General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today it is almost 1 year since the National Party won the 2014 election and went on to form another strong, stable Government with our coalition partners, whose role in that I want to acknowledge, as well as the way that they have underpinned a stable Government for New Zealand. It is not quite 1 year; it is 4 days off, which is more days than the number of policies the Labour Party has announced. In fact, that is 3 more days, because it has announced one.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Oh, what was that?

Well, the economy has been softening lately and there has been a bit of concern in the public about what is maintaining its growth. The Reserve Bank made the observation last week that one thing maintaining growth in the New Zealand economy when dairy prices are down is migration, which we know to be, actually, at record highs in total. The Labour Party has announced one policy—it has been a busy year for Grant Robertson—and the one policy is: reduce migration. It is one of the things that is holding up the economy and helping it grow, and the one policy the Labour Party has decided to announce is to reduce it.

Well, there have been one or two other sort-of polices. The other one is: if you have a Chinese name, you are not allowed to bid at a house auction in Auckland.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Brownlee.

Brownlee is out. Well, we could go through it all. It does not seem to have worked, though, because all those thousands of New Zealanders who have Chinese names—some of them are turning up to the auctions and still bidding. So there we have it—one policy and one sort-of half policy.

Well, as someone said to me on the way in to the House, the definition of “red peak” is Labour polling 30 percent. Well, actually, the fifth leader is polling almost as well as Phil Goff—five leaders ago—when he lost.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Progress.

Well, that is progress. In the world of the Labour Party, that is progress.

Let us compare that with the John Key - led Government. Let us compare that. I have got only 3 minutes left to go through the things that we have implemented in that 1 year, but I will just mention one or two: free doctors visits for under-13s and the first increase in benefits for family households in 43 years. We have tripled the internet speeds—tripled the internet speeds. We are on a path back to surplus, that is for sure. We have had the largest, longest, best-organised infrastructure spend that the country has ever seen.

There is a further long list of achievements, but the good news is that there is more to come. This is only year 1—only year 1—and that is what the Labour Party has not quite figured out. It is in year 8 of being a stale, irrelevant Opposition; we are in year 1 of being a focused, energetic, creative Government. That is how it is. Out ahead of us is a continuous building of innovation in New Zealand business, for instance. We have really only just got started after 8 very successful years.

The sole mantra of the National Party over its years in Government has been this: “Sell it off, sell it off.” At every point, with every issue, with every need that New Zealanders have had, the single response from the National Government has been to sell it off—sell it off.

The Green Party is here to deliver on the hopes of New Zealanders for a better, a cleaner, and a greener future. We give a voice to the growing number of New Zealanders who are making changes in their own lives to build a better future for themselves and their families, and, for more and more of those people, that future is one where our core public services, to which we are all entitled as citizens of this country—like health services, like education services, and like the justice services—are run for the benefit of the community as a whole and not for some of the National Party’s friends who want to derive a profit from it.

Under National, we have seen a rapid decline in public services and an absolutely massive increase in privatisation and a shift of wealth from the public sphere to the private sphere. For every review and every assessment of critical services, the same solution arises out of the National Government, and that is to sell it off—a sell-off of the public wealth and of the history of this country.

There is a housing crisis, with thousands of New Zealand families in this country desperate for a warm, safe, secure, and affordable home—totally desperate—and they look to the values of the past, when housing was treated as a basic right of every New Zealand family. Every New Zealand family and every citizen was entitled to decent housing. What has happened to that basic right under the National Government? It has been demolished by National bulldozers. That is what we have seen. Where are those homes for the thousands of New Zealand families who desperately need them? Sold off—that is what is happening with those homes. They are being sold off in the towns and the cities where people love to live, where they want to build a community.

In critical services for children, for the most vulnerable children—whether it is Child, Youth and Family or welfare, we know that decades of neglect by Governments means that children’s lives are at risk. State care has been the most dangerous place for children in this country. Families are being driven into the ground for want of a basic, but decent, income so that they can provide for their kids. We all know that the solution to poverty is to fix incomes, but what is the National Government’s solution? Privatise the welfare system, sell off the welfare system, and take children’s well-being out of the hands of families and communities and place it instead in the hands of corporates and profiteers. That is the sole National solution rolled out in this country.

National has lost touch with the real lives of New Zealanders and is failing to show the leadership on the issues that so many families care about—feeding our kids in schools, for example. It is a basic, core issue New Zealanders believe in and love, and National has said no.

The classic example of the debacle of the privatisation agenda of this Government is our prisons. We told Governments years ago that privatising prisons would lead to failure, that it would be expensive, and that it would not work, and it turns out, of course, that we were right, as everyone said at the time. Time after time we have seen Serco exposed for its failures and the Minister of Corrections exposed for his complete inability to handle that portfolio. He really needs to go. He either knew that all of these things were going on with Serco and did nothing about it, or he did not know because he has neglected that portfolio. Either way, the Minister needs to go. He is a complete failure as a Minister of a critical, core public service that needs to be kept in the hands of the public, and thousands of New Zealanders believe that. Thousands of New Zealanders, even National voters, want the prisons to go back into public ownership and public management.

