General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. As we come into the last few weeks before Christmas, it is timely to reflect on all the work that has occurred over the past year, as a basis for all the work that still remains to be done. We need to be doing this because we need to be investing in this small, smart, and sassy country of Aotearoa New Zealand. This Government, of course, does it under the leadership of the most popular Prime Minister in a generation and possibly more than that. He has the support of his caucus, of his party, and of New Zealanders. The Opposition members might ask themselves why he has that support. It is because we are focused on the things that matter. We are focused on building a strong economy. We are focused on moving forward and on ensuring that there are opportunities for New Zealanders to get the employment that they need to build the quality of life they want for their families. It has got to the point where we are now running “Come home, Kiwi” fairs over in Perth and Sydney because we do not have enough people here in New Zealand to contribute to the growth of this economy. So it is time to reflect on what it is we have done and what it is we still have ahead of us.

On this side we have a Government that is focused on the issues that matter; on that side we have an Opposition focused on itself. On this side we know that we have to invest in our people to bring about sustainable change. I have the honour of being the Minister of Education and contributing to the long-term growth of our economy and of our culture and society. The way we are doing that is that parents can go into this Christmas knowing that their children can start in education earlier, stay longer, and leave better qualified. We have a 14-year low in expulsions and stand-downs, and we have the greatest level of achievement we have ever had. The Opposition spends a lot of time focusing on reports and on what is wrong, and very little on doing anything about it. What this Government has done is that it has seen not only the average increase of all young people at school but it has seen an increase in Māori achievement of 19 percent over the 6 years we have been in Government. The Opposition went out satisfied that it was OK for 44 percent of all Māori secondary school students to get a minimum qualification. Pasifika students fared slightly better at 51 percent. We are ambitious for this country and that means every child and every young person. We are now at the stage where Māori are at 63 percent and Pasifika are at 72 percent.

But are we satisfied with that? The answer is no, we are not. We want every young person to be successful so that they can be contributors and they can be powerful actors in their own lives. We are doing this across the country. We get criticism about partnership schools. Well, we are prepared to go as far as we need to in order to give every kid the best opportunity. We are seeing them leaving school better qualified. In Christchurch we have invested $1.137 billion to grow the most modern education system. We have seen successful mergers of schools. We have seen three high schools—Hillmorton, Hornby, and Linwood—gain years 7 to 13 through their mergers. Do we get the Opposition members going down there and seeing the success? No, because all they want to do is cry over problems, but we get on and do the work that is necessary. We have got more young people starting in early childhood education because we know that kids who start behind too often stay behind. We are not prepared to have that happen, so we are now at 96 percent of all 4-year-olds participating in early childhood education.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Because more kids are being born, that’s why.

We hear from a former Minister of Education, whose claim to fame is shutting 259 schools. Ours, here on this side, is opening and investing into schools. We have the biggest property portfolio in schools that we have ever had. We have some of the most modern learning environments. We opened Pegasus Bay School. It is the first new school that will be a net contributor of energy back into the grid. So not only are we getting good education outcomes but we are contributing to a modern 21st century environment that contributes net energy back to the system, and we will continue to do that. We have invested $700 million in ensuring that every school—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been timing that speech. She is over time now, but I move an extension of time—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I keep the time on this debate. The member had 8 seconds, if she wishes to complete her speech.

In those 8 seconds, I just want to say that not only has this Government been able to demonstrate what it has achieved but it is strapped and ready for another 3 years of contributing to the growth and strength of this country. Thank you.

Before I call the next member, the general debate is a robust debate, but the level of noise coming from a particular quarter was completely unacceptable, and it must cease for the balance of this debate.

We always love it when the Minister of Education, the Hon Hekia Parata, gets to her feet, because the longer she stays in office, the longer she stays in that job, we know that the rest of New Zealand is desperate for a change and desperate for Chris Hipkins to take up the role and give us a decent education policy. She stands there and says that we have the most popular Prime Minister in a decade. He is the most slippery Prime Minister in a decade because he has been immersed in whale oil for far too long. He is slippery and blubbery and he is on his way out. He knows he has got 2 years left. He will step down, and Steven Joyce will step up. They will go out in their final year and then New Zealand will have the Government that it truly deserves.

We have been talking this week about the issues that New Zealanders really care about—issues that the Government opposite dare not talk to New Zealanders about because it does not have any ideas and it does not care about working people. We have been talking about jobs because jobs are important and they are the means that people in this country have to earn their livelihood, to get ahead, and to fulfil their dreams. That is important to us. We have always been the party of working people, making sure that they can get ahead and fulfil their dreams. That party opposite has totally forgotten working New Zealanders. They are not just those on a wage or a salary but those trying to set up their own business, those who are contractors, those who work for themselves—but those members do not care. They do not care. Their only contribution to working life in New Zealand is that every time they get their miserable hands on a piece of employment law, they make it worse. They make it worse. They take things off people. They make it harder. They make it more and more difficult for people to get ahead.

