General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. In an effort to contain the spiralling downward credibility of its leader, David Cunliffe, the Labour Party today released a fiscal plan. I have to say I was a bit disappointed. It looked a lot like the 1996 one, which looked a lot like the 2002 one, which looked a lot like the 2008 one. They can all be summed up in three simple words: tax and spend. On the way into the House I was asked what I thought about it, so I said that: “Yep, nothing new—tax and spend. That’s what you’d expect.”

Actually, the truth is that what I think about it does not matter; what matters is what the Greens think about it. What matters is what the “German-Māori Billionaire Poverty Party” thinks about it. Why does that matter? Because there is no real, plausible, alternative Government where the Labour Party has much more than half of a Cabinet. So this plan does not represent what an alternative Government would do. For instance, it leaves out the carbon tax. That is not in there. That is not referred to. So what the Greens think about this plan matters. It leaves out free tertiary education, which apparently is the top priority for the “Billionaire Poverty Party”. It leaves out free tertiary education. What the Greens think matters.

We have only had to see the spin that the Labour Party got into over Māui’s dolphins in the last 24 hours to see that Labour is the tail on a very green dog. The leader of the Labour Party had three positions on oil and gas exploration

I can sum them up in one sentence that has been used before—it is not original—“I was against it before I was for it, before I took a balanced position.” Or was it the other way round: “I took a balanced position before I was against it, and then I was for it, and then I couldn’t remember, so I sent the media to ask Tamati Coffey.”, who is clearly the new—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Well, he is effective. He has been on TV more than the rest of the Labour Party put together.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: He’s been consistent.

He has been consistent. He sounds authoritative. He has probably done more background homework than the leader of the Labour Party has done on the oil and gas industry—that is what a poor effort the leader has made.

Whatever anyone thinks of Labour’s finely honed fiscal plan—as I am sure its architect, Mr Parker, thinks it is—does not matter, because it is not the plan for an alternative Government. Nothing like it. So I am looking forward to hearing the Greens’ version of it. Their questions will be “Are the higher taxes punitive enough on the people we do not like?”, “Is the spending wasteful enough to make it worth it, or should there be more?”, and “How can we hide the impact of a $25 carbon tax from all of New Zealand’s households, who will have to pay one big new tax on top of Labour’s list?”. Then, of course, we will be waiting while the—oh, yes, the “Internet Billionaire German-Māori Party” is not here today, so it will not be able to tell us.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, the member still has a minute.

Mr Speaker, I thought you had had enough. This is the truth of the debate over the next 3 months: it is not about what is in Labour’s plans; it is about what the plans of the multi-headed hydra of the Opposition are. In no way does the Labour Party document that was put out today reflect the potential for more damage, more spending, higher taxes, and more disregard for the livelihoods, incentives, and aspirations of New Zealand. The real shame of this document is just how out of step it is on its own merits with a New Zealand that is increasingly forward-looking—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Positive.

—and positive, that understands incentives for work and rewards for effort, and that is flexible, innovative, and resilient. On top of that, the Labour Party is planning to dump its view of big government and take more of your money, because it apparently knows how to spend it better. We know that the Greens, of course, will do that with speed.

Party vote Green on 20 September—party vote Green. The world has changed and we need new ideas and modern thinking to solve the problems and to seize the new opportunities. Old parties leave our economy, our planet, and our kids in a worse situation than ever before. Years of being hands-off has proven to be a serious let-down for our kids. The Green Party is ready to step up and kick off a new approach—an approach that invests in our people and in our planet. We love New Zealand. It is time for a new deal under which all our people and the whole of our planet will prosper.

Three more years of National puts our kids and our environment at risk. I am asking New Zealanders to give their party vote to the Greens and to join us in removing the National Party risk from this Parliament. We need a Government that looks after every New Zealand child. When one in four New Zealand children lives in poverty, something is seriously wrong. National does not even know about those children and it cannot even see those children, let alone plan to build a fairer society for those children. National prioritises oil companies over our environment. Our beaches, the Māui’s dolphins, and the forest parks are all at risk from National’s oil agenda. We want to protect our precious places for all of us to enjoy and for our children and their children. National has run out of ideas on the issues that matter. It does not want us to follow the rest of the world on climate change. It wants us to follow the rest of the world as a tail rather than be the leaders on climate change that we know New Zealanders are. National is out of touch with the cost of living, and we see that demonstrated in this House every day.

The Green Party has never been more ready to deliver a better future for every New Zealander. We will invest in our children’s future to change their lives. We will deliver real support to our kids, end child poverty, and bring back hope for young New Zealanders. Already we have announced free doctors visits for all children from 0 to 18, community services in schools, dedicated nurses in schools, a national school lunch fund, and removing discrimination from Working for Families that leaves out the very poorest kids.