Families should be able to have what they need to live a good life and to care for their families: high-quality education, accessible health care, and respect for the amazing work that is parenting. The Green Party is the only party with the new ideas that will build this better future for New Zealanders. We have the experience and the track record, and we will deliver. We will protect and return to public ownership and public management those services that the National Government has been so committed to selling off. Thank you.

One year on from the 2014 general election I need a basic question answered: what on earth does the Labour Party actually stand for? I have never witnessed in 25 years a Labour Party that is so rudderless, so uncertain as to what it believes in and in what it stands for, and so leaderless. It is all over the paddock on the issues that matter. Week after week we hear the Labour Party members speaking out of both sides of their mouths and engaged in doublespeak. Let us just look at the last week. Andrew Little said yesterday that Governments must not run deficits. He criticised the Prime Minister for some of the deficits that we ran post the global financial crisis. Yet on Sunday we had Grant Robertson saying: “I think the Government should run some more deficits.” So can Labour members tell me: are you for deficits, or are you against deficits?

Then we come to the issue of immigration. Andrew Little for the last 2 weeks has been saying that New Zealand needs to take more migrants, and I thought that was a genuinely held view from the Labour Opposition. Then Grant Robertson turns up—he forgot to tell Andrew Little—on Sunday morning, on Q+A, saying that Labour’s policy is to reduce the number of migrants. I would love to know Labour’s position.

Just after the general election Andrew Little said that Labour is opposed to a capital gains tax. Then why is it that in every single debate I have with Phil Twyford on housing, he says we need to address supply and we need a capital gains tax? Can Labour members say where they stand on that issue?

Then I come to the issue of housing, and on housing I have heard Mr Phil Twyford say that interest rates going up is bad. Then, when interest rates go down, he says it is bad. When we increase housing supply he says it is bad. Again, they are all over the paddock.

Then we come to education. We have the issue of charter schools, and we hear Labour saying repeatedly in this House that charter schools are bad. Then we have Labour members hopping off to raise funds for charter schools in Whangarei and saying that they are good.

Then, this week, we had something even more extraordinary. I thought that Labour was opposed to the private provision of social services. That is what I have heard in this House. Then I turned on the radio on Monday morning and I heard a Labour MP decrying the Minister of Education for closing the Pacific Christian School for non-performance and saying we should be keeping it open. Again, I have to say I am confused.

But the one thing I thought that Labour always stood for is inclusiveness. If there was any party in this Parliament that I thought stood up for people not being treated on the basis of race it was the Labour Party. I thought it was right at its core that it would not be playing racial games with issues. Yet then we had the leader and Phil Twyford running their campaign of blaming the housing issue on people with Chinese-sounding names. It was so bad we had Winston Peters blushing. You see, Labour’s problem is that it has ripped up its core values.

I come finally to the issue of the new flag. At the election Labour said, and I read this out word for word: “The time has come for change.” Labour members said there should be a referendum on a new flag. Well, I say to Mr Little, why is it that voters cannot trust you? It is because only 1 year ago you went to voters with a policy, and you are reversing on it. And in respect of the Red Peak flag I have to say that the Prime Minister has been very generous. He said that if Labour wants to honour its policy and support the referendum, well, he will go the extra mile and will include the Red Peak flag on the referendum, but all Labour has to do is stand for what it stood for just 12 months ago. And so my plea is: can someone, anyone, anywhere, please tell me what Labour does stand for.

I wish I had brought my handkerchief down to the House, so that I could wipe the saliva off my face from the member, Nick Smith, who was frothing at the mouth as he made that speech.

Many members of this House realise that this is Social Justice Week. It is the week when the Catholic bishops of New Zealand set aside time to highlight how they see New Zealand families faring. This year they have called the week “What does it take for all families to flourish?”, and they are looking particularly at family poverty.

I have to say that I really do admire the forthright way they go about highlighting the issues, without fear or favour, on behalf of New Zealanders. Caritas, their NGO that does most of the work, has a vision of working for a world free of poverty and injustice. So I was very disappointed to hear the Minister for Social Development sneer at Social Justice Week. It probably sums it up: that is how the National Party treats those who go out there and stand up on behalf of New Zealand. It made me think about how hard it is for organisations like Caritas to achieve their goals and their visions, when they have got a Government that at best distorts the facts and at worst indulges in malicious fabrications—because there is one word that cannot be said in this House by that Government.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What is it?

That word is “poverty”. They will not mention the word. It is the word that cannot be said. It does not exist. They think there are other words you should use such as “vulnerable people”. Today it was “those in hardship”, or as the Minister said “very low-income”. But never say “poverty”, because if you say it, then it might exist. It might actually exist in New Zealand.

