General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The Prime Minister’s standards for ministerial conduct are slipping. During his time as Leader of the Opposition John Key accused Helen Clark repeatedly of failing to hold her Ministers to account for perceived misconduct. When National came into office John Key promised a new era of accountability, in which his Ministers would be held to high standards of integrity and fairness. Seven years on, it is clear that that was just empty rhetoric. Murray McCully is under investigation by the Auditor-General for making illegal payments, and yet—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. I have a point of order from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a general debate and there may be debating points raised, but it is simply incorrect to say that Minister McCully is under investigation. He is not.

💬 Metiria Turei: Point of order, Sir—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the comments, so I will hear from Metiria Turei.

💬 Metiria Turei: That is a debating point. As the member well knows, this is a debating chamber in which it is perfectly fine to put these issues to the fore.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I suspect that it is not actually a debating point. There is no investigation into the Minister himself, but it is a debating chamber and it is the general debate, so there is some latitude in the way that things are stated. I invite James Shaw to continue with his contribution.

Murray McCully is under investigation by the Auditor-General—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just ruled that that is going to cause only disruption. The member is not under investigation. I invite James Shaw to continue his contribution without such reference. It is causing disorder.

Murray McCully’s ministry is under investigation by the Auditor-General for making illegal payments, and yet the Prime Minister thinks that it is acceptable for him to be New Zealand’s representative on the world stage. Clearly, the Prime Minister is not concerned with ethical conduct when he believes that somebody else can take the blame—typically, the last Labour Government.

Although National kept blaming the Labour Government for instituting the ban on live sheep exports, it should be pointed out that the National Government extended the ban. The situation that it found itself in was of its own making, not the Labour Government’s. In order to smooth over the relationship between New Zealand and Saudi Arabia, Murray McCully decided to make a $4 million payment to Saudi businessman Hamood Al Ali Khalaf, with a further $6 million payment to construct an agri-hub farm in the middle of the Saudi desert and $1.5 million for the air freighting of 900 ewes to this farm.

Allegedly, this deal was due to the risk of a $30 million lawsuit against the Government as a result of the ban. Yet, apparently, the Crown never sought advice as to whether the Government was actually liable. At the same time, during the course of 2012 and 2013, Treasury officials repeatedly stated that the deal should be abandoned, arguing that it was unclear exactly what the money was to be used for and what was to be received in return. A Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade paper dated 27 April 2012 stated that the deal was about meeting Mr Al Khalaf’s desire for compensation. However, John Key claimed last week that the deal was never about compensation. This confusion and contradiction highlight the need for the Auditor-General’s investigation.

This was, at best, an ill-advised payment unlikely to achieve anything and, at worst, an illegal bribe. Yet, as we heard in question time, the Prime Minister refuses to ask for Murray McCully’s resignation or to stand him down during the course of the investigation. When a Minister’s actions are under investigation, it is normal practice for them to be stood down while they are cleared of wrongdoing. However, John Key thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to let Murray McCully chair the United Nations Security Council at the same time that Transparency International is pointing out that his deal could undermine New Zealand’s reputation for fairness and integrity.

This lax approach is at odds with the way that John Key has dealt with the behaviour of other Ministers. In 2010 Phil Heatley resigned as a Minister following revelations that he had signed a $70 expense claim for wine at a National Party function. Although this was obviously an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money, it was also obviously a mistake and did not amount to a serious case of misconduct, but the Prime Minister accepted his resignation. How is it then that a $70 expense claim merits a Minister’s dismissal but making a $4 million payment to a Saudi businessman is acceptable conduct?

Similarly, Judith Collins resigned last year on the basis of one email that suggested misconduct. Even though multiple officials have raised concerns about the legality of Mr McCully’s deal, he remains a member of Cabinet. If the Prime Minister truly believes in holding his Ministers to a high standard of conduct, then it is time for Murray McCully to go.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not like to interrupt the member James Shaw again—

💬 Ron Mark: Well, you did twice.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order—

And that is why, Ron—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order, I hope, and I want to hear it without interjections coming from my left-hand side.

For most of that speech the member giving it was reading from a text on his desk. This is the general debate. Although we would accept that written speeches would be appropriate for first and second readings, and often third readings, by a Minister who has to put a series of statements in the record for the courts, in a general debate I would hope that the standard would be that members speak freely without notes and to the Parliament.

And so would I. I bet before the end of this general debate, the member James Shaw, who has just resumed his seat, will not be the only member who, unfortunately, continues to read. It is a general debate. Members should be able to debate in a general debate by referring to notes and without having to read speeches. I wish this would apply to all members.

Plan B for the New Zealand economy—plan B—this wonderful, mysterious plan B. I have been asking all my friends and colleagues who owns the plan B, what is plan B, and how would it work? It appears it is a little like hunting for a mysterious animal, like a unicorn—everyone agrees it would be a beautiful thing, but nobody has actually ever seen it. I mean, my office staff googled “plan B” and came out with a thousand pages—about 80 percent of which is Grant Robertson talking about the need for a plan B—but nobody has yet identified what a plan B would be.

So we do not have a plan B. No, no; we have a plan A. We have a plan A, which has worked extremely well for New Zealand in the years that the New Zealand public gave us their confidence and we came into Government. I am sure, as we continue to execute and implement plan A, that it will continue to be a very sound basis.