Our economic opportunities are green. We will steer our economy towards smart Green innovation that will deliver more and better jobs while protecting our environment. Our climate tax cut that puts a price on carbon will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and deliver a tax cut to all New Zealand families and businesses, while our Green Investment Bank makes capital available to new sustainable industries to innovate in existing industries and to develop new well-paid and sustainable jobs and the opportunities of a 21st century global economy.

Our environment is at the heart of our identity. We will step in to protect the environment and the precious places and species that make New Zealand the best place in the world to live. Every river should be clean enough for our children to swim in. It is their birthright to have the basics of clean water. We will fight to protect conservation land and our marine environment from the dirty mining industries that National puts ahead of everyone else. It puts our Māui’s dolphins, our communities, our critically endangered species, and our forests at such risk. I am asking New Zealanders to give their party vote to the Green Party at this election to deliver to the country the Government that they deserve: a Government that puts our children and our environment at the forefront of every decision that we make and that puts children and our planet at the heart of New Zealand politics. Party vote Green on 20 September. Thank you.

I was out door-knocking at the weekend, as I have been for the last 3 years, and what I want to tell you is I have seen a change. When I was walking up the streets, I really expected to hear people say they were voting for different political parties, but what we heard was, yes, they were voting for National, and there were a few people who were voting for the Greens, but people were not declaring for Labour. I have been door-knocking for a number of years now, and it actually dawned on me when that Labour Party list came out that when you have nearly a quarter of candidates in the Labour Party not willing to associate themselves with that party, something is seriously wrong. We have a very clear choice at this election. We can vote for a party where there is not a whole lot of confidence in its leader, where you do not have a united team, where you have policies done on the hoof, and where you have flip-flops all over the place. But if you compare that with a party that has a leader, the Prime Minister, who has the extraordinary confidence of New Zealand and who has delivered over a very difficult period, there is only one choice at this election, and it is party vote National.

What people are saying to me is that it is really clear: all of the rhetoric that comes from the left-wing parties says we do not care. Well, I am going to run through some of the reasons and some of the policies that show that our party has done more for our most disadvantaged than any of those Opposition members did in their time in Government. Under our Government there have been six successive increases in the education spend—$857 million in the last Budget. Under our Government there have been six successive increases in our health spend. We have programmes: $20 million for rheumatic fever, and a second cochlear implant for some of our most disadvantaged. We have got breakfast in schools. In terms of early childhood education, there is another $155 million, which is particularly for some of those children who may never have had access in terms of their families before.

In this Budget there is $284 million to help build more modern, better schools. In terms of our record with young people, we have incredible results: almost 25,000 young people were placed in employment and training under Youth Opportunities. There are 13,000 jobs that were created under the 90-day trial period. We have invested $148 million in wraparound services for youth. So to those members opposite who continue to claim the rhetoric they always have done that we do not have a strong social conscience, they are wrong. The reason that our party is polling at over 50 percent is not only that we are a standout economy in terms of bringing our country into surplus in one of the most difficult fiscal times ever—particularly, we believe we had the largest hit of any developed nation in the world in terms of the Canterbury earthquakes. You combine all of that and you see us in surplus, but then you see the extraordinary social investment we have made.

The Deputy Prime Minister made the point that just because other parties are claiming they are going to spend more money, that does not mean they are going to do the best for New Zealanders. Under our Government there are more immunisations, more children have got National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, and more Māori and Pacific students than ever are getting those results.

So what we are really clear about is that under our Government, with less money, we have done more. We have helped some of our most disadvantaged New Zealanders, we have got our economy and our books in order, and we also have a united team and a Prime Minister whom we believe in. That is the difference at this election. Why would you vote Labour if a quarter of its caucus members will not even put themselves on the Labour Party list? We have a leader we believe in. We have delivered for New Zealand. We have the best policies to deliver for another 3 years. Party vote National.

Why you would vote for Labour is if you want a better country. That is what we stand for. Today we released our alternative budget. We are not going to be diverted by the cynicism of our political opponents or the exaggerated and incorrect attacks by people who, frankly, have been unbalanced and unfair in their criticisms.

I have not got time to go into that today. I am going to be focusing on the positive agenda that the Labour Party will deliver if we are elected, and, as today’s announcements show, in our alternative budget everything is paid for, plus we are in surplus. We do collect additional revenue from the capital gains tax, which is largely a tax on those people who are the wealthiest in society. In fact, the top 5 percent of asset holders pay the vast majority of any capital gains tax.

We apply the additional revenue we collect to things that make the economy stronger, the cost of living lower, and people’s lives better. We give taxes back to business through a research and development tax credit and through accelerated depreciation. We give tax credits to all of the other people who come into a universal KiwiSaver and we give them their Kick-start payment. We provide some additional money to low-income families through the Best Start package because we know it is disgraceful that in this country we have got rising rates of child poverty.

