Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Here we are at the end of another frightening question time from the Opposition members, who, quite frankly, tried their scattergun approach again and got absolutely nowhere. I am going to take some of my time today doing something that I think is rather controversial. I am going to disagree with the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Oh!

I am going to disagree with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says that Labour is the “TPP Party” or the “Two-position Party”. I think he is wrong. I think it is the “Multi-position Party”. I think we could take it well and truly a few steps further and say that Labour really is the “Multi-position Party.” In fact it has got more positions than a yoga master. It may interest members of the House to know—and those who might be unfortunate enough to be listening—that we all know how disunited those members are. There is no real unity, and Andrew Little’s stance last year was to try to get them all to be team players and work together. So what they decided they would do—and, of course, this is all the talk around the Beehive and all the talk around Parliament—is to have team-building exercises. They have been having team-building exercises with yoga classes.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Really?

They have—they really, really have. They all get together and they do team building. Everyone is involved. There is a smorgasbord of arms and legs flying around, and I do not just mean because they are ripping each other apart. It is a bit weird but it is true. So let us go through some of the positions they have been doing in their yoga classes.

First of all, team, there is the triangle pose—I am not going to do any of these, you will be pleased to know—and that is arms pointed above your head, except that you do it Labour style. So the way you do the triangle pose Labour style is, of course, you have at least three positions. So those three positions, for example, might be the flag. Labour’s website says that Labour is for a change of flag. But, publicly, it is against the flag. But, then, privately, it is for the flag. So that is the triangle pose when you are actually trying it Labour style.

Then Andrew Little is leading the—and these are all actually true yoga poses, I am quite proud to say—eight-angle pose.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Eight angle?

The eight-angle pose. I am not going to go into how you angle your arms or legs to get yourself into an eight-angle pose—except on how you do it Labour style. Labour style is, of course, the eight positions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It has at least eight positions on the TPP. So it is for trade but against the TPP. But it might vote for some of the legislation but not for other parts. Labour has got different members with different stances. Some are allowed to say they have got that stance, and some are not allowed to publicly say they do, and, if they do, then they are bullied and told that they have to apologise. So then those members are not united. They do not think they would repeal the legislation if it does get voted through, and if you are confused—and so are they—that is up to eight positions.

Actually, the party is very good at the yoga pose of the standing split.

💬 Hon Members: What?

The standing split. I am just going to leave that one to your own imaginations. It is painful, particularly if you are David Shearer. It is really painful, because you have got the stance—this thing you actually believe in. You have put it forward, you go out there and say what your stance is, and then, of course, you are a standing split, so you then have got to apologise for it. Let us be fair, David Shearer is spending a lot of time doing the downward-facing dog, which is a popular yoga pose. He is definitely doing the yoga.

Then we have Phil Goff, and this is the shoulder-pressing pose, which is a bit nicer to describe than some of the others I have been trying to describe. That is when you do not have to be united with your team, so you can actually be on the side of the public because you know that is more popular, because you desperately want to be voted in as mayor. So instead of actually taking the stance of your party, you are going to take the stance of the overwhelming view of the public, who are in support of the TPP, and you are allowed to say so because your team is so bloody happy to get rid of you if you get voted in. So you are then allowed to go out and do the shoulder-pressing pose and stand for mayor.

Then, of course, there is a favourite, which is the peacock pose—the peacock pose, of course, being often led in the caucus by Phil Twyford. Phil Twyford leads the peacock pose, which is where, of course, it is all feathers and bluster. You go out there and say you are against community housing providers getting money from the Government to support social housing, but then you say you are for it in a speech. Then you stand up in the House and bluster, and then go out—really, it is all over the place. I see Jacinda Ardern is not happy with my speech, but then that is because she would rather do bikram yoga, because she thinks she is hot, you know. You have got to have that kind of hot, and then the heat comes in, and that kind of helps, as well.

We have got changing positions. That is something that Labour is very good at because when you are in your yoga class you have got to go for your changing positions all the time. It is stop, take hold, and change positions. There are good examples of that. Remember when we had the plan to dock beneficiaries’ payments unless they voted?

💬 Hon Members: Oh, yeah.

Yes, you might have forgotten that one. This is now called the “high lunge, fire your party secretary if you open your mouth” pose. We have got David Cunliffe—a couple of quick ones. He is the corpse pose, so it is kind of unfortunate there. Kelvin Davis is doing the lotus pose, which is pretty much sort of scatter and spread lots around, and hope that something sticks even though you have not got your facts right and you are actually not getting there.

I am going to end here with a new pose that those members have invented, which is the Chicken Little pose. Grant Robertson is good at this one. Grant Robertson likes the Chicken Little pose. It is the doom and gloom—you actually sit there and do nothing, to be fair. You just sort of sit there with your grumpy look on your face, and just say “Actually, New Zealand’s rubbish. Nothing’s going well. Everything’s going really badly. Everything’s really, really, really bad.”, and hope that someone believes you, because then that will mean they will want a change of Government and you do not actually have to stand for anything yourself. That is the “talk everything down, going nowhere, the sky is falling” pose that we see from the Labour Party.

