General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. In 2015 a Government-owned railway company in New Zealand is proposing to remove electrification for the main trunk line and replace an electric railway with diesel engines. Nothing, perhaps, epitomises the disastrous climate change policy of this Government more than that one simple fact—the fact that 15 years into the 21st century this Government’s own railway company is proposing to remove electrification from the main trunk line and replace it with diesel engines.

Climate change is the defining issue of this century. The issue that will define the judgment of history on this Government, and on all of us in this House, is climate change and whether we take action on it. Yet New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 42 percent from 1990 to 2013—a 42 percent increase in net emissions, a 21 percent increase in gross greenhouse gas emissions. Nothing could define a failure more than those numbers. It is for that reason that today we did something different with question time. We crowdsourced a series of questions about climate change because we thought it was important that the people of New Zealand are given the opportunity to directly question the Government on the issue of climate change.

Some of those questions related to the issue of the Government railway company removing electrification, which, of course, is an incredibly stupid and backward move. But, of course, I do not necessarily blame KiwiRail for it. It is actually being driven by the Government’s own policies. It gutted the emissions trading scheme and removed the price on carbon, so of course it makes sense, at some level, economically. And, of course, the other impact of the Government’s policies is that we now have twice the level of deforestation of plantation forest than we have of afforestation, even though the Minister for Climate Change Issues did not know this and put out a press statement saying that we were planting forests faster than we were knocking them down. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite, and the Minister for Climate Change Issues had to issue a press release correcting his statement.

What we have seen in New Zealand is that not only have we gutted the emissions trading scheme but the Government is now subsidising the exploration for fossil fuels. This is in a world where we know that we have already found far more fossil fuels than we can possibly afford to burn if we want to stay under 2 degrees of warming. What could be more insane? What could be madder than using $50 million of taxpayers’ money to subsidise searching for, and producing, fossil fuels that we know we cannot burn without cooking the planet? But that is this Government’s policy: to subsidise the exploration for fossil fuels with taxpayers’ money, even though we cannot burn the existing fossil fuels that we have already discovered.

All around the world people are divesting out of fossil fuels. Even in New Zealand Victoria University has divested from fossil fuels, Dunedin City Council has just announced it is divesting from fossil fuels, and Christchurch City Holdings, and so many others, are taking leadership on the issue of climate change because the Government will not. The Government is embracing the 1950s. It is embracing diesel trains and deforestation; it does not seem to get climate change. That is why we crowdsourced questions about climate change today—so that the voices of ordinary New Zealanders could be heard in this House—and that is why others are having to take the lead on climate change all around New Zealand by divesting out of fossil fuels.

This is not only an ethical and moral issue; it is also an economic issue. This is one of the great economic opportunities of the 21st century and it is passing New Zealand by because we have a Government that does not recognise it. We have a Government that is embracing simple commodities when the whole world is embracing the cleantech, greentech revolution, and yet you would not even know it from New Zealand because we have a Government that is firmly facing back into the middle of the 20th century even though we are 15 years into the 21st century.

Climate change is the compelling issue of our time. It is going to require leadership from ordinary people because we have a Government that will not take action on climate change—in fact, it is accelerating New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions. We know that when it came to votes for women it was ordinary New Zealanders who had to take the lead in order to make that happen. We know that when it came to mining in national parks it was ordinary people who stopped the Government doing it.

You have got to say that sitting here in the House day after day it is getting harder and harder to figure out who the Leader of the Opposition is, is it not? It is getting harder and harder to sit here and work out who is actually leading the Opposition. We have got the Greens scrapping for Russel Norman’s job. Given the enthusiasm with which they are going after that, they clearly think it is them. We know that in New Zealand First leadership contests are banned. They are not allowed in New Zealand First. Labour has had three leadership contests and still cannot find a Leader of the Opposition that anyone likes.

One thing remains true, and that is no matter who is driving the bus on the left, no matter who is in charge of the Opposition parties, they hate it when New Zealand does well. Do they not hate it? Do they not hate the reality that New Zealand is envied across the world? They truly are merchants of misery. They are at their happiest when there is doom and gloom to peddle. We know New Zealand is growing at 3.5 percent a year, one of the fastest rates in the world. We know average wages are up. We know that employment is growing. Do they not hate it? They absolutely hate it.

The reality is that New Zealand is on a track that is envied by most of the world. You have only to read any international respected media and the commentary on New Zealand is saying: “Look at what New Zealand is doing. Why can’t we do that?”. And yet in New Zealand we have got Opposition parties that want to pretend that the sky is falling. They hate it. They want to get excited about all sorts of sideshows and they miss the fact that New Zealand and our leader are held up across the world as absolute beacons for how to get it right.

Let us look at this week. This week we have got Andrew Little posing for selfies with Ed Miliband, while the Prime Minister is off in the Gulf, brokering a trade deal that will put more jobs into New Zealand, that will raise incomes for New Zealanders, and that will create more of the things that this country needs. It means growing incomes for our Kiwi families and our Kiwi mums and dads. It means New Zealand will keep having some of the lowest mortgage interest rates that it has had for many years, and it means that we will continue to have an economy that can deliver the things that Kiwi families want.