You see, I can see a pattern from this Government, and it is a pattern of cover-ups. It is a pattern of covering up the evidence and the information, denying reality. You got it from the Prime Minister today. You got it from many Ministers. Black is white, even if it is not, as they deny the realities of what is happening in New Zealand. Then they blame everybody else. Going into the eighth year, and they are crowing today that it is 1 year since they became the Government. It is 8 years they have been in now, since they became the Government, and it is still everybody else’s fault. So they blame the beneficiaries. Well, of course, they crow about how they gave beneficiaries the first increase in 40 years—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That’s right, that’s right.

Well, for the cabin boy, I will tell him that National was the first Government in 40 years to cut the benefit. Bill English, who crowed about it today, was in that very Government. None of us have forgotten the Budget of 1991, when they slashed the benefit. They did not even restore it to what it was, and this is some great win! So they blame the beneficiaries, and then they blame the protesters.

We are a country that has always allowed people to get out there and say what they think. So what do they call protestors? They are “rent-a-crowd”. Well, of course, the Prime Minister has never protested over anything. He cannot even remember what side he was on during the Springbok Tour. So you would never have seen him on a protest.

Then they blame the unions. They call the unions our political enemies. Well, it is the unions that got off their chuffs and got out there and fought for health and safety for workers in New Zealand, not this Government. They wanted to say that workers working in dangerous workplaces were OK, but if you worked in a worm farm or a butterfly farm, that was very dangerous. It is the unions that have stood up for New Zealanders. Then they have to blame everybody else: the lefties, the loonies, anybody else they can put in there.

Then they create total new histories, a whole rewrite of entire histories of what has happened in New Zealand. Most of us cannot believe it. We are told the economy was left in a very bad state by the very Minister of Finance who said in December 2008 that the previous Government had left this country ready for the rainy day that had come. So how come, after 8 years of rewriting history, the previous Government was the worst Government, which had no Government debt, which had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, and that had left this country in a far better position than it is in today?

There we have, I have to say, the hallmarks of a Government that you could not trust. You could not trust a Government that goes on making up political targets, goes on making up its truth, and fooling New Zealanders. Where have we got to?

This weekend we are 1 year on from election 2014. [Interruption] In 4 days, Annette King, we are 1 year on from the greatest National Party victory, perhaps, actually, ever. What has happened in a year? Well, let me tell you. As Bill English has said, we have got free doctors visits for under-13s, something Annette King in all her time in Government over many years could not achieve. We have got benefit increases—the biggest in some 40 years. We have got the biggest and the best infrastructural investment plan this country has ever seen, and my portfolio is—

💬 Hon Annette King: “Team Bridges”

“Team Bridges”—that is not the half of it, Annette King. Nine of them are in Tauranga on the Tauranga Eastern Link, and several of them are in Huntly, on the Huntly section being opened. In energy, 14,000 homes are being insulated. In electricity, renewables are going through the roof. We have a record already, 1 year into our third term, of achievement, of strength, and of stability. But it is also a year of contrasts. The Prime Minister has given us 7 years of stable, strong leadership.

What about the countries we compare ourselves with? Well, in the US, of course, we have got a situation where, through general dissatisfaction, the leadership contest for the presidency is absolutely wide open. In the United Kingdom, Jeremy Corbyn has come through—a guy who voted against his party some 500 times, and senior colleagues will not work with him.

💬 Hon Annette King: What happened to Tony Abbott?

Yes, let us come to Australia. We have got a country that has changed its leader almost as many times as Andrew Little has changed his position on the flag—probably not that many, but quite a number. There have been four Prime Ministers, I think it is, in the time that John Key has led New Zealand. But to be fair, that is not as many leaders as the Labour Party has had in that time. That is not as many leaders at the Labour—

💬 Hon Annette King: Oh, hang on a minute: Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, Bill English. I can go through the National Party.

Well, I wonder whether Annette King can actually name all of those Labour Party leaders. Let me give her a clue: they are still in Parliament—they are actually still in Parliament. None of them has left, and they sit there like those old guys on The Muppet Show, and they talk at weekends. So Labour is on to its fifth leader. When, Jacinda Ardern, will it have its sixth?

Despite the revolts by Jeremy Corbyn, and despite the fact that he will not sing the national anthem—actually, what is it about Labour Opposition leaders and the national anthem? But despite those things, Jeremy Corbyn is still more popular than Andrew Little. So, Jacinda Ardern, when will it be six leaders for the Labour Party, under John Key’s tenure? That is the other contrast between strong, stable leadership from this Government and an Opposition in absolute disarray.

Labour has had 7 years to work out some policy in Opposition—7 years. Its policies are—wait for it—on its website. They are—I think this is right—under review. It has been 7 years, and its policies are under review. Actually, that is a bit unkind to Grant Robertson, who on Q+A said that Labour is discussing its economic plan. It is good to know that it is discussing it, because—

💬 Hon Annette King: You’ll only steal our policies.

Well, the member does have a policy. Basically, it is talking down the economy, and, actually, to be fair, we think that that is a winning strategy for the National Party. That is a winning strategy for National, because it seems that every time Labour says there is a crisis, the problem starts getting better. We have seen it with manufacturing. Grant Robertson said there was crisis, and the numbers went up. It was the same with unemployment—the numbers went up. Actually, the latest example of that was in dairy, I think. As soon as Grant Robertson started talking about a crisis, the global dairy trade numbers started to get better. That is what I call the reverse Midas touch.

