority. But what is worse is it has no alternative vision for the future of this country.

This is a Government that is focused on a plan of action and is focusing on the things that matter. This is a country where most people think the nation is heading in the right direction. This is a country where people think the Government is playing its part and New Zealand is heading in the right direction. More jobs, more opportunity, better education, better health, better targeted support—that is what New Zealanders think. This country is headed in the right direction and Labour Party members hate that. The reason why they hate that is because they are completely focused on their own problems. So here is Mr Cunliffe, who only a few hours ago denied he had ever met Mr Liu and said the Labour Party never got any donations from Mr Liu. And here we have today a letter from Mr Cunliffe making representations on behalf of Mr Liu. It is just not consistent with what he has been saying previously. It is hugely embarrassing for Mr Cunliffe and for the Labour Party.

💬 Hon Member: Will he survive?

Will he survive? Look, I think that when you consider the calls that have been made by senior and respected journalists, the lack of participation from the front bench in this debate—in fact, the lack of participation from any bench of the Labour Party and any bench opposite in this debate—speaks volumes. I will tell you what is happening. Those members are all in their little groups, in their friends’ offices, saying “Can he survive this? Do you believe what he said on this? What more is to come? What about these donations for the bottles of wine that haven’t been declared, and is there anything more? What is going on with that?”.

While the Opposition is focusing on its internal problems, this is a Government that is on the move. It is a Government with a plan of action. It is a Government with a vision for New Zealand. I think that every day we see the benefits of the leadership of our Prime Minister, John Key, who is out there talking to world leaders about the opportunities for New Zealand in a vast growing world. The global opportunities for trade, investment, and wealth—that is what our Prime Minister is talking about. And here at home, led by our Minister of Finance, we have got a Government focused on the things that matter: creating the environment we need for people to take a risk and invest in their businesses, and to grow jobs in this country. Indeed, the contrast between the centre-right and the hard left could never be clearer than it is today.

Tempted as I am to do otherwise, I will give Mr Cunliffe the charity of my silence as he seeks to work his way out of a nigh impossible predicament. I want to talk about another couple of issues that are in a similar vein and have the potential to adversely impact upon the current election campaign.

It used to be said that every New Zealander enjoyed one vote of equal value. What we are seeing through the antics of Mr Dotcom and Mr Craig is a sense of people with large sums of personal wealth to divert the political process in such a way to promote their own objectives. I think that is reprehensible, and I think strongly, particularly when you think of some of the crackpot notions they are both promoting, that it is something that New Zealand can well do without. In Australia another crackpot called Clive Palmer, the man who brings a new car to Parliament every day, spent $12 million to buy his way into the federal Parliament at the last election. An eccentric football team manager in the United Kingdom spent £1.5 million funding the United Kingdom Independence Party to spread a poisonous, racist message through Britain during the last European and local elections. We are now seeing the same trend starting to appear in New Zealand.

So one of the tasks that the Electoral Commission and the appropriate select committee in the next Parliament will need to confront, in my view, is examining the level and limit of personal donations to political parties. I have no objection to people supporting political parties—funding them, making their donations in a way that is open and accountable—but I think there is a clear line to be drawn between that sort of upfront, open process and rich boys with their toys simply funding political parties to promote their own selfish objectives. I think most New Zealanders would agree with that objection.

The second point that I want to raise relates to an issue that has been around this House from time to time. It has got the colloquial name of waka jumping. We have got it on the agenda at the moment because of the Mana-Internet agreement, which actually ceases to be 6 weeks after the election. So in the event that Mr Harawira retains his seat, a whole number of Dotcom MPs arrive here and, clearly, after 6 weeks they walk away from the arrangement. They have got no legal status, no moral authority, and, yet, they sit in this Parliament, draw the privileges, the allowances, and the money, and promote Mr Dotcom’s continued residence in New Zealand.

It is time for this Parliament to revisit the legislation that was in place some years ago but that was stalled in the end because of high horses. Members of Parliament who are elected in constituencies are accountable to those constituencies. But members of Parliament elected on a party’s list are primarily accountable to that party, and when they choose to leave that party, their moral and political mandate goes with them and they should be required to leave this Parliament.

