General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. There is a lot to look forward to in New Zealand right now. We have got the Northland by-election, we have got National continuing to deliver for families, and, of course, we have got the Cricket World Cup quarter-finals.

I am looking forward to welcoming my new colleague Mark Osborne into Parliament when he turns up here on Tuesday, 31 March after a great win in Northland. But what a lively place it must be in Northland right now for the Labour candidate, because the Labour candidate has no backing from the Labour Party hierarchy. Andrew Little does not even want her to win, and that must be a terrible place to be. And have you seen any Labour Party MPs up there? No. Where has David Cunliffe been? He has been stuck up the kauri tree in west Auckland. But in the end he decided he might be more use on the ground, although his leader had a slightly different opinion. Where has Phil Goff been? He has been off campaigning to be the mayor. They are not backing her at all. Meanwhile, Winston is wandering around promising to take action—flying around in a helicopter promising to take action on the closure of fictional health centres, which were never even opened. So it is all pretty strange up there. It is getting pretty wild.

But what I can say is that National is delivering for families in Northland. There is no question about that. If you look at the area I am responsible for—health—there has been a huge increase in what has been going on up there. Last year 8,500 Northlanders got elective surgery there. We have been really tackling the tough problems of rheumatic fever—a 25 percent decrease in the rate there over the past year. The initiatives around healthy homes, the health promotional activity, the free sore throat clinics, the drop-in clinics, the throat swabbing—we are really focused on these tough problems in Northland. I can also say—you heard my colleague Steven Joyce today talking about this—that there were 7,500 new jobs in Northland last year, 600 of which are full time. Northland’s economy grew by 5.1 percent last year—that is the highest rate in New Zealand. So it is all go-ahead in Northland. Of course, we have also got the Pūhoi to Wellsford road coming up; we have got the broadband initiatives, which are going to extend fibre-optic cable to places like Kaikohe, Kaitāia, Kerikeri. There is a lot to look forward to in that part of the country: Treaty settlements are going ahead up there, the Twin Coast Cycle Trail—that is going to inject $20 million into that economy over the next 5 years; 250 new jobs for Northlanders. There is a lot to vote for, positively, in that part of the country.

Of course, there is the outlook, economically, in New Zealand—3.2 percent growth. That is massive. Wages grew 15 percent over the past 5 years, and there were 80,000 new jobs in New Zealand over the past year. Inflation is at 0.8 percent, while weekly average wages grew 2.5 percent over the past year. Unemployment is only 5.7 percent—much lower than in Australia. And, of course, we know that Kiwis are flocking back here. Meanwhile, the balance of payments deficit—that has shrunk to 2.6 percent of GDP and is getting smaller all the time. We are going to hit surplus this year—that is under control. We are heading to 20 percent of GDP by 2020. It is looking good, but we are continuing to focus on families so that 300,000 houses are insulated nationwide under this Government. There has been an increase in paid parental leave. We are providing breakfast in schools. In education, Hekia Parata is providing leadership, basically, by bolstering the teaching profession. Early childhood education investment has been doubled. Homestart programmes are getting young Kiwi families into new homes. We have reduced ACC levies. So, in short, Kiwi families are much, much better off. And, of course, there is the progress in welfare. [Interruption] What does that mean, Mr Speaker?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That means you have 1 minute to go.

Oh, rightio. I thought it was the finger—never mind. We have had 48 percent fewer teen mums on benefits since 2009.

Mr Speaker, I know you will agree the Black Caps have started winning since the change in portfolio. It has been quite remarkable. The Cricket World Cup has been great for New Zealand. John Key and Brendon McCullum back themselves. They are on the front foot. Andrew Little is like someone going out to face the West Indies without a box on—hesitant, fearful, wandering around the crease. New Zealanders back winners. They back John Key. They are backing National, and go the Black Caps on Saturday for a great world cup quarter-final.

The Prime Minister’s parting shot at the end of my questions to him today was that the kids whom he talked to when KidsCan was giving out raincoats all told him that they all had a raincoat, and that, in just the last hour, has shocked a large number of people—the Prime Minister’s statement. Not because the children might have two raincoats—one more than they might need—but shock at the Prime Minister’s complete ignorance of the stress and responsibility that children who live in poverty and hardship cope with every day. We are talking about one in six kids in hardship and one in four kids in poverty, from the latest statistics.

Kids who live in severe poverty know that the public perception of poverty is that poverty is a crime of which they are guilty—that it is a disgrace, that it is a shame that the family will bear, and that it should be hidden from view. Why would a child tell a complete stranger the truth about their impoverished life? Any interaction that the child may have seen between their parents and Work and Income teaches them that they are to blame for their circumstance and that they deserve to be treated with disrespect. Any interaction these children see between their parents and a charity or a food bank, or at a supermarket counting out the coins, teaches those kids that poverty is embarrassing, that it requires you to swallow your pride, and that, if you suffer it for long enough, to lose your pride altogether. Any interaction their child may have seen between the family and virtually any agency or any authority, let alone authority figure, teaches that child that you do not tell the truth. You do not tell the truth because the truth will get you and your family into trouble. The truth will cause you harm, shame, embarrassment, and ridicule. That is what admitting to hardship and poverty gets you.