The contrasts do not just stop there—between strong, stable leadership on this side of the House and what is happening internationally; and between strong, stable leadership for this country on this side of the House and the disarray in the Opposition. Actually, there are also disagreements and contrasts within the Labour Party. Grant Robertson wants deficits; Andrew Little, not so much. Clare Curran is excited by Jeremy Corbyn; David Shearer—I know—not so much. In terms of charter schools, Kelvin Davis loves them; Andrew Little, not so much. In terms of regional skilled immigration, Stuart Nash loves it; Andrew Little, not so much. In terms of farmers and health and safety, well, Andrew Little wants more of that; Damien O’Connor does not.

I am proud to be in the party that is providing strong, stable leadership while everyone else is contrasting with that. The good news is that there are at least 2 more years to go to make this country better and better.

Well, let us talk about 1 year on—let us talk about 1 year on. It is 1 year on and what are we looking at? One year on in 8 years of Government and we are seeing headlines like this one in the paper today. New Zealand First wants to start by congratulating the people of Hawke’s Bay—congratulating them on kicking into touch this Government’s ludicrous amalgamation plans and on sending a loud, clear message to the Local Government Commission that they did not want a bar of its flawed plans. It is interesting because we asked this question in the House earlier on last year, and in response to a question I put about how the people in the Wairarapa and people in the Wellington area did not want to have a bar of the super-city plans, the Minister said: “Not everyone agrees with that member.” Well, it would appear that the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in Northland, who live in Hawke’s Bay, and who live in Wellington and the Wairarapa do agree with New Zealand First. In fact, it is the other way round: New Zealand First agrees with them, and New Zealand First is still standing up for people and listening to the people of New Zealand. That is why we are in touch with what is going on, and that is why we predicted three strikes and you would be out, National.

It is really interesting, because one of the people who has written a great deal on this—get a copy of this; it makes wonderful reading—is a former ACT MP and a former National Party candidate, and, actually, still a National Party member: Stephen Franks. This dissertation on the flaws and the fundamental buffoonery and incompetence of the Local Government Commission really is worth a read and I recommend it. I recommend that the senior whip of the National Party gets a hold of Stephen Franks’ document, has a read, and learns some lessons as to why these amalgamation projects are being booted into touch—congratulations there.

What else do we see? We see an all-out attack on the New Zealand flag, and even worse than that, on nationalism, and in pursuit of what? This Government’s underlying desire to become a republic. This Government wants to disconnect the Union Jack from the flag, disconnect this country from the monarchy, and lead us into republicanism. We actually understand the National Party and where it is coming from. We know that it got rid of some pure nationalists in its party because of its drive towards republicanism—you know, good people like Shane Ardern, Colin King, and a few others, and poor Chester Borrows; he’s on his way out soon, we know that.

But we do not understand the Labour Party, which seems to be quite befuddled and bemuddled about wanting to change the flag but not wanting to change the flag, and now wanting to promote this thing—this thing. They call it the Red Peak flag, and Labour has got the ACT Party and everybody else in behind it. It actually belongs to an engineering and design company in the United States. How the heck people are going to get over the copyright and trademarking of that, someone is yet to explain to us. New Zealand First stands firmly—firmly—on the side of nationalism and on the side of this flag, on the connection to the Crown, and on the monarchy, and we will not deviate from that—not one inch. What we will say to this Government is to listen up to the people in New Zealand—listen up to them, because overwhelmingly they do not want this Government’s referendum. If there was to be any referendum, it should have been: “Do you want a flag change—yes or no?”. The Government would have got a resounding “No” and we could have moved on and saved millions and millions and millions of dollars.

By the way, New Zealand First is still waiting for this Government to give the full cost of a flag change, because no one has talked yet about the coat of arms. We know that the coat of arms at the Supreme Court cost $30,000. Well, start thinking: medals, documents, badges, parapets of buildings, and windows of the Reserve Bank and of all the other ministries all over the country and all over the world. What is the full cost of a flag change, National? Because once that figure is made clear to the public of New Zealand, they will reject that referendum, just as Hawke’s Bay rejected the super-city proposal from this Government and its lackey the Local Government Commission. Thank you.

We have nearly finished the first year of this Government’s third term and I am really proud to be part of this National Government. It is a privilege and an honour to be in Government, and what has really resonated with people is the Government’s policies for helping families to thrive and helping children to get the best possible start to their lives so that they can go on and become leaders in their communities.

Under this National Government, under the strong, stable, and caring leadership of the Rt Hon John Key—yes, the strong, stable, and caring leadership of the Rt Hon John Key. It is the leadership that understands the aspirations of all communities—yes, all communities, including migrant communities. Migrant communities include Chinese, Indians, and all ethnic-sounding surnames. Lydia Ko, according to the Labour Party, would be a foreigner. Danny Lee, according to the Labour Party, would be a foreigner. But, for us, they are very much Kiwis, and we are very proud of their achievements.

