Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

I am pleased to resume the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement as part of an energetic Government with a wide-ranging reform programme. You would think we had just got in, there is so much going on with this Government—for instance, the most comprehensive reforms of the Resource Management Act; the regulation of water quality and the necessary changes in farming practice that will unfold over the next few years at the core of our productive economy; changes in housing, which will lead to greater supply for more low and middle income families; and continued efforts to implement the changes in workplace safety, flowing back to the original Pike River tragedy.

On 1 April, despite the fact that the Government is running the tightest control on expenditure we have seen in several decades, there will be more paid parental leave. On 1 April there will be further significant reductions in ACC levies. And what does that mean? Well, it means that for all those people on lower incomes who register their car and license it, they will get that done for about $100 a year less. Many of them have had an increase in benefits or national superannuation. Just one small change and a raft of improvements are coming on 1 April, including free doctors visits for children under the age of 13. These are issues we campaigned on successfully, and I am proud that we will have the opportunity now to implement those changes.

Can I welcome back Opposition members. I thought they would make a coherent start to the year, but the Prime Minister summed it up in a sentence yesterday when he said that after we have done Rātana and Waitangi, Labour’s position now is that Māori can make their own laws but they are not allowed to buy a State house. They can write their own constitution but they are not allowed to own homes. How did Labour end up with such a confusing position over its core constituency? Well, I will tell you how, because I have been listening at Rātana and Waitangi. It is that Māori who always voted for Labour are saying: “Don’t undo National’s policies. We’re getting our settlements done and our grievances settled. More of our kids are getting educated. We’re going to get the opportunity to have more homeownership individually or through our iwi. There is less crime. We have fewer victims of crime, and fewer of our young people are in the courts. Thousands of them eat less each year. So don’t talk about changing National’s policies.”

That left Labour with only Māori sovereignty. I thought Labour leaders have been well out of touch with most people about most things for most of their leaders—of whom there seem to have been several over recent years—but sovereignty is 1970s, Mr Little. In the 1970s there were Māori angry about that and protesting on it, and you would think that the Labour Party, which pretends to represent that bloc of voters—more so now than it did at any time in the last 20 years, if you look at its MPs—is so out of touch with their aspirations. It would not matter so much, I suppose, if it was just that small group of voters, but, actually, the Labour Party is out of touch with most voters—with most voters. It still does not understand that the steady, sustainable growth of this economy is awakening a degree of aspiration and confidence in New Zealanders that only this Government seems to understand and foster and grow.

And what is a piece of information that shows that? Well, we have the highest workforce participation rate ever—ever. What does that mean? That means there is a bigger than ever proportion of the working-age population available for work. So while the Labour Party is trying to find out again what work is, mainly because it has not done any for 6 years while the rest of the country has been busy, more people who are older, more women, and more people who were on benefits are putting up their hands and saying: “We have confidence that if we get into the workforce we can get a job.” And that is what the higher participation rate is—the highest ever and, as I might just comment, about 5 percent higher than it is in Australia.

There are a couple of features of the economic situation at the moment that are promising—and I would not say more than promising—such as the prospect of sustainable growth. One is that both the Reserve Bank and Treasury have lifted their estimates of the speed limits of this economy—that is, the rate at which it can grow without causing excessive inflation. It was only a bit over 2 percent; now, in fact, it is close to 3 percent. In fact, economic forecasts show that we are likely to grow at just under 3 percent for the next 5 years on average. Just imagine the impact of that. In the last year there were 80,000 new jobs, and if we have 5 more years of anything like that rate of job creation, with the rising real incomes we will have a community in pretty good shape.

Another aspect of this recovery that is starting to work well is business investment. There has been a lot of focus on the upsurge of residential investment. That is really important because we need a lot more houses, but business investment is steady and growing year after year. We have now had about 4 years of growing business investment contribution to growth and it is forecast to continue. That capital deepening, that investment in better plant and equipment, better gear, better marketing offshore—that is what underpins the growth in our incomes. The other is the stadium full of people who were lining up at the airport with their tickets booked to Australia, who have decided to stay here and not catch the plane.

Everyone, I think, is surprised but should be pleased at the way that our net migration has held up—our positive net migration. Twelve months ago they would have thought: “Yep, there is a bit of a surge here, a few more people coming in, a lot of Kiwis coming home, New Zealanders staying home.”, but actually, it has kept on going. It is one of the reasons we have, for instance, lower cost escalation in Christchurch than we expected, because the supply side of the economy is showing it can deliver the labour and the skills that we need.

The rate of job creation and growth in real incomes is the product of a programme this Government executed in its first two terms and will continue to execute in its next two terms—that is, ongoing microeconomic reform that underpins business confidence. There is no growth until someone invests another dollar and employs another person, and that is what is happening.

Finally, can I just indicate that we will certainly be continuing our focus on cracking long-term dependency through welfare, through the justice system, and through our changes in housing because that is what drives Government expenditure. What drives Government expenditure is social dysfunction that we have not been able to fix yet. I want to compliment the Public Service on the results it has achieved: less crime, more educational achievement, digging out the problems around rheumatic fever and child violence, and bringing them into the daylight so we can solve them.

This Government will be focused on results and will measure itself by results, not just on the books but in the community, because we figured out that what works for the community works for the Government’s books, and we look forward to working with the Public Service to achieve even more over the next 3 years. We have done some of the easy stuff and now we are starting to get to the real complexity: the 500 families in Rotorua who have a parent with a custodial sentence and have been subject to a Child, Youth and Family notification and have spent at least three-quarters of their life on a benefit. We need effective action with those families if we are going to have them participating in the workforce, like many others have put up their hand to do, and if we want to have a better community. So we certainly approach this confidence motion with some real confidence.

We know we live in strange times when the “Mayor of Messines Road”, old “Double Dipton” over there, is the person upholding probity on the National Government side, because that is what is going on today. Steven Joyce and Bill English are at war for the attention of their daddy, John Key. They are at war for him. We have the surly middle child, Bill English, who today at the Finance and Expenditure Committee could not have run farther away from the Skycity deal—it had nothing to do with him; he was not part of the negotiations—as he desperately tried to cling on to the last scrap of fiscal credibility. And then over there is the problem older child, Steven Joyce, wanting to go out there and do deals with everybody—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I’m younger than him.

—wanting to protect the deal that he did. You certainly look a lot older than he does.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Not you, Mr Speaker. He is trying to do deals out there. Well, what we have to say on this side of the House is that the Government’s chickens have come home to roost on Skycity. This brings together everything that is wrong with this Government: cronyism, incompetence, and lack of concern for the social harm that that will cause. There is an extra $130 million up for Skycity. What could that be used for? It could build 500 State houses. Instead, it is going in corporate welfare from Steven Joyce to the people whom he got done over by in a deal, and Bill English knows that—this from the Government that is meant to be the great negotiator, the great manager of our economy. And here we have a deal for what we now know was a $402 million convention centre; not this whole other convention centre that is being talked about now—a $402 million convention centre that was meant to be free to the taxpayer—and straight away Steven Joyce is done over.

But that is no surprise, coming from the man who contracted a defective payroll system in Novopay. His solution to that? Buy it. Buy the thing—buy the thing. The brilliant negotiation skills of Steven Joyce—when he contracts a defective payroll system, his solution is to buy it. That is this Government’s track record. It does a deal with Rio Tinto. It spends $30 million of taxpayers’ money, and there is not a guarantee of one single extra job or one job guaranteed for the long term. That is the kind of economic development that this Government puts forward. Every time the Government gets itself into a negotiation—be it with Chorus; be it with MediaWorks, Mr Joyce’s friendly old company—the Government gets done over and the taxpayer of New Zealand gets done over. It is time for this Government to front up to its failure to negotiate deals on behalf of the taxpayer or to actually think of the best interests of the taxpayer.