But trying to work out what plan B was—well, I have to start from a speculative point of view that, presumably, plan B is not plan A. So what are the foundation stones of plan A? Well, plan A rests, in my view, on three central pillars: first of all, an orthodox and sound monetary policy that is centred on having an independent central bank; second, sound fiscal policy; and, third, a highly complex series of actions known as the Government’s Business Growth Agenda, which covers a multitude of issues from infrastructure through to investment in information and communications technology, research and development, and free-trade areas.

So I am just trying to work out, well, if plan B is the complement, or the opposite, of plan A, what would that look like? I mean, what are proponents of this mysterious and unknowable plan B going to do about monetary policy? Would they not want what has just happened as a consequence of plan A, which is that with a flexible exchange rate and the Governor of the Reserve Bank having been given a mandate by this Parliament, the exchange rate has fallen by around 25 percent on the basis of the cross rate, which has shielded our dairy farmers—and I am pleased to see some modest relief this morning for them in the Global Dairy Trade overnight from Boston. Would the proponents of plan B want to reverse this? And what about the effects on our other exporters who are actually having a very good ride at the moment? Would that be part of plan B—a different policy for the exchange rate?

The same could be said about interest rates. As things have got a little more difficult internationally and zero interest rates are still pertaining around the world, our own interest rates are at a very low point. Fortunately, they are still positive, which is a sign of strength. The countries in the greatest difficulty with their monetary policy are, in fact, countries with zero interest rates or even, perhaps, implied negative interest rates, essentially. So I do not know what plan B would be, but I think that plan A, when it comes to monetary policy, is serving New Zealand extremely well.

Then let us go to fiscal policy. Fiscal policy—what we see around the developed world is debt. We have debt around the world that is averaging in the OECD at close to triple figures and, in some cases, is over 200 percent of GDP. Our net Crown debt to GDP is, from memory, around 32 or 33 percent, and we are likely to be below 30 percent in a year or two as the Government, led by Mr English, our Minister of Finance, has kept a heavy, steady hand, but not cutting, slashing, and burning, as was claimed at the time. Continual discipline has managed to reduce our deficit, which was caused, of course, by the conjunction of the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquake when we did deliberately seek to borrow in order to shield vulnerable New Zealanders—the very people whom the Opposition claims it speaks for—from the full effects of this. Then we started a process of fiscal consolidation, to the point where we are pretty much even-stevens at the moment.

So I do not know what plan B would be like, but that is what plan A is. I do not think I would want to see that reversed.

Then we look at the elements of—well, people call it different things. Some people call it microeconomic reform. I think it is far broader than that, but it includes microeconomic reform. It is kaizen: a continuous improvement system of trying to ensure that this economy responds to competitive opportunities, and I will start with free-trade agreements. Free-trade agreements—let us just put one simple statistic out there on the table. In the last 7 years from 2008 New Zealand exports to non - free-trade agreement countries have declined on an average of 2.6 percent per year, and have increased to free-trade agreement partners by slightly over 10 percent, on average, every year. I rest the case.

The main message from that contribution by that member, Tim Groser, was that there is no plan B and the Government does not have any idea what a plan B would look like. Well, I am happy to enlighten them as to what a plan B might look like. A plan B would see unemployment going down, not going up, as it is under this National Government. A plan B would see Government debt going down, not going up, as it is under this National Government. Plan B would see the Government surplus going up and not down—in fact, not being non-existent, as it is under this National Government. Plan B would see growth in the business community that leads to job creation, and a lot of that would be driven off the back of increasing research and development, something this Government has no idea how to stimulate.

Plan B would involve more diversification of the New Zealand economy, when this Government seems to be wanting to put all its eggs in one basket. Plan B would involve improving health and education services in New Zealand. Most important, Plan B would involve higher living standards for all New Zealand families, something this Government simply has no idea how to deliver. Have those members not come a long way from that brighter future they promised New Zealanders back in 2008? They do not talk about that any more. They are no longer aspirational for New Zealand. Oh no—oh no. They are simply content to manage New Zealand’s decline. They have got their heads in the sand and they have no plan B. They have no idea how to turn New Zealand’s economic fortunes around, and that becomes more and more obvious by the day.

In 2010 John Key said that he would hate to see New Zealanders become tenants in their own land, and what is happening? Day after day we see more examples of farmland being sold offshore, of housing being sold offshore, of valuable State assets being sold offshore. Not only will this Government not do anything to stop that, it is encouraging it. It is furthering it. It cannot wait to sell more and more of what is New Zealand out from under the feet of New Zealand citizens. I think that that is disgraceful. It is no wonder that John Key was too ashamed to answer questions today in the House from the Leader of the Opposition about that broken promise that he made back in 2010, because this Government is quite content to hock everything off.

This Government has been selling off the housing stock. It is going to sell off State houses. First it said it was going to be to community providers, and then, of course, community providers said: “Oh no. We can’t do that.” So now it is quite content to sell large chunks of State housing to overseas investors. That is absolutely wrong. That is absolutely bankrupt, and the Government should not be doing that. Then the Government said that it wanted to ensure that New Zealand’s strategic assets—valuable strategic assets—remained in New Zealand’s ownership. Yet every single application from overseas investors to buy New Zealand’s strategic assets, like farmland, has been approved. The Government has not declined one single application to buy those strategic assets—so much for protecting New Zealand for New Zealanders. This Government is quite happy to see everything sold off offshore: sensitive land, State assets like our energy companies, and, of course, housing—no problem with hocking that off offshore.

