General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Well, we have a Prime Minister who cannot help but make a pig’s ear of his job at the moment. Everything he touches just turns to dust. Let us start with the flag referendum, because that is a talking point for a lot of people. This was a Prime Minister who repeatedly talked up to the people of New Zealand that we must have a changed flag and it must have a silver fern on it. He assembled his great Flag Consideration Panel and put dozens of the good and the great on it. For a panel that had the job of designing a new flag, how many designers do you think were on the panel? Just how many designers do you think were on a flag redesign panel? Not a single one. Not a single one.

Then the panel went touring the country, going out to the good citizens of New Zealand, and said “Come hither all. Tell us your ideas about the flag.”, and an average of 29 people turned up to each meeting, so they were not particularly interested. Then the panel members thought they had better get a bit of advice on design, and they got someone in for a couple of hours right at the end of the process to tell them about flag design. Then the independent, objective Flag Consideration Panel put its recommendations up to the Government, and what should come out? Four choices, and what is on three of them? A silver fern, to meet the wishes of the Prime Minister of the day. And one other design, the koru, which not many people understood.

Well, what has actually happened is that the people of New Zealand do understand that they have been manipulated and cajoled and pushed into something that they just do not want. We saw that in the poll over the weekend—70 percent of New Zealanders do not want to change the flag. The absolute shambles that the whole flag consideration project is sits firmly at the feet of the Prime Minister, who will not listen and who will not learn. He does his level best, as he always does, to sort of yank it back to something that the Labour Party did in 1972, because somehow that is the reason why people have got disillusioned with his conduct and his Flag Consideration Panel.

There is something else that is going on. We are a country that is facing a large number of challenges. We have rising unemployment. There are 13,000 more unemployed now than there were this time last year. We have an economy that is rapidly slowing. Can you rapidly slow? Well, you slow down, and it gets slower. We have massive job cuts now—and would you believe—in the industry that has sustained this economy for so many years, for so many decades: agriculture and dairy. What is happening? Our biggest dairy company, Fonterra, is laying off hundreds of people—the organisation that we look to for research and development, new ideas, and innovation in dairy, laying off hundreds of people because of this Government’s failure to support it.

We have the regions doing it tough. Taranaki, my beloved home, is now in official recession. There are Aucklanders who are still trying to get into their first home and cannot, and nor can thousands of others around New Zealand. New Zealand is now suffering the lowest level of homeownership. Schools are having to dip into their operational grants to feed hungry kids because child poverty is so widespread in this country—so widespread in this country. Hospitals are booting patients out in their pyjamas because they cannot afford to keep them in their beds. This is New Zealand 2015, and that is a hospital system that has had $1.7 billion cut from it.

What is the Government’s response to all of this? What do you do when a country is not so much on the cusp but on the brink? What do you do to it? Well, you announce the next big measure. We are going to have a panda at Wellington Zoo. This is the answer: fluffy pandas for a fluffy Government, for a fluffy Prime Minister who does not know what to do when faced with bad news. That is what we have come to now.

Of course, it does not stop there. The schools are now so desperate for cash that they have set the repo man on to the parents who will not pay their voluntary contributions, and the Ministry of Education is not far behind—it has got the leather-clad ones chasing the teachers who have been the victims of a botched pay system. This is New Zealand today under this Government—after everything it has done, now the chickens are coming home to roost and it is not good. People are suffering and New Zealanders want it to come to an end. They want a New Zealand they can be proud of, with a flag they can be proud of, and with a Prime Minister who cares about them—but a Prime Minister who listens.

Question time yesterday was, from our point of view, a thing of beauty—probably not a joy for ever, literally, but it was certainly a very memorable question time. It was, essentially, the day that the Opposition yellow-carded itself. You can see how it would have happened. Some genius on the left—we will call her or him the “Homer Simpson of the left”—came up with this “brilliant” idea: “Let’s get all the Opposition political parties together. We’ll send them an email, but we’d better ring up Ron Mark because he might not read it properly. We’ll get all the Opposition political parties to ask the Prime Minister the same question about his 7 years of achievements.”

If you look at military strategy, when you are launching an attack, you start from the point of view that you do not attack the strongest person on the other side—a man at the top of his political game—and you do not attack on territory that is so easy to defend. If we think back to our military defeat in Gallipoli, at least the first lord of the admiralty, when he consigned so many young Australians and New Zealanders to near certain death, did not actually mean for them to land on that beachhead; he meant for them to go somewhere else. But this Opposition, careless of the history of how you attack and when you attack, chose the strongest ground of this Government and the strongest person in this Government—the Prime Minister—to launch this attack against.