Let us contrast that with the actual balanced poses of this Government. Yes? Let us challenge that with where we are at at the moment on the ideas of—I do not know—a 5.3 percent unemployment rate. There are more New Zealanders working. The average wage has gone up by $10,000 under this Government. There are 175,000 jobs that have been introduced, and we are on track for another over 170,000 jobs in 2020, with the way that it is going. Let us actually look at—and let us be clear on what we stand for.

We stand for free trade. We stand for New Zealanders getting more money in their businesses so that they can employ more people and so that they can actually pay them more. We can see that happening. The Prime Minister says it often, and it is true: we will not get rich by selling to ourselves. We will become rich by providing smart services and products that the rest of the world needs, which we can then take the tariffs off, which means more money in the pockets of businesses. That means that businesses will develop more technology and research, which means more jobs, which means higher-paid wages. That means a progressive New Zealand, and that is really where we stand, as far as New Zealand standing for what it means.

Let us think about some of the things that we are going to see introduced in this year alone. Increasing paid parental leave—that increase is going to 18 weeks on 1 April. We have already extended those free GP visits. Talking about the welfare changes that are going through this year—the difference that will make in people’s actual pockets when they look at it. Some of the big things that we are seeing tackled by this Government are more targeted services. You are seeing that across welfare, health, education, and across the justice services.

Economic growth—I want to really commend the regional economic growth products that we are seeing. The difference that that is going to make in Northland—it is not just talk. It is actually real actions and real money, which leads to real jobs and makes that big, major difference. Areas throughout New Zealand that have so much potential are tapping into that tourism dollar—which, quite frankly, is reaching well up past 6 percent of GDP and making a real difference. The backing up of those policies that are going through, led by Steven Joyce and his team—that economic development is the stuff that will most certainly make the difference.

Let us just compare the two parties in 2 seconds flat. One is aspirational, believes in this country, is getting out there, and is doing the hard work. The other does not know where it stands, what it stands for, and, quite frankly, cannot even stand united on a position. It is a pleasure to support the Prime Minister in his statement to the House.

This Government has got a lot to answer for, with backward policies and investment decisions on transport issues. Anyone who read the Waikato Times today will have seen quite an interesting article in it. It refers to “disturbing lack of an overall transport strategy” instead of “pulling together road, rail, and maritime services into a coordinated effort”. It also refers to roads: “jammed with the national fleet of giant trucks, … up to 50 tons, wearing out the expensive seal and choking main [roads] while the adjacent rail system seems to be in a potentially fatal decline.” Finally, it points out “main roads and the rail lines run side by side for hundreds of kilometres”. The Waikato Times is absolutely correct—none of that makes any sense at all.

The Government has no transport strategy, it has no sensible transport plans, and it has no coordinated transport policies. In the regions, huge trucks inflict massive damage on regional roads, with the costs falling on regional ratepayers to maintain them. Regional roads are, of course, subsidised by central government, but there is a sinking cap on the available finances. That puts intolerable stress not just on the roading systems but on councils in the regions to maintain those roads. Again, the National Government has no strategy to deal with those issues.

Rail itself needs much more investment in New Zealand, and New Zealand First is the party for the regions. It is the party for the regions because it would put that right. There is only $97 million in this year’s Budget for regional roads, and there is only $210 million set aside for improvement in rail. These are drops in the transport bucket, and will make no difference to anything. What it shows is an absolute lack of commitment by this Government to both rail and to regional transport generally.

You can see some of the dumb decisions this Government has made, such as the failure to reopen the Napier to Gisborne rail link at a cost of only $4 million. Now that we have the probable, or at least possible, phasing out of log shipments from the Gisborne port itself, that rail link will become even more important.

KiwiRail and management, with Government compliance, wants to phase out, or de-electrify, rail on the main trunk line from Hamilton to Palmerston North. New Zealand First, on the other hand, would electrify the entire Auckland to Wellington route because that is what needs to be done for a sustainable transport system in this country—

💬 Hon Jo Goodhew: At what cost?

The Minister over there says: “At what cost?”. What about the $12 billion that Government is spending on motorways—what about that? What about the cost of that—let us hear an answer to that. There is also a need for a passenger link from Auckland City to the airport in that city. We are not hearing anything about that sort of urban passenger rail development from this Government. The Cook Strait ferries are another disaster area. We soon will not have a rail ferry at all, and what that means is that wagons and locomotives will have to be double handled on to and off the Cook Strait ferries—freight double-handled on to and off the rubber-tyred trailers, on and off those ferries. The South Island wagons and locomotives will be stranded in the South Island, even though the only heavy transport facility is actually in the North Island. How will that work? We have not heard any solutions from this half-witted Government on that.

