Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

I have been looking forward for some time to taking a call on the Prime Minister’s statement, because I have got quite a lot to say. People in the south-west suburbs of Christchurch, where I live and where my electorate of Wigram is located, have long memories of a local MP called Norman Kirk, who served the Sydenham electorate faithfully for the years 1969 to 1974. He is a leader who is warmly remembered because he had a pretty simple message for the people of the Sydenham electorate and the people of this country, as their Prime Minister, and that was that they needed some security in their lives, they needed somewhere to live, and they needed a job. This is, of course, what we call the Kiwi Dream.

That is right, this is the dream that this Government has given up on—these pretty simple aspirations that our great Prime Ministers like Kirk could articulate and stand up for the people of this country in relation to. But this is a Government that has lost its way. It is arrogant, it is out of touch, and it is ignoring these big issues that are facing New Zealanders. We just need to look to issues such as the housing crisis. We need to look to issues such as the health cuts that we had questions this very day in the House about. We need to look at jobs, we need to look at wages, we need to look at the Christchurch recovery and what is happening in that very city where Norman Kirk made his life. This is a Government of broken promises. This is a Government that has given up on ordinary New Zealanders. When we listened to the Prime Minister’s statement that we heard in this House, it was a statement that was full of platitudes. It was a statement that was full of claims that everything was OK. Nothing to see here; move along—it is all OK.

But as a child of the 1970s, I can very much see that that Kiwi Dream is slipping away. What I remember from those long, warm summers of the 1970s as a child, where people did actually believe that they had a future—if we take that forward into what that means in the 21st century, we have a generation of New Zealanders who are not growing up with that hope. What we have under National, instead, is an economy that is stacked in favour of a privileged few while everyday Kiwis find it harder to get ahead. We have a housing market that has become a plaything for speculators, locking a generation out of the dream of homeownership. We have a health care system where people are having to think about mortgaging their houses to pay for drugs. So we have a system where if you have got money, you can access health care, and if you do not, you cannot. We have an education system that is drowning our young people in debt, and we have rates of child poverty that no member in this House should be content to tolerate. This simply is not the New Zealand that any of us think about when we think about what it means to be a New Zealander and what we are capable of in this country.

This year began with Andrew Little showing to the country a way back to this Kiwi Dream. For Andrew Little to set out a vision for the future is something this Government cannot do, because it has given up on any kind of vision or future and it is plodding along. The Working Futures Plan that Labour and Andrew Little outlined at the beginning of this year showed a very clear path to the kind of New Zealand we could have, the alternative that could exist where we back an economy where everybody can have access to education.

We have heard the absolute spinning around of the Government trying to counter this. First of all it sent out the “Spin-master-General”, Steven Joyce, who came out at first saying that it would not do anything. Apparently the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment does not think greater access to tertiary education will actually do anything. We thought that was a pretty interesting response. I think the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment quickly realised that perhaps this was not the best thing for him to be saying, so he changed the spin—“We’ve got a problem; we’ve got to change the spin.”—so then it was going to cost too much. The way that Labour had a future for people where every New Zealander could access education for up to 3 years was simply going to cost too much, said Steven Joyce. But then, wait a minute, he remembered the Government had started foreshadowing tax cuts, and this money was going to be spent somewhere else, anywhere, so he had to change the tack on that one; he went back.

What we have is a very clear difference. We have on the one hand the Labour Party, which is setting out a vision for our future and for our young people that backs them and says: “When you leave school we want to make sure you have the right skills and training, whether that be a university degree, an apprenticeship, or some kind of polytech qualification that will get you into a job. What is more, we do not want to set you up and saddle you with debt for the rest of your life in getting there.”

There are a lot of members in this House who go on about how debt does not matter. Well, this week we are going to see how much that debt does matter and what the level of student indebtedness in this country has risen to. As someone who did pay for her education—because as well as being a child of the 1970s I was a teenager and young adult of the 1990s, where I had to pay for my university education and where I borrowed for that education—I actually finished paying off my student loan last month. It was a very momentous day; it was great. I went through the student loan scheme at the very worst ravages that it could wrest, and the very worst circumstances that you could have, and I actually do not want anyone else to be saddled with the kind of debt that I was saddled with after my education. I was saddled with debt in excess of $100,000 for the PhD that I did at the University of Canterbury. This is the kind of debt that I do not want to stand by, as someone who can make decisions in this country, and not change. I think we all have a duty to make sure that we are making the future better for young people, and I am proud of the policy that Labour announced at the beginning of this year.

It is not just in education that this Government is failing us; it is in health. There is no greater demonstration we are seeing of that than the cuts to health funding. Again the Government’s spin machine comes out and it tells us that it has increased health funding every year. Let us cut the games, because we all know this is about real costs and how much the real costs are increasing by.

I want to talk specifically about mental health funding in Canterbury. We have a Government that said it was going to stand with the people of Canterbury. No one would be worse off. It would walk every step with them. That was 5 and a bit years ago. This Government has done anything but walk hand in hand with the people of Canterbury when it comes to their mental health funding. Instead, we have seen over $5 million cut from mental health services to a region that has greater need in mental health services than anywhere else. We are seeing an increase in emergency department admissions for suicide attempts. The police are reporting increased call-outs for suicide attempts. We have children starting in our schools who have severe development problems because of the last 5 years that they have lived with. Prescriptions for antidepressants and for anti-anxiety medications in Canterbury top anywhere else in the country. This is a region that is under pressure in mental health services, and this is a Government that is cutting funding to our region for those issues. But it is not just in the issues of mental health services.

If you read the written version of the Prime Minister’s statement, there were a couple of paragraphs that made it in there about the Canterbury recovery. If you listened in the House, once you got past the sports jokes and the political put-downs, Canterbury did not make the director’s cut of John Key’s speech on the day. Simply, Canterbury is slipping down this Government’s priorities. Instead, it is taking money out to manufacture its surplus, in terms of Earthquake Commission funding. We have the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, which has presided over botch-up after botch-up. Instead of delivering the kind of recovery and the pace and the optimism that the people of Canterbury need, we have an organisation that has been nothing more than a roadblock. Then the Government spends $2.6 million on spin trying to tell everyone it is OK, but 74 percent of Cantabrians do not have any confidence in the recovery decisions being made. That is not really on track. There is an alternative. We on this side of the House—

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired.

The debate on the Prime Minister’s statement is an opportunity to, I suppose, listen to and learn from—if you do not have anything else to do—the Opposition. We have learnt one or two things. I think the first is that when Labour talks about the Kiwi Dream, it is dreaming of 2005 to 2008. I think that is now pretty clear. We have been assailed for the last few sitting days of the House with the best thinking from Grant Robertson and Andrew Little’s finest hour, which was low debt levels in 2008 and interest-free student loans in 2005. There is nothing we have heard that indicates their thinking has grown up from that point. In fact, their best efforts then came straight out of their days as student union leaders, like most of the front two rows of the Labour Party.

Labour’s dream is Helen Clark as Prime Minister handing out more goodies to students and claiming that Labour got Government debt down. Well, Government debt was low then; of course, other things were not. Interest rates were 10 percent and Government spending had grown by 50 percent in the previous 5 years. And that is another thing we have learnt from this debate, that Labour intends to do it all again if it becomes the Government—the same things. You have just got to look through the list of extravagant spending promises to see that.

We have also learnt something else, though: the centre of gravity for critics of the Government is now the thuggish left. Because of the increasing irrelevance of Labour and the Greens—mired in their dreams of 10 years ago—the thuggish left is taking the stage. And, in fact, increasingly, the incoherent people who throw things are dragging the Greens and Labour to the left. The most obvious example we are familiar with is Labour’s position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). A once moderate, market-minded social democrat party is now opposed to free trade—or, at least, I think we are allowed to sell to other people but they are not allowed to sell to us, because Andrew Little said that he is going to renegotiate some of it. I think that is the bit: “We will keep the bit where we can sell to other people, but we will negotiate out the bit that says they can sell to us.” Or maybe it is the other way round; I just cannot remember.

But the Parliament will deliver the Labour Party a chance to look decisive, and that is during the TPP legislation, which will turn up here, and its members will have to vote one way or the other. They cannot, as I once saw a member do, stand in the middle between the Ayes and the Noes lobbies and hope that the bells go so that they do not have to vote. And I think that is where we will see Andrew Little on the day.

The other example is the Greens. The speech from Mr Hughes was the nastiest personal attack I have heard in this Parliament in 25 years—shameful from a member and a party that said it would not do that sort of thing. It is becoming increasingly preoccupied by how to look more angry than the thuggish left who throw things. That is what the Opposition is competing for. And the votes are moving round, no doubt, among Labour and the Greens, depending on which appeals most to the angry, incoherent, dumbed-down left.

And in the meantime, as the Prime Minister outlined in his statement, the Government continues to deal with the challenge of underpinning moderate growth in this economy while there is an ongoing level of global uncertainty. It is hard to know whether it is more than it used to be; there is a different set of preoccupations now, which the Opposition says means global recession is coming. But whether there is more or less of it, we have continued to focus on ensuring that the structure of this economy is resilient and on ensuring that it provides opportunity.

I just want to, actually, point out something I thought the Opposition might have pointed out today: the minimum wage went up—it is going to go up; it has not gone up, it will go up on 1 April—at the same time as beneficiary families with children will get the first increase in their benefits above Consumers Price Index in over 40 years; on the same day. Since National became the Government and a National-led Government came in, the minimum wage has gone up 27 percent; inflation has gone up 11 percent. The minimum wage has gone up 27 percent; inflation has gone up 11 percent. We now have the smallest gap in the developed world between the minimum wage and the average wage, and one can argue—some would, actually—that it is probably a bit too close. The fruits of consistent, moderate growth are being shared out across New Zealand. The average wage itself, of course, in the last 12 months has just gone up over 3 percent—in a year when inflation was 0.1 percent. There cannot be too many more relevant measures for New Zealand households than real increases in their benefits, if they have got children; in the minimum wage; and in the average wage—consistent, real increases in the value of those incomes.

So what most of Mr Hughes said about that was simply wrong. And I do not mind disagreeing with people, but wilful ignorance on the part of the Greens about what is happening in our environment, in our economy—and, you know, you would think you may expect a bit of graciousness about the Kermadec park; you might have. It is the largest protected piece of ocean on the planet, about which the Green members are meant to be so preoccupied, but they spend so much time creating carbon dioxide emissions flying around the planet that they have not even caught up with the fact that the Kermadec Marine Reserve has been created. Those members do not have to acknowledge the National Government, because we know they do not, because they have become so mean-minded; they just need to acknowledge the presence of the reserve, about which so many people are so happy.

We will continue with the economic programme the Prime Minister outlined, and it includes some real challenges. It is fantastic to be part of a team that has the energy and the focus to get into the hardest issues this economy now has to address: fresh water, and how we have intensive agricultural production and improve the quality of our water, because that is what we are going to be able to achieve; and the regulation of our housing market—New Zealand’s biggest asset class. Just look at the number of people who turn up to meetings in Auckland about it. That tells you how relevant our concerns are and their concerns are to this Government, because we need to ensure that our housing market does not create macro-imbalances: higher interest rates than we need, unfairness by locking people out of the market, and very big fiscal cost—the $2 billion a year we spend subsidising rentals in the housing market.

Those are just two of the issues; there are any number of others before this Parliament that will show real progress this year, like the review of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, when that gets here before too long—a hundred-year wait for significant reform that will allow the better use of much Māori land. Is it politically high profile? Not particularly. Does it matter? Absolutely, along with those other complicated issues. And they are all a bit controversial. They are all a bit challenging. They all need a lot of consultation and explanation. And the Prime Minister is leading a Government that has every intention of boring into those issues, and that is before we get to the hard-core, difficult social issues, where most of our Government spending goes.

And if anything sums up the Labour Party’s lack of relevance, it is that its proposition about free whatever-it-was for students shows no understanding of anything that is going on in the analysis of social policy these days anywhere in the developed world—it is straight out of the 1970s. So I was wrong. I thought the Kiwi Dream was 2008, but, actually, now that they are getting back to Norman Kirk—

Sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

Before I attack him, I will say I do have some respect for the Hon Bill English. Can I say in respect of his speech that although I disagree with parts of it, which I will cover, he at least did cover the Government’s proposed programme this year, thin though it is. In contrast, the Prime Minister, a couple of weeks ago when he delivered the Prime Minister’s statement, laid it on the Table and then proceeded to act like a court jester, telling jokes and attacking the Opposition rather than talking about his own programme.

Bill English just gave a speech then and he criticised the increases in spending by the last Government. In question time he was good enough to acknowledge that by the end of the last Government, Labour had reduced gross Government debt from 38 percent to 18 percent, and, actually, reduced net debt virtually to zero. When you included financial assets like the Cullen fund, it was in a positive balance, and since then we know that debt has grown.

He then said: “Well, of course, the problem was the increase in Government spending.” Well, what were the biggest increases in Government spending by the Labour Government? Well, the biggest one was the Working for Families tax credits, which the National Government to this day—although they are tax cuts, effectively, for people—actually counts as spending. At the time the now Prime Minister and, I think, Bill English, called them communism by stealth. So that was the biggest increase in spending. Those members called it communism by stealth, even though they were tax cuts. Have they reversed it? No, they have not.

What was the next big initiative? Well, research and development tax credits they did not like. Did they reverse those? Yes, they did reverse those. KiwiSaver—those members said that they did not like it. Have they reversed KiwiSaver? Well, they have stripped back some of the incentives, so it is not working as well. They have taken away the $1,000 kick-start payment that gave hope to young people as they started on their savings journey, but, no, they have not done away with KiwiSaver.

Interest-free student loans—remember how vexed those members were with interest-free student loans in 2005? They were apoplectic about interest-free student loans—another increase in spending under the last Government. Have they reversed them? No, they have not because they were good policy.

Having dealt with the misrepresentation of the previous Labour Government, which left the Government books in such good order that Bill English was forced to acknowledge in 2008 that “This is the rainy day that Government has been saving for.” because we ran nine surpluses in a row, he then did not say much about what has gone up and what has gone down under the National Government. Well, what has gone up? What is happening to Government debt? Well, we know Government debt has gone up. Net debt was down to zero; it is up about $60 billion or $70 billion—a huge increase in Government debt.

What about growth? Has growth gone up or down? Well, growth rates in the 2000s were held a bit high by increased rates of private borrowing—I will acknowledge that—but we were criticised by National for having growth rates of between 3 and 4 percent. What has the growth rate been in the last year, Dr Smith?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: 2.4, I thought.

Per capita—zero. Per capita growth rates—the per-person rate of growth in New Zealand over the last year—has been zero, and that is even with the huge amount that is being spent in Canterbury on the Canterbury rebuild. Nick Tuffley of the ASB is the author of that calculation. Per capita growth rates over the last year have been zero, and, indeed, there have been prior references to that from the likes of Mr Glass, another investment banker who made similar comments last year.

What about exports—a great indicator of health, or otherwise of the economy? Well, the Government came into power when exports were over 30 percent of GDP, and those members promised they were going to increase them to 40 percent of GDP. What has happened to exports? They are down to between 27 and 28 percent of GDP, and the Government’s target of raising them to 40 percent of GDP is shattered. So much for the brighter future that it was promising.