And anyway—7 years—even their instincts should have told them that seven, ladies and gentlemen, is a dangerous number, OK? If we go into religion, the number 7 is God’s foundation stone. We have 7 days. If you go into the Talmud, it is a universe of seven heavens. If you are a Muslim and you go on the haj, you walk around the Kaaba seven times. And I understand that in traditional Jewish marriages—I have not had one yet but who knows—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: You have had some.

Well, I am just warming up, basically. The bride is meant to circle the groom seven times. I have been thinking about that. I have some reflections on that, but perhaps this is not the time or the place.

And then we have got secular religion. What number did David Beckham have at Manchester United? Number 7. And then when we come to the current secular God—well, bar a foot trip or two—Richie McCaw, what number does he have on his shirt? It is the number 7. So I would have thought that elementary reasoning and pure instinct would have said to the Opposition: don’t go there—don’t go there. Although Opposition members were screaming like jackals through every response that the Prime Minister gave, they allowed our top guy an unrivalled opportunity to explain to New Zealanders what 7 years of solid, stable Government looks like, contrasted with situations in developed countries around the world that are anything but solid and stable. He explained exactly what this Government under his leadership has been able to deliver for New Zealanders—that is, 7 years of solid achievement.

The fact that Mr Little started this ill-judged attack on the issue of employment was just incredible. Here we have a situation where in the eurozone, unemployment is at 12 percent. At 6 percent, or thereabouts, unemployment is higher than we all want it to be, but we have created 199,000 jobs since 2011. Actually, we can be sure that since that statistic was taken, it is above 200,000—200,000 new jobs—by following orthodox pro-growth policies that have encouraged businesses to invest in those jobs, to have a situation where people can see a real future for themselves. We have—is it 11 quarters, from memory—11 quarters of consecutive growth. Sorry, I might be understating the record. This has produced economic growth that is the envy of many countries in the developed world. We have a situation where people are confident in coming to New Zealand. New Zealanders are returning from Australia—we have turned that shocking position round. We have had 7 years of an outstanding Government led by an outstanding Prime Minister, and it is incredible that the Opposition served him up that wonderful opportunity yesterday.

Well, that was an interesting speech, and hearing “strategy” coming from the architect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—and what a failure that has been—was quite, I can only say, astonishing. I would say this to Mr Groser: pride is one of the seven deadly sins, and pride comes before a fall. Normally, pride goes hand in hand with arrogance, and that is what we are seeing truckloads of in this House and, particularly, around the flag debate.

Yesterday New Zealand First was asked whether we would give leave to allow the National-Green coalition—because that is what we are seeing play out right now; we are seeing the National Party coalescing with the Greens to put legislation on the floor of this House to change the New Zealand flag referendum so that they can get the Red Peak flag on to the ballot paper. Well, if I go back into the third reading of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill and look at what Mr English, the Deputy Prime Minister, was saying, he said: “Cabinet made a decision in October 2014 about the process and a budget”—a budget—“for this process.”

This is a Government that bleats on about how fiscally prudent it is, but no. Out of the blue, pulling something from behind itself, from that dark spot, it suddenly finds more money to back a Green proposal to change the whole referendum process, change the whole marketing, change the whole ball game to run another option, and that is despite the Deputy Prime Minister saying this: “The process stressed the independence of the flag consideration panel and the transparency of any decision making around it.” He also said in the third reading “Clearly we are heading out of those swirling political waters, fortunately, to the sunny uplands where New Zealand will get to decide” blah, blah, blah on the New Zealand flag.

Then, out of the blue, National introduces what? It wants to introduce a flag that is actually the trademark of an American corporate. There it is—the Red Peak flag—Peak Engineering out of the United States. And what else is it? Well, it is actually a symbol that was last seen in World War II—the Nazis had it on their sentry boxes. Give me a break. If there is one further insult that Mr Brownlee, the Minister of Defence, can serve up to the veterans of this nation, it is to offer them up a Nazi logo on a Nazi sentry box as the national flag. You have got to be kidding me.

We were asked coming into the Chamber whether New Zealand First was prepared to stand alone, to be the only party in this House to oppose, one, the referendum; two, the changing of the flag; and, three, the introduction of this Green Party - National Party Nazi flag. Well, yes, we are quite happy to be the only party to stand up in defence of the New Zealand flag, the only party that will hold this Government accountable to its process—the legislation it rammed through the House, and that it defended to the hilt in the third reading, and told the nation was transparent and sacrosanct. This has become a farce. Worse, it has become an absolute joke.

💬 Tim Macindoe: This is what New Zealanders voted for.

New Zealand First, for the record, will say here today to Mr Tim what’s-his-name that we are opposed to a flag change. We are opposed to this jacked-up, shonky referendum. We are opposed to this latest attempt to hijack and make an even more ridiculous referendum, and we will be proud to stand as the only party to defend our flag. Thank you very much.