Well, I can tell those members opposite—and they have gone very quiet now because they know the truth is being spoken—that New Zealanders have had enough. [Interruption] David Bennett knows. David Bennett knows because he has sat there. Jonathan Young will find out because he now chairs the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. They know that New Zealanders have had enough of the miserable, the money-grubbing, the shockingly desperate Government that can offer nothing to working New Zealanders. They are looking for something new. They are looking for something new. They want a Government that is thinking not just about the next election, not just about the next year, not just about how to get through the next week with more deception and more misleading and more making things up on the spot. They want a Government that is thinking about the issues that New Zealanders care about. They want to know that they have got a party in Parliament now that is thinking years ahead and that is thinking about the current generation of working people, their kids, and the next generation. That is what we are doing.

We are going to go out there with all of the expertise that we have got, the business people we have got on board—[Interruption] Oh, no—oh no, you see. They are so out of touch and so arrogant. They are so out of touch they have lost touch with their base and their community. Business people are crying out for a party that takes the future of work seriously. They have got one now that is going to talk to business, talk to the community, talk to working people, talk to their organisations and unions, and start finding out from New Zealanders how we pave the way to make sure that they get a decent opportunity, they can get ahead, they can get a decent income, and their kids can actually have a real chance and a real opportunity.

💬 Brett Hudson: That’s right—and Labour’s going to promise them five new taxes.

Hollering from the back blocks ain’t going to help, brother. Hollering from the back blocks is not going to help, because New Zealanders want a party that is going to listen, and they have got that. Grant Robertson and the senior MPs in Labour and all the members of Labour will be getting around and talking to the communities, because people now want to have a talk. People want to have their input into some answers about the longstanding questions they have about work. We are not going to be tied up in silly practices or trying to keep our mates outside Parliament sweet because they have locked up all our emails and all our text messages. We are not worried about that. That is that Government. It is on its way out. New Zealanders want a party with some answers. New Zealanders want a party that is going to listen. New Zealanders want a party that cares about their future prosperity and their future prospects, and in Labour they have got it. We are on our way, we are up and running, and it is going to be good. New Zealanders will love it. It is all going to happen here.

I am not going to comment on the speech that has just been made by Andrew Little, which sounded like a speech you might make 2 years after an election, not just a few months after.

I want to talk about climate change. I want to talk about climate change because our interdepartmental team of officials and New Zealand stakeholders have arrived in Lima for the annual ministerial conference on climate change. I will be leaving this weekend for the political segment of it.

I am not going to talk about the science, because basically, in my view, we do not any longer need to debate the science. There are clearly some very important issues at the level of detail but the broad point to me is 100 percent clear. This is a serious long-term issue. We need a far more effective global response. What I want to talk about is New Zealand’s contributions, both domestically and internationally.

The core point on the domestic front is, I think, best summed up still by the report put together with a group of New Zealand climate change scientists led by Sir Peter Gluckman last year, which said: “New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions represent but a minute fraction of global emissions … Any action from New Zealand to mitigate emissions would have negligible direct global impact … Therefore, New Zealand’s contribution … to reduce greenhouse emissions is more of a geopolitical issue …”.

The question is this—this is not a statement about a free pass. This is not a statement saying we do not need to do anything. It is a realistic assessment that without more comprehensive, serious international attention, what we are doing here is a complete waste of time. The real focus has got to be on the international dimension here. In the meantime, in terms of us meeting our obligations, we will easily meet our first obligation under the Kyoto Protocol. Although it takes an inordinately long time to come down to final definitive statistics, we will easily meet that. We have got a very respectable offer on the table for the next commitment period, which started in 2013—a minus 5 percent target. We are prepared to do more under certain conditions. But, frankly, with 100 countries representing 22 percent of global emissions, which did nothing in the Kyoto period and have offered to do nothing in the next period, the case still has to be made. In any event, as the World Bank global carbon markets report of 2013 pointed out, there is a carbon price—whether it is via a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme, a cap in trade, or any other scheme—on only 7 percent of global emissions. So I am absolutely certain that this Government can say we are absolutely doing our fair share.

The more intriguing thing, I think, comes to the international dimension. Let me make this very clear: do I think we are just doing our fair share internationally? Oh, no. I think actually we face, for certain Opposition parties, a very uncomfortable truth: we are vastly exceeding any rational definition of a fair share in terms of what we are doing internationally. I am going to look at this under three headings: what we are doing under climate change development assistance, particularly focused on the Pacific countries and helping them both with mitigation and adaptation, with quite important co-benefits on the development side; what we are doing in terms of international research and development; and, lastly—and never talked about because it does not fit the political narrative—what we are doing in terms of the international negotiations.

On the first issue, I can be relatively brief. We are now hardwired into our development assistance programme in the Pacific—climate change adaptation and assistance with these countries in meeting the challenges. We have accumulated nearly $700 million of assistance, with the help of the European Union, to push that forward.