We do something serious about housing. Our tax pushes that way with our capital gains tax. Our KiwiBuild policy is funded through money the Crown borrows initially to build the houses that are onsold to New Zealanders, who pay the money back to the Government. This is all shown in this budget. There is a small tax increase for the highest income earners in New Zealand. It applies to the 2 percent of New Zealanders who earn more than $150,000 per annum. Their tax rate goes up to 36c in the dollar, which is a far lower rate than applies, for example, in Australia. Our tax system becomes fairer and funds other services that we need. We increase the trustee tax rate to 36c as well, so that we stop trusts being used as tax-avoidance vehicles. We crack down on multinational tax avoidance. All of this is spelt out in this document, which shows that everything is paid for, plus we are in surplus. Indeed, our surplus is slightly larger than that which the Government projected in its Budget.

We restart contributions to the Cullen fund because we believe in a sustainable superannuation scheme. That is why we report our debt figures as net debt, including the Cullen fund. Otherwise, that is misrepresented by the Government. By the end of 6 years we repay net debt down to 3 percent of GDP—i.e., we pay off all of the debt that National has clocked up over the last 6 years. We know how to do that because we ran nine surpluses in a row when we were last in Government.

Our policies upgrade the economy. We upgrade the economy towards better-paid jobs, more secure jobs, career paths and hope for our young people, and a fairer distribution of income and, therefore, less inequality in our country. Currently, we have got the lowest rate of homeownership in 50 years, and homeownership rates are still dropping. We have had a huge increase in the sale of luxury cars. We have got increasing rates of child poverty. We have got increasing gaps between incomes in wealthy suburbs and poorer suburbs in Auckland. And yet the Prime Minister denies that we have got rising inequality.

Our fiscal plan is responsible. We do balance the budget while we invest in a future for New Zealand that is more prosperous and more fair. The revenues that we garner more than cover our modest increases in expenditure. A lot of those increases in expenditure are themselves tax cuts in other parts of the economy. I am sure that our plan is going to go down well.

There is nothing quite like an election date coming close to let us think about some of the statements that have been made over time about the wonderful system of MMP that we have. I would like to quote David Lange, who said that it was “the flea on the tail of the dog wagging the dog.” To quote another very well-regarded member of Parliament the Hon Steven Joyce, he said to me and a few of us earlier on that if the answer is Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First—and Andrew Little sitting over there—and Hone Harawira, Kim Dotcom, Laila Harré, and Pam Corkery, then let us have a look for another question. It is bloody—it is absolutely frightening to think what a piece of unparliamentary language dropped into a general debate could possibly mean for the order of the House.

But when we think about Labour and its releases today, you have got to wonder just how far it would want to go. What Labour members have released today in their fiscal policy is one thing, but it is completely different from what they were saying just a couple of years ago, and it will be completely different from what they say down the track if the New Zealand public were stupid enough—thank goodness they are not—to invite them into Government. Who knows where that motley crew would end up, bearing in mind the policy that they have announced today?

One of the things I find really interesting is that a couple of years ago when Labour was in Government it decided that you were rich if you earned over $60,000 a year and so it taxed you at 39c in the dollar—39c in the dollar because you were rich if you earned over $60,000 a year. Then Labour changed its mind, and it said you were rich if you earned over $150,000 a year. This is what Labour decided in Opposition. If you earned over $150,000 a year, you were rich, and so Labour would tax you at 39c in the dollar. But now Labour has decided that you are rich if you earn over $150,000 but will tax you at only 36c in the dollar. The interesting thing is that Labour members always accuse people on this side of the House of looking after their rich mates. Well, we have found recently they have got a few rich mates of their own that they have been looking after.

Under this National Government, which is so intent on looking after its rich mates, we know that the top 2 percent of taxpayers in New Zealand pay 22 percent of all personal tax in this country. Well, if that is a way of looking after your rich mates, I am sure they are not all that happy about it. What we also find out is that the top 12 percent of households in this country pay 76 percent of all net income tax, before you even account for New Zealand superannuation.

💬 Hon David Parker: What about GST? Tell us about GST.

What we do know from Mr Parker, and he will agree, is that the poorest people in this country pay no net tax because they get Government subsidies for all the GST they pay and PAYE. But having been accused of always being so mean on this side of the House—Labour and the Greens and the rest of their motley crew being the only ones who care—I would like to know why the Labour-Greens Government did not insulate 280,000 homes when it was in Government. Why did it stop at 8,000 homes? Why did it not raise health care for under-13-year-olds to 24/7? Why did it stop at 6-year-olds? Why did it not spend $43 million on mental and physical health assessments for kids coming into State care? Labour and the Greens did not do that, but they are the only ones who care!

