General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday in question time the health Minister, Jonathan Coleman, appeared to invite me to work with him to tackle the obesity epidemic that we face. I certainly appreciate the invitation. Perhaps, it could be argued, that it was a little late, coming, as it did, after the Minister’s announcement of his strategy, but had he asked earlier, the kind of thing I would have said to him is: “We actually need to face up to this problem with dramatic and bold action.”

The fact is that obesity is taking over tobacco as the No. 1 cause of preventable illness and death. We have a total health budget of around $15 billion per year. We right now have a situation where one in four adult New Zealanders either has type 2 diabetes or has pre-diabetes and is at risk of getting type 2 diabetes. We have a situation where we can now conservatively predict that by 2021, just 6 years away, the cost of treating type 2 diabetes alone will be in excess of $2 billion, absolutely swamping our health services. So the kinds of actions that we have seen from the Government in its 22-point plan are simply inadequate. This particular failure reflects two common failures, two common weak points, in the Government’s approach to so many issues. First of all, there is a reliance on individual actions rather than addressing the environmental or, as Sir Peter Gluckman calls them, contextual factors that drive action. Secondly, there is an almost pathological reluctance to in any way tackle the actions of industry, particularly through regulation.

Let me deal with those two things—first of all, this idea about individual actions. The evidence in the health field is extremely clear that the model that has individuals making rational choices about their behaviour based on the information that they receive simply does not hold true in real life. Responding to these problems simply by giving people more education or more information does not work, particularly for those who most need to be able to change their behaviour. We simply have to address the environmental factors. In the case of tobacco, the factor that has been the leading cause of preventable death, what has actually worked there? Has it been giving people more information about how tobacco causes lung cancer and has it been putting up more and more posters? No. What has worked has been increasing the excise tax, it has been the Smoke-free Environments Act, it has been the restrictions on where and how tobacco can be sold, it has been the displays bans, and it has been the almost complete prohibition on advertising and sponsorship. These are the very measures that the Government is refusing to use in relation to the obesity epidemic.

The environmental initiatives that are in the plan are basically two things: one is a review of the code of practice for advertising food to children—that is fine as far as it goes, but it is such a tiny thing—and the other is not really an action at all; it is just a statement that says that the food industry is keen to work with the Government on something kind of vague. Well, it would be, would it not? Actually, industry at risk of being regulated is always keen to work voluntarily because its incentive is to do the least that is necessary that might damage its profit, to obviate and avoid compulsory regulation. I predict that what will result from that is not very much at all. That is why I asked yesterday whether the tobacco industry would now be involved in setting the Government’s tobacco control plan. So I do not know whether it is the Government’s well-known links with the junk food industry that have caused this reluctance to regulate, or whether it is, as the Dominion Post asserts today, the fact that the Government is scared of being caught up in its own rhetoric about the nanny State. But the fact is that, as with climate change and housing and environment, the Government is once again responding to a serious challenge with gesture.

A fortnight ago in New York the Prime Minister announced the establishment by this country of a new sanctuary in the Kermadec Islands that is the size of France, which was welcomed from London to New York, from one end of New Zealand to the other, and illustrates the commitment that this Government has to a balanced programme of not just ensuring that the New Zealand economy grows and creates jobs but that we are also responsible custodians of the environment.

Today we released Environment Aotearoa 2015. This is the very first independent, comprehensive report on the state of the New Zealand environment, made possible through the passing by this Government of the Environmental Reporting Act. In response to Mr Hague’s question, I note that next month we will be introducing a bill to the House that will see 500,000 homes in New Zealand retrofitted with insulation during the term of this Government. Let me give you the comparison—15,000 homes insulated under the 9 years of the last Government; 500,000 homes insulated under this Government. And the member on the Opposition benches has got the gall to refer to 500,000 as somehow being token!

But it goes far further than that. Look at the programme of work that my colleague Maggie Barry is pursuing through the Budget, with the saving of the kiwis and reversing their decline; the programme that she has initiated around the war on the weeds, things like wilding pines that are dramatically changing—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not certain whether you heard that phrase, but my colleagues believe they did hear it and we think it is unparliamentary in the extreme and that the Minister should not be allowed to proceed on that basis.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I never heard any comment that I would consider unparliamentary in the extreme. If I missed something, I am sorry.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, do you want me to elaborate?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, I think I—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: He asked whether somebody had the “so and so”. Frankly, that is not acceptable.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not think that is what was stated at all. Would the Hon Nick Smith continue.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order? If it is not we will be moving on, but if it is a fresh point of order, I am happy to hear it.

💬 Ron Mark: It is a fresh point of order. Not too long ago one of my colleagues got only two words out and he used the word “crap” in a question. He got sat down—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will leave the Chamber.

Later this year my colleague Simon Bridges—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise. I am just waiting for this member to leave the Chamber.