So no child is going to tell a stranger, let alone the Prime Minister—whom they see on TV every day; the ultimate authority figure—what their life is really like. How could they possibly expose themselves or their families to even more shame and ridicule? And the kids are right—they bear this responsibility every day. And they are right because at every turn—especially from this Prime Minister—the Prime Minister has refused to engage with the evidence of hardship and poverty. Even his comment this afternoon shows that he is ignorant. His comment about funding KidsCan shows that, actually, he is not funding KidsCan because he agrees that there is a need. That is what the Prime Minister exposed in his answers today. He is funding KidsCan because he sees that there is a political advantage in doing so. It is prime ministerial largesse. That is why the breakfast clubs are being funded, not because he agrees that there is a need.

If he agreed that there was a need, he would make sure that he fixed it. He would make sure that no kid in this country went to school hungry and that there was breakfast in every school for every kid who needed it; that there was lunch in every school for every kid who needed it. But he does not agree that the problem is serious, so he is just putting in a band-aid response and using public money to justify what he is doing. He does not agree. It is a politically expedient act for him. That is why the Prime Minister and National are refusing to support my bill. He is refusing even to accept the evidence that comes to him from independent agencies showing the extent of the problem. And he then tries to claim, by talking to kids who are poor and who are not telling him the whole story about their lives, that he is right. He has no idea of what these kids’ lives are like, and they are absolutely right to keep it from him. How could they possibly trust this man to treat their lives with the respect that they deserve when he treats poor kids not as a constituency and as the ultimate responsibility—the reason why he is sitting here in that chair—but he treats those kids as if they are political opportunities so that he can excuse himself and justify his miserable actions. Thank you.

Well, there ends the lesson. I am sick and tired of being lectured to in this House by that member, Metiria Turei, who makes things up, who has no facts to back up what she says, and who accuses our Prime Minister of being mean. In fact, the country went to the polls last year and gave National huge support—an enormous mandate—to keep on with the reforms and to expand the reforms that it was in the process of making to all New Zealand families. The reality of that is that New Zealanders understand that this is a Prime Minister who cares about New Zealand families. This is a Government that has done a great deal for New Zealand families, not the least bit making sure that there is a strong, growing economy that is providing more jobs for people, and we are seeing more people in work now than we have ever seen before.

But let us talk about this issue of food in schools, and let us look at the accusations that this Government led by John Key is mean. The reality is that now, currently, this Government is funding fruit in schools. We expanded the programme that the Labour Government put in, where half of it was being spent on administration. We have expanded it so that there is fruit going into every single school—and vegetables, I have to say—throughout the country. Fonterra is providing milk to schools, and fridges to put the milk in, so that there is fruit and milk in schools. This Government is working with a programme called KickStart Breakfast, which is working with Sanitarium and Fonterra. Just last month we delivered the 3,400,000th breakfast. Every school in the country is able to take part in that, and the Prime Minister is absolutely right—just under 800 schools are taking part in providing that breakfast. That is being funded by this Government along with other companies.

KidsCan is also providing food support to schools. And it is really interesting that in the talk that KidsCan had with me, it said that it is providing lunches to about 300-odd schools but that it does so in a discreet manner. It does not want those children to be stigmatised. It just makes sure that the schools can deliver the programme. So up comes a politician who is making a political point with photos and media, and there we are—we have those children stigmatised, which is totally against the respect that KidsCan was showing those children. KidsCan has also been funding raincoats, and the Government has funded that initiative with half a million dollars. And it is also funding nits. We put $900,000 into treating nits because that was recognised as a problem.

I just want to share with the House, when we are considering, as part of this Government’s programme, reform of the Resource Management Act. This Government put $900,000 into relieving children of nits. Part of that funding went to providing specifically designed handbasins to wash the children’s hair in at school. It was a fantastic idea and schools were delighted. Let me tell you that in the 17 Hawke’s Bay schools it took 6 months to get a resource consent through to install those handbasins—6 months. In Hawke’s Bay, 17 schools waited while that resource management consent went through their local councils. That is ridiculous.

💬 Stuart Nash: What councils?

Hastings and Napier. The members that represent those areas should be banging on those councils’ doors—6 months to get resource consents to put handbasins in so that KidsCan could roll out the nit programme. Since it has done that, of course, we have seen a huge response to that, and it has made a huge difference to the lives of those children. They have discovered all sorts of skin diseases as a result of it, there are nurses working with them, and it is a very good programme.

So the point is that this Government is providing enormous help to those families, and for that member to stand up in this House and accuse our Prime Minister of being mean and of supporting kids for only a political purpose is, I think, outrageous, because he has shown enormous leadership on this and has made sure that the Government is stepping in to help hundreds and thousands of New Zealand children throughout schools.

None of that takes away from the responsibility of parents. We know that, because the economy is growing the average wage is growing. The Minister of Finance said that in the House today. The average wage is growing faster than inflation, so families should be taking care of children—that is their first responsibility—but where they cannot, this Government is stepping in to help.

Before I begin my contribution I just want to point out that the Prime Minister today, in this House, stood up and claimed that he had personally asked children about their access to things like raincoats and lunches, and that he then had the Minister of Education call schools individually to ascertain the availability of lunches for students in the schools. Then we have the Minister who just resumed her seat, Anne Tolley, pointing out that the most important thing we have to do for children living in poverty is to make sure that we do not stigmatise them. If that is the case, what is the Prime Minister doing standing up and individually questioning children on whether or not they can get school lunches or have a raincoat to wear to school?

If we were serious about not stigmatising children, the Prime Minister would not base his and his Government’s policies on anecdote and on his personal surveying of children and their families. Yes, talk to principals; yes, ask principals what is going on, but we already have every report we need. Multiple reports have been conducted into this issue. If that Government is serious about addressing issues, then surely the reports that say that 17 percent of children are living in material deprivation—a figure that that Government uses itself—would be the basis on which we design our policies. Listen to the evidence. That is all that we are asking.

