General Debate

I will move the motion, but before I do I will move the glasses of water out of the way to avoid an inevitable risk. I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Parliament has become very shabby in the last couple of days, attributable almost entirely to the conduct of our Prime Minister and his fellow members opposite. They will not stand up and provide the leadership that this nation expects and demands. We now are in the shocking situation of a Prime Minister of 7 years’ standing trivialising sexual abuse in this country and around the world.

Kiwis are sick and tired of a Government that is interested only in playing parliamentary parlour games and not in the issues that count for New Zealanders. Yesterday our Prime Minister chose the low road, as he so often does—the easy road. It was a so-called punchline to him there, and an insult to others there. It is the road of cynical, nasty politics. He had the opportunity today to rise up above and—

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Kettle black, mate. Kettle black.

I have got news for you, Ms Bennett. I have got something about you, Ms Bennett. You will be part of it, too. He could have stood up and shown the leadership and statesmanship that this country is so long yearning for, but he could not bring himself to do it.

When we are dealing with New Zealand - born Australians who have lived virtually all their lives in Australia—lived their lives, worked there, got families and support networks there—and have committed crimes and done their sentence and are now being detained indefinitely, he could have got on the phone to Malcolm Turnbull and said: “Malcolm, I know we had a great time in Government House in Auckland a few weeks ago. I know we funned around with our rugby ties, and it was very funny, and we won. But, mate, you’ve got to do the right thing.” Because what Australia is doing, and what Malcolm Turnbull’s Government is doing, is the wrong thing.

When it comes to people who have lived virtually all their lives in Australia, those who have offended at the low end of the scale—the shoplifters, those who have got drink-driving convictions, and those who have got petty offences, even a number of them—their best chance of rehabilitation is not coming back to the country where they have got no support, no networks, no nothing, but is being back in the country that is the country of their upbringing. They are Australians in all but the place where they were born, and if our Prime Minister were a leader, he would be on the phone to Malcolm Turnbull and he would be making that point.

Well, what the Prime Minister has done, because he will not stand up to that issue, is just weak. He will not stand up to his mate and do what good mates do, and say: “Mate, on this occasion, it’s not right.” But it is hardly surprising. Look at the standards at which his Government operates. We have a chief whip, the Government’s desk monitor, who, rather than trying to allow debate on important issues like the appalling state of our State houses—which Paula Bennett is responsible for—or healthy homes, runs off and plays tittle-tattle. Here we have the Dominion Post now highlighting the very point that my Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill is all about—young children still, after 7 years of this Government, suffering and going to hospital. And we are trying to have that debate, but the desk monitor opposite—the man of great Christian virtue, who leads the prayer breakfasts in Parliament—has not an ounce of Christian charity to allow these people to at least have a chance. That is how appalling it is—that is how appalling it is.

But why would that surprise us when you have a housing Minister, or at least one-third of a housing Minister, sitting opposite who has gone down in world history as the world’s worst Minister in charge of a social policy ever. Not only has she failed Housing New Zealand tenants, not only has she failed to get decent-quality housing in New Zealand, but she was the one, as social development Minister, who presided over the nastiest piece of legislation ever to pass through this Parliament, whereby cancer patients who cannot continue to work have to go on a job seekers’ benefit and prove to our social agencies that they are looking for work as they are trying to cure themselves of the dreadful cancers that they have. And, when they cannot prove that they are working, she insists that they have to produce a medical note, at their expense, from their doctor. What a nasty Minister. What a dreadful, appalling, nasty, uncompassionate Minister.

She sits there embarrassed, as she should do. Well, it is all right, Paula; just say sorry. Just say sorry to the cancer sufferers of New Zealand, and say sorry to the State house tenants, whom you just do not care about. The only embarrassing thing about this, and I will have to send a word to the Dominion Post for backing us politically, is they have got to stop being so biased. It is embarrassing that they should be so—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Mr Speaker, tēnā koe o te rā; tēnā tātou o Te Whare nei. It is a privilege and honour to stand on behalf of the Government 7 years into our Government, led by a Prime Minister of exceptional character and leadership. Seven years ago, when we came into Government, we were shortly to become acutely aware of the global financial crisis and, 2 to 3 years later, of the Christchurch earthquakes. And here we are, 7 years later, the first Government in 43 years to provide benefits to families living in hardship.

Although the Opposition has a currency of personal attacks, this Government is focused on the issues that matter. Whether it is investing in raising the benefits for those families in hardship, or establishing the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, and all of the policy achievements in between, this Government stands proudly on its track record. We have put children and their families squarely at the centre of all of our policies. We have turned the books around. We have returned—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The level of the interjection now is too loud. It must quieten down for the general debate.

I can assure—

💬 Sue Moroney: She’s got to stop telling lies—

—the House that contrary to Sue Moroney’s accusation that I am telling lies, we have an evidenced track record of making a difference. We have—[Interruption] Mr Speaker, is there any possibility I could give my speech, rather than Sue Moroney? We have returned the books to surplus. We have a strong economy—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will now resume her seat. I have now given a specific warning to Sue Moroney that the level of interjection is too loud. It is a general debate, it is a robust debate, and I expect some interjection, but the level of noise—and she is not the only member, there is another one sitting to her immediate right who has now got the same bad habit developing. I do not want to see—[Interruption]. Order! I do not want to see any more members having to leave the Chamber this particular afternoon, but if it continues at the sort of level that it creates disorder, it is not fair on the member delivering a speech, and my only recourse will be to ask a member to leave.