The economy can deliver greater early childhood education for our children, and more high-quality early childhood education for more students. It can deliver parental tax credit increases, extending them, and increasing them for those in the lowest income brackets. It means we can deliver on things like free health care for children under 13 in this country. That is the dividend of a growing economy—free health care for those under 13. It means that 90,000 first-home buyers are locked into their first home under the Homestart package that my colleague Nick Smith has delivered. It means hundreds of millions of dollars of ACC levies returned to Kiwi families, put back into the pockets of hard-working families. It means extended paid parental leave. It means any number of policies that really help New Zealand families to get ahead.

This is a Government that is helping to keep women and children safe in their homes when they want to leave a violent, abusive domestic relationship. We have ensured that the most vulnerable people in our justice sector—women, children, and young people—are protected through tougher bail laws, tougher parole laws, and tougher sentencing laws, whether they are being victimised in the community, in their families, or online.

We know it is working. We know that more Kiwis are voting with their feet and returning home. We know that more students are getting National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, thanks to the good work of Hekia Parata. We know that more people are getting elective surgery. We know that more children are getting immunised. We know that our communities are safer. We have the lowest crime rates that New Zealand has had since 1978.

This is a Government that protects New Zealand families, that keeps them in work, and that keeps incomes rising. Over the last few years we have raised more than $16 million from the offender levy alone to help 6,000 victims a year. This is a Government that is providing for New Zealand families, that is creating action, while Andrew Little’s Labour Party continues to do nothing and has no vision for this country.

There was a time when New Zealanders were proud of the Prime Minister. They respected the person occupying the job. One of the most common refrains I used to hear about Helen Clark was that even if you did not agree with her, or with every policy that she put forward, you respected her. You respected her dedication, her commitment to New Zealand. The same was said of David Lange when he made New Zealanders proud at the Oxford Union. Goodness, they even used to say they respected Jim Bolger, even if he adopted the accent of the last person he talked to. But who do we have now as a Prime Minister? A grown man who repeatedly pulls on the hair of a cafe worker, despite her telling him not to do it. That is right. Instead of a respected leader we have the “Parnell ponytail-puller”, for ever to be known for his tail-tugging, plait-pulling, weirdo ways. Not since John Key’s political hero Rob Muldoon, in a tired and emotional state, called the “gin and schnapps election” in 1984 have we seen a Prime Minister being regarded with such disdain by the public at large. When I used to work for Prime Minister Helen Clark, there was always a conversation about whether she should have to wear a hairnet when she went to visit factories, and so on. Now we have got workers in factories and offices around New Zealand who want to wear hairnets when John Key comes. It is a form of protection. They are asking for protection from their Prime Minister.

Amy Adams wanted us to learn about the international media. Well, do not think the disdain about John Key is limited to New Zealand. He has made it on to the world stage: the New York Times, the Guardian, the Toronto Star, the Washington Post, CNN, the Hindustan Times, the Sydney Morning Herald—the list goes on and on. The world does not know just about the “Parnell ponytail-puller’s” mane-mauling. It has also been reminded about his mincing, handshaking, and language-mangling of years gone by. Then, John Key decided that the way to get away with this was with two bottles of JK’s Pinot noir. What a massive ego, to decide that the best way to make up for being such a tail-tugger is to give your own wine. To echo John Oliver, he is meant to be the Prime Minister, not a real housewife of Helensville.

How proud New Zealanders in the UK were to read in the Guardian of a psychologist’s attempt to unravel the childish roots of John Key’s behaviour. The psychologist made our chests burst with nationalistic pride when he said that John Key’s behaviour may be an example of the psychological process of regression. The psychologist said: “Regression can be thought of as being malignant or benign. An example of a benign regression would be an adult taking their teddy bear to bed with them.” Has anyone asked Bronagh whether John Key has brought something small and furry to bed with him? I am not talking about Moonbeam here. The psychologist went on to say that the less benign forms of regression included Uruguayan footballer Luis Suárez biting an opponent or Jeremy Clarkson punching a producer. Happy days for New Zealanders. Our Prime Minister, the “Parnell ponytail-puller”, is in the same breath as a soccer player with a biting fetish and a brawling TV buffoon. So proud we are. The Washington Post had it right when it headlined its story “New Zealand’s ponytail-pulling prime minister becomes national embarrassment”, and that is the truth. This is a Prime Minister who has lost the plot leading a Government that has lost its way. It is out of touch, out of ideas, and out for itself. Once upon a time the Prime Minister told us he was ambitious for New Zealand. Now he is just making us embarrassed for New Zealand.