It is great to get up and speak. It is a great time to be a National MP. What I can tell you is that when I go around New Zealand, basically, what people say to me is that they want to hear about the issues that matter. The reality is that we are a positive, successful Government with a great track record. When we compare that with the Opposition and the questions that we have had over the past couple of days, you can absolutely understand why a large majority of New Zealanders are voting for us. We have heard about pandas. We have heard about everything but the issues that matter. We have an Opposition that is focused on distractions. We have a Government that has a track record in terms of jobs, achievement, and improving health. We have an Opposition that is divided. We know why those members are divided. It is because they are more focused on the deputy leadership contest, rather than policies for New Zealand. Is it going to be Annette, is it going to be Carmel, or is it going to be Jacinda? That is what they are more focused on. They are also more focused on making sure that things do not happen—that is right.

I want to congratulate the Green Party. I want to acknowledge the Green Party. The Labour Party is more focused on stopping things than on having a positive vision for New Zealand. At least in terms of the flag, the Green Party has stepped up and said: “Let’s have a pragmatic solution to this.” I care about the flag because I actually believe that it is about national identity. It is about being a positive country that looks forward, represents all New Zealanders, and is multicultural. It is about having a vision for our country. It builds on a strong and successful economy. It builds on improving achievement in education. That is what this side of the House is focused on. Again, if you look at the past 2 days, we have had the biggest patsy session ever for the Prime Minister. The Opposition do not get it. Those members do not work together. They are completely divided. They are completely negative. They never have any policies. Basically, you compare that with a rolling maul of initiatives from this Government—whether it is the fact that we have created 199,000 jobs, whether it is the fact that finally we have got Māori and Pacific students raising their achievement in education, whether it is the fact that under-13s are now walking in and getting free GP visits, be that through ACC or free doctors visits.

Let us talk about ACC. This is a great example of the difference between a Labour Government and a National Government. We were left with a $4.8 billion hole. We have turned that round. We have taken $10 billion in assets to $31 billion in assets. Also, we are now on the cusp of passing fairer, stable, and more transparent levy systems. What that shows you is that the difference between us and them is that we have policies. We actually like each other. We carry the weight of the argument. Compare that with Opposition members, who are still fighting and still having leadership contests. In 7 years we have had five Opposition leaders. We have still got them fighting over the deputy leadership. Compare that with Government members, who back a leader and back a group of Ministers to be able to get good policy through. We have never had a greater contrast in this Parliament of a same divided Opposition versus a Government with a track record of raising achievement, creating jobs, and improving the lives of our most vulnerable. That is why, when I get around New Zealand, the picture has not changed. The reality is that New Zealanders are supporting us in large numbers because they listen and they understand the decisions that impact their lives. They want a positive vision for New Zealand, and they want a track record. We are successful. Opposition members need to step up, stop talking about pandas and pigs, and actually get on with the business that matters. Thank you.

Today marks the day that Ioane Teitiota is being deported to Kiribati. He is a man who sought to be classed as the world’s first climate change refugee. I understand that the merits of this particular case are debatable, and that we do not have a sufficient classification for persons who are displaced by the consequences of climate change. He has a wife and three children who, as I understand it, will be joining him in a week in Kiribati.

For those people who have been to Kiribati, they will have seen that on a fairly regular basis that island is uninhabitable because the sea levels rise and groundwater rises to the point where it is coming up through their plantations and through the bases of their houses. This is a sign of things to come. New Zealand has no plan for this. There are 179,000 people in Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu who will be the first people in the world to lose their countries and who will be displaced as a result of the consequences of climate change. Those countries are arguing that we need to limit global warning to 1.5 degrees. They are asking countries like New Zealand and Australia and others around the world to cut our emissions to a level that would limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

But in the last few decades temperatures have already risen by 1 degree, and the sea is already rising. We often think about climate change as something that is happening in the future, to other people, or to polar bears somewhere on the other side of the world. In fact it is happening now, it is happening to us, and it is happening to our Pacific neighbours. We do not have a plan to deal with it.

In New Zealand we have adopted a reduction target for our emissions of 11 percent below our 1990 levels by the year 2030. This is being classed as an inadequate response by those organisations that are scientifically tracking what it is—all the commitments that countries are making; how they would add up. Currently, if every country in the world was to behave the way that New Zealand is planning to behave, we would be on track for a 3 to 4 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years or so, and that would lead to what is referred to as catastrophic climate change. It would see huge sea level rise and it would see not just those four countries of Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu losing all of their territory but significant reductions in the territory of other Island States, including New Zealand. So many of our people live within sight of the shore, and so much of our infrastructure is located at sea level or very close to sea level.

