General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Well, there is only one question that New Zealanders are asking after the first few weeks of this political year, and that is: “When will the half-truths, the double-speak, the dissembling, and the obfuscation come to an end?”. If there is one thing that these Government members have mastered, it is that they cannot tell it straight. From the Prime Minister to the Minister for Economic Development to the Minister of Finance, they cannot tell a straight story to New Zealand. They have to dress it up. They have plenty to hide. They have plenty to conceal, and they have had plenty opportunities to do so. But it is all coming to an end—it is all coming to an end.

It was very interesting hearing the “Minister for Construction of Casinos and Hotels” just now, talking about the Skycity deal. It was another example—just another example—of Government members having the chance to tell New Zealanders the full truth, the chance to be upfront and straight-up with New Zealanders, and not being able to do it. They could not do it. When they knew 15 months ago that they did not have the money—that they might be ponied up for a bit more money because the poor old gambling company Skycity could not afford it; it could not afford to make its promise—Government members did not say a thing about it, and John Key and Steven Joyce continued to promise that we would have a free convention centre.

Then Government members started the softening-up act. They won the election and they thought: “That’s it. We’re quids in here, brothers. We’ll soften them up, and they’ll have no objection. We’ll tell them another $140 million—what am I bid? What am I bid?”. They tried to soften us up but it did not work. The people of New Zealand said: “No—a promise is a promise.” When John Key, the great helmsman, says he makes a promise, he should stick with it. It is an unusual occurrence, actually, for New Zealanders to see the Prime Minister make a promise and stick to it, but on this score, this time, on this occasion they said: “No. He made the promise; he must stick to it.” And so Government members were forced to back down. Of course, it was not the Prime Minister, who had made the promise, who had to perform the somersault. It was left to the ever-agile and nubile Steven Joyce to do that. He had to perform the U-turn.

Then we have Donghua Liu’s story. This is a never-ending story. Before the election National members thought they had it all sewn up. Their mate, their little mate, wrote out a cheque for $25,000 and personally handed it to Jami-Lee Ross—personally handed it to Jami-Lee Ross—who put it in his bank account and had it sitting there earning interest at the sky-high rates that the Government keeps telling us about. Donghua Liu wrote them out a cheque and they thought they had it all over us. It was like “Oh, the poor old Labour Party. Look, you wrote a letter. You had this.”

We had the allegation of a $100,000 bottle of wine. Nobody had heard of the bottle of wine. The affidavit that they claimed to be sworn was nowhere to be seen. The written statement that followed the affidavit was nowhere to be seen. They had a thing on a paper napkin that they then talked about. That could not be found either, and it all turned out to be just a load of old codswallop. But what was not codswallop was the cosy relationship between the Prime Minister, John Key, and Donghua Liu—the man now facing court charges. Oh, yes! It was not the mythical $100,000 bottle of wine; it was the very real $25,000 cheque that found its way into the bank account of Jami-Lee Ross, but they would not front up and tell us the truth at the time.

Then there is State housing. They are very important, State houses. Many New Zealanders are dependent on them because they cannot afford to buy their own. They cannot afford to live within the private rental market. Was there one word spoken during last year’s election campaign, where they promised they would sell off the State houses? No way, and they would not front up about that. And now we have the deployment of troops to Iraq. Did they ever tell us that 16 personnel would be sent up there for training, with 106 sent to provide security? Did they ever tell us that they would be within spitting distance of the front line of the Islamic State? They would not tell us that, either.

They cannot tell the story straight—they cannot tell the story straight—and now they cannot be straight about how long those personnel will be there. This is not a job that will take 2 years. This is a long-term job dealing with one of the most evil organisations in the world, and we have a Prime Minister who cannot be straight with New Zealanders about exactly what the Government is committing good New Zealand troops to. They will not tell us everything. They will not tell us what the facts are. They will stand up here in the comfort of their leather armchairs and accuse others of not having courage, but they do not have the courage to front up to New Zealanders.

I seek leave to table a photograph showing the Hon Rick Barker handing over the $100,000 bottle of wine to Donghua Liu’s partner.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not help the order of this House.

I have sought leave.

Oh, the member has sought leave; that is true. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is.

I am delighted to stand and contribute to this general debate. I want to do so on the basis of discussing what kind of country we are, what sort of leadership we are entitled to expect, what sorts of values we want to see inculcated in our young people, how we provide that, and the sort of leadership that is available to them. Yesterday the Prime Minister exhibited all those values. We are a country that plays its part. We are small. We are distant. We are descended from people who were great adventurers and navigators, who crossed the Pacific looking for something better, and who were prepared to build that something better, but in so doing recognise that we have links across this world. We are part of a community that is connected and linked, and we are bringing up children in this society who understand that connectedness, who want to continue the traditions of our country of travel, of meeting other people, and of being safe to explore and go on adventures. That means that we do have to be aware and wary of many of the risks and dangers that characterise the world that our young people are growing up in.

We also want to make sure that they understand the history that they are descendants from. Before them there have been many New Zealanders who have gone into theatres of war, who have seen that defining our belief of what the quality of citizenship is in this country. It is important that we continue to not only maintain the respect for those traditions that are invoked on Anzac Day and in the year of the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli but keep that responsibility current.