Let us not forget that there is a serious side to this weird behaviour—a woman in a cafe simply trying to do her job repeatedly being harassed. She deserves respect from each and every one of her customers, and from the most powerful man in the country she deserves it just as much. Instead she got harassment and inappropriate behaviour again and again. The fact that the “Parnell ponytail-puller” did not even work that out and that he called it horsing around and said that it was not his intention to make her feel uncomfortable shows a major loss of moral compass. John Key warned against the arrogance of third-term Governments, the danger of surprising behaviour. He could have added the risk to the reputation of the Government that its leader is a creepy weirdo. This might not be the end of the road for John Key, but it is a very sure sign that he and his Government have lost their way.

It is really rather sad and depressing that the Opposition uses this general debate in this House of Parliament as a really sad attempt at a comedic performance. What we have in this country is the leadership of a Prime Minister who has focused on what is important to New Zealanders—to the families, the hard-working families, up and down this country who under this Government have seen and felt the ambition of this Prime Minister and this caucus. We have been committed to what really counts: how we can help families to get the best access to health, how we can ensure that those who have been victims of crime get the support that they need, how we can ensure that the police are policing our communities and providing the kind of safety that New Zealanders expect, and how we can ensure that in education every young person gets the opportunity of the best possible pathway in life. That is what this Government is focused on and that is what this Prime Minister has provided leadership on over the past 6 years, and will continue to do in the future. I am proud to serve in this Government on an agenda of this kind of substance.

In education parents want the best for their kids, and this Government is determined to provide an education system that is nimble, is responsive, and is modern because we know that a good-quality education is a passport to a stronger future. The carping of the Opposition members demonstrates that they do not understand that. They want to talk about failures of the past while we focus on how we deliver now and into the future. What we see is that in our education system young people are starting earlier, staying longer, and leaving better qualified. One of the key focuses we have had for kids in terms of our education system is how we can ensure that their parents, their families, their whānau, their aiga are well informed about what makes the difference for a good education. We have done that in real, practical, and meaningful ways.

First and foremost, the evidence is that we have put the most ever of any Government into Vote Education. We put in over $10 billion. In early childhood education we have doubled the amount that the Opposition committed to when it was in Government. We are at nearly $1.6 billion and almost 98 percent participation. We know that kids who start behind too often stay behind, and we are intolerant of that. We want every child and their family to get the best possible start in life and that is why we have invested so heavily into early childhood education. We are the Government that is prepared to be transparent and accountable.

My colleague sitting beside me Minister Tolley, when she was the Minister of Education, introduced national standards, and in 2012 we started requiring schools to report every 6 months to parents. Since then we have gone on to build a Public Achievement Information framework, which makes data available in real time on what is actually happening in every school across this country so that parents can partner with the hard-working teachers and principals of the schools that their children are attending to ensure that they are getting the lift they need and deserve. In terms of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, we have built pathways into the sectors that make the most difference in our economy, and we have built trades academies and Youth Guarantee initiatives, which help these kids to get the best education possible. We have held public meetings and community meetings so that parents and whānau can come along and learn about the National Certificate of Educational Achievement.

💬 Ron Mark: Come to one in the Wairarapa, then.

We have done this in the Wairarapa, as we have done it in every other part of the country. We have worked with the Education Review Office to ensure that parents get answers to the questions that they can ask of their teachers.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about at Whangaruru?

And yes, Whangaruru, I say to the recent member for Northland, who is suddenly taking an interest in education. Yes, they have had difficulties, but this Government has not resiled from tackling difficulties. Actually, we do not consider it a failure; we consider it a challenge and we will continue to work on that. We have established a parent portal on the Network for Learning so that parents can available to them in real time meaningful, useful, and accessible information. We have been looking to encourage more and more schools to provide e-profiles. For the member for Northland, generationally, in the 21st century, that means parents in real time can go on to this thing called social media and find out what is happening with their kids, how they can work with them, and how they can understand what their kids need in order to get a better education. So the member can moan on and whinge on—

Order! [Interruption] Order! The member’s—[Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.

Clearly, the order has gone out: “Talk about anything but “ponytail-gate. Tell them they’re not allowed to talk about it. Tell them that it’s wrong and to concentrate on anything else at all.” We heard from Amy Adams, a former Minister for the Environment, who finally discovered recycling today. She pulled it out of the bin that she probably put it in 2 years ago and went on in a desperate effort to fill 5 minutes. It was better than her colleague Hekia Parata tried to do at a million miles an hour.

This is a Government that is out of touch and a Government that is rattled. It is a Government that is stumbling from one disaster to the next, and it seems the longer that time goes on, the weirder and creepier it gets. It is like Peter Pan’s lost boys and girls have gone down the rabbit hole and found some very strange mushrooms on the way down. And when they get there, they are led by their very own boy who cannot grow up, “Peter Pan John Key”. John Key—let me try this alliteration—the perpetual pre-pubescent ponytail-puller who is leading from the front.