Of course, Government members never tire of finding new ways to hide what they are getting up to. They use new terminology to try to hide exactly what it is that they are doing, and hide the fact that they are breaking their promises. So now we have Bill English’s latest one, called “capital recycling”. “Capital recycling” is Bill English’s great new phrase. Bill English is going to sell $1 billion to $2 billion of assets in order to have his capital recycling programme. Let us put that into context. The State-owned enterprises sale programme raised less than $5 billion. Bill English is suggesting that he could raise nearly half as much as that again through selling off other assets, like Landcorp farms and Government-owned assets that currently exist, whether they be in education or health.

National members said at the last election that there would be no more asset sales if National were re-elected. That was absolute, utter tosh, because they are selling off everything that they can get their hands on, everything that is not bolted down. So much for not wanting New Zealanders to be tenants in their own country! We have got a Government now that is quite happy to sell off absolutely everything, to sell it out from under the feet of New Zealanders, and that is wrong.

Well, that was 5 minutes of our lives we will never get back. Thank you for that, Chris Hipkins.

Today in this House I have seen it all. The so-called Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, put his hands up and said: “I don’t want to ask any questions.” Hands up, giving up, not asking any questions—but then of course, later on, he followed the Rt Hon Winston Peters to ask those questions. And that makes a lot of sense because, in the last poll that I saw, Winston Peters was higher in the preferred Prime Minister poll than Andrew Little was. So this is a theme about who the real Leader of the Opposition is. I guess we are not sure, but when Mr Little puts his hands up and gives up, he is making it easier.

The country needs the Labour Party’s help. Not so long ago it announced a crisis in manufacturing, and what did we see in the very next quarter? Manufacturing increasing around the country, going from strength to strength. It announced a power price crisis. What happened there? There was a stabilisation of prices. They have not been moving up at all. A house price crisis in parts of regional New Zealand—well, that is certainly not happening. Then we had the mythical housebuyers with Chinese-sounding names crisis. Well, we cannot find them. The interest rates crisis—interest rates are at a record low. A currency crisis—currency rates are at a level that means our exports are competitive overseas. And then it announced a dairy crisis last week, and what did we see last night? We saw a 20 percent increase in the price of wholesale milk powder.

There is one more crisis the Labour Party needs to announce on behalf of all New Zealanders, and that is a crisis in the All Blacks camp, guaranteeing the All Blacks will win the Rugby World Cup this year. If it does that, then there is a chance that Mr Little could sneak ahead of Mr Peters in the preferred Prime Minister stakes, but that would be only if he held that line. You see, if Mr Little said “There’s a crisis in the All Blacks.”, well, tomorrow he would change his mind.

Before the election he was in favour of a referendum on the flag. In fact, he thought we should have a new flag. He said: “Let’s have a referendum. It’s important that New Zealanders have a greater sense of pride in their own country. Yes, let’s have a referendum.” As soon as he is leader of the Labour Party he says: “Oh no, we shouldn’t be having one of those at all. We can’t have a referendum. It’s not for New Zealanders to decide.”

Also, he does not like the national anthem. He thinks New Zealanders like the Australian national anthem. So guess what—let us have a referendum on the national anthem. At least that was on one day in a speech in this House. The next day he said: “No, we are not going to have a referendum anymore.”

Do you remember the means testing of New Zealand superannuation? That was certainly a brain fade. “Let’s means test New Zealand superannuation against hard-working New Zealanders.” Winston Peters, as the real Leader of the Opposition, actually came out heavily against that straightaway. He knows about politics. But of course that was only one day. The very next day Mr Little said: “Oh no, we’re not in favour of means testing any more.”

So on behalf of the New Zealand public, I ask Mr Little for a bit of consistency. Tomorrow afternoon come down to this House, declare a crisis in the All Blacks, and stick with it because then they are guaranteed to win the Rugby World Cup. But I think that the disaffected many on the side of the Labour Party will overrule him whatever he says there.

This is a Government that is focused, and we are looking at the things that are important and that matter. Our economy is still strong. It goes up and it goes down—as dairy prices do and other things—

💬 Dr David Clark: Worst economic record in 50 years.

That member is actually the worst member in 50 years for the seat of Dunedin, but let us keep trying that one. The thing is here that across our portfolios Ministers are working hard and our other MPs are supporting them and coming up with good ideas and new ideas for a third-term Government.

In one of my responsibility areas of taxation there is a lot of work under way. Business Transformation—we launched earlier this year two consultation documents to look at the future of taxation, including an announcement around provisional tax: PAYE for Tax and PAYE for Businesses. We consulted on them and we received responses, and we are out in the public talking about them.

What did Mr Little do a few weeks ago? He announced a late submission to my consultation, PAYE for Business. So what I would say to members opposite is that a day’s work is not Twitter, a day’s work is not cutting and pasting from international magazines and newspapers, a day’s work is not plagiarism; a day’s work is what everyday New Zealanders are doing up and down this country, and this is a Government that is supporting them.

In 2008 the new Government started off with so much promise. Mr Key had more hair, Bill English was less grey, and Gerry Brownlee was less well-rounded. Today 36 percent—36 percent—of the then National Party caucus is gone. In fact, you could say that it would be safer to be a soldier on the Western Front in World War I than to be a National Party MP under John Key. So let us dispose of the first illusion, which is that John Key is a manager. John Key is a manager in terms of politics in the same way that Genghis Khan was an organiser of diplomacy. History, tradition, and honour—you can flag it.