But in the little time I have, I want to focus on our international climate change negotiations contribution. We have just seen a landmark agreement between the Chinese and the Americans reached in Beijing. They account by themselves for over 40 percent of emissions. The New Zealand proposal for the long-term agreement was the only proposal the US has commented on, and has been described in these terms by the US administration: “We think by far the most interesting proposal on the table is the New Zealand proposal.”

Far from being marginalised, our proposal is central to this negotiation. New Zealand is doing a great deal on the international stage. If we had time to talk about the global research allowance, which you, Mr Speaker, of course helped to launch with me at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ministerial, we are also doing a huge amount in terms of the international dimension there.

Right now I feel the trepidation that many Opposition members feel, having to speak after the Hon Tim Groser, one of the smartest men in New Zealand. What a great Minister of Trade he is. [Interruption] I knew you would love that. I knew you would love that. He is doing a great job for New Zealand.

I am sure that Andrew Little got his idea about the future of work from Taranaki, because there is great organisation there that I want to send a shout-out to called Taranaki Futures. That is an organisation that I helped kick off with a great number of very innovative, hard-working, collaborative people who want to see the people of Taranaki—the young people in particular—having a great future in employment. This organisation has been working hard for nearly 2 years now to understand what the economic needs in the future are going to be and how that is going to define the workforce.

We work hard to ensure that our young people in high school are connecting with employers and industry to prepare for that future. This is nothing new; we have been doing it for 2 years. I can say that last Sunday about 17 young high school students who in this last year have built a bach sold that bach by auction. They had this bach built, consented, and planned. They went through all the work of learning how to build, how to measure, how to quantify, and how to do all of these great trade skills. This bach went up for sale on Sunday afternoon. This one-bedroom bach, about 60 square metres, sold in New Plymouth.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Whereabouts?

Where do you think? It sold for $80,000. Congratulations to those young people. Congratulations to Taranaki Futures, to those high school students, to their teachers, and to the polytech, who all worked together. I heard from one of the principals who was there that day that every single one of their students has already secured an apprenticeship. Is that not great news? Is the future of work not something that this Government has been working on for a long time? We have seen it come to pass.

Here we have two full pages in the Taranaki Daily News showing this great work. You will see on this page all the adverts of all the businesses that collaborated with this. What the Opposition is talking about, what it thinks is a brand new idea, is nothing such. It is something that the innovative, hard-working, collaborating people of Taranaki, whom I have been involved with, have been doing for a long, long time already.

I guess that is one of the things that Andrew Little learnt on the campaign trail. He learnt what was working, because he saw our electorate. He saw the work of the local National MP, his relationship with the workforce there, what it was producing, and every single one of those young people.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Come along on Monday night.

Guess what is going to happen next year, Mr Peters? Next year there are going to be two baches. There is going to be one built in South Taranaki by a group of young women—

💬 Tracey Martin: Yay!

—and another one built by a group of young men. It is going to be fascinating to see just exactly which one comes out looking the best. What do you think, Ms Martin? What do you think?

Whichever it is going to be, what we are going to see is outstanding young people in Taranaki doing a brilliant job, getting out of their high schools and into the workplace, and being able to step into apprenticeships straight away. We did this because what we discovered was that around about 70 percent of students who leave high school actually do not go to university. So what do we do for them? What we do for them is we come and talk to them earlier on to discover what sorts of things they have a passion for. When we did that we discovered that these young people had a fantastic passion to build something, to learn something, to apply knowledge, and to come out with skills that are going to build this economy and make this nation great. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare Pāremata. It is embarrassing. It is embarrassing that the Prime Minister cannot remember anything, and it is also embarrassing that the Prime Minister does not understand our history. Most high school students have a better grasp of the so-called settlement of Aotearoa New Zealand than the Prime Minister has displayed. It is really awkward, too, that this Government does not appear to understand that the latest Waitangi Tribunal ruling is super clear—crystal clear and uncomfortably clear—that tangata whenua never ceded sovereignty in 1840. But the Government has not taken that on board, cannot understand it, will not come to grips with it, and is showing no leadership on the very crucial issue that rangatira who signed te Tiriti never signed away their sovereignty.

So I have got a little quiz for the Prime Minister—a little history quiz—to help him along. It might be possible for some others to answer the quiz as well. I am sure there are people here who know the answers, even though he does not seem to. For a start, question No. 1 to the Prime Minister: New Zealand was settled peacefully or New Zealand was confiscated from tangata whenua through violence and dubious legal tricks? Discuss which is true, without contradicting yourself. Would it not be great to have somebody capable of that in the leadership role in this country? We would love to see an essay, as well, by the Prime Minister, quoting himself when he said that Māori are “grateful for the capital and skills brought by the others”—the rest of us, the settlers, the colonisation process. Presumably he means especially those skills that were used to strip Māori of their land, to poison their resources, and to suppress their culture.

It is interesting that the Prime Minister, when he made the statement about how grateful Māori are, was speaking in the present tense. In the essay I would really like him to address the examples of Māori individuals and groups who have expressed their gratitude to the Prime Minister for these wonderful gifts. I have not met these people, but no doubt in an essay he could explain this, because I have never seen so many people confused by his grasp of history.