You know that things start getting a little bit rough in a Government’s third term, and we have got multiple examples of that, not least the fact Craig Foss is managing to get a patsy question in almost every question time. If that does not demonstrate that things are little bit off then I do not know what does. But it is not just the Opposition that experiences the torrid nature of a third-term Government; it is the public that does as well, and no more so than the people of Northland. The Northland by-election demonstrates how badly this Government is willing to put politics before people. It is an extreme example of a Government that is not listening to the real needs of the people on the ground, but is simply trying to dangle electoral bribes. They are not even particularly good electoral bribes at that. We have had $70 million worth of bridge double-laning proposed as part of this by-election—some of the lowest-priority building projects. And that Government would know that, if it had talked to the people on the ground. If it had talked to the people on the ground, it would know that road sealing, filling in potholes, and even funding for the polytech are higher priorities for the people of Northland than double-laning bridges that the candidate cannot even name, except for the one that he can see from his back door. If that does not demonstrate that it is politics before people, even politics before the people that National is campaigning amongst, then I do not know what is.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Like Labour’s campaign in the north—non-existent.

If the Government wanted to do something meaningful, Ms Barry, it would provide jobs. If you wanted to do something meaningful you would provide jobs for the people of Northland. The Government would make sure that wages were being lifted for the people of Northland. It would make sure that the schools in Northland had everything they needed to provide adequately for the children of Northland. Seventy million dollars could go quite a long way in making a difference for those people.

If we want another example of politics before people I would use the numbers that were displayed in the New Zealand Herald today around access to justice. Judith Collins in 2012 decided that she was going to crack down on legal aid.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Support Labour’s candidate.

Listen up, Ms Barry, you might actually learn something meaningful. In 2012 Judith Collins decided that she would send out 47,000 letters on outstanding debt—47,000 letters. A quarter claimed that they had an inability to repay that debt—11,000 people went back to the Ministry of Justice and said they could not pay. The Ministry of Justice substantiated those claims in how many of those 11,000 cases? In 10,000 of them. If that is not a red flag that that Government needs to look at legal aid thresholds, then I do not know what is. If you will not listen to us, listen to Frances Joychild, listen to Justice Winkelmann. They have all raised red flags over what is happening to access to justice in this country. This Government needs to make sure that it puts people before politics, or is it that the justice system needs a by-election to get a little attention?

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The first thing I want to do is address a couple of issues that were raised by the previous speaker, Ms Ardern. To get a lecture from the Labour Party about what the people are saying in Northland is ridiculous. There have been no Labour MPs there for a very long time because they are not campaigning there. They have left Willow-Jean Prime under a bus, and we know that. I was doorknocking there at the weekend, and I can tell you what they have been saying. Many people do believe that National has done more than any other Government, but the reality is that the people of Northland do need more, and the reality is that they do understand that there are more free doctors visits for under-13-year-olds and more money to fix their schools. There are a number of schools that have been fixed up in Northland. We have made more of an investment than ever before in terms of those schools. There is more money in early childhood centres. There is more money to insulate houses.

So a huge amount has been done, but the reality is that it is actually at times like this, when we see the situation with Cyclone Pam, that we see the best of New Zealand. I have seen the best of New Zealand over this period. It is the case that it was communities like Northland that won the civil defence award this year. They won that award because despite massive challenges in terms of weather, we saw communities rally together and help others. We have seen that in spades across New Zealand over this period.

If I have learnt three things as the Minister of Civil Defence it is this. The first is that our hearts go out to the people of Vanuatu for everything they are dealing with. Some of the unsung heroes in New Zealand in terms of civil defence are our engineers. What we do know in this country is that sometimes the difference between having massive loss of life and people being saved is the buildings. We have seen that in Vanuatu. One of the most powerful moments I have had as a member of Parliament was sitting with the Minister from Haiti and talking about an event similar to Christchurch’s earthquakes. We lost several hundred people; they lost more than 250,000. That is the difference, so I want to pay tribute to the engineers of this country.

The second thing is I want to say is what an amazing job so many regions across New Zealand did to prepare for this event. We had evacuations in parts of Gisborne. We had so many community groups on the ground doing amazing things. In the Chatham Islands they still have a local state of emergency. I want to acknowledge the mayor and the civil defence staff for what they are doing over there. They are still getting a bit of a battering, but we will be there to help them.

So my message is that this is a Government that cares. We have demonstrated in many communities—whether it is through under-13-year-olds going to the doctor for free, or whether it is through our investment in early childhood education or fixing more schools than ever before—that we do care. But often we see the best of communities right across New Zealand at a time like a civil defence emergency, when the only reason that we get through these events is that communities rally, not just the people in Wellington who are doing things from a civil defence perspective.

We have seen the best of New Zealand, and that is why I am very proud to be the Minister of Civil Defence and to be seeing so many people on the ground helping others at a time like this. Part of that is due to some of the changes we have put in place, like shifting the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management into the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, so that agencies across New Zealand rally at a time like this.

So I want to acknowledge the people of Northland for winning that civil defence award this year. I want to acknowledge the many families I have met through my doorknocking and the fact that they have acknowledged what this Government has done. But I also acknowledge that there is more to do there in terms of investing in education and infrastructure, and , with a National MP, we are the only Government that can provide that.

I also want to acknowledge all of the people across New Zealand who have helped others through this period, including the people of the Chathams, who are going through quite a bit at this point in time.