Speaking of a flag, what do we have for the massive $26 million, as a minimum, that is going towards a new flag? Forget about all the other changes that will have to be made. There are 40 designs, many featuring an albino silver fern as though we are the only country in the world that has got a silver fern. The satirist John Oliver was lampooning it on US TV, and so are the Australians. They say we are boring. They know that in 1902 we designed our present flag and they copied ours. Our response from New Zealand First is: “Listen, if you want to be jingoistic, go and get your own flag! Don’t try and steal ours.”

What did Mr Key promise the New Zealanders on the sale of State assets? Well, he said that they were going to go to mum and dad Kiwi investors. That was demonstrably false. He knew it was not true, but he said it anyway. Then the Government started that fund, the Future Investment Fund, which was going to go towards hospitals and schools and roads—all the feel-good promises that people like Maurice Williamson were compelled to make, even though very reluctantly. Then all of a sudden there is one Official Information Act request, and out it comes. Hello! It is not using the money on New Zealand assets; it is committing over $700 million New Zealand dollars to a Chinese-led bank.

Then, of course, you get the kind of commentariat who think this is all good. They cannot give us the earnings or likely dividends. No, they cannot give us a thing. But Mr Key said it was fantastic because it would build infrastructure all over—

💬 Ron Mark: Asia.

Asia. Down in the Wairarapa; up in Northland; down the West Coast; in Gisborne; Poverty Bay; Hawke’s Bay—all are starving for infrastructure, roads, rural development funds, and things like broadband, super-fast broadband, cell towers, and single-lane bridges. But no, no, Mr Key—this patriot, this patriot from Merrill Lynch—finds infrastructure investment in Asia more worthy. What a let-down.

💬 Chris Bishop: How’s that Northland office going?

Then, of course—how is the Northland office going? The Northland office is going the same way it was when you turned up at one of our campaigns in Kaipara. We took that poor lad Chris Bishop to the cleaners. We gave him a lesson in heartland politics. They were so embarrassed that they were skulking at the back door, hiding behind the tea ladies, and the tea ladies were trying to get away from them. They did not want to be contaminated. But instead of saying “Thank you, Winston. Is that how it’s done?”, no, no, he is still as arrogant. He is still not telling his next-door neighbour Sarah Dowie that she is gone next time, and still not telling the next-door neighbour from Whangarei that he is gone next time. Oh, believe me, I tell you what: I know from the communications from National Party stalwarts that it is all over, Rover. They know that there is one party that understands heartland New Zealand. It is in our name—it is New Zealand First.

Let me ask you this question here: why, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, did Mr Key not trust the New Zealand people? You see, the United States knows that it will wait for the presidential elections, the Canadians are saying that it will be after their election, and the Malaysians say that they will go to their Parliament. Oh no, but not Mr Key. Apparently, it is adult to negotiate it that way, and I have never seen a trade Minister so deflated as the Minister of Trade was today. You know, he has been told: “Listen, sunshine, your arrogance is costing us votes, so you’d better start being humble.” This is impossible for that sort of character, but that was the weakest, most un-emotive, uncommitted speech he has ever made, and, yet, he said, fundamentally, that we had this marvellous progress because of free-trade deals. Australia never had a free-trade deal with China for most of that time, and, yet, exponentially, its trade went up higher. Let us stop this bunkum from somebody who has been on the international trade-fest, up against the wine bar for all these years, and who thinks he knows better than the rest of us.

I just want to close by saying this—

The member’s time has expired.

I am delighted to take a call in the general debate today and to focus on just the one issue—that is, the economy—and on one particular phase of the economy, and it is called cyclical. For those who have not done mathematics, they will not know what a sine wave graph looks like, but let me explain. A sine wave graph is one that goes up, then it goes down, and then it goes up. The good news about having been in this Parliament for as many years as I have been here is that you remember that just about every industry you can name has been through those cyclical changes. I can remember vineyards—acres and acres of vineyards—being ripped out because the wine industry was stuffed, and now the wine industry is exporting over a billion and just going for it gangbusters. I can remember the kiwifruit industry when there were times when the cycle for the kiwifruit industry was so far in the toilet that everyone was panicking about whether we should even keep a kiwifruit industry. Well, now I am told by my colleague from the Bay of Plenty that the kiwifruit industry is booming and going for it gangbusters again. Again, there is no other industry I can think of that does not do that. I can tell you that the dairy industry has been through amazing growth and amazing ups and given fantastic returns for those involved, and now it is beginning to go through a small—quite small, I think—downturn, although if you look at the global dairy trade numbers from last night, with a 19 percent increase for whole-milk product, it is probably only just a slight cyclical change, rather than the genuine one. But if you listen to the Opposition, those members would have you believe that the economy is in such a state there is a need to revert to a plan B.

Well, this economy is as resilient as I have ever known it in so many industries—from manufacturing to information and communication technology, whose exports have more than doubled in the last 5 years, and in every other sector. I tell you one that I do know something about, having been the Minister for Building and Construction for 6 years. That industry goes through shocking cycles—shocking cycles. There are times when there is almost no building going on, and right now it is booming like no one would believe. In fact, the biggest difficulty in the building and construction sector is getting enough of a skilled, capable workforce to do the work that is required both in Canterbury and Auckland and elsewhere. So we have got to stop the crocodile tears. We have got to stop the nonsense that the Opposition puts up and—actually, I have had a thought. There is one cycle that defies gravity. There is one cycle that I have thought about that defies gravity. Normally, Opposition parties, when they go into Opposition, start to grow and get their vote back. For the first time ever an Opposition party has proved that you can fight against gravity, because Labour, in three terms of being in Opposition, has seen its vote go down.