We need to revisit that situation and amend the electoral legislation again to make it clear that list members of Parliament who, for whatever reason, usually incredibly ill-founded and ill-considered, decide to leave their party during the term of a Parliament do so, but they leave Parliament as well. Otherwise, we face the prospect in the next Parliament of a loose unit group of MPs coming in here on someone’s coat-tails—and we have had a lot of debate about coat-tailing provisions—but actually intending to desert the coat-tail as soon as they get here. What could be more reprehensible than that?

So when we are talking about standards, and the debate today has generally focused on the political standards of the Leader of the Opposition, there are broader standards here in question. When we are talking about them, let us look at the system. Let us ensure that no one can buy an election in New Zealand in the way that we are seeing two characters trying to do at the moment. Let us also ensure that people who are elected to this Parliament by the voters of New Zealand serve their terms on the basis of the allegiance for which they were elected. If times move on and an electorate MP feels that they cannot do that, then they face the judgment of their electorate at the next election. They have that authority. But if a list MP does not, and we have had one case already in the term of this Parliament, then that person leaves Parliament full stop.

There ought to be a consensus around this House that that is the case, and there ought to be a move for amending the Electoral Act accordingly in the new Parliament to make sure that we deal with that aberration at the very least. Unless we deal with the former question, I think we are headed into a very sad, shoddy, and potentially corrupt period of New Zealand politics.

The tweet of the afternoon comes from Mr David Farrar and it reads that Rajen Prasad has reversed his resignation to come back as leader of the Labour Party. That is how desperate Labour is—nobody wants the job. Nobody wants the job. It is a grave, grave worry for the Labour Party. Last night I was in the parliamentary cafeteria and I just happened to glance across and there was Matt McCarten, chief of staff of the Labour Party, looking very dishevelled, but next to him was an even more dishevelled, absolutely dejected David Cunliffe. I reflected to myself: “What have they done to that once proud Labour Party?”.

First of all, there is a different dimension to this latest revelation and that, of course, is that Labour has shifted under David Cunliffe deeply, deeply to the left. We have, of course, the recognition that the Labour Party leader, whatever he is, must be centre-left—just a little bit pink. But what we have seen on the horizon is this deep hue of red, almost scarlet, as we see the influence of Matt McCarten. We see the coalition partners: the Greens—a total misnomer, undoubtedly, with their Marxist co-leader Russel Norman—followed by Labour’s other coalition partner Mana, led by Hone Harawira, who is to the left of Russel Norman. And then there is the newcomer on the block, Laila Harré. Laila Harré and Hone Harawira are bankrolled by none other than that Germanic oddity who has certainly shown his true colours, just as David Cunliffe will in the near future. But the deep concern about this is that this group of individuals, this coalition of the left, may have the possibility of taking the Treasury benches, but the chances are fortunately becoming less and less and less.

The good news, though, is what a great and justified accolade Rod Oram, political economic commentator, gave the National Government in the Sunday Star-Times in the weekend. Mr Oram is not known for favouring the centre-right, but during the weekend—

💬 Paul Goldsmith: He must be unwell.

Well, that is what I was worried about. He is a law-abiding citizen, so he was definitely not on psychoactive drugs or anything like that, but he gave the National Government three “excellents” and Labour one “excellent”. In fact, Mr Oram praised the National Government and the Hon Bill English, in his words, “for their strong [fiscal] discipline and bold strategy to help us survive the global financial crisis and build for the future.” He praised the National Government, saying that since 2009 it “has improved fiscal discipline, initiated its Better Public Services programme, and set itself 10 big challenges such as reducing welfare dependency and boosting skills and employment.” These are the sorts of things that that ragtag collation of the left could just simply not do, because they are destined to tax more, to borrow more, to lend more, and now to deny more.

But Mr Oram praised the National Government, in his words, for having “bravely tackled the incredibly complex and fraught issues of freshwater regulation.” He goes on and notes that “The previous Labour Government had failed abysmally on these ...” issues during the 9 years it was in office. And these are very serious issues, as Kennedy Graham would agree, but that regime would absolutely fail to address them. Mr Oram praised the National Government for changing New Zealand Trade and Enterprise from a good to an excellent support agency for many of our fastest exporters. And what better praise could Mr Oram give the National Government than when he stated that “Callaghan Innovation’s overall strategy represents the most intelligent ... response yet by a [New Zealand] Government to the challenge of commercialising science and developing a more sophisticated economy.”? Even more, National’s Primary Growth Partnership “is now delivering exciting breakthroughs such as the new technology for precision seafood harvesting.” Finally, Mr Oram says that “National was right in the 2008 election to commit government investment to accelerate the development of ultrafast broadband.”