Why did they not provide microfinancing options for beneficiaries so that they would not have to run off to loan sharks? They did not bother doing that either, but they are the only ones who really care! Why did they not set targets for child achievement in schools? They did not. They never set a target that they could be held to account for. Why did they not set targets for recidivism for people leaving penal institutions? They did not bother about that. Why did they not set a target for lower crime? The reason is that they did not care enough or they never believed for a moment that they would achieve it. What we found when we came into Government was a skyrocketing prison population and an estimate that it would carry on growing. They never once set a target to achieve any social indicator. The only target we know they set was for more women on their side of the House, and it is going to shaft them.

Well, we have an interesting day in the House today, because David Parker has put a document on the table. There are our numbers. There is our plan. It is out there 3 months before the election. It is out for scrutiny. The media, the analysts, and everybody will pore over it, but the plan is out there.

I have got to say that Bill English has in this Budget projected a $500 million surplus, but we know that that surplus, of course, is balanced against and taken from $500 million out of repair costs in Christchurch. But here is a fact for Bill English: Bill English has never actually achieved a surplus. He has projected one, he has targeted one, he has promised one, but he has never actually delivered one, compared with the Government that David Parker and I were part of, which did not deliver one or two or three surpluses but delivered surpluses every year for the 9 years that it was in Government—every year for 9 years. [Interruption] Do not worry, Tau; there will be a job at the Porirua pub where you can go back to being a bouncer or something akin to your skill base. But for 9 years—for 9 years, every year—the Labour Government delivered a surplus.

So here is the plan: I say, as David Parker has said, show us the dough. Show us the money. There is our plan—it is out there; open for delivery, for scrutiny—and it stands. It stands well because it is a quality document. And what will it do? Well, as David Parker said, we will actually reduce debt. We will actually reduce and pay for the debt that this Government built up over its last 6 years.

Chester Borrows, of course, talked about who gets what and who pays the majority of tax. But poor old Chester did not get the abacus out, did not add three letters in—GST—when he made his spurious calculation. That is the credibility of that economic genius over there. Part of the tax base, Chester, is derived from a thing called GST, which your Government put up after it lied to the people of New Zealand and said that it would not. That is a promise that the Government made, and it lied to the people of New Zealand because it broke that promise. Now Mr Borrows, in his shonky figures, forgets a big chunk of the tax base, and he cannot add it into his calculations.

As Mr Parker has said, everything is paid for in this document. Every line item is paid for in this document, plus we achieve a surplus, which, in the first year of our Government, will be the 10th we achieve, added, of course, to the other nine. It will be No. 10. At the same time, this document puts in place a series of programmes around employment, around health, and around education, that back the battlers in this country—the good entrepreneurs, the people who are trying to get ahead, the people who are struggling out there. They need a decent health system, not the shonky stuff, of course, that the Minister of Health has been exposed by today and yesterday around Health Benefits Ltd—the Ponzi scheme that Ms King outlined.

People want a decent health system. They want the ability to be trained. We have a policy for that, the dole for apprenticeships, and if it had been implemented 3½ years ago, we would have 40,000 or 50,000 young people who would be trade trained, swinging hammers in Canterbury and around the country, contributing to our rebuild, off the dole, paying tax—including GST, Chester, in case you have forgotten—and actually contributing to our economy.

We do not know from this mob over there whether, when we get into Government, anything will be left after the big tax cut for the big end of town and whether David Parker as Minister of Finance will be left with economic archaeology—an industrial graveyard—in terms of manufacturing. They talked about who they said they backed, but, of course, they did not tell you and they did not allude to whom they have run into the ground. If you take dairy production away—which is another sleight of hand by Steven Joyce—it is the manufacturing base, which, in large part, provides a heck of a lot of jobs in this country—

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: How much are you going to tax them?

—that Mr Borrows and his ilk have left and driven into the ground. National does not have a decent monetary policy. Its only monetary policy, of course, is to say: “Do nothing. Everything is fine.”

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: Why isn’t that in your fiscal plan?

I invite Mr Borrows to go back to his constituency in Wanganui and maybe ask some manufacturing exporters. We have a plan. It is fully costed. It is all paid for. We will achieve our 10th surplus. We will back our manufacturers and exporters. We will give those on the bottom of the heap a fair go, which they have not had for 6 years.

Anybody listening to the contribution of the previous member, Clayton Cosgrove, on television or the radio will have done two things. The first thing is they will have turned the volume down, and the second thing is they will have quite rightly concluded that the good folk of Waimakariri made a very sound decision at the last election when they decided that they no longer wanted Mr Cosgrove as their member of Parliament.

It is a great privilege for me to represent the fine folk of Hamilton West in this House and to have served them in that capacity since November 2008. I am now campaigning proudly for a further mandate. I am hoping to be only the third member for Hamilton West since the seat was created in 1969 to secure a third term. It has the reputation, of course, of being the great bell-wether electorate of New Zealand. Therefore, I suggest to people that we look carefully at what is happening in Hamilton West when we decide whether we are on the right or the wrong track. The people of Hamilton West tell me not only that we are on the right track but that they appreciate that we are getting the job done, that we are focusing on the things that matter to New Zealand, and that they want to see a continuation of the John Key - led administration.