So I have to say that the cyclical theory that I was just talking about applies to the climate, it certainly applies to the economy, but it actually does not apply to Labour. Why? Because Labour members pick on issues where they are so palpably in the wrong. Let me give you one that Chris Hipkins went to. Chris Hipkins got stuck into the Government today about the amount of land that is being sold to foreigners. We in National are babes in the woods compared with Labour—we are total babes in the woods—because you have got to look at the numbers. In one year alone under a Labour Government, there were more hectares sold to foreigners than the cumulative amount sold in our first 5 years in office. I do not get it. It is fine for Labour when it is in office to have signed off on big forests and on farms across the board—and then when National gets in, we actually added two more clauses to the Overseas Investment Act. We added two more criteria than Labour—it was a lot easier to do when Labour was in; we made it tougher—and then Labour members have got the cheek to come down to this House and say: “Oh, you’re selling off land to foreigners.” Well, they should hide their heads in shame because we are at about half the level, after our 7 years in office, of what Labour sold when it was in Government. So where is the credibility? That is why Labour is polling where it is. It has absolutely no credibility when it runs the line of how evil it is to be selling to foreigners, and yet it sold more than twice what the current National Government has done.

I am really proud of the way that the Minister of Finance and others have run this economy. It is resilient, it is booming, and there are many sectors that have never been so well off. Our policy is that we have never had it so good; Labour’s policy is that it has never had it.

I want to talk about how this Government has destroyed the Kiwi dream of owning your own home and, if you are living in a rural area—like you do, Mr Speaker—owning your own farm. I want to tell Maurice Williamson that we will look at the numbers, OK. We will look at the numbers to see how many applications the Overseas Investment Office has declined for the sale of farmland in the last 4 years. Do you know what that number is? Zilch, zero, none. Every one of the 400 applications made by foreign investors to buy up New Zealand farms has been rubber-stamped by this Government. Yet I remember John Key saying in 2010: “We will not allow New Zealanders to become tenants in their own land.” Empty words—hollow words from a hollow man.

I remember better what Mr Key and Mr English said in 2009. They said on coming into office that they were going to free up the rules, enabling more land to be sold, and then they did their focus group. The focus group said that a fundamental part of what New Zealanders believe in—why our forebears came to this land was to escape the squirearchy, to escape being a tenant, to escape being a farm labourer, and to own their own farm and own their own land. So we got the words change from John Key, but we did not get the practice change. Since John Key became Prime Minister between a third of a million hectares and a million hectares, depending on the definition of “land”, has been sold to foreign interests—between a third of a million and a million hectares.

But I want to talk about the other side, which is how it affects urban dwellers. In my city of Auckland in the last year, average house prices have gone up by $116,000, or 25 percent, shattering the dreams of young families who want to buy a home of their own, and pushing up the rents of those forced to continue renting by three or four times more than the rate of overall inflation. Part of the problem is supply, but what aggravates the problem is that, according to the Reserve Bank, 10 percent of those sales are to foreign investors who never intend to live in New Zealand—never intend to live in New Zealand.

Today we have the lowest rate of homeownership in 64 years. That is the statistic. Which one of those National members is proud of the fact that the young homebuyer, of whatever ethnicity, cannot buy their own home in Auckland? They get outbid at the auctions every time by the person at the other end of the telephone, from a country overseas, who intends never to live in this country. What good does it do New Zealanders to allow foreign investors to come here, take advantage of nil capital gains tax and nil stamp duty, make a fortune, and rack-rent properties to New Zealanders? What good does that do the New Zealand family who want to do what you and I, Mr Speaker, wanted to do when we were their age, which is to buy a home that they could call their own? At the very least we should be slapping on a stamp duty of 15 to 20 percent—as they do in Hong Kong and Singapore, in case somebody thinks it is racist—or ban foreigners entirely from buying existing homes, as they do in Australia. This Government does nothing. Dreams are shattered and foreign speculators are laughing all the way to the bank.

It is always very good to follow the Hon Phil Goff in a debate, because it just makes me look so reasonable by comparison. Goodness knows that if Phil Goff became the mayor of Greater Auckland, that would solve the housing crisis—right—because everybody would just up sticks and leave. Representation like his is something that Auckland does not need.

An extraordinary thing happened in this House at question time today. Around about question No. 3, I believe it was, the Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little—

💬 Dr David Clark: A chicken ran out of the House in a flap.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Speaking of chickens, Andrew Little got up to ask a question and got outmanoeuvred, perhaps, by the Government. What did he do—what did he do? Did he get up and fight the fight on behalf of the Opposition? Did the Leader of the Opposition get up during his showcase moment in this House—question time; the time for the Leader of the Opposition to show his people, his caucus, the kind of man that he is? [Interruption] Well, he did, actually. At the beginning of question No. 3 today Andrew Little did not get up; Andrew Little sat down, put his hands up, and said: “Oh, OK. I won’t ask the question.” What happened in the seats behind him when the Leader of the Opposition sat down and said: “OK. I give up; I didn’t want to ask the question anyway.”? What happened? Nothing—nothing. Nothing happened. There was no smile; there was no noise—perhaps just the sound of knives being sharpened quietly behind his back.