New Zealand First has a policy called “RONI”, railways of national importance, instead of National’s “RONS”, roads of national significance. We would ensure much better use of the railway network and services in New Zealand, with improvements and extensions where there is an opportunity to significantly reduce dependence on the road network. That is what people want, especially for heavy freight and for bulk freight services, and also where there is a passenger service demand that would lead to a redevelopment of high-quality passenger rail services in the main centres. That can be achieved in the short term, as I just said, by reallocating some of the roads of national significance’s $12 billion being squandered by this Government at the present time. New Zealand First wants a New Zealand transport system to begin a new phase that is strategic rather than reactionary, that is sustainable, that meets the needs of our people and our communities, and that is affordable and enhances and does not degrade our economy and our environment.

National cannot even do anything sensible in the transport area about tourist drivers. As you may be aware, I have a member’s bill that would require cars that are hired to overseas licence holders to comply with the Australasian five-star safety rating. Last week the Associate Minister of Transport said in answer to one of my questions “… what the member’s bill proposes would result in, actually, only the latest-model BMWs and European cars over $100,000 …”. In fact, you can buy 10 European Australian New Car Assessment Programme, five star - rated Skoda Fabias for the price of one—for the price of Mr Foss’ own BMW ministerial limousine. The Skoda car is a $19,900 car, but has autonomous emergency braking that senses an impending collision so that the brakes are applied automatically. The humble Ford Mondeo is another good example.

In fact, it is a virtual cornucopia of traffic safety devices that include a lane-keeping aid, which vibrates the steering wheel when a driver drifts out of a lane, and that is what is happening too often with tourist drivers in this country. Imagine what that would mean for reducing the risk of head-on collisions, which we are seeing far too many of in this country at the present time. The problem is an absence of leadership by the National Government and by an Associate Minister of Transport who is hopelessly out of his depth.

The bill would also place a duty of care on rental car operators to make them vicariously liable for accidents caused by drivers only if it can be proven that they did not take reasonable and practical steps to ensure driver competence and their familiarity with New Zealand traffic laws and roads. Mr Foss’ response to that situation was: “I am not transferring that liability to some other organisation.”, but the bill does not transfer responsibility away from the driver. It simply makes rental car operators additionally liable, unless they have taken the steps I mentioned.

I want to finish with this. There is currently a review of vehicle dimensions and mass going on—in fact, the submissions close tomorrow—to allow huge, wider, longer, higher, and heavier trucks on New Zealand’s roads. That is a disgrace. The economic case for that has not been made. Safety will be a huge problem as a result. And that, finally, is just another example of how this Government has not got a sensible, practical, forward-looking, and sustainable transport strategy, which this country so dearly needs.

It is indeed a pleasure to be here this afternoon and to rise in support of the Prime Minister’s statement and to rise in the knowledge that New Zealanders are looking for steadiness in a Government, a Government that will look after the things that they hold dearest to their hearts. So what are they? What are the things that New Zealanders care about? Well, they care about their health, and they care about law and order. They care about having jobs. In fact, they care about education because they know that is the way to the future for their children, and they care about the fact that New Zealand looks after those who are in need.

So New Zealanders want a Government that actually can deliver on those things and that has a big-picture view on how it will deliver on those things. And I have got to say that it comes back to the economy, because if the economy is in good shape and growing, as ours currently is—to September last year growth was at 2.3 percent, with a predicted 2.7 percent ahead—and is the envy of many other nations, with the lowest unemployment rate at 5.3 percent since 2009, well, people know that the ship is steady and that the Government is delivering on the things that they care about.

So they are a little puzzled to see—as Minister Paula Bennett has stood on her feet and described—the many positions of the Opposition. That, in fact, tells us why we have a very popular Prime Minister who is delivering on what he said he would do: a brighter future for New Zealand. It does not come by accident and it does not come easily, and that is one of the reasons why our Government has set ourselves stretch targets for so many ways we can improve the lives across New Zealand.

So let me talk a wee bit about what is going on at the moment. We know that the stability, the cohesion that is seen on this side of the House is just what the people of New Zealand have been looking for, and it is an absolute privilege to serve in a Government that is working in this way. We have got a good track record and we are busy at the moment delivering on the things that the Prime Minister’s statement outlined to New Zealanders. There was an enormous list of those, and I am going to cover off on some of them. In that agenda are a number of examples that I am going to give to the House this afternoon that are related to my portfolios. In that respect, I want to talk a little bit about forestry, about primary industries, about social development, and also about the community and voluntary sector.

As I said, we are a busy Government, and this year within the social development portfolio the Government will respond to a review of Child, Youth and Family to ensure our most vulnerable children get the care and the protection they deserve. There have been many reports and reviews. It is time to have action that gets things right and that puts children—those very vulnerable children—in the centre of being protected. On that note, I also want to allude to an announcement from Minister Anne Tolley today on the 10,680 children whose caregivers have received what amounts to $5.18 million of benefit—that is, the school and year start-up payments. So that is for caregivers who are receiving either the unsupported child’s benefit or the orphans benefit, and it amounts to a really good hand up at the beginning of the year. It is $400 to $550 for each child. There are 13,5000 eligible for it, and thus far 10,680 have collected that really helpful start to the year for the most vulnerable children.