New Zealanders know that John Key and his team have governed New Zealand through the most challenging conditions that any Government of this country has faced since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The impact of the global financial crisis has been immense. One needs only to look at North America and South America or the countries in Europe and in most other parts of the globe to understand just how devastating the impact of the global financial crisis has been in so many countries. New Zealanders have had it tough through the recession as well. They know, in particular, that the reckless previous Labour-led administration spent like drunken sailors at a time when it failed to take any significant measures to grow the economy and, therefore, left this country deeply vulnerable when the good times ended and the global financial crisis hit. That is why they are so grateful for the leadership of John Key, Bill English, and their excellent Cabinet team.

New Zealanders are scared witless at the prospect of a weak, Labour-led administration, with a Prime Minister whom even his own colleagues do not respect, and of being dependent on a volatile cocktail of extreme Greens, who want to stop everything in their tracks and who oppose every possible measure for growth, development, and prosperity. A Labour-led administration would then be propped up by the “Billionaire Poverty Party”—goodness knows where it would take things and what the price of its support would be—and possibly two or three other combinations. What an appalling combination that would be for a Government of this country.

It is very important to get the economy right, because, ultimately, an economy is all about people. It is about the impact of economic decisions on health, law and order, education, and all those important areas where we are working to deliver public services of a first-class standard—and we are. Look at the record over the last 6 years, where, with less money to spend, those people out on the front line in our public services have lifted their production, lifted their delivery of services, reduced waiting lists in our hospitals, boosted elective surgery, raised educational achievement, and reduced crime right across the board. Things are looking good. Why would you put that at risk?

This is a Government that is getting the job done, and in Hamilton West that is the message I get from my constituents. I believe quite firmly that they know they must stay the course that we are on. The evidence has been out just in the last few days when we have seen 3.8 percent growth in GDP, putting us right up there in the top bracket, above most of our trading partners. In the eurozone it is 0.9 percent. Here in New Zealand it is 3.8 percent. So when we hear our opponents talking about increasing inequality or all the rest of it, they need to get beyond the rhetoric and look at the figures, because the figures show that income inequality is not increasing; it has flat-lined. In fact, those people at the top end of the tax bracket have had it a little tougher in respect of having to pay more of the tax. Most of my constituents are now paying only 17.5 cents in the dollar on income tax.

This is a Government that is getting it right and delivering for New Zealanders. It deserves to be re-elected, and I am proud to campaign for that end.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. In the next—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called Tracey Martin. Your time starts again. [Interruption] Order! If the members want to have that conversation, then they can leave the Chamber. Tracey Martin—starting now.

New Zealanders, I would suggest you take note of the two major parties that you have just heard trying to out-policy each other. Within the next few weeks, New Zealand First will have up on its website its refreshed 2014 manifesto. The New Zealand public will be able to go and see that manifesto and see why New Zealand First lives up to its name and actually puts New Zealanders first. Rather than trying to compete for a political arena, we concentrate on putting the people of our country first in every decision we make.

With regard to the education policy that will actually come up on that website, I am proud to have participated strongly in the writing of that education policy and to have consulted front-line people in education. We have not decided to pick an academic expert who suits us, similar to what this current Government has done. We have gone and spoken to the parents and the teachers, and had the student voice inside the development of our policy.

New Zealand First is going to put the aspiration back into education. For example, take one little aspiration, which this Government continues to articulate but cannot live up to, that of five out of five students being successful. This Government cannot get even five out of five charter schools successful. This Government, forced into a position by one of its three other coalition partners, has actually created an environment where it has handed over $8.6 million worth of taxpayers’ money in a single budgetary year—in a single budgetary year—and it cannot get even five out of five schools right. I am asking you, the parents of New Zealand: how many teacher aide hours would that actually pay for, do you think, for your Asperger’s child, for your autistic child, or for your child with any other special needs? How many one-day school places for gifted and talented children do you think that would have provided? The fact is that this Government lost its aspiration for your gifted and talented children by removing the “well above” achievement category of its flawed national standards. It decided that just having the “above” category is fine. The Government has no aspiration for New Zealand’s children.

But let us go back to the fact that it cannot even get five out of five special schools right—schools funded for the ACT Party; the legacy of a dying party. Let us have a look at Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru. On 29 May the Minister of Education stood up and said that these schools would be more transparent and more accountable and that the contracts would hold them to account on assisting those students or they would be closed—or they would be closed. That was in May. On 17 April the business director of Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru resigned. The Ministry of Education put in a supervising facilitator because the place was falling apart, and the Government knew it was going to. Previously, prior to it even being said that it would become a charter school, the authorisation board—headed by, again, an ex - ACT Party president, and with John Morris on it, no less—recommended that this particular applicant go forward.