The Minister of Finance has just spoken in rosy terms about the economy, but it is important to dig into the promises that have been made. The promise that has been made by this Government, year in, year out, is that we are on our way to surplus. Every single time we do not see that surplus. We know that Bill English will come to this House with a Budget in May. He will fiddle the figures again. He will fudge the numbers one more time. He will make sure that New Zealanders pay more on their ACC than they need to. He will make sure that the money is shifted about so it looks like there is a surplus. But that is it. That is the one-trick pony that we have in our finance Minister. There is no plan to diversify the economy. There is no plan for long-term growth in this economy, beyond the Christchurch rebuild. This is what John Key and Bill English have brought to New Zealand.

But at the same time the level of debt grows. Of course debt was going to grow out of the global financial crisis, but the extent of borrowing by this Government outstrips borrowing by any Government in New Zealand’s history. Since this Government got into office it has borrowed a million dollars an hour, every hour, every day that it has been in Government—a million dollars an hour, every hour, every day that it has been in Government. And the Government tells us it is the responsible fiscal manager. The Government tells us we do not know how to run the economy. We ran surpluses. That finance Minister has not run one, and he borrows a million dollars an hour, every hour.

More than that, $10 million a day in interest is being paid out on behalf of the taxpayer by a Government that does not have a plan to grow the economy, by a Government that does not know how to negotiate a good deal for the taxpayer and spends its time doing dodgy deals with its mates. That is the legacy of this Government. If extra money does come in for the Skycity convention centre, that will be the political epitaph of Steven Joyce and John Key. The wide boys from Auckland, up against Bill English and Gerry Brownlee from down south, know it is not working. Bill English sat in the select committee today and he said that his preferred option was to walk away from the Skycity deal—to walk away.

So watch this space—watch this space to see whether it is Bill English or Steven Joyce who wins the day with John Key. If it is Steven Joyce, it is testament to the fact that this Government cannot negotiate a deal and is more interested in covering its political backside than it is in doing what is right for New Zealanders.

The unemployment figures came out last week and they made for very sobering reading—up to 5.7 percent. [Interruption] They laugh, but they are up. Everywhere else around the world, in countries we like to compare ourselves to, unemployment goes down, but not under this Government’s watch. But within those figures are some very instructive lessons. In Wanganui today 9 percent of people are unemployed. That is more now than in Northland at 8.5 percent, and 8 percent in Gisborne. It is the regions of New Zealand that are being neglected by this Government. It is the people who work hard in the small businesses in those towns who know that the Government is not there to support them. Steven Joyce likes to fiddle the figures, wave around his charts, and have his laminated cards on his desk. But the reality for the life of those people in Wanganui is that they know unemployment is rising. Any trip down the main street of Wanganui today would tell Mr Joyce that those shops have shut. You can play the game of trying to guess what shop used to be there. The regions of New Zealand are being neglected by this Government and unemployment is growing.

Speaking of Wanganui, 46,000 more people in New Zealand are unemployed than when National took office. That is more than the population of Wanganui. There are 46,000 extra people unemployed. Years after John Key and Bill English declared the global financial crisis over, there has not been an improvement in the lives of many New Zealanders. Whatever economic growth there might be out there is not being shared fairly in this country. We know that, as the gap between the rich and the rest grows.

On this side of the House we want to give priority to the issues that New Zealanders are talking to us about—to grow sustainable jobs. I can tell members on that side of the House that as we have been going around on the Future of Work Commission, the main piece of feedback we are getting is that National is not interested. It is not interested in looking ahead to the kinds of decent, sustainable jobs that New Zealanders want. National is not interested in making sure that people are getting the skills and training for those future jobs. The small-business people especially are saying they are welcoming Andrew Little’s words—that small-business people will be at the centre of Labour’s policy—because they are not seeing that from National. They want more skilled staff. They want fewer compliance costs. The Labour Party will be delivering to them on that.

On this side of the House we believe that it is time for a conversation in New Zealand about how we ensure decent, sustainable work with growing wages for New Zealanders that reduces inequality. That is our focus, and this Government is failing to deliver in that area.

That was an interesting contribution from the member in charge of “What is work?”—the member whose job it is to wander around the country and ask the world: “What is work? What is it about? What’s a job? What’s a job going to be?”. These are the questions that Grant Robertson is asking himself as he travels his whimsical way around the country, working on a statement of the bleedingly obvious—working on a statement of the bleedingly obvious. Although you would have to say it is not all Grant’s own work because there were shades of David Parker in that speech, it is fair to say. And before that, I even heard hints of David Cunliffe—hints of David Cunliffe, which just goes to show that you can change the finance spokesperson in the Labour Party, but the drivel remains the same; the drivel continues. Actually, I do believe that you can change the leader of the Labour Party but the words do not change. That is the weird thing.

We had some state of the nation address from the new Labour leader, that chap Mr Little, at the beginning of the year and I thought to myself, as one of the 10 listeners to that speech, that some of that sounds a bit like something I might have heard before. So let us have a look at some of the lines from the speech of Mr Little. For example, “We need a bold new approach to creating jobs and increasing incomes.” sounds like Mr Little, does it not—“creating jobs”?

💬 Tim Macindoe: It does—it does sound like him.

Well, actually, it was Phil Goff—Phil Goff in May 2010. Mr Little said: “The Labour Party I lead is about jobs—good jobs, skilled jobs, well-paid jobs.” So that is good. Cunliffe, of course—his was slightly different. He said: “A job is more than a weekly wage. It gives people a purpose and pride in themselves. That is why I am focusing on jobs”. That was Mr—no, it was not Mr Cunliffe; it was Mr Shearer. It was Mr Shearer.

Since Labour has been in Opposition, those members have talked like nothing else about creating jobs, and the only job they have created is a job for Grant Robertson to find out what a job is. That is the only one. But it is not just jobs. Labour members are big on small business these days. They have suddenly discovered small business.

💬 Chris Bishop: Small party, small business.

Yes, small party, small business. Mr Little said: “Small business success is a priority for Labour.” That was what Mr—no, it was not; it was Mr Cunliffe. What Mr Little said was that Labour will now make small business a priority, and so on and so on.

Of course, the trouble with Labour’s new-found focus on small business is that, actually, it does not have any interest in promoting small business at all. Mr Little wanders out there and says: “Oh I am very interested in small business.”, but what Labour wants to do is about what it wants to do to small business, rather than what it will do for small business. So he says: “I want to go out and help small business, but oh, by the way, I want to drop the 90-day trial for new employees.” That is still off. Dropping the starting out wage—that is still a problem. There is still a massive big increase in the minimum wage and he has not ruled out the KiwiSaver contribution increases or the comprehensive capital gains tax. He is still talking about that, sitting on a fence, and it is getting uncomfortable—the pales in his backside. There is a much more expensive emissions trading scheme, tough new taxes on water use, and, of course, the national pay awards system was actually designed by Mr Little. So he is out there, as was Mr Cunliffe before him, saying: “I love small business.”, putting his arms around small business, and choking it to death. That is the plan of the Labour Party for small business.

Nothing has changed—nothing has changed at all. We have a new megaphone but the same language, just like we had the last time and just like we had the time before that. And weirdly—

💬 Hon Bill English: And the time before that.

The time before that and the time before that. Weirdly, an election was only 3 months ago—just imagine how weird it is to members on this side to get up and hear a speech from Grant Robertson today that was virtually identical to one by David Parker 3 months before the election and identical to another one by David Cunliffe a couple of years before that.

This Government is focused on creating jobs for New Zealanders. Unlike the Opposition, which is still trying to work out what a job is, we are out there encouraging investment that creates jobs—28,000 jobs in the last quarter, 80,000 in the last year, and 146,000 in the last 2 years. That is the strongest job growth in 2 years in a decade, and yet the Labour leader put out a press release last week saying that there is a jobless recovery in this country—a jobless recovery. Well, if that is a jobless recovery, then he really does not know what he is talking about. There were 146,000 additional new jobs in the New Zealand economy over the last 2 years.