We have delivered across-the-board tax cuts as part of the biggest tax reform in 25 years. We have increased benefit rates, as I have already talked about. We have increased paid parental leave. We have made doctors visits free for under-13-year-olds. We have made breakfasts free in every school that wants or needs them. We have done real, compassionate, practical deliveries for the kids and families who matter, and we are proud of our record.

Moreover, I belong to a caucus and a Cabinet that is absolutely full of ideas for the future. We have got 7 years behind us. We know what makes the difference, and so do New Zealanders. They want an economy that works for them. They want to be able to get jobs, which we are increasing. How? Because we are investing in skills. We are focused on regional economies. We are focused on the overall economy. Mortgage rates are the lowest they have ever been. People want to be able to get into homes. They want to be able to bring up their families. They do not want to be told how to do it by the Opposition. We understand that, so we are focused on how do we create an environment where opportunity and choice are the closest travelling companions of New Zealanders, and I am proud to be part of a Government that does all of that.

As the Minister of Education, we have seen more children participating in quality early childhood education than ever before.

💬 Sue Moroney: There’s no quality—not quality.

It is quality. For every dollar the parent pays, the Government pays $4.38. It is far more than ever happened under that Government. We have got more kids participating, more kids getting National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, which is the minimum qualification—

💬 Sue Moroney: Lower quality.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker. It defies intelligence that you can look at evidence and still argue the opposite. But it would appear that that is the problem with the Opposition. The evidence is clear. We are part of an effective 7-year-old Government, and we are here to do more. We are fresh. We are energetic. We are alive to the possibilities. This is a small, smart, sassy nation and it deserves the kind of leadership that we want to give it. So I am proud, very proud—very proud—to be a part of the John Key - led, National-led Government of New Zealand.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who just resumed her seat—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have the point of order.

—has referred to evidence that she had of good quality early childhood education. I ask that she table that evidence.

Order! I will check with the member whether she had such evidence during the general debate. I would be surprised. Did the member quote from official documents? No.

No, but I said—

Thank you, that is all I need—[Interruption] That is all I need.

The last couple of days have been a very sad time in this Parliament. Given that the last speaker, the Hon Hekia Parata, spoke about the quality of leadership provided by our Prime Minister and some of the statements that he has chosen to stand by, to not resile from, and to not apologise for, I am just going to read out a few other quotes of his that I think he may want to stand by in the future as well: “He made a very significant contribution to our caucus.”, “He’s a loss in terms of the contribution I’ve seen him make as a politician.”, “I’m very happy for him to continue in the position that he does.”, and “He is a fully functioning member of the caucus.” Those are in relation to the former member for Northland. So when we stand accused of backing rapists and murderers we take great offence.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those comments—that current issue is actually before the courts and so I would like to take a point of order about it being sub judice.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion those remarks are OK within the general debate. I will listen more carefully. If there is any reference to a matter that is before the courts, that would of course be out of order. At this stage the speech is in order and it can continue.

So when we stand accused of backing rapists and murderers and paedophiles, I say that those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. The quality of leadership—so-called—that has been provided by our—

💬 Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to draw your attention to the fact that in the member’s speech he spoke about the member for Northland and then immediately started talking about rapists and drawing the Prime Minister into the debate. I do not know whether that is appropriate. I do not think it is because he is trying to link the two together.

💬 Tracey Martin: Point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not need assistance from the member. It is a dangerous territory that we are in. At this stage I have ruled that the speech can continue. If it moves to an area that is before the courts, then I would cease the speech immediately, because I am very conscious of the responsibility—that Parliament has the responsibility that the judiciary has. In future if any members wish to get close to this line, the Standing Orders are quite clear that you need, in writing, to take this matter up with the Speaker so he can be better prepared. But I have ruled that the speech at this stage, and certainly where it has now moved to, can continue. I do not want further objections unless we go into an area of territory that is dangerous, and, frankly, I will be listening very carefully, so I will be the first on my feet, I suspect.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. Is it a fresh point of order?

💬 Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order. I will try to be very careful in doing so. It is that where members suspect that the particular Standing Orders that you are referring to—and I think we all know what they are—are being transgressed, I think we get ourselves into some difficult territory, which it may be useful for you to provide some further guidance on to the House. Members may interpret a comment a member is making as traversing that material that either was not intended or so on, but in raising a point of order they may themselves actually introduce material that links comments that either were not intended or were not intended in that way. I wonder whether you can give us some clarity on how members can raise that without themselves getting into the difficulty with the courts.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well, I do not think there is any guidance I can give on that, but I accept the point the member is making. The issue now has been highlighted by the points of order raised. That is, effectively, what the member is saying. As I said, I have not ruled anything out at this stage, but I am listening carefully. I invite Mr Shaw to continue his contribution.

When we stand accused of backing rapists and paedophiles and murderers, we take great offence—particularly those members who have been the victims of rapists and paedophiles and murderers and who have fought for years and years and years for the rights of those victims. I find it absolutely extraordinary that the Prime Minister has chosen to distract from his own troubles by choosing to go on the offensive and to say—for some inexplicable reason—that the records of members on this side of the House in fighting those fights are somehow the exact opposite. That is what he is accusing them of. That is an extraordinary thing.