So picture this. It is 1972. An 11-year-old John Key sets off to school. He arrives and stares wistfully at the sign overhead—ah, Aorangi primary school. A keen observer would see a self-satisfied—some would say smug—look on the young John Key’s face. He thinks to himself: “One day I’ll close this school.” He is joined at the gate by his close buddy Ian Fletcher. He is a lad that seems to have his finger on the pulse. He seems to know what is happening all around the schoolyard. What is better, he keeps John Key informed. John decides he would like everyone in the class to know what is going on, so he slips his mate Cam a note, taking careful note to change his hat before he gives Cam the piece of paper and deciding to himself that, if asked, he will say that he was just replying to Cam and that he did not start it; Cam did. Just as he passes his note to Cam he sees one of his former besties Judy sitting up there on the back steps and crying all over her spilt milk.

Then the sun comes out and it is sparkling. It is a frosty Canterbury morning and a classmate with long, flowing, glistening locks saunters by. Fetchingly, those locks are caught in a ponytail. She walks past. He cannot contain himself. He reaches out and he touches that ponytail. She asks him to stop. He pulls it again, he does not care. He is John Key, and he can do what he likes. After all, he is just horsing about and his mate Steve had told him it was pretty acceptable to touch someone’s hair when they had asked you not to, so he does not think he will stop. In fact, he goes on to do it eight times, despite being asked to stop.

This behaviour is cringeworthy enough in an 11-year-old boy, but we are talking about the behaviour of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. This is a standard of behaviour that is not acceptable from the Prime Minister. It is a standard of behaviour that is not acceptable for any adult human being. Doing whatever you like with no regard for how it impacts other people is not the standard that we hold ourselves to on this side of the House. You could not make this stuff we are talking about up. What we are seeing from our Prime Minister is better than Malcolm Tucker’s best serve.

But on a serious note, this is a Government that has absolutely no scruples when it comes to deciding how it is going to tackle a housing crisis. We still have people unable to afford housing, we still have unemployment at 5.7 percent, and we also have a Government that thinks it is better to spend money on election bribes than on core services such as health and education. But it is OK because the Prime Minister is just horsing around. We want the Prime Minister to step up and get off his high horse.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I would like to spend my time talking about education. It was interesting to have the Minister of Education speak quite fervently about the wonderful things that this Government is doing, in those members’ view, for education here in New Zealand, and I want to take my time to stand up particularly for Hato Pētera College, because somebody has to—because somebody has to.

I want to point out in the House today that this Government has gone on and on and on—particularly when it was working in consultation with the ACT Party around the opening of charter schools—saying that it was passionate about achievement for Māori students and passionate about making sure that Māori students have the best possible academic start in this country. That was why, for example, it gave $1.68 million to Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru up in the far north—because it was passionate about Māori students. It handed over a farm, with taxpayers’ money, and it gave it away because of how passionate it was about Māori students. Yet the other thing that the general public may not be aware of is that since 2009—in today’s current Budget, in this education year—close to $4 million has also been handed over by this Government to private schools in Aspire Scholarships. So this, again, was from working way back with the ACT Party in 2005, I think it was.

The Government has now budgeted close to $4 million—$3.9 million—in Aspire Scholarships to give to private schools to try to lift academic achievement. Wanganui Collegiate School was one of those schools and Destiny School was one of those schools, and yet only $576,000 has ever been put aside by this Government for boarding schools directly catering for Māori students. So that is close to $4 million from this Government and its partner the ACT Party to subsidise private schools and take children out of fine public schools and fund them to go into private schools, but there was only $576,000 in the 2014 Budget to actually support Māori students going into Māori schools and boarding them there so that those living in isolated rural areas who show promise can go to schools such as Hato Pētera College.

Let us also have a talk about how this Minister has lauded the outcomes of some of these charter schools. Let us take the fact that the Minister and the member for the ACT Party stood up and talked about Vanguard Military School, for example, achieving 100 percent outcomes in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), and yet there was not a single word from that Minister when, in 2013, Hato Pētera College had 100 percent NCEA achievement—100 percent. And how did it get it? Hato Pētera College has introduced a programme with past students who go on to study at the Auckland University of Technology, which is just around the road and is well connected to the school in Northcote. Those past students come back and mentor current students. That is future thinking about education. That is futureproofing the education of these Māori students.

Hato Pētera College has also opened a military services academy on the grounds of the college, but is there a word from the Minister to acknowledge Hato Pētera College’s future forward planning? Not a single word. She will stand and she will talk about a private, profit-making institution funded by taxpayers’ money, laud it in this House, and pat the ACT Party on the head, but not give a single word of support for Hato Pētera College. All this school requires is for the Minister to support it in conversation with the Catholic Diocese of Auckland. The diocese was gifted that land for Māori education.

There are other problems with land gifted for Māori education that this Government should be addressing directly, and it should be releasing that information. If the Minister says that the Government is so transparent in education, then why is it so difficult for my colleague to gain any information around the sale of Māori land in the Wairarapa that was given for educational trusts?

Before I finish my time I want to raise two other issues. First of all, I want to congratulate the Northern Action Group on its success in its court ruling after it was summarily dismissed by the Local Government Commission in its attempts to have the northern part of Rodney removed from the super-city of Auckland.