That is what this Government is focused on, not yacking on about what is work, who needs workers really, and do workers need organisations more than organisations—that was one of Grant’s theories the other day. Yes, it is all very exciting stuff—all theory; all a million miles from what is reality. Meanwhile, this Government is getting on with the job of doing the things that encourage people to invest in the New Zealand economy, hire more people, and grow more jobs. That is what is going on with this Government, and the Opposition on the other side is pretending that all that is not happening. Thank you.

I understand that this will be a split, 5-minute call.

I was pleased yesterday that the beautiful region of Northland got a mention in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. I notice that it got another mention today. It could be that a by-election is what it takes to finally get some Government attention for a region that has been neglected for the last 30 or 40 years at least. It is an unexpected by-product, perhaps, of an unfortunate situation.

Unfortunately, the PM’s comment was in the context of a particular stretch of motorway that, for his information, will not actually enter Northland. The “Holiday Highway” to Wellsford actually will not deliver benefits to Northland on anything like the scale of what was being proposed. Northland actually does not particularly need, and will not benefit from, a billion-dollar investment in a gold-plated “Holiday Highway” to Wellsford. What Northland does need is a reliable roading and rail network. We need to build resilience into that roading and rail network, for very sound economic, social, and indeed environmental reasons.

We saw last year, in the middle of a particularly wet winter, that it rained for 4 days in a row and the roading network in Northland collapsed. It is interesting to note that 9 months later a major diversion on State Highway 1 still has a sign that says “Temporary Bypass”. We are seeing no investment in building resilience into the roading network that is critical for the ongoing economic and, indeed, social well-being of Northland. A lot of the products coming out of Northland, be they primary production or manufactured goods, are time-critical products. If we cannot reliably get to ports and if we cannot reliably export from the region to the markets, then our economic well-being will be stalled, if not doomed, for the foreseeable future.

We did see a useful contribution to the debate—a document released jointly by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for Primary Industries, grandly titled Tai Tokerau Northland Growth Study: Opportunities Report, which is actually a very useful piece of work. Some of the analysis, some of the extrapolation from the data in it, is questionable and debatable, and that is not unusual, but it is a very useful snapshot. There is a lot of useful data in it. We were particularly pleased to see that the document does acknowledge, and overtly recognises, that we must build the reality of climate change into any future strategy for Northland, as with our other regions. If we do not recognise the reality of that, then we are doomed to get it wrong, and otherwise we will be planning for some past situation rather than making sensible plans for what we know will be our future.

The report talks about the possibilities around horticulture, a more diverse horticulture—higher-value horticultural products, apiculture, bee-keeping. Mānuka honey is the new liquid gold, and hopefully there is a sustainable industry to be built around that. It also talks about an indigenous forestry to convert low-value, price-taking softwoods into high-value hardwoods, where we can start setting prices on that. All of these potential, very positive industries—economically and socially for Northland—are actually climate dependent, so it is critical that we build that reality into our thinking or we will get it wrong.

What we know Northland does not need is offshore drilling or a commitment to mineral extraction. Those were perhaps appropriate industries for the 19th century and the early 20th century; they have no part in the 21st century. Oil drilling, as we are told, will bring a bonanza in jobs. That is actually at odds with what a senior director of State Oil said at a public meeting in Kaitāia last year—that if there were any jobs for locals emerging from the offshore drilling programme, it would be at least 6 years from now and they would be low-value jobs: truck drivers, cooks, and cleaners. That is not what the north needs. We need investment in social infrastructure, access to health care, access to education, access to those basic social services, access to high-quality, affordable homes. We see nothing from this Government that will assure that those opportunities exist for Northlanders.

The future of this country will depend heavily on the well-being of the regions. If the regions are not performing, then the country will not perform well. We will continue to see negative social statistics. We will continue to underperform economically, and environmentally we will see degradation, which we simply do not need to experience. We are moving into a new low-carbon future. We need to recognise the reality of that. We need to create policies and investments that will seek to close, rather than widen, the inequality gap in New Zealand. We need to acknowledge the reality of climate change in Northland as well as elsewhere. Thank you.

The Prime Minister talked a lot about business in his speech. The National Party sees itself as the party of business. National Party members tell us that they are good for business and good for the economy. If you go to the National Party website and you look at National’s values, you will find—actually, you will mostly find pictures of John Key. But if you increase the font size and you squint real hard, you will find a list of National’s values. One of them is competitive enterprise and reward for achievement. As we all know, our Prime Minister embodies these values of enterprise and achievement. He is the transubstantiation of these values—enterprise and achievement made flesh—which is presumably why his image features so heavily on the values page of the National Party website. He made his fortune at Merrill Lynch, becoming one of its senior executives and mastering the secrets of negotiation and wealth creation that made Merrill Lynch one of the most successful, profitable companies in the world, right up until it went bankrupt, crashing the global economy and costing taxpayers in the United States $5.8 billion worth of bailout money. Mr Key, of course, had left Merrill Lynch by then, so he cannot be blamed for that. He had come back to New Zealand to put those values of commercial enterprise that he learnt there back at the service of the economy, where he now runs New Zealand like a business and wields his wealth creation and negotiation skills on behalf of the taxpayer.

I would like to give you some examples of the Prime Minister’s business acumen. The full brilliance of the Prime Minister’s business plan regarding Skycity is not quite clear to me yet. What I do understand is that he overrode an open tender process in which a series of companies were competing to negotiate a deal with a casino company, giving them a law change worth tens of millions of dollars to build a free convention centre that the taxpayer will now have to pay several hundred million dollars for. I am led to believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Economic Development even let Skycity draft the terms of the contract. Now that is negotiation!

We already know about the partial privatisation of the energy sector. The Government sold $7 billion worth of assets for $4.7 billion and spent $640 million doing so. That might sound pretty bad to the business illiterate—those who do not understand high finance. I mean, if you had a house that was worth $700,000 and you paid $64,000 to a real estate agent and they sold it for $470,000, you probably would not be very happy. But the Prime Minister understands that the partial privatisation was about growing the New Zealand economy and building our capital markets. That is why money from the cost of this sale went to good Kiwi companies like Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs Group. The shares, which by the end of the sales process the Government was literally giving away, went to Kiwi mums and dads, like the Weinbergs of South Carolina.

Then there is South Canterbury Finance. For an entire year before this company went bankrupt, Treasury warned the Prime Minister that the company was insolvent and that it was in breach of the Government guarantee agreement. But like all great business people, the Prime Minister knows that it is sometimes wise to wait until the right moment to act, so he did nothing, and when South Canterbury Finance went bankrupt, he struck. Unfortunately, he struck $1.7 billion of taxpayer money off the Government’s balance sheet.

The Prime Minister knows that you have to spend money to make money, which is why this Government has spent something like $1 billion on corporate welfare since it came to power in 2008. More and more businesses in New Zealand know that the best way to make money is not to add value or to deliver a product or service that is better than their competitors. The way to make money is to hire lobbyists. Get the Government to change the law for you or just write you a cheque. This is crony capitalism. It is the antithesis of free, open, and transparent markets in which businesses compete on merit rather than on political connections. National claims to stand for competitive enterprise and achievement. Hiring a lobbyist is not competitive enterprise and getting a payout from the taxpayer is not an achievement. So this year the Greens will be providing an alternative to the Government’s so-called Business Growth Agenda, and I look forward to promoting that in this House.

Happy New Year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all of Parliament. Welcome back for an exciting 2015. I look forward to debating some of the issues with regard to the Business Growth Agenda that the member just resuming his seat, from the Green Party, has talked about. Importantly, this is about confirming the Prime Minister’s statement, which was given to the House yesterday. When we look back we have just come through a very successful election on 20 September. It was successful for us in the National Party; not so good for those across the House in the Labour Party. It was its worst result since 1922, I think it was. It was the worst result for 92 years. Of course, it was the best result for the National Party since 1951.