Ron Mark withdrew from the Chamber.

My colleague Simon Bridges, the Minister of Transport, will later this year be announcing initiatives by this Government in respect of electric cars. We could talk about the initiative of the Prime Minister in the national network of cycleways and the new urban cycleways that are now part of that programme. There is the fivefold increase that this Government is committed to in terms of cleaning up New Zealand’s lakes and waterways, with initiatives all over the country. My point is that this Government has a very practical and substantive programme around the blue-green issues that we campaigned on. The reason that we maintained the confidence of New Zealanders is that we say what we mean and we do what we say.

I particularly want to highlight Environment Aotearoa 2015, which was published today. Most New Zealanders would see it as an anomaly that New Zealand, a country that depends so much on its natural resources for its wealth-creating industries, is the only OECD country not to have produced reports like the one we published today. It is part of our Government’s programme of strengthening the institutions and the systems around the New Zealand environment.

We are proud of our record. We created the Environmental Protection Authority and its role in making sure that we manage that environment wisely. We are proud that we passed the legislation that enables that huge area of exclusive economic zone to be properly managed, and, again, I emphasise the progress that we have made with marine protected areas last year in gazetting a record 10 new marine reserves in areas like the Subantarctic Islands, the five new marine reserves on the West Coast, new marine reserves at Akaroa and at Kaikōura as well as, of course, that massive reserve in the Kermadec Islands, which I mentioned in my opening. To give you some idea of scale, it is 35 times larger than all of the 44 marine reserves that have ever been created by this Parliament and this Government. It is a global commitment to improved management of our oceans. This is a blue-green Government—a Government that is able to marry together good economic management with responsible management of the environment, and that is one of the reasons why this John Key Government continues to retain the confidence of New Zealanders.

I want to acknowledge the stunning election victory of Justin Trudeau and the Liberals in Canada. What a fantastic result, and with Stephen Harper’s demise another Tory acolyte of John Key bites the dust. First it was Tony Abbott; now Stephen Harper—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: The Key curse.

It is the Key curse—it is the Key curse. It is the kiss of death—it is the kiss of death, getting close to John Key. Who knows how long Malcolm Turnbull will last.

Speaking of Malcolm Turnbull, what a sad, weak figure the Prime Minister cut at his joint press conference with Malcolm Turnbull on the weekend. The combined diplomatic powers of Murray McCully and John Key, the texts to Julie Bishop, the forthright conversation at the football—it all amounted to nothing, because the Prime Minister, in these matters, is weak. He rolled over for Malcolm Turnbull, and Malcolm Turnbull tickled the Prime Minister’s tummy.

See, our Prime Minister is the king of the selfie. He loves the selfie—all right? He has reduced international relations to a few rounds of golf. But when it matters, when the chips are down and Kiwis need someone to stand up for them, and be forthright, and tell a few home truths, where is the Prime Minister? He is nowhere to be seen. He is the golfing partner to the rich and famous. He wants to be everybody’s friend, but he could not level with the Australian Prime Minister and speak the truth.

Our Anzac mates are holding hundreds of Kiwis in detention centres, including on Christmas Island. They are deporting people who are guilty of even the most low-level crimes, people who have lived, in some cases, their entire adult lives in Australia. They have paid taxes for decades. They have raised their families and lived their lives in Australia, but they are being deported to detention centres and then shipped out of the country. It is wrong, it is not how you treat your mates, and it is certainly not how you treat family. So who will stand up for New Zealanders in this case? Who will? John Key will not. He is weak. He does not like to have the hard conversations with Malcolm Turnbull. I will tell you who will stand up for New Zealanders. Andrew Little will, Kelvin Davis will, and the New Zealand Labour Party will. Someone has to stand up for New Zealanders because this Prime Minister is not up to the job.

Not only will the Government not stand up for New Zealand, but it is actively selling out this country. Tim Groser and John Key went to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement negotiations and they traded away the right of future Governments in this country to legislate in the interests of New Zealanders. They gave away the ability of future Governments to ban non-resident foreigners from buying land and housing in this country. That sticks in the craw. It undermines our sovereignty. I can understand it if the National Party has a different view about what the best housing policy should be. You would expect that. But I do not expect the National Party to trade away the power and the right of future Governments to legislate in the interests of New Zealanders. Andrew Little’s Labour Party comes to this Parliament to make laws that strengthen our nation and improve the lives of New Zealanders. It goes against everything that we stand for that this Government would go to international trade negotiations and trade away this Parliament’s right to legislate in the interests of New Zealanders.

The Government has sold out this country. It has betrayed the people of New Zealand. By its own admission, it did not even try to carve out a protection for New Zealanders to implement this kind of policy in the future, as Australia did and as several other parties to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement did. The Government cares so little for the sovereignty of our country, our right to legislate in the public interest, that it just gave it away. What a damning, damning indictment.