We are going to be pressing on with our social housing reforms in order to do a better job for tenants as well. What I know is that this is really tough stuff. It is stuff that has not been able to be achieved in the past, but we are tackling it as a Government. We are going to be completing the assessment of the emissions trading scheme, and I know that many people in the forestry sector are well engaged and submitting on that.

In building a stronger economy—and that 2.7 percent predicted growth does not come by accident—that strong economy needs to attract investment. The jobs that will be created out of the economy—not by the Government, because that is not sustainable; out of the economy—will be filled by skilled New Zealanders because of our emphasis on upskilling right the way through the education system, right from early childhood education, where we have record numbers engaged, and right through the primary school system, where we are actually measuring how young people are getting on and making sure that their families understand how they are getting on. That is a really important part of the triangle: the family, the child, and the education system and the teachers within it. So that is a really important thing that we are dedicated to, and we are seeing great strides in there. We are seeing many more young people getting National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. It is tough, but it is worth putting our effort, our shoulder, into that.

I want to move on a little bit to talk about primary industries. As we know, primary industries have been very much at the centre of the debate at the moment around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). I thought I would deal with not the conjecture, not the misinformation, not the “it might happen”, and not the scaremongering—I would stick to the facts. When I have been addressing public audiences in the Rangitata electorate, they have been really interested in the facts and they have said: “Oh, really? Gosh, I wish we knew that when we were watching all the protesters.” So, fact No. 1, it was 2 weeks ago when we hosted the signing of the TPP agreement. Fact No. 2, there are 12 Asia-Pacific countries in it. Fact No. 3, it is our biggest free-trade deal. And fact No. 4 is something that is often forgotten in the rhetoric of the Opposition—successive Governments have worked to get free-trade agreements with countries like the United States and like Japan and Canada for about 25 years. Good Lord! This should be something to celebrate then, should it not? It will create significant new trade and investment opportunities, and it will make it easier because it will reduce barriers for Kiwi companies to work with their overseas business partners. That means more jobs, more income for New Zealanders, and also more flow-through into the social sector spending.

Another fact that seems to have fallen shy of the memories of the Opposition members is that in fact the groundwork was laid by one former Prime Minister, Helen Clark, alongside Phil Goff. So that is a hard one for them to swallow. As the Prime Minister often says—and he is right—we will never get wealthy just selling to ourselves. We are a country of trade. So if we did not trade in fish, what would that mean for Nelson? If we did not trade in kiwifruit, where would the Bay of Plenty be? If we did not trade in wine at record levels, where would Marlborough and the Wairarapa be?

Another fact: there are 800 million customers across Asia and the Pacific. So I just want to briefly touch on a couple of specific examples so that the members can have in their minds a dollar figure. New Zealand exports $839 million in wine into the TPP countries—those 12 nations.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: What—already?

Yes, already and with an estimated tariff saving of $10 million per year when the TPP is fully implemented. They are rubbing their hands together because this represents an opportunity for the wine sector.

💬 Grant Robertson: What year?

Actually, I do not have the year in front of me, but I absolutely know, given that the wine industry put out a press release immediately, that it represents a real gain for those people and they are very supportive of it. Why do you not check it out tonight and ask them exactly that?

Forestry—$1.5 billion worth of forestry products in the 2014 year into that TPP region. There are estimated savings of $9 million again when it is fully implemented.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: When is that? Do you have that year in front of you, Jo?

Most of those gains for forestry are immediate, Mr Lees-Galloway—immediate for most of those people, as it happens.

I am actually going to carry on, because I have got more good news stories. In this House we have been united on free trade in years gone past. But it would seem that it is falling off the radar of the Opposition, which simply means to me—and it is coming time for me to close my comments today—that, sadly, the Opposition members no longer care about creating jobs for New Zealanders or making incomes for New Zealanders what they could be rather than what they wish they were in the past, so it is a disappointing way forward. As Minister Bennett has already said, they are not united on that particular plank either, but, as I conclude my comments in support of the Prime Minister, I say that those New Zealanders with whom I have shared the facts say: “What’s all the fuss about? Let’s get on with it.” Thank you.

When the Prime Minister delivered his opening statement to Parliament this year, two things struck me. The first was the difference between the speech he delivered in the House and the speech that was published on the Beehive website. The speech he delivered in the House began with him taking credit for New Zealand’s recent sporting triumphs—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Including the test match?

—he had not taken credit for that; it had not happened—and then following that up with declaring success for the economy. This will come as a surprise for a lot of people because just a paragraph later in the written speech we learn that the Government is now $17 billion short in terms of what it thought it would get in revenue from the Budget in 2015—$17 billion short.