What about homeownership? Well, Bill English may say that the huge public meetings that they are having in Auckland are a sign that things are good in Auckland. Actually, people are coming out in droves because they are protesting about the state of the housing market in Auckland. And Dr Smith is doing his best, but it is not good enough, because after 8 years in power, we have got the highest house prices ever in Auckland—a disgraceful average house price in Auckland—of around $900,000. People cannot save to buy a house in Auckland if they are an ordinary waged worker and they have to inherit money to do so, and that is the reality of life under the National Government. Really, the privileged few succeed and most people struggle to get ahead—the lowest homeownership rate in over 60 years and still declining.

If there is any part of the Kiwi Dream that is more fundamental than homeownership in New Zealand, well, I do not know what it is. You know, The Half Gallon Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise was the name of the book. Now people cannot afford their slice of our paradise, and we have got the lowest rate of homeownership since the 1950s—indeed, since the 1951 census, over 60 years ago—and it continues to decline.

There are measures that could be taken by the Government to make it better. It does need to roll up its sleeves and actually build some affordable houses and to control land supply in respect of some big subdivisions that are needed. It needs to actually stamp its foot and say “We do need intensification in parts of Auckland.” if we are going to have the rates of net migration that this Government insists on inflicting upon Auckland, throwing fat on the fire and making these things even worse.

Well, what has happened to wages? We heard Nick Smith saying that average wages are up. I read the Prime Minister’s statement in this regard and the paragraph in it said “Wages are going up.”, and then you could see, quite obviously, someone had gone through proofreading it and they had inserted the word “average” at the front of it. It sort of read rather bluntly in the way it was phrased, and you could see it was a late addition.

Well, why is that? Why are those members focusing on the average wage? Because, in truth, we know that wage increases are concentrated at the top 10 percent of the population and that earnings for most New Zealanders are stagnant. Indeed, I think the latest statistic was that 46 percent of New Zealanders got no wage increase last year. The income gaps are growing, just like the wealth gaps.

On the environment, I heard Nick Smith here today heralding his collaborative process outcome, saying that the Government has got to an end point by when rivers have to be fenced against dairy cattle and beef cattle: 2030 for our mid-country and 2025 for our flat land. It is different if you are a dairy farmer, but the dairy boom is over. The pressure environmentally is now coming from the beef boom.

No wonder the NGO in New Zealand that is most connected with freshwater quality, the New Zealand Fish and Game Council—the people who represent the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who, every year, get money out of their own pocket to pay for a licence to go fishing in our riverways—pulled out of the Land and Water Forum. It was so disgusted by these consensual outcomes being the lowest common denominator that it said: “We’re out of here. We’re not up for an outcome that says we’re not even going to keep our dairy cattle and our beef cattle out of our waterways until 2025 or 2030.”

Our rivers, after 8 years of the National Government, are getting dirtier still. I see that. I am a person who swims in rivers, I fish, and I tramp. Outside our national parks it is a disgrace, the number of our waterways that can no longer be safely swum in because under Nick Smith, the minimum standard that is being required is “wadeability”—that is, clean enough to walk through, but not clean enough to swim in and put your head under because you will get sick. That is a disgraceful bottom line, Dr Smith, and something that you should not be proud of as the Minister for the Environment.

Education—do you know we have reached the parlous position in New Zealand where the OECD says that the cause of the big tail that we have got in New Zealand of underperformance amongst some of our students is caused by their economic deprivation? The gaps have got so big in New Zealand that our kids at our poor schools do not get ahead. I thought it was disgraceful a couple of weeks ago. I was ashamed to live in the country where a school providing free swimming lessons in South Auckland—and too few kids learn to swim these days—said that a substantial proportion of the class were not participating because their parents could not afford togs, and there had to be a public fund-raising effort to raise the money for them to buy togs.

That is what is happening in New Zealand. We have got people living in cars and garages, and parents cannot even afford togs for their kids when they are getting free swimming lessons.

It is always a pleasure to follow David Parker, because he is a member who wants to engage in the House and he makes a thoughtful contribution. But I would challenge him to reflect on a time when as many of New Zealand’s core economic statistics—those vital signs that say how well we are doing—have looked as good. I have to say, as a member of 25 years, that if I look at those core figures of GDP—growth, interest rates, unemployment—I would challenge members of this House to tell me a time when New Zealand was doing better. Let us go through them: economic growth—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Under Labour.

The member says: “Under Labour.” Well, let us see how well that member is connected to the real world, because one of the issues for families is the cost of living—how much it is going up each year. One of the reasons that members opposite got biffed out in 2008 was that the cost of living was going up by 5 percent per year. It is no good getting a wage increase, I say to the member opposite, of 3 percent if your costs are going up by 5 percent. Do you know what the inflation figures are for the last year? They are 0.1 percent, the lowest level in 23 years. That is good news because that means that the costs for families of their power bills, their food bills, and all those other costs are constrained and are going up by diddly-squat.

Then you look at a figure like wage growth—because the real gain we need to make in our community is that wages are going up faster than the cost of living—and wages have gone up by 2.4 percent in the last year. And, significantly, yesterday the Prime Minister announced that the minimum wage is going up by an additional 50c per hour. That is growth of 3.4 percent, and it is not one of those increases of 3.4 percent; it is real because inflation is so low.

In an area that is so relevant to housing, the interest rates that families are paying, that businesses are paying, and that farmers are paying are at the lowest level in 50 years. Why does that matter? Well, actually, if you are a family out there in New Zealand trying to pay the mortgage, we now have banks that are offering interest rates at less than 4 percent. I say to members opposite: when was the last time you picked up a newspaper and a bank would offer you an interest rate of less than 4 percent? Why does it matter to the economy? Because if you are a business out there—and I was visiting them in my own electorate last Friday, and they were looking at investing an extra $2 million in a processing facility for fruit, in my electorate—actually, interest rates are the difference between investing in that additional equipment for that export industry, or not.

Of course, I think all members would agree that one of the core economic statistics is the level of unemployment. We know from the last figures coming down from 6 percent, down to 5.3 percent, that New Zealand has one of the highest labour participation rates—the highest levels of jobs—anywhere in the OECD.

We can argue figures and quote them all we like—actually, do you know what one of the most important signals is of how well our country is doing? It is the fact that everybody has a choice—a choice to get on a plane and leave this country. I would remind David Parker that if New Zealand was so great in the Labour Government years between 2000 and 2008, why were there 35,000 bright, talented young New Zealanders who chose to vote with their feet and take their talent elsewhere? What we see in contrast today is a record period of New Zealanders actually coming home. That is putting some pressure on my job as the Minister for Building and Housing, but I say I welcome it. I welcome that our country is doing so well that more migrants and more New Zealand citizens are choosing to make New Zealand their home.

I also want to reinforce the message that this is a Government that is making real progress on the issues that are of concern around those New Zealanders who are most struggling. I mentioned earlier the issue of the lift in the minimum wage. I remind Parliament that on 1 April there is going to be the first increase in core benefits in 43 years. Why can the members opposite, who plead so much, who moan and whinge as though they are experts, not acknowledge that this Government is providing that significant increase—not just in core benefits but even for those people on low incomes with families, and it is giving them additional support? I look at the early childhood education participation figures—the best our country has ever had. I look at the performance of health and the best child immunisation rates that we have ever had, and they are part of a picture of a country that is doing well.

But the responsibility of a Government is not just to deliver and do well; it is to have a forward programme, and that is some of the things that I want to talk about in respect of my own portfolio. I was fascinated at the questions today around the issue of home insulation, because, as I pointed out, in the 9 years of the previous Government an average of 2,000 homes were insulated each year. I think we in this Parliament all agree that insulating those older homes that were built before 1978 and did not have insulation is a good thing. But I do have to challenge members opposite: when your record was doing 2,000 homes per year, it is rather difficult to describe a bill that will require 60,000 homes per year to be insulated as somehow mean and inadequate. It is simply not credible.

I was also interested in the Greens criticising this Government and saying: “Oh, it’s just all ‘greenwash’.” How can you describe the largest area of ocean protection in the world, an area twice the size of the land area of New Zealand, which this Government is committing to global marine conservation, an area of the second-deepest ocean in the world, an area where there are over 50 different marine species and over 6 million birds—and the legislation that we will be bringing into this House consequential to the Prime Minister’s announcement at the United Nations in creating that Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary is a part of this Government’s programme that reinforces that we are a blue-green Government. We are a Government that wants to grow the economy but also do the right thing by the environment.

The last point I want to make in this debate is that I have never been in a Parliament in which Opposition parties have had so many contradictory positions. You know, we started the year—and I remember, if we make the equivalent time—on the issue of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). I say to the members opposite that I still do not quite understand their position. I know in my constituency, where there is going to be a reduction in tariffs on fish, there is going to be a reduction in tariffs on exports of processed forest products, where I know there is going to be a reduction in the tariffs on the products that we export like the kiwifruit, like the apples, like the berryfruit—meeting with those industries, they are so encouraged about that, in the capacity for them to be able to grow, employ more people, and pay more to people. Then why is it that members opposite are so opposed to those fruit, those forestry, those meat, those dairy industry gains that have been so successfully negotiated in the TPP? I see some Labour members are in favour, some are opposed, and I cannot understand the confusion.

Then we take a core issue—and there has been a bit of debate today about the issue of debt. Again I have to say I am confused. I listened to Grant Robertson and he said: “The Government needs more stimulus. It needs to borrow more and stimulate the economy.” In the next minute I hear another Labour member, David Parker, express concerns, and saying: “Oh, the Government is borrowing too much.” Well, you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth; you need to have a clear position.

And then we come to the issue of housing. David Parker in the speech that was just given said that the Government needs to go harder on the Auckland Council and make sure that there is intensification. Well, actually, only last week Phil Twyford was saying that the Government was interfering and bullying the Auckland Council to try to get intensification. Well, is David Parker right or is Phil Twyford right, or is this just another case of Labour being all over the paddock and not knowing what it stands for?

I equally point out the area of social housing, where I compliment the work that Paula Bennett and Bill English are doing. I see the members opposite railing in the House, railing in their electorates, opposed to the transfer of State houses over to community housing providers and then standing on platforms with Phil Twyford when he says to the community housing organisation that he supports the transfer of State houses to those community housing providers. I know of no time in my time in this House when we have faced an Opposition that has had such a confused position on what it stands for. It is a party that has lost its way. It is no surprise that it is polling so badly. It is so far from being a credible Government because it does not know what it stands for.

It is always a pleasure to follow Dr Smith’s stand-up routine. I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement, and that is partly because there is so much that needs to be responded to—not so much about what the Prime Minister had to say, as about what he did not have to say.

A great deal of what the Prime Minister did not have to say concerns the primary sector. It concerns the farming sector, the agricultural sector, the provinces, rural New Zealand—the heartland. The Prime Minister had very little of very much use or value to say to rural New Zealand in general or to the farmers of New Zealand in particular. That is something of a paradox, because the National Party, this National Government, has long touted itself as being the party of the farmers and for the farmers. Indeed, that was true once upon a time, a long time ago—a very long time ago.

National has continued to trade on that old reputation and those old allegiances, even though nowadays, and for quite a long number of years now, National has in fact been the party for Queen Street, the party for merchant bankers, and, actually, the party that does not really appear to give a damn about the farming sector at all anymore. The farming sector is beginning to wake up to that. It is beginning to realise that its own party of old has abandoned it in all but name, and it is starting to look elsewhere, and the by-election in Northland showed that. The traditionally true-blue territory of the far north, which has been National since forever, has grown tired of being taken for granted and tired of being marginalised. It showed that it was tired by turfing the National Party out of its turf and installing the Rt Hon Winston Peters and New Zealand First instead.

The cracks are beginning to show in other places as well. In Mr Barclay’s seat of Clutha-Southland, party members and committee members are leaving the National Party in droves, such is their disaffection with the direction that this John Key – led “National and friends” Government is going. In the Wairarapa the winds of change are blowing, and come 2017 they are going to deliver another body blow to the National Party in the form of a change of member, and the new member is going to be Ron Mark.

Why is this happening? Well, it is happening because National’s priorities are all wrong, and people have had enough of that. Commodity prices are down, milk is down, and farmers are hurting, and yet this National Government is steadfastly refusing to do anything to help. Its priorities are with the internationalists, with the bankers and the globalists and with its foreign paymasters—and by that I mean the people and the institutions with links to overseas who funnel donations to National. That is where its priorities are.

Farmers are hurting. Farmers are hurting, and rural communities are hurting, and the Government is doing nothing to help them. We are not talking about handouts; no one is suggesting that we go back to the days of subsidies. But there are concrete, tangible things that this Government could be doing, and should be doing, in order to help support farmers and the communities who depend on them at this time when things are grim down on the farm.

New Zealand First has two bills in the ballot, which the Government could choose to support, that would tangibly improve the lot of our beleaguered rural heartland and our embattled agricultural sector. One is the Meat Industry Restructuring Bill, in my name. This bill would see the red meat processing industry stay in New Zealand hands. It would see the value of New Zealand’s red meat exports stay in the New Zealand economy. It would see returns for farmers improve, and it would guarantee jobs for New Zealand workers in our provincial towns and service industries that support the sheep and beef farmers of New Zealand. As things stand, that industry is on the brink of being lost to overseas ownership, and the great bulk of the value of that industry is on the brink of being lost to the New Zealand economy.

The other bill is the Receiverships (Agricultural Debt Mediation) Amendment Bill, in the name of my colleague Ron Mark. This bill cuts to the heart of what has become of the National Party, the party that used to be the party of farmers and the party of the provinces—the party that is now being supplanted in those roles by New Zealand First, because we still give a damn. We still give a damn. We still prioritise rural New Zealand and provincial New Zealand, where the real wealth of this country is generated and where New Zealand’s income is earned. This bill highlights the way that National has become a party that gives priority to the profits of foreign-owned banks over and above the interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders.

There are laws very similar to the law that this bill would become already in place in a number of Australian states and a number of Canadian provinces. What they do is require banks to enter into a process of mediation, of renegotiation, before they call in the receivers in cases where farmers find themselves up against the odds for reasons beyond their control. Farming is not like any other business. There are variables that do not exist in other industries, there are fluctuations in commodity prices and exchange rates, and there are vagaries of weather about which farmers can do nothing. With the best will in the world, with the best planning in the world, with the hardest back-breaking work in the world, farmers can and do still find themselves up against the odds when the fates conspire against them.

The banks are a part of this. They claim to be a partner for the farming sector, and when the times are good the banks are creaming it. In fact, I have some numbers here, prepared by the Parliamentary Library, that show the aggregate income of the 25 registered banks operating in New Zealand. For the year ended 30 September 2015, interest from income alone was $23.5 billion.

💬 Ron Mark: How much?

$23.5 billion. The profit after tax for these banks—all but two foreign-owned—was $5.1 billion. They take their share of the spoils, but it would seem that they are not so keen in the bad times to carry their share of the load, and that is not good enough. New Zealand First says that that is not good enough, and this bill in the name of my colleague Ron Mark would compel them to take a share of the load during the lean times.

National could choose to support this bill. It could choose to demonstrate that the welfare of our farmers and our rural communities is at least as important as the profits of the foreign-owned banking sector. It would be nice to think that the banks might see fit to take this step themselves, but as we are seeing, and as legislators in Australia and Canada have already seen and have already dealt with, they do not appear to be keen to do that without a bit of stick. This bill provides that stick. If this Government really cared, if it really gave a damn about the farming sector, it would come out and support these two bills from New Zealand First.