The Prime Minister, in announcing yesterday the decision of the Government that we would continue to play our part, is continuing to invoke that pride of citizenship that is so important to us and to who we are as New Zealanders and as Kiwis. I for one am personally absolutely committed to that direction. I for one am one of those young people—well, actually, I am not that young. In comparison to some of my colleagues on the other side of the House, I probably am. But, certainly, I grew up going to dawn ceremonies on Anzac Day in Ruatōria and now in Wellington. I grew up with the names of heroes and heroines on our war memorials and in our marae around this country. Now I am a proud chair of the Ngārimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Board, which invokes all of those memories. The people who joined those battalions, and who join our Defence Force today, joined knowing that they want to be able to have that opportunity. The whole point, by definition, of having a defence force is that they are training to carry out those responsibilities. So we cannot on the one hand evoke the emotion of turning up to Anzac Day and then turn away from the actual practical reality of what that means. No, this Government is not prepared to do that, and this Prime Minister has demonstrated the courage, the wisdom, and also the great belief in who we are to take that stand.

As the Minister of Education, I consider that critical for young New Zealanders, because we have a curriculum that says to them that these are the values of who we are. We play our part. We want them to be travellers. We want them to be explorers. We want them to be mindful of risk. We want them to be relationship developers. We want them to be communicators. And we should not turn away as a nation when that responsibility looks us in the face and says: “Will you stand alongside the allies whom, in times of both war and trade, we look to for those relationships?”. So, no, this Government will not turn away from those responsibilities, and it is important that not only we confront them in a timely fashion but we demonstrate to young New Zealanders that that is part of who we are. We are descended from people who played their part, who took the risks, and who were prepared to do what was necessary. And so, as the Minister of Education, I believe that our schools are playing their part and are making those contributions. We have invested in connectedness. We have invested in ensuring that young people can critically think—critically think—and analyse what their responsibilities are.

We are seeing progress in our education system, and that, actually, should reassure all of us that we are continuing to build a strong nation, and a nation that is being led by a Government and a Prime Minister who understands that we must govern not just for now and the immediate future but for our future and our ability to hold our heads high. That is why New Zealand got such a big vote to go on to the United Nations Security Council. It is because we are recognised for our integrity and for the part we play. So I am proud to stand alongside our Prime Minister, our Government, and the decision that has been made to continue this responsibility as New Zealanders.

Well, I guess today’s paper pretty much sums it up, if you look at the front page of the Dominion Post. On the right-hand side you have photographs and a story about the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS): “ISIS fight: Key fired up”—or not, apparently; and “Emphatic no for the super-city in voter poll”. I want to speak briefly about both these issues. I think probably the one part of the front page of the Dominion Post that I would like the members of the Government to focus on is the part here with United States journalist Steven Sotloff standing beside—that is “Jihadi John”, is it not?

💬 Hon Member: Kneeling beside.

Kneeling beside “Jihadi John”. The question that I have for this Government is: what is your contingency plan? If one of our soldiers ends up in an orange jumpsuit beside “Jihadi John”, what is your plan? Will you pay the ransom, will you send in the SAS, or will you stand by and allow one of our soldiers to be beheaded? That is the real question, and I have not heard anything from this Government. And I put it to this Government: before the troops go—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: It could happen tomorrow, you great goof.

Do not make light of it, silly Mr—what is your name?

💬 Barbara Stewart: Goldsmith.

Goldsmith. Do not make light of this. See, the thing I know about people in Parliament—and I used to say this to Keith Locke—is that most often the people who have the loudest voices when it comes to deploying people into theatres of war are those who have never worn a uniform and never want to. And very, very often, sadly, you find that they do not allow their sons or daughters to go either. So button it, Mr Goldsmith—button it. You have no place commenting on this because, quite frankly, you do not know what you are sending troops to.

The other point I want to talk about is the Local Government Commission and the super-city amalgamation. As the Mayor of Carterton I tried to have conversations with various Government Ministers and a range of people—indeed, yourself, Mr Speaker when you were the Minister of Local Government—and I tried to impress upon people what was going to happen. I know this Government passed legislation to make it easier to force amalgamations, and it has relied on the Local Government Commission to put together the necessary papers to effect that. That is the aspiration. We know that. But what we have right now is two things: an incompetent Local Government Commission—and I did ask the Minister of Local Government whether she had confidence in it. She said yes. The trouble is that since the commission’s Wellington proposal has been released, it has had to make three corrections of fact, and there is still one major glaring error of fact in its proposal where it has estimated the costs of merging the Wairarapa councils’ IT systems into one at $25 million—wrong. The three Wairarapa councils have been doing that work for the last 5 years, and had the commission bothered to pick up the phone and ring one of the chief executive officers over there it would have been told that the cost was probably about $1.5 million to polish it off—$1.5 million, not $25 million. I am sorry, but the Local Government Commission reeks of incompetence.

And now we have an amazing statement, a ruling coming out of the Broadcasting Standards Authority, which has found that the Greater Wellington Regional Council and Fran Wilde have lied—lied—in their marketing propaganda to the people of the Greater Wellington region. I have got to hand it to Stephen Franks, who has taken Fran Wilde and the Greater Wellington Regional Council to task, and the councillors of the Greater Wellington Regional Council, and is asking them, as honest members of the council: “How do you feel about this? Will you seek an inquiry into the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s propaganda?”. I stand here ready to assist this Government to a sensible solution for the Wairarapa, which is a unitary authority, and it would help if the local member stood up for his people as well. But we are not going to lie down and let this Government and the Local Government Commission allow the people of the Wairarapa to be forced into a Wellington super-city when 85 percent of them do not want it.