I must admit I found it quite amusing when the last speaker, Ms Kaye, talked about Northland and how Labour was disconnected, and then she realised that over three-quarters of the people sitting on this side of the House have actually been up there and spoken to the people of Northland. One of the most enlightening things for me is that I made a few visits and then I went to a local pub. I started talking to the people about who they are going to vote for, and they said to me: “We used to vote National, but we are sick to death of being taken for granted by this Government.” They said they were going to vote for Winston Peters. I said: “Really? You’re really going to vote for Winston? Why are you going to do that?”, and they said: “National has taken us for granted for so long, and we’re sick to death of it. We’re absolutely sick to death of it.” The thing is that we all know that by-elections are often referendums on a Government’s performance. Well, I think that this will be a very strong referendum on this Government’s performance, and I think this Government is going to get a very big shock.

The other thing I found quite amusing is that the Hon Anne Tolley stood up and said she is sick and tired of being in this House. Well, I have some very good news for the honourable Minister. I was up in Whakatāne and Ōhope recently, and we had three fantastic people who want to be the Labour candidate for the East Coast electorate. So, Ms Tolley, do not worry about it. You will not be there in 2017.

Once again, that electorate will be returning to Labour, and I can tell you why. The reason is that wherever I go around provincial New Zealand people say to me: “We’ve been forgotten by this National Government.” They say that if you own a house in Auckland or if you are involved in the rebuild in Christchurch, you are probably doing OK. Even the guy who was the chair of Local Government New Zealand, the Mayor of Hastings, who used to be a supporter of this National Government, came out and said that this Government does not have a strategy for the provinces. This Government has no plan for the regions. I think that this is what we will be seeing in Northland. There will be a very loud and clear message.

But the interesting thing is that I am back in my second term. I took a bit of break—

💬 Hon Member: A sabbatical.

I took a sabbatical. I took time out to talk to the people, to reconnect with the people of the Napier electorate. But when I was in my first term, the Government was quite an engaged Government. There was the Hon Simon Power who I reckon, put through about 40 percent of the legislation on the Order Paper. He was a very engaged and very hard-working Minister. There was John Key, who went out and promised the world, and there was a National Government that was really driving what it thought was an agenda. As we have since learnt, it was not a particularly favourable agenda for the rest of New Zealand. But when I came back to Parliament after 3 years, goodness me, the change was immeasurable. It is like a lot of things. I think that if you have been sitting here for the last 6 years, it is sort of incremental and you will not have seen it. But coming back after 3 years, goodness me, the change is immeasurable.

There are a couple of things. Mr Joyce’s performance must be a worry to the Prime Minister in terms of the way Mr Joyce has tried to arrogantly handle the Skycity debacle, Northland, and corporate welfare. The man is so out of touch with the way the vast majority of New Zealanders think, it must be of concern to the Prime Minister. There is no doubt about that. Then I was astounded, Mr Speaker—and you would appreciate this—to hear the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, stand up and basically say that you cannot trust anything a politician says during election time. I thought that was despicable. I know that members on this side of the House go out there and work really hard. We have key messages. David Parker spent an inordinate amount of time costing a fantastic fiscal policy that was going to put the Labour Government and New Zealand back on track. And then Mr English has the nerve to stand up and say: “Don’t trust a politician during election time.”

Well, there is one thing I would like to say to the people of New Zealand: trust the Labour Party. Trust everything we say, everything we will do and when we say that we will stand for the people in regional New Zealand, when we say that we will champion those who have been forgotten by this Government, believe us because it is what we do. We are a party that stands by what we say. We are not a party of empty slogans or bribery, of throwing lollies out in a by-election. The Northland by-election is a referendum on the performance of this Government and I think there will be a very, very clear message sent from provisional New Zealand to that Government that it is out of touch. Thank you very much.

Whether or not the by-election in Northland is a referendum on the Government’s performance, it will certainly not be an endorsement of Labour’s, because its members cannot even support their own candidate, let alone ask the people of Northland to support their candidate.

I want to talk about how this Government is supporting families and how we are doing that through an integrated, client-focused investment approach with regard to families and vulnerable New Zealanders. This is a way of thinking that has been led by this Government. It has been implemented over the last 6 years, and there is a lot more work to do. It is something about which the former Labour Government had nothing to say. When we came in, we set new targets. We are working towards those targets, and we have seen results.

The net present cost of total benefits for the population of this country is $76 billion. There are two key groups I want to focus on today. The first is teen sole parents. We know that there are 2,600 teen sole parents, and, as Minister Tolley outlined today, that figure has dropped by 50 percent since 2009 under this Government. We know that it will be a 20-year average that those people will spend on a benefit, at a cost of $250,000 each, if they do not have a qualification. There are a number of steps that are being taken by this Government to address that. One, we are putting a responsible adult with each and every one of these people to provide them with budgetary support, to get them back into education, and to get them a qualification, which will enable them to get back into the workforce. We know that a teen solo parent who is under the age of 20 with no qualification will spend an average of 20 years on a benefit. If they can get a post-school qualification, that average reduces from 20 years on a benefit down to 7 years. That is a considerable contribution towards these people’s lives and to the taxpayer.