We do not care about people’s last names. We do not see their last names. What we care about and what we focus on is that children are achieving in school. We are focused on making sure that we are tackling crime. We are focused on making sure that patients are being treated effectively and rapidly in our health care system.

💬 Hon Annette King: Oh! Tell that to the ones missing out.

Yes. We are a much more resilient country than we were 7 years ago. We are in a much better position than we were in 7 years ago to face global challenges, and our long-term prospects remain strong.

We are building strong international trade and investment connections, and that is helping us diversify our economy and create more and higher-paying jobs. My background in science and business reflects my passion for learning and innovation, and I am really proud of the work that the Prime Minister and the Hon Steven Joyce are doing in the field of science and innovation. I am really proud that this National Government understands that science and innovation is vital to drive productivity, to increase output, to create more and higher-paying jobs, and to build strong and sustained economic growth. That is why, despite the tight financial times, this National Government is continuously investing in science and research. Yes, our investment in science and research has gone up by 70 percent since 2007-08.

💬 Andrew Bayly: How much?

70 percent.

💬 Andrew Bayly: 70 percent.

Yes, it is a significant increase compared with the previous Labour Government, and this is because we understand the dynamics of science-based innovation and its importance to industrial research and development management.

We are keen to stimulate research to get new insights into the exciting and multifaceted field of science-based innovation. We understand the importance of nanotechnology in water purification, in the pharmaceutical industry, and in disease diagnosis. We also understand the importance of biotechnology in human and animal health, in fisheries management, in reducing biodiversity loss, and in reducing the spread of infectious diseases. We also understand the utility of biotechnology in agriculture, and that is why this year we have invested $7.3 million in an agricultural research partnership. This is for an industry-led project to improve the performance of livestock farming in order to improve the profitability, productivity, and environmental sustainability of New Zealand’s farming system.

This is just an example of the kind of work that this National Government has been doing. But on the other side, the Labour Party and the Green Party want to abolish those grants. Those members want to bring in a number of taxes. They want to put up the personal tax rate. They want to increase the carbon tax rate to five times—

💬 Hon Annette King: Rubbish!

Yes, they want to bring in a new water tax, and they also want to bring in a capital gains tax, depending on their new leader.

But this side will continue to invest in our innovative Kiwi businesses and our scientists to help them get their ideas out from their labs and into the market. We will continue to support our innovative Kiwi businesses to start up new companies. We will keep supporting them to launch and grow. That, in turn, will help us grow our export revenue and will also create more and higher-paying jobs. I am really proud to be part of this National Government. Thank you.

Amongst all of the other distractions this week, members may be forgiven for having missed that it is, in fact, as my colleague Annette King pointed out, Social Justice Week, and I think that is an opportunity for us to discuss and debate as a Parliament how far we have progressed or, potentially, how little progression we have made in that space in recent years. In fact, it is disappointing, and it should be disappointing to every single member of this House, that there has not been even one media report, for instance—that I have seen—on the fact that just a month ago we saw figures come out that showed our child poverty statistics in New Zealand have jumped from 260,000 children to 305,000 children. That is a jump of 45,000 children in just a year. That is based on the Ministry of Social Development’s own data. As much as the Minister for Social Development stood up in question time and tried to claim that I was disingenuous for using those figures, they are the figures that even Unicef has used. If you analyse the data going back to 1991, you will find that that was the last time we saw a jump as significant as this one in terms of child poverty figures.

It is hard, of course, to rival the 1991 figures. That was, of course, the time that National produced the black Budget and slashed benefits, and now, of course, it is crowing about having been the Government that is now putting in place a minor—a minor—boost to benefits of $25 a week.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Ha, ha!

Anne Tolley laughs, but this is the reason that I call it minor. It is because Labour introduced the family tax credit, which significantly boosted benefit numbers—that is something that the National Government ignores.

The second reason that I am pushing back on that, Minister, is that Labour produced the Best Start policy.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: They can’t take it. They hate it.

It was a benefit that increased by $60 a week per child and it went to children on benefits too, Ms Tolley. That would have made a significant difference.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: The Labour Party just hates it.

And, Ms Tolley, I am going to correct you. Labour does not hate the increase you have introduced. We hate that it was disingenuous, we hate that you did not introduce it right away, we hate that it was not per child, and we hate that it was political, because if you were not being political, then why will you not introduce a child poverty target? Why is it that a Government that can measure unemployment rates, child abuse rates, and rheumatic fever rates, can measure how many people have moved on to benefits and off benefits, and can measure how many people have moved overseas and have come back from overseas—it measures almost everything—refuses to accept measurements on child poverty? And why does this continue to be a frustration for the Labour Party? Because what gets measured gets done. Sure, sometimes some of those targets get manipulated. We have seen that when it comes to justice. But what gets measured gets done, and this Government will not accept official measures on child poverty.