When the Government says that we are doing our fair share, this is actually an inaccurate statement. It would require New Zealand to look at cuts of around 40 percent below 1990 levels or more for us to have anything close to an adequate response to limiting emissions and to limiting global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees, or in that sort of zone. So when the Government says that the Government is committed to limiting emissions to ensure that global warming only increases by 2 degrees, our own behaviour is completely inconsistent with that. Our own behaviour would actually lead to a 3 to 4 degree temperature rise.

So when we say that we are committed to a 2 degree temperature rise, and then our own actions are to increase temperatures by 3 to 4 degrees, what that means is that we are relying on other countries to do the work for us. We are actually freeloading on other countries. And the problem that we have got, of course, is that there are many other countries in the world that are also planning on freeloading on the works of other people. So we cannot say, on the one hand, that our actions will be consistent with a 3 to 4 degree temperature rise, and at the same time say that we are committed to a 2 degree temperature rise, and at the same time say that we are committed to the people of the Pacific and to those small Island States. We need to commit to a 40 percent reduction target below 1990 levels by the year 2030. We need to give those islands some chance, but we also need to plan for populations in our neighbouring countries that are displaced.

What is our plan for the 179,000 people who currently live on those islands? Are we planning on making territory in New Zealand, well above water level, available to them? The Government has no plan. It has been completely inconsistent in its position, and we would argue that it needs to come straight with New Zealand and with the Pacific.

Well, it has been 1 year since National won the last election, and what a year it has been. Other colleagues have outlined some of our broader achievements, and I would like to concentrate on some of the areas that I am most familiar with in my portfolio.

But, first, I would like to commend the fact that we have 14 new faces on this side of the House. I think our backbench line-up, in terms of the new recruits, has put us in a very, very strong position. They are fantastic—14 very talented backbenchers. That is 10 more people than voted for Labour leader Andrew Little from his own caucus. What is it now? He is the fifth leader. He was all about pandas today and was all about tragic, set-up, patsy questions to the Prime Minister yesterday, which fell woefully flat.

💬 Tim Macindoe: And he got a couple of black eyes out of it.

He got a couple of black eyes out of it. With that and “pandamonium”, I would have to say the senior whip has been on form today, handing out lollies and puns like there is no tomorrow. It is all good. Thank you very much, Tim.

It is an important thing, I think, to look at a strong, united caucus that is united under its leader and its deputy leader. This party and this Government are in great heart. I rediscovered that for myself last week. I had the Prime Minister in my North Shore electorate, and we launched a suite of new changes for seniors. When I look at the impact that this Government has made over the last 7 years and, in particular, in the last few—I look at seniors and I can see big results. I think about the way that they were ignored successively by the Labour Government, propped up by its mates the Greens for a while there. Seniors have been very much the poor relations.

That is not happening under this Government. I commend my predecessor Jo Goodhew. Under her being the Minister for Senior Citizens, the gains that were made for the SuperGold card—from its extremely humble beginnings it has really burgeoned into something that is worth having for seniors. We see now that we have more than 8,000 businesses representing 12,500 outlets, and our seniors can go to Australia and also get benefits over there. The discounts and things of that kind are all very well, but I have focused, in the last year that I have been in this job, on ensuring that the expensive things—the ears, the eyes, the teeth, and the lawyers—have been well looked after. So we have another 750 businesses signed up.

The thing about seniors is there are myths. The idea that older people do not go on and use the internet is incorrect. Something like 61 percent of our people over 65 were on the internet last year. With an ageing population, that is going to increase, so with the Prime Minister last week we launched a suite of new initiatives: a new website called Super Seniors, specifically designed to be relevant with seniors in mind. We have a new newsletter, a Facebook, and a Twitter page as well. So we are making some real gains there in getting seniors connected with what is important and relevant to them.

When it comes to conservation, I would have to say that this year has been an excellent one for kiwis of all brands and persuasions. We had $11.2 million out of the Budget this year. Bill English, the Minister of Finance, did say to me that if those birds do not breed, he wants his money back. I am very worried about that. I have been able to say to all of our kiwi providers “Let’s make sure that these kiwi birds breed.”, and I am pleased to be able to report to our finance Minister that they have been successfully doing what nature intended. We have targeted an increase. At the moment the kiwi population is declining at about minus 2 percent. Our aim is to get that up to plus 2 percent, which means about an extra 7,000 birds, and the progress to date has been outstanding.