There is another group of children I want to talk about, and these are children in care. These are hugely disproportionate cost drivers for the Government. We know that there are 2,000 males currently in care. Based on 30 years’ worth of records from Treasury, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Justice, and the Department of Corrections all working together, we know that these kids are destined for a life of involvement in the justice sector and correctional facilities if they do not get back on track. These are kids who are currently misbehaving in school and going through foster home after foster home. There is one 10-year-old foster kid in my electorate who has been through 93 foster homes, and that is just unacceptable. I could not imagine putting myself in the position of that kid mentally when he is getting chucked from family to family, day on day, week on week, and then having to go to school and try to get a qualification.

This Government has taken considerable steps to try to get these kids back on track so they can have the life they deserve and the life their coming families will deserve. And what are we doing about that? We are implementing an individualised policy approach led by Minister Tolley, formerly Minister Bennett, and Minister English. Just going back to these 2,000 kids, we know that during their lifetime—if they do not get back on track now—combined, they will have a collective cost to the taxpayer of $750 million in corrections system costs alone. So what do we do about that to try to get them back on track, to try to improve their life chances? We are individualising the policy around them, getting the Government departments to think of them as individuals and as people instead of thinking about how departments best operate and work. That is what we are doing.

Unlike Labour, our Government cares about individuals, and we care about families. I can tell you how many young people receive sole parent benefits in my electorate. In Gore there are 185, in Clutha District there are 168, and in Queenstown there are 98. In Ōwaka, of the 228 people, nine of them are unemployed, three of them are on a sickness benefit, six are on the domestic purposes benefit, and nine are on the invalid’s benefit. We know individual people and where they are. We know their names, and Government departments are now working with them to get them back into a better position.

💬 Tracey Martin: How many in Northland?

Talking about Northland, we know who our candidate is, and we fully get behind him and back him—Mark Osborne. Coming back, though, the most compelling statistic I found was regarding the number of people who are currently in correctional facilities. We have reduced youth crime and we have reduced recidivism under this Government and under the integrated approach we are taking.

In conclusion, I want to fully support the steps this Government is taking under the leadership of some very strong Ministers, who put families first, who put individuals at the centre. We are improving public services, we are raising achievement standards, we are reducing crime and recidivism, and we are improving the lives of families and individual New Zealanders. Thank you.

Well, the one thing I can say for that young man Todd Barclay is that he has got plenty of time on his side. He is a young man in the House, he has got a lot to learn along the way, and there will be a day when he will realise that he has not exactly been told everything by his associates that is actually truthful—is it?

There have been some speeches here this afternoon and I want to refer to a couple of them. “The country gave this Government a mandate to carry on with its reforms.” Really? Really—seriously? Well, I think the country gave New Zealand First a mandate, by almost doubling the number of MPs that it has in this House, to curb this Government’s excesses, to keep a choker collar around its neck, and to keep it honest. That is the fact of the matter. There is almost double the number of New Zealand First MPs in the House to keep this Government honest.

On 28 March rural, provincial Northland is going to send a message on behalf of rural provincial New Zealand telling this Government that it is out of line, that it is out of order. That message is coming and we are looking forward to the delivery of that message.

One of the messages that Northland wants to pass back to this Government is that the people there reject this Government’s amalgamation agendas. Oh, listen up—so too does the Hawke’s Bay, and so too does the Wairarapa. If people are not listening now, they damned well will be after 28 March, let us be sure about that. Let us have a look at what the people are saying out there in rural, provincial New Zealand. On the proposal to amalgamate Northland, right, there were 1,800 submissions, of which over two-thirds were opposed. In Hawke’s Bay, 732 submissions—heartland rural, provincial New Zealand; listen up, listen up, team—said that 80 percent of them were opposed. Coming to the greater Wairarapa, or the greater Wellington region—a Freudian slip; it should be the Wairarapa region, should it not—there were 9,400 submissions. Those 9,400 submissions were overwhelmingly opposed to your Local Government Commission lackeys’ proposal.

And what are they all so angry about? Listen up, National—what are they all so angry about? They are angry with you, the National Government. Do you know why? They are angry because you changed the Local Government Act and you removed the automatic right to a referendum. The National Government that is pushing these reforms—

💬 Tim Macindoe: They re-elected the Government twice after that.

It has got a mandate for these reforms, but card-carrying members of the National Party are overwhelmingly angry with you because you have taken away the automatic right to a referendum. Do not talk to me about fighting for democracy. This Government is anti-democracy. What else are those people angry about? They are angry that when the Government forces a referendum by petition—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: They’re happy you’re gone.

—listen up, Maggie, listen up—when you force a—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

—they force a referendum by petition, the referendum is right across the whole Wellington region—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Point of order.

Maggie Barry. I am sorry about that—Maggie Barry.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He did correct it, but the member well knows, as it is pointed out in the House, you must address a member by their full name.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I agree. It is a robust debate, and I would be grateful, while the member also gathers his breath, if he would stop drawing me into this particular debate.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is the Hon Maggie Barry, and I want her to listen up because those people are overwhelmingly angry that when the referendum is conducted, it will be 400,000 people telling 40,000 in the Wairarapa what is best for them. Talk to me now about sending troops to fight for democracy. That is anti-democracy, and that is a hallmark of one of this Government’s reforms.

And who is out there right now, doing submissions, submitting towards the Local Government Commission? Well, the Local Government Commission is hearing submissions in the Wairarapa, and guess what sort of behaviour we are witnessing? We are witnessing staff members from the Local Government Commission going over and chatting, colluding, and giving advice to proponents of the super-city, and dismissing and being arrogant towards card-carrying members of the National Party who oppose it.