Xin nian Kuai le. Gong xi fa cai. Sun nin fail lok. Gong hay fat choy, and a happy New Year, a happy lunar New Year, to you, Mr Speaker. Over the past few weeks I have been attending functions throughout my electorate and across this country to celebrate the lunar New Year.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You haven’t.

I have not seen Mr Peters there, and we know why he does not turn up at these functions, but these events culminated last night with a function that I hosted here in Parliament that you, Mr Speaker, attended. The one thing that these events draw together is that they remind us that New Zealand is a place where cultures can thrive and flourish. Different heritages and languages are part of the thriving web of interaction that is our country, one that we all love and admire. We know it is the Year of the Sheep, and of course many in this country have close associations to these fine animals, including you, as a former sheep farmer, Mr Speaker. For me there is a rich history of sheep in this country: 39 million out there today. I think that, based on that, this will be New Zealand’s year, the Year of the Sheep. People born under this sign are known to be creative and resilient, and to persevere.

That can best describe the role of this National Government in 2015. This country is going into this year in good shape: resilient and strong. Our Prime Minister leads a Government that has stabilised this economy. It grew 3.2 percent last year, and average wages have grown 15 percent over the last 5 years, and are forecast to head even faster into the future. Employment is strong. As the Minister for Economic Development, Steven Joyce, has said, 80,000 more people are now employed than a year ago—80,000 more people. There are 217,000 more—

💬 Dr David Clark: Unemployment is still higher than when Labour was in office.

—people employed than 5 years ago. And how do I know that? I say to Mr Clark, come to Maungakiekie, come talk to the employers that actually create jobs, wealth, and opportunities for our people and our communities, and they are saying to me that they want to hire more people, that they are growing, and they are confident that this Government is delivering for them.

Unemployment remains low: 5.7 percent. This is forecast to drop down to 4.5 percent. Some of the things I am proud of about this Government is that, in terms of my role as Minister for Pacific Peoples, we now have 116,300 Pacific people employed, and that is the most at any time in our history—the most at any time in our history. We know that meaningful long-term employment is the best way not just for Pacific families but for all families to succeed and thrive in this country. These positive statistics reflect that more young people are in jobs, gaining qualifications, and moving into sustainable, higher-paying jobs. That is what the people of Maungakiekie expect of this Government, and that is what Pacific people are now reaping the benefits of in such a positive economy.

As the Minister of Corrections, I am focused on reducing reoffending by 25 percent by 2017. We all know that the crime rate is at its lowest in three decades, but there are still too many people reoffending. We are taking measures through education programmes and rehabilitation programmes in our prisons, and also through converting every prison in this country to a working prison. Why? Because we know that employment is the best way out of poverty, the best way out of welfare, and the best way to stay out of our prisons. We know also that specialist aftercare services are being promoted in our prisons, and we are working hard to deliver on drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes, which are heavily placed in our prisons.

Lastly, can I just say that I am 100 percent behind our Government’s decision to stand alongside its allies and fight this evil organisation that calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It poses one of the biggest threats to this world since World War II, and we must do whatever we can to defeat it. We cannot ignore the fact that we are part of the international community, and there comes a point, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, when we must stand up and be counted. I am proud to be a New Zealander, just like Mr Mark is. I am proud to be part of a Government that will not bow down to the fear and terror of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and I am proud that we have made this decision to go to Iraq.

Last night TV3’s Campbell Live showed us a side of New Zealand that, frankly, made me sick to my stomach and should make the National Government deeply ashamed. A class of 28 teenage girls at Kelston Girls’ College, a very nice west Auckland high school, were asked whether they had eaten breakfast and what they had in their bags for lunch. The result was that 18 girls had no lunch. That is right—18 out of 28 girls had nothing for their lunch, and eight of them had had nothing for breakfast either. I find this hard to get my head around. Eighteen girls are expected to learn, to focus, and to function well in their school for the whole day, and to come away with National Certificate of Educational Achievement success at the end of it, when they have got grumbling tummies and have had nothing to eat. I find that staggering.

I would like to know something. Since when did the idea of classrooms full of hungry kids become tolerable in a country like New Zealand? I just do not know what else to make of the Government’s blasé response to the numbers of kids turning up to school without food, other than to assume that it thinks that that is OK. Well, I will tell you what—kids going hungry for the whole day at school is not my new normal. Child hunger in this country is a national emergency, and we today—today—can do something about it.

Tonight it is likely my “Feed the Kids Bill” will come up in this House for debate and a vote. Before MPs vote on it, I just want to say this: there is no reason on earth not to vote for my bill. If you do not like the idea of feeding kids lunch at school—if that grates with your sensibilities—then vote the bill down at the second reading or at the third reading. Do not deny Parliament the first real opportunity we have had to sit down with others across the political spectrum, with experts, with families, and with schools to hear what the solutions are for this national emergency. That is what you will be doing if you vote the bill down. You will deny the House a unique and crucial opportunity to put politics aside and do something for our kids who are in need.

I also want to say this to all MPs: when was the last time that you worked a whole day without having had anything to eat since breakfast? Do you think you could do your job if you did not eat something at morning tea or lunchtime? We all know that breakfast is not enough to get anyone through a whole day, so let us not pretend that a bowl of Weet-Bix in the morning is enough to see our kids through a whole school day either. Kids need lunch—it is simple—like we all do.