Make no mistake—things are getting rough out there. Farmers are up against it, and farmers are having a hard time. Farmer suicides are a silent epidemic, and it is going to get worse. I have a paper here, a story from Radio New Zealand, saying the Reserve Bank says that dairy farm debt alone has reached $38 billion, and a recent Federated Farmers poll found that more than one in 10 is already under pressure from the banks over their mortgage. One in 10 dairy farmers—that is 1,250 dairy farmers across New Zealand. If 10 percent of our single most important export industry is in trouble, the country is in trouble. The commercial banking sector needs to step up and become a true partner to the farming industry. It needs to take the rough along with the smooth, it needs to behave in a manner that is decent and honest and ethical, and this bill would compel it to so do.

New Zealand First drafts and sponsors bills like these two because, unlike National, we are still in tune with the needs of New Zealand’s farmers and with the needs of the heartland. New Zealand First recognises that the engine room of the economy is in the provinces, not in Queen Street, and out there in the provinces people are realising that too. They are voting with their feet and they are giving up on National, because they are realising that National has abandoned them. They are flocking to New Zealand First in droves. We are the town and country party and we are coming to the rescue of New Zealand.

The Prime Minister makes a lot of noise; he makes a lot of statements. The Prime Minister makes a lot of noise about a lot of things that are not important, like $26 million on a referendum on a flag change that nobody wants, but he has very little to say of any actual value to the people of the heartland. But, fortunately, those people can take great heart from the fact that New Zealand First is here to say it for him and to do it for him. Roll on, 2017. Thank you.

Well, it was interesting that that last speaker finished around priorities and the flag change. I remember the New Zealand First Party has come out with a policy that only citizens can now vote in New Zealand, and not residents. The New Zealand First Party has an attack on our migrant communities, saying that they are not valued members of this society and saying that they are not able to vote. [Interruption] Next, the Labour - New Zealand First - Green coalition will come up with taking away—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I regret interrupting the member, but I think Mr Mark needs to address interjections to the member, and not to me. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. That member, Mr Mark, has been interjecting because he is worried that he will see that the New Zealand public will now know that New Zealand First wants to take away the right to vote from those people who are only residents and not citizens. Taking away the right to vote is something that this Parliament should take very seriously, and it is a disgrace that the New Zealand First Party wants to do that to New Zealanders who work hard and make this country so strong, and that is the disgrace that is the New Zealand First Party in this Parliament. The New Zealand First Party will not stop at this referendum, to take away that right to vote. It will take that into the election, and it will take it away on other issues where it sees that only citizens and not residents should be allowed to vote—that is becoming the policy of the New Zealand First Party. We know that is how it works; it has done it in the past, and it will continue to do that again in the future. That is the way it operates, we all know that.

And all those other parties in this Parliament that will support the New Zealand First Party: the Labour Party and the Green Party—they need to come out to make sure that they are not supporting a policy that would take away the vote from residents in this country, like the New Zealand First Party is intending to do. I know that New Zealand First is led by the Don Trump of New Zealand politics, but if that is the way it wants to do it, there will never be a wall high enough for the New Zealand First Party. It will never build the wall as high as Don Trump can do. Its leader has never employed anyone, as Don Trump has; its leader would never be able to build the wall that the New Zealand First Party would love to see in this country.

It is outrageous to see the attack from that party on our rural sector—that party that would not support the trade agreements of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. Go to each of those farmers in Northland; go to each of those farmers around the country and say to them that you come to this House and you are the saviour—or the New Zealand First Party says it is the saviour—of farmers, and yet, it will not support one of the biggest things this Government and this Parliament could do for farmers this year, and that is support a trade agreement. Why will it not support a trade agreement when it actually will deliver for New Zealand farmers; why does it not do things that actually matter; why do they not do something that is substantial and vote for something that will help New Zealand farmers; why does it vote against New Zealand farmers in this House; why does it consistently vote against the people it says that it wants to represent?

That is the dichotomy of the opinion within the New Zealand First Party: it does not understand what it actually means to be a farmer. None of its members are farmers. There are no farmers in the New Zealand First Party. There is no one there who understands what farming is actually about. Nobody in the New Zealand First Party is going to support farmers when they need them to have support in a trade agreement. I want to see the New Zealand First Party actually vote for trade agreements, vote for farmers, vote for regional New Zealand, vote for a stronger economy, and vote for economic growth—not vote for higher walls, no voting, and taking away rights from migrants, as the New Zealand First Party intends to do.

Things are going well in one of the biggest provincial cities in New Zealand: in Hamilton. In Hamilton we have delivered for the people of this country. There is a positive mood in that city, and the good representation of the two local MPs Tim Macindoe and David Bennett is part of that. Not only have we delivered new schools for our electorates—new schools have been opened in the north of Hamilton and Rototuna, and a new school to come in that area too with the junior high school opening this year and the senior high school opening next year. This is something long awaited by residents in that area. The previous Labour Party candidates have stood on pieces of ground in that area and said this would be a nice place for a school, but never actually delivered the money to build those schools. The National Government delivered the money; the National Government built the schools; the National Government gave the residents what they wanted. The National Government has delivered and the National Government has a plan for economic growth that is delivering there.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Same story with the expressway.

The other plan for economic growth in the Waikato is the expressway, Mr Macindoe. There was a question in the House today about the Cambridge Bypass. Ron Mark is wondering what the Waikato Expressway is. It is a four-lane road—probably two more numbers than he can count to, but it is a four-lane road.

💬 Ron Mark: Ten long years.

Ten long years, or 10 years to build a road that New Zealand First never supported. And the Cambridge Bypass opened before Christmas, and many residents have used that because it is an exceptionally great link between the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty.

💬 Tim Macindoe: And all on time and under budget.

Yes, exactly, Mr Macindoe. What is more, there is more to come: the Huntly bypass is now under construction. Anyone travelling south from Auckland and coming to live in the fine Waikato region, which is a great opportunity for all Aucklanders, will see the Hamilton bypass that has been started to be constructed: a $450 million project delivering for regional New Zealand—$450 million spent in regional New Zealand; spent for regional New Zealand, and spent to build stronger provincial cities in our country. Not only that, we have the sod-turning on the next part of the Waikato Expressway: the Hamilton bypass—$800 million approximately for that bypass, including another $100 million on top for the Longswamp four-lane road. That $800 million is going to be spent in Hamilton, going around the boundary of Hamilton to provide a bypass there that will create the modern city that will be the economic growth hub of the Auckland-Hamilton-Tauranga growth triangle: the golden triangle.

That is something that this Government has come into Parliament and delivered for provincial New Zealand; it has delivered for our city, and it has delivered for our country. At the same time we have seen unemployment reducing through this country, and that is something that I think many New Zealanders have been looking forward to for many years. We have seen the minimum wage increasing substantially in New Zealand; we have seen average wages increasing substantially in New Zealand; we are seeing low inflation; we have seen low interest rates, which means that New Zealand households are in a much better position. The New Zealand economy grew by 2.3 percent in the year to September 2015. That is great growth when you consider the world economy and how delicate it is out there. That is all part of good economic management; of prudent economic management; and delivering the infrastructure—just as we have seen in Hamilton—for it to grow our country and our city.

New Zealand is in great shape. Hamilton is in especially great shape. Hamilton has a strong future ahead of it. It is a provincial city that knows where it is going, that is getting the investment, and delivering. We welcome all people to the city of Hamilton, and we are not intending to take away their voting rights like the Opposition parties will do when they get a chance at some point to put in front of this House bills in their names in their members’ bills.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Sit down.

The Labour Party says to sit down. Well, the Labour Party is supporting the New Zealand First Party. They are mates; they are together in this. The Labour Party is against migrants as well. It has shown that time and time again, by wanting to reduce immigration into New Zealand as part of its policy. Its policy is to reduce immigration—that is how it is good bedfellows with the New Zealand First Party. Next it will be taking away voting rights, and that would be a disgrace to this Parliament. Thank you.

Labour supports an economy that works for everybody, not an economy that works only for the privileged few who gather from time to time at Skycity Casino to pat John Key on the back for ensuring that the New Zealand economy delivers for a narrower and narrower group of people, as it has done in the last 7 years under the National Government. Under a Labour Government, New Zealanders will be able to have hope that they will be able to get a job—a job that pays well, a job that has secure hours, a job where they know from one week to the next how much they are going to earn so that they can pay the mortgage, they can pay the power bill, they can buy the groceries from the supermarket, they can put food on the table for their kids, and they can put a roof over their heads. That is the hope that we have for New Zealand; that is the Kiwi Dream that we believe in on this side of the House—the Kiwi Dream that has been slipping ever so further away from the grasp of ordinary New Zealanders every single one of the 7 long years that the National Party has been in power.

On this side of the House, we are interested in what is happening with the future of work. We are interested in ensuring that the future of work delivers for working people. On the other side of the House they laugh at us for having a Future of Work Commission. They laugh at us for bringing people like Guy Standing and Robert Reich to New Zealand to actually talk about the challenges of the future of work, the challenges of greater automation, the challenges of a greater number of people working in contracting situations rather than in employment situations, the challenges of ensuring that the future of work actually delivers for people, that it results in higher wages, that it results in stable incomes, and it results in people being able to live the Kiwi Dream—being able to own their own home, being able to have a life outside of work. Those are the sorts of things that we are focused on, and that is what National members laugh at us for. Well, they can laugh as much as they like; we will continue to focus on the Kiwi Dream.

David Bennett can say as much as he likes that more people are employed. Actually, the number of people unemployed is still higher today than it was when the National Government came to office. The few people who have been able to pick up extra work are picking up part-time work, or casual agreements, or zero-hour contracts—insecure work that does not pay the bills and does not give people the security they need to be able to lead a decent life—and National is happy with that. Well, we are not happy with that on this side of the House. We are unsatisfied with that. We think New Zealand can do better. Just because National has given up on the Kiwi Dream does not mean that the rest of us have to give up on the Kiwi Dream. So, yes, we are looking at the future of work. We are looking at how we ensure that productivity gains and the wealth that this country generates can be shared fairly, so that a hard day’s work does result in a good day’s pay and actually means that you can have that Kiwi Dream and you can feed your family and you can live a reasonable life. That is what people expect from living in New Zealand, and it is slipping away under the National Government.

So we will look at things like how we ensure that people who are in contracting situations get the minimum rights that we should expect for everybody who works in New Zealand, like getting the minimum wage. The Government can crow about putting the minimum wage up by a meagre amount—it has finally hit $15 an hour, 6 or 7 years after the Labour Party first said that we should have a minimum wage of $15 an hour. That is great, except for the fact that there are thousands of people who work in New Zealand who do not get the minimum wage because they are not employees and they are not entitled to those basic minimums. There are thousands of New Zealanders who do not get all the other basic rights that ordinary working people should be able to rely on in New Zealand—and do you know what? National is OK with that too. Well, on this side of the House we think we can do better.

So our Future of Work Commission will look at things like how we expand collective bargaining so that people who are in contracting arrangements can get the benefits of joining a union and bargaining collectively, and using their collective power to get fair wages and a fair income, so that they can live a decent life. Those are the sorts of things that we are interested in on this side of the House. Those are the sorts of things that National laughs at.

One of the things that we believe should be part of the Kiwi Dream is being able to rely on our health care system to deliver when we need it. When you go to hospital you should be able to expect to get the care that you need. I am hearing overwhelmingly from people in my electorate and from people across the country, actually, that our health system is failing. That is what we get when National fails to fund the health system properly. OK, the Prime Minister can stand up and say that the health budget has gone up every year. That is true. But the question is: has the health budget moved sufficiently to cover the costs of inflation and population growth? No, it has not.

In fact, $1.7 billion is missing from our health system, and that shows up in events like the one I experienced a couple of weeks ago when I drove for 2 hours to take my father from Palmerston North to Wellington Regional Hospital for an appointment that was pre-arranged—only to be told when we walked through the doors: “No, your appointment is not going ahead.” Why did we not hear about the fact that that appointment was not going ahead before we left Palmerston North and drove all the way to Wellington? Because the booking clerk was so tired of calling my father and cancelling his appointments that they were too embarrassed to make that phone call, and they put it back on whomever it was who made the decision to cancel my father’s appointment one more time, and that phone call never happened.

That, to me, demonstrates a health system that is sick, and it has become sick under this National Government because National refuses to fund health care. It refuses to pay our health professionals properly, and it refuses to provide the resources so that our health system can absorb one or two urgent cases and still provide the routine cases—which they had booked people in for, written to them about, told them to come to hospital, and make a 2-hour journey, or longer in some cases—and when people walk through the door, they are told that “No, your appointment is not going ahead today, because we don’t have the resources to provide that appointment that we promised you were going to get.” That broken promise is delivered to us by National and Jonathan Coleman refusing to fund the health system properly.

I received a letter that one of my constituents got from our local primary health organisation. This constituent had been referred to the primary health organisation by their GP and the referral was for a mild to moderate mental health condition. They were told that they did not meet the criteria, not because their condition was not sufficiently acute for the primary health organisation to take them on—no, they did not meet the criteria because the primary health organisation has the resources to provide for only mild to moderate mental health treatment for Māori, Pasifika, community services card holders, and people between the ages of 10 and 24. I will give the organisation credit—it was absolutely honest about that. It did not say: “You don’t meet our criteria because you are not acute enough, because you don’t have an illness, because we don’t think you need to be treated.” They said: “You don’t meet our criteria because you’re not Māori, Pasifika, a community services card holder, or a person between the ages of 10 and 24.”

Our health system is sick if we cannot respond to the people who need treatment. This person could very well have received low-level treatment for a mild illness and saved the health system a lot of money. My concern is twofold: this person will become sicker because they are not getting the treatment they require, and that bothers me greatly. But another thing bothers me, and that is that they may very well end up in the mental health ward at the hospital with a more acute condition that is more detrimental to them and also more costly for our health system. That is what is wrong with our health system—it is short-sighted, it is under-resourced, and it is underfunded, and that is thanks to this National Government.

None of this lives up to the Kiwi Dream. None of this lives up to what it means to be a New Zealander. It is certainly not how I was brought up as a youngster in New Zealand—I was led to believe that this was the best country in the world to grow up in. But now it is a country where it is almost impossible to find a job, and when you do find a job you are likely to be underpaid and to have too few hours to make ends meet. It is a place where the Government laughs at people who say we need to focus on the future of work and we need to make sure that people are prepared to engage in the future of work to get a decent income. And it is a country where you get turned away from the hospital even when you have an appointment. That is not the Kiwi Dream. That is the nightmare of John Key’s National Government.

The Prime Minister’s statement of 9 February outlines the current and future initiatives as this Government looks to continue to build a resilient and competitive economy and do a good job for New Zealanders. The underlying fiscal strategy that was enunciated is to have a tight rein on spending, to pay down Government debt, and then to return excess revenue to taxpayers. In return, we expect results in efficiencies from our public services. This strategy is giving us projected economic growth of 2.7 percent over the next 5 years, and this position does well against GDP growth in other major OECD countries like Australia, the US, and Japan.

At a national level, then, the economic outlook is stable, with steady hands on the tiller. Where we can policy influence key local drivers, such as interest rates, the Consumers Price Index, and inflation, we do so in the long-term interest and with the best information we have to hand. By definition, then, we have less influence on offshore factors, and this is where a resilient and multifaceted economy provides the best solution, yet, at the same time, recognises the not insignificant contribution by New Zealand to mitigate some of those global risks through our voice in forums such as the United Nations Security Council. At a macroeconomic level, then, the positive growth in a steady and stable economy is good.