We look forward to providing a very strong and stable Government for the next 3-year term, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, who started the year extremely well. We are excited about Treasury’s forecast of economic growth of around 3 percent for the next 3 years. Of course, on the other side of the House, they do not like hearing that in the last 12 months 80,000 jobs were created. We have positive net migration, low inflation, and pretty stable interest rates, and ACC reductions of around $135 for the average car registration are coming. Of course, we have low fuel prices, giving every family in New Zealand a lot of confidence.

We are expected to be one of the first countries in the OECD to achieve surplus since the global financial crisis, which is fantastic. I need to acknowledge the leadership of our Minister of Finance, Bill English. It has been a great start to the year. I was with the Prime Minister at Waitangi. A fantastic speech on the lower marae was well received. Just prior to that, I was with Minister Flavell and Minister Joyce when we released the Northland Regional Growth Study. I know that the Green Party member Mr Clendon was talking a little bit about that previously. He was talking about the things in that study that the Green Party agreed with, but the Greens do not agree with providing roads so that we can get our goods to the ports and to the airports, and, of course, the Greens do not agree with any offshore drilling and job creation.

Importantly, this report—and it is well worth having a look at—talked about the potential of the Northland economy. It is a region that offers so much potential in agribusiness and a region that offers potential for Māori agribusiness. There are 116,000 hectares of land owned by Māori and they are offering a huge amount of potential. Dairy capability in Northland is huge. Dairy is an important industry for Northland and one of the leading lights, with more potential. If we can move the average dairy farmer up into the top 25 percent, that is worth $50 million in Northland. There is an opportunity for more technology transfer in the dairy industry, working closely with Dairy New Zealand. There are opportunities in forestry up there as well—exciting ones. At Ngāwhā there is an opportunity for geothermal power, and potentially a new mill, creating, it is believed, an extra 450 jobs.

In this term of Government a focus on skills in the primary industries is also going to be important. It is hugely important in Northland. We have got to attract the youngest and brightest into our primary industries. There are opportunities with kingfish in Northland as well. There is a study being done with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd at Bream Bay. Some capital is required but it is an opportunity to grow more kingfish, and, particularly, to grow onshore aquaculture opportunities. Opportunity is pretty topical at the moment, such as the opportunity for water storage in Northland, and, actually, up and down the country as well. The Ministry for Primary Industries and I will be working closely with the regional council, exploring some greater opportunities for Northland, which came through pretty severe droughts in the last couple of summers.

Also, there are opportunities to develop mānuka honey at about $35 a kilo. Extra tonnage there means more money for the Northland region economy and, importantly, more jobs. And we should not forget horticulture in Northland, because it is the best producer of kumara. In fact, it produces all the kumara for all New Zealand. It produces about a third of the avocado crop, and about a quarter of the citrus crop comes from Northland. So this study is well worth picking up for any candidates who have an aspiration of standing in the Northland by-election. They should make sure that they read this study. They should get on board and support the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Ministry for Primary Industries, and the regional leaders to deliver greater prosperity for the Northland economy. But, importantly, part of ensuring that we support the regional economy is the Primary Growth Partnership.

The Office of the Auditor-General released its report today. This is a review that covered the last 14 or 15 months. It was a 40-page report with three recommendations. The Ministry for Primary Industries agrees with those recommendations and will make those necessary adjustments. They are: a more easy to follow trail of how criteria is applied for each programme; ensuring that work already under way on tracking and evaluation of long-term outcomes continues; and an easy to understand format to publicly report the progress and achievements of the Primary Growth Partnership.

There is no shortage of public reporting with the Primary Growth Partnership already. There is a detailed website. There are quarterly reports. There are financial reviews. There are regular newsletters. There are annual expos. Even at the national Fieldays at Mystery Creek last year the then leader of the Labour Party, David Cunliffe, came on to the Ministry for Primary Industries site. It had an audiovisual running of the Primary Growth Partnership programme. There on the screen was Precision Seafood Harvesting, a fantastic net design that is allowing fish to be caught alive. Sustainability and economic considerations are to the fore, allowing the fishing industry to export fish alive. David Cunliffe came on to the Ministry for Primary Industries site and said it was a fantastic programme.

I hope that now that this audit is out of the way, the Labour Party gets on board and supports the Primary Growth Partnership and supports the investment that is being made in research and development in the primary industries, but we will wait to see whether that occurs or not. The Primary Growth Partnership is delivering and will continue to deliver. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research did a report on the Primary Growth Partnership last year and confirmed there is a potential $6.4 billion a year by 2025. That could stretch to $11.1 billion as well. Because politicians like us love talking in big numbers, let us break that down for those who might be interested. That is $270 a hectare for the average hill country farmer. That is $600 per cow, $370 per tonne for the seafood exporters, and $190 per hectare for forestry.

Importantly, we are coming through what has been a very dry period, particularly for the east coast of the South Island—Otago, North Otago, through Canterbury, and Marlborough. That just goes to show the importance of water storage projects. Across the House the Greens are not too sure about water storage projects. They are not too sure about irrigation. The Labour Party would prefer to have a tax on water. So on the other side of the House, they do not care that we store only 2 percent of the rain that falls in this country. They do not care about managing our streams more efficiently—and that is, of course, good for the environment. We know that there is a huge amount of upside from water storage projects in this country. Everyone feels for our farmers who are going through a bit of a tough time right now, but more water storage projects have to be encouraged, and I will be working hard with my officials to ensure that we can deliver more in this space.

Also, the Prime Minister in his statement outlined the importance of infrastructure. Roads of national significance are delivering for many regions up and down the country. In my local electorate, they are making a huge difference. The Kāpiti Expressway is providing 400 to 500 jobs. It is a $630 million project that is going to mean that we can get our exporters’ produce into the port, into the airport, and into those very important export markets. I endorse the Prime Minister’s statement. I look forward to the work programme. It is going to be hugely exciting for 2015 and beyond.

Well, John Key has lost his new car smell. We heard today a very lacklustre performance in the House. That man is no longer the energetic Prime Minister he was when he was first elected. His responses to questions today revealed that he is tired. He is part of a tired, arrogant third-term Government that has lost its way and that has no new ideas other than bailing out its corporate mates. It has been putting the Armor All on—do not get me wrong. We heard the carpet’s fading a little, but the Government will be putting the Armor All on. It will be trying to convince New Zealanders that it has that new car smell.

But mark my words, New Zealanders are not stupid. New Zealanders know that John Key is losing his touch. He is losing his grip. He is tired, and the arrogance that is creeping into his Government is being seen by all New Zealanders for what it is. What we want to talk about here, of course, is the lemon that taxpayers are being asked to suck in the Skycity deal. Ninety-seven percent of the New Zealanders who responded to the Campbell Live poll last night were very clear that they do not think they want to suck the lemon that John Key is asking them to suck for this deal—for Skycity to bail him out of the political hole that he has built for himself.

So New Zealanders will be asking themselves two questions today. They will be asking themselves why John Key and Steven Joyce insisted that this convention centre would be built at no cost to taxpayers, and why they said that before the election. Why did they say that, and why are they now refusing to promise that that is true? Those are the two questions New Zealanders will be asking.

Andrew Little asked John Key about that today in the House. He said: “Does the Prime Minister stand by his promise to New Zealanders that ‘the construction of the new convention centre will not cost taxpayers or ratepayers a cent’ … [?]”—that is a direct quote from the Prime Minister: “the construction of the new convention centre will not cost taxpayers or ratepayers a cent”. John Key shuffled around. He refused to stand by that promise. He tried to pretend that was a promise about some other type of kind convention centre somewhere else—some mysterious convention centre that John Key had not talked about before the election. No, he might not stand by that promise; he is talking about a different convention centre. It might actually cost the taxpayer money. He is refusing to rule out some money going into it.