Bring it on, we say in New Zealand First. Bring on 28 March, because there is a shock coming. There is a shock coming, and the result will be a very, very emphatic message to National from rural, provincial New Zealand. It is tired of being taken for granted. You have had 70 years to build 10 bridges—70 years—and you are promising you are going to do them all next year. Well, hallelujah! Nobody is listening. Nobody believes you. Power to the force for the north. Roll on 28 March. Thank you very much.

Just looking at the opposite side, I wonder who is the Opposition here—the Greens, New Zealand First, or the Labour Party. But when I closely analyse this I see more ex-leaders sitting on the backbenches in the Labour Party. So that must be the Opposition party then. But, unfortunately, its current leader is also no better than their previously failed leaders, and that is because he is not backing his own candidate in Northland. When this Opposition Labour Party was in Government for 9 years it created loads of inefficiencies. I say this because I still remember how I felt in 2008 with this huge global financial crisis coming our way. Then I am sure every New Zealander feared how they and their families and children would get through this global financial crisis. What our new Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, then inherited from that Labour Government was this economy that was already in recession, with Treasury predictions of doom and gloom and endless debt, and this huge responsibility of navigating us through this global financial crisis.

I do not want to remember those nanny State days, when those members wanted to tell our families what kind of shower fittings and lightbulbs we should be using. They stood for more Government, more dependency, more rules, and more spending. But the Rt Hon John Key and his Ministers, in 2008, focused the machinery of government to deliver more for less. They did not increase taxes. They gave tax cuts across the board, helping low and middle income New Zealand families. They did what they promised to do, and that is what I call leadership. That leadership is working. The National Government understands issues around our children and issues around our families. National understands the worries of our senior citizens. It is not just about them being safe and secure physically; it is about them being safe and secure financially and socially too. New Zealand families do understand the importance of our economy if families are to flourish. National continues to stand with the families, and that is why we keep investing in the public sector and we keep having challenging targets.

Just for an example, from 1 April next month paid parental leave is going to increase from 14 weeks to 16 weeks. That is the National Government increasing it from 14 weeks to 16 weeks. From next year, on 1 April 2016, it will be increased by another 2 weeks, to 18 weeks. This assistance will be extended to other families too. The parental tax credit is going to be increased from $150 to $220 a week, and the length of that is also going to be increased, from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. This is being done by the National Government. This is going to start from 1 April. After that, if we look at 1 July, free GP visits are going to be extended to children under the age of 13. Currently, children under the age of 6 can access free GP visits and prescriptions, but the National Government is investing to extend free GP visits to children under the age of 13. This is an important precautionary health measure. It is expected that 400,000 primary school - aged children will benefit from this investment, which is being done by the National Government. This kind of assistance is really going to help our families and children, because then families do not have to end up in the hospital queue at odd times. Because of that, sometimes children miss their schooling and their suffering is longer as well.

All of this is complemented by keeping our houses warmer, drier, and healthier. Around 300,000 homes are insulated, under the National Government, thanks to the Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes and the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programmes. Again, with our focus on children and families, the National Government has partnered with Fonterra and Sanitarium to give free breakfasts in schools. This is in all primary and secondary schools, regardless of their decile. This is to look after children’s well-being, so that they do not suffer in their education if they are not fed at home. Education is really important. National believes in delivering for all children. National believes that we should provide opportunities to all our children to succeed. That is why we are investing $359 million in communities of schools. This is to keep our best teachers in classrooms to extend that leadership across different schools. Since National came into office, the Government’s investment in early childhood education has doubled. Our target is that 98 percent of young children are able to access some kind of early childhood education programme before they start school.

The National-led Government, under the leadership of the Rt Hon John Key, will continue to support our families and children. We will remain focused on the economy, we will remain focused on jobs, and we will keep taking people off welfare because employment is important. Employment is not just about money; it is much more than that. We will continue to do that. Thank you.

Last week I was asked to resign—not by the National Party; no, indeed, it was by a community leader on the West Coast. That person said: “If it takes your resigning for us to be discovered and to get the reduction in one-way bridges, a decent hospital, and proper funding of our education, then it’s worth it.” I thought seriously about it because I am committed to my electorate and to rural New Zealand.

The previous Labour speaker, Mr Nash, said that this Government has no strategy for provincial New Zealand. He is wrong. [Interruption] No, he is wrong. It has no strategy for New Zealand—not a clue. And what must be the ultimate insult was a press release today by the Government’s own department, Statistics New Zealand, which is traditionally seen as a very fair and objective organisation. It is nothing more than spin. Do you know what the press release says? “Current account deficit reflects growing economy.” It then goes on to say: “The larger deficit”—because indeed it was a larger deficit—“in the latest quarter is due to overseas companies earning more from their investments in New Zealand.” Then it goes on to say: “Companies tend to earn higher profits when the economy is growing. If nothing else changes, an increase in profits earned by foreign-owned companies in New Zealand will increase our current account deficit.”

That says that John Key and his merry men have got what they want. They campaigned on selling down our assets and on facilitating the sale of anything that moves and anything that does not—land, houses, companies; you name it. They have got that, and what that has left us in is a structural malaise—that is, Statistics New Zealand, in spite of its spin, is admitting that the better our economy gets, the worse our deficit becomes. We need change, and they have indicated here that without change we will continue to go down the gurgler. Well, change is on its way at the next election—starting with the by-election—and I am very pleased. Nikki Kaye said that we have got the best in New Zealand. Well, I would have to say that is a pretty poor target. We can do better, and the Labour Party in Government will ensure that we work for a better New Zealand for everyone.