At a regional level, this Government recognised the importance of the regions, and the regional growth programme specifically focuses on five regions to identify growth opportunities: Northland, the Bay of Plenty, the East Coast, Manawatū-Whanganui, and the West Coast. This programme is a collaboration between the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for Primary Industries, together with local businesses, iwi, and councils. Last year in Northland we had the regional growth strategy at the beginning of the year, which identified the scope of the opportunities, and this year, a few weeks ago, we had the regional action plan identifying 58 opportunities for Northland.

Why Northland? Well, you know, we acknowledge the challenges. We are not afraid; we do not avoid them. We acknowledge the challenges that are currently confronting dairy, and we are working hard to do what we can about that. We also acknowledge the challenges that Northland has in underperforming compared with other regions. So we are not afraid to address those issues. In fact, the action plan, with its 58 points, identifies and prioritises what those actions might be.

I would like to look at two of the significant actions in that plan for Northland. First of all, there is the road of national significance. The road of national significance is absolutely critical for Northland. It is part of a nationwide investment in roading for roads of national significance at $4.5 billion. There are projections of 35,000 jobs as part of that package. Northland was very pleased to hear the scoping out of the four-lane highway from Auckland to Northland, the “Northland corridor”. That is real progress and, even better, it is an example of regional investments moving off the blackboard, off the plan, and becoming real and tangible.

In fact, Northlanders can see how real and tangible this investment is right now. As they come over the top of the Brynderwyns there is probably a kilometre of cones as the north side of the Brynderwyns is straightened out and the safety profile improved. Another 15 to 20 minutes’ drive on, you will come to the Kensington roundabout, which is about to commence—a significant piece of work on State Highway 1, which will also improve feeder roads into that area. Another 15 to 20 minutes on, on State Highway 1 at Hikurangi there are several hundred metres of cones where the highway is being upgraded, there and many other areas of roading investment as well.

I would like to take one other example from the action plan: Hundertwasser Art Centre. It is another example of actually deploying an action—taking it off the blackboard and making it real. There is $4 million for the Hundertwasser and the Wairau Māori Art Centre. In 1973 Frederick Hundertwasser came to New Zealand. He was an established international artist when he did. He gained New Zealand citizenship, lived in Northland where his artwork was prolific and was influenced by living in Northland, by living in New Zealand, and by living with Māoridom. I challenge a search for any other international artist who came to New Zealand with that reputation and has done the same. Stan Semenoff, Phil Halse, and others have led the Hundertwasser challenge and over many years others have contributed. It is a real example of this Government contributing to the regions, actually putting its hands in its pocket—$4 million of proof and evidence right there. Thank you.

I would like to take a leaf out of Bill English’s book, actually, and spend just a moment reflecting on some of the Opposition response to the Prime Minister’s statement and particularly to its members’ discussion on the future of work. One of the things that I would like to draw out is how they particularly reinforce that the future is going to be a period of unprecedented change; we are going to have significant globalisation, technological connectivity and disruption, and massive turmoil. In fact, it is a huge opportunity for both capital and labour—and they talk about a huge free flow of ideas and talent and investment.

So with that as a basic premise, I find it extraordinary that the policy response of the Labour Party to that future is to contract out of the very trading bloc that has been established to maximise the opportunity for this country to be able to participate in this future. It is a trading bloc that hardwires innovative businesses to over 40 percent of world trade: 800 million consumers. It is a trading bloc that creates a framework to be able to deal with the issues of intellectual property and services and investment into the future that other countries are lining up to join. It is a trading bloc that will exceed the expectations of the national investment analysis. That is a future that this Government wants to be a part of and the Opposition wants to withdraw from, and I think it is very flawed thinking indeed.

The other policy that Opposition members then put on the table is one that increases the subsidies for those who want to retrain. I respectfully put forward that that is precisely the wrong question to be asking. The real question here is whether we are teaching the right vocational and tertiary courses to enable people to have the skills and resilience to be able to be successful in that future economy. In my view, this Government has a fantastic track record in investment, particularly across vocational and tertiary areas both in terms of their prioritisations of ICT graduates, STEM funding, the lifting of engineering students, and the like.

In fact, I believe that when we talk about resilience and the capacity to deal with a changing world, looking out 5, 10, 15, 20 years, it is as much about attitude as it is about technical competency. In my opinion, a party that—as we do—talks to that future, is keen to embrace the world of tomorrow, the one that sees globalisation as a significant generational shift and an opportunity to connect us with world consumers, is the way of the future and is a party that has the right policy settings to be able to deal with that reality. In my view, that future is particularly exciting and challenging, and our success as a country will be measured on how connected we are to the world. It will be measured on how direct the pathway is for our innovation to the consumers of tomorrow, and it will talk to how technically competent we are as a nation and how resilient we are as individuals and communities.

As I have reflected over the last couple of weeks and listened to the various responses to the Prime Minister’s statement, I firmly believe that on this side of the House we have a framework that is focused on preparing New Zealand for that future and what we have on the other side of the House is a party that is captured in its 1980 student president and political rhetoric. I was with its members at that time. I was in the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations and Waikato Student Union with Grant Robertson. I heard his speeches. They are the same today as they were 25 years ago, and Bill English is right: they are caught in a policy response that is 25 years old. They do not understand how they talk about this future of globalisation. They talk about the forces that are changing the world rapidly, but their policy response is inadequate, it is weak, it is poor thinking, and it is the reason why they are 25 points behind in the polls. It is the reason why the community of the Bay of Plenty and Tauranga are so supportive of John Key, so supportive of this Government, and I am very proud to be a part of it. Thank you.

The Kiwi Dream—it is not too much to ask. I think that the National Party has forgotten about the basic needs of New Zealanders: somewhere safe to live; hopefully, a place that you can call home, that you can own. That is not too much to ask. Basic needs include security for the people we love, a chance to enjoy the outdoors and the environment that we care about, and a job—a decent, secure job—that gives us the time, the money, and the safety to lead a fulfilling life with those we care about. It is a simple concept—the Kiwi Dream—but for an increasing number of New Zealanders it is getting completely outside of their reach under this National Government.

I was hoping to hear something inspirational from the Prime Minister’s statement that might change that situation, but a couple of weeks after the Prime Minister stood up and gave his statement, you know, I cannot name one exciting thing that he said, and I do not think any New Zealander can. What was the transformational thing that the Prime Minister came out with in his speech that will improve people’s lives? That is what we are charged with: we are charged with improving people’s lives, not handing out the same old misery that is stopping thousands of New Zealand families and children from achieving that simple Kiwi Dream. That is what we are here to try to secure. It is out of reach for far too many New Zealanders under this Government.

My generation of parents is facing the sad situation of being the first generation ever to look at our children and know that they are going to be worse off than we were. That has not happened before. I think all parents aspire to know that their children’s lives are going to be better than theirs. But we are facing down the barrel of being the first generation who will not be able to look our children in the eye and say that, because they face increasing housing costs and their chances of actually owning their own home are becoming a distant, distant memory. They face increasing debt for everything that they are engaged with—for their education, and for just simply being allowed to live on this planet and participate in life in New Zealand. They are under growing amounts of debt. The life expectation of the generation below us is below the life expectation for my generation.

That is a dreadful situation for any parent to have to contemplate. Also, our children face increasingly insecure jobs. That is what they are facing under this National Government. It is only the Labour Party that is concerned enough about that prospect that we are doing the hard work and the thinking and the policy making around what the future of the workforce needs to look like, to actually make it more secure for people, to ensure that the workforce and the labour market work for people.

I listened to the sad contributions from the last couple of National MPs. Todd Muller, who has just resumed his seat, said that our entire success is going to be measured on how connected we are to the world. No, Mr Muller, our success will be rated on how people’s lives are. We have an economy to serve the people; not the people to serve the economy. They have got it completely the wrong way round. That is what I think was at the basis of the Prime Minister’s statement that was so disappointing and did not bring forward any of the inspiration, any of the vision, that New Zealanders are desperately crying out for.

Under National, the Kiwi Dream is slipping away. National members are too distracted on working out how to get rid of our flag, for goodness’ sake! They are so distracted on how to get rid of our flag that they had a crisis meeting about it. They had a crisis meeting on how to get rid of our national flag when they should have been having a crisis meeting on how to lift out of poverty the increasing number of children who are slipping into poverty under National’s reign. That should have been what the crisis meeting was about; not about getting rid of our flag. So the Government has completely got its priorities upside down.

On this side of the House we are connected to the Kiwi Dream, and we are determined to deliver that. I want to talk about a few aspects that we are taking charge of. Extending paid parental leave is one aspect. If the Kiwi Dream starts anywhere it starts in those first early days and months of a child’s life. Getting that right, getting the support, getting the security, getting the attachment between parent and baby—there should be no greater priority than that. That is where the Kiwi Dream starts. If it goes wrong in those early months, what all the research and evidence tell us is that we as taxpayers will pay for that, over and over and over again. When that child cannot learn, when that child ends up in hospital, when that child is not going to school because of health problems, when that child is disconnected from their caregiver, from their parent, then we all pay, over and over again, for the bad outcomes of that.

On this side of the House, and with the support of other wise parties, what we know is that this sort of investment is the type of thing that the Prime Minister should have been talking about. He should have been agreeing to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. But was he doing that? No. Instead, he is talking about putting a veto on it, to go against the will of this Parliament and to go against the will of the majority of New Zealanders, to put a stop to getting the start to the Kiwi Dream. That is what the Prime Minister is focused on; not on dealing with the issues that matter to New Zealanders.

Decent jobs—that is what this side of the House is focused on. We know that having a decent job is fundamental to being able to secure the rest of the Kiwi Dream. It is fundamental to that. But under this Government, zero-hour contracts are what have been going on. People have to put their lives on hold, just sit and wait for a phone call that may never come, to give them a little bit of extra money so that they can put food on the table. For far too many of our families those jobs mean not only that can they not participate in their community but also that they cannot do the basic thing of putting food on the table. We are a food-producing nation, and 27 percent of our children live in poverty. Too many of our children go to school hungry, in a food-producing nation. How can we get it so wrong? How can that be? Did the Prime Minister address that at all in his statement? There was not one measure—not one measure—to reduce child poverty. There was not one measure to secure decent jobs. There was not one measure that actually deals with the day-to-day pressures that New Zealand families are facing, and it is very, very disappointing.

Another part of a decent job is the good old Kiwi adage that you get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. There was never a rider put on that—I have never heard one—that says “but only if you are a certain gender, or only if you are a certain race.” What I am talking about is equal pay. We need urgently to address equal pay as well. This Government cannot even talk about equal pay. It talks, instead, about getting women to go off and do jobs traditionally done by men. That seems to be the Government’s only idea that it has got in this space. Well, it is not acceptable and it needs addressing.

In the final part of this speech I want to talk a little bit about transport and its role in the Kiwi Dream. I can tell you that sitting on the Auckland motorway for hours on end is not part of the Kiwi Dream. That Government has presided over increasing volumes on the Auckland motorway, without people getting anywhere. It has spent $2.3 billion on the Waikato Expressway. That was money, funding, set aside by a Labour Government to do exactly that. We agree with the Waikato Expressway, but what the Government has managed to do is to squander that $2.3 billion. It now takes longer than ever to get from central Hamilton to central Auckland. It now takes longer than ever. It used to take an hour and a half

Hamiltonians now have to put aside 3 hours to get from central Hamilton to central Auckland, and that is after the Government has spent $2.3 billion on the Waikato Expressway. Why? Because it did not do the public transport part that needed to go alongside that, to make it work. The Government has ignored the needs of public transport in Auckland, and now what we are doing, with the Waikato Expressway, is we are feeding a greater volume of traffic faster to get to the “great southern car-park” and sit there for longer. That is what the National Government has managed to achieve. It is not good for productivity. It is not good for family life.

Because of the housing crisis in Auckland, which the Government has failed to fix, we have got people moving to Hamilton, living there, but returning to their jobs every day in Auckland. They are going on that motorway, sitting there for hours on end, doing a full day’s work, and doing it again at the other end of the day. They are becoming unsafe on the roads, and when they get home they are feeling stressed with their families. That is not the Kiwi Dream. It is not working under this Government.

Ā, kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā; tuatahi, ka maumarahatia Te Rakatira Tākuta Ranginui Joseph Isaac Walker. Nō reira, e Te Rakatira o Te Whakatōhea, e Te Rakatira o Te Iwi Māori, e haere atu rā, haere atu rā ki Te Pā o Te Whakawairua, e takoto mai, takoto mai, takoto mai, e moe mai, moe mai rā!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. In the first instance I reminisce about the noble Dr Ranginui Joseph Isaac Walker. Therefore, to you, esteemed one of Whakatōhea and Māoridom, depart and move on to the spiritual place. Lie there, lie down, and lay there. Rest and slumber on.]

I stand to take this split call to support the Prime Minister’s statement. I want, first of all, to highlight the work of this Government to improve Māori well-being of individuals and communities. We continue to resolve the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims settlements and we have the whakaaro—the idea is that we do want to settle with all those iwi that are willing and are able, by 2017. Also, there is Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill, which will unlock the revision of that Māori land legislation, which has huge potential to unlock the huge economic potential existing in Māori land.

💬 Kelvin Davis: Which version? There’s been 18 rewrites.

Well, wait for it. When it comes to the Māori Affairs Committee, you will see it. I also want to reflect on the debate surrounding Waitangi this year. Waitangi, our national day, was hijacked by opponents of free trade. It was hijacked. Up and down the country, we have seen Māori being fed misinformation about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. We have seen this right across the country. Two major things that they have been fed: the first one is consultation and the second one is this idea that the TPP agreement would infringe on their rights under the Treaty of Waitangi.

Let us look at the consultation process, because the truth is that the consultation process for the TPP agreement actually started in 2008, and for Māori there were specific consultations with the Federation of Māori Authorities, individual Māori businesses, and also iwi. Throughout the process the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade actually updated iwi and Māori businesses every 6 months, so this misinformation that they were never consulted—that is misinformation. The next part of it is about this infringement of rights—

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Were you there? I was there. It’s not consultation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I just ask the member to take a seat for a second while I remonstrate with one of my colleagues. I was not there, and the member should know not to address the speaker in that way.

Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The misinformation around the TPP agreement actually infringing on the Treaty of Waitangi—nothing in the agreement prevents the Government from honouring the Treaty; nothing in the agreement. When we look at the trade agreements that have been negotiated since 2001, all of those, in those trade agreements since then, they’ve always had those provisions in it that there would be no infringement under the Treaty of Waitangi.

Finally, at the beginning I acknowledged Dr Ranginui Walker. In one of his books, Struggle Without End—he was a man who saw there was far from doom and gloom regarding the development of iwi Māori—he called Māori development “the most powerful cultural renaissance […] of a colonised people in the world.” One of those cultural achievements he highlighted was Māori entrepreneurship. Māori own nearly 30 percent of our primary industries and stand to be the biggest beneficiaries of the TPP agreement. Māori care about the same things that other New Zealanders care about. They want jobs, they want better wages, and quality public services.

That is why the Government has pursued and will continue to pursue the TPP agreement and other opportunities for economic growth. We are about wealth creation as opposed to about wealth redistribution. Kia ora.