And Steven Joyce in July 2013 said: “Under the final agreement, and consistent with the Heads of Agreement signed in May, Skycity will meet the full project costs of the convention centre …”. I asked Steven Joyce whether he understood that to be the strictly legal understanding of full costs or the pretty legal understanding of full costs for the convention centre. He shuffled his feet, also he looked tired, but he was arrogant enough to stand there and try to pretend that that is not what he had meant at the time. New Zealanders are seeing through it. They do not want to suck the lemon that John Key is asking them to suck—97 percent of New Zealanders said that they do not want to suck the lemon that John Key in his fading, carpeted, Armor All-ed car is trying to sell them as something to suck on.

Today the Labour Party launched an online petition to get a clear message to John Key to say that we do not want this taxpayer bailout to go ahead. It has had a rapid take-up, and anybody watching at home or listening on the wireless might like to have a look—if they can get broadband in their area, I might add—to see whether they can sign that petition and make sure that they send a clear message to the Government that the taxpayers are not responsible for bailing John Key out of the political hot water that he has put himself into. They are not responsible for pulling the Minister Steven Joyce off the barrel that he has put himself over. It is not the taxpayer’s responsibility to cover up for their political gaffes and the way that they told taxpayers that things would be free before the election, from which they are creeping away now.

So Steven Joyce and John Key say that they wanted to proceed, but today we also heard from Bill English that his preferred option was to walk away from the deal. He said that he had not been consulted by the Prime Minister on this. He said that he had not been consulted. His preference was to walk away from the Skycity deal. That is where Bill English is. He is the naughty child, the black sheep of the family. He is distancing himself from this dodgy deal, and I am not surprised. He is trying to get to his maiden surplus. That is the pledge he has made to New Zealanders. He has not got there. He might not get there but he is trying his damnedest to get there. Meanwhile John Key and Steven Joyce are writing cheques on his behalf for political purposes that are fiscally irresponsible, that are corporate bailouts, and that cannot be described as anything else.

So let us have a look at the other things that have gone on in the last few days. Yesterday, in fact, we heard that $6.66 million—yes, $6.66 million—was the net profit for Skycity for the 6 months prior. That came the same day as John Key announced that there was going to be a bailout, that it was likely that he was going to consider a bailout. What conclusions can we draw from that? I am going to leave that to those listening at home. There was a $76 million rise in market capitalisation yesterday for Skycity off the back of the news that the Prime Minister is considering a bailout. That is disgraceful—a $76 million market capitalisation increase. Skycity knows that it has got the Government over a barrel. Skycity is maximising it, and the Government does not seem to have the guts to say no, to stand by the promise it made to New Zealanders that this would be a free convention centre. The Government is walking away. John Key and Steven Joyce are shuffling their feet. I can see them now shuffling their feet. That is what they do when they are uncomfortable, when they have told New Zealanders porkies, and they are stepping away from that deal.

So New Zealanders will not stand for it. They do not want to suck the lemon that John Key is asking them to suck. They do not want the taxpayer to bail the Government out of its political hole. All this was foreseeable, of course. It was all in the original deal. The only reason New Zealanders believed that the convention centre deal would be free was that the Government gave assurances, but in the original deal it said that either party may come back to the other for cash. It is in the contract. I pointed this out in September 2013 and it was reported in the New Zealand Herald. The Government said: “No, no, no, no. It won’t ever happen. It’s a free convention centre.” Well, it has changed its story now and New Zealanders know that that was not honest. It was not upfront. This Government is tired and arrogant and thinks it can get away with telling half-truths, with trying to pretend it was a different convention centre it was talking about back then. Well, New Zealanders do not believe it, Mr Key.

Let us examine some of the history here. The convention centre was paid for originally—the original $402 million convention centre, not the other one—out of problem gambling. Eight thousand more people would be affected by the effects of problem gambling, we were told by Treasury. Eighteen more jobs would be the net effect on the economy, we were told by an independent report, because jobs would be sucked out of Rotorua and Taupō to fill the convention centre in Auckland when the international visitors come. So I do not know what the MPs in Taupō and Rotorua are saying, but I bet they are not happy that the Prime Minister is favouring an Auckland convention centre at great cost to the taxpayer, now we are hearing, and at the expense of their electorates as well. It goes from bad to worse. But this is a deal that the Government itself put over.

The Auditor-General said that this deal was neither transparent nor even-handed—neither transparent nor even-handed. It does not get much stronger from the Auditor-General. That was in response to things like the Prime Minister meeting behind closed doors with Skycity’s executives and giving Skycity information that other bidders did not have. This was not a transparent deal. Once it was under way, once that had been pointed out, the political imperative came from the National Government. It had the arrogance to say: “Get the deal done. Get the deal done before the election. We will tell New Zealanders it will be free. Get it off the table. They can come back for more money later.” Well, New Zealanders are seeing through this, and that tired, arrogant third-term Government is going to be called to account, as we saw in the poll result on Campbell Live last night—97 percent of New Zealanders not wanting to suck this lemon.

Treasury said it was not convinced by the cost-benefit analysis. It was clear from the start. It said it had “strong concerns that private benefits to Sky City will exceed public benefits to New Zealanders.”—a quote from Treasury. Public costs will flow to private gain once the centre is paid off. It is a dodgy deal. But that was September 2013. Now we are seeing what is really happening as a consequence of the deal that was signed back then to get it off the political table before the election—to get a deal that was supposed to be free for New Zealanders, which we now learn is likely to cost taxpayers money. Well, New Zealanders are not standing for it, and I urge everybody to go and sign that petition online, to make it clear that New Zealanders will not tolerate this and will not put up with John Key’s changing position on the Skycity convention centre.

It is typical. We know that when it comes to corporate bailouts there is a history there. There is Novopay. When it goes wrong, buy it. In the convention centre contract it says if it goes wrong, buy it. It is in the contract. We have had Rio Tinto, and no guarantee of jobs. There are white elephants—there is MediaWorks, there is Chorus—and there are lots of dodgy deals from a tired third-term Government. This Government is going its own way and New Zealanders are not happy about it.

When we are debating the Prime Minister’s statement, it is not about the convention centre that the last member, David Clark, talked about. This is a conversation and a debate about the future of New Zealand and what we want this country to look like. When we look at the future of New Zealand, we have a clear choice. There is a contrast between what the political parties in this House represent. On this side you have a free and open country that is part of the world. On that side you have a very divisive party that wishes to make New Zealand closed and not part of an open economy. Those members want a controlled economy. We have a positive, inclusive outlook on this side. They have a negative and defensive one on that side. This is the choice that New Zealanders have. They have a choice between a future that is open, positive, and part of the world, and those who are against anything and everything that can be done to help this country.

💬 Hon Member: They’re not against trying new taxes, though.

They are not against that, are they? This is a country that needs to believe in itself and have a vision for the future, and trust itself and trust its position in the world. We live in a great part of this wonderful world, which is growing, and the growth that you see in New Zealand is part of that growth you are seeing around the world. We cannot afford to turn our back on that world and go back to the days when we were an exclusive and very defensive country that did not allow other New Zealanders to become part of this great country. We want to be open and free, not restricted and held back by political ideology. That is the difference that New Zealanders understand and accept. That is the difference that New Zealanders have voted for in continuous elections.

💬 Tracey Martin: You didn’t tell them the truth.

Telling the truth, coming from New Zealand First—that would be lovely to hear. We would love to see that happen from you, Tracey. Perhaps you need to talk to your leader about that at some stage. New Zealand First is a great example of how those members are trying to hold New Zealand back. Immigration, for example, is something that many people on the Labour and New Zealand First side of this House have been against.

💬 Hon Members: Sell the country.

“Sell the country.”—that is what they are saying. It is not actually the case. It is opening New Zealand up so that people can come here and make their future in this county. What is the problem with that? What is the problem with people wanting to come to New Zealand and bring their families up in this country? What is the problem with their wanting to make New Zealand their home? What is the problem with wanting to make New Zealand stronger? That is the question you should really be asking, not trying to pit people against each other—not trying to make people look at each other and say that those differences are reasons they should not be in New Zealand. That is the disgusting side of that party.