Last night we heard from KidsCan and the principal of Kelston Girls’ College that the problem of hunger in schools is increasing every day. It is not—with respect to the Prime Minister, who has not visited many low-decile schools—a problem for the odd one or two.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Stop making it up. That’s not true.

No—Julie Chapman from KidsCan said that around 22 percent of children in schools that she deals with are hungry every day. The number is up from 15 percent just a year earlier. Kelston Girls’ College is not an isolated story. The parents of the girls love their kids just as much as anyone in this House loves their own kids, but the school principals are saying the parents just do not have as much money.

It is a compassionate country that we live in—Aotearoa. We act before we judge people. When the earthquakes struck, we acted to help people without judgment or favour. If a child falls over and is cut, we help them regardless of why they were hurt. We act because we care for all the kids in this country. So today I am asking members across this House to have the guts to do what is really right and vote for the “Feed the Kids Bill”. Hungry kids are not the new normal in this country. It is a national emergency, and tonight we all have the chance to do something about it. Thank you.

It has been a significant week for New Zealand, and it is only Wednesday. On Sunday we had the 4th anniversary of the Canterbury earthquakes and yesterday we made the commitment for our Defence Force to train in Iraq. Both provide us with an opportunity to reflect on being a Kiwi, what we value in New Zealand, and why we need to protect our people and our quality of life.

Rebuilding Canterbury so that it is a great place to live, work, and raise a family is one of the Government’s priorities. The 4th anniversary on Sunday gave us an opportunity to take stock of how far we have come. There is a new normal in Christchurch, in Canterbury. What we think about, what we care about, and what we do is different now. People are more precious; things less so. We take pleasure in the small things, like a smooth road—things that we took for granted in the past. We are more creative. We are more community-minded, and public spaces and events are more popular.

Physically, there is huge change in our area. When you look you can see building everywhere. Roads are being repaired, houses are being built, and suburbs are being recreated. The central city, newly focused on a cleaned and restored Avon/Ōtākaro River, is coming alive. The anchor projects are taking shape. Businesses and organisations are returning to the town, and there is a real buzz of activity.

Everyone can see the physical rebuild, but what about the people of Canterbury? Everyone has lost someone or something. Everyone has their own experience and their own story, and everyone copes in a different way and in a different time frame. But as the Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, I am concerned about the well-being of the community as a whole and how they feel about life. The latest research, part of the All Right? campaign for greater Christchurch, tells us that fewer people are now worried about having another big earthquake. Significantly fewer people are dealing with the things that happened as a result of the earthquakes. But in terms of well-being and community, respondents feel better connected to greater Christchurch and more respondents reported regularly giving their time to help others.

When we compare Christchurch with the rest of New Zealand in the local government Quality of Life Survey, we see that across the six cities 82 percent of people rate their quality of life as positive, and in Christchurch that figure is 80 percent. In those six cities 17 percent of people feel stressed most of the time, and in Canterbury, that figure is 19 percent. But the statistic that I found the most interesting is that across the six cities, people tell us that “they have someone to turn to for help if they are faced with a serious illness or injury, or needed emotional support during a difficult time”. In those six cities 92 percent of people feel that, but in Christchurch the figure is 94 percent of people. So we do stick together. We are supporting each other.

So we have made some progress but we have still got some way to go. But I think we are seeing a benefit in that people feel engaged and are participating in our community. Last weekend alone, as well as the memorial services in the city, we had a Cricket World Cup match, a well-patronised fun run, and disabled surfing. The ethnic communities had a soccer tournament and we had the Chinese New Year celebration, and that all on top of our normal events. Cantabrians are out and about and enjoying themselves.

We are championing creativity and the arts in our rebuild. We have the Gap Filler events, and recently we had the Spectrum Street Art Festival, which will make Christchurch the leading city for street art in New Zealand. We have restored the Isaac Theatre Royal. We have got the Court Theatre running, and performances in Hagley Park. There is something for everyone. While I am here I would like to draw the attention of the House to the public consultation on the new earthquake memorial. From an international call for ideas we got 330 proposals, and six of those have been chosen. You can have your say online.

Yesterday in the House was one of those rare occasions when we saw some raw honesty from the Prime Minister—in his breathless justification as to why we should send troops to Iraq. If the Prime Minister could ante up yesterday, why could he not ante up before the election, when he made quite different statements about his Government’s position on sending troops to Iraq? Before the election it was a completely different story. Before the election Mr Key was quite adamant that there would be no SAS or troop deployment to Iraq. He was telling people before the election that this was National’s solid policy. Asked again whether he would rule out deploying our special forces to Iraq, even in an advisory capacity, Mr Key said: “I would say yes.”

Why are there two different stories from our Prime Minister? Before the election he said that there was no way we were sending our troops to Iraq, not even in an advisory capacity, but yesterday in the House, he was breathlessly justifying sending troops to Iraq as well as sending troops in an advisory capacity. What happened? Why the lies? Why the mistruth? Why the different story before the election, and why the story we got yesterday—that we are in, boots and all?

Also, when that side of the House sends a message to this side of the House that we are not supportive of our troops, I say that we will always be supportive of our troops whenever they are sent anywhere. You can play politics and throw out that accusation about us, but we will always support our troops. On this side of the House we do not support the nature of what you are doing in Iraq, but we will always support any of our troops and anyone in our Defence Force when they are sent out on a mission.