It is a privilege for me to stand and take this my first call in the House. For the benefit of my colleagues, I am based in West Coast - Tasman, and I am very proud to stand here today in support of the Prime Minister’s statement—a Prime Minister who has taken it upon himself to recognise the importance of the tourism industry in this country and has placed himself in charge of that particular portfolio. Tourism is directly contributing $10.6 billion to the national economy. We are experiencing a very buoyant tourism sector at the moment, and my recent visit to South Westland, just last week, encourages me that the industry is in good heart and the country is in good heart.

The Prime Minister’s statement touched on several items that affect the people who live in the area of West Coast - Tasman in a very positive way. One of those is the changes that are proposed for ACC that will be coming in this year. A total of $450 million will be saved in levies paid by businesses and employees—that is $450 million that stays in the pockets of those people. That is a huge contribution back to this nation.

When I was campaigning in 2014, the Government pledged that it would replace one of the bottlenecks in the tourism sector, on the roads in between Greymouth and Hokitika, and that is the Taramakau road-rail bridge. Although quite quaint in its design, where you share the road and the bridge with a train, in this day and age it is no longer satisfactory. The Government plans to spend $15 million to $20 million on replacing the Taramakau road-rail bridge. This project is expected to start later this year, and delivers on that pre-election promise. I am very proud that we were able to promise that to the electorate and also deliver. This is part of the Accelerated Regional Roading Package.

Also part of that programme is the realignment of what is called the Mingha Bluff, and for those of you who have ever travelled State Highway 73 from the West Coast to Christchurch, you will know that it is one of the remaining narrow sections of road—very windy. If you have ever had the misfortune of being stuck behind a transporter, you will know that if two trucks meet on that particular section of road, there is simply no room to pass—they literally touch wing mirrors. In this day and age, with the tourist volumes that are making their way across that road, it is very heartening indeed to see this work progressing at such a great rate and—I have got to say—too, without too much disruption to the traffic flows along that road. This is a $22 million project being invested into the area and, all going to plan, it will be finished at the end of this year. This will significantly improve the safety of locals and visitors visiting and travelling across that road. It is also very important for our freight transport operators.

Another item in the Prime Minister’s statement that is of particular interest to me is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The industries that benefit in the areas of West Coast - Tasman—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Huge on the Coast. Huge.

—huge—dairy, meat, fruit and vegetables, forestry, and fisheries. By the time the TPP is fully implemented, the tariff savings alone will value $259 million. That is $259 million nationally that is staying with the growers to grow their business, to employ more workers, and to benefit their industries. This is great news for New Zealand.

There is an example on the West Coast at the moment of the central-local government partnership. I spoke about this in my maiden speech, where working together produces greater results for Kiwis. This Government has pledged $300 million—sorry, I wish—$300,000 to help with the employment opportunity in Buller, and that is a partnership, one-to-one, with the Buller District Council. That is going to see workers being able to be retained in the town so that other business opportunities can grow and take up their employment at a later date. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take the final call for the Greens on the Prime Minister’s statement, and I want to address the four priorities that he outlined. They were to responsibly manage the Government’s finances, to build a more competitive and productive economy, to deliver better public services to New Zealanders, and to support the rebuilding of Christchurch.

I applaud the Government’s small army of public relations and communications staff for being able to spin this Government’s appalling record on these issues into some kind of achievement. National has promised to responsibly manage the Government’s finance. The reality is that it has increased New Zealand’s public debt to $120 billion. A legacy of National’s poor economic management is tax cuts to its rich mates and giveaways to dodgy corporates. It promised to build a more competitive and productive economy; instead, it built an economy that was built on property speculation—ask anyone in Auckland—and on casino capitalism and on unsustainable practices. It has failed to meaningfully diversify the economy and implement a vision towards a greener and more sustainable economy.

Our trading fortunes seem to rise and fall with the dairy prices, and we see, as the result of this, farms carrying nearly $60 billion in debt, with dairy farms carrying $40 billion of that debt. Nearly one in 10 farmers is under financial stress. The Government’s single-minded focus on bigger, more intensive farming endangers our fragile ecosystems. It pressures farmers into intensifying, and it undermines New Zealand’s No. 1 strength: our “clean, green” reputation.

This Government claims to have provided Better Public Services. It has certainly been very good at delivering public services to further private interests—to places like Serco, Skycity, and, let us not forget, charter schools—and it has certainly been very good at replacing democratically elected bodies in favour of appointed cronies. We see this with the Southern District Health Board and governance in Christchurch. But the facts speak for themselves. National’s approach is not working.

Currently there are 129 days of waiting time to get a State house if you are in urgent need. One in three people needing a house is turned away and taken off the waiting lists to help the Government fudge the books with its creative accounting. The Government’s hard-line ideology is pressuring our hard-working public servants. Our nurses and doctors are having to cope with nearly $2 billion—$2 billion—in underfunding, our universities are slipping in the world rankings, and our Department of Conservation is struggling to fulfil its core responsibilities due to budget cuts.

The reality on the ground was exposed a couple of weeks ago by the Salvation Army’s report. In it, it says—and as we know—that there are still 220,000 kids living in poverty, there are still 150,000 notifications for potential child abuse this year, and there are over 55,000 food parcels being provided by the Salvation Army. Only on “Planet Key” can the number of kids remaining in poverty increase despite the economy growing 12 percent since 2010.

The reality about our Public Service is that it cannot continue to struggle with underfunding. Political reporter Andrea Vance was correct: instead of having Better Public Services, we have “Bitter Public Services”. Despite the Government’s glossy public relations, our hard-working teachers, nurses, doctors, and police are bearing the cost of having to do much, much more with less, and that means that our most vulnerable—our kids, kids living in poverty, regional New Zealand, and our new migrants—are bearing the costs of these stealth cuts.

Let me just talk a little bit about Christchurch and the promises there. My colleagues from Christchurch have already touched on this, but allow me to ask the question once more: how can the Government be listing its rebuilding of Christchurch as an achievement and then, several days later, slash the funding for mental health services in the area? Rebuilding is more than replacing bricks and mortar. It is about supporting people who have been hurt and are facing losses, it is about wrapping support around the vulnerable and vulnerable communities, and it is about acknowledging that the loss of friends, family, businesses, and ways of life can be painful and difficult and that it requires help. I pay tribute to the incredible resilience, courage, and fortitude of the people of Christchurch, and I condemn this Government, which by its actions is failing the people of Christchurch and the people of New Zealand.

The Government has repeatedly promised a brighter future for New Zealand, but it has always talked a better game than it has been prepared to deliver. For ordinary working New Zealanders, we have gone backwards in terms of rights at work, we have gone backwards in terms of the work climate where lots and lots of public servants feel bullied and fearful, and we have gone backwards about zero-hour contracts. The Prime Minister promised a brighter future for New Zealanders, but, actually, he has left every New Zealander in the dark. The recent increase of the minimum wage to $15.25 an hour and the gap between that and the living wage of $19.80 reflect that reality. Since 2009 the highest-paid third of New Zealanders have seen their incomes increase eight times as much as the lowest-paid third.

Last year the Government promised to outlaw zero-hour contracts, but instead of moving on that, what it is doing is attempting to legalise them. Last year the Government promised a gold-plated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, but we are being sucked in and stuck with an agreement that will cost 5,000 jobs and leave us open to being sued by big corporates. There is a better way—there is a much better way.

It is interesting to note what the Prime Minister did not talk about. Not once did the Prime Minister mention the word “inequality” or the word “poverty”, not once did the Prime Minister address the growing gap between the haves and have-nots in this country, and only once did he mention climate change—and then only in passing. A progressive Prime Minister would have talked about child poverty and supported measures to fix it, like our breakfast in schools bill—the Government could have supported that—and like, maybe, decent incomes for families. A progressive Prime Minister would have talked about how climate change is the greatest challenge we face, but it is also an opportunity for New Zealand to become world leaders in a new, high-value, cleantech, low-carbon economy. A progressive Prime Minister would have talked about how we can have an economy that works for everyone, not just the very rich, and a progressive Government with the Greens in it would do more than just talk and spin.

We would act on these issues and make sure that every single child in New Zealand is cared for and lives in a warm, dry home. We would make sure ordinary New Zealanders would get a fair deal at work and a fair share of the benefits of a smart, thriving green economy that works for everyone. We would make sure that we have rivers we can swim in and vibrant green cities and townships with fast, affordable, clean public transport. An Aotearoa with the Green Party at the heart of Government will be a much kinder place, and certainly we would deliver a lot better than what this Government has.

I am very pleased to speak on the Prime Minister’s statement. If you are listening to this debate, you would have heard a lot of slogans, but, actually, when I read the Prime Minister’s statement, I see a very clear vision for New Zealand. It is very clear, and it is very clear that there is a very big contrast in this House between the Opposition and the Government. The vision is an open, democratic nation that is connected to the world, where we live in a place where every young person has the ability to have access to decent health and education services. Let us look at what has actually happened over the last 7 years, and where we are going.

Let us take the first issue: our economy. We hear a lot from the Opposition about how much it cares about business. Those members turn up, they have the cocktail functions, but when it comes to the crunch—one of the biggest things that will affect so many of our exporters—where are they? They have gone. They have ditched our exporters. Because the reality is that the emails that were coming in to me in Auckland Central—yes, there were those people who were opposed, but there were a whole lot of exporters who understood the basic concept of a deal that would reach 800 million people and 11 nations, that would lead to, if not signed, a whole lot of businesses small and large having tariffs on them that other countries would not have. It was inconceivable to them that we would not sign it. In fact, I think it was one exporter who said to me: “We would literally have our hands tied behind ours backs.”

So the Labour Party talks a good game, but when it comes to the crunch, it cannot sign the deal and, actually, it is all over the place. We know where former Prime Minister Helen Clark sits on this, and I do want to acknowledge her. You know, she quite clearly understands the issue for New Zealand if we were to not sign this thing. We understand where Phil Goff sits on this. He is a former trade Minister. He quite practically understands a $2.7 billion deal for our country and what that means. We actually understand where David Shearer sits on this, but he has been muzzled by his leader. The reality is that half of the Labour caucus support this deal, but because of petty politics they have not been able to step up and do the right thing for New Zealand.

We are a Government that has a Prime Minister who is outward-looking and who is walking the talk and signing deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I want to acknowledge the Hon Tim Groser. When it comes to the economy, we are a Government that was handed billions of dollars of a hole in the ACC books. I am the Minister for ACC. We now have a situation where we have been able to put $1.5 billion back in New Zealanders’ pockets. We have got $450 million coming back. That is from motor vehicle levies being cut, that is businesses levies being cut—that is actually real. In contrast, we were handed a complete shambles in terms of the books.

When it comes to other areas of the economy, the reality is that—if you listen, again, to the Opposition you will hear a completely different level of slogans and a completely different world—the average wage in New Zealand has gone up $10,000 under our Government. It is now at $57,000. But, again, our vision is more than that. It is not just about the economy.

When it comes to infrastructure, we were handed a massive deficit. I am Associate Minister of Education. Let me walk you through the numbers. We were handed leaky buildings and we were handed old buildings. More than 60 percent of the buildings in New Zealand were over 60 years old. What happened? There were $2.7 billion in 7 years under Labour; we have put $4 billion in. We are literally fixing these schools all across New Zealand more than ever before. No Government has undertaken such a social infrastructure upgrade of our schools as this Government has. So if people want to talk about a Government that cares, that is one example.

Let us talk about the other examples. When it comes to health, we have a whole lot of young people who we want to ensure get access to the doctor. Which Government was it? It was our Government that said: “Right, we’re going to give free under-13s visits to young people in New Zealand.” We have delivered that. When it came to the issue raised by the Green Party of breakfast in schools, it was our Government that has put in millions of dollars, enabling those schools that want it—not compulsorily, not making sure that every school has to have set times for their particular breakfasts. We actually said to schools: “It’s up to you if you want it, but we will enable those young people to get access to breakfast.” When it came to insulating houses—we are now 350,000 insulated houses later. Again, this is set out in the Prime Minister’s clear vision for New Zealand—a country that is focused on opening up our many businesses to the world, having access to those markets, having access to decent incomes, but also enabling some of our most vulnerable to get better support. And our record in those areas that I have just outlined is very clear.

When it comes to infrastructure spend, let us look again in Auckland. Again, we hear a lot of slogans from the Opposition about the Kiwi Dream and all of these things, and we hear a lot of slogans about the fact that we should not be investing so much in roads, but here are the facts around rail in Auckland. It is our Government that has put $1.5 billion into the electrification of rail, and I was very pleased to be with the Prime Minister when we confirmed that we are looking to bring forward the City Rail Link. What is that about? That is actually about Prime Minister John Key being responsible for delivering the vital artery in Auckland’s rail system. That is a project that will lead to not just the people of central Auckland benefiting; it is the people of west Auckland and South Auckland who are literally going to have their journey times slashed in half.

That is a compassionate Government. That is a Government that is investing not just in roads but also in public transport. Again, we are spending billions of dollars ensuring that our young people are connected to the world and that it is a connected nation. Whether it is the ultra-fast broadband programme, which has been a couple of billion dollars, we are one of the only countries in the world—and this is something that I am most proud of and when I leave Parliament, this is one of the things that I will be most proud of. We said when we came in that we were going to do everything we could to connect New Zealand schools. And we have not only said that we are going to put the fibre in the ground, we are going to enable every school that wants it to have access to fast connections, reliable connections funded by the Crown. We are, we believe, one of only a couple of countries in the world that are delivering that. We are roaring ahead with that programme. More than 90 percent of New Zealand schools have been connected to that, and that is paid for by us because we believe in a nation that is globally connected where every young person gets that opportunity.

So, again, we hear a lot from the Opposition about the Kiwi Dream. The Prime Minister’s statement was very clear: an open nation connected to the world, where every young person gets better access to equality of opportunity. And it is our Government, in so many areas—from education to insulating houses, to free under-13s visits, to investing in infrastructure and catching up with the massive deficit that we have been left in areas like rail, in transport, and in ultra-fast broadband. That is incredibly significant. And we have done this at one of the most difficult times, in terms of our history, with the global financial situation, but also with the Canterbury earthquakes.

As the Minister of Civil Defence, can I say this. There is a lot of talk around the Canterbury rebuild, but I have had the good fortune of meeting Ministers from across the world, and I do want to say this about the Hon Gerry Brownlee: it is one of the most complex processes to basically try to rebuild a city. I think that we have not only the Prime Minister’s leadership on pretty much day one in saying “We will rebuild that city.”—and we have spent $17 billion on doing that—but also the dedication and the huge amount of work that the Hon Gerry Brownlee does every day to ensure that we are rebuilding that city. But the reality is that there are many situations across the world where we can see that this does take a bit of time, and we acknowledge the people of Canterbury and their patience through this period. But, at the end of the day, we have put up the money and we are absolutely committed to working through that.

This is a Government that not only has compassion and has the right policies from a fiscal perspective but, actually, is walking the talk when it comes to the Kiwi Dream. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove—5 minutes.

If you look at Kiwi society, Kiwis do not ask for much from their Government or from their nation. They ask for a fair go, they ask for a future, they ask—and they want—some hope; not just for themselves but for their families, for the future generations, and for their loved ones. New Zealanders know what they are about.