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Goodness, it is a lively general debate today. I just want to say, Dr Hutchison, that I think quite highly of you, but even I was a little taken aback at that speech and the swipe that you took at us. Perhaps you were getting a little out of your depth when you talked about the Labour caucus’s relationship with its leader.

I want to bring us back to things that actually matter—things that matter to ordinary New Zealanders. I want to bring us back to some basic principles and talk about housing. It is a basic human right to have housing—the right to shelter. Housing in the primitive sense is about protection. It is about having protection from those things that could do us harm. It permits you to establish yourself and to have a base where you can gather those things around you that are important to you. It provides also a base for us as humans to flourish, to restore, and to recover. But when we talk about housing, it is not just the structure we are talking about. We are talking about decent housing that is warm and dry and affordable.

How does warm, dry, affordable housing benefit our people? Well, there are several ways. Let us just look at the health benefits of warm, dry, affordable homes. It is well documented that a home that is in a decent condition—a place that is warm and dry—contributes to the good health outcomes of the population. So with Labour’s healthy homes guarantee, for example, homes will have insulation and heating for those who rent, and you will have a decent standard of accommodation that will help to combat the really high rates of respiratory conditions that our children suffer.

There is also something about the affordability to heat your homes. With NZ Power, we are looking at making the affordability to heat your home a reality for New Zealanders, because having a warm, dry home is a source of well-being for young children and for older citizens alike. Preventing poor health outcomes in our population has a positive impact on the cost of health to our population, not only for the country but also for the overall well-being of individuals and families—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member, but it is not acceptable for a member to be making a call on a cellphone while in the Chamber.

It is well to remember that good housing is essential for a good community. John A Lee said that back in the 1930s, and it is as pertinent today as it was back then. Being able to put down roots and develop links and connections in the community and to take advantage of that community capital—that social capital—takes time, and people need to have time to do that, regardless of whether they own their home or they rent. There should not be barriers to long-term residency in a community simply because of your inability to purchase a home, to rent a home, or to have the support from social providers into housing. Homeownership should be available to all Kiwis who want it.

These are not just individual benefits, either. It benefits the community to have well-networked residents who are aware of their neighbours and the situations that their neighbours live in and who are supportive of them. Difficult times, such as a natural disaster, are times when those connections are most apparent, and recovery in communities would not be possible without there being strong connections in place. So—soon.

Finally, I want to talk about taking a responsible approach to housing, one that considers a person’s ability to pay for housing, which means not only the affordability and availability of that housing but also having the income available to pay for that housing, which for most of us is really the biggest take out of our pay packets each week. I just want to finalise by saying that we want to provide an environment that encourages saving through compulsory KiwiSaver contributions, which means we will save for our retirement but we will also have deposits for our first home, and we will have a tool to manage inflationary pressures as well. Above all, we will make it possible for Kiwi families to put down roots and fully participate in community life. Thank you.

I want to start by referring to the Hon John Banks, and I am conscious that we have a debate about him following this one. The court has adjudicated on Mr Banks that he did the wrong thing, and he has certainly paid a high price for that, and people will make their own judgment on that. But I do hope that, as his active public service of nearly four decades draws to a close, people will recognise that for all his faults he tried his best and he made a significant contribution. It was he who first drew me into politics 18 years ago when I began writing his biography as a green history graduate then working at the Waitangi Tribunal, for better or worse, and I am grateful to him for that.