Meanwhile, in the Auckland housing market, billions of dollars of land and housing are being sold off under the feet of New Zealanders because this Government will not stand up for New Zealanders. It stands on the side of foreign property speculators. It will not stand up to Malcolm Turnbull and speak up for the interests of New Zealanders in detention in Australia. New Zealanders deserve much better.

I rise with pride to talk about the very significant conservation and environmental gains of this John Key - led Government. I draw members’ particular attention to the report titled Environment Aotearoa 2015. As my colleague Dr Nick Smith has pointed out, this is a wonderful way of measuring, as a benchmark, the achievements of this Government and also the challenges that lie ahead. It is very important to measure these things—otherwise, how can we manage them? In common with many countries, New Zealand faces a biodiversity problem. Our species—our taonga—are under threat. As it says in this report, which was released today, something like 94 percent of our land is affected by rats, stoats, and possums. Then there are the wilding pines. There is no room in this country for any kind of complacency when it comes to our biodiversity.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to some of the measures that we are putting in place. My colleague has mentioned many of them, and I commend him for the work that has been done, in the environmental space, with the Kermadec Islands. It is, indeed, an international triumph, if you like, to have the courage and the tenacity to give such a large body of water and unique species protection in perpetuity. This is showing the sort of courage that we have. The work in the freshwater area is commendable, and it is on the right track.

When it comes to my own portfolio of conservation, the week after next is Conservation Week. Our theme this year is “Healthy Nature Healthy People”, because we feel as a Government that it is important to take a whole-of-Government—a cross-Government—approach. I have been in conversation with the Minister of Health about how we can look at various measures to ensure that New Zealanders help themselves with obesity and other health-related issues and, at the same time, are in closer touch with nature through our parks and green spaces, which are world renowned. Recent New Zealand Transport Agency modelling shows that walking and cycling—for just two examples—result in dollars returned to the health system. That is, $2.70 per kilometre walked and about $1.30 for every kilometre cycled. So in the same way that we are using statistical and scientific evidence to back up the policies that we put in place—and the measures that we put in place as well—we are also using cost-based efficiency measurements, because that is how we do things.

Battle for our Birds was an extremely successful operation last year. For the first time—and it was the largest-ever predator campaign in this country’s history—we successfully treated more than 600,000 hectares of conservation land. The aerial drops of 1080 poison were effective and they worked well. In the Dart River Valley, for example, the nesting success rates for the yellowhead—the mohua—was almost 100 percent compared with less than 50 percent previously. It is very unfortunate that we have a small alarmist minority that is intent on spreading half-truths about 1080. It is an essential tool that we need to be able to use if we are to win the battle and bring our birds, our snails, our bats, and other creatures back from the brink of extinction, and we will continue to use it. These groups breed extremists, and we have seen that recently in the Operation Concord arrest. As for the people who go on to threaten the lives of New Zealanders and destabilise our economy, their emotional claptrap and their unscientific arguments will hopefully amount to nothing when intelligent New Zealanders really assess the problem and what we need to do about it—and 1080 is a very important part of that.

There are so many other commendable things that are coming through when it comes to natural self-setting, resetting traps. Again, these are the kinds of things that are very useful, and the Department of Conservation is spending quite a lot of money on these sorts of developments to make sure that we are not reliant on just one method. We spend more than $150 million a year on natural heritage management, and over the past 5 years our strategic direction as a department has focused on also partnering with others—philanthropists to do with the NEXT Foundation, Project Janszoon, and Predator Free New Zealand. We want to be predator-free by 2050. These are commendable aims and we are well on track. We have a Threatened Species Ambassador who works within the Department of Conservation—again, drawing public attention and winning hearts and minds, in the same way that we are trying to do with the War on Weeds and the “dirty dozen” weeds, by engaging the people of New Zealand in the fight that needs to be had, because united we stand against these foes, and we will protect our ecosystem if we all act together led by this John Key - led Government. Thank you.

Clearly, that speech by Maggie Barry is evidence that 1080 will not get rid of the bats. The border security of this country is lax and the biosecurity in this country is lax. We have had more people with sniffer dogs—that is, handlers—than dogs themselves, at a ratio of 2:1, and we have had cuts to the conservation and environmental expenditure in the country, and that Minister of Conservation has the audacity, in a cliché and drivel-ridden speech, to claim she is doing something. I will not waste my time because the last time I saw her it was up at a meeting in Dargaville and the whole meeting had to be stopped while the chairman told her to keep quiet.

Let us start by congratulating Jack Martin of Pahīatua who is turning 100 years old this weekend. He served as a sapper in the 10th New Zealand Railway Construction Company during his 4 years in the army—more than 3 of which were spent overseas. He was awarded the 1939-1945 Star, the Africa Star, the Defence Medal, the War Medal 1939-1945, and the New Zealand War Service Medal. Jack received letters from the Queen, the Governor-General, the mayor, MPs, and the President of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association, B J Clark.