I mean, the lines that he is using—I get that they have been dreamt up in the Australian offices—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Crosby/Textor.

—of political consulting firm Crosby/Textor, because they have been trotted out here and in Australia. He wants to look tough on crime, and I know it is a dog whistle to the kind of red meat brigade who consistently vote for National. But it is absolutely unacceptable in this House to accuse members of the Opposition of backing rapists and murderers. It is completely unparliamentary. It lacks leadership. It brings this House into disrepute. It is quite clear that until an apology is made for those comments and until they are withdrawn, this House will continue to see a high level of disorder.

Mr Speaker, I would like you to reflect on your own rulings. I recognise that you have made a number of rulings in relation to this matter over the last several hours and looked at the events of yesterday, but you have to accept that because of the nature of those rulings we are going to see continued disorder. Essentially, what has happened is that the members of the Opposition now have no confidence in the procedures of this House and no confidence in the Chair.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand and withdraw that comment.

I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker—unlike our Prime Minister, who does not have the grace to do so.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just carry on with the speech.

What we have seen here is that the Opposition has been attempting to hold the Government to account on its human rights record and attempting to hold our Australian friends to account for their transgressions of human rights. What has happened is that in order to distract from that issue and in order to look tough on crime and boost the poll ratings amongst the sort of “Stamp them on the neck until they stop what they’re doing” crowd, the “Lock them up and throw away the key” crowd—I think it is the Prime Minister who should be locked up.

The extraordinary thing here is that they have just gone on the offensive and decided that in order to distract from all of that, they are going to lay it on this side of the House—that for some reason members who have been abused, members who have stood up for the victims of abuse for their entire career, are somehow backing rapists and murderers and paedophiles. It is utterly absurd. It is completely offensive. It lacks leadership. It is unparliamentary, and it brings into disrepute this House and our proceedings.

This Government has a plan that is working. From 2011 and a debt of $18 billion, we now have a small surplus. In 2009 Treasury expected a net debt of 60 percent of GDP. Now it is just over 25 percent, and it will come down to 20 percent in the coming years. Also, interest rates have been low for 7 years—they are at a 50-year low. Interest rates are going to stay low for the coming years. In the past 4 years we have also created 200,000 new jobs. This is a Government that has been focusing on economic growth.

There are two key components to our plan. One is, of course, to manage our finances responsibly. Secondly, we have a growth-driven economic plan. To have growth in the economy, we need to focus on trade. Trade is particularly important for New Zealand, simply because we are a small country with just over 4 million people. That is a lifeline for our economy. Trade with China has been growing extremely fast. In 2008 our exports with China were just over $2 billion; now they are close to $10 billion.

Trade also means more investment. Trade and investment—the two often come together. For example, last Friday I attended the opening ceremony of Yashili in Pōkeno in North Waikato. This company invested over $220 million in the plant. Eventually it will employ 85 people from the local community, and also the output will be 52,000 tonnes of formula products. So this is the kind of investment that we need for our New Zealand economy. The Mayor of Waikato said: “Look, the Waikato region is growing fast.” Also, there is another company—the Yili Group. The Yili Group in Glenavy in South Canterbury has invested $236 million. The plant cost $236 million and will produce 33,000 tonnes of milk powder. In the coming 5 years the group is going to invest another $400 million. By 2019 the group is going to have expected revenue of $700 million.

These are giants—the big businesses in New Zealand—but we also support small business in New Zealand. For example, I came across a couple of young people. They are doing cross-border e-commerce. The business that they set up 2 years ago has been growing by over 1,000 percent each year. They are very, very optimistic that we are going to see more small business in New Zealand, simply because we now have more channels through the internet. That is why the Government has been trying hard to encourage more and more business people to come into e-commerce.

Overall, the Government needs to have business growth in its mind. That is why the Government has been trying to focus on business growth. Another thing is that this trade with China has been doing so well that we are having more free-trade agreements. For example, we are going to have a free-trade agreement with South Korea, and also the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If we have the Trans-Pacific Partnership and also the South Korean free-trade agreement, that means that we will have free-trade agreements with our top five trading partners, including Australia, China, the United States, Japan, and South Korea. This is a Government that has been focusing on economic growth. Trade, I emphasise again, is particularly important, and we are doing well. The country is moving in the right direction. Thank you.

We heard today that the National Party is part of a 7-year-old Government. Well, I say to Hekia Parata and to members opposite that the country is getting the 7-year itch. You know what happens when the 7-year itch comes—along with it comes divorce. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been here for some time, as you know. I know when a Government is reaching the end of its time, when the time is up, and when the public starts to say: “Time to move on.”

💬 Chris Bishop: You’ve been saying that once a year for 7 years.

And that will be particularly for you, Mr Bishop. It will be time for you to move on.

That time is when there is chaos in the House, when there are points of order after points of order, when there is anger, when there are recriminations, and when there are accusations. When the answers from Ministers are nothing more than sledging, when the Prime Minister loses the respect of the office, when the Prime Minister acts like a clown, when everything is a joke, when the most important issue of the day is what tie he is going to wear in the Parliament and what tie the Prime Minister of Australia is going to wear in this Parliament—when this House is reduced to that level, you know that it is a Government that is on the way out.