We make sure that we target the predators and the pests. And, yes, we do use toxins like 1080, and, apart from a group of very noisy individuals, I think that there is a growing realisation among intelligent people in New Zealand that this is something that we have to use if we want to win the war against pests. We are doing it with weeds as well. As someone with a great interest in plants, both endangered and otherwise, I am committed to ensuring that we get rid of the weeds and we get rid of them in whatever way that we can. We have also appointed a Threatened Species Ambassador whose job it is in life to ensure the promotion of our threatened species—the notion that New Zealanders all need to get together to help get behind this cause.

Those are the kinds of unifying things that this Government does very well. And, as we used to say, saving the planet starts in your own backyard, and that is something that New Zealanders embrace, as they have this National Government. I think in our first year we have made huge gains, and we will continue to make enormous progress, given the strong, united, disciplined caucus and Cabinet that we have under very strong leadership.

I would like to just commend the earlier speaker, Maggie Barry. She had to be quite adaptive in her response to the Green Party co-leader’s contribution. One never quite knows these days if one will get a speech about child poverty or the environment, and I think that may be because they are not so sure themselves. But we have a very adept and adroit Minister who just responded, and she could have handled either scenario had she been called upon to do so.

It is sometimes difficult to tell, but this House is, ultimately, about making sound public policy. It gives me great pride to stand here today as a New Zealander in a country that leads the world when people try to measure how good our public policy is. And what do they mean by sound public policy? They mean flexible labour markets. They mean openness to foreign trade and investment. They mean robust monetary policy. They mean a low and tolerable tax regime that is simple and easy to comply with. If they were to go a little bit further, they might also talk about intergenerational fairness, and they might ask whether New Zealand superannuation is sustainable.

I have to say that the Minister for ACC this week has been shepherding through the House an excellent bill that will make ACC fair between generations, by funding ACC liability out of the activities generating those liabilities this year and every year. Would you believe that the party that was opposed to this initiative was the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand? Those members say that they believe in intergenerational fairness, but as soon as the details get a little bit complex, it all just passes them by.

I have to say that the Leader of the Opposition was right to raise the question of the pandas. I do not believe a single cent should go into bringing pandas to New Zealand. I believe that taxpayers are sick and tired of pandering to these bears. The cost of feeding them is bamboozling, and we should not have to accept that cost as taxpayers in New Zealand. None the less, the way that the Leader of the Opposition brought up the issue was the opposite of the fine contribution that we just had from the Minister of Conservation.

It has been a terrible year for the Opposition, because not so long ago they were having people sign petitions to keep our assets, and I bet they no longer want us to take that course of action. In fact, the evidence when it comes to good public policy is overwhelming. Over the last 30 years we have had over $2 trillion of privatisation in over 100 countries. There have been studies on privatisation. There have been studies on the studies, and for the benefit of the Opposition I point out that we call those metastudies. The jury is absolutely in—private and privatised entities are more productive, more efficient, have higher-paying jobs, and make better use of capital than State-owned entities. Is that not a germane point in New Zealand today, when technology is gradually making many State-owned enterprises less and less competitive? We see Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand facing a cut-throat media revolution powered by the internet. We see a very similar thing happening to New Zealand Post, and let us not even talk about the way that the fracking revolution has devalued coal across the world, with terrible effects on Solid Energy.

I put it to this House that if we want to be true custodians and promote true intergenerational fairness, one of the policies we should have is to begin divesting ourselves of the equity in these fraught commercial enterprises that are already beginning to lose money hand-over-fist. Notwithstanding that, I am very proud to stand here for the ACT Party, in the country that has adopted free markets and free minds better than almost any other society in history. Does that not make you feel great?

There is something wrong in New Zealand politics right now. There is something wrong in New Zealand politics right now, because the Leader of the Opposition, the guy who wants to be the Prime Minister of this country, came into this House and asked the Prime Minister of New Zealand about pandas. He had no other issues to raise. He could not come up with any policies himself that he wanted to promote. There was nothing real, nothing of substance, to attack the Prime Minister on. He wanted to ask about pandas. For goodness’ sake! Does the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour Party have nothing better to talk about?

The second significant question we had from the Labour Party was from the bright, young, friendly face of the Labour Party. When she asked a question she was complaining about a speech the Prime Minister gave promoting a policy that he feels passionate about. What is wrong with the Labour Party when those are the only issues that it can come up with? Do we hear Labour members talking about jobs any more? No, we do not, because this Government has created 199,000 jobs since 2011. We are creating jobs. We have seen 11 quarters of job growth in this country, 18 quarters of economic growth in this country, and the reason why we do not hear them talking about that much anymore is that we are succeeding in providing more opportunities for New Zealanders.

Did we hear them asking about health and the fact that there are more New Zealanders getting access to elective surgery? When I go out and about in my electorate, when I go around the country like other members on this side, we do not hear people talking about scurrilous little issues that Labour members raise in question time. People talk about the fact that they want more jobs—the jobs we are delivering. They want to see more operations for seniors in this country, and we are delivering those, with 50,000 more operations in the past 6 years.