I also want to put a shout out to Salisbury School, which is being strangled by this Government. Salisbury School is down to 9 students. They are the highest-need students, and this Government has decided to kill that school through silence—kill it through non-recommendation. This school is required for these students, and yet this Government will kill off this school within a year.

In the first speech of today’s general debate, my colleague Russel Norman spoke of the need for a popular movement to bring climate change to the top of the international political agenda. I want to go from there to the theory of climate protection and to why there is such a need to make climate the policy issue of our time. It is 25 years since climate change was placed on the international political agenda. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s first assessment report of 1990 laid the scientific basis for concern, and 1992 was the watershed year, with the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the formal objective of climate stabilisation. We are still operating within that framework, even as we negotiate the global agreement for Paris in December. Yet it cannot be said that nations have made climate change their top priority—certainly not over the first two decades of this period, and not even today. There is a tendency to see it as agenda item 11b on Cabinet’s weekly agenda, to which we shall turn our attention after the tea break.

Equally significantly, we believe the problem will be solved through simply trying harder, rather than acting differently. The result is that for the first 20 years global climate policy was vulnerable to factual denial. In the past 5 years, extreme weather events have forced us all to accept climate change as a reality. At last, the international community is facing up to the inconvenient truth that after 10 millennia of existence human society is fundamentally altering the planet’s habitable zone. We have left the Holocene era, we have entered the Anthropocene era, and we are placing ourselves and other life forms at serious risk. But what remains contentious is whether the problem can be solved through a refinement of the existing world view and economic orthodoxy or whether, to quote a famous commentary, “This changes everything.” If the problem can be solved by Establishment thinking, the line goes, there is nothing to worry about, but if it requires a qualitative change in our thinking then we had better change immediately because Nature will not wait for us to catch up with reality. That is where the debate must be focused in the remaining months before Paris.

This dilemma surfaced recently during our discussions in Europe, with the Speaker’s tour over the past few weeks. Two world views were articulated, both by us as a visiting delegation and by our hosts. The Establishment view is that with global food demand expected to rise by 50 percent New Zealand has an obligation to feed five to 10 times its own population, and we must strive to maximise agricultural productivity. This takes on, amongst its advocates, a moral hue—a manifest destiny. It dignifies the commercial interest. This is buttressed by the argument that resulting emissions will be tamed by scientific progress. Yesterday’s news from Massey University that recent research portends big reductions in livestock methane is a case in point. This view, basically, sees food security as the global policy driver and sees sustainability as a subordinate constraint to be managed.

The alternative view reverses this order. It sees global sustainability—the nine planetary boundaries, of which climate change is one—as the global policy driver and food security as dependent on that sustainability. We shall not be feeding 10 billion people 40 years from now with a degraded planet and a raging climate. There will not even be 10 billion people. The latest news says that there is a 10 percent chance of the planet being 6 degrees hotter than normal. Our stated goal is to keep the increase to 2 degrees. A 6-degree increase is beyond catastrophe; it is essentially a death sentence. Avoiding that requires consensus among and within nations in the next few years—one that reconciles the tensions behind these two world views.

Let me say that I respect the world view that bequeathed so much prosperity to humankind over recent centuries, but I ask, in return, for respect for the alternative—the so-called alarmist world view that we must qualitatively change our approach now and develop new and far-reaching policy positions as a country, leading up to Paris. We need a cross-party consensus on this greatest of all human challenges.

Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, the Hon Dr Nick Smith can make his contribution to the general debate.

Can I, firstly, at least acknowledge that the Green Party wanted to talk about a serious issue in this general debate—the issue of climate change. It would have been good if the member had acknowledged the huge progress our Government has made in increasing the amount of renewable energy, where under the previous Government with the support of the Green Party it went down and under our Government it has consistently gone up, or acknowledged the huge work that has gone into the greenhouse gas research with results out yesterday showing very promising results around the capacity to be able to produce food without increased emissions. But this afternoon in this debate I really do have to express disappointment that when you have got issues around jobs, when you have got issues around housing, and when you have got issues around health and education, Labour Party members want to talk about ponytails. Does that not expose how disconnected they are from the issues that matter to New Zealand that they want to talk about such sideshows?

I actually know why, because if you look at the issues that matter—economic growth, New Zealand growing at 3.5 percent, cost of living going up at the slowest rate in 20 years, 80,000 new jobs in the last year, kids doing better than ever at school with the best ever National Certificate of Educational Achievement results, a health sector that is delivering more operations and better health care—I can see why we have an Opposition that wants to focus on sideshows. But let me talk—

💬 Tracey Martin: Tell us what you think of that.

Well, let me just refer to New Zealand First. It was interesting to reflect on my last contribution in the general debate and I would like Tracey Martin to listen. I said this: “If Mr Peters succeeds in Northland, then—surprise, surprise—we will elect a new member of Parliament from Invercargill, Ria Bond.” And what is Tracey Martin recorded as saying in Hansard? She said that is a lie; that is untrue. So I say to Ria Bond, our new member of Parliament, that you got here on false pretences. New Zealand First told the people of Northland that she would not be coming to this Parliament, and I think that speaks volumes about the integrity of New Zealand First.