The last speaker, Minister Nikki Kaye, talked about the Prime Minister’s statement and the vision and the great words and the great slogans that were in it. She talked—and I wrote it down—about “a Government that cares”. She talked about “a compassionate Government”. But there was one word and one phrase that did not appear in the Prime Minister’s statement yet was evident today, and that was the word “Keytruda”. We had a display today in Parliament where members of the public presented a 45,000-person petition. People sat in the gallery watching the to-ing and fro-ing of question time, and they are people who are fighting for their lives, quite literally. We had a couple of individuals come to our caucus meeting this morning to talk about the fact that, in both cases, they were, effectively, told it was lights out—they were not coming back. As my colleague said, to go home and die was the message: “There is nothing that can be done.”

And we had people on the front lawn of Parliament: people who have done sausage sizzles; people who have raised money through Givealittle websites and on Facebook; people who have mortgaged houses for their families—not because they have a choice to do so but because they have to, literally, in the case of the melanoma disease, try to keep their loved ones alive because the Government refuses to fund Pharmac to produce, literally, a lifesaving drug.

As Annette King has said, there is no first-line or front-line treatment like chemotherapy or radiotherapy for this disease. These people require a lifesaving drug to survive, and this is not, you know, the old green-lipped mussel, sort of magic potion stuff that we had a few years ago. No, these are people who were told “Go home and die.”, who funded this medication themselves and are now living today. So when that member talks about compassion and when she talks about a caring Government, she should reflect on those folks who sat in the gallery today and who were on the front lawn of this Parliament begging, in many cases, for this Government to save the lives of their family. That might sound a bit dramatic over there, but it is a medical fact. It is a medical fact.

The Prime Minister talks about aspiration. Well, it is hard to have aspiration if you are dead. It is hard to have aspiration if your whole life as you move to retirement is about mortgaging your home, going on Facebook to beg the public for some money, going and running galas and other things, because that is what you literally have to do to ensure that those you love who are victims of this awful disease can have their lives saved. I am told people are dying daily from this disease, and these are people whose lives can be saved. I ask the Minister of Health—as he says “Pharmac might get some more money”, or the Prime Minister, as he says “We’ll have to wait and see until the Budget”—to act. And every day that we wait and every day that we procrastinate, or the Government procrastinates, people literally die.

So when we talk about vision and when we on this side talk about the Kiwi Dream, and the Prime Minister talks about aspiration—and when we hear 10 minutes of lofty speeches about roads and all sorts of other infrastructure and the wonderful opportunities available to New Zealanders, who do not ask for much—those New Zealanders sitting in the gallery and out on the front lawn will never be able to exercise those aspirational goals because they might not be here.

Government inherently is about choices. Ministers make choices every day. They choose to fund a flag referendum at 26 million bucks. They choose to fund charter schools and Novopays that fail. They choose all these things, and today is an opportunity for them to make a choice and literally—literally for those people—save their lives.

I call Stuart Nash—5 minutes.

What I would like to talk about is equality of opportunity and the Kiwi Dream in the 21st century. Nikki Kaye stood up and she talked about an aspirational Government and what it was doing, but the facts speak for themselves. At the moment in New Zealand there are over 300,000 Kiwi children living in poverty, our jail numbers are at a record high, and there are over 150,000 New Zealanders who are unemployed. The world that Nikki Kaye speaks about is the world of people who have succeeded; they have had opportunities, and I celebrate them and I say: “Well done. Good on you. You’ve worked hard. You’ve got to where you are by getting out there and really making it happen.” But I have grave concerns for those without hope, without opportunity, or without aspiration.

Equality of opportunity is my reason for getting into politics and my underlying philosophy. Equality of opportunity means it does not matter what your postcode is, what your parents’ income is, where you live, or what your last name is. It is about allowing Kiwis to reach their full potential, and it starts with education.

Education allows people to reach their potential—to be as good as they possibly can be. We are not talking about everyone becoming Oxford dons, but what we are talking about is people achieving and becoming part of society. A generation ago, if you were not so academically inclined there were jobs in the freezing works, in the wool stores, at the forest service, at the ports, in the Ministry of Works, and in the post office. There were jobs for everyone. In fact, they used to joke in the 1950s that the Minister of Labour knew the name of every single unemployed person because there were only about 11 of them. That has changed.

These days, if you want to be even a grunt in the army, you need National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. Education is where it starts and education is a way forward. It is the way that Kiwis can reach out and make that Kiwi Dream a reality. It has never been so important in providing young Kiwis with the right to a life that we have had and that our forebears have had, but at the moment it is just out of reach of a generation coming through because they have not got that ability. Education is so important that it cannot be underestimated. It was why the Labour Party, a Labour Government, and Andrew Little have really trumpeted education as a way forward, as a transformational policy to allow Kiwis to achieve to their potential.

We are going to enter into a referendum on the New Zealand flag. Sir Roger Douglas, in this House—you know, we disagree on certain fundamental philosophy—said that he had never ever seen a Prime Minister come into power with so much political capital as John Key and completely waste it. I simply cannot understand, for the life of me, why Mr Key is burning so much political capital on something like the New Zealand flag when there are so many things that he could go incredibly hard on that would change the lives of good, hard-working Kiwis and that would transform this country from one where we have begun to almost accept that child poverty is just the way it is.

When you think that this is a country founded on such egalitarian principles that people moved from London, from the UK, and from around the world to come here, to have a fresh start, and to start again in a society that valued everyone. The thing is that a Labour Government has always been the Government of transformation, of social evolution that is not social revolution, and it will be again. There is a different way. I know this; New Zealanders know this. There is an alternative. We cannot keep going the way we are. If you are doing really well life is good, but for more and more and more Kiwis life is a struggle and life is a challenge. As mentioned, I celebrate those who have done well—good on you—but for those for whom life is a challenge, we also need to work hard for them. Thank you.

The previous speaker, Stuart Nash, was talking about the time when somebody said there were 11 unemployed people in the country. I can remember that time, back in the mid-1970s. It was just down on Pipitea Street, not far from this Parliament, where I watched a gang from the Ministry of Works dig a hole. There were 13 workers there. Each had a spade or a shovel, and there were 12 watching and one digging.

Back in the 1970s this country was very wealthy because we had a great relationship with Britain. We were able to sell all of our goods, no questions asked, but then Britain joined the EEC and suddenly our markets evaporated and disappeared, and this country has to live in a different way than it did in that period of time. We have to be far more productive, we have to be sharper, we have to be leaner, we have to be competitive, and we have to be productive on the world stage. That is what this Government has brought to this nation—productivity edge competitiveness on the world stage. That is why this country, this nation, and this Government are respected all around the world.

Back in 2008 National became the Government with 45 percent support. We went into 2011 and we won with 47 percent support. We went into 2014 and we won again with 47 percent support. In October 2015 we were receiving 47 percent support and at the beginning of this year, once again. So what that shows is that there has been consistency of support because there has been consistency of policy and consistency of output and achievement for this country. After returning to Taranaki in 2008—after living for 22 years in Auckland—what I have witnessed is the credibility and consistency of this Government in its support for the people of Taranaki and regional New Zealand. It is a good thing.

What we receive from members of the Opposition is a continual—as would be expected—undermining of the achievements of this Government. I remember when the Leader of the Opposition commented and was quoted in September last year on the number of visits to New Plymouth by Government Ministers. He said “When the town was booming, there were Ministers here every couple of weeks. Now you can’t see them for dust.”, referring to the time of challenge and hardship that two particular sectors in the Taranaki economy were facing—obviously, dairying and the petroleum sector. He said: “It’s not enough to stand on the sidelines cheering during the good times, then turn your back when times are tough. Taranaki and the rest of New Zealand deserves more than that.”

So he said they were there every couple of weeks. I went through the list of Ministers who came to my electorate, my region, and I wanted to find out the level of support this Government gave regional New Zealand, particularly in my electorate. I went through and I counted them up. There were 18 ministerial visits in 27 weeks, which is a visit every 10 days. So we were very much on the map, and I think what regional New Zealand appreciates and understands about this Government, and about our Prime Minister, is the fact that there is commitment and consistency. So that was the September comment.

Last week on 23 February the Leader of the Opposition accused the Government of abandoning Taranaki. He said during the oil boom Ministers touted Taranaki as the golden province. He said: “Now they’re nowhere to be seen. It’s not good enough to turn their back when the going gets tough.” So, once again, I went through and I looked and counted the number of my colleagues who had come through to support not only myself but the people of Taranaki, and the people of New Plymouth. At the end of last year the Prime Minister was there. Nikki Kaye, the Associate Minister of Education, came to look at school buildings. Paula Bennett came at the end of last year to open the new Novotel hotel and to look at areas of economic development in our region.

Just over a week ago Amy Adams came to celebrate the completion of the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband in my city. Steven Joyce came last week. Judith Collins came last week to support the business community and to visit the New Plymouth police station and the Department of Corrections, where there is fantastic collaboration taking place. Maggie Barry was in town. So even in the last month, since Parliament has been sitting, we have had a considerable number of ministerial visits, with them coming to our region every 4 to 5 days.

So what I am saying is that regional New Zealand continues to be on the agenda and to have the attention of this Government, but we would be told differently. In fact, the people of my region shake their heads, they scratch their heads, and they wonder at what they hear being so different to what they see. This is why, despite the rhetoric, this Government and our Prime Minister continues to receive support from New Zealanders—nearly one in every two. What they see is consistency. What they see is consistency, and a tremendous gap between us and the Opposition, obviously, as well.

Then, of course, we have—I will not tell you what is happening and coming up. But the previous speaker came and visited Taranaki, not just recently, but let me just talk about his visit last year—when he came with a number of his colleagues to visit the Stratford power station. I think this is a great example of why people question the validity of the members opposite to govern. My colleagues across the way, Mr Nash and Carmel Sepuloni and, of course, Mr Grant Robertson, came and they had a good look at some of our assets. There was an article in the Taranaki Daily News that was quite perplexing. So I wrote a letter to the editor because I wanted to know the answer about the difference between what they said and what I saw. I think New Zealanders all the time want to know the difference between what they see and what the Opposition says.

So I wrote a letter to the editor. The article on 8 October by Hannah Lee is titled “Labour Bigwigs”—that is, you, Mr Nash—“Visit on Regional Outreach”. It has Grant Robertson, Labour’s finance spokesman, saying “there was an increased interest in the Stratford power station now that Contact Energy had shut down their Ōtāhuhu power station for good, on 30 September … It’s a bit of a boost for Stratford.” So that is pretty good. He knows Contact Energy is permanently closing the Ōtāhuhu power station, therefore, Contact Energy’s other assets, such as the Stratford power station, are going to be in higher demand and higher need. I can see why Andrew Little made him finance spokesman. Then he went on to say: “However, the power station, like other regional infrastructure, was in need of desperate upgrades to bring it into the 21st century.” If I was Mr Nash at that point in time, as the energy spokesperson, I would be saying to Mr Robertson: “Grant, please don’t say that. Don’t say that.”

So needing to understand his sublime commentary on energy generation and infrastructure, I wrote a letter to the editor seeking the paper’s wisdom. In terms of Grant Robertson’s referring to regional infrastructure needing a desperate upgrade, I was not sure which of Contact Energy’s power stations in Stratford he says needs upgrading. Could it be the 377-megawatt station that Contact Energy describes as a large, efficient and modern plant being one of the largest gas turbines in the world housed in a single building? Could it be that one? Or perhaps it is the other power station needed to be to be brought into the 21st century, Contact Energy’s 200-megawatt gas-fired station, the one that Hekia Parata, Chester Borrows, and I accompanied the Prime Minister to, which he opened on 31 May 2011?

Just as I close, what I want to say is that credibility is the most tradable commodity in politics. Just last week we had Mr Little telling all of Taranaki that the Government has abandoned them. Just 2 days before, the Minister for Economic Development, the Hon Steven Joyce, was there meeting with all the civic leaders of the whole region, putting his finger on the pulse, finding out what is going on.

This is why this Government is credible and can be trusted. We have not abandoned—in fact, we are committed and we work hard to support—regional New Zealand, and we work hard to ensure that the economy of this nation continues to be strong and will continue to grow even in places such as Taranaki, where the commodities of milk and oil are receiving far less than they used to. What we see is a region that is resilient, working hard, pulling together, and that is going to come through this with flying colours. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. The Hon David Cunliffe—5 minutes.

The member Jonathan Young, who has just sat down, was half right. The Labour caucus committee was in Taranaki this last week, and here is what the good people of Taranaki told us about National’s regional development efforts: they are arrogant, they are out of touch, they have lost their way, and they are a tired, third-term Government that needs to be retired. They gave us three specific examples, and I will mention them.

The first one was the so-called regional growth studies. They are nothing but studies. People told us that the studies simply recite and package what the locals are already doing. There is study but no money, study but no action, study but no plan, and people are deeply cynical about National—a waste of space in regional development. It is like a New Year’s resolution that you are going to go on a diet: “We’ll have regional development this year.” Well, it does not happen under National because it does not do action and it does not do a strategy.

The second example that comes to mind is the famous Ōpōtiki harbour development in my colleague’s East Coast area. It is an economic and financial no-brainer. It has been proven to officials and Ministers multiple times. What happens? The Government does a kind of public relations sham and gives $3 million out of $30 million for yet another study, maybe to announce a grant in an election year. The people of the Eastern Bay of Plenty are not that stupid. They know when there is a con under way, and that con was Steven Joyce.

The third example that the member actually raised is the problem with white gold and black gold—oil and dairy. Well, we cannot control the oil market and we cannot control the global dairy market, and that is the problem. We have got all our cows in one basket. Labour has been saying for the last 6 years: “We need a plan for economic development. We need a plan to diversify our economy. We need a plan to add more value in science and innovation, through research and tertiary education, to the God-given natural resources that we do so well in.” What did National do? It converted everything into dairy farms and then it wondered why things looked pretty ropey when the price collapsed from 8 bucks to 4 bucks, and now, of course, there are calls to socialise the problem after it privatises the profit. You just watch this space, because there will be a lot of farmer pressure to say “Well, we need a free pass from the banks.”, the same banks that are announcing record profits—billions upon billions of dollars.

Let us talk about the Kiwi Dream. You know, half of New Zealand is enslaved to mortgages, making those Aussie banks really, really, rich with those record profits. The other half is trapped in a rental poverty trap, struggling to keep up and struggling to get their kids through tertiary education, but not getting ahead—middle-class Kiwis never getting ahead—of the fortnightly or monthly pay check. A country of aspiration, we used to be.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Like leadership.

A country of winners, we used to be. Oh, ho! There is Judith Collins, arising from the crypt, talking about leadership aspiration. Pots, kettles—yeah. The Kiwi Dream is worth campaigning for. The Kiwi Dream is not about lofty goals. It is not about spin. It is about the absolute basics: a roof over your head that is warm and dry, whether you own it or you rent it; some security of tenure for people who are renting.

The Kiwi Dream is about having a good job and the education available to keep up with the changing workplace. That is why Labour’s Working Futures Plan gives 3 years of free tertiary education for any type of training from apprenticeship to PhD at any time of your life, from post-school to pre-retirement. Our children are never going to do one job all their lives; they might do 10 jobs, and they are going to need to move into and out of the workforce. Here is the choice. When you boil it all down, we have got a choice between two futures: a dumb economy that is vulnerable to those commodity price cycles, or a smart economy, where we invest in knowledge and invest in each other, close those widening equity gaps, and protect our environment. If we do that, that is a dream worth making real. That is what a Labour-led Government is going to deliver, with our colleagues here, for a truly better future for all New Zealanders.

I call Clare Curran, 5 minutes.