In fact, it reminded me of another moment that we had in the House relatively recently. Does this bring back any memories of the snapper debate? Well, that worked well, did it not, David Shearer? Today showed exactly why it is so good to be a member of the National Party in the third term of this John Key - led National Government. I will tell you why: this is a Government that follows through. This is a Government that is not afraid of the hard moments. This is a Government that does what it says it will do. Let me think—oh yes, I know: the flag referendum. What did we do—what did National do? Coming into the last election, it was our policy to have a flag referendum, to see what New Zealanders think about changing the flag. So after the election, we set up the process for referendums on changing the flag, and here we are. We have been through the legislation, and now it is New Zealanders’ turn to have their say.

What did Labour do? How did it go into the election? What was its policy on the flag referendums? Well, funnily enough, it was Labour’s policy to have a flag referendum, because it thought the time was now for New Zealanders to have their say. Labour campaigned on it, and then what did those members do? They sat down in their seats, they put up their hands, and they said: “Oh! Oh no! No, no. No, we don’t want to any more.” That is Labour all over, and that is why New Zealand does not support Labour, and that is exactly why New Zealanders support this National Government.

It should come as no surprise that I want to focus particularly on the regions, because I am a strong supporter of New Zealand, particularly South Island regional New Zealand, and I want to talk about the investment that this Government is putting into the regions. It is so ironic that people like the Hon Annette King stand up in the House and in other places and say: “New Zealand is out of touch with the regions.” Well, I would like to let Labour members know that none of them actually represent the regions, so they do not tend to be very well connected with the regions at all. But they are tending to stand, from their places in the cities, and cast aspersions on us. Meanwhile, people like me, Mark Mitchell, Barbara Kuriger, and all of our National colleagues arranged across this side of the House are working hard for our regions every single day of the week.

Let me think about a couple of things in particular that are happening that are important to me. The recent announcement by the Hon Michael Woodhouse about immigration—what a great difference that is going to make to Central Otago in terms of filling those skills shortages that are so important to the winegrowers, to the fruitgrowers, and to the hospitality sector in my part of the country. It is that care of the regions and it is that leadership by John Key that is making this a Government that gets things done.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. In the last couple of weeks we have seen more than 1,000 megawatts of fossil fuel generation at Southdown, Ōtāhuhu B, and Huntly Power Station announced to close because of renewables being cheaper. This is fantastic news for our climate, particularly in the current political climate, which does not exactly focus on reducing emissions. These three stations were responsible for 2.5 million tonnes of carbon pollution a year. The good news is that this is going to up our renewables percentage to around 87 percent.

It is important to point out this is not happening because of Government policy, but despite it. Under National, what we have seen is a Government lavish attention when it comes to fossil fuels. We have seen tax breaks. We have seen subsidies. We have seen lavish jaunts. We have seen laws changed under urgency. We have seen the navy called out on iwi protestors.

So what I would like to say today is that as our country gets close to the 90 percent by 2025 target 10 years early, let us work together. Let us focus on a bit more ambition, a bit more attention, and a bit more leadership. Let us work together and set a target of 100 percent renewables, because 100 percent is 100 percent affordable, it is 100 percent achievable, and it is 100 percent desirable.

Imagine the brand benefits for our country and imagine the brand benefits for our companies if we were 100 percent a clean-energy country. Already our “clean, green” brand has been valued at $20 billion per annum, and PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates we could be earning an extra $22 billion per annum with clean-energy exports.

💬 Hon Member: How? How?

Listen to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Despite all the positive economic forecasts and despite the wealth of opportunities, our Government risks being left behind. Globally, clean-energy investment has far outstripped fossil fuels. Take solar, for example: last year alone $114 billion was invested in solar across the world. That was part of $2 trillion invested over the last 10 years. In the States every 4 minutes we see a new business or home putting solar panels on the roof. Across the Ditch in Australia there are a million homes with solar panels.

Kiwis want some of this too because Kiwis love their DIY. They want a sense of greater energy freedom and independence from the power companies. They want to go solar. They want to produce their own power on their roofs, or what I call DIY power. As consumers, they do not want to just sit back and passively pay their power bills to the big power companies. They want to engage with the electricity system and become players themselves.

However, for some in New Zealand the solar dream has become a solar headache. I remember meeting Roly and Gail Runciman in Howick in west Auckland. Roly and Gail are superannuitants on a fixed income, and they invested their savings in solar panels on their roofs to try to fix some of their power bills in their retirement years. Last year Roly took me up on his roof and proudly showed me his panels, and he also told me about how it was the electricity companies that had all the power to set the terms, the conditions, and the buy-back rates. Roly told me—he said that it is stacked against someone who wants to do something a bit entrepreneurial, as well as trying to do something for the country.

This is a major problem because, currently, it is the electricity companies that have all the power in the relationship. They set the terms, the conditions, and the buy-back rates for what people have paid for feeding their small surplus electricity back into the grid. They are also telling me they are facing a huge number of barriers when it comes to connecting with their local distributors. Late last year we saw two major electricity companies drop their buy-back rates at short notice from 50 percent to 72 percent.

Last week my solar bill was drawn from the ballot. I am trying to give people like Roly and Gail a fair go. I want to empower the Electricity Authority to act as an independent umpire. If we invest in solar and if we give these people wanting to do the right thing, wanting to gain more energy independence, wanting to do it themselves—we should give them a fair go. We should break down those barriers. It is not about subsidies. It is not about making them compete with the electricity generators or earn a massive fortune from their solar panels. It is simply about giving them a fair go.