But there is a pattern for me here. Just like Mr Key softened the New Zealand public up with sending troops to Iraq, there are half-truths and mistruths with him everywhere. The Prime Minister made accusations about the Labour Party getting donations from Donghua Liu when at the very same time he was going around to Mr Liu’s house for dinner: “Come on in, John. Have a $25,000 cheque.” Have a $25,000 cheque. So it was hypocritical for the Prime Minister to throw barbs at our side of the House when he was going around for dinner. Mr Liu and Mr Key were sitting around the dinner table—but no, Mr Key did not go around; he said that he just saw him at occasions and fundraisers. Well, I am sorry, Mr Key, but the public does not buy your story that you saw Mr Liu at fundraisers and functions, because you went around to his house for tea. I certainly would remember if I got invited around to someone’s house and then $25,000 arrived in my bank account as a campaign donation. So I am sorry, Mr Key, but the public does not buy it. The public does not buy your web of lies and web of deceit around Iraq or around Mr Liu.

And, of course, there is another issue here, which is dear to my heart, and that is the sale of State houses. There was not one mention of the mass sale of State houses before the election, but post-election, it is all on. There are 8,000 State houses on the chopping block. What did Mr Key say about the sale of State houses before the election? He said that the truth was there are not a lot of other assets that would fit the category where they would be appealing to send to the market. But we know that at the same time his Minister Nick Smith was talking to the Housing New Zealand Board and saying that the Government expected that Housing New Zealand would own a significantly smaller number of houses in 10 years’ time.

What I do not like about this is the way that this Government has dressed it up. Hundreds of homes in my electorate were made vacant—the tenants kicked out—under some kind of premise that it was for earthquake strengthening. But that is not what was going on. Those people were being kicked out of their homes for those properties to be readied for sale. That is what was happening. A lot of them are still vacant, and the way they have been looked after—or have not been looked after—has caused crime in our communities, and we will find out more about that. This Government has just left those properties to deteriorate. It is deserting communities, and crime is happening in them. This Government has sat around and done nothing with those houses. It had an agenda of selling them off, but we did not hear about that before the election. We will hear more about that later.

There are many, many other cases where this Government has told one story before the election and another one afterwards, and the public are getting used to it.

I want to start my contribution this afternoon by acknowledging the pain of the Ōāmaru family who lost a daughter—a little 5-year-old girl; a sister, she had grandparents—as a result of a fatal accident at Moeraki, just south of Ōāmaru. My heart goes out to them. My love and my sympathy are with them. They are a well-known North Otago family. When a tragedy such as a fatal accident such as this one occurs, it goes further than just the immediate family—and, God knows, they are feeling enough pain at this time—it goes right into the local community and even more widely. I just want to say, as their local member of Parliament, that I am absolutely backing the need for us to make all roads in New Zealand safe for everyone.

The Upper Clutha and Otago area is a hot spot for fatalities and serious accidents involving foreign drivers. The impact is felt not just in New Zealand but on the families of the drivers from other countries around the world—the effects are felt there. I want to acknowledge the work already done by this Government and by Government agencies in their efforts to make New Zealand roads and New Zealand driving conditions safer for all drivers. I want to acknowledge the work of Ministers, who are very concerned about this issue. I am concerned as the local member of Parliament, but I want to acknowledge that they too are concerned and that there is a considerable amount of work going on to see whether we can make conditions for driving better in New Zealand. I want to see more, however. I want to see closer attention on what more we can do.

Is it that we can put in more yellow lines? Is it as simple as putting in more directional arrows so that when somebody drives out of an intersection they do not find themselves disorientated? If we can do that to make our roads safer for New Zealanders and visitors alike, let us do it. Let us just do it. So this Government, and this Parliament, is not sitting on its hands over this issue. There is a petition sitting before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I know that it has done a lot of work on this issue and that it is about to hear a submission by a petitioner whom I support—young Sean Roberts from Geraldine, who lost his father 3 years ago in a motorcycle accident. I supported that petition into Parliament; I sponsored it into Parliament.

This Parliament is taking this issue seriously. The select committee is doing something about this issue. I have said this before in contributions in the House, but I mean it, and I mean it from my heart. I want to see our roads in New Zealand made safe for New Zealanders and visitors alike. On a happier note, in the few minutes—

💬 Dr David Clark: Why is the Government not acting? Why does it keep delaying?

You see, there is a member from Dunedin North who should know better. He should know that this Government has done a significant amount of work on making our roads safer. In the time of the previous Government we did not see directional arrows, did we? As an Opposition MP, I had to cry against the wind to see whether we could get these basic safety measures in place. That was during the Clark Government. It had 9 years to make our roads safer. It took this Government to put the investment into roading.

It took this Government to put the investment into educating our visitors to New Zealand through the Tourism New Zealand website and through information on aeroplanes coming into New Zealand. All these measures have happened under this Government. Although the Opposition can sit back and cry doom, I ask those members to look inside their hearts and ask what they did to fix this problem, and contrast that with what is happening now. Thank you.

Getting the whole truth out of the Prime Minister is like pulling teeth.

💬 Chris Bishop: Oh rubbish!

“Rubbish!”, he says. There goes the man who used to work in his office, alongside Jason Ede. Yeah, that is right. Where is Jason Ede? Tell us that. We never hear Jason Ede coming out to tell us what went down in those days.

Andrew Little has traversed some of the ground today. We had the Government not saying anything about State house sales at the time of the election, and then miraculously having as its major focus at the moment the sale of State houses. We had the Skycity deal presented as being no cost to the Government for the full monty, the whole shebang. It was going to be absolutely free.