As much as the Government argues—and I have heard Anne Tolley use the same argument that Bill English and Paula Bennett have used all the way through. Their argument has been that there are too many measures. Do you know what, Ms Tolley? We agree—we agree. In fact, internationally, it has been accepted that there are roughly five, and the Children’s Commissioner has agreed that there are five. He has even conducted his own set of measures because we have a lack of them currently accepted by the Government. So we have agreed on five measures. We have even drafted a bill on what it would look like to put them in place so we can finally start targeting child poverty, because it matters. The Government continues to refuse. In fact, I tried to remove any questions of numbers today, and I just asked the Minister a simple question: is poverty too high? What did we get? “I can’t answer.” Minister, I would hope that, having seen children die because of cold houses in this country, having seen children go to school hungry, having seen infectious skin diseases and preventable hospitalisations, regardless of the politics, you would admit that child poverty is too high. So, Ms Tolley, if you want something I hate, I hate that you cannot even acknowledge that.

It is a pleasure to stand up here with 4 days to go until the anniversary of the election, as Mr English said before. It has been a very, very productive year for the National Government, and I think that the biggest thing that I have come out of this year with, with heart, is that this is a Government that really has heart for provincial New Zealand. When I came in here, one of the things that I wondered was how much of what goes on out there is really, really well understood in Wellington, and I have to say I am going back to my electorate the whole time and saying to people: “Actually, this is a Government that does understand provincial New Zealand.”

There are two things that I went into this year thinking I was just going to do a deeper dive with, because they were things out there in the community that were concerning me. One of them was the area of family violence, and the other one was rural mental health. Just recently under the National Government, through Minister Amy Adams, a consultation document has been launched, and I have been really impressed with the process around this consultation document. What the Minister of Justice did is she actually sent us out to consult with some of our groups. I have been working very, very closely with the Maniapoto Family Violence Intervention Network in Te Kūiti, which is also doing some work in Ōtorohanga, and it actually had its opportunity to provide feedback to the Minister in the process of putting this consultation document together.

So, from that, the consultation document is now out. It was a real pleasure to go and sit with the network recently and say to its people “Here’s the document. You’ve had some input into preparing this document, and now you can actually have some feedback and we will get this in the right place.”, because my belief is that 80 to 90 percent of the good ideas actually come out of our communities; they do not come out of Wellington. I am really pleased that our National Government is listening to the communities.

The other thing—on the mental health side—it is just so rewarding to see another half a million dollars going into rural mental health, getting people trained up to go out there, to understand, to find people who are not feeling great, and to try methods and ways of helping them. All the support services are out there; it is just that people do not stand up and ask to be helped. Often in those situations they feel a bit embarrassed or they feel that there is a stigma around that. So I am really pleased to see that there are troops on the ground now, working on mental health. I am also very pleased to see, in a year that has been a bit dark for the dairy industry, that we have now had three auctions that have gone up. So there is just a shout-out for my industry.

On the Health Committee, which is one that I enjoy very much, we work very collegially together. We have some well-documented gains under health. We now have free GP visits for children under 13, which is really appreciated by families in the community. We are delivering more elective surgeries, and they have increased by an average of 4,000 elective surgeries a year. I think this is really commendable from the Government. When this Government took over, women were going to Australia to have their breast cancer treatments. So I think this is great.

The other thing is that we are opening up legislation around nurse practitioners, and that is a really good move. We are opening up the legislation so that nurse practitioners who have the training and education and skills to carry out certain tasks will now, after the legislation goes through, under the law be able to carry out those certain tasks. More money has also gone in to train more nurse practitioners, because that is going to be a way to get more services out into our provincial communities. I have also had the pleasure of being on the Mobile Surgical Unit bus. It is a great bus. The Minister of Health has now committed to more funding for that, going forward.

So some of it is about people; some of it is also about our conservation projects. It is really great to see that we are doing some great work there in terms of the Battle for our Birds. Some of the rat and stoat numbers in some of our communities have dropped down very close to undetectable numbers in some areas where we have been working very hard on that one. So all in all I am very proud to be standing here and looking back on a first year where there has been a huge amount of work done. Thank you.

Social Justice Week is an opportunity for us as a Parliament to reflect on the type of society that we should have. Is it fair and decent? Is it a society where there is a greater equality of outcomes? Is it a society where our democratic principles are upheld at every point of the decision-making process? I listened very carefully to this debate, and you could be forgiven for thinking that we are talking about two types of New Zealand here: one where everybody gets a fair go and the other where those who are most successful will get a shot at it.

Social Justice Week is also an opportunity to highlight some really significant issues, and it is about people. Do we think it is acceptable in New Zealand to have greater levels of homelessness, for it to be harder for families to buy a home, whether they are in provincial New Zealand or in urban settings, or for the elderly to be feeling insecure in communities that they once thrived in? No, it is not. Something is happening in New Zealand. Is it acceptable that there are greater levels of low-income households unable to support their family because of insecure work, a change in employment conditions, and the minimum wage, and expecting families to live on that? No, it is not. Things have been tough in the last 8 years. Is it acceptable that young children are raised in cold, damp houses—whether it is in provincial New Zealand or in the city—and paying higher rentals? No, it is not. Eight years of this Government’s rule have actually made it harder for families and children.