The ministry tried to advise the Minister yet again that this would be a mistake. The ministry said that the applicant had a long way to go to arrange suitable facilities, finalise the academic curriculum, and find suitable staff. So the ministry identified all the key risks. We also have the fact, disclosed under an Official Information Act request, that half the school was not built, as was pointed out by New Zealand First in December 2013. The school shifted its focus from the toilets, which were not going to be ready, to then decide that it would not have a kitchen ready, so the children could not continue.

The other thing that was really interesting about this Government was that it told the public of New Zealand that these schools would have an open-door policy—that any child could bowl up to a charter school and access these schools. Have a look at Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru’s enrolment priorities. You have to be the child of a staff member first, you have to be Ngāti Wai second—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Leave them alone. Why don’t you leave them alone, you bully?

Because, Mr Henare, those children have been let down by your Government. These were among the most vulnerable children—seven of them had to be removed to be protected from other students—and your Government does not care. Your Government, as shown in documents, has hidden it, and kept a lid on it. As the Ministry of Education employee and Official Information Act documents have quite clearly pointed out, the Government has said it will not tell the public; it has kept the lid on it for as long as it can.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Keep your nose out of it.

Mr Henare and this Government do not care for vulnerable children. This was spin, and New Zealand needs to see through it.

That was a stunning contribution by Tracey Martin, I have to say. I honestly believe that people have been making up their minds about this coming election—which I think will probably be the most significant election in a generation, for a number of reasons—over the last year or so. There might be a few votes here or there as we get closer to the election and the noise increases, but, actually, I think people having been sitting back, living their lives, and what it will come down to for them is the direction that the country is heading in. I think it is as simple as that. Does the voter, as a New Zealander, feel as though the country is heading in the wrong direction or in the right direction? If people believe it is heading in the right direction—and we know from recent articles in the New Zealand Herald and a number of other media commentaries that 60 to 75 percent of the country believe the country is heading in the right direction—the next question then becomes whether the voter has trust and confidence that that direction can be maintained. I actually think that we can stand here and bluster and carry on as we do in this House, but out there in the real world, for the people whom we are here to serve, it boils down to those two things. Is the country heading in the right direction and can they trust the leadership to continue that direction? On both those counts, I know why the Opposition is worried, and it is because on both those counts, the voters believe that the National-led Government is the answer.

Then we look at the Labour Party today. As Opposition parties will do, it has tried to launch an alternative. It has decided all of a sudden that it has got this new vision of what will resonate with the New Zealand public, and it is not all about the beltway. Actually, that seldom resonates with people out there in the real world, in my view. Labour has now suddenly decided that it has got an alternative financial policy position that it will take that will lead to the promised land. I have a couple of issues with that. One is the fact that it is a sort of Back to the Future tax and spend approach. Nothing Labour has been doing is working so its approach is “Let’s go back to what did work and give that a go.” What we do know is that when that was last working for Labour, during the 9 years of the last Labour Government, it was a fair-weather sailing situation. The Labour Party is a party that knows how to sail well in fair weather.

The reality is, though, that what this country has faced and what political leaders, businesses, and families have faced in this country over the last 5 or so years has been very, very stormy weather—unprecedented. It was the perfect storm, if you actually look at it in that sense. So, in many respects, the reason that what the Labour Party is saying is not resonating with New Zealanders—“We returned nine surpluses!”—is because that is all well and good when it is fair-weather sailing, but when the storm hits, I would put it to you that New Zealanders actually understand that that is not good enough. And why is that? It is because for New Zealanders, Government is not the answer. The Government simply resources the community to go about doing its best to create the opportunities and to create the jobs through the right economic conditions and the right policy direction. We just enable; we do not provide the answers. That is the problem. The Labour Party has this crisis of thinking that because it delivered nine surpluses during the fair-weather years, New Zealanders will think that it can do it now. They actually do not. By now, they have been telling us that.

I think the issue that the Labour Party has is an identity crisis. New Zealanders might not be completely politically engaged with what the Grant Robertsons of this world believe is important, but they are quite savvy; they get a sense of it. The sense they have is that for Labour to be able to form a Government, it has got to cobble together and bolt on a whole lot of pieces that actually do not make sense in themselves. They do not actually make sense. They do not make a complete picture. One of the challenges that the Labour Party has in its identity crisis is the Green Party. The Green Party is the political equivalent to that kind of weird uncle who always turns up at Christmas time and makes everyone feel uncomfortable because he is a bit freaky and he does not quite fit in this place. That is the identity crisis here, because the public realises that for the Labour Party to be able to in Government, it has got to bring the weird uncle into the equation, but New Zealanders do not actually want the weird uncle.