💬 Dr David Clark: Not a cent more.

“Not a cent more.” was the phrase that was used. We now know that 14 months ago Mr Joyce knew that that was not the case. Either it was going to be trimmed as to scope or the taxpayer would have to get the cheque book out. Then, shortly after the election, we had both the Prime Minister and Mr Joyce softening up the public for having to spend more money on it, getting beaten around the head by New Zealanders about that, and now conceding that they will get a smaller convention centre. We have not had the whole truth there, except what was dragged out reluctantly.

Then we come to Iraq. “No boots on the ground.” was the phrase. “No boots on the ground.” was what the Prime Minister was saying before the election. New Zealanders were understandably suspicious because Bill English, John Key, and Gerry Brownlee all said that New Zealand should have gone to war in Iraq in 2003 as part of the coalition of the willing. Lo and behold, those suspicions have been proven to be right this week when, just a week after the Prime Minister said that it is the cost of being part of the club—which at that time meant was the “Five Eyes” club, our traditional allies the United States, Australia, and Great Britain; that club—he now tries to reinterpret that as being the United Nations and has been roundly criticised by the media for spinning on that particular issue.

Then, this week, as if all of this is not serious enough, we know that he is misleading us about Donghua Liu. In the middle of all of these controversies—Mr Williamson resigning as a Minister, as a consequence; Judith Collins in trouble with Oravida and her donations from them, and the conflict of interest in her meetings with Chinese border officials in China—he put out a statement through his staff and he omitted to tell us that he had a private dinner with Donghua Liu.

That sort of omission just does not ring true. He was quizzed about this in the stand-up this week. It reads like a Clarke and Dawe script. It would almost be funny if it was not so sad. He is asked whether he is misleading by omission. “Are you misleading by omission?”, the reporter asked. PM: “No. I mean, look, at the end of the day we’re never going to start getting into a process of saying where we had dinner.” “At the end of the day” is one of those catchphrases that he always uses as a filler when he is in trouble.

Next he said: “I knew it was a Cabinet club dinner.” The reporter says: “Just to be clear, last year your office denied the dinner was a Cabinet club dinner. Emphatically they said no.” PM: “Right.” Reporter: “You’re saying it was a Cabinet club dinner?”. PM: “Well, that’s only what I read in the paper in the weekend. People have their own definitions of it.” Reporter: “So to be clear, was it a Cabinet club dinner?”. PM: “I don’t know. You’d have to ask Jami-Lee Ross. He organised it.” Reporter: “But didn’t you say it was a Cabinet club dinner?”. PM: “Well, like I say.” Reporter: “How do you define a Cabinet club dinner?”. PM: “Well, that’s right. How do you?”. Reporter: “Well, we don’t go to them.”

It gets worse. Reporter: “So you seem to be contradicting your office. You emphatically said it was not a Cabinet club dinner.” PM: “Well, probably it wasn’t, then. I don’t know. I don’t know the details.” Reporter: “But just moments ago you said it was a Cabinet club dinner.” PM: “Well only because that’s what I read in the paper. If you’re telling me it wasn’t, then it wasn’t.” Reporter: “But you were there.” The catalogue of events where the Prime Minister has to have the truth dragged out of him does him no credit whatsoever.

Tēnā koe Mr Speaker, ā, ka nui te mihi ki a tātau i tēnei ahiahi. Ko tāku wāhanga tuatahi ko Te Reo Māori hei whaiwhai haere i te aroha nui ki ahau o taku reo, ā, ka mutu ka huri ki te reo Pākehā mō te wā. Mr Speaker, me huri ki tētahi kaupapa hei whaiwhai atu i te mema rā. He kaupapa harikoa, kaua ko tētahi kaupapa āhua titi ki te ngākau, he mea pōuri rawa ēngari ko te kaupapa nui, ko te kaupapa ātaahua nei tērā ka tū ki roto o Ōtautahi, ki te wāhi e noho nā koe, i Ōtautahi.

Ā te wiki e tū mai nei ka kitea atu Te Ao Māori e whakaeke atu ana ki runga i a Ngāi Tahu, otirā, ngā iwi e noho nā ki Te Wai Pounamu. He aha te kaupapa? Ko Te Matatini! He aha Te Matatini? He huihuinga ā-tāngata, he huihuinga Māori, ki te whakanui i a ia anō. Ko te mata, arā, ko te kanohi o te tangata, tērā āhuatanga tini. Ko tērā wāhanga, tērā kupu e mea ana, ko te tokomaha. Ē hia kē nei! Nō reira, he pai tērā whakamārama a Wharehuia Milroy mō Te Matatini - he kohikohinga ā-tāngata, he huihuinga ā-tāngata, he huinga ngākau.

He aha te mahi i Te Matatini? Ko te mahi kapa haka ka kitea mai ai ko te kapa ā-haka, ā-poi, ā-waiata, ā-ngākau. Ko te painga ake o Te Matatini ka rongo te motu i ngā take nui o roto i Te Ao Māori. I ngā rā kua hipa ake, i te wā i a Tākuta Pita Sharples, ko te mahi petipeti tētahi. I ngā rā o wētahi atu Minita, ko te whakahē i Te Pire Takutai Moana a Te Rōpū Reipa te mahi. Ka pai!