Three months out from the election, speculation about what will happen in the seat of Epsom is picking up strongly, and commentators can speculate all they like. As we all remember, the party vote was the primary objective for us in the 2011 election, and whether that remains the case in 2014 is for another day, and the Prime Minister has said that many times. But let us not forget that under MMP it is the party with the most party votes that wins the election, and that is the simple reality in Epsom and in every other electorate in the country. The overwhelming sentiment that I hear day in, day out—as my family and I live in Epsom—at school functions, at the supermarket, and on the doorstep is that people want John Key to remain Prime Minister and the National Government to remain in power. This is not at all surprising, because this Government has done a magnificent job in steering the economy through these past 6 difficult years, through difficult economic times. People can see we are heading in the right direction. The economy is growing at around 4 percent, inflation is subdued, interest rates have been kept lower for longer, average wages are rising faster than inflation, and unemployment is falling.

This is the time to consolidate the gains and continue the never-ending challenge of improving New Zealand’s international competitiveness, which is what sustains our living standards. Consistency and predictability lead to confidence, confidence encourages people to invest, and investment leads to growth and jobs. Epsom, which includes the suburbs of Remuera, Parnell, Epsom, and parts of Mt Eden, is full of wealth creators—people who have their own businesses, who take risks and employ people. I meet with them every day and I celebrate their success. Their success is New Zealanders’ success. They look to the Government not to solve all their problems but simply to create an environment of consistency and predictability. They expect the Government to be managed properly and for spending to be disciplined. That is why they support John Key, Bill English, and this Government in large numbers. I am proud to play a small role in that in Parliament and on the ground in Epsom.

What most people struggle to understand is why on earth we would want to lurch in a new direction just as we have got the country heading in the right direction—why we would want a capital gains tax, why we would want to overturn monetary policy, and why we would want to nationalise electricity and become a global leader in climate change policy. So we contrast John Key as a leader with whom you know what you get, with Mr Cunliffe, who cannot recall writing a letter in favour of—

💬 David Shearer: Judith Collins?

Is that not interesting—is that not interesting? Donghua Liu—Mr Cunliffe cannot recall whether or not he wrote a letter to him. I remember somebody else being in a similar predicament. I am reminded of a quote from a well-known UK fictional politician that seems highly relevant to Mr Cunliffe, and it starts: “After the smiles, after the handshakes, after the arms round shoulders and the merry, hollow laughter, after the conditional promise and the purchased friendship, after the elusive, dangling reward, the nagging threat ... After all that, the calculation of the odds, the sifting of the probabilities, and then the fear ... Fear in the smell of damp newsprint and the crackle of the radio ... Fear that this might be the day we wake to find the magic gone.” And I am afraid that that is what is happening with Mr Cunliffe and the Labour Party members. They are hanging their heads in shame at the moment. All the list MPs know they will not be coming back. There is very good probability there will—

💬 David Shearer: You’re a list MP.

Well, at least National is likely to have list MPs after the election. Labour, under all the probabilities, will have zero list MPs, and their stunning careers—Sue Moroney’s stunning career is going to be coming to an end the way things are going, and I feel very sorry for her on that account.

It is very interesting to see John Armstrong and many of the commentators saying right now, right here today that Mr Cunliffe is in deep trouble and Labour is in deep trouble. It is a beautiful thing to watch. Thank you.

During the past adjournment the Green Party launched its climate protection package. It is an understatement to say that this far-reaching policy has been well received. Critics of the policy have been limited to the Government, which fashioned the current scheme, and those benefiting financially from it—they who are polluting with near total freedom while the taxpayer foots the bill. The Minister for Climate Change Issues, true to form, veered off-key and found that the Green policy exceeded his worst fears. That may prove to be the most prescient political statement he ever makes.

Mr Groser’s dismissal of the Green policy was lampooned in the Dominion Post editorial as “lazy and arrogant”. Overall, support for the plan is extremely positive. Business commentator Pattrick Smellie describes the tax as “a good idea” and the Government’s response to it as “mildly hysterical”. Business commentator Bernard Hickey says that “most people think the ETS has been a failure and that New Zealand had back-pedalled on climate action, and that a climate tax would be more efficient than the ETS.” Business commentator Rod Oram said: “The ETS is a scam. The Greens’ carbon tax would fix it.” Business commentator Brian Fallow described it as a way of “shifting the burden from household incomes and business profits and on to polluters.” Prominent economists Matt Nolan and John Small have shown support. Farmers Weekly ran with the headline: “Emission plan to reward good farmers”. The policy was described as a masterstroke on Radio New Zealand’s Nine to Noon.