The other fascinating question that he needs to address is: New Zealand was unusual in its peaceful settlement process. That is what he said. He said that this country was nicer than anywhere else. Colonisation is actually a form of rape—rape. Or rape nicely; there is not much difference to the victim. So here we go, indeed. What are the specific differences between the nicer forms of violence used by the Crown in the 1800s, such as gunboats in the Waikato and the Coromandel, raupatu for Whakatōhea with Tainui, scorched earth for Tūhoe, and legalised theft for everybody else? How does that make us different from all the other settler countries? I think we have a right to an answer to that question. If the Prime Minister is going to say we were settled peacefully, he needs to be able to explain how nice it was, just how different it was, how superior it was to be colonised by the English. Would that not be a great story to tell?

The other question in the quiz that I think would be important would be: the Waitangi Tribunal has ruled that sovereignty was not ceded in 1840. Explain why this is inconvenient and how he plans to ignore it, because that is in fact what he plans to do. Most of the time the Waitangi Tribunal is recognised in this House as the basis of the Treaty settlement process, but not this one. This one is going to be marginalised and ignored because it is inconvenient.

The other part of the quiz, and the last question I would like to put to our ill-informed Prime Minister, is: discuss how basic historical knowledge is important for a Prime Minister, and what should happen if the Prime Minister demonstrates less knowledge than most high-school students. I think it would be useful if he could come to grips with this, so that the rest of us need not feel so embarrassed and ashamed that the person who means to lead our country forward and out of historical problems has no grasp of history whatsoever.

I think somebody needs to explain the word “settlement” to the Prime Minister. I do not expect him to be a historian. I am not a historian. But from very, very fundamental reading it is obvious that the period between 1840 and 1900 was not a peaceful settlement process. In fact, the period between 1840 and 1860 was not as violent as during the Land Wars, but it was a very difficult time. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has ever heard of the Flagstaff War of the 1840s, the Wairoa incident in the 1840s, or any of those incidents that showed that the Treaty was under threat right from day one.

It is very important that we do not minimise our own history so that we can have a visionary, positive way forward together. We do not teach those 1950s myths any more. We do not tell children that we are the best country in the world in terms of our historical colonisation process. We do not lie to the people any more about what happened. We are honest, and we try to face up to our history so that we can create a country where everybody has a place.

It is a pleasure to speak in this general debate, and equally a pleasure to have been able to listen to the MP for New Plymouth, who spoke earlier, before me. It is a pleasure to hear from the MP for New Plymouth because he is the one man in this House who knows what it is like to go up against Andrew Little. Guess what happened when Jonathan Young went up against Andrew Little? His majority has increased at every single election. His majority increased in 2011 and in 2014.

As members of the National Party and sitting on this side of the House, contemplating going up against Andrew Little in 2017, we are looking forward to seeing what happens to our majority in 2017. The MP who has become the leader of the Labour Party is the MP for the union party. He is there only because the unions put him in that leadership position. He does not have the support of his caucus. Only four members in his caucus support him.

Think about this. When the Labour Party and the Green Party were talking before the election about cash for access and cash for policy, we hit back, saying that this is the Labour Party that believes in cash for leadership, because we know the unions in this country are heavy funders of the Labour Party. They denied it at the time, but that cash for leadership has absolutely resulted in a new leader of the Labour Party, for the union movement in this country—not a Labour Party leader who is here to work for all New Zealanders. He is a Labour Party leader who is here for the unions.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although the general debate is about the most robust debate that you get in Parliament, there are still rules about suggestions around cash for influence and so on, which are clearly outside of the Standing Orders. I think that member well and truly overstepped that particular mark.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I did not take that from the member’s contribution, but if he is saying that members were taking cash for delivering any promises, that is effectively an allegation of corruption and that is certainly unacceptable. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. As I said, I did not interpret it that way but if members have, that is unacceptable. I ask the member to continue his speech but certainly not in that vein.

I am happy to point out that the unions in this country are the ones that have helped to deliver Andrew Little the leadership. That is a fact. They may not like it, but it is simply the case. I look at people like David Parker, who is a very good intellectual on the Labour side of the House—failed to get there. I look at people like Grant Robertson who does have the support of the caucus—failed to get there. And if Andrew Little’s track record in New Plymouth is anything to look at, then 2017 is going to be very interesting.

The year 2017 is going to be interesting as well because the Labour Party, the Green Party, and the New Zealand First Party do not realise that many of the issues that we have spoken about in question time in the last 2 weeks have been decided already by New Zealanders. New Zealanders delivered a message to parliamentarians in this House in the 2014 election. They delivered the message that they care about whether jobs are being created in this economy. That is exactly what we are doing in the National Party. They care about growth taking place in this economy. And with growth rates at 3.9 percent we are delivering for New Zealanders what they want.