Is it acceptable that higher numbers of children are moved from school to school to school because families cannot afford to live in the homes in their area, so they go and take their families to live in garages and on couches until they find something stable, because the Government has sold off State houses? No, it is not. That is what has happened in the last 8 years. Social Justice Week is an opportunity for us as a Parliament to ask: is this the type of society that provides opportunity for all New Zealanders? Sadly, it is not.

I want to know what happened to Aroha. You know Aroha. Remember Aroha from McGehan Close, where the Prime Minister held her hand and gave her hope and the promise of a better New Zealand for all? Where is Aroha? She is in Australia, with hundreds and thousands of other New Zealanders who did not see any hope and opportunity here in New Zealand because times have got tough—times have got tough. There are more families living in poverty. There are lower household incomes, unable to support the needs of families who just want a leg up. They want hope and opportunity, all right. They are in provincial New Zealand. They are also in the cities of New Zealand. They are working harder to make ends meet, and they want to work, but there is not enough work around. Under this Government it has been really difficult.

The erosion of workers’ rights, health and safety legislation that does not give the full protection that it should, charter schools setting up a two-type education system—those who are in the public system get funded at a lower rate than those who are in charter schools. How can that be fair—how can that be fair? Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru comes to mind. The Government would like to create a two-tier education system under its proposal that that is better for all New Zealanders. I cannot see the benefit.

Privatised prisons—look at the shambles that is happening there under Serco. Can that be right, in terms of justifying both taxpayers’ money and what is happening there? Heck, we have even heard that the Government might be going down the track of privatised social services—who knows? But what I find fundamentally difficult to believe, in the last 8 years, is the total impact that the sell-off of State houses has had on every family that I certainly represent, how hard it has got for people to get a good home, and what the private rental market is doing to those who are most vulnerable and at the lower-income end of the street.

Here is the thing. I know a mother with two children in a caravan park who was paying $340—living in a caravan park with two children, paying $340 a week. Is that fair? I do not think so, and under the last 8 years of this Government those types of things have popped up. Then let us talk about democracy. It is OK to have a say on the flag but not on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. How can that be democracy in terms of a New Zealand that wants to be informed about the things that are impacting on people’s lives? If it is about economic opportunity, greater productivity, and a chance for people to really flourish in New Zealand, then let people know what is happening under that. The Government is not. This Government—

The member’s time has expired.

It is a pleasure to speak today on the 1-year anniversary of the general election and talk about the superb progress this Government has made. It is also a privilege to be part of a Government that has brought forward the gains from the past and refreshed them with some knowledge going forward. There are so many things to highlight. This time last year the majority of children under 13 were paying full general practice fees, and today they are not. I am hearing from my colleagues and from constituents that this has been very well received. This time last year people were paying higher ACC motor vehicle levies, and today they are saving up to $130 a year. Paid parental leave increased from 14 to 16 weeks and eventually it will increase to 18 weeks, and hospices are receiving $20 million in additional funding compared with last year. This has certainly been noticed in my region and my electorate in Whangarei and Northland.

Whangarei and the Northland electorate are seeing the benefits this year of a John Key Government. The latest ANZ Regional Trends report shows that economic activity had the strongest increase in the Northland region for the past quarter. If we look over the past year, Whangarei and Northland had the third-highest annual growth rate behind Auckland and the Bay of Plenty. Northland also posted the strongest employment growth of all the regions in that quarter.

I have heard the noise from New Zealand First members today and I have heard the noise from them before. In fact about 6 months ago, probably on 9 March at about 11.45 a.m., actually, I was on my way into the mall in Whangarei and I heard a similar noise. In fact, I was quite worried by it; I thought someone had been hurt. So I sped up a little bit—I was going to buy lunch; supporting local businesses—because I thought maybe someone had been in the mall walking their pets or something. And I was right: it was Winston and the boys. You see, it was the by-election time, and in the middle of the mall is this boom box and out of this boom box is coming the New Zealand First anthem: “Help is on its Way”. It is an excellent song, written in 1977 by Glenn Shorrock, the founder of Little River Band.

I have written a few songs myself for my own pleasure. They are nowhere near as good as this song—nowhere near as good as this song. This is an excellent song. What I have learnt, though, as an amateur composer, is that the final version is never what you started with initially. One starts with a song name and at each point it captures the mood and the moment and then the song progresses and the name changes also. So I was interested whether this song “Help is on its Way”, the New Zealand First anthem, had other names that captured the essence of New Zealand First. So what I did was I contacted the composer, Glenn Shorrock. I called him in Australia, I spoke with his management team, and I asked him that exact question. I asked “What other names has ‘Help is on its Way’ been known by?”, because I am thinking that every name change and each version of the song is a version of New Zealand First.

It may be that the first title represented a New Zealand First leader’s statement but, unfortunately, Michael Jackson had taken “Man in the Mirror”, so we needed to keep on moving. Maybe the next version had a song title that is the New Zealand First leader’s assessment of the party position—maybe something like “It’s My Party and I’ll”—

💬 Hon Members: —“Cry if I Want To.”