Those who say the Prime Minister’s position affords him respect, I say to them that they are wrong. You earn respect in that position. That is what happens in that position. You earn respect, and this Prime Minister has lost it. He has lost respect. He has lost dignity. He has lost decency. He has lost compassion. And he has lost interest in human rights, as we have heard here over the last 2 days—if he ever had any interest in human rights. He still is the only person I have ever met in my life who did not know what side he was on on the Springbok Tour—whether he was for apartheid South Africa or not. But I noticed he was pretty quick to get over to the funeral of Nelson Mandela.

I have a sense of déjà vu, and I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters will have it too. There was a party that took a breach of privilege against a member, Winston Peters, who should never have had a breach of privilege taken against him. It spent a year crucifying him, only to find that the public found it despicable. That is what I find despicable from the chief National Party whip, who is such a big “boo baby” that he cannot take a little bit of sledging that happens in politics. I have heard much worse things said in this House, I can tell you—much worse. In fact, I think Trevor Mallard has said worse things than that in this House and he has not appeared before a Privileges Committee hearing.

I want to start my contribution to this general debate today by saying that the National Party members hate the provinces. They hate the provinces. I remember last Wednesday’s debate. There they were, one after the other, sneering and scoffing and ridiculing because the Labour Party members were going to Palmerston North for their conference. National members thought it was a laugh. They thought it was hopeless. They did not see that we had the foresight to go to the mighty Manawatū, to the city of Palmerston North, one of the great provincial cities of New Zealand that has been wise enough to return a Labour member decade after decade.

I want you to compare our conference in Palmerston North with the National Party conference in the Skycity Casino—the Skycity Casino. There they were, holed up with dozens of security guards, scared to death because there were a few protesters outside wearing high-vis vests. They were surrounded by the usual blue-rinse and pearls brigade, and they were surrounded by a whole bunch of arrogant Cabinet Ministers who were there telling them what they ought to do. They made an awful lot of effort to keep the old unwashed out of that conference, did they not? Goodness me! They might have made a mess if they had got in and told them the truth.

Well, I think the National Party has become one big Ya Ya Club—one big Ya Ya Club. If you do not know what a Ya Ya Club is, it is one of these new, elite clubs for the super-rich, privileged kids of Auckland. I can tell you that the Ya Ya Club is now the National Party. That is what we are seeing—

I thank the member for her insight, but her time has expired.

Well, I rise to take part in this general debate. What we have seen an absence of this afternoon from the Opposition is debate on the issues that New Zealanders really care about. New Zealanders really care about their own lives and what this Government is doing to assist them.

So after a busy 7 years I am able to report, just like my colleagues have said before, that there is still so much to do. We are absolutely energetic about it, but it has been a very busy 7 years. It has been a challenging 7 years at times. But we are still completely focused on New Zealanders and how we are going to make their lives better. That will be about a well-performing economy. It will be about more jobs—not Government-created jobs but business-created jobs. It will be about lifting their incomes and providing the essential services that support them and their families.

So when a New Zealander is considering their own bank statement, what do they want to know? They want to know that the Government is responsibly managing its own bank statement. They want to be able to trust in the Government not to be profligate spenders and not to promise and deliver vast arrays of spending without any thought about whether they are getting value for money.

New Zealanders also, if they are in business, want to know that the Government is focused on making their business lives better, that they are going to be more productive, they are going to add to an economy, that the Government is focused on, for example, free-trade agreements, so that they can sell their products overseas if they wish, that the Government is always looking to a higher prize. And that certainly is what our Business Growth Agenda is all about.

New Zealanders also want to know that when they pay tax those tax dollars are being used to good effect and that we are not squandering their tax dollars, and that, certainly, is not what we are doing. However, I do have to say that we have now a record $25 billion going into our health and education expenditure. That is good news—that is all good news—and I want to move on to some more good news. In fact, this is breaking news. Members of the Parliament, this is breaking news.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Heartbreaking news.

Oh, well, I do not think you will find it so, Mr Peters. This is the Charities Aid Foundation World Giving Index for 2015. It is in its sixth year. It is a leading authority on global generosity.

I think that people who feel good about their lives often are generous as well. The index shows a picture of charitable behaviour across the world, comparing 145 countries. New Zealand is third. New Zealand is third, behind Myanmar and the US. New Zealand is in the top three. We have moved up two places. That does not sound like a country that is feeling down in the dumps to me.

We have been volunteering our time in greater numbers than ever before. So we are the fourth, with 45 percent of our 15-year-olds and over volunteering their time, and sixth when it comes to giving away money, if you are over 15 years of age. I think that is fantastic news and I just know that that is not a sentiment that would happen if this country was in the doldrums. No, this is a country that has confidence in the John Key - led Parliament.

But then there is more good news. I have more good news for the members of the House. I want to talk about the fantastic numbers of products in our supermarkets right now with front-of-pack labelling. It is not a new idea; we introduced it about 18 months ago. There are 600 products in our supermarkets that tell you at a glance, so that you can compare across products, what is the healthier product. What a radical idea that is!