The Minister of Conservation is sitting behind me. The voters of New Zealand told us that they care about a cleaner environment. They care about all the work we are doing to ensure that national parks are looked after properly, to ensure that the wildlife in this country is looked after properly. That is exactly what we are delivering in the environment area. They told us that they wanted more housing to be created in Auckland and that is exactly what is happening in Auckland under policies being delivered by Dr Nick Smith. Minister Parata is delivering an education system that is going to see more children being educated, more children getting the qualifications they need.

Those are the issues that New Zealanders told us they care about. They do not care about Cameron Slater. They do not care about text messages. The Labour Party is focused on the dirt, it is focused on the muck, and it is focused on everything that New Zealanders care very little about. We are unashamedly focused on delivering better outcomes for New Zealand. We are unashamedly focused on a stronger economy, more jobs, less crime, better health care, and better education. That is what we are delivering for New Zealanders. John Key is one of the most open Prime Ministers that this country has seen. We are delivering on our plan, we are getting results for New Zealanders, and we are not focused on the muck. We have a leader who has the support of his caucus, and that is the recipe for success.

There remains much arising from the Nicky Hager book to be investigated. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security last week showed the politicisation of the SIS by the head of the SIS and the Prime Minister’s own staff in his office. What was written off by the Prime Minister as a left-wing conspiracy theory during the election was proven to be true: underhand tactics were being used by the Prime Minister and the SIS.

National was cynical enough on the day of the release of that report to drop two others, including the report by Justice Chisholm on Judith Collins. That report found that Judith Collins did not undermine the Serious Fraud Office. It found that there was no evidence in that regard. It did not inquire into whether Judith Collins had been improper in respect of Oravida—whether she had a personal conflict of interest there, a financial one. It did not inquire into whether it was proper of her to pass information about public servants to Slater. It did not inquire as to whether the other allegations as to undermining the Serious Fraud Office were correct. Those matters were all outside the terms of reference. The report did not exonerate Judith Collins in respect of those other matters and the report does not exonerate anyone else in respect of what may have been happening in respect of the undermining of the Serious Fraud Office.

What do we now know? We know that thousands of dollars were being paid every month via Carrick Graham to Mr Slater. Presumably, thousands of dollars were also being paid to Carrick Graham himself. What were both of them doing? Well, they were both undermining the Serious Fraud Office. Who were they doing it for? We do not yet know who they were doing it for. It looks like they may have been doing it for Mr Hotchin. Why would Mr Hotchin have been interested in doing that? Well, he was being investigated as to whether he should be charged with criminal offences following the half a billion dollars of losses suffered through Hanover Finance’s failing. He was being investigated at the time by the Serious Fraud Office. I have had two people make worrying allegations to me. One allegation is from a former staff member of the Serious Fraud Office who told me that at the time the Serious Fraud Office commenced its investigation, a former adviser to Hotchin contacted this person and said: “Hotchin plays a rough game. You watch out. He will use underhand tactics to undermine the Serious Fraud Office and their staff.” The second allegation I had made to me was that Mr Hotchin used underhand tactics to take out some of the potential witnesses against him, in respect of his conduct by Hanover Finance.

I cannot name either of those sources and I cannot prove those allegations to be true. They are both hearsay allegations to me, but these allegations must be investigated. We have seen in respect of the SIS matters that there was fire behind the smoke, and, in respect of these allegations, we know that thousands of dollars were presumably being paid by Hotchin to Carrick Graham, Slater, and Cathy Odgers in respect of their efforts to undermine the Serious Fraud Office. What we do not know is whether those actions were criminal and whether there was a criminal conspiracy. I made a complaint to the police over 2 months ago in respect of that. The only information I had come back, other than to inquire whether I had more evidence, was a line in the Chisholm report to say that the allegations in respect of Judith Collins were not being looked at any further. It looks like no further actions are being inquired into.

These are serious allegations. They must be looked at seriously by the authorities. We have seen the politicisation of the SIS. We must make sure that the police have not been politicised. They were happy enough to inquire into the teapot tapes, to cooperate with the Prime Minister to deem Mr Ambrose guilty despite the fact that he had two arguable defences, and, yet, we do not have the police looking at these most serious allegations as to whether the other allegations in the Hager book are true. Indeed, Mr Hager—and if it were not for his efforts, none of the SIS stuff would have come out and none of this other stuff would have been investigated—is the one who is being raided. He is the one who has suffered search warrants. And, yet, Mr Slater, Ms Odgers, Mr Hotchin, or the others like Carrick Graham do not seem to have been investigated by the police, and I do not think that is good enough.

This Government, under the leadership of John Key, is working in the interests of every New Zealander, which is represented by the track record we hold for delivering results for all New Zealanders through the straightforward decisions we make. This Government has got on with the job of locking in the gains of the last 6 years to create a long-term lift in New Zealand’s prosperity and the betterment of all Kiwis.

Our regions are flourishing. Regional development and the dismissing of boundaries between the urban and rural divide are integral to the growth of our country. The regional workings of New Zealand and the urban have to work together to act collectively to further the growth of New Zealand businesses both domestically and internationally. This is what our Business Growth Agenda is set to do. No industry or area of policy is an island. This Government collaborates across many sectors to achieve the best results possible for Kiwis.