He also got a letter from the Prime Minister. I wish the Prime Minister could hear what Jack’s son said, because to quote him, he said: “It’s simple for Dad. He fought under the flag and sadly lost cobbers in World War II from as far back as his schooldays. ‘They shall grow not old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.’ From Dad’s room at the Waireka he can see the flagpole while sitting in his La-Z-Boy, looking out across the lawns. That flagpole was a bit tatty and had no flag. Bryan James, the Pahīatua RSA President, refurbished the pole in time for Dad’s birthday and a brand new flag was presented to the pole, in the ceremony involving soldiers from Linton Camp. Now Dad can see our flag flying proudly every day.”

That is the son’s testimony, and I hope people in the media and other parties will remember this: the real affection there is for our flag. I know that some people like Simon O’Connor, Stuart Nash, and—bless her cotton socks—the Hon Judith Collins agree with our campaign to keep our flag, but for the rest, shame, because they all joined the committee to go along with the Prime Minister’s fad.

One party did not, and that party is New Zealand First. It is not about politics. It is about doing what is right and decent for the 73rd anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein this Friday, the centenary of Gallipoli’s evacuation, which falls on 15 to 20 December, and there are significant dates from Palestine to Viet Nam. It is crass and insensitive for the Prime Minister to go along with this fad now. And, for the benefit of Mr Macindoe, returned servicemen and women—Ron Mark included—know that there is a silver fern on our graves but that it is a real fern on grey stone.

None of those flag options has the unique botanical silver fern. That is how naïve they are over there; it is not even offered to the people of this country. That is why New Zealand First is aggrieved that Mr Brownlee refused to grant a debatable motion on the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. He refused to grant it. Then he told the people of this country that the Prime Minister did not know about this report, when the Prime Minister did, and it was all available 4 days before the Prime Minister left for Iraq, but the media were never given it. It is a sham and the UMR poll is as clear as daylight on this matter: New Zealanders do not want to go along with the Prime Minister’s latest fad and his gross waste of $26 million—a gross waste of $26 million.

If you were watching Sky television today, out of Australia, there was a trade Minister talking about—1 minute to go; fantastic, it will be incredibly good—the free-trade agreement China has just signed with Australia. Compare that with the one we signed. Compare the advantages they have got with what we got. Compare what they are going to get with what we negotiated, and then explain to me, if you are so much for free trade, why the China free-trade agreement is being renegotiated by the Government as we speak.

💬 David Seymour: Who was the foreign Minister?

I was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I made it public and clear that we were not supporting it. So do not come here like a juvenile infant and make stupid statements like that, Mr Seymour.

I am delighted to talk about conservation, the Bluegreens, and why I believe we get the very best outcome for the environment and conservation when the Government and the community work together.

New Zealanders are intrinsically linked to the environment. It is in our DNA, and we are proudly protective of it. We enjoy spending time in the great outdoors, at the beach, in the mountains, and enjoying the rivers and lakes, and more and more often these days, contributing to an environmental project is part of our kaupapa. National’s blue-green principles are close to our hearts and underpin the holistic view of New Zealanders that looking after the environment goes hand in hand with a healthy economy and the well-being and quality of life of all New Zealanders. More than a third of New Zealand’s land mass and of our marine environment, especially since the announcement of the fabulous Kermadec sanctuary, is now protected for its conservation values.

Conservation boards represent the people of New Zealand and give us all a voice in the management of our public land and sea. Since our review in 2013 conservation boards have become more diverse and better connected to their communities. They work hand in hand with the Department of Conservation but their focus is strategic—on planning and management and encouraging as many New Zealanders as possible to get involved with environmental issues, activities in national parks in conservation areas, and community conservation initiatives—and thousands do; many thousands do.

The Department of Conservation works with 1,216 registered community conservation groups, and they are involved in everything from killing pests, monitoring birds, planting projects, research, and generally contributing to better conservation outcomes. One of them is the exciting and high-profile Project Janszoon in the Abel Tasman National Park, which has just recently won the highest award by the United Nations for community conservation and environment protection. That is a fantastic achievement on their part. But there are many, many other groups that are much smaller and less high-profile but equally as important and valued in their communities.

On top of that, 15,000 volunteers work with Department of Conservation - facilitated programmes, and these numbers are growing every year. They are incredibly dedicated and hard-working people. Last year they contributed 30,000 work days, and, again, they do everything. They repair tracks, trap pests, and babysit seal pups, as well as some of the less glamorous things such as administration and data entry.

Over the last few months, I have been visiting groups that the Department of Conservation has supported financially though the community conservation partnership grants. That is all about seed funding. It is about giving a kick-start to new community projects—conservation work that local groups want to get under way. It is based on a powerful community action model of encouraging local collaboration around a conservation campaign, and delivering cumulative results—and it is brilliant.