This goes along with a record for the National Government of great success: tens of thousands more people unemployed than when it got into office; wage rates rising slower than inflation over the next 2 to 3 years; $60 billion more debt than when it got into office; plummeting commodity prices, which it has failed to react to; and, we learnt today, a likely 3 years of below break-even for farmers around New Zealand. But it is all success, apparently. We can debate the numbers, we can argue whether or not the numbers of growth rates are zero in terms of per capita—which they are—or whether or not we can claim credit for things that we have had nothing to do with, if we are the Government, but what is success in our economy? Is success in our economy the chance for every New Zealander to achieve their dreams—to achieve the Kiwi Dream of a decent job, a warm, dry, safe home to live in, time with your family, and a safe community? Has every New Zealander got the right to that Kiwi Dream? Is that what the economy is for, or is the economy just a set of numbers that the Prime Minister can get up and crow about?

Is it success in New Zealand when we learn the fate of Anna from a recent Radio New Zealand Insight documentary? I am going to quote at some length from this. This is what the item said: “Anna is re-packing her car. Between the children’s car seats are small piles of clothes and a few carefully selected toys. She pulls a white rabbit onesie from under a small foam mattress and refolds it before opening a compartment, and explaining how she stores food. ‘I can keep in there things that will keep cool. I’ve got little chilly bags. We try not to have too much fresh food on us, we just buy fresh fruit.’ A few weeks ago, Anna and her three children, aged between six and 13, were evicted from their North Shore home. They now switch between couch surfing at friends’ houses and sleeping in the car. ‘Usually in a public area that’s got a little bit of privacy but also lighting, so the other day, we parked up in the next carpark to McDonalds, so that there was 24-hours toilet, as well as … we were parked under the trees so it had a bit of darkness. [There’s] a lot of light there, so it enables sleep and security.’ She says rents are now phenomenally high, she can’t afford a bond, and has bad credit. The money she makes from owning and running her own business just isn’t enough to cover it. She says she phoned around emergency housing providers, but they were all full.”

And this is what Anna said: “You end up being on the lower end of the scale as far as trying to improve your situation. Yeah, I didn’t realise how bad it was actually in New Zealand until I ended up in the situation myself.” That is happening in New Zealand today. Thousands of people are homeless. There are children sleeping in cars. Is that a successful economy? Is that what National thinks marks us out as a success—that the Prime Minister can stand up in this House and crow about the success of the New Zealand cricket team? There are people living in cars.

The economy is not the end in itself, Ms Goodhew. Standing up here and saying we have got a growth rate of 2 percent, 2.2 percent, 2.4 percent—does that matter if a family is living in a car, and the best we can hope for those children is that there is a 24-hour McDonald’s that they can go to the toilet in? It is a disgrace, and it is time that the National Government got up and started explaining to New Zealanders why it is that success is possible in New Zealand only for some people. It is possible for only the 1 percent under National’s vision for the future. Every New Zealander deserves the right to dream of a better tomorrow. They deserve the right to be able to fulfil their version of the Kiwi Dream. Anna deserves to be able to live in a warm, dry, safe home. Her children deserve to grow up knowing that they have the same opportunities as every other New Zealander, and right now, today, in this country, they do not.

There are 305,000 children in New Zealand growing up in poverty—that is not a successful economy. We have the lowest homeownership rate in New Zealand in 60 years—that is not a successful economy. If the end of the road for the National Government is some figures on a sheet or some numbers that it can manipulate to make itself feel better, then that is not good enough for New Zealanders. The Government says: “We’ve got billions of dollars squirrelled away so that we can offer tax cuts in the 2017 election.” That is not good enough. What we have got to do from today is invest in the future for New Zealanders, and that is why I am quite pleased and very happy to make the debate that we have about the future of this economy, the future of this country, be about what it delivers for all New Zealanders.

We are a prosperous nation; there is no doubt about that. What we need to do is ensure that there is shared prosperity so that everybody gets the chance to live their Kiwi Dream, and right now, under this Government, that is being denied. The economy is not a person—we are not going to hurt its feelings if we do things that the National Government does not like. The point of the economy is to deliver the society that New Zealanders want and to deliver the opportunities to every single New Zealander.

The National Government wants tax cuts. It wants tax cuts, which, on its record, will end up favouring the most wealthy in New Zealand, because that is what happened in 2010. Well, on this side of the House we say, by all means, you go ahead and offer those tax cuts, National. What we are going to offer is a programme about investing in our future, and the first element of that programme that the Labour Party has announced this year is to offer 3 years’ free post - high school training and education.