The way that we move forward and strengthen the gains that this Government has made in the past 6 years is to keep tracking forward with the team on this side of the House, which is full of talent, experience, and, unlike the other side of the House, fresh faces and enthusiasm for what our Government and leader are delivering. This National-led Government understands that a strong economy is the key to boosting the Kiwi families who elected this side of the House for a third term. They asked and we are delivering. This Government is providing world-leading public services that are lifting our long-term growth rate and ultimately diversifying and building productivity in this economy.

Since being back after the election this Government has successfully completed negotiations for the free-trade agreement with Korea, which creates more opportunities for businesses to grasp and cheaper products for consumers. This free-trade agreement extends across various sectors and is vital to the agriculture, forestry, and industrial sectors, which are often seen as the backbone of New Zealand.

This Government is wholeheartedly committed to delivering more skills to the relevant industries that need them, and we are doing this by establishing three new information and communications technology graduate schools across New Zealand. Technology is a booming industry in New Zealand, and it is vitally important that this Government is delivering where it can to enhance the sector for the future of Kiwis. In line with the information and communications technology industry that is sweeping the globe, we are extending the Rural Broadband Initiative so that all parts of New Zealand have world-class broadband coverage that is appropriate for the 21st century. This means ultra-fast broadband coverage will be available to a further 200,000 New Zealanders. This Government recognises the importance of ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband to Kiwis in our rural electorates.

This side of the House recognises the need to advance and improve these various aspects of life for New Zealanders, unlike the other side of the House, which is currently fighting over policies that would take New Zealand back decades. It speaks for itself that Kiwis are choosing to stay here in New Zealand. As we have heard, October was the first month in over 20 years when net migration to New Zealand was positive. It is clear from the work that this Government has done in bringing Kiwis back home to New Zealand that they see the opportunities for their children, their families, their businesses, and their investments. New Zealanders are no longer having to leave New Zealand shores for these opportunities as they are right here, right now, in this country that we call home.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and the growing number of Kiwis who are disenfranchised by the direction this country is going under the leadership and the magic show of John Key and National. When I talk about the magic show of John Key I am not talking about the great shows we have seen, like David Copperfield’s or Dynamo’s show, but the sleight of hand, the illusion that National has created under this Government. I feel so much more enlightened after Barbara Kuriger’s display today, and the great picture she has painted of this Government! But today the best speech that I have heard in this House—the one I am going to take the most from—has come from the other side of the House, from the ACT Party. Wait a minute—they did not show up to speak today.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is a new member but you cannot refer to the absence of any member. That is definitely a breach of the Standing Orders.

I will take 10 on the bench. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Anyway, as we move on in this fantastic debate we are having today, my talk today is about the hypocrisy and the absolute contradictions that we see time and time again from this Government—something that we have not seen for many, many years. Government members jeer and yell from the sides but in actual fact they know in their hearts that what is going on in this country is all downhill from here. We talked about the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, where this Government took away the right for scheduled meal breaks, which have now disappeared from the rights of all New Zealanders. It was something that we fought hard to gain for all New Zealanders, and in the same breath the Government is now putting in, through the select committee, the deal to do with the Health and Safety Reform Bill. It is trying to, ironically, reduce health and safety provisions for the workers of New Zealand by 25 percent. Yet over the hundreds of submissions we have had, one of the major concerns that is coming forward is the concern for the people’s rights to that meal break. We are not talking about people like ourselves who stand up and waffle on from time to time. I am not talking about the people who push pens around their desks and justify long lunches. I am talking about the hard-working New Zealanders, the people involved in our forestry industry, the people involved in our truck-driving industry, the meat workers, and the people whose lives, if lost, will change not only their own life—clearly, because they will not have one—but the lives of their communities and their families. The hypocrisy—that this Government can stand there—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I apologise for interrupting the member, but that is a word that will lead to disorder. It has been used twice now in the member’s contribution, and I would be grateful if it is not used again.

Thank you again, Mr Speaker for this clarity. I am learning fast.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: You learn by doing in this place.

I feel like I am on a very high learning curve, with elephant droppings there, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway.

We were talking about those issues in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, but it brings me to some more issues, and I will use the word “contradictions”, because that is far more appropriate. You see, this is the sort of speed at which New Zealand First members learn in the House. But I have to say we have some issues to raise now. We talk about the buzzword of the 21st century, which is, of course, harm minimisation. This word gets thrown out like bread and butter at a fish and chip shop, but in actual fact this word, harm minimisation, if it is put to its true effect in the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2), really does ask this question: why is the Government trying to harm-minimise the Gambling Act on one hand while with sleight of hand, trickery, the David Copperfield - style illusion, it comes in and gives 500 gaming machines to the likes of Skycity Casino? Skycity Casino, of course, is probably one of its mates that it has some sort of agreement with—oh, I thought there might have been another “Order!”. I was going for a hat trick, Mr Speaker.