So what I see is that there are two things on which New Zealanders will determine this election, and I believe they have already done it. Those are: are we heading in the right direction, and can National continue in that direction? And we can.

A Labour Government will transform the New Zealand economy into a higher-value and higher-income economy through higher investment, innovation, and industry development. But it will do more than that—it will actually transform our nation into a tech-savvy nation. But in order to do that, it has to tackle the technology issues that exist within our own public sector. It might interest members on the other side to hear that Government agencies are significant users of information and communications technology products and services. They are a direct employer of skilled workers in information and communications technology, and a customer of local product markets. Government purchasing in New Zealand makes up almost 15 percent of GDP—15 percent of GDP. That is significant.

It is the Labour Party’s view that there are many huge, costly IT projects inside the Government. They often go badly and it results in vast sums of money going offshore. Departments are secretive about their technology products and they do not share them, even with other departments. Historically, the willingness of Governments to adopt proprietary software has enabled various vendor monopolies within Government IT, and there are significant issues emerging around this that are impacting on our Government and the way that we operate, but it is also being seen across the world, particularly with the countries with which we do a lot of business. Citizens, businesses, and delivery partners such as charities and voluntary groups need to be able to interact with Government officials, sharing and editing documents. Officials within Government departments also need to be able to work efficiently and to share and collaborate.

It is also the Labour Party’s view that the one-size-fits-all approach to public sector procurement and build processes is fundamentally flawed. It costs this country millions of dollars every year in failed software projects, robbing us of the chance to be a world leader in the development of innovative public sector products. All I have to do is mention Novopay. More than 2,000 schools are still struggling to deal with this dilapidated system. There is more than $9.3 million in debts to recover, and ongoing errors are still creating hundreds of thousands of dollars in new debt. As for the Inland Revenue Department project, we have a Government that is demanding that IT contractors be massive and slow moving. Even the former Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne has got problems with the way that the procurement processes have occurred—$1.5 billion. These are things that we have serious concerns about, and it is not just us who have serious concerns about it.

Interestingly, apart from the wider sector, which has serious concerns, the New Zealand Productivity Commission also has concerns. Last week it released its latest report, and in it were some damning findings about the lack of integration within the Government on information and communications technology policy to do with regulatory issues and to do with Government information and communications technology purchases. It referred to siloed thinking in Government departments, a lack of coordination, and regulation being introduced without regard for economic impact. That is very interesting, because it even made a recommendation that said, as a matter of promoting good policy advice, that “The Treasury, the State Services Commission and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet should ensure that the design of regulations that significantly affects the adoption of ICT by firms takes comprehensive account of costs and benefits.” If that does not tell you that you have got problems, then I do not know what does.

The biggest problem here is the lack of leadership. There is a lack of leadership and a lack of vision on that side of the House around tackling these very important things. This report went on to say that “knowledge spill-overs from Government ICT procurement are only likely to have value if the Government is at the leading edge of ICT adoption.”—which it says it is not—“On the contrary, the technologies that government agencies use are often older than those used in the private sector. For example, some agencies continued to use Windows XP long after it has been superseded by more recent versions and right up till security support was withdrawn by Microsoft.” That was in April this year. There are nearly 20,000 Government computers being used without security support at this point.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call at this time because I do want to say to my colleagues in the House that it is all about trust and it is all about empowerment and that this is a Government that knows what it is doing for a country that knows where it is going. New Zealanders want a Government that they can trust and Māori want a Government that they can trust. Māori want a Government that will listen to them. Māori marched, Māori protested, and Māori demanded that the Crown honour the Treaty. In 1975, at the “Not one more acre” Māori Land March, we heard the word “rangatiratanga”; in 1978, at Takaparawhā, we heard the words “mana motuhake”; and in 2004, at the seabed and foreshore hīkoi, we heard “Honour the Treaty”, “rangatiratanga”, and “mana motuhake”. We heard rangatiratanga and mana motuhake.

Māori came knocking and the National Government opened that door—not the Labour Government, but National. We have had 69 Treaty settlements. All the claims in the South Island have been settled. A pragmatic approach to settlements is a focus on equality. With our partner the Māori Party we have targeted whānau. There is $500 million supporting tamariki and whānau, including $172 million for paid parental leave, $42 million for parental tax credits, and $16 million for Māori housing. That is a Māori housing fund, and that is over and above our partnership with iwi, the Tāmaki Collective, Kirikiriroa, and the Kōkiri Te Rāhuitanga Charitable Trust—these are just some of the partnerships that we have forged as of right under the Treaty of Waitangi.

In hauora, free doctors visits and rongoā, prescriptions, for under-sixes are extended to under-13-year-olds. There is $33 million targeting the whānau in most need. There is $15.8 million in disability services for our people. There is $830 million in education, including $359 million to strengthen leadership in schools. Although I hear the Opposition talk about principals and head teachers not wanting to participate, make no mistake about it that there are schools in South Auckland and schools in west Auckland that are more than ready, more than willing, and more than capable to step up into those positions.