The Prime Minister’s statement is an opportunity to get a bit philosophical about why we are politicians and about why we are all here, why we are all committed to a set of values, what we actually came in here to do, and whether or not we have managed to achieve any of it. So I am going to start with a quote from A A Milne, who, as you all know, wrote Winnie-the-Pooh: “Pay attention to where you are going because without meaning you might get nowhere.” Well, this National Government has not only lost its way, but it is turning our political system into a fake democracy—a fake democracy, where there is no Kiwi Dream and where there is not much meaning.

Just a month ago, New Zealand slipped down again in the global transparency rankings. We are no longer the least corrupt country in the world. Transparency International’s 2016 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks us behind Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. This is our worst ranking since 1998, which was the year before Helen Clark became the Prime Minister. Our Public Service works hard to be open and impartial, but this Government is doing damage to our reputation, whether it is through the Saudi sheep saga, whether it is the Oravida scandal, whether it is handing out payments to MediaWorks, or whether it is cronyism and dodgy deals. But, of course, that is not all.

Jonathan Young talked about the Opposition undermining the achievements of this Government. Well, what has really been happening since 2009 is that we have seen a steady erosion of democracy in this country. There are some glaring examples of this. Some of the most glaring include the freezing of funding and the gutting of public broadcasting in this country, the stifling of reasoned debate—public debate—and the scoffing at, and belittling of, those who have attempted to keep debate alive in this country. As I said, we have been embroiled in scandals around handouts to MediaWorks and editorial interference in Māori Television. We have seen questionable appointments to the board of Radio New Zealand, the freezing of funding to Radio New Zealand, New Zealand On Air, and Māori Television, the killing off of TVNZ 7—I could go on and on. It is just the tip of the iceberg, but there are more. There are increased central government powers at the expense of elected regional and local government—of course, the suspending of the elected council at Environment Canterbury is the glaring example of that.

There is the withholding of information under the Official Information Act—delaying or releasing documents that are mostly redacted. This is not a Government that is committed to transparency and openness, which we saw late last year when the Ombudsman released a report into the Official Information Act that showed Government departments being encouraged by Ministers’ offices to withhold material for political reasons. It was incredibly disappointing. That report also contains some disappointing information from the Ombudsman, with her suggestion that media and politicians could be charged for information, which would set a dangerous precedent. It is a longstanding convention that agencies do not charge media or politicians because it would stifle the free flow of information that is in the public interest. So what happened? In January we had the first sign that agencies are charging for Official Information Act requests, with the Reserve Bank charging a Fairfax business journalist as part of that policy.

Then we have got hard evidence of Government inaction on transparency and accountability, with the Open Government Partnership report released just a couple of weeks ago—New Zealand is part of an Open Government Partnership consisting of 69 Governments—which found a huge lack of consultation and ambition in opening up the Government and an action plan that consists of programmes that are already under way and are not designed to improve Government practice. That report does not practise what it preaches.

We are seeing a lack of openness and transparency. What New Zealanders want is a sense of meaning from their Government; instead, we have a Government that has lost its way.

I am not sure whether one would call that last speech philosophical or just sort of a litany of woes that really just have not, I think, got any impact whatsoever. I have to say, when I go around my electorate and other parts of the country, it is funny that nobody, but nobody, raises or mentions those issues at all. In fact, if you are talking to people out in the electorates, what they talk about is very much what we heard in the Prime Minister’s statement, and I will come to some of those bits later.

I thought, though, to start—I just want to very briefly touch on Cyclone Winston. The primary reason for that, having lived and worked in Fiji and, in fact, gone through a cyclone a few years ago there, is to just speak, I suppose, in solidarity somewhat with the people there, to say to them: Ni sa bula vinaka na kai viti, e vanua viti. Having been through a cyclone—it literally came up the driveway where I lived and blew the place apart—I can say that the people of Fiji are incredibly resilient. We often attribute great smiling faces to them as a people and, despite this adversity, I am pretty sure those smiles will still be there.

The one thing about cyclones is—obviously, you have a few hours of terror, if you will, but it is the damage that continues to be done afterwards. I suppose, in using a few minutes of this speech, it is to encourage New Zealanders and Kiwis to continue to be generous. The cyclone itself might destroy the buildings but it also rips up the crops, particularly the dalo plant. It turns it into a little helicopter and literally pulls it right out of the ground. So the first week you would actually go, as we did, and harvest some food and eat. But in the weeks after, it begins to rot and, of course, you begin to run out of food. Where we were, we were cut off for about a month, and so your food supplies begin to run very low. The other thing—and those who have lived in the Islands will know—is that all the sea salt gets blown up on to the land and actually scorches the land and the trees, and everything goes brown. It is not actually that they have been ripped out of the ground in that case, but, again, scorched.

So an encouragement to those listening and to New Zealanders as a whole, and to this House—continue to support the people of Fiji. The cyclone is not just simply an activity of a few hours but is something that goes on for weeks and months. In fact, even after I had left, after a couple of years, the damage of the particular cyclone that I went through was still being felt. Again, to the people of Fiji, I want to wish them well and strength at this time.

This remains a very strong and positive Government. As said in the Prime Minister’s statement, there has been a whole list of activities where we have performed incredibly strongly. We have heard everything from the increase in wages, unemployment, which is falling and is expected to fall even further, and, of course, an area of interest to myself is around health care—an incredibly positive story to be told there. I think that is reflected in a couple of ways. First and foremost, we know that more elective surgeries are being done. I note that a couple of constituents this week, sadly, have had to go to hospital. I am thinking of Valerie, in particular—if she is listening in—who wrote in and told me: “Six days in hospital, but a remarkably excellent experience through the Auckland DHB.” So we know that not only are surgeries going up but also the quality of surgeries is seen as very positive.

We know that extra funding is being put into the likes of palliative care. I think that it is particularly good to acknowledge the good people of the Eastern Bays Hospice. Once again, those from Tāmaki will know the Eastern Bays Hospice, or at the very least the Dove shops, which raise an enormous amount of money for hospice care in our community. One thing that I always like to stress to the House is that hospices like Eastern Bays Hospice are actually about where people are able to be at home and be supported. It is not like this little mini-hospital filled with morphine and other drugs; it is actually a life-giving dynamic, and I want to thank all of those who work in hospices, particularly those within my own electorate. We have got a whole lot of these new pain management teams out now. There is a lot of support, particularly for people with orthopaedic pain. Again, a really good news story.

I think that is somewhat reflected in the work of the Health Committee at the moment. It is, and remains, an incredibly, incredibly busy Health Committee. Over the last year—and, again, I think it is indicative of just how well the Government is doing—we have seen more funds made available to assist carers. There was a bill we just passed 2 weeks ago in this House with unanimous support—a bill under a National Government—to actually pay those providing care for the cost of transport, for the first time. We are also updating the Radiation Safety Act, and I think later today, actually, we may have a chance to complete that piece of work. Last year we updated legislation around health practitioners. In other words, we are looking at the health industry in New Zealand and saying: “How do we increase the scope of practice for various professions?”. The best example is things around death certificates or sick leave certificates, which are primarily the purview of medical practitioners, but we are saying: “Actually, scopes of practice have changed now, so why not see nurses and others being involved with that?”. We have also modernised elements around health protection. This was around regulation of sunbeds, but also dealing with how we, I suppose, monitor infectious diseases. So, again, it is a busy select committee, but I think it is indicative of actually what is a very positive Government making positive changes.

I say though that it is busy—it was something I was sharing with some members of my constituency last week around the select committee, because petitions often come up. I thought I would give an indication of just some of the topics that the Health Committee is looking at at the moment and acknowledge those who have put these in. There are quite a number of petitions before the committee. We are dealing with everything from surgical mesh to transgender operations, female prophylactics to tube-weaning—so that is for young people, babies mainly, who have to be fed by tube and how you wean them off that. It is quite a difficult process. We are looking at adrenalin autoimmune-injectors, or EpiPens, if you have an anaphylactic shock. We have been looking at petitions around public health and disability, pharmaceutical waste, assisted suicide, and the district health board in Northland. And services—pathology services. We are looking at maternity services and smoking, and—just when you think that we had not actually covered all the topics, moral, ethical, medical, and otherwise—we are also looking at the whole element of cannabis, Sativex, as well. So, it is a rather busy and, I would like to think, hard-working committee, with all members—but I certainly say that of our Government members—working incredibly hard.

So, for me, we are a Government that remains incredibly focused, a Government that is incredibly busy, and I think one that remains very much in touch with New Zealand. One of the best gauges for me is being in the electorate. It is where I derive most of my strength and energy, working with the good people of Tāmaki, and they continue to talk about the things that matter. Most of what we have heard from the other side today is really just superfluous in many ways. It is not what really impacts on people: health, absolutely; education, for sure; and crime, and law and order are incredibly important—knowing that they are safe in their homes. And, of course, the economy is something important, too.

But the people of Tāmaki have also understood that the Government is behind them, and so, in the last year in particular, we have had a number of successes, again, building on the good work of the Government. So there has been money for a cycleway. I know the member for Auckland Central is very proud of her—I think—bright pink cycleway. Ours is not going to be pink, I understand, but we have a wonderful cycleway going from Glen Innes through to Tāmaki Drive. We have had about 45 new classrooms for our schools promised, and more money for Mandarin teaching.

So there is, I suppose, a positive amount of real positive work going on, particularly in the education field. I am very conscious that today in the gallery there is a young lady who is now out of school but was formerly of Glendowie College here to grace us, and that, actually, we have got amazing young people who are in our communities. I see that day after day, and I certainly see it when I go to the high schools and colleges in my electorate, be it Selwyn, Tāmaki, Glendowie, or Sacred Heart—remarkable young people doing remarkable things. This Government is behind them, it is behind our education system, and also—as I was indicating earlier—it is really strongly behind the health sector.

So I think we have a very proud record as a Government. I think the Prime Minister himself has articulated things very well and clearly in his statement. We are a Government that talks about the things that matter. We are a Government that remains very much in touch with the people of New Zealand. We are a Government that is going to continue working hard because we are doing that listening. And if we need no better proof, it is just to look at the polls of where we are, and where the Opposition is.

What a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Prime Minister’s statement. I must say I am so delighted to be back as the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections as well as, obviously, being the MP for Papakura. I have to say, in the last couple of months when I have been coming back into the role, it has been so good to go and visit the police and the Department of Corrections and also to have a look at some of the other work that is going on but also to be back helping to make decisions around where we go to from here, because we have had some amazing achievements in the whole justice sector in the last 6 or 7 years.

When I think about the fact that we are now at the lowest recorded crime rate since 1978, we have reduced the number of offences—“we” as in the whole of Government and all of the wonderful agencies working with us—by 100,000 over the last 5 years. It is a tremendous achievement, and I would just like to sing out, basically, a bit of praise for the police, the Department of Corrections, and all the other agencies and NGOs, as well as the Government agencies working together to bring that about. We have crime rates down. We have youth crime down. We have all of those areas down, but one area that I think we have all felt the need to get better progress in is family violence.

If we look at family violence—and I know that this is a real topic in our entire justice sector. The reason is that family violence actually leads to more violence. One of the things that we have done today is to make some announcements—my colleague Anne Tolley and I—around gangs. In my particular announcements around the Gang Intelligence Centre, which is based in the police but works across a whole raft of agencies from the Ministry of Social Development to the Department of Corrections, to Immigration New Zealand, to the Customs Service, and to others as well—what the centre does is it really goes after and targets gangs.

You might ask why we would do that—why I am saying that in the same breath as I am talking about family violence.

Well, actually, there is a very good reason. Sixty percent of children who grow up in gang homes are the victims of family violence—so that is 60 percent—so much so and so violent that Child, Youth and Family are involved. We are not talking about a smack on the hand; we are talking about children being abused and/or neglected, so much so that Child, Youth and Family is involved. That is a pretty staggering thing to say, is it not?

I go to the prisons and talk to the prison directors—who used to be called prison managers but they are prison directors now, and I did that just the other day—they say to me that they believe that 90 percent of all of the prisoners in our jails have themselves been victims of family violence as children. When I was first the Minister of Corrections and I went and visited the women’s prisons, I found out a little bit about some of the prisoners there, and I realised—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koe e Te Whare, tēnā koutou e te whānau o Te Pāremata. Kia ora mai tātou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, the House, and to the family of Parliament; thank you and acknowledgments to you all.]

Members, when we adjourned for the evening meal break the Hon Judith Collins was speaking. She has 6 minutes and 30 seconds remaining to speak.

💬 Pita Paraone: She was in her stride too.

Yes, that little break can actually stop the flow, but let us get back into it. I was speaking I think, from memory, about visiting our two women’s prisons and realising, after discussing some matters with some of the prison staff as well as the prisoners, that actually what they had in general—and obviously there are always exceptions—were some of the most abused women in the country. They are abused because the vast majority of them are gang women and they live in a culture of abuse. Yes, some of them have gone on to commit dreadful crimes against their own children and some of them have been involved in the methamphetamine trade—they are not there just because they were abused; they are actually there because they have committed very serious crimes—but there is a huge relationship between abuse of children and those children choosing at a later stage to go on to abuse others.

That is not to say for a moment that all people who are abused, children who are abused, or victims are going to then become perpetrators, but there is a very serious connection between abuse and that person going on to become an abuser. I think one of the issues that we have learnt is that the abuse of children, the abuse of people, can lead to trauma. If it is not recognised as a trauma and it is treated as “Well, this is what happens in this family. This is what we do. I know, let’s put them back with the grandparent, who, by the way, used to abuse the parent.”, we are going to continue to have kids being killed in their own homes.

In my electorate in Papakura we are a very diverse electorate. There are a lot of gangs, there are a lot of really great people, and there is a lot of every mixture you could think of, but what I also know too is that there are some kids who never get a chance. They never get a chance in life because their own families are so dysfunctional that dysfunctional is simply a word and is basically a platitude, because the families are so bad that for their kids, home for them is the least safe place that they could ever be. There is a reason that these kids are out on the street at 2 o’clock in the morning as 9-year-olds, or whatever. Primarily, it is because home is so unsafe. It is not because mum and dad are at work. It is not because something is happening there. It is because home is unsafe, and that is what we are dealing with.

So when Anne Tolley and I today were discussing and announcing some of the initiatives being put together and announced on the gang initiatives, it is not about cracking down, it is not about banning, and it is not about whatever, but it is actually about these kids. If we can try to stop these kids being abused, if we can try to stop some of those behaviours, we will actually make a difference when it comes to those kids growing up and becoming violent, angry people—but mostly angry men—and going on to commit further acts of violence.

I also heard tonight that someone said that methamphetamine is not a problem now. That is piffle. Last year, in 2015, 334.3 kilograms was seized by customs and police. That is three times more than the year before, in 2014, when it 98.8 kilograms. We have got a big problem here, and this trade is being fuelled by, and fuels, gang activity. In prisons, they say it is more dangerous now for staff because gangs are now working together and they are working together against corrections staff.

What I would say to this House is that we have done really well in the law and order area. As a Government, we have done great work. Our agencies have worked together. We have worked together for some common goals for the people, but I would also say we have got a long way yet to go, and we have not solved the problem and we will not solve it until kids can be safe in their own homes and men and women can be safe in their own homes. That is a really sad thing to have to admit—that we have kids growing up in homes where there is no such thing as safety unless dad, or mum’s partner, is actually put in jail, and that that is the best that we can do for some kids. That is just not good enough. We do have a big issue there and we are taking steps to address it.