It is about correcting a market imbalance. It is part of the way our country can get to 100 percent, because getting there is going to see Kiwis at work installing insulation under the roofs and putting solar panels on top. Getting there is going to see communities at work installing things like wind turbines and geothermal plants. Getting there is going to see communities investing in a smarter grid.

I remember the old saying from farmers that you will not get there if you start from here. The fact is that the Government has not supported solar energy, but if we work together we can get there, from here, today.

It is a great pleasure to rise and take a call in this general debate and to reflect, I guess, upon what has now been almost 12 months of this Parliament. I thought that by now I would have heard most things over the year, but no; this afternoon what we got was a lecture on humility from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I thought that I had heard it all, but, once I heard that, I realised that perhaps there could be something new. I thought it was kind of ironic, actually, that he talked about the National Government having had a 36 percent turnover in MPs since 2008. I guess that means only 64 percent of our MPs were here in 2008. It is ironic when you consider that 100 percent of the MPs in the New Zealand First caucus were not here in 2008.

I want to reflect a little bit on the past 11 or 12 months—as to how things have been going. One of the things that has really, really perplexed me while I have been sitting in this House, in this debating chamber, listening to things that are going on is why it is that Opposition members are so down on New Zealand. Why is it that they are always talking about how bad things are? I know that it is the job of the Opposition to challenge the Government and to pick holes in the things that we are doing—or to find holes if it can—but the Opposition is just so down on New Zealand. There is such a lack of belief in New Zealand—such a lack of aspiration for the people of New Zealand and the good things that we can achieve. It is a little bit like the story of Chicken Little, where the acorn falls and lands on Chicken Little’s head. And then what happens? The sky is falling. It is the end of the world. Every time something happens that does not quite go the way that Chicken Little wants it, the sky is falling, it is a crisis, everything has turned to custard, and everything is in complete disarray.

We are living in a country that is a little bit more resilient than that. We have got a Government that is committed to the resiliency of New Zealand. It is committed to and is aspirational for New Zealand. I was at a function recently and someone said to me: “What would happen to the National Government if John Key was hit by a bus?”. I thought it was a really interesting question for that person to ask. I could not figure out why they would ask that question, but then I thought: “Well, obviously they have been watching the Labour Party.” So many of its leaders have been thrown under the bus over the past few years, and that might have led to the question. But the question was about whether the National Government would survive without John Key as its leader.

He is a great leader. We have all said that, and we all acknowledge that—it is great. But the strength of this party is that should there be an unfortunate event and we had to pick a new leader, we have got plenty of people to choose from. What we have got is a caucus that is more than happy to get behind this party and to get behind whoever the leader of this party is; whereas, what I see on the other side of the House is people sharpening their knives and getting ready to throw their next leader under the bus. That bus is called “Question time”. Every day Labour keeps putting up Mr Little and throwing him under John Key’s bus. It is a little bit like watching a train wreck happen, but it keeps happening every day.

We are working towards a plan. We are working towards a plan that is good for New Zealand. We are revising the way that we do our social services in New Zealand. We are taking an investment approach, because we believe that we can deliver better lives for people. We are taking an investment approach to social housing. Mr Hipkins said that we are not interested in education, or otherwise. But do you know what? We are seeing rising levels of educational achievement under this National Government. We are seeing greater participation in early childhood education under this Government. That is what is happening. We are doing better things for New Zealanders, and we are seeing them succeed even more.

At the moment all we hear from the other side of the fence is doom and gloom, because the acorn fell when the dairy prices went down. We understand that it is not a good thing. But what we hear from over there is that the sky is falling and that it is the end of the world. I heard a commentator say the other day that all Fonterra does is take the water out of milk, put it into 20 kilo bags, and ship it overseas. Paul Foster-Bell and I visited the Fonterra research and development centre the other day. It was exciting to hear the plans that that company has to add more value to our products and send them overseas. These things are happening right across our economy and right throughout our regions.

Again, the other day it was fantastic to see the diversity of what is happening. We are seeing new people with new ideas. We are seeing companies like Altus UAS Ltd, which is ready to export its drones to the United States. We are not a one-track economy; we are a diverse economy. We have got sound leadership. We are taking things forward for the people of New Zealand.

I think I am listening to the Grimm brothers’ fables in the House when I hear about chickens with the sky falling on their heads. I thought that was question time, actually. I just want to reflect on something that Todd McClay said in the House earlier about the Labour Party talking about all these crises. The one crisis that Todd McClay did not mention in the House was the house price inflation crisis in Auckland. That was a glaring hole in his debate today.

Homeownership is important to New Zealanders. Homeownership speaks to the value that we place on our communities, on our individuals, and on society as a whole. Homeownership means having a base for your family. It means stability. It actually means building connections into communities and building relationships for when times are hard. It means building social capital, and it means actually building a financial base that leverages off and gives you much better outcomes. If you have a home, then your prospects in terms of your health, your children’s health, and your children’s education are going to be better.

So let us have a look at the homeownership rates, shall we? My colleague the Hon Phil Goff said that we have got the lowest homeownership rates in 64 years. Homeownership rates are declining. In 2006 homeownership was up over 50 percent. It was 53.2 percent. In 2013 it is down to under 49.8 percent and it is trending down, year on year on year. Let us look at the age group that is most impacted by this drop in homeownership rates, shall we? The age group in which homeownership has dropped the most are the people aged 30 to 39—just the people whom you would think have a little bit of capital behind them. They have done their education, they are in good careers, and they would be ready to buy their first home. They are also the people who are starting to have their families.