I want to talk about housing, because 3 years ago we were building 14,000 houses a year and some members may recall that the Labour Opposition members at the time said: “We have got this bold new plan. We are going to build 10,000 per year.” Although they conditioned it. They said: “We reckon if we went as fast as we possibly could we’d do 600 in the first year.” In the second year they said they thought they would do 3,000. In the third year, they said they would do 8,000. Well, let us compare the record. By getting the rules to work in the private sector we have actually achieved a lot more than what even Labour promised. Let me share the numbers with the House. In 2011, 13,000 houses were built. In 2012, 17,000 houses were built. In 2013 we had 21,000 houses built and the latest figures show nearly 25,000 houses being built per year and that is good news.

I have spent the last fortnight getting around public meetings with colleagues and talking to people about housing and about our new HomeStart scheme. The level of enthusiasm is incredibly encouraging not just from those young homeowners but also from the building sector, which is keen to use this new scheme to enable us to build more homes that are more affordable. This sums it up. We know that housing is an issue. The difference is that we are focused on actually delivering results: more houses and more support for New Zealanders to be able to pull together a deposit. Just as with education, just as with health, just as with jobs, and just as with infrastructure, this is a Government that is delivering on the issues that actually matter.

I would just like to acknowledge the fact that that was a very wind-filled delivery by the Hon Nick Smith. It was full of hot air, and I dare say that the honourable member would probably make a very good hand dryer. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome on board our newest member, Ria Bond, who sits here beside us. What a fantastic person to have as part of our caucus. New Zealand First now makes up 10 percent of this debating chamber. We have 12 members in the House. New Zealand First continues to grow. It is the fastest growing political movement in the country at the moment.

I would also like to take away some of the filibustering that has been going on and acknowledge some of the comments that have been made in the House this afternoon, particularly in light of the ponytail pulling. Even Dr Nick Smith has mentioned it. Hekia Parata also mentioned it. I do not want to take too much time on it, but I have to say it is a little bit “vierd”—kind of weird like a Dutch accent—and I still have not got my head quite around why, and how, it got to where it is.

💬 Hon Member: Very, very “vierd”.

It is very “vierd”, yes. It is a little bit creepy as well.

I would also like to take the time to acknowledge the people of Nepal. Four years ago we were in a very similar situation and we had the world come to our aid. Some of those other countries made their way to the shores of New Zealand. Within 12 hours we had representatives from Australia with their urban search and rescue teams arriving here. We had the UK representatives arriving 48 hours later. They were on New Zealand’s shores helping New Zealanders get their lives back on track. We had people from Canada, the United States, Japan—everybody came together to help us out.

I do find it somewhat embarrassing that as a country, with the training that we have got, cannot get our act together. Just last month our urban search and rescue team got a distinction, an accreditation, for its skills in urban search and rescue. Yet we cannot get our act together as a Government to deploy immediately to Nepal, a country with which we have got a very good, strong-standing relationship that goes back 62 years to 1953, of course, when Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay summited Mount Everest. We have built this fantastic relationship up, and we cannot get our act together and get a team—some of the best urban search and rescue operators in the world—over there to lend a helping hand.

I said when I got into Parliament that I did not want to be in Opposition just throwing stones willy-nilly at the Government for argument’s sake. I would like to be able to say that I have not done that, and that this party has the decency to commend the Government when it does good things and to point out the flaws in areas where it is not getting it quite right. This is an area that seriously needs some attention. With the Minister not in the House today—[Interruption]. I beg your pardon?

💬 Tim Macindoe: Tell us the things you like—you were happy to tell us.

Oh, no—I have got some things I can tell you right now that we need to address. We have got some major issues, particularly with the protocols around sending off our search and rescue team overseas to provide aid. We need to change those protocols. What we should have done, in hindsight, was send off an early deployment team of five or six people, heading over to Malaysia and into Nepal, to do a ground survey. And I have to say, I would much rather be somebody asking for forgiveness for sending people early than be somebody asking for permission.

You, Mr Macindoe, would agree that if your house was burning down and you were not there to call 111, you would expect your neighbour to call the fire brigade regardless. You would not want for them to wait to say to you: “Yes, your house is burning down mate. Would you like to call the fire service?”. And if the fire service arrived and realised that it was not required to assist in any way, it could always turn round and go back.

That is what we should have done with supporting Nepal in its time of crisis, because that is what was done for us when we went through the same situation down in Christchurch 4 years ago. We need to take heed of these mistakes and change the protocols, the way we are operating, because we have got some of the best, most highly-decorated and distinguished operators in urban search and rescue standing around, waving their tongues in the breeze, waiting to be deployed.