We have dealt with issues before that have been hard. When we first came into Government, illegal street racing was a big issue. In 2009 we had six people die, 49 people were injured, and we had a total of 69 crashes involving illegal street racing. We brought in the laws around vehicle confiscation and crushing. In 2014 there were no deaths, 23 injuries, and 33 total crashes for that year. This problem has been hit on the head. Yes, it still occurs, but not anything like it did occur.

I would love us to be able to say as a Parliament that we took some steps one day and we actually sorted out family violence in this country. It is a big ask. It is not easy. If it was easy, it would have been done. It is a really hard job, and I would like us all to work together on it. Thank you.

It is a split call on behalf of the Labour Party—5 minutes, Poto Williams.

Kia orana. That is a really good note on which to start my contribution, because I do want to respond to some of the comments that the Minister has made around family violence.

Much of what the Minister has said, I agree with. In fact, most of what she has said, I agree with. I agree that family violence is a huge, huge problem in this country, and I agree that many people in New Zealand will concur that dealing with the issue of gangs and gang families will go some way to dealing with the issue of family violence. However, when you have the situation where you have over 100,000 family violence call-outs by police in a year, the gang portion of that statistic is minor—is minute—compared with the impacts that it has for every single community in this country. Whether they are low socio-economic communities or whether they are in the leafy suburbs, every community is impacted by family violence.

Although this measure goes some way to addressing a portion of it, here we are, yet again, debating the use of targeting resources to a particular group versus taking some universal steps to address the issue across the country. A hundred thousand family violence call-outs by police: that would mean that there were at least 95,000 families who are not gang affiliated who are still going to be impacted by family violence, and whom the measures that the Minister has announced today will not touch—they will not touch. There are 62,000 family violence investigations where at least one child is resident or present in a home where violence has occurred. The measures that have been announced today will not impact 60,000 of those children.

The Minister did touch on a very important point, and that is about the trauma that is experienced by these children. It may not necessarily be that they are experiencing the violence themselves in the sense of being physically abused; the fact that they are in a home where violence is present, even if they are not physically abused, is traumatic enough for them to be damaged and to have huge impacts on their future life outcomes—negative impacts.

The Minister, I want to reiterate, was also the Minister who reformed the Family Court, and the impacts of that reform have had a negative impact on family violence. It is now harder to obtain a protection order to keep yourself safe. The reductions to the threshold for legal aid mean that fewer and fewer women, in particular, are able to obtain those protection orders. How are they able to keep themselves and their children safe when the key legal mechanism with which to do that is withdrawn from them because of changes that that Minister made to the Family Court? Also included in that reform was the reduction in access to Family Court counselling, where many issues for families were resolved before they became major concerns for the country.

So although I concur with much of what the Minister says, yet again this country is headed down a very, very dark passageway for when we are dealing with targeting small groups of people and when the problem is so epidemic. I was not going to speak specifically about family violence; I was going to address some other issues of trauma that exist in my community in Christchurch East. But I must respond to what the Minister has said in this regard.

Family violence is a scourge on our society when 100,000 incidents are reported and they are only a fifth of what occurs. We need to be looking away from targeting, and to doing some specific work with those NGOs, with the refuges, with the police, and with Child, Youth and Family to contain this epidemic and not just look at specific and small targeted areas. I think that is not a good use of our taxpayer funding. Thank you.

A second 5-minute call for the Labour Party—Louisa Wall.

Kia ora e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tuatahi, aroha ki te whānau o Dr Ranginui Walker, moe mai rā e te rangatira.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, empathy to the family of Dr Ranginui Walker. Sleep, esteemed one.]

I am actually really pleased to take a call in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement and I really want to focus on two points that he made. The first was that he said there will be a $17 billion hole in the economy—so the Government is already anticipating that our revenue will be short $17 billion. The other point that he made, which I just find incredible, was that in spite of that this Government is 100 percent focused on tax cuts.

The fact that it is 100 percent focused on tax cuts as part of its fiscal strategy got me thinking about what that means. What that actually means is that there will be spending cuts and, as such, there will be service cuts. So I was thinking about the services that will be cut because of the Government’s obsession within that context to give tax cuts to the people they have traditionally given them to—wealthy New Zealanders, who, quite frankly, do not need them. So what does that do to undermine our public service: the provision of hospital services, social services—services that New Zealanders need, actually, to keep them healthy and to keep them well.

I found it really interesting at the beginning of the year, on 9 January, actually, that there was quite a big write-up and media focus on the rheumatic fever prevention programme in South Auckland, which is now is in its fifth year. It is actually a $45 million investment because this Government, rather than provide houses so people did not get sick, actually said: “What we’ll do instead is we’ll go and test the kids.” So they are working in 61 South Auckland schools, and last year 20,000 cases of group A streptococcus were detected through that programme. That is incredibly commendable because what that meant is those kids could get antibiotics. Why? Because if we could prevent group A streptococcus turning into something else—that is, rheumatic fever—then that was the Government’s solution to addressing this whole issue of poverty and the lack of quality housing provision in South Auckland.

So I was incredibly surprised to see on 9 January this year that the funding that Counties Manukau District Health Board is receiving for this programme is going to be cut by 50 percent. On 1 July 50 percent of that $9 million annual investment will go, so it is the district health board’s responsibility to keep funding that programme that has proved effective and has found 20,000 children who need access to antibiotics to stop them from getting rheumatic fever. Wow!

The Counties Manukau District Health Board is one of all district health boards around the country, except for the Southern District Health Board or one of the boards in the south, that does not have to cut funding. But, actually, Counties Manukau District Health Board is part of the $138 million—what would I call it? The hospitals are being directed to save money—$138 million—this year. Counties Manukau District Health Board has to save $20 million. So not only does it have to save $20 million it is also going to lose $4.5 million for an initiative that this Government has been trumpeting and has been very proud about because it is stopping South Auckland kids from getting rheumatic fever. Those are the challenges and those are some of the decisions that it has made because of the obsession of this Government to cut taxes.

It has meant cuts in mental health services in Canterbury, and I know that my colleague Denise Roche talked about this earlier. Within the context of the increased need of people in Christchurch calling out for help—we know that the helplines for young people have been oversubscribed for 5 years—what has the Government decided to do? It is going to cut funding for mental health services in Canterbury. It is ludicrous. It is ridiculous. We are supposed to govern in the best interests of all New Zealanders and meet their needs—and this Government, supposedly, has put Canterbury as a big priority—but, actually, its obsession with tax cuts means that it is cutting funding for rheumatic fever, it is cutting funding for mental health services, it has cut funding for Women’s Refuge, and, actually, the list could go on and on and on.

I think that this Budget, actually, is a dark day—

💬 Hon Members: It’s not a Budget.

The Prime Minister’s priorities, which actually will translate through to the Budget, will be incredibly interesting to see. Kia ora.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the National Party—Paul Foster-Bell.

E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe; tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. I take pleasure in speaking in support of the Prime Minister’s statement in this debate on his statement in the House. I will be sharing my call with my colleague Ian McKelvie, the honourable member for the Rangitīkei, so I plan to cover the town issues and I will leave it to Mr McKelvie to cover the country.

Here in Wellington we have enjoyed a wonderful summer. Not only has the weather been superb and allowed us to enjoy some great cricket on display, but we have had some extraordinary events here. The hotel beds have been full. In fact, we have had a record year for tourism in Wellington and everything from that Sir Peter Jackson Gallipoli exhibit at Te Papa through to The Great War Exhibition at the National War Memorial museum—and I want to pay tribute to Christopher Finlayson and the input he had into that wonderful attraction—has been awash with tourists and visitors spending their money here in the capital. Similarly, Weta Workshop—when I had some relatives staying over the summer I decided to take them out to Weta Workshop to see the Thunderbirds Are Go exhibit, where they can see the sets used to recreate that iconic 1960s TV series—also enjoyed large numbers of visitors. Wellington has benefited from record tourist numbers.

We have also seen significant Government investment into the capital. I would point to the ICT Graduate School, which will upskill our workforce with those modern technical capabilities that they need to be able to earn those good incomes. That will be implemented here in Wellington, hosted by Victoria University over the coming year.

If I can turn to another issue, it is that this year is the 30th anniversary of the legalisation of homosexuality in New Zealand. I want to put on record that I enjoy working cross-party with colleagues, including the member who just resumed her seat, Louisa Wall. We will be hosting an event here at Parliament on Saturday that kicks off Pride Week here in Wellington, and I am looking forward to doing that. But later on this year there will be events, I think, in the parliamentary precinct to commemorate the decriminalisation, which was a significant event in New Zealand’s history. I am proud to be a member of a Government that also looks out for the interests of all members of our community, not just the majority.

I had an interesting discussion recently with a constituent here around refugees, and I would point, in the Prime Minister’s statement, to his comments around the threat posed by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and also the refugee problem that the world is facing. This person with whom I was chatting was a Polish migrant—one of the Pahīatua Poles. She was an orphan who, after her family was treated horrendously by the Soviets—she and her mother were deported to a gulag in Siberia—then came to New Zealand via Iran, actually, of all places. They stopped there for a few years on their way to New Zealand. In the discussion with this constituent, a very clear point came across. She was pointing out that, actually, the last thing that the refugees who are coming to New Zealand need is pity. Pity is not what will help them to integrate into our community. It is not what will help them to get jobs, to become educated, and to make a contribution to their new home, New Zealand.

I am proud to be part of a Government where there will be an additional number of refugees accepted into New Zealand, but that is being done in a controlled way, unlike what we are seeing in Europe. We will have the health facilities, the transport, the housing, the social development, and the educational services in place to make sure those people are properly looked after. I look at the approach taken by some of the parties in this House and by some of the lobbyists in the community, who are promoting either what I would describe as the hard-hearted approach—that is, to reject all, even those who are fleeing from some of the worst atrocities in the world; fleeing for their very lives—or the soft-headed approach, where we want to open up the doors in such a way that we would take numbers that we are not able to properly support. I am proud to be part of a Government that is actually taking the right course of action, which will be looking after those who are escaping from real danger, but we are not opening the floodgates to New Zealand. I fully commend the Prime Minister’s statement to the House.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the National Party—the honourable member Ian McKelvie.

I am like the off-course substitute, Mr Deputy Speaker. For those who do not know what that was, in the old days at the TAB the off-course substitute was the one that replaced the one that was there before—Jami-Lee Ross, thank you.

I come from the Rangitīkei, obviously, and I have always prided the Rangitīkei on having the most intelligent part of New Zealand in my electorate. Of course, the piece of Palmerston North that has got the most intelligent people is in my electorate.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: No, they live in my electorate—they go to work in your electorate, but they live in my electorate.

You can imagine my absolute amazement when I read, the other day, that Whanganui is one of the world’s most intelligent cities. In fact, it is in the top seven in the world.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not surprised.

I immediately thought of Mr Deputy Speaker—well, that is where he comes from, of course. Just to appease the member for Palmerston North, the Rangitīkei electorate also has more sheep than any other electorate in New Zealand, just as a matter of interest, including Southland.

I want to talk briefly about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and its effect on an electorate like mine. It will have a positive impact on our challenged communities, and the reason it will is that as we move into the increased incomes as a result of our trade agreements and the TPP agreement, the trickle-down effect will significantly impact on those electorates through things like dairy, sheep, beef, and timber. I want to talk particularly about timber in the Rangitīkei electorate and around New Zealand because the change that I envisage coming, and I think we all envisage coming, as a result of the TPP agreement in the timber industry, for example, will be to encourage a lot more manufactured products to leave New Zealand. That will be good for the New Zealand timber industry.

The other point about the timber industry, of course, is that we have so many pine trees in New Zealand we probably do not have the infrastructure to get them all out in as quick a form as we might need to. So that will be a challenge for the future, and of course it is going to moderate the number of trees that are cut down at any one time, just because we need to get them processed and out of the country. So that is an interesting issue.

The Government, over the last 7 years, has moved to significantly improve our tourism opportunities. Of course, the north end of my electorate has a great reliance on tourism. The Whanganui River and the changes that have happened to the ownership and the development of tourism opportunities around the Whanganui River—what is going on with cycle tours, river tours via jetboats, canoes, and other means. They are all very busy. Recreational walking, cycling, fishing, and climbing are attracting people from all around the world to our country, to our region. The critical thing that will enable this to continue, of course, is our work with the environment. I think it is really important that Minister Smith, who has worked very hard on a lot of the issues around our environmental stuff, is now moving again to further our opportunities to clean up our waterways. I think that that is a challenge, and I guess in a way it is a nervous challenge for many in rural New Zealand, but none the less it is a challenge that we need to face up to. It is hugely important for our tourism and agricultural industries that we take that opportunity and make sure it works.

The policies of this Government are now creating jobs in regions and areas that for years have struggled. This is evidenced by the much-improved unemployment figures—a 3 percent turn-round in 12 months in my region—and the fact that 175,000 new jobs have been created in the past 3 years. Over the last 7 years the average wage has increased significantly, and the announcement just yesterday of the new minimum wage of $15.25 an hour will again make another difference to those people who are paid at that end of the scale.

It is a challenge for our rural towns to survive and to continue to grow, but it is important that we do. I think this Government is supporting them in a manner that will enable more jobs to be created and will enable more young people to stay in those areas. I think in the future we are going to see significant growth, particularly around the tourism industry, and particularly in the north of the Rangitīkei electorate and in many other parts of New Zealand, as we move further down the path of developing our environmental opportunities and developing our tourism opportunities.

Our challenge as a small trading nation is to sell more to the rest of the world than we do now. We need to go into these trade agreements and move ourselves along as quickly as we can. We need to create new products and we need to create new opportunities for the producers of those products, and I think this Government’s policies are moving those along pretty quickly. So I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the Prime Minister’s statement. I think we are on the right track, and I look forward to the next 12 months of our Government working very hard for New Zealanders. Thank you.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the National Party—Parmjeet Parmar.

It is with great pleasure that I take this call to support the Prime Minister’s statement. I would like to start by congratulating our Prime Minister on his strong commitment to New Zealand and on keeping on delivering what he promised to do. This year, just like the last year, is going to be a great year, under the leadership of the Rt Hon John Key. I am saying it is going to be a great year because wages are rising faster than inflation. In the last year the average wage grew by 3.1 percent and inflation stayed at 0.1 percent. My hands cannot demonstrate the scale, but the difference is obvious—3.1 percent versus 0.1 percent. Business confidence is high and there is strong activity in all sectors, including the manufacturing sector. We know we have come through significant challenges, and we have stayed on top of our spending. That is evident from us receiving a surplus for the 2014-15 year.

This is a Government that is a sensible manager of the Government’s finances. But the Opposition has started coming out with some irresponsible spending pledges. Its education policy shows that it lacks fiscal understanding. It lacks the understanding of what New Zealanders want. I am saying that is an irresponsible spending pledge because Kiwis do not need a reminder about the significant challenges that we have come through. That is why on this side of the House we are focusing on the economy. We are focusing on growing our businesses so that they can invest more, create more jobs, and create higher-paying jobs so that we can continually keep investing sensibly in different sectors.

To support our economy we need free-trade agreements. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is in the best interests of New Zealand. As the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, keeps saying in very, very simple words, we are a country of only 4.5 million people. Our businesses cannot grow by just selling goods and services to each other. We need access to bigger markets. What has shocked me is the Opposition members’ stand on the TPP agreement. It has