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Huge accolades to us this afternoon. My first part will be in the Māori language, to follow up the huge fondness I have for my language, and I will switch to English for a time. Mr Speaker, to follow on from that member, let us turn to a euphoric one and not just one that pricks the heart somewhat, a really mournful one but with a huge and beautiful philosophy to be held in Christchurch, at the place where you reside in, at Christchurch.

Next week Māoridom will be seen alighting upon Ngāi Tahu, but at the same time upon the tribes living down there in the South Island. What is the purpose? It is the Matatini. What is the Matatini? It is a gathering of people and of Māori honouring itself once again. Te mata is the face, in other words, the face of a person, that aspect of the myriad. That part, that word tini is referring to the great number, to the myriad; an absolutely massive number. So that explanation by Wharehuia Milroy for Te Matatini is a good one—a collection of people, a gathering of people, an assembly of people performing from the heart.

What is done at Te Matatini? Cultural performances that will be seen will be posture dances, poi dances, and performances from the heart. The real good thing about Te Matatini is that the nation will hear about the big issues within Māoridom. In recent years just past, in the Hon Dr Pita Sharples’ era, gambling was one such issue. During the days of some of our Ministers, opposing the Labour Party’s Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill was the task. That is fine.]

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies to the speaker. I do not know whether other members are having the same difficulty, but I cannot hear the interpretation. I see that you, Mr Speaker, are straining to hear it too.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is certainly very faint coming through. I am listening very intently. We will take it up with the interpreters subsequently. The member may decide it is more appropriate to continue his speech in English on this occasion, but it is entirely over to him. You can hear it, but you have got to listen very, very carefully.

Ka pai. I will help you out, Mr Speaker. Can I start again with my 5 minutes? No, no. It is all right.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A good try, but no.

Anyway, to all the ones who are in the gallery and so on I was saying that I was not at the function that Mr Parker was talking about and I was not talking to a reporter so I cannot comment on anything that was stated there. But I do want to tell the member that in another week or so, come next Wednesday, pretty much most of the towns will be emptied out of Māori. They will all be heading to Christchurch, to the land of Mr Speaker—I hope you are still there; I think you are still there. [Interruption] Oh, you are still there. That is all right. There is going to be a heap of Māori there and they are all going to go and celebrate the good things. The kaupapa, the main function, is going to be called Te Matatini. What does matatini mean? Mata means face, and tini means many—many faces—and of course that encapsulates the statement by our Professor Wharehuria Milroy, who named the function. What goes on at kapa haka and at Te Matatini—I tell you what. Having been the stage manager for Te Matatini for three festivals, you have got food, you have got entertainment—the highest calibre of entertainment in terms of Te Ao Māori that you will ever see. Thousands and thousands of people will be going.

The great thing about it is that being held in Christchurch it will give a huge boost to the economy of Canterbury and, indeed, Christchurch. I think most of the motels are sold out. I do not know what Christchurch did, but it took the Cricket World Cup, and by taking Te Matatini it is taking money off Māori as well. That has got to be good for the economy. I just wanted to ask all members who happen to be in the Chamber, and indeed those listening, and those who might be listening around the country right now to take up the opportunity to go and see Te Matatini in all of its beautifulness—even if there is not such a word as “beautifulness”, go there, be in Christchurch, and see the beauty of Te Matatini.

The great thing for all members of Parliament if you go there is, firstly, you will struggle for votes because they are going to the Māori Party. [Interruption] I am just saying that. The second part is that you will hear the issues of the day. In the past there have been issues in respect of gambling and drug use. All of those things are taken up and are spoken about by way of haka, by poi, by action song. It is all there. All of the stuff is there if you want to see, hear, and feel Te Ao Māori. So I will just ask all the members whether they can take some time to be in Christchurch from Wednesday of next week. The pō’hiri is at 11 o’clock. Come and join us and the thousands of Māori who will be there. The final is on Sunday. It is going to be a great occasion and I am sure it is being broadcast. It will be a great celebration of being Māori. I hope you all have an opportunity to be there. We will take up the issue about interpretation later on. Thank you. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak during the general debate. First of all, I would like to congratulate all my fellow Kiwis on the new lunar year. This is a time when we all celebrate the lunar year.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Gong xi fa cai.

Yes—gong xi fa cai. Yesterday we celebrated the lunar new year in Parliament and we are attending lots of functions around the country.

The Sydney siege highlighted for us in this part of the world that New Zealand cannot be considered immune to the dangers posed by terrorism. Due to our distance we may be a bit far away; however, our geographical positioning is by no means an excuse for us to take a lacklustre approach. Our leader, the Rt Hon John Key, outlined yesterday the brutal and unfortunate realities of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Some recent events further highlight the threat that ISIL poses. The beheading of journalists, who are on the ground only to report on the current situation in that region, and the kidnapping of hostages are some of the many serious threats that we have to keep in mind when we discuss the serious, complex decision that the Government announced yesterday.

As we have seen, three young teenage girls have just left the UK and have gone to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria terrorists in Syria. It is a very serious thing that we need to understand—that those guys are influencing the young generation and asking them to join them in the Middle East and to create a threat.

Over the past few months the world has witnessed the ability of ISIL to attract, train, and keep foreign fighters motivated. Further, as an organisation it is well armed and has access to a constant flow of funds to it. Anyone who, despite knowing all these details, still feels that ISIL is not a threat needs to re-examine their facts. Based on the facts available, I am of the firm opinion that ISIL is a threat not just to the peace and stability of the Middle East but as a region globally.