This has also meant that the companies have reduced their sugar and their salt in their products in order to get more stars. So between half a star and five stars—five being the best—70 percent of New Zealand’s breakfast cereals have reformulated to be healthier. Gosh, that was easy; it was all voluntary. How did that happen? I cannot believe it, but it did happen. The bulk bins in the supermarket are going to be there. People say “Oh, you only buy on price.” but, in fact, the cheapest products—the home brand products—are right up there: 500 by the end of the year. So I can say that this is a success of this Government: healthier products for our New Zealanders.

My colleague and deputy leader, Annette King, reminded us that this National Government is 7 years old. It reminded me that it is in fact just a few months younger than my 7-year-old son. That boy, he is no angel, but I can tell you what: he has got more self-control, more maturity, and more dignity than John Key and the entire National front bench combined.

But I want to say to the House that it does not matter how deplorable the Prime Minister’s behaviour has been over the last few days, it does not matter how much he has brought this House into disrepute, I am on a bit of a high and nothing the Prime Minister can do can bring me down. It is a fantastic time to be a member of the Labour Party and it is a fantastic time to be the member of Parliament for Palmerston North.

The Labour Party has just had a tremendous annual conference in my city of Palmerston North: 530 delegates came from across the country to catch up with each other, to discuss policy, and to talk about how we are going to get our party into shape to take down this Government in 2017 and to form a Government that will put people first.

I heard last week the Government putting down my city and I was appalled. I thought that the National Party members still believed that they could actually take the Palmerston North seat. It is all I have heard for the last 8 years—how they were going to take out Palmerston North. And do you know what? They have given up because they know they cannot ever take Palmerston North off the Labour Party. The way they were talking about Palmerston North last week, putting down the regions, putting down a fantastic centre like that, which can host such a wonderful conference—I know that the National Party hates Palmerston North, and they have given up on ever taking it back.

But I want to talk about the positives. I want to talk about the wonderful conference that we had, and the wonderful discussions that we had. Delegates were walking down George Street, enjoying the sunshine. They made the most of the cafes and restaurants and bars, and we had some fantastic speeches. We had some great speeches not only from our leader, Andrew Little, but from Annette King and from Grant Robertson as well. They were laying down how Labour will approach the economy, how Labour will approach the health system, and then we ended with that amazing tub-thumping speech from Andrew Little in the magnificent Regent on Broadway, with a full theatre, standing room only in the Regent on Broadway—

💬 Hon Annette King: Over 800?

Over 800, actually, Mrs King. That theatre seats well over 800 people. It was a wonderful time, and it was a wonderful time to be in the Labour Party.

What Andrew Little said was that the Labour Party is putting a stake in the ground. We will not tolerate poverty in New Zealand in the 21st century. We will not tolerate poverty. This is not just about making sure that we get more people into jobs and that we back the regions so that the increasing unemployment rate in regional New Zealand, under this National Government, is reversed. It is also about making sure that when people get into work they are paid a decent wage and they are paid enough to be able to get ahead.

It is appalling that under this Government two out of five of the children living in poverty live in a household where there is at least one adult earning a wage. Two out of five of our children living in poverty live in households with at least one adult who is in work and earning. That is a deplorable reflection on this National Government and we simply will not stand for it on this side of the House.

We believe that the way out of poverty should be through work. That is why we have a focus on creating jobs, on creating jobs, on creating jobs—in the regions and across New Zealand; jobs that pay well. We are not satisfied when AgResearch cuts jobs in Palmerston North and in other parts of the country. We are not satisfied to see the regions on a steady decline as they have been since 2010 under this National Government. Over the weekend the Labour Party demonstrated unity and happiness and a sense of purpose, heading towards 2017. We are united in the belief that it is time for this 7-year-old childish Government to go, and we will win in 2017.

I am very pleased to hear that Mr Lees-Galloway is on a high. I am not sure what sorts of drugs he has been on, but he has been taking an overdose, because we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition, the deputy leader, and now Mr Lees-Galloway and we have not heard a single policy. I mean, what conference did they go to? There was no conference, there were no ideas, there were no fresh ideas—except that they have dropped the capital gains tax and they have gone away with this silly Marxist idea of a centralised electricity buying and selling platform. Those are the only two things that they came out with over a whole weekend of coffee drinking, bar cruising, and drug taking. I would like to suggest that the jobs that they want to be created are being created. There have been over 200,000 new jobs created under this Government in the past 4 years.

As for regional New Zealand, I can tell you that my electorate is doing very well—very, very well. Carterton is one of the fastest-growing towns in the country. Masterton has had a GDP growth of 6 percent in the past 12 months. Aucklanders are thriving. Aucklanders are coming, Aucklanders are visiting us, and they are staying in the beautiful place that is the Wairarapa. Regional New Zealand is doing well. Masterton is one of seven towns that are 100 percent rolled-out with ultra-fast broadband. This ultra-fast broadband stuff connects people with the world. Infrastructure between Wellington and Masterton allows Wellingtonians to live in the beautiful Wairarapa and work in Wellington. This is good for the regional economy of the Wairarapa.

Loan-to-value ratios are another thing that have helped regional New Zealand, encouraging people to borrow and build houses in the Wairarapa as opposed to Auckland. The signals are working. People are moving from Auckland and they are coming to the Wairarapa to live, to set up their businesses, and to raise their families. Immigration credits also favour regional New Zealand. An immigrant applying to come to New Zealand is treated more favourably if they choose to live outside Auckland. Our other towns in the Wairarapa are well on the way to pitching for the second round of ultra-fast broadband, including Martinborough, Greytown, and Carterton—Waipukurau and Dannevirke amongst them. Last summer regional Wairarapa had record numbers of tourists—record numbers.