The world is changing. In the first Labour Government, Peter Fraser and Clarence Beeby came to New Zealanders with the idea that secondary school education should be universal. They said that in order for people to be able to achieve their potential, they needed the right to a free education to the extent of their abilities. It was about saying that everybody needed that, because that would be the route to being a productive member of society, to contributing to the growth of New Zealand. Well, in the 21st century, that now extends beyond high school. We need every New Zealander having a plan at the end of high school to go on and learn and study and train. That is how we will get the economy growing, by recognising that the future of work has changed—and on this side of the House, we get that.

The Prime Minister stood up in his speech and decided to laugh about the fact that I went to a conference in Paris about the future of work. Well, I wonder whether he is laughing at the 30 or 40 Ministers from around the world who were at the same conference. Or is he laughing at his friends in the World Economic Forum, who devoted their whole forum in Davos to how we manage this change in the future of work?

Work matters to New Zealanders. It gives them income but, more than that, it gives dignity. It provides coherence in our communities. We want every New Zealander in the future to have decent work and decent pay and to be able to contribute to New Zealand society. Our vision on this side of the House is for an economy where we build wealth from the ground up—where we offer those opportunities for everybody to get education and training, not just the privileged few that National would have you believe this economy is about. We will be debating over the next 2 years what makes a successful economy. For me, a successful economy is one where everybody gets to share in the benefits and where everyone has the opportunity to achieve their potential. We will do that only if we invest in people and the economy works for people, not the other way round.

This party on this side of the House has a vision for the future of New Zealand that includes everybody and that grows a prosperous economy from which we all benefit. That side of the House wants to take credit for other things and stick its head in the sand. We will see by the 2017 election that those members have no vision. This side of the House has a vision for an inclusive, prosperous New Zealand.

This is a split call on behalf of the National Party. The first 5 minutes is Matt Doocey.

Can I say I am very proud to be part of a unified caucus of 59 National MPs who are committed to working hard in 2016 for all New Zealanders. What I will not do is sit here and take a lecture from that party, which has got a litany of failed social policies.

The 2008 state of the nation report reported back that the last time those members were in Government, with all their increased expenditure, they made no social progress—all their increased expenditure, and not one bit of social progress. The way you improve the well-being of the people in your country is that your country becomes competitive. By increasing competitivity, you increase the well-being of your people, so get off the fence and support the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. We know that will give us trade in 11 other countries and an increase of 800 million potential customers—40 percent of the world’s trade.

It has been a great start to 2016. We have got GDP growth that is the envy of other OECD countries. We know that unemployment is tracking down—one of the best figures in a long time—the workforce participation rate is increasing, wages are rising faster than inflation, and the country has returned to surplus. What a great start to the year—what a great start to 2016. But we in this National Government know that we can do better, and we are committed to doing better and working harder for all New Zealanders.

Can I take this opportunity to also welcome our new MP, Maureen Pugh. She is a list MP and a very hard-working local MP, who is going to give the region of West Coast - Tasman great representation. Maureen and I are part of the 15 new National MPs from the intake of 2014. We are new and we are fresh, energetic, and committed to working hard for all New Zealanders in 2016. We are looking forward to a great year coming ahead.

Can I just pause for a moment and reflect on a meeting I had yesterday in my electorate of Waimakariri. I had organised a senior citizens meeting. I turned up there and we had some great discussions, and it is great to hear feedback from people on the ground and hear their concerns and about what we are doing well and what we need to improve on. It was great for them to see and recognise that we are a small cog in a global system and we need to get out there and engage in international markets. They, like me and like this Government, know that there is a lot of instability out there—a lot of economic instability, political instability, and security concerns—and we know that by having strong leadership and strong economic management, as outlined in the Prime Minister’s speech, we will engage those markets and we will have a strong, energetic, viable economy.

You see, we on this side of the House know that New Zealand will not get rich by selling to itself. We need to get out there with free-trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership: 11 other countries, 800 million potential customers, and 40 percent of the world’s trade. We need to get out there and be competitive. Being competitive in a globalised world is a choice. Some countries choose to be competitive, and they improve the well-being of their people. Some countries are not competitive. It is a choice, and it is as stark as that. On this side of the House we back New Zealand being competitive and we back hard-working New Zealanders to do better, and we want to support them doing better in 2016.

The Prime Minister also spoke about this Government’s unwavering commitment to the Christchurch rebuild, one of our top four priorities. Like many, I experienced the earthquake on Sunday—quite a big shake; I was at my house in Rangiora—and it is at the forefront of Cantabrians’ minds as we commemorate the fifth anniversary this Monday of the fatal February 2011 earthquakes. This Government is committed to rebuilding Christchurch—committed to rebuilding the best new small city in the world. We have had some great openings over the Christmas break. We opened the Margaret Mahy Family Playground. I know my daughter loved being there. There were over 100,000 visitors to that anchor project in the first few weeks of its opening. This Government is committed to a competitive economy and committed to supporting Cantabrians rebuild. Thank you.

A 5-minute call—Stuart Smith.