💬 Brett Hudson: Diversity brings strength, Mr Bennett.

Diversity does bring strength. But beyond that, we also need a balanced approach that actually enables this country to grow in the way that we look at our economic structure.

Our economic structure is one that is in the free, open world. We are not in a world that is dominated by European-type economics any more. It is not a world that is dominated by the powers that used to control this world a hundred years ago. It is a world that is dominated by the influence of competition, hard work, and education. That is the modern world, and we have an economy that is doing very well in that modern world. We have an economy that is growing beyond the growth rates of other Western countries. We have an economy that is taking its rightful place in that world order.

New Zealanders should not and do not want to give that up. They do not want to go back to being some island State that has some de facto communist basis that the left wants to bring into New Zealand. We look forward to being a place where children can grow up, get a good education, go to university, and work and play in this beautiful country. That is the choice that we have. That is why this Government is delivering the infrastructure and the resources for that to happen.

Come to Hamilton. No one from New Zealand First ever will, but come to Hamilton and you will see that in the last 2 weeks we have opened two new schools. We have opened a primary school and turned the sod on the new secondary school in Hamilton.

💬 Sue Moroney: No, that isn’t open. When did it open?

It is going to open in 2016. We turned the sod—turned the sod, which is more than Sue Moroney did. When Sue Moroney was in Hamilton, which was many years ago, Sue Moroney came to this hill and said: “This would be a great place for a school.” She got the newspaper to take a photo of her at that hill and she said: “This would be a great place for a school.” She did not mention the fact that there was no money for it and that it had not actually been designed, or anything like that. Sue Moroney campaigned on the platform that she had delivered a school when she had not actually delivered anything other than a photo to the paper. That is the nature of the Labour left. It just goes out there all smoke and mirrors, with no reality, no ability to go out there and try things, no substance, and no delivery, and people do not like “no delivery”.

💬 Sue Moroney: That’s what people do say about you, David—you’re quite right.

I am quite right. Thank you, Sue. We are quite right because we have delivered for Hamilton, and that is true.

Hamiltonians are smart people. Hamiltonians want to see a diverse city. We live in a part of the world that is growing strongly. We do have good growth rates. We have a city that has new suburbs popping up all the time. We have so many new suburbs that we gave some to the Hamilton West electorate, and that really helped it as well. In the end, the people of Hamilton are the barometer of New Zealand. It is a city that is diverse. We have a lot of migrants. We accept and we understand, and people get on well and enjoy our migrants and all the people in our community.

It is a city that delivers for New Zealand. We deliver export returns. We have a large manufacturing base in our city. The Green members may laugh because they have never actually been to a manufacturing site or a dairy farm, but it would be lovely to see a Green member at a dairy farm and have them actually work out how we pay for you to sit in that seat, because it does not happen by smelling the roses, OK?

It is a part of New Zealand that actually works in the modern world. We have growth. We have diversity. We have an economic structure that is based on exports and delivery. We have a strong economic base through our education system, which gives all New Zealanders, and especially all Hamiltonians, that real opportunity.

We have the investment in infrastructure—the roading and expressway, for example, that is being delivered there—and also housing and schooling networks. Those are the investments that are made in people. They are the investments made by a Government in its people to get the success that they deserve. People understand that. They do not want to hear the rhetoric from the left about trying to close New Zealand down. They do not want to hear the rhetoric about how we should make New Zealand divisive and should pit person against person. They want to see a positive Government and a positive delivery of messages. That is what they get, and they understand that, and they see that in people like John Key and Bill English and the National team.

💬 Tracey Martin: Rich white men.

They understand it is positive. It is actually about working together. I think you would want to take those comments back, Tracey, because you do not—

💬 Tracey Martin: A hundred years ago, and it hasn’t changed at all—rich white men.

It takes one to say that, if you were saying those sort of things, Tracey.

In this country and in our city of Hamilton we have a choice. You can choose the left, which is going to hold your city and your country back and pit people against each other, or you can hold to a vision of a New Zealand that is open, free, and part of the modern world. That is something that New Zealanders will always chose because they know it is the right choice to make. They know in their heart of hearts that that is the way that they will actually be able to succeed and develop as a country and as a city. We look forward to that continuing under this Prime Minister’s leadership. Thank you.

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in this debate. I think it is, most important, a good chance to bring some common sense into the debate, especially after that last speaker, David Bennett. Like many, I would like to wish colleagues my sincere best wishes for this year, although I am biased so I would like to wish the New Zealand First members an even better year. I also want the good people of Northland to know that we are all here for you.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Which one of you?

All of us—the entire party, of course.

Apparently, according to the Prime Minister, business confidence is high, but if business confidence is high, then perhaps he has not seen the Federated Farmers latest farm confidence survey. It is stark for two-thirds of our exporters. But we do not have a Prime Minister. What we do have is a “President Business”. He sits there, surrounded by his doe-eyed micromanagers chanting “Everything is Awesome”—that is the song from The Lego Movie; that got their attention—except we all know that everything is not awesome. Our farmers and our exporters know it is not. The people of Northland and my home region of Manawatū know that it is not. Everything is not awesome when nearly a quarter of our young people are without a job—they know it is not awesome—and when our Government is ignoring their plight, at New Zealand’s peril.

Young people who experience early and prolonged periods of unemployment are at risk of long-term benefit dependency. The Salvation Army’s state of the nation report released today highlights an association between child poverty rates and rates of benefit dependency. This is why New Zealand First wants so much more focus placed on youth employment. New Zealanders want to be sure that our young people are given every chance to succeed, no matter what life circumstances they are facing. What we do now to support our youth into work will make all the difference to child poverty levels in the future and it is an essential step we must take if we are to address the endless cycle of poverty. That is why we need fewer micromanagers who love zero tolerance and a lot more economic and social management led by master builders who want New Zealand to own and prosper from the riches at our feet and what falls from our sky.

We need to look at the way the Westminster tradition operates in this House. These days Ministers and select committee chairs do not even bother to resign. They get promoted or considered for Cabinet. That is actually the Rena school of management, because scum seems to rise to the top of the surface. Take the $140 million corporate welfarism for Skycity to prettify its convention centre. Here is a company that made $66 million net profit over the past 6 months holding out a corporate begging bowl.

💬 David Bennett: Get over it.

Get over it? Is that what you say to the public of New Zealand, the taxpayers: “Get over it.”? It is on the Hansard record now; you can quote it.

How far would $140 million go to alleviate child poverty, I ask that member. It could fund the SuperGold Health Check Bill, buy another warship for the navy to hunt down pirate fishing vessels, or even buy 25-millimetre rounds and fuel for HMNZS Wellington—that ship clearly did not sail with either of much of those.

If we are talking monuments, then what about this ridiculous flag referendum. A former British Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, was once called John “Two Jags” Prescott. We, of course, have another John: John “Two Flags” Key, who not only green-lighted the national Māori flag but now wants to change the New Zealand flag. That is another $25.5 million. But that is only the start, and New Zealand First will be delighted to share that later in the year. But here is a big hint—check out the New Zealand coat of arms. How much is that going to cost? John “Two Flags” Key was keen on a black background until parodied on American television—a laughing stock.

Since the flag was adopted in 1902, 350,000 Kiwis have served under it, with 30,000 of those paying the ultimate sacrifice. It is shameful to their memory and to all who have served our country that this flag has become the Government’s plaything. It is shameful in this the centennial year of Gallipoli that it is being used as nothing but a distraction. It is no wonder this Government is spinning faster than a Fisher and Paykel washing machine when we have a forecast of a $572 million Budget deficit. That is an almost $1 billion negative reversal of what Mr English predicted last May—a $1 billion reversal.