Across the country, we have fewer people not in education, tertiary education, or employment. The lowest number ever. This effects regional New Zealand. Tonight I am going to be going to the Copthorne Hotel and Resort Solway Park Wairarapa to award people from the Wairarapa with apprenticeship and industry training awards. Those trainees and those apprentices are being supported by National Party policy supporting 20,000 new apprentices across the country. These people are the future of the Wairarapa; these people are the future of New Zealand. These will be the future leaders in our industries and our trades.

Wairarapa is an older electorate. We are overweighted in superannuitants, and, since 2008, superannuation has gone up by 31 percent—inflation, comparatively, by 15.3 percent. You heard Minister English say those numbers this afternoon. This is the policy that supports regional New Zealand. I could talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I am waiting for these guys to support it because that is the fundamental policy that will support the regions. That is the fundamental difference between this side of the House and that side; we support jobs in the regions, we support a growing economy, we support families, and we will be here for a very long time to come.

Everybody is moving to the Wairarapa, excepting Alastair Scott, the local MP. I went down the main street of Masterton and I asked 10 “Wairarapans”—I said to them: “Who’s your local MP?”. Nine could not tell me, and the tenth one was his branch chairman.

Will Rogers once said: “I don’t make jokes; I just watch the Government and I report the facts.” And the effective takeover of Silver Fern Farms proves it. We know Silver Fern Farms tried to meet the Minister of Finance months ago but he was too busy to meet with our largest meat exporter. If he will not meet them and if he will not see them, what guarantees does Fonterra have in its hour of need? What is for certain is that this supposed bent Chinese deal for Silver Fern Farms needs the sunlight of investigation.

The apologists would have us believe that Silver Fern Farms was a financial train wreck, but on Monday, only 3 weeks after its board recommended a half fire sale to the Chinese, Silver Fern Farms announced a 28 percent surge in operating profit, to $86 million. This was off the revenues for New Zealand of $2.45 billion. It slashed debt down from $288 million to $120 million, and by the end of June next year it will be down to $89 million.

The farmers were told they were going to get $261 million because they were led to believe all that by soothing words. They have been conned by a board that should have resigned and by Goldman Sachs questionable legal chicanery. Shanghai Maling, this Chinese State-owned enterprise, is getting the corporate heist of the century. It is paying only $57 million for half of Silver Fern Farms, with $40 million for the shareholders, $17 million retained by the co-op, and a very fishy $7 million earmarked for future co-op directors’ costs. This smells. There is another name for this, and it is called a golden parachute for corporate quislings.

And what do the Chinese get in return and why? They get control of everything, from Silver Fern Farms’ assets to intellectual property, including taxpayer-funded research and development. All of it gets poured into a new company called Silver Fern Farms Ltd. In this company, the co-op and Shanghai Maling may have five board seats apiece, but Shanghai Maling gets to appoint the chairman and hold the casting vote on matters that deliver complete control of the company to the Chinese Government—things like appointing the chief executive officer, setting the budget, business planning, and the timing and amounts of dividends. All those five things are in the control of the Chinese, and that also includes control over the much-touted $261 million, meaning it is, in reality, just an internal transfer of funds from one Chinese Government - controlled agency to another. And if Chinese control affects stock procurement policy, leads to plant closures, or moves value-added processing to China, there is nothing the co-op half owner can do about it.

What on earth is provincial National Party MP representation doing? Why, nothing. They do not want to know. They just do not want to know. This deal is rotten, and a lot of National Party people are saying so, and a lot of intelligent farmers are saying so as well. They say: “Oh, you’re going to go and supply the Alliance Group.” Oh, yes? If there is a price war, guess who is going to win? It will not be the Alliance Group.

There is also a certain issue about Shanghai Maling’s overseas-person status—something well outlined in the National Business Review by lawyer and Silver Fern Farms supplier David Boswell. When it comes to certain transactions, it will need Overseas Investment Office approval, telegraphing the fact that Silver Fern Farms is not 100 percent pure New Zealand. Aside from China having a back door into Mr Key’s much-vaunted Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal that US House Republicans now say will not be signed in 2016, our farmers end up exposed to whatever China does domestically and internationally. You could not see a worse deal.

We are caught now. Should the Spratly Islands, for example, or pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong explode, we would be finding ourselves in a diplomatic straitjacket, typically taken there by somebody from Merrill Lynch who knows nothing about international circumstances, or foreign policy for that matter. In any crisis, Silver Fern Farms’ profits go to a Chinese State-owned enterprise and it does not sit well with the United States, the biggest importer of our beef. But perhaps the biggest concern is the way that the Takeovers Act and the Takeovers Code are being side-stepped almost as expertly as Nehe Milner-Skudder.

It is a great privilege to be able to stand up on behalf of the Bay of Plenty region, one of the strongest-performing regions in the country. The first thing that underpins that is, of course, the recent free-trade agreement that we announced. I want to acknowledge Tim Groser in particular. He is a phenomenal advocate for New Zealand’s interests overseas—not only has it been the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and it will soon be the EU free-trade agreement but also it has been the Korean free-trade agreement. So well done to Tim Groser—an absolute leader.