I want to carry on with the same theme of trade, which has been covered in the last few speeches, and I want to do it with an example of free trade. Back in 1983 the Closer Economic Relations, or CER, agreement with Australia and New Zealand came into force, but prior to 1983 the wine industry was a totally domestic market - focused industry, protected in just about every way. New Zealanders had no choice but to buy the wine that was produced in New Zealand. It was of quite inferior quality, but, actually, because it was protected, it really did not matter that much—they could sell it anyway.

So after 1983 the market was opened up. Australian wine was able to be purchased in New Zealand without the tariffs, at a similar or even a cheaper price than New Zealand wine, and, lo and behold, it actually tasted better. It was what consumers wanted. That left the wine industry high and dry. It led to a scheme—a vine-pull scheme—in which the Government paid industry to remove grapevines because it was simply economically unviable. But that opportunity led to the wine industry becoming very customer-focused and what is now a $1.5 billion export industry—from nothing to $1.5 billion. That is a significant shift in an industry’s focus, and that is because the industry was opened up to competition and it embraced innovation. It planted grapevines that consumers wanted to buy. That has enhanced our other trade opportunities around the world because people in the world now recognise that New Zealand can make high-quality consumer goods that are grown in New Zealand and branded to the very highest of levels.

So I put it to the people who oppose free-trade agreements to have a good look at CER and at the difference that it made to the wine industry and to other industries, but I know the wine industry quite well. It did make a significant difference, and we have to embrace change. If we rail against it, it is natural for people to fear change. But change offers opportunity, and the opportunity for the wine industry is that it is now going forward towards $2 billion in exports by 2020. I think that even Frank Yukich, who planted the first commercial vineyard in Marlborough, could not have imagined how it transformed the regions around New Zealand, like Central Otago with its Pinot noir and Marlborough with its sauvignon blanc.

I want to move on now to the flag. I have been in favour of the flag change right from the beginning. In fact, I have been wearing this badge since before the votes were counted. It has been quite interesting to note that in the time up to Christmas, people did talk about it a bit, but after Christmas it has been phenomenal—the change in people’s attitude—and you can see that they have come along and they are actually embracing it. I want to go back to the trade thing and draw a parallel with that, because in 1973, 10 years before Frank Yukich planted his grapevines in Marlborough, New Zealand’s trade with the UK was 26 percent of our exported goods. Today it is 3 percent. The UK, as we know, entered the EU and it was very difficult for us to trade with it, or it was much less easy than it was before. Like many New Zealanders, I have enjoyed my OE in the UK, as many of our colleagues across all sides of the House have done, but it is getting much harder for other Kiwis to do that now. The UK is doing what it needs to do, but it is also charging fees.

We as New Zealanders have a multicultural society now. I think we want a symbol that represents us and where we are today, and I believe that the current flag does not do that. The Union Jack does not really represent where we are. People fought and died for a choice, and I am going to be putting my choice forward. It is quite interesting to note, in my view, that when people see the flag flying, they realise it is actually quite a stunning flag and it represents us.

It is a great pleasure to have been able to speak in favour of the Prime Minister’s statement. I really look forward to hearing other contributions, and let us hope they are thoughtful. Thank you.

A split call on behalf of the Green Party. The first 5 minutes is Eugenie Sage.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. In the Green Party we would rather the $26 million that is being spent on this flag referendum was spent on doing something about protecting our climate. I had the privilege yesterday of listening to a world leader, the President of Kiribati, Anote Tong, talking about climate change. He called it the greatest moral challenge facing humanity. He said: “We simply want the ability to live on our island.” That is a basic human right, to have a home and to be able to live in your homeland. Yet, from the Prime Minister’s statement, National seems totally intent on ignoring what is happening with our oceans, the impacts of rising sea levels on our Pacific neighbours, and the urgent need to tackle climate change. Instead, it is distracted with the flag referendum, as we heard from the previous speaker.

Our oceans, as well as producing half the oxygen we breathe and absorbing around 30 percent of the carbon dioxide we produce, also absorb 93 percent of the heat we are producing from global warming. With these warming oceans we get sea level rise, up to a metre or more by 2100. Warming oceans, of course, contribute to more intense weather events—cyclones where they did not occur previously, more extensive and severe droughts—and in the Pacific we are seeing that combination of sea level rise and more extreme weather events costing those islands the ability to have a homeland.

Rising sea levels will inundate some of our Pacific neighbours. Here in New Zealand we can move uphill and we can move inland. On coral atolls like Kiribati there is no uphill or inland to move to. Yet in the Prime Minister’s statement we saw a total failure to recognise that we need to reduce our emissions and that we need to adapt to the realities of an unstable climate. That was missing from the Government’s top four priorities.

New Zealand cannot have the competitive and productive economy that the Prime Minister claims to want without making a shift to a low-carbon economy, without shifting our policies—changing the structure of our economy to one that protects our climate. We need to make those shifts if we are going to protect the right of our Pacific neighbours to live in their homelands. What the Government is doing, what the Prime Minister’s statement has set out, is business as usual. It is high carbon pollution, encouraging more fossil fuel extraction, and more subsidies to oil drillers and miners, when we know that burning even two-thirds of global fossil fuel reserves will be catastrophic for the climate.