People involved can immediately see how they can make a difference, and because they are working together they can see really meaningful results. A great example of that is the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary in Nelson. The Department of Conservation contributed $127,000 to that as a kick-start, but 37 other community groups, including schools and the local council, are getting involved and the project has morphed into a $500,000 project, connecting local communities. The aim of it, in the short term, is to increase the birdlife in the sanctuary, and, in the long term, the aim is to deliver a halo effect for all the neighbours across the city. Conservation is good for New Zealand.

The Government is neglecting our regions. It is failing to diversify their economies. Regional New Zealand’s roads and internet services are languishing and are in desperate need of upgrades. We heard in question time about the comments the Waitaki mayor, Gary Kircher—who is no friend of Labour—made about barriers to economic growth. We heard the member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, talk about having to stand on one leg in rural schools to get a signal. We have even got the member for Clutha-Southland, Todd Barclay, who talks about the slow and unreliable internet connections in his electorate. We have heard from Fonterra, and we have even got Federated Farmers saying that the state of the existing telecommunications network is poor in many rural areas.

In my office I have got more than 40 responses from councils that are desperate to improve the internet in their areas. I had a mayor in my office today spitting tacks because the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment refused to meet with him. It was far too busy to meet with him to talk about the state of broadband in his region. He said the signals from the Government are that the rural sector does not matter. He said it is just pure arrogance, and he has had it.

There are projects being developed in regional New Zealand that need workers. They are areas in South Canterbury, Southland, Western Bay of Plenty, Manawatū, and Northland, to name just a few, but they do not have good internet access. He said to me: “What do we say when we advertise for workers in those areas? Shift here, we want you, but sorry we don’t have the internet.” He said that is why economists are starting to describe those regions as being zombie towns.

I have got some more examples. One is Culverden township, where someone had the bright idea of giving fibre access to the school. He said he would dig a trench and would provide access to the wider community. But Chorus said no, and why did they say no? He could not access that fibre because it is old fibre. It is not new fibre; it is old fibre. It is only one pair of fibres, and you cannot get access to the wider community. I have just received confirmation that of the 2,500 schools in New Zealand, only seven have been able to make a fibre connection available to their wider communities. Why only seven? Because it is too hard.

This is just an absolute travesty. Why does this matter? Because rural New Zealand has around 20 to 25 percent of our population. Outside of our three main centres, it contributes a third of our GDP—nearly $80 billion. In 2009-10 the Government announced it would roll out broadband. It said that 75 percent of New Zealanders in urban areas would get ultra-fast broadband—that is, solid, good connection. In the places in rural New Zealand where they have achieved a connection, 25 percent have only a 5 megabit connection. Where they have managed to achieve that, they have spent $300 million and it has made no difference to those communities.

That is why I have got 40 councils sending me their documents saying just how bad it is. After 5 years rural New Zealand is, understandably, intensely frustrated and angry about the situation for them. What they need, and what rural New Zealand needs, is a Government that is going to stand up for them. Our regions need and deserve to be treated better.

Who is going to stand up for regional New Zealand? Well, it is not going to be this Government. It will be Andrew Little. It will be David Clark, who is working on economic development strategies that include good connectivity. He will be looking at the transport investment that has been cut by $11 million in terms of the sealing of roads, at the closing of the Gisborne to Napier railway line, and at the fact that Otago is lagging by 10 percent in terms of its economic output.

There is a list that can go on and on. This Government is not standing up for regional New Zealand. It is not standing up for rural people. It will be a Labour Government, with Andrew Little and David Clark, with his economic development strategy, that will stand up for rural New Zealand.

First of all, I want to thank the member opposite, Clare Curran, for her acknowledgment of the Waitaki electorate twice during question time and then again in her intervention. For a city-based MP such as herself to look out into the countryside and acknowledge the stewardship of members of Parliament such as me, I want to thank her most sincerely. I also want to wish her all the very best in her future endeavours, whatever they may be.

I am also very proud to be a “blue-greener”. I am so proud to be a blue-greener that, as I wear my rather stylish cast today, you will see, as I reveal the cover, it is in fact green. I am showing my true political colours. We are indeed blue-green and proud of it. I want to acknowledge Nick Smith, and the Hon Maggie Barry, and of course the Hon Nicky Wagner, who lead the Bluegreen team—but well supported by this caucus of National by Scott Simpson, who is the very, very able chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—for the many initiatives that they have announced in this year’s Budget and in previous Budgets in the 7 years since we have been the Government, which have been to the benefit of conservation, the environment, but also sustainable development in New Zealand.