But as I look across the House and I look at the Opposition—I am going to ignore New Zealand First, which is always opposed to connecting ourselves to the world—I was absolutely surprised that the Labour Party particularly, which has for the last 20 years held a view that we should be connected in the world, and that, particularly in respect of trade, we should be shoulder to shoulder, no longer does under this leadership under Andrew Little. What I find is there is a portion of the Labour Party members I would expect that from: those who are unionists, those who are academics, and those who have never put a dollar of their own capital at risk to sell anything to anybody who is overseas and actually demands value. But there are four or five in that party—and I am looking at two of them: David Parker and David Shearer, but I can add Damien O’Connor, Phil Goff, and Clayton Cosgrove—who for the last 20 years have said “Look, in respect of trade, we’re going to be bipartisan, because we understand the benefit to New Zealand when you actually drive a decent and strong deal.”, which is exactly what Tim Groser has done. Over the last 10 years and, indeed, when it was in Government, Labour was for the Chinese free-trade agreement. In fact, Labour sat here on this side, supported by Tim Groser, when there was only us as part of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement and tried to imagine how we could connect this small country at the bottom of the world, with hardly any trade leverage, into part of a large economic trading bloc. Labour was part of that thinking, and, indeed, it pursued it with vigour. We managed to get the approval, of course, of the Chinese for that Chinese free-trade agreement and that has been of significant benefit, not only to the country but, particularly, to where I have come from.

To now hear that Labour members are sitting and opposing this is absolutely disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful. They knew, and particularly the Phil Goffs and the Clayton Cosgroves knew, that from a small position we needed to negotiate hard. Yes, we have high principles but, ultimately, we are just one of many, and we had to negotiate from the position that, of course, we find ourselves in. I believe that they know, in their heart of hearts, that if they were given the same opportunity to negotiate with 12 other countries, they would have landed the same deal, and, in fact, I am sure, David Parker, that I have heard you say that. So it is absolute nonsense that they now have to swallow their history and their involvement with free trade and be part of a caucus that says: “No, we’re not part of the world. We’re not part of the largest trading bloc in the world. We’re going to oppose it.” It is absolute nonsense, and they know, in their heart of hearts, these few good men, that this actually has a whole lot of value for New Zealand. The truth of this is that this delivers—particularly the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; worth $2.7 billion, with tariff savings of $259 million, and that is all on the assumption that we do not sell any more and that the price we sell at in those markets does not improve. They know the truth of this deal. The problem with that side of the House is that they just cannot handle the truth, and they cannot take that argument and win it in their caucus, and it is a disgrace, bearing in mind their 20 years of free-trade pedigree.

In our town, in Tauranga and in the Bay of Plenty, we know the value of this deal. When we can talk to the kiwifruit industry, we are talking about $14,000 per orchardist—$14,000. Yes, New Zealand First, you can smile; it is a lot of money. And these are direct benefits to the kiwifruit industry, to New Zealand, and, particularly, to the Bay of Plenty. That continues to drive one of the most extraordinary growth stories that is occurring in this country in my area. There have been 4,700 more jobs created in the last 12 months—up 138 percent. It is the fastest-growing region in New Zealand, and I am absolutely proud to be part of a Government that puts real issues on the table, grows the economy from that base, and sends decent investment to people who need it. That is leadership, and the nonsense we have had to put up with for the last 2 hours from the Opposition members will condemn them to stay there for the next 10 years.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. “Kia whai korōria, hariruia ki a Ihoa o ngā mano tūāuriuri, whaiōiō, kī tonu te rangi me te whenua i te nui o tōna korōria.” Ka huri aku w’akaaro ki te tino kaupapa o tēnei rā w’akahirahira, te rā tohu rangimārietanga mō te ao katoa, arā, Armistice Day. E kore e warewaretia, e kore e warewaretia, nō reira, e Te Rangatira o Te Whare Pāremata, tēnā koe.

[So thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. “Glory and hallelujah to Jehovah of the innumerable thousands; heaven and earth is filled with the greatness of his glory.” My thoughts turn now to the great event of this wonderful day, this day of peace for the whole world—in other words, Armistice Day. It will never ever be forgotten, so acknowledgments to you, esteemed one of Parliament House.]

I can confirm that Palmerston North is a great Labour city. Not only does it elect a great general MP in Iain Lees-Galloway; it elects a good Māori electorate MP as well, I have to say, and together, along with the local people, we had a great conference in Palmerston North. If I was to summarise the outcome that is important to my people, it is that we will not tolerate poverty. When we are in Government we will put action on poverty at the very heart of everything we do.

I too—like Todd Muller, the speaker who has just resumed his seat—am really concerned about what has been said in this House over the last few hours and, indeed, the last 24 hours. I stand in solidarity with the members of this Parliament who have stood in this Parliament to attempt to give their testimony and to ask the Prime Minister to apologise for his statements in this House yesterday. It is a great shame that he does not have the courage or the fortitude to be able to stand up in this House and to do—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to call into question the fortitude or courage of another member, and the member should know that.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I withdraw and apologise for that—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

—because that is the courageous thing to do. That is the correct thing to do when one has made a mistake, and I will stand in this House to do that. I think it is important that all members of this Parliament do so when they have done something incorrect. Sexual violence is not a joke. It is not to be mocked.