Business as usual for National means ruling out agriculture even being discussed in the current review of the emissions trading scheme. Business as usual means more handouts for irrigation and intensive agriculture, despite nearly half of our emissions coming from agriculture. We heard it again today, with the finance Minister’s comments. National seems to believe that there is going to be some technological silver bullet that can reduce our agricultural emissions. It is sending completely the wrong message to farmers. It is signalling that climate change does not matter by failing to set a date when agriculture will be in the emissions trading scheme.

It is sending the wrong message about our economy. It means that we continue with business as usual, with the old carbon-intensive economy, rather than shifting investment to clean low-carbon sectors like IT, like renewables. It is an utterly irresponsible choice for our Pacific neighbours and for New Zealand. It is putting the risks on to Kiwis in the future and now. It is not dealing with current challenges. The target in the Paris agreement was very ambitious: keeping global temperatures to within 1.5 degrees Celsius. Prime Minister, you signed up to that target, and yet this Government totally lacks the policies to deliver on that. Yesterday a leading climate scientist, Tim Naish, said that the window to stay within a 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures is the next 10 years.

In the Green Party we believe that action is urgent. We want to stay within that limit. That means major structural change in the economy. It means investing in public transport, not spending billions of dollars on new motorways that will make our emissions worse. Last December we had the second biennial report on our emissions. That showed that New Zealand’s emissions were set to increase by 96 percent above 1990 levels by 2030. That is this Government’s plan. It is not about being responsible. It is not about delivering a safer or a brighter future to New Zealand. It is about burdening us with catastrophic climate change.

In his statement opening the parliamentary year the Prime Minister allowed the nation one sentence on climate change. He said: “Following the Paris Agreement [on climate change], the Government will [this year] complete its review of the Emissions Trading Scheme, which will assess the Scheme’s [operation and] effectiveness to 2020 and beyond.” So let us explore the relationship between the Paris agreement and the emissions trading scheme review here in New Zealand.

The Paris outcome is going to require higher standards of behaviour from all 196 parties to the framework convention. It aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change. Article 4 provides that developed countries should continue to take a lead. The accompanying decision says that much greater emission reductions will be required than those associated with the intended 1.5-degree Celsius threshold. New Zealand’s intended nationally determined contribution for 2030, of 11 percent, is regarded by independent observers as inadequate and poor. So to meet our legal obligations coming out of Paris, New Zealand will be obliged to increase its intended nationally determined contribution before ratification of the agreement. The onus is therefore on New Zealand to review its target not at its leisure, but now. A greater mitigation reduction effort will require fundamentally different reasoning, and so it is best to recognise now what, with respect, we think has been incorrect in this current Government’s thinking.

The Cabinet paper of last year shows how the Government’s thinking has trended in making what is perhaps the most critical decision in New Zealand’s history. Let us consider what it does not do. It does not explore the global mitigation required between 2015 and 2030 for the temperature goal, even though the paper states that the goal is in New Zealand’s interests. It cites, without concern, the Prime Minister’s scientific adviser’s statement that sustained reduction in global emissions of the order of 40 to 70 percent by 2050, compared with 2010, is required. It touches, only in passing, on ways of comparing targets. It identifies four methods: equal cost, equal per capita emissions, historical responsibility, and equal reductions from business as usual. It does not explore any of these in detail, and it does not assess them. It fails to acknowledge the sophisticated models for determining fair shares around the world.

What is required is a Cabinet paper no later than mid-2016 that will do five things. First, it will acknowledge the required reduction in global emissions in 2030, from the intended nationally determined contribution projected 55 gigatonnes to 42 for 2 degrees Celsius, and 39 gigatonnes for 1.5 degrees Celsius. Second, it will acknowledge the integrity and applicability of the principle of equity in the framework convention and the results that the research institutes have reached regarding each country’s responsibility level in 2030. It will note the two main studies done in this respect—contraction and convergence, and equity reference—indicating that New Zealand’s responsibility will be as low as 23 megatonnes, or even 5 megatonnes, in 2030. This compares with our current megatonne level of 67. Third, it will explore the maximum domestic abatement potential for New Zealand by 2030 in meeting that responsibility and acknowledge a responsibility to make up any shortfall through climate financing. Fourth, it will develop a national climate action plan, with the most effective set of climate policies and regulatory measures, designed to reach the maximum domestic abatement potential. Fifth, it will ensure that the national climate action plan reflects optimal equity among all relevant intersectoral and societal interests, to the extent possible.

There is a need for a genuine, cross-party dialogue on climate policy in this Parliament, one that finds sufficient common ground for a predictable and far-reaching national plan of action, for the sake of future generations.

I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Debate interrupted.