What of the political commentators? Matthew Hooton concluded: “Embarrassing for all concerned, but on first glance I think I support the Greens’ climate change policy over National’s or Labour’s.” David Farrar said the policy had credibility and merit. Martyn Bradbury calls it “a brilliant political masterstroke”. Political commentator Bryce Edwards says: “The Greens have shown us why they’re still among the smartest operators in politics.” Toby Manhire said the climate tax cut is welcome because “it puts climate change squarely on the agenda for September’s election.”

What of the interest groups? The Taxpayers’ Union said the carbon tax is “simpler, more transparent, and likely to reduce New Zealand’s overall tax burden.” The World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand welcomed it. The OraTaiao: New Zealand Climate and Health described it as a “specific, fair, and realistic plan to curb our greenhouse [gas pollutants].” Forest and Bird said the Green Party is right to be making climate an election issue and to be campaigning for an end to subsidies for major greenhouse gas polluters.

Anyone else? Yes. John Armstrong in the New Zealand Herald said: “In one deft stroke, the policy has the Greens saving the planet, helping the poor, giving big carbon users an incentive to be more efficient, while stimulating investment in more sustainable industries.” Gareth Renowden on Hot Topic said: “This is a carefully considered and constructed set of coherent policies that should deliver substantial emission reductions without causing substantial economic dislocation.”

Since the launch of the policy 2 weeks ago, I have also been meeting around the country with professionals, experts, and stakeholders on the subject. They are, of course, asking penetrating questions, which is a sign of the seriousness with which they view the policy. Some are understandably concerned at the implications of change that the policy contains. Who would not be concerned at the prospect of a fundamental national economic transformation? But without exception they are all constructive in their attitude and they appreciate the answers we are giving. They know, along with the Greens, that policy to date has failed and a new course of direction is required. This is what I would expect because the days are gone when the deniers were given credence and the prevaricators could hide behind the deniers. We all know now that we must undergo economic transformation. The Greens are going to lead in that endeavour.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to stand as the final speaker in this general debate. Not long ago, I think it was about February 2013—most on the Opposition benches will remember this because, I think, it was around about the time of the first Labour leadership coup—Mr Cunliffe chose as his deputy to run with him the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. No doubt the whānau of Tainui would have been ecstatic about this proposition. Yet only months later Mr Cunliffe’s second run at the leadership saw him dump the Hon Nanaia Mahuta in favour of his current deputy. Yes, he dumped a Māori girl from Tainui. That is disgusting. I can imagine how much of a kick in the guts that would have been for Nanaia and how that hurt—how that hurt, and how that hurt resonated through Tainui. That is absolutely disgusting, I say.

Then we on the Government benches watched with interest as the only other Labour MP with heaps of talent—we all know who that was, Shane Jones—quit. He quit because he could not stomach the direction his leader was taking the party in. When it comes to working with the Greens—a Labour-Greens Government, that is frightening. Then, of course, there was the Tāmaki Makaurau candidate selection. What a farce that was. Shane Taurima was ruled out, leaving Will Flavell as the last man standing. But did the Labour leader accept Will? No, he did not. He allowed nominations to reopen, and our Will missed out.

I have observed a Labour Party leader who quite happily tramples on his own MPs and also those who wish to aspire to be on his team, and I do not know why they want to do that. Why on earth would they want to do that? Why would any Māori MP or anybody want to be there on Mr Cunliffe’s team, let alone vote for Labour? Why would anyone trust this man? We have heard all the porkies that have been said. We have read them in the newspapers. We heard them from my colleagues today. The clouds of Cunliffe are dark and uncompromising. They are dangerous.

This country must not let the clouds in, for if that happens, then New Zealand will go back decades. This National-led Government has worked very hard for this country, and the results speak for themselves. Under a National-led Government we are global economic leaders, and nobody—absolutely nobody—can argue with that. All this will be lost if the clouds of Cunliffe and his lies are let in. I reckon it is not going to be long before Labour’s “ABC” club opens its doors again. But then, who wants to drink from the Labour Party chalice, which has been filled with 4poisonous droplets from the clouds of Cunliffe? Kia ora.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.