People want to hear more about education and about the fact that more young people are achieving in our education system. [Interruption] When people like Iain Lees-Galloway went to the election in 2008 they left us with an education system where one in three children were failing and were not getting National Certificate in Educational Achievement level 2. [Interruption] Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, if you want to shout out about something that is what you should have been complaining about—the one in three children who were failing. Under Anne Tolley and now under Hekia Parata more children are getting educated. More kids are coming out of our education system with qualifications, and four out of five kids are getting an education that they can be proud of.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Are they getting work? Where are the jobs?

Absolutely, they are getting work, because 200,000 new jobs have been created in the last 2 years.

Do we hear Labour members talking much about housing anymore? Do they raise housing as an issue in question time? I did not hear housing being raised in question time today. The reason why they did not raise housing in question time is that we are developing, and seeing more houses being developed, in Auckland. We are seeing more young New Zealanders getting access to housing in our country. That is another thing for us to be proud of. We have seen 84 special housing areas established in Auckland, with the potential for 40,000 new houses in Auckland in those special housing areas. We are seeing young New Zealanders getting better access through the HomeStart scheme. Those are positive things for this country.

Do we hear Labour members talking much about law and order anymore in question time? I did not hear them talking much about law and order. The reason is that crime is coming down in this country. More police officers are on the street in this country. Reoffending is dropping in this country. New Zealanders are safer in this country.

There is something wrong with the Labour Party in this country. They do not focus on the issues any more. They are always saying no to positive things that will help this country. They have a leader who enjoys the support of less than 10 percent of the MPs on their side.

They are facing a Government led by an individual like John Key, who is impressive on the world stage, who is leading this country through great economic growth, greater than that of many other countries we compare ourselves with. He is leading this country to get more jobs. He is leading a Government that is balancing the books, getting the books back in shape. We have a Government that is working. We have an Opposition that is no longer focused on the real issues, and that is what New Zealanders are seeing night after night on the 6 o’clock news.

I really love the humour that Mr Jami-Lee Ross uses when he makes his contributions to the House, as he did when he praised the Minister of Finance for his competent financial management of the books—7 years, seven deficits. Seven years, seven deficits—that is what Bill English has delivered to us. Bill English has borrowed more money than Sir Robert Muldoon. Bill English has borrowed more money than Sir Robert Muldoon. Seven Budgets, seven deficits, and Jami-Lee Ross thinks that it is something to boast about. Well, I would hang my head in shame if I were the whip of the National Party and were looking at the tragedy that Bill English has delivered for the finances of our country.

I heard the Minister for Senior Citizens, another person who is obviously prone to irony and humour in her debate. Let me tell the House about a few policy issues for senior citizens. What about increasing the level of superannuation, which was hacked back under a National Government in the 1990s? What about establishing a New Zealand superannuation fund that the Government could invest in so that older people in the future—the young ones of today—could have some security that the increased demands of superannuation will be met by saving for the future in a New Zealand superannuation fund? What about introducing income-related rents for State housing so that people who are on low incomes pay a lower level of rent and can afford to have a bit of money in their pockets instead of it all going out on the rent? What about having a rates rebate so that people on low incomes who have high rates bills and have not got very much money—every year, you get your rates bill, and you cannot get out of it; and if you are on superannuation, it is a big bill—could have a little more of that money back in their own pockets? What about the removal of asset testing for rest homes?

Those are all policies that were progressed by Labour when we were last in Government. Let us compare this against the most recent announcement by the Minister for Senior Citizens, standing alongside the Prime Minister. The Minister for Senior Citizens announced—ta-da, drum roll—the launching of a website. Wow! The launching of a website—that will give older New Zealanders financial security! That will help them with the level of superannuation! That will give the young people of today the security of knowing that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will be there in the future! Not only did that Minister launch a website but also, simultaneously, as only the Prime Minister can do, they cut home support for older New Zealanders—at the same time. It is almost like a magic trick. They can launch a website and cut home support for senior citizens at the same time. That is what older New Zealanders are facing under this Government.