The sort of contradiction that goes on absolutely surprises me, and this country has had enough. We are absolutely fed up to the back teeth with the sort of nonsense that is going on. Skycity Casino is now embroiled in the zero-hour contracts that are going on out there in the community. It is no surprise that with one hand the Government has given Skycity 500 extra machines whilst saying it is trying to minimise harm to do with gambling. And at the same time Skycity is introducing zero-hour work contracts for its employees, which 66 percent of Skycity employees are employed under. Thank you for your time.

This—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Another Smith.

Yes, another Smith; you are very fortunate. This Government has set itself a challenge—

💬 Tim Macindoe: A wordsmith.

—and it is a great challenge. A wordsmith, that is right. It wants to double primary industry exports by 2025. But how are we going to do that? The regions are doing the heavy lifting and growing exports in this country, and I happen to represent one of the regions that is one of the fastest-growing and one of most export-orientated regions in the country.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Whereabouts?

I am coming to that. On top of having a strong agricultural sector, it represents 80 percent of both the aquaculture and wine industries, as well as having strong forestry, manufacturing, and tourism sectors. All of those sectors and those industries coming from Kaikoura really have a great international reputation, and are really helping New Zealand to build its place in the world. To meet our export target we need to grow value over volume in a sustainable way. Possibilities for regional development have often been wasted when those initiatives have been driven by councils. Councils, unfortunately, are not natural business thinkers. When they do their budget, for example, they fill out the expenditure side of the budget and then simply make the income fit it, whereas businesses have to go completely the other way round. Though councils, I should say, have a valuable role to play in growing business and business initiatives by providing the infrastructure and supporting business initiatives.

Cluster groups provide one of the great initiatives and possibilities to grow businesses in the regional sectors. One in point is Marlborough Food and Beverage Innovation Cluster—it is quite a mouthful. This was formed a little over a year ago under the umbrella of the Marlborough Research Centre Trust, the Riddet Institute, Massey University, and the ANZ bank. Together these entities provide the necessary capabilities and skills to assist companies to grow, innovate, and reach further up the value chain. Members gain access to investment funds, education opportunities, and research resources. This enhances their potential to grow. The Marlborough Food and Beverage Innovation Cluster, although a Marlborough cluster, is open to New Zealand companies, as it has a vision to support “New Zealand Inc.” as well as regional development, and to that end it has companies from Christchurch, Nelson, and Wellington that are participating.

An example of the success of the cluster model is Renaissance Brewing, which has recently undertaken a capital-raising exercise through crowdsourcing and is the first New Zealand company to successfully do so. Crowdfunding is an exciting new way for small companies to grow and gain access to capital markets through the Financial Markets Conduct Act, which allows capital raising for small companies without the need for the same level of detailed disclosure and expense that the more traditional avenues will require. Renaissance Brewing successfully raised $700,000 through the crowdfunding platform called Snowball Effect. But the next step, once you have got yourself some funding, is to actually ensure that you have a market, and one of the key things to that end in the Marlborough region is the fact that breweries are in an area where wine is a big part of the export sector, and buyers come to New Zealand to buy wine and, naturally, they are often craft beer buyers. So to that end they are starting a New Zealand - wide beer cluster in Marlborough. This is a fantastic initiative and will really help things grow along in that way.

Free-trade agreements are also essential to fully grow our potential, and this Government is pursuing these very vigorously and ensuring that New Zealand has access to growth markets. Combining trade agreements with innovative business initiatives such as clusters is really helping to harness New Zealand’s economic potential. Regions are not just a part of the New Zealand story; they are actually driving it.

I think that was a very good decision that you have just made then—to call me. In the first 100 days of this Government many of the Ministers are looking at their programmes of what they will do, what their priorities are for their first 100 days. Can I say that 51 percent of the population of New Zealand must be deeply, deeply disappointed in the Minister for Women, who has chosen, as the priority in her first 100 days, to remove eight letters and one apostrophe from the name of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? That has been her first action: she is going to change it from being called the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to—wait for it—the Ministry for Women. That is going to make a big difference to all the women in New Zealand! [Interruption] Mrs King asks how much that is going to cost. We simply do not know. There will be the cost of a new logo, there will be the cost of new signage, there will be the cost of all the new stationery, there will be the cost of new business cards—and this, apparently, is the thing that women in New Zealand are crying out for in the first 100 days!

Well this just goes to show how out of touch the Government has quite quickly become in its third term. Removing eight letters from the name of the ministry—and, important, an apostrophe—is not going to make a blind bit of difference to the women who are facing increasing violence against them in society. We know that the numbers are rising incredibly fast in that area. We see in the news reports, pretty much every day this week, a heinous crime of violence against women being committed—pretty much every day in the last week in this country. And what is the Minister for Women doing? She is changing the name of the ministry.

And what do we also hear about? We hear about the pay gap, the stubborn pay gap in this country. We find the pay gap where women who have worked hard to gain qualifications—and last year, 61 percent of the people who graduated from universities were women—find that when they take their first job immediately after graduation they are not being paid the same as men. They are being paid less than men doing exactly the same job with the same qualifications. So what is the Minister for Women doing about that? She is changing the name of the ministry. And what about the women who are struggling to feed and clothe their children? The growing child poverty in this country and the role that women face in that, many of them on these new zero-hour contracts that the Government seems OK with and quite happy to support—what is the Minister for Women doing about that? She is changing the name of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and that is totally irrelevant to the sorts of issues that women face today.