This is an issue of justice—justice for those who are detained in a country where they have chosen to live. They are New Zealand - born Australians, and when I have heard in this House that they should go home, well, home is Australia. We should be helping those families and those men and women who are detained on Christmas Island and in other facilities. It is in their best interests that they should be able to have justice, and we stand here in support of them.

But I go back to my initial statement and say I commend those members who stood in this House to say some very personal things to this House for their courage. It should not be underestimated as to how much courage that actually took.

I can faithfully report to the House that we on this side of the House believe that Labour is on a roll. We are in our 100th year of being a party—the oldest party in this country. We are the party that will deliver on the aspirations of all New Zealanders—for example, owning a home, having security for our families, looking after the environment, and having safe and secure work. This is the Kiwi dream, and when we on this side of the House occupy the benches opposite, we will do everything we can—and New Zealanders should, rightfully, expect nothing less from their parliamentarians.

I would further say that the National Government is surely failing on these issues. Might I add that the debate yesterday on the Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill was one example of where this Government is failing.

What a depressing weekend in Palmerston North it must have been for those members opposite. We just heard from Adrian that Palmerston North is a sea of red. Well, I have to say that it might be a Labour city now, but it is a Labour city surrounded by a sea of blue. Let me just say to members opposite that Iain Lees-Galloway’s words will come back to haunt him—they will come back to haunt him. He said that the National Party will never ever win Palmerston North. Well, I have a message for Iain Lees-Galloway: Jono Naylor is coming for you. I am coming for Trevor Mallard in Hutt South—[Interruption] Nuk is coming for you in Port Hills, Ruth Dyson. We are all fighting hard for those seats, so those words are going to come back to haunt the Labour Party. Iain Lees-Galloway’s numbers are about as shonky as Grant Robertson’s. The size of the Labour conference in Palmerston North on the weekend was about the size of a National Party regional conference—and it was Labour’s national conference.

No more talk about members who are irrelevant. I want to talk, in my brief contribution, about the big divide in New Zealand politics. Actually, the big divide in New Zealand politics these days is not between conservatism or liberalism. It is not about the rural and urban divide. It is not even about left or right these days. The real divide in this Parliament is between what New Zealand’s attitude should be to the outside world. The question is this: does New Zealand’s future lie as an open, confident trading nation connected to the global economy, knowing that welcoming foreign capital and labour drives increased prosperity and lifts our living standards, or does New Zealand’s future lie instead in lifting our shutters to the outside world, denying even the reality or the benefits of globalisation, and practising a form of protectionism that manifests itself at best as economic vandalism and at worst as a form of bigotry and even racism?

As my colleague Todd Muller pointed out, for 30 years there has been a bipartisan consensus in this House about the reality of the outside world and about the dismantling of Fortress New Zealand, and it is one of the Labour Party’s greatest legacies to New Zealand that it started that process from 1984 onwards. Labour dismantled protectionism. It got rid of tariffs. It got rid of subsidies on agricultural products. It opened New Zealand to the outside world. Well, how times have changed. It started back in 2008 with the outrageous decision by Labour to change the investment rules on a whim to stop the Canadian pension plan from investing in Auckland Airport. It continued when Labour was in Opposition and turned its sights on foreign investment and farmland under Phil Goff’s leadership, forgetting that foreign farm sales under Labour were four times what they were under National and forgetting the enormous benefits that foreign investment brings to New Zealand.

The nadir of this attack on foreign investment and on foreign migrants was Phil Twyford’s utterly disgraceful and disreputable attack a few months ago on people of Chinese ethnicity. It was the absolute nadir. This was from the party that in 2002 apologised to Chinese New Zealanders for the poll tax back in the 1860s. Well, what a disgrace. It is no surprise that the Labour Party has stopped talking about this recently. In some ways it is inevitable that the Labour Party would do this—that it would capitulate to its own worst instincts. It is under attack from the Green Party, which has never supported free trade and has never supported an open New Zealand, despite the fact that it likes to come down here and preach about internationalism and those sorts of things. It has never supported actual openness with the outside world. The Labour Party has been under attack on its left flank, so it is no surprise that it would capitulate, but it is very disgraceful.

The modern-day Labour Party is, I believe, no more than the political wing of the organised protest movement—the type of people who think an argument is just saying “Neo-liberalism, neo-liberalism” over again; the type of people who think that you start an argument by talking about Crosby/Textor; the type of people who opposed the Chinese free-trade deal and who opposed the agricultural subsidies and tariff removal of the 1980s; the type of people who no doubt opposed Closer Economic Relations in 1983; and the type of people who do not want us to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, which is the apex of trade and diplomacy in New Zealand foreign policy for 30 years.

This is the important point, and this is the critical question that confronts the Labour Party in this Parliament today: which way is the Labour Party going to go on the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Is it going to back openness; is it going to back globalisation; is going to back connecting New Zealand into the global economy; or is it going to give in to its worst instincts, continue to be a non-responsible party of Government, and back the protest movement and people who have never had New Zealand’s best interests? It is absolutely, fundamentally, in our best interests that the Labour Party signs the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is a critical question for this Parliament and for this country as to whether or not the Labour Party goes for New Zealand or it goes for protest.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.