Intuitive—I did not even need to say it. We all got it. And maybe the penultimate title is the leader’s strategy for his deputy—“To Do Ron Ron”.

This New Zealand First anthem, interestingly, is also the soundtrack to a movie. Who would have thought—a Seth Rogen 2009 movie called Observe and Report, which is about an egocentric gentleman and a collection of people who bumble their way through life. At 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 8 seconds into this movie the New Zealand First anthem plays. But I have figured this out: it is actually a cunning plan from New Zealand First, and I want to commend those members for it. Their choice of song and their choice of movie is actually a cunning way to save the taxpayer money. How this works is that they will be able to save on public relations costs on the rating brochures and mail-outs because the movie reviewers of New Zealand First: The Movie will do it for them. That is their cunning plan. The movie reviewers will write the New Zealand First story.

So let us have a look at what they wrote about this New Zealand First movie Observe and Report. One of the biggest movie reviewing sites said this: “it has a mean streak, and does not cater to all tastes,”. Who would have thought? The Sydney Morning Herald review really captures New Zealand First with this: “Much of the movie is just plain vicious. At best, it’s sad and grotesque, rather than hilarious.” But really you have got to give it to the Guardian. You have got to give it to the English, because this is what they said about it: “this charmless, heavy-handed, and cynical comedy is an uncomfortable experience.” It is an uncomfortable experience for New Zealanders as well. This Government has done well, this Government is supporting Northland and Whangarei, and I am pleased to be a part of this Government.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora e te Whare. Last week the Government participated in the Pacific Islands Forum, and it was a dismal and unprincipled failure in terms of our country’s leadership in the Pacific. We are a small colonised nation of considerable wealth at the bottom of the world in Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. Not only did our Government fail to support the Pacific nations on climate targets, which is incredibly serious at the front line of sea level rise, but it also failed to support the fact-finding mission to West Papua. The fact-finding mission to West Papua was a call of the indigenous people of Papua. It was also a call of a number of Pacific Island nations and leaders, because this is a growing issue right across the Pacific.

So let us have a look at New Zealand’s response at the Government delegation level at the forum, where many people were waiting for leadership. Mr McCully, first of all, kicked things off with his “I know my place.” quip. Is he either a doormat or a doorstop for the Indonesian Government? That is what we would like to know, because, in fact, Mr McCully is not taking responsibility for the human rights abuses, let alone the independence and freedom abuses, that are documented—and there is a new report out today on this. There is torture documentation regularly, there are human rights issues, there are political prisoners, and there are a number of calls for a high-level fact-finding mission, which culminated at the Pacific Islands Forum this very year. So Murray McCully “knows his place”. That is not the statement of a statesman; it is the statement of a doormat.

Then we have the Prime Minister’s comments. The Prime Minister followed up Mr McCully’s statements by saying that Indonesia did not think that we should be meddling in its political issues. Mr Key is now the spokesperson for Indonesia. Does he not recall the fact-finding missions to East Timor that we participated in with pride in the 1990s? East Timor and West Papua—there are severe parallels between these two countries, but instead of supporting a fact-finding mission as we did in the 1990s several times to East Timor, our Government is the doormat and will not meddle because the Indonesians do not like it. Instead of speaking proudly as a Pacific nation alongside other Pacific nations at the Pacific Islands Forum, Mr McCully and Mr Key have let down the people of West Papua.

It was very disturbing to also hear Mr Key say that this is a matter of a bilateral issue between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. So he has abandoned our responsibility to speak out, although we are more powerful and less vulnerable than Papua New Guinea, which faces the Indonesian army on its border and which has refugee camps for those from West Papua on its border. Oh no, New Zealand will back away from its responsibilities and be a doormat for Indonesia. It is very disturbing as, in fact, the Melanesian Spearhead Group has welcomed West Papua this year to be an observer member. It is a big breakthrough for the campaign, but not because of leadership from this part of the world. Instead, this part of the world is abrogating its responsibilities.

The Government of the Solomon Islands was particularly clear and brave in speaking up at the Pacific Islands Forum—as well as the Melanesian Spearhead Group—about the importance of addressing the abuses. There was fulsome support across the Pacific nations, apart from New Zealand and Australia, for a high-level fact-finding mission. In fact, Peter O’Neill, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, will be going to Jakarta to discuss the importance of a fact-finding mission. However, New Zealand and Australia will not support it.

New Zealand is a doormat to Indonesian foreign policy because of trade—because of the advantages of trade. We will sacrifice people, ethics, human rights, and our commitment to other Pacific nations in the name of solidarity with Indonesian trade and Indonesian colonial violence against West Papua. So for the people who protested and who rallied in support of West Papua, right across the Pacific and outside the Pacific Islands Forum in Papua New Guinea, it was a good day because they are going forward with a fact-finding mission, but it is no thanks to our Minister of Foreign Affairs or our Prime Minister. With a heavy heart, I have to say: “Well done, Pacific nations—except for this one.” Shame on us. Kia ora tātou.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.