So what is this saying? If we do some analysis of those numbers, it means that we are going to have generation upon generation of families that do not know what homeownership looks like, and that is a shame. I will tell you one further statistic. Who has the lowest homeownership rates in the country? It is Pacific people—18.5 percent—18.5 percent. That is a shame. Of that wider Pacific group, the people most impacted are those from the Cook Islands and Tuvalu.

What is this about? Let us have a look at a quote from the Prime Minister. He is worried about rising inequality, but “said he did not believe homeownership was no longer possible for low-income families.” I have got to ask you: does the Prime Minister believe that middle-income families are finding it easy? Clearly they are not, if more than half of New Zealanders cannot afford to get into their own home. The numbers speak for themselves. And then the three-headed housing monster over on that side of the House pulls its levers—the loan-to-value ratio, the HomeStart incentive. What effect have they had? Virtually none—virtually none.

Here we are. We collect all this data on every aspect of homeownership. Do we ever collect the data on non-resident ownership? Would it be so hard, considering we have got so much information about everything else? We know that the reason that this Government does not collect data on non-resident ownership is that it will confirm what we have been saying all along. Then we get the Prime Minister transferring Andrew Little’s question in the House today about overseas ownership, and the National Party MPs stand up and say that we are scared. Well, where was the Prime Minister? He was scuttling off. He scuttled off. He did not want to answer that question, and those members call us scared.

So the question of non-resident overseas ownership of New Zealand land and homes—is that not important to the Prime Minister? I wonder about that. Or does the Prime Minister not want to be associated with the controversy? He cannot take the heat, especially when we know that the sharks are circling on the other side of the House and that there are being pitches made for the new leader of the National Party. We all know that, on this side of the House. We watch it every day. We watch the sharks circling; we watch the groups forming.

I just want to say that this is a Government that takes no responsibility. It takes no responsibility for decreasing homeownership. It takes no responsibility for land sales. I cannot wait until 2017, when the public of New Zealand gets to answer the big question. It will be a big “F” for failure for this Government.

It is great to be able to finish the general debate this afternoon, and to be able to talk about how effective the Government is in providing sound economic management that allows families to be successful, and then the economic dividend can get reinvested in social services to help people who really need it.

If there is an electorate in the country that reflects the success of this approach, it is the Bay of Plenty. Here are some statistics to paint a picture of progress. Job growth in the Bay of Plenty is extraordinary. We have unemployment down to just over 5 percent; it was 7 percent a year ago. Job adverts are up 29 percent, year on year. The Bay of Plenty is at 20 percent, and that is the highest region in the country. Pay rates have jumped 6.7 percent, and they are rising faster in the Bay of Plenty than anywhere else in the country.

In the last 2 years 353 businesses have moved to Tauranga, and that has led to a huge lift in building and construction. Five suburbs in Tauranga, including two in my electorate, have delivered $1 billion—$1 billion—worth of residential and commercial development in the past 3 years. In the last month alone $66 million worth of building consents have been approved by the Tauranga City Council. It is the fastest-growing city in the country, but its growth is supported by a Government that invests in schools in Papamoa and invests in roads, in the Tauranga Eastern Link, to enable the eastern communities of the Eastern Bay of Plenty to connect to the most efficient port in the country.

But it is not just economically. There are 50 percent more people in the Bay of Plenty receiving elective surgeries this year than when we came into office. Fifty percent more of the Bay of Plenty community are now receiving elective surgeries than when we came in. Not surprisingly, our city has been rated the most confident and economically upbeat in the country. The longer terms are positive, with kiwifruit recovering from Psa; the information and communications technology clusters taking off; and the merger of the two polytechs, the new central business district university development, and the trades academy all point to providing skills pathways for those who need them.

So it is not surprising that Tauranga was chosen to participate in the Social Housing Reform Programme. Why is that? Because it is an innovative city. It is a community that has a proven track record in community housing provision, and we are open to new ideas to help fix challenging problems.

What do we get from the other side? Unrelenting negativity. No to innovation. No to social investment that delivers results. No to foreign investment. No to migration. No to free trade. Listening to the arguments of members on the other side tells me that they are caught in the 1990s. When we talk innovation—when we talk innovative social investment models that are collaborative, that are backed by increased funding that is targeted to achieving a better result for children and families—they hear privatisation. When we talk about helping the most vulnerable, with the first benefit rise in 43 years, they think we are being cynical and they vote against it. When we talk about an open, engaged, vibrant, culturally diverse New Zealand, connected to the world and open for business, they talk of Chinese surnames, external threats, and run to isolationist, anti-American tendencies, which have always existed in that party.

The Labour Party is stuck in the 1990s and it thinks we are still the party of the 1990s. Labour members are rehearsing their old socialism versus neo-liberalism lines. Labour is tired, it is old, and it is yesteryear. Labour members are tone deaf to the changes that have occurred in society, in our party, through the leadership of John Key and Bill English.

We have changed; they have not. Public policy has changed; they have not. New Zealand has changed; they have not. The world has changed; they have not. And the reason is that a quarter of their caucus were in those seats over 20 years ago—the 1980s, the 1990s. They are caught in a paradigm of the 1990s. We are the true heirs of social policy innovation. They are an embarrassment to their legacy—an absolute embarrassment to their legacy. That is why around the country, regional New Zealand trusts this Government. They see its competency, they see its character, they see its compassion, and they trust our ability to apply the best of tomorrow’s ideas to fix the challenges of today. They believe that this Government can best support their families into the future.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.