We live in an interconnected world and we have to play an active part, while ensuring that New Zealand’s interests are taken care of. As the Prime Minister mentioned today during question time, New Zealand’s approach is that we have to be part of humanitarian, diplomatic, and capacity-building exercises in the region. By doing so we are standing by the values of New Zealanders. We are taking the righteous decision of helping support the rule of law internationally. Furthermore, we are doing it only on the request of the Iraqi Government, which has time and again sought international assistance for ensuring the safety and security of its citizens.

Although I am speaking about the rule of law internationally, I now want to focus on New Zealand. I was pleased to take over as the chair of the Law and Order Committee. The Prime Minister recently set Better Public Services targets and I am pleased that we are on track to achieve those. The crime rate is the lowest in the last three decades. People feel safe at home, at work, and on the streets.

I would also like to share the announcement made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse increasing the minimum wage from $14.25 to $14.75 from 1 April 2015. I think the wage rise strikes a perfect balance between the needs of employees and the ability of employers to pay. This is what we can call a win-win situation. The annual inflation figure stands at 0.8 percent, while the minimum wage has risen by 3.5 percent. This will directly benefit 115,000 workers and lead to increased wages of $60 million a year. This shows once again that we are listening closely to the needs of stakeholders and that we are making decisions based on their needs.

Another example that I can share here of where the Government is listening to the community is the decision by the Minister for Ethnic Communities—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

It is a pleasure to follow on from my distinguished colleague. Can I begin by paying tribute to Dame Thea Muldoon, who passed away peacefully yesterday at the age of 87. Dame Thea held, obviously, the courtesy title of “Lady”, as the wife of Sir Robert, but I think it pays to point out that in her own right she was made a Companion of the Queen’s Service Order in 1986 by the then Labour Government and was actually made a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire. She was made a Dame in her own right in the New Year honours in 1993 for the contribution she made not only as a very dignified first lady of New Zealand during Sir Robert’s premiership but for the innumerable community and charitable contributions that she made. So I think it is appropriate that all of us in this House pause for a moment to pay tribute to Dame Thea.

This weekend we have an opportunity—not so much in New Zealand, but we will very soon, thanks to an investment that this Government is making in ultra-fast broadband and the soon to be available Netflix service—to see the next season of that much-awaited series House of Cards, which is released at midnight Eastern Standard Time in the United States. This political drama, for those who have not seen it, features the machinations of an American political character. I do not want to give too many spoilers away, for those who have not seen the first two seasons, but needless to say these are the Machiavellian machinations of Frank Underwood, a political character. I am not going to take a cheap shot at the Opposition, but one could make any number of comparisons between Mr Underwood and some of the more Machiavellian characters across on the benches over there.

For this Government, I think it is a very positive mark of our level of contribution to developing ultra-fast broadband throughout the country that in March that Netflix service will be available. As we roll out ultra-fast broadband to households throughout this country New Zealanders will be able to take advantage of much faster speeds and get modern access to the sort of entertainment that those in other countries enjoy.

This morning on the Education and Science Committee we heard in public hearings from a couple of our tertiary education institutions—the Tertiary Education Commission and also Education New Zealand—about some very positive work that is being done under this Government’s stewardship not only to help develop New Zealand’s economy but to get better outcomes for New Zealand students, to make sure young Kiwis have a good opportunity to get a great education and go into good employment and also to make New Zealand a friendly and welcoming place for international students to come to.

I was delighted to hear of the efforts and work being done to boost Pasifika and Māori trades training. The chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission pointed out that at the moment we have gone from about 1,000 to 1,400 over the last year, since the announcement in last year’s Budget of that extra investment. So it is sitting at about 1,400, and he fully expects that number to go up to 5,000 over the next couple of years. Those young Māori and Pasifika trades trainees are going into a system that will help them ensure that they get jobs. In fact, the employment rate coming out of those qualifications is very high. That work is being done in partnership not only with educational institutions but with iwi like Ngāi Tahu, particularly in Christchurch, and building companies like Hawkins Construction, to make sure that those young people are well quipped to participate in the modern workforce and to take advantage of some of the economic gains that this Government has hard-wired into the economy over the last 6 years.

Another very positive story that we heard in that committee was around international students. I was delighted to hear that we had a massive growth of 10 percent over the last 2 years in the dollar contribution of international students to the New Zealand economy, from $2.6 billion to $2.85 billion. We are on track and fully confident that a $5 billion contribution by the year 2020 can be made. Not only do those students cross-subsidise young New Zealanders doing courses but actually they are creating a business network and a politically influential network around the world that will be favourable to New Zealand. They are also giving New Zealand students a cross-cultural platform, a level of competency including in languages, through to just an understanding of other people’s life ways, which will be very valuable and serve them well, going into the future. This is just one small example of the excellent work that this John Key - led Government is doing.

The time for this debate has expired. As this is the first general debate for this parliamentary year I just want to remind all members of Speaker’s ruling 47/1. The general debate is a type of debate that I expect to be political and impromptu, and I think it is unnecessary for any member to have to read a speech through the general debate. Today I have observed three members reading their speeches and, disappointingly, two of those members are senior members of this House. If a member was a new member or if a member was to use a general debate slot to state something quite technical I may be lenient. But in the future if a member comes into this general debate and proceeds simply to read a speech, do not be surprised that their speech may well be curtailed.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.