To illustrate that point, I just want to talk about a couple of initiatives, which have been in train in New Zealand since we have become the Government. The first one is the New Zealand Cycle Trail. My beautiful, large electorate of Waitaki, which I am so proud to represent, boasts not one, not two, but three cycle trails in the network—

💬 Scott Simpson: How many?

Three cycle trails in the network throughout New Zealand. Of course the Otago Central Rail Trail was the first and no doubt was the model for the forum in 2009, which was the genesis for the Prime Minister getting behind the New Zealand Cycle Trail initiative. Now we have 14 completed cycle trails, and each and every one of those is providing an incredible boost to regional economic development. I have got three in Waitaki. There are cycle trails all around New Zealand. I can see on a daily—daily—basis what that investment by this Government into our regions is bringing to our small towns. Ten years ago when I first came into this role and I would travel through the townships of Clyde, I would go to Alexandra, and I would go all around Central Otago, and those little townships were struggling. Those little townships were growing smaller and smaller and smaller every passing day.

Now, in the 10 years that I have been travelling the highways and byways of Central Otago, what a difference. You cannot but fall over a decent-cup-of-coffee shop wherever you go. You cannot but go past the most wonderful small accommodation outlets. People are seizing the opportunity to start up businesses in the provinces, and the region has been transformed, just as it will be for the Alps 2 Ocean Cycle Trail, which is arguably the most magnificent cycle trail in New Zealand. Already, all the way down the Waitaki Valley, business people are pricking up their ears and thinking: “There is an opportunity for me here in Kurow, in Ōtematatā, in Ōmārama. There is an opportunity for me to showcase my special part of New Zealand to the travelling public.”

But what is even better than that, from the blue-green perspective, is that whole tracts of the New Zealand countryside are being opened up for people to enjoy—people of any level of fitness. It does not matter if you have not ridden a bike for many years, just as it is with the urban cycle trail initiatives, also funded by this Government. It does not matter that you have not ridden for many, many years. You only need to do a small amount of a cycle trail and New Zealand’s beauty will be revealed to you. Interestingly, my very last and most important point, I think, apart from the economic benefit that is being brought to the regions, is that people are noticing things now. People are noticing that, yes, we need to do something about our wilding pines and we need to protect and enhance our environment. Thank you.

Despite the hype and despite the spin, this Government should be ashamed. Its regional programme of development actually is not a roll-out of rural broadband; it is still operating in dial-up. That is exactly what is happening in our regions.

Let me give you an example. In the Bay of Islands they are really proud, the people in the Bay of Islands, that they will be receiving 30 cruise ships this summer—an amazing number of cruise ships. But what, sadly, has not happened in that particular region is there has been no development of the infrastructure—none whatsoever. They still arrive at the same wharf that was there when I was a kid and that did not receive 30 cruise ships. They still get off at that wharf and they cross, still, a one-lane bridge. A one-lane bridge in Northland—who would have thought it! After that they get over into Paihia, they get over into Waitangi, and into Ōpua, and not one new hotel has been built.

So how do we cater for these visitors? How do we make sure that tourism across the world, the high reputation of New Zealand in the tourism industry, is well protected? Well, I tell you how we do it. We must be serious about our development, our investment in our regions, and that is just one small example.

To continue on tourism, the tourism industry—and I have said this in this House before—was very clear about its opposition towards a tax, taxing our visitors. We have numbers that we have never seen before coming in and out of our country. Then all of a sudden a tax gets placed on that kind of travel. The industry was clear. It did not want it, but this Government still pushed ahead with its tax on travellers.

All of these things, I fear, do not bode well for our tourism industry. I want to congratulate those people because I think they have got there under their own steam. It certainly has not been by any great piece of legislation, any fantastic policies or strategies, but by the hard work of the people in the tourism sector. It has been brought up in this general debate, the kōrero, the conversation, around the detainees and, more important, our relationship with our younger siblings across the Ditch, the people in Australia, and the importance of this Government, and indeed anyone who represents this country, of representing New Zealand in the best way possible, wherever they may go.

It has been a huge concern to see how those people who are being detained on Christmas Island are being treated. Human rights issues—and I am proud of Kelvin Davis for heading over there, leading the charge, bringing up the conversation, a conversation that this Government has been trying to ignore. In fact, when I think about many of the people, our own citizens, over in Australia, and this might seem like a bit of a stretch, I think of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act review aims to isolate Māori landowners, those with shares in Māori land, in Australia. It aims to isolate them over there, to silence their voice on the many boards and the many governance structures that are in place to look after Māori land. I am all for growing Māori development of their land—I am—to improve the economy, to improve the stake of Māori, but it must be done collaboratively; it must be done by engaging those landowners and those who hold shares.