In the primary sector, the Ministry for Primary Industries—the new superministry—has an export double goal: to double the number of exports from this country by 2025. It is failing, because we are some way down the track from when it said that and we have not made much progress. It has been said that a goal is not a strategy, but the Government has not learnt that. Although I applaud the efforts to increase our exports, it is coming at the expense of a long-term vision for our country. I say to you that National, in spite of its traditional support from the rural sector, is now destroying the very people who put it in power. There is a clear lack of leadership, not only at departmental level in the Ministry for Primary Industries, where the Government formed the superministry, but also from the Ministers themselves. I challenge John Key and Minister Guy to provide the leadership that the rural and primary sectors are seeking at this moment.

Yesterday an independent group—the Meat Industry Excellence group—put together, after pleading for funding, a very good report identifying about half a billion dollars in savings each year that can be achieved in the meat sector, which will give more security to meatworkers, more security to rural communities, and a brighter future for farmers, and it will ensure that we have growing stock numbers. It depends upon the Government taking leadership and taking the steps as laid down in that report.

💬 Dr David Clark: Will they do it?

Will they do it? Well, I have offered personally to Minister Guy support from myself and from the Labour Party to implement those recommendations if he so chooses. I am not going to hold my breath on that. The Government has already committed $350 million of taxpayers’ money—$350 million of farmers’ money—to a Primary Growth Partnership scheme about which the Office of the Auditor-General says: “Having reviewed six programmes, there is no identifiable economic benefit so far.” It is an absolute rort and a slush fund for a bunch of Tories who go around the country singing the praises of the Government, knowing full well that their sectors are slipping backwards.

The dairy industry is facing some big challenges, as is the meat industry—and all of them—because this Government refuses to show the leadership necessary to develop a strategy for New Zealand, a New Zealand that we want to be proud of.

Getting to speak last, or near to last, in the general debate just re-emphasises the tragic nature of some in this House. I want to remind the last speaker, Damien O’Connor, that he, of course, tried leaving the House for a while and no one wanted him back, so they did not put any new bridges on the West Coast. That did not work for him. I also want to remind the co-leader of the Green Party that Kelvin Grove, of course, is very close to my electorate. I could throw a stone at it. There is in fact no school in Kelvin Grove and she was quoting the “Kelvin Grove School” numbers to the Prime Minister just this afternoon. There is no such school in New Zealand, unfortunately. I think that is a bit tragic too. I think that when we get up to speak in this House we need to be pretty clear of our facts.

Before I get on to the real topic of my speech, I want to touch on a topic that the previous speaker spoke about, and that is the Meat Industry Excellence report, which was presented last night. It was presented to quite a group of people from around New Zealand. It was, of course, instigated by John McCarthy, who comes a fair way out of the middle of my electorate, from Ōhākune. He was very pleased to bring that report to the country last night. It did point out some very good points. It made some very good points, as the previous speaker said, and I am sure that if those points made in the course of that report, and all the work that was done on that report, in fact, have the value that the previous speaker said, then they will be brought to fruition in due course, probably by the industry, or maybe by a Government.

I want to get back to talk about how improvements to the economy are making life significantly better for our families in New Zealand. I want to start firstly with interest rates. We are seeing interest rates—and I guess it is a great surprise to some—in a position now that is making a significant difference to young families throughout New Zealand. It is making a difference to business. It is certainly making a difference to the farming community in my electorate. We have also seen fuel prices drop significantly in the last few months, making a difference of probably around about $30 a week to the average family. I know in my case that if I fill up in Levin, I can get my petrol at 20c a litre cheaper than I can in Wellington. If I fill up in Palmerston North, I can get it cheaper than I can in Sanson, for example—and significantly cheaper as well. So being lucky enough to have to drive down here every week I fill up in Levin as I go past, going both ways. It makes a difference.

I want to also talk about ACC, which has taken $130 off the family car expenses. That is a significant saving again for New Zealand families.

Finally in this section I want to very briefly mention the New Zealand dollar, which, of course, has come off at about 10c against the US$1, making a significant difference to most of our exporters. Although there might be some threat to us around what is going on in the cross rate with Australia, we certainly are in a good position from that perspective. So, all in all, the economy is making a significant difference to what is going on in New Zealand and with New Zealand families, and in rural New Zealand.

Very briefly on the dairy prices, which have come off at 8 percent overnight in New Zealand, or the milk price has—I think that when you compare this and look at the recent 1080 scare, it just shows the irresponsible nature of the type of activity that had been engaged in there. I also want to quickly touch on a demonstration day held by Operational Solutions for Primary Industries out in the Hutt some 2 weeks ago, which a number of us were fortunate enough to attend. It looked at the benefits of 1080, which have made a massive difference to the preservation of our forests, our nature, and to the eradication of possums and, of course, TB, which has been virtually cleaned up in New Zealand by the 1080 programme. Without the use of this tool we would be in desperate straits from a TB perspective and certainly our native fauna and wildlife—our native birds particularly—would also be in deep distress. I think we all want to see a time when 1080 is replaced by something more efficient, but until that time happens, I do not think we have much choice but to continue with it.

I want to touch quickly on the Northland Fieldays, which I attended a couple of weeks ago. They were pretty successful. I might make the point also, for the benefit of the New Zealand First member who just spoke recently, that that party is so interested in the Northland electorate it did not even stand a candidate there for four elections. So that shows the interest it has got. I might also make a point about that member. He himself comes from Carterton—the Carterton District Council, of which he was the mayor—which is about the size of Kerikeri, or not much bigger, and, of course, the number of votes he got in the last election was smaller than the number of votes he got in Carterton.