Nikki Kaye, the current member for Auckland Central, said, in what sounded like a valedictory speech, how proud she was of the achievements that have been brought forward by the National Government. Not for older New Zealanders, not for young New Zealanders—in fact, not for very many people at all. If only Bill English had invested in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, as he should have done from 2009, instead of borrowing for tax cuts, which is what he actually did. He would not borrow in order to save for future New Zealanders’ security, but he did borrow for tax cuts for the highest-income New Zealanders. The highest-income New Zealanders got tax cuts in 2009, which Bill English borrowed money to pay for. That is a disgrace. If he had not done that and if he had invested in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, we would have been $18.2 billion better off. That superannuation fund would have been $18.2 billion bigger—$18.2 billion bigger—if we had had that investment over the past 7 years. Even if you take the most conservative approach of allowing for borrowing in the costs, we would still be $6.2 billion better off. That is money for future New Zealanders to have security in their quality of life, and it is money that the Minister of Finance spent instead on tax cuts for rich people.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this general debate. I am very fortunate to be part of this Government, which has been in power for the last 7 years under the strong and dynamic leadership of the Rt Hon John Key. Before I go further—the previous speaker, the Hon Ruth Dyson, mentioned that Nikki Kaye’s speech was a valedictory speech. I think I can see many faces on the Labour side that are due for a valedictory speech, and they should deliver that.

Recently I was overseas, and saw that the strong leadership of John Key was being mentioned by many overseas leaders. I had the opportunity to meet many delegations from India, Russia, Belarus, the Philippines, and Georgia. They all are very keen on joining New Zealand to have bilateral trade with us. I would like to congratulate the Hon Bill English on leading this country during the very difficult times that we had in the past 7 years. I would also like to congratulate the Hon Tim Groser, who is working hard with his team to make sure that we have got many markets for Kiwi producers so that they can have access to those markets in the long term.

During my visit to India I had the opportunity to meet the trade and commerce minister, the Hon Nirmala Sitharaman. She mentioned that she was very keen on progressing the free-trade agreement with New Zealand. I also had the opportunity to meet Mr Ashok Gajapathi Raju, who is the civil aviation minister, and he showed keen interest in having more pilot training in New Zealand, in comparison with the past.

After talking about the economy, I would like to touch on law and order, being the chair of the Law and Order Committee. It has been a busy year, if I am just talking about this last year, when this Government has worked hard to make sure that people feel safe in their houses. We introduced public protection orders, which ensure that people who are high-risk individuals who are coming out of prison—6 months before that, the court can order GPS tracking on these people. I think that was a great initiative by this Government. Extended supervision is also another area where this Government has worked in the past year, where high-risk offenders coming out of the jails can be monitored in different manners.

These are the things that we have been doing in the past 7 years, but I think that there is opportunity in this general debate for us to discuss not only what we have achieved, but also to talk about what we are going to do in the next 2 years and beyond. The next major project that the justice sector is taking on is to deal with family violence. The Minister Amy Adams, who is leading this sector, opened up a discussion document for the Care of Children Act. It closed on 18 September, but the issues that are being included in that are to make it so that the police can, in certain circumstances, be required to make mandatory arrests for the breach of protection orders. Recently we had a petition in the Law and Order Committee where this issue was raised, and when it was discussed with the Minister of Justice, she said that we are working on it.

This Government listens to the people and acts upon it. Another example of that is the Rules Reduction Taskforce. I hosted one of the meetings in South Auckland, where a large number of people came to discuss their issues, and the Minister, the Hon Paula Bennett, has made a decision to reduce the red-tapeism in this Government. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take the penultimate call in this general debate and to remind New Zealand of the smoke and mirrors that is the hallmark of this National Government—7 years of smoke and mirrors. In fact, it is akin to a magic show—it is akin to a magic show. The Government is always passing swift tactical tricks past the people of New Zealand. If Parliament were Las Vegas, then John Key and Bill English would be Penn & Teller—John Key is, obviously, the big guy, Penn, and Bill English, the shorter, cunning guy, Teller. But the country is asking the hard questions, and we are not getting answers. We are not getting answers from this Government; all we do is get smoke and mirrors.

When the country is talking about daily announcements of job losses at Fonterra, AgResearch, and numerous firms up and down the country, a tanking economy, and the softening of our export markets, what do we get from this smoke-and-mirrors Government? It says: “Let’s talk about a flag—let’s talk about a flag.” There are millions of refugees and a crisis in Europe, and what do we get? They say: “Oh, I like flags with ferns.” That is what we get from this smoke-and-mirrors Government. We get Murray McCully and a flock of sheep, and Serco Sam. What do we get? Wait a minute, they say: “This is a photo of the Prime Minister and Richie.” This is what we get from this Government: smoke and mirrors. We are not getting substance; we are not getting answers to the hard questions and the hard issues that this country should be tackling—it is smoke and mirrors. This could not have been evidenced more than by the line-up that we have had today.

First of all we had Koro Tim Groser—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Pompous Mr Groser. That was a respectful remark—that was a respectful remark. Mr Groser—pompous and pontificating about numerology and theology, and not addressing the real issues around being transparent with the country about the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Next we have Nikki Kaye. She rattles off the same speech in every general debate. Those members always try to run the decoy—try to run the decoy—Nikki Kaye and Jami-Lee Ross. “Oh, let’s run the reverse. Let’s run this decoy.” It has no effect. The country is seeing through the smoke and mirrors.