But she has come up with another great idea in her first 100 days, and it is this. All of these problems that women face today in New Zealand can be fixed if only they would enter a beauty pageant—yes, a beauty pageant. It sounds bizarre, but it is true. This in the first 100 days is what the Minister for Women has prescribed as being the big “fix-it” for women in New Zealand. Why is the Minister for Women, Louise Upston, starting to fight and relitigate the debates of yesterday? Why is she doing that? We have had the debate about beauty pageants. It has been and gone. And by the way, who opens the door is not a political statement; it is a way of getting from one side of the door to the other. That is all it is. Who opens the door is not important. Do not relitigate the issues and the debates of yesterday.

We had the Minister at the height of the Roger Sutton sexual harassment fiasco going to Christchurch. Did she go and say anything about the Roger Sutton situation? No, she went and put on a bit of high-vis gear and went and had her photo taken, launching some new high-vis gear for women. She was in Christchurch where the debacle was taking place, but she said nothing. It was up to Labour leader, Andrew Little, to actually come out and say that it was a fiasco, that the press release was utterly and completely wrong. Good on Andrew Little, because he had the courage to call it when the Minister for Women did not. The Minister for Women took 10 days—10 days—to watch and see where public opinion would go first, before she dared to say anything against what Roger Sutton had done. So that is the sort of Minister for Women that we have at the moment. The Minister will not use the “f” word—she will not use the feminist word—but even Lorde calls herself a feminist. I am a feminist because that is the idea—the radical notion—that women are people, and my husband is a feminist too.

It gives me great pleasure to finally be here, not least of all because of the irritation that it causes to some members that I am indeed here. I just want to tell you—it may come as a surprise to you—that I actually have something in common with the Rt Hon Winston Peters: we both have a monopoly on intellect within our caucus. That is, unfortunately, a fact. Let us face it: what exactly is the job description for being “I am the deputy leader of New Zealand First.”? Well, she is not here because she got bored designing rockets at NASA, I can tell you that much.

I am especially proud to be here standing for the ACT Party in the third-freest economy that this world has ever seen. It is no coincidence that—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which party’s that? How many MPs?

Where is your seat, Winston? How exactly is Tauranga? How are the people of Tauranga treating you these days? Not so well, not so well. There is not a seat in this country that you could win.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Reluctant as I am, the Standing Orders requires someone not to use a person’s first name or his second name, in fact, but to call him an honourable member—in my case a very honourable member. He cannot say that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member did casually refer to the member by his Christian name, and that is certainly out of order.

I am terribly sorry. Thank you very much for that guidance on the etiquette of the House. For that I am extremely grateful to the member. I was saying that I am very, very proud to stand for the ACT Party in New Zealand, the freest economy that the world has ever seen apart from a couple of small city States that by no coincidence are also the most vibrant, intelligent, and interesting societies that the world has ever seen, except perhaps with a few exceptions, which I will not name for fear of breaching the Standing Orders.

I also want to address myself to some of the traditional members opposite, because I feel that perhaps at a slightly different time or age, I could have been one of them. I am talking about, maybe, around the time of my birth. But, actually, it may surprise most that I am thinking about even earlier than that and, in particular, I am thinking of Mickey Savage—I assume you can call him that, since he is no longer here—and Peter Fraser. Peter Fraser once famously said that it was the Government’s role to provide people—whether or not they were rich or poor, from town or country, male or female, or from whatever race, too—with an education that would best help them achieve their goals. That is something to which I am deeply committed. I am deeply committed to the partnership school kura hourua policy. Anybody who finds themselves to be a sceptic of that policy should actually go and visit the schools, not go on Radio Live and lie about whether they have been to the schools. They should actually go and visit the schools, not the private school that was previously operated by the sponsor but actually go and visit the school. I find that that is the best antidote.

💬 Tracey Martin: I have.

Well, we are very pleased that some members have. You should keep visiting them until you change your mind. I know it can take a long time. I am very proud of that policy because it is giving kids who have failed elsewhere an opportunity—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Been a teacher?

—to learn, to get qualifications, to have skills, to have a career. I have not been to Antarctica either, but I know it is cold—just to borrow something from across the House. Those kids end up in a situation where they can ultimately feel good about themselves. That is the promise that Peter Fraser made. That is the promise that I am committed to helping fulfil for the children of New Zealand. It is a pity that so many people on the other side of the House are so much more worried about the means that were used to achieve the ends, rather than the ends themselves. Has that not come out in the nastiness of recent press releases from the member sitting at the back there? In conclusion, I am very proud to be here with ACT and a free society, and with a policy that uses the principles of the market and a free society to actually achieve some of the ends that members opposite supposedly believe in, or at least their predecessors believed in very strongly. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.