Finally, I want to very briefly mention the Central Districts Fieldays, held at Manfeild this last week, which was extremely successful, and had a crowd of 40,000 through there. Again, there were families, farmers, and other people of New Zealand enjoying themselves. Thank you.

Before I start my general debate speech I would just like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people of Vanuatu. I have not had that chance yet. I acknowledge my friends in Parliament over there who are doing their absolute best for their people under dreadful circumstances. I acknowledge them for facing the front line of climate change, the front line of no resources, and the destruction that has come from a mismanaged planet.

I would also just like to correct the previous speaker, Ian McKelvie, on his unfortunate tirade on Metiria’s question. In fact, the name of the school is—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Can I just ask the member—I know it is a habit that people have developed, with the familiarity with the name of the co-leader of the Green Party, but I think that even if one addresses someone in a particular way outside the House, the formality should stay in the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do hope I have not offended Metiria Turei. Somehow I feel I may not have, but I do take your point. We should maintain the rules of the House.

I would just like to refer to the National Party member who said that Metiria Turei was wrong about “Kelvin Grove School”. I think he misheard the name of the school. I have rechecked the question. It is Kelvin Road School, and it is a school that both Metiria and I are familiar with. I have visited it. It is in Papatoetoe, not in his electorate.

💬 Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Annette King: How can this be a point of order?

💬 Tim Macindoe: For the deputy leader of the Labour Party, I say that the member has just offended in exactly the same way that she was asked not to by the Assistant Speaker a moment ago. I completely agree with the Assistant Speaker and would ask—

What? I called her “Turei.”

💬 Tim Macindoe: No, on that occasion again, the member’s first name only was used.

I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Catherine Delahunty, are you replying to the point of order?

Yes. I am not actually replying to the point of order as such. I cannot remember whether I said “Metiria” or “Metiria Turei”. I am afraid that I am attempting to stick to the rules of the House and perhaps to talk about important subjects, if that member would allow me to continue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK, and I apologise if I missed it, because I did too.

So if we could get on with the business of the day, water is the subject of the general debate for me, because no matter how many bridges you build in Northland, it is what goes underneath the bridge that really matters. I recently visited the Tai Tokerau in the middle north, and I stood on the bridges with a wonderful man called Millan Ruka, who runs the environmental river patrol. I stood on those bridges and I saw slimy, dirty, algae-ridden grey water because of the excessive amount of effluent that was coming into those rivers from badly managed farms in the area of the Hikurangi Swamp. It is that kind of problem that we saw today in question time when the Prime Minister was unable to answer my questions about the very reasonable call that Federated Farmers put out that we end dairy conversions in the upper Waikato. When Federated Farmers tell the country that we have gone too far with dairying and that Landcorp should stop converting their farms, we know there is a big problem.

Chris Lewis from Federated Farmers Waikato made it very clear this week that a moratorium was a really good idea, not because he is anti-dairying—he is no more anti-dairying than the Green Party is—but because he can see that downstream the efforts that farmers are making across the Waikato to clean up water quality are being undermined by a Government-owned State-owned enterprise, Landcorp, which is proposing to put another 29,500 dairy cows in the upper catchment. The catchment cannot take it. That is in the next 5 years. It is proposing to do this, not over 30 years or even 40 years, but in the next 5 years because the Government, unlike Federated Farmers, has gone crazy with milk-fed greed. And while that takes place, every waterway downstream is at risk. The point that Chris Lewis was making is a very valid point because he was saying that the farming community has put a lot of effort into riparian planting, into fencing, and into trying to manage nutrients in the Waikato. I would say there is a lot more work to go, having been up along the Waihou River and other such rivers that are still in a parlous state. But it is very disturbing to see the Government-owned enterprise Landcorp ignoring the calls of farmers and attacking Federated Farmers for daring to suggest that enough was enough.

So we are saying to Federated Farmers that we are going to stand beside you in this call for a halt. We think it is a very reasonable call because the people who have made the effort, who are trying to meet a decent standard of water quality, are being undermined by their own Government. The Government set a quality standard for fresh water—its National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management—that is incredibly low. It is completely low and it is pretty much useless because it is all about wading and boating, not swimming. If you cannot swim in a river like I could swim in a river when I was young, we have lost—I beg your pardon, Mr Assistant Speaker; not you. If we cannot swim in rivers any more, we have lost something really precious.

We should listen to Federated Farmers. They are telling the Government: “Stop doing this. There are much more positive ways of managing water quality.” We can protect the land, but there is no point in the Government’s policy of retiring adjacent waterways to land if upstream it is putting thousands more cows—thousands and thousands—into those catchments and destroying the work of farmers downstream. The Government should listen to the Green Party and listen to Federated Farmers. It is in everyone’s interest to protect water. There will not be any wonderful economy, and there will not be any fantastic community, great lifestyle, and all the rest that it spouts on about year after year, coming from its policies if it does not protect water. Water is life and we must protect it. Kia ora tātou.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could just explain whether there has been a change of procedure relating to the general debate, in that in the past there has never been a 1-minute warning bell rung, but today I have noticed on several occasions that there has been. Is that a permanent change or were you just being particularly benevolent towards the speakers in the Chamber today?

It was a deliberate thing, which I have done during the general debate when I have been in the Chair in the past. I think that, generally, members have felt that it is useful having a warning. Some people have greeted it, as the member did, with some relief.

I was not complaining; I just wanted to be clear so that I can advise our members.

You will probably have inconsistent treatment depending on who is in the Chair.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.