What can we take from this? How can we make this situation better? We should be sending our search and rescue people there, and certainly be offering up our services in the urban and regional areas around Kathmandu that need—[Interruption] Miss Anne Tolley, you cannot tell me that sending help is search and rescue. What about clearing rubble, cleaning up, and helping? We had people coming over here promptly, but it took 72 hours—72 hours—for us to get ready to deploy. It is not good enough, and, whichever way you dress it up, this Government needs to look at itself. The Minister of Internal Affairs needs to be doing a better job to get better outcomes for this country.

💬 Tim Macindoe: This is a very poor attack by an ill-informed member.

It is an embarrassment, Mr Macindoe, and there is no other way of looking at it. We need to get on top of it.

It really is a great privilege to be able to stand on this side of the House to talk about what we have achieved. But before I do that I would like to say how fortunate I feel to be able to live in New Zealand. Last Friday I attended the Anzac Day commemorations at Waitakere RSA. I was touched by the huge turnout. I laid a wreath on behalf of the Government. It is important that we honour the contribution of those brave men and women for the freedom, peace, and security that we enjoy today. As a new immigrant I am particularly grateful to those people, and it is important that we remember their contributions.

New Zealand is prospering. The National-led Government has achieved so much that we are now the envy of many OECD countries. In 2008, when the National Government came to power, it was forecast that unemployment would be over 10 percent. But the National-led Government has stopped that from happening, and unemployment has dropped from 7.3 percent to well below 6 percent and it will keep falling. New Zealanders have shown their confidence in this National-led Government. They are staying in New Zealand, and they are coming home—more and more people are coming home to New Zealand. These are the golden days for New Zealand. New Zealand is such a great place to raise a family. We have gone a long way to help our Kiwi families. For example, we have now increased parental leave, increased parental tax credits, and also we have free doctor visits for children under 13.

Education is a priority for most Kiwi families. It is also a priority for the National-led Government. We have invested heavily in education. As a former educator, I cannot overstate the importance of education. Education is a key to success, both individually and nationally. So what have we done? I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata for her great contribution to our education. She has worked tirelessly in trying to lift the standard of our education, which is now world class.

We deliver. We set targets and we meet targets. For example, we said that 98 percent of new school entrants should have participated in early childhood education by 2016. What have we achieved so far? By 2014, 96.1 percent of new school entrants have previously participated in early childhood education. That was 2,957 more kids engaged in learning since mid-2011. Here is another example. We said that 85 percent of 18-year-olds should achieve a National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 or equivalent qualification by 2017. And by 2013 almost 79 percent of 18-year-olds had achieved at least NCEA level 2.

So how did we achieve these? Firstly, we invested more. For instance, spending in early childhood education has nearly doubled from over $800 million in 2007-08 to $1.5 billion in 2013-14. Secondly, we worked with schools and parents, and we took the leadership. We introduced national standards in 2010 to identify children who are behind so that we can help them, and help their parents help them, and also help schools to focus on what they should do. Thirdly, we encouraged people to perform, and that is why we initiated the Investing in Educational Success programme. We want teachers to share their best practices across schools so that they are able to raise students’ achievement more effectively. We also encouraged principals with good skills to help other schools.

In summing up, basically, families are our focus. A family is the foundation of a society. By helping Kiwi families, we are consolidating our society. Thanks.

As a young boy I used to watch a show called Hogan’s Heroes, and it is clear that the National Party today is using the Sergeant Schultz strategy. That is: “I see nothing.” They’re not talking about what everyone else has got on their minds—and that is ponytail-gate. How many times today have you heard from the opposite side of the Chamber that they are proud of being in the John Key - led Government? They seem to have not mentioned the John Key - led Government today. I wonder why not. I wonder why not. I want to take up the challenge of one of the National Ministers, Amy Adams. She talked about the robustness of the international media. Well, I want to read some of the headlines that have come out of the international media recently. This is the Washington Post. The headline reads: “New Zealand’s ponytail-pulling Prime Minister becomes national embarrassment”—national embarrassment to not just that party, but, unfortunately, to all of us. And then, in other august international media, the Guardian, out of the UK, put a list together titled “John Key: New Zealand Prime Minister’s weirdest moments (so far)”—so far. He has still got 2 years to go.

I was not surprised to see the Herald-DigiPoll result saying that the Prime Minister has not yet been affected by ponytail-gate. The National Party members say this is not an issue that matters, but deep down in their hearts they know it does, because National’s brand, its man, has been damaged. And it is not some big, gaping flesh wound. It is not going to bring him down next week. But National members know deep down inside it is going to hurt. I would call it more of a hairline fracture injury to the Government. The members know it hurts—they know it hurts—and when the pressure comes on, it is only going to get worse. It is like one of those injuries you get when you step out and you want to get out on the front foot and you go: “Ooh! There’s something wrong there.” Something is not quite right, and you know it is not going to get better. That is the kind of injury that this has inflicted upon the National Party. As I said, its brand is damaged. John Key used to be the millionaire—“Mr Millionaire”. He also used to be “Mr Banker”. He also used to be “Mr State House”. But now he is “Mr Puller”, “Mr Tugger”, “Mr Yanker”, and “Mr Jerker”. That is what our Prime Minister’s brand has become, and deep down inside, in the National Party’s strategy office, up on the 9th floor and out on Pipitea Street—and Chris Bishop—knows this, too. He knows that the man’s brand is damaged, and this is long-term damaging for them.