So this Government has never made a Budget surplus and based on this it never will. I guess we have had Rogernomics, we have had “Ruthanomics”, but this Government has perfected “Ponzinomics”. You could also call it an “OBE”—other blighters’ effort—strategy because the dollar’s recent fall has had absolutely nothing to do with anything this Government has done. It is down to the Australian, European, and Canadian central banks. It has everything to do with the US oil industry, and nothing to do with this Government. Yet everything is awesome, according to those members.

We do not have an inflation problem but we are staring down the barrel of a deflation crisis. Shannon in the Manawatū does not have a housing bubble but it is treated exactly like St Heliers. Everything is not awesome in the way this House is being treated over the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq. Even Al Jazeera, I am told, is speculating on where we will be located in Iraq, but this House has not been given the decency of a debate because Government members know that they will lose. They know that they will look like fools.

New Zealand First does not believe that Iraq will be solved by a family group conference and cups of ginseng tea. Although we are revolted by ISIS, the legitimate concerns of this party are being met by a brick wall called Gerry Brownlee, who is less a Minister of Defence and more a Minister on the fence—or is he more a bull in a diplomatic china shop? Mr Brownlee described the Prime Minister’s statement: “It is the price of being in the club.”—his comment on Iraq—as an unfortunate statement, before wrongly attributing it to the British Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond. If we are revolted by ISIS, what about Boko Haram and their ilk in South-east Asia? Defence needs to be properly funded.

So how are we going economically? National’s big idea from the Job Summit has been a cycle trail and heaps of red tape while it takes the credit for the efforts of our farmers, our manufacturers, and our tourist operators—people who have laboured under the high dollar. As my leader told Northland yesterday, help is on its way.

This party believes in the storage of rainwater. We believe that roads in the Manawatū and elsewhere, not just those in Auckland, are truly roads of national significance. We believe in harvesting our resources and ensuring our regions get their fair share of minerals through a royalties for regions programme. We believe in “Made in New Zealand”, not “Made in China”.

Only New Zealand First’s Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill will bring in a register of foreign land and housing ownership, and it is great that Labour is following our leadership on this. Even Federated Farmers support this register. The National Government has blithely allowed the sale of a million hectares of land into foreign ownership and now our largest dairy and sheep processor is Chinese-owned.

Auckland’s housing crisis is led by immigration but this Government does not want to know. Instead of tackling it we get Resource Management Act reform, except this Government was elected in 2008. What year is it now? 2015. We know that the Overseas Investment Office ticks off nearly all of its applications and is only a flow meter. Most property sales, including houses, do not even come on to its radar.

We need to act in the interests of New Zealand and put New Zealanders first. Take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ SuperGold Health Check Bill, which is simple, as any good policy should be. It strengthens primary health care—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired. The next call is a split call. Chris Bishop—5 minutes.

Happy New Year to everybody. It is great to be back for another year in Government. I do not know what Andrew Little was up to over the break but he accused me of going kayaking down the Hutt River. I just want to put on record for the House that that did not actually happen, but I did explore the beautiful vistas and surrounds of the Hutt Valley over the break. It is great to be back.

New Zealand starts 2015 in great shape. There are challenges—no doubt about it—but we are appreciably better off as a country than we were when the National-led Government took office in 2008. The statistics have been well canvassed. We have one of the fastest growth rates in the developed world: 217,000 new jobs were created over the last 4 years. The members opposite used to mock the Government about Treasury forecasts of 170,000 jobs in 4 years. We have smashed that target as a Government and as a country. There is the highest labour force participation rate ever. In particular, I am really happy that we have the highest female labour force participation rate ever.

But it is deeper than that and I want to point to three particular phenomena that prove that the New Zealand economy is on the right track. The first is that household savings have been positive now for 5 years in a row. Again, members opposite used to talk a lot about creating a savings culture in New Zealand and making sure New Zealanders saved more. Well, New Zealanders are saving more and, no doubt, one of the reasons for that is the tax changes that we introduced in 2010. The second point I would point to is positive migration, which we have massively turned round from the situation we inherited. People are literally voting with their feet and moving back to New Zealand and, more important, not leaving New Zealand for places like Australia.

The third thing I would point out is that, as Mr English, the Minister of Finance, pointed out in his contribution to the debate, the speed limit for the economy—the natural growth limit that Treasury and the other economic boffins think the economy can grow at without inflation taking off—has been revised upwards. That is extremely important, because as you grow faster for longer you have a bigger impact on people’s wages and you have a bigger impact on household wealth and household disposable income. So if we can grow for the next 4 to 5 years at 3 percent or 4 percent or more, rather than the limit we previously thought, which was 2 percent, that will have an appreciable impact on New Zealanders’ lives, and we get that growth only through sustained economic reform.

Usually, third-term Governments slow down, become insular, and run out of ideas. The Clark Government certainly did that. In fact, it ran out of ideas well before the third term but it certainly ran out in its third term. The Muldoon Government did that. But this is a Government that is active, that is vibrant, and that is energetic. It has been renewed a little bit by myself and my colleagues from the class of 2014, and we are resolutely focused on jobs and growth for Kiwis, internationalising our economy, and making us more outward looking, and not only that but also driving better public services for New Zealanders.

We are going to focus on two particularly important things this year and going forward into this parliamentary term. Those things are the reform of the Resource Management Act to make sure it works for New Zealanders and actually delivers the outcomes we want, and, in particular, social housing. Social housing reforms outlined by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament, in his speech, are very important. We are going to grow the number of social housing places available in New Zealand. If you listen to members opposite, they would say that we are ripping the heart out of social housing, but, actually, we are investing more money and 3,000 more places so that people can move into social housing.

💬 Brett Hudson: How many more?

Three thousand more places. We are also moving people into independence and off the State. At the moment there are around 3,300 people who pay market rents for their State house. They are in a Housing New Zealand house and they pay a market rent because their income is too high to access income-related rent subsidies. Those people are taking up a house that could go to somebody who cannot afford to move into a private house by themselves. So we are genuinely and in an appropriate and respectful way going to move those people on.

We are also going to make sure that State housing is in the right place and is the right size. Thirty percent of people on the Housing New Zealand waiting list require a one-bedroom house, but that is just 9 percent of Housing New Zealand stock. That makes no sense. If the members opposite who always talk about equity and fairness were genuinely in favour of those things, they would back these reforms. These reforms outlined by the Prime Minister and the trio of housing Ministers are socially progressive, they are socially equitable, and they are fair for New Zealanders. They are focused on tenants rather than on who actually owns the house. That is the obsession of the Labour Party. They are stuck in the 1970s focusing on how many houses there are and who owns them, rather than on what is actually best for tenants.

I call Alastair Scott—5 minutes.

As you have heard from the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon, the economy is in good shape. Interest rates are low, GDP growth is in good order, and jobs are being created. Social statistics are also heading in the right direction. Crime is down, education statistics are good, and waiting lists in the health sector are shrinking. All those things are heading in the right direction. The number of jobs created is at a record high. The number of sole parents is falling dramatically. Tourism dollars are up. In my electorate of Wairarapa, tourism dollars spent are at a 6-year high. Why is that? We have a cycle network, on and off-road. We have balloon festivals, we have wine festivals, and we have vintage car and plane festivals. These are initiatives created not by a Government but by the Wairarapa community. More cars were purchased in the Wairarapa than in the previous 12 months. This is a sign of a growing economy—more dollars being spent and more jobs created. According to Paymark’s statistics, $41.9 million was spent in Wairarapa in January. That is 6 percent more than the previous January and well above the national average.

I am telling you this because Wairarapa is just an example of what regional New Zealand is heading towards. It is just one of the prosperous regions that are working under this Government.

💬 Darroch Ball: Give us one more example.