The current reform that is going through at the moment does not do that. It isolates those people in Australia. It cuts them out from what we call in the Māori world ahi kā, or their home fires, and this, I think, is an absolute travesty, given the Minister in his dealing with this Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill ignored the expertise of all of the experts and all of those who are involved in the Māori Land Court process. He ignored them all and handpicked a small group that could push through this type of reform and that would do this to Māori landowners. This is an absolute travesty. I encourage all of those whānau in Australia to stand up for their rights, stand up for the shares that they own in Māori land, to make sure that their voice is heard. In conclusion, can I finish by saying “Go the All Blacks!”.

We have heard this afternoon from the Government side some of the very competent blue-green Ministers and MPs who represent the National Party in this Parliament. It has been a delight to hear from the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Nick Smith, from the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Maggie Barry, and from the Associate Minister of Conservation, the Hon Nicky Wagner, because they have been setting out, along with Jacqui Dean, and others who will follow me, exactly what it is to be blue-green in the National Party in this John Key - led Government. It is a party that has done more for the environment in its term of Government than any previous administration in the history of New Zealand. I am very, very proud to be part of that Government, which is making such wonderful preservation steps and conservation steps on behalf of our precious environment.

I have the great privilege of representing the Coromandel electorate. It is by far and away the most beautiful part of New Zealand. It represents the most environmentally precious 4,500 square kilometres of New Zealand. It is a great privilege to represent the Coromandel in this Parliament, but I do so safe in the knowledge that as a National Party MP I understand completely the benefits that come from our blue-green approach. That means that looking after the environment, looking after conservation, and looking after our precious natural heritage goes hand in hand with careful, prudent management of our economy. The two are not mutually exclusive, as the Greens would have you believe. I am very proud that the announcement, only a week or 2 ago, of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary is one about which my grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren not yet born will say: “That was a great decision made by this Parliament, by this John Key - led Government.”

This afternoon we have had released this very good report. It is the first that has been produced in the spirit of the new Environmental Reporting Act, and it is the Environment Aotearoa 2015 report. It is the first report of its sort that has been produced since 2007, and already Labour’s current environment spokesperson, Dr Megan Woods, has been quick to launch into the media, saying it is a disturbing read.

But what about Labour’s history of reporting on our environment? Well, you have to go back to the last report, which was released in 2007. I want to take the House back to the great chapter 13 scandal of 2008. For people listening, they will remember that one Trevor Mallard was the Minister for the Environment in the dying days of the Labour administration. A report on the environment was released, and what happened was that a whole chapter was simply deleted. Chapter 13 was simply removed, and why was it removed? It was removed quite simply because it reported some bad news about our environment, some bad news about our water quality. Rather than confront the issues and approach it in a sensible, transparent way, Labour and the then Minister for the Environment, the Hon Trevor Mallard, simply chose to delete chapter 13 from the report. Fortunately, the Greens were in receipt of a leaked copy of chapter 13, and they made it available to the public of New Zealand to see and to be viewed and cleansed by the spotlight of daylight. So Labour’s attempt to simply ignore and hide the truth about some of the more difficult, challenging areas in our environment simply did not work. That was their instinctive approach.

I thought for some time that it has been very obvious that Labour has had a string of lightweight environment spokespeople. Part of the reason that they have had that string of lightweight environment spokespeople is simply that they know that it is not worth a Labour member investing time in conservation or the environment because they know that if they were to do so they would have to trade it off for a Green Party member, who will almost certainly become conservation Minister and environment Minister in a Labour-Green Government. That surely would be a horrible thought for any aspiring Labour Justin Trudeau - type personality who might want to make a name for themselves—like Stuart Nash, for instance, who might want to make a name for himself in conservation or the environment.

I am very proud of the work that this Government and that these Ministers have been doing to protect, enhance, and secure the long-term future of our very precious environment. This is a great blue-green initiative Government, and Nick Smith, Maggie Barry, and Nicky Wagner are doing a great job.

The irony of following successive National Party MPs claiming how much they support the environment on the day that a report came out showing that 60 percent of our rivers have lost quality is beyond me. But that is not what I am wanting to speak about today. He broke his partner’s back, and used his power and influence to misrepresent his violence and discredit her. He is still using his power to minimise his violence, while refusing to take responsibility. Tony Veitch is sending men all around New Zealand the message that, hey, “hideous relationships” happen, but you can move on, with a continuing disregard for the person or people you hurt. No worries, mate! People might suggest you are abusive, but, really, you are the victim! Mr Veitch might say that I am a hater for saying this, but, actually, this is not a message of hate. I believe that Mr Veitch’s life would be a whole lot better if he was able to put himself in the shoes of his ex-partner. Sure, facing up to what he has done would be hard and might completely change his life, but it would be worth it. Even if it was not, it might just be for his ex-partner.

One in three women in New Zealand is likely to experience violence in their most intimate relationship. That reality is a call for action, for us as political leaders, and for all of us in this society. People are not born abusive—abuse is a choice, but one that is all too often supported by our society. The conviction rate for domestic violence sits below 2 percent in this country. Accountability is a prerequisite for rehabilitation, yet in most cases our justice system does not enable rehabilitation. We need men who use violence—and their partners and children—to know that change is possible.