The classic one from today, though, is obviously the panda, and we have a name for the panda. It is “Cha-Ching”—that is right. This Government is more concerned about “cha-ching” for its mates than spreading that “cha-ching” round the whole of the motu. And what will it do next? Government members will say: “Oh look, here’s a picture of Cha-Ching the panda with a Richie McCaw T-shirt, waving a silver fern flag.” That is what we get from this Government: smoke and mirrors.

Who did we have next? Oh, yes, we had the Minister of Conservation. And what was she talking about? She said: “Oh, we want targeted increases for our kiwis.” Well, tell that to the poor takahē from Motutapu that were slaughtered—30 percent of the most endangered species, the takahē, was absolutely slaughtered under her watch. Absolutely shameful. Then she says that they are going to attack the weeds—they are going to attack the weeds. Well, here is an idea, maybe she could take her department and grow some bamboo for “Cha-ching”. It can go out and grow more bamboo. That is an idea for economic development. We are not getting anything of substance; we are just getting smoke and mirrors.

Then we get the rooster from the ACT Party.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

It was just a descriptive remark.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has been warned.

A descriptive remark about the member from Epsom—the golden boy from Epsom. I do not care to dignify those remarks, but what we are seeing is smoke and mirrors from this Government, but the people of New Zealand have had enough of the smoke. It is too much—they are coughing. They are choking from the smoke and they want to blow it away. They want to blow it away, and that is what we will be doing. We want to hear hard answers to the questions. We have the answers, and we will be powering on through. Kia ora tātou.

I think we just witnessed the late run for deputy leader of the Labour Party. I am very privileged to be one of the 14 new entrants in the class of 2014 for the National Party. This 51st Parliament is building on 6 years of fantastic work by the National Government under John Key. To be one of the new entrants into this Parliament—it is a great privilege to be here and build on that work.

It is all about a sustainable plan that is working. We have had average weekly wages go up by 15.8 percent in the last 5 years, and 3.2 percent in the last year—and when inflation has just been a miserly 0.3 percent. That is a fantastic amount of money in the pockets of average New Zealanders—far more than inflation. Their dollar goes a lot further. Job growth: as we have heard, there have been 200,000 jobs created since 2011. That is on the back and in spite of record numbers of migrants coming into New Zealand. In 2011 we saw the Prime Minister standing in the middle of Westpac Stadium, saying that we were losing a stadium full of people a year to Australia; they are now coming here. New Zealanders are voting with their feet, and that is a vote of confidence in the National Government. We have record labour-market participation at 69.3 percent—the third highest in the OECD.

We have an outward-looking economy. It is all about trade. Our opponents say that it is all about dairy. Well, really! Let us look at some facts. We have had 18 quarters straight of economic growth, as we have heard, despite low dairy prices. Dairy prices, fortunately, are starting to rise again, so things are on the way up. The medium to long term outlook for our primary sectors is fantastic. It looks like we will grow by 17 percent, reaching $41 billion over the next 4 years.

So it is all about trade, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership is what I want to speak about this afternoon. It was started by Labour—let us give credit where credit is due. It is fantastic. But at the moment Labour is sitting on the fence, and I am going to challenge it to get off the fence and make a decision. Twelve Asia-Pacific countries—Australia, Japan—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection, particularly from one member—I do not mind interjection in a general debate, but when it gets to that level it creates complete disorder. That is the last warning I am giving to three particular members of the Labour Party during this general debate.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is great that I could draw a bit of life out of that side.

Twelve countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including Australia, Japan, the US, Canada, and New Zealand, with a combined GDP of NZ$40 trillion, and 800 million people—it is about trade. It is about having a larger market, and that is through increased specialisation and greater competition. Old views of trade, where countries produce goods and sell them to other countries, have changed. They are no longer valid. Instead, goods and services are made in the world. Final products are assembled using intermediaries from different countries around the world. That is the way of the world. If we do not get involved in trade in larger markets, we will have a very poor outlook. That is demonstrated by exports to countries that we do not have free-trade agreements with—our exports have declined by 2.6 percent. In contrast, with countries that we have free-trade agreements with, our trade has increased by 10 percent.

Diversification is what is, indeed, happening in our economy. Our Government is all about providing a framework, and I really challenge people to say why they would oppose a trade deal that is so good for New Zealand. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report on investor-State dispute settlements said that those risks are overstated, categorically. It is about political expediency, I suspect. It is certainly not about the good of New Zealand. So get off the fence and get in behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and let us make New Zealand a better place. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.