I have just given you some examples. The question, of course, is: how does this happen? How does a Government manage to pull all this together? How did the Government win the last election with such a strong mandate? Part of the reason is the policies, because they are good. Part of it is to do with our experienced and capable Cabinet. Its members are also very good. Part of it is to do with the rejuvenation of the caucus. There are 14 new members in our caucus, and they are talented members, if I may say so myself. Part of it, of course, is due to our popular and extremely capable Prime Minister. But the most important factor and the reason it is working is that we are working together. All of these things are coming together. We are facing the same direction at the same time for the betterment of all New Zealanders. The people of New Zealand know this to be true. They know that we are working for them.

💬 Brett Hudson: They have confidence.

You have taken the words out of my mouth. This builds confidence—confidence in the economy, confidence in their families, and confidence in their businesses. This confidence enables them to take risks and enables them to invest further in their businesses, creating more jobs and more wealth. So that is why the results are good. Kiwis know we are a team that gets results for them.

Of course, the opposite is also true. A team without inclusiveness, a team with two or more factions, and a team with public disagreement will never gain the confidence of the New Zealand public. Imagine if Conrad Smith or Ben Franks publicly said they wanted Richie McCaw’s job. Imagine if Richie McCaw said: “Right, boys, we’re going to be playing a free-flowing game of footy this weekend.” and then Sam Cane said: “I’m not happy with that statement. I think we’re going to have to discuss this in caucus.” So too the Labour Party continues to be segregated and dysfunctional. Andrew Little’s policy of Māori sovereignty—note that it is Andrew Little’s policy and not Labour policy—is rightly questioned and labelled to be out of touch by his own caucus. No wonder the New Zealand public gave the Labour Party such a hiding at the last election and rightly voted back the National Party, which has a united team doing lots of little things well, working well, and getting the results for all New Zealanders.

I think it was quite telling that in question time today the Prime Minister informed the Leader of the Opposition that he was getting tired of being asked to be straight-up. Our Prime Minister does not want to be reminded to be straight with the New Zealand public. I think it is a bit of a theme of how this year is going to run. We have a Prime Minister who is slippery, we have a Government that is arrogant, and we have a Government that is out of touch. I think that nowhere was this divide between the Government and the Opposition drawn more sharply than in the two state of the nation speeches that we heard from John Key and from the Labour leader, Andrew Little. Labour stands for jobs. Labour wants to create jobs, and National wants to flog off our State houses. That is where the divide is drawn, and that is where we have put the gauntlet down.

Labour believes that we can do better as a country, and National is labouring under the mistaken belief that you can create more houses by reducing the number. I am interested to see the arithmetic. Nick Smith showed us that 20 plus 20 equal 44—

💬 Hon Annette King: Forty-eight.

Forty-eight, I am sorry, Mrs King. Forty-eight was his answer in question time today as an interjection across the House, and it is this kind of arithmetic that is lying at the heart of the housing Minister’s changes to our housing stock—a man who cannot add 20 plus 20. So we will be watching this with great interest as we go through. National’s State housing sell-off is a mess, and it does carry a huge risk that National will not build a single new house. National is failing New Zealand families when it comes to housing, but Labour has a plan. Labour is raring to go. We started this 51st Parliament holding this Government to account—holding this Government to account on its arrogance, on its inability to tell the truth, and on the way it conducted itself—and we will not resile from that. It is our job to hold this ailing Government, which is suffering from a severe bout of “third-term-itis”, to account and to tell it that the time is up and New Zealanders want a change.

When the current Government came to office, there were fewer than 100,000 unemployed New Zealanders. There are now 46,000 more New Zealanders unemployed compared with when this Government took office. Simply putting in your speech notes and chanting over and over again that you are about jobs and growth is not enough. You need to show the evidence and you need to show New Zealanders that you are about well-paid, sustainable—sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker; I know that you do. The Government needs to show New Zealanders that it is about creating jobs and well-paid jobs that are fit for the 21st century. In the last quarter alone, the number of out-of-work Kiwis grew by 8,000, and that is simply not good enough. This needs to be turned round and this will be a priority for a Labour Government in 2017. When Labour maintained unemployment at 4 percent or lower for 4 years from 2004 through to 2008, we had the lowest unemployment figures in the OECD, and today we have fallen to 10th. This is not good enough for us. This is something we want to turn round.

This is a Government that is not doing its job. It is a Government that has let standards fall so far, and it is showing that it is absolutely not up to the task. And then we have the great story of the deal of the century from the Government, from the master negotiators John Key and Steven Joyce, who went in to get a deal for New Zealanders. They are the same deal makers who brought you buying Novopay when you could not fix it, the same deal makers who ended up with a pretty bum deal down south, the same deal makers for whom everything they touch turns to custard. So what do we have? We have a free convention centre that is no longer free, but we are told that it is still a good deal for New Zealanders. But the stitch-up is unravelling. It was a shoddy deal whereby John Key and Steven Joyce stitched up the deal on the quiet without any proper competitive bidding, and this was always going to come back to bite them. But for the free convention centre that we were offered, all we had to do—and it was not much to ask—was sell off our gambling laws, those pesky laws that would control how we could regulate gambling in our country. That is all we had to do and, hey presto, we would have a free convention centre. Well, that is going to cost the New Zealand taxpayers $130 million out of their pockets, as well as a downgrading of their gambling laws. What kind of deal is this? What we have is corporate welfare going on from the people who promised to make sure that taxpayer money was well guarded.

But what we are also having is a lot of protesting from the National backbench in particular, I would think, about what unity there is in the National caucus. We had what sounded like a spill speech yesterday from Jonathan Young. I think he is getting excited about the prospect of leaders from New Plymouth and thinking that he might have a crack. We are hearing that they are all united, they are all standing together. I think they are worried that a bit of “Abbott-itis” might spread over the Tasman, and it may be that everything is coming undone. And we saw that today in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, with Bill English running a million miles from the Skycity deal, not wanting to have anything to do with it. As my colleague Grant Robertson said, the Southern Man wanted to show that he could put together a much better deal than the wide boy negotiators from Auckland.

But 2015 is panning out to be a year of the musical in this House. We had constant mentioning yesterday about Winston Peters’ Little River Band refrain to Northland that help was on its way. But what have we had from the National Party? Well, we have had Bill English telling us that he wanted to walk away. He wanted to walk away from the deal. The Southern Man, the Kenny Rogers of the National Party, knew when to fold ’em. He knew when to walk away. But I implore Bill English to come over here to a different kind of tune, because under Andrew Little we are singing a very different song from the wide boy negotiators of Steven Joyce and John Key. Well, there might be shonky deals and massaging of the truth, to put it nicely, but over here with Andrew Little it is all straight talking, three chords, and the truth. That is the kind of music that we are making over here, and that is what we will continue to have. We have a Government that has no answers.

We have the great State house sell-off as one solution that has been put up for housing, but then we do have another solution from the housing Minister, one of the “Holy Trinity” of housing Ministers, as they have been described today—from Nick Smith—and that is when all else fails, say you are going to change the Resource Management Act. Give some numbers, say that is the only thing holding up housing, and change the Resource Management Act. Well, what we have to be very aware of is Trojan horses creeping in when we are not going to see this as a solution to our housing problem. What we have—

💬 Dr David Clark: It’s not a musical; it’s a charade.

That is right. That is right, Dr Clark. It is not a musical. It is not a musical at all.

💬 Hon Annette King: It’s a pantomime.

A pantomime played out by Dr Nick Smith. What we are going to see—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: He’s behind you.

Watch out! What we are seeing are some numbers that have been made up and that are not going to decrease the cost of housing in this country at all. This is an arrogant and an out-of-touch Government that does not have the answers that we need. We have got a Government whose only solution is to sell off State houses. The Government is telling us that we are obsessed with who owns the houses. Well, I would say that its ideologically driven agenda about selling off State houses to property developers in the private sector is about an ideologically directed agenda when it comes to housing. So let us see some straight talking and getting back to three chords and the truth, as we are over here.

I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Debate interrupted.