Yesterday the Law Society and NGOs raised concerns about the inability of many women to access protection orders in this country because the threshold for getting legal aid is set below the minimum wage. Things are so bad in this country now that a philanthropic trust has had to give money to the Women’s Refuge to be able to help fund women to access protection orders.

Yet the counterbalance to that was that yesterday our media was preoccupied with Tony Veitch and his disregard for his own violence. Some people might say that it is unfair to target poor Tony Veitch—and I have seen the comments. I say that it is unfair that he continues to use his considerable wealth and power to undermine his ex-partner. That is not promoting the cultural change that we need as a society—the cultural change that he needs. Our cultural change that we so desperately need must be supported by institutional change, by an assurance of women’s access to justice that is not there now.

The Government has set a target to reduce crime, and we heard in the House today how well this Government is doing, yet it has put pressure on the police to reduce the number of recorded offences. Reporting is going up, recorded offences are going down, and the number of convictions is going down. That is not delivering justice. We have been told that the reasons for this are the Better Public Service targets for police prosecution guidelines. We need to look at those things as part of the review of our protection. We have a real problem with the very, very fundamentals of our system. There is an interaction between the system and our culture, and we need to work on both. The Government, I hope, will listen to the calls for the review of family violence to consider the issues of legal aid, the family court, and police prosecution guidelines. We need to do everything we can for this cultural and institutional change.

I am very pleased to be talking about National’s approach to climate and environmental issues, particularly as I am a member of the National Bluegreens caucus, which does comprise a significant number of National MPs. National has been active in this space and rightly so. As the Governor of the Bank of England recently said, in the northern hemisphere over the last 30 years it has been the warmest since Anglo-Saxon times, and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are at levels not seen for 800 years. It is not surprising that insurance losses from weather-related events have increased from the 1990 levels of about $10 billion per annum to about $50 billion per annum over the last 10 years.

This Government understands this dimension and has put together a whole raft of measures to deal with climatic and environmental issues in New Zealand. My colleagues have previously talked about it, and the Hon Dr Smith talked about what we are doing in the freshwater and oceans arena, and around clean air initiatives, as well as other initiatives such as dealing with waste and cleaning up contaminated sites. Of course, we heard from the Hon Maggie Barry and the Hon Nicky Wagner about conserving our environment through an excellent range of initiatives around protecting our natural flora and fauna. I do like the terms “battle for the birds” and the “war on weeds”.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Understandable for a military man.

Yes. Today I want to focus on climatic changes and the initiatives that we have put in place around clean energy and electric vehicles. For the forthcoming UN conference on climate change in Paris we have already committed to a target for reducing gas emissions to 30 percent of 2005 levels to be achieved by 2030. This is meaningful—contrary to a lot of thought and comments. For instance, Canada put in place exactly the same targets, and Australia and the US have put in a target of 26 percent to 28 percent to be achieved in roughly the same period of time.

It is also interesting to note that our emissions as a country have risen from 71 million metric tonnes in 1995 to 85 million metric tonnes in 2005, but have decreased back to 81 million tonnes at the moment. Part of the reason for that reduction was that this Government put in place the new emissions trading scheme, which came into place on 1 July 2010. Although the emissions trading scheme system and the pricing has fluctuated significantly—although I do note that it is currently up, just under $7—the volumes traded on our emissions trading scheme have actually been relatively constant at about 18 million tonnes per year, which is quite a significant component of the 81 million tonnes that we generate every year. But, as most of us are aware, 50 percent of our emissions are generated by the agricultural sector, and it is pleasing and really good that this Government has invested heavily and shown a lead in terms of sponsoring research into emissions from the bovine sector.

It is also important in terms of carbon sequestration that the Government has committed another $22.5 million over the next 6 years to encourage new forestry plantations. The remaining 50 percent of our emissions largely come from transport and energy. We as New Zealanders should be really proud that roughly 80 percent of all our energy produced in New Zealand comes from clean energy sources, such as geothermal, hydro, clean, and photovoltaics. This puts us up amongst the top four nations in the world. The recent announcement of the closure of the two power plants at Huntly—the coal plants—and the gas-fired power station at the Ōtāhuhu South Auckland plant, will further help us to achieve our clean energy target of 90 percent by 2025.

When you think about the $1 trillion that has been invested over the last 10 years around the world, this is why it is important that New Zealand continues to encourage these new technologies. The other exciting area—that I personally find really exciting—is what is happening in the transport sector. Only just this morning the Hon Simon Bridges made an announcement that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has put in place a scheme to allow fleet managers to assess the total cost of diesel electric vehicles, and we have got good moves in New Zealand to implement and adopt clean energy in electric vehicles.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.