There is $2.4 million for the Reading Together programme for deciles 4 and 5 kura, and $12 million for Te Reo Māori. There is $80 million for kirikā rūmātiki, to battle a Third World disease—rheumatic fever. This National Government has done it. And $8 million is going into suicide prevention. In terms of whenua, there is $5 million for te mana o te wai. There is $3.5 million to assist beneficiary whanau to take up full-time mahi in Christchurch.

If you do what you have always done, you are going to get what you have always got, and so that means that if we did nothing for Māori and if we did not honour our responsibility under the Treaty of Waitangi, we would have got what we have always had under the previous Government. But this is what we have got for that investment. This is what Māori have done for themselves under rangatiratanga and motuhake. This is about empowerment.

The early childhood education participation rate for Māori in 2013 was at 92 percent and climbing. There were 77 percent of 18-year-olds achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 in 2012, and that number is rising. Māori NCEA level 2 achievement or equivalent rose higher than in any other group—54 percent of Māori school leavers achieved level 2 in 2009, compared with 45 percent under the previous Government. In 2012, 28 percent of Māori students were in tertiary education and studying at a Bachelor’s degree level, compared with 21 percent in 2007, and that figure is rising.

Fifty percent of those in trades training are our tāne Māori. Yes, we are getting about a five out of five achievement rate and success rate for our kids in school. Under the previous Government, it was three out of five, and that Government was satisfied with that. The two who were failing were our Māori and Pasifika tāne. This Government is intent on and focused on getting five out of five achievement, and that includes our boys, our tāne, who were failing under the previous Government.

I call the honourable member Dr Kennedy Graham. [Interruption] Order! Can I just take the opportunity to advise members who are new to the House that in the general debate it is the custom and practice that as soon as the bell goes, members sit down.

Over the past few months I have intervened on a number of occasions in the general debate to draw our collective attention to the issue of climate change. I have heard it said, including in this Chamber, that the Green Party does not own the issue of climate change. We could not agree more. The issue is owned by humanity—which includes the National Party—so the Greens do not have sole ownership.

But shared ownership does not in itself mean shared insight. The Prime Minister, as we have noted before, was sceptical of global warming as recently as 2005, a decade after the previous National Government signed the global treaty acknowledging it to be a threat to the future of humankind. On becoming Prime Minister, Mr Key allowed himself and therefore his Government to acknowledge climate change to be a problem, but the sceptical mind-set remains. Its mutated form lives on in policy prevarication. We are small, so mitigation is not essential; it is long term, so mitigation is not urgent; and as long as it is not urgent or essential, we can continue with our mercantilist, “New Zealand Inc.” approach to the world, where we earn dollars through raw commodity export earnings off the global economy. Wrong on both counts. Mitigation by New Zealand is essential and it is urgent.

It is urgent because serious climate change has already arrived. This week the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a finding that May 2014 was the hottest month in recorded history. The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surface was 0.74 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average—15.5 instead of 14.8. Is this significant? Yes, because it is part of a pattern. Four of the five warmest Mays on record have occurred in the past 5 years. May 2014 is the 351st consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. Does this matter? Yes, because it is linked to severe climate change, beginning with precipitation. Extreme wetness, says the agency, was observed in May over Europe and equatorial Africa, while extreme dryness was experienced in South America and Australia.

Why go into such detail on what is essentially a scientific issue, and so soon before an election? Because this is the House of Representatives and we are meant to be responsible for the future of this country and our people. Because although we sit uncomfortably in our chairs here when the subject comes up and avoid eye contact, the fact is that climate change is the biggest issue to confront us ever. So when we receive news of this kind reinforcing the obvious, it needs to be read into the record of this House, even if only once. It needs to be on record that this House was warned, during debate, over the impending danger of a warming climate.

So what might this Parliament do then in response? We could begin by taking seriously the Wise Response petition, which calls for a national risk assessment supported by cross-party endorsement. We could agree that our Parliament has two responsibilities: a short-term one to protect the job security of the present generation, and a long-term one to ensure the next generation has half a chance to protect their quality of life. And even a distant responsibility that would recognise the possibility of a sea level rise over centuries and millennia of 10 to 20 metres if Greenland and Antarctica are truly in irreversible ice-melt.

If this sounds politically surreal in 2014, perhaps we are in new and uncharted territory. We could then acknowledge together the international advice that today’s preventive measures will actually be economically advantageous to us all. Then we could agree, even with an election looming, that we will not misrepresent each other’s policies, and could search for common ground that can underpin an enduring national climate policy, because this climate thing is bigger than politics and bigger than all of us mortals alive right now, really.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.