This hairline fracture is only going to get worse. Which one of them sitting on the other side is going to be the one who makes it worse? Is it going to be—no, it will not be the whip. Will it be Alfred Ngaro? I doubt it. But one of those guys over there is going to do something that makes this hairline fracture worse. It is a political reality that this matters. Let us read what Tim Watkin said about this in his blog. He said: “The repeated hair-pulling”—not just once, but I believe eight times of the waitress’ hair—“directly undermines the affable, goofy persona Key cultivates and gives it a creepy edge. Those who vote on likeability and trust—and there are many—have been given pause for thought.” They know that is why this is damaging. Their man, who is so liked, has all of a sudden created a massive amount of doubt in the New Zealand public. The guy who gets them through the John Key - led Government has all of a sudden put a huge chink in its armour.

Let us read what John Armstrong, the kaumātua of the press gallery, has to say about Mr Key: “…the worry for Key and National is that this unseemly episode is of such magnitude and as something that forces people to take a position could severely jolt positive perceptions of Key, especially among female voters who flocked to National after he became leader.” That is the reality for this party. That is the reality for National. Its affable every guy is now a complete joke in the eyes of the international media, and especially in places like RSAs, rugby clubs, and all the places that we like to go to for a beer. He is not Mr Nice Guy anymore; he is the butt of jokes. And when your brand starts going, you are in big trouble. When your strength becomes your weakness in politics you are in big trouble too. So somewhere someone is doing damage control for the National Party. As I said, it is a hairline fracture, and hairline fractures only get worse.

Yesterday I started to talk about how I have recently been taken to task in the National Business Review for asking the Minister of Finance a question about what this Government is doing for New Zealand families. Mr Hooton thought it was strange that someone with my financial background should be asking such a question. He was wrong and is wrong. Looking after our families is absolutely essential to New Zealand. Not only is it fair and just but it is also good business. As a society, we need to have an equitable society, and having strong families is a crucial part of that equation.

As I noted in my maiden speech, the biggest conundrum that New Zealand faces is how to continue to grow this economy in a way that everyone has the potential to benefit from it. That does not mean that everyone becomes a freeloader, but unless we continue to upskill New Zealanders and enable them to get meaningful, well-paid jobs, the chances of lifting our GDP on a per capita basis are limited. We can take no pride in the fact that there is a group that feels disenfranchised. The causes are many, and this is one of the issues that we need to face, and it is one that actually drew me into politics.

I think that putting the individual and the family at the centre of the issue, rather than focusing on Government processes, is a great way to go, and I commend it. I am proud of the initiatives that this Government has announced to strengthen our families and, at the heart of it, to deal with and help our children. Specifically, I am talking about the initiative to increase paid parental leave to 16 weeks, and, this time next year, to increase it to 18 weeks. There is also extending payments to caregivers, recognising that there are 12,000 children in New Zealand who are looked after by people other than biological parents, and increasing the paid parental tax credit from $150 to $220 per week. All of these initiatives give children the possibility of a better start in life by allowing parents to look after them for longer before they have to return to the workforce.

Every one of us wants the best for our children. This Government understands that. That is why we are focused on educational outcomes, health outcomes, and also housing and security outcomes. Starting with educational outcomes, since this Government came to office, we have doubled the investment in early education up to $1.5 billion, and the participation rate is now 96 percent. We have set ourselves a target of ensuring that 98 percent of all children, prior to going to primary school, are going to some form of early childhood education. Secondly, we are continuing to improve the school learning environment through great initiatives like Network for Learning, where we connected just over half of the 2,500 schools in this country with great digital access.

Thirdly, we are going to invest $1 billion in new schools. My own electorate has benefited from that. It has got a brand new school at Mission Heights, that fast-growing area beside Flat Bush. I have also got Ormiston Primary School. And I have got another school being built nearby as well.

We are also investing $350 million in the community of schools. That is a great way to get our teachers—to help them and equip them—to be able to get better educational outcomes by collaborating. In my own electorate I can already bear witness to some of the leaders, the principals, working together in a collaborative approach, and I commend them as well.

In terms of health outcomes, we all know that healthy children learn better, engage quicker, and get better results from schools. So I welcome the initiative to increase free access to education and GP visits for children under 13 from 1 July this year. Also, we are targeting 90 percent of all infants and toddlers to be fully immunised. They are two great initiatives to help our children.

But it does not stop there. The Government is also working on our housing initiatives. Every New Zealander knows that a family home is the foundation of a secure home and also the launch pad for children. Our $280 million Homestart loans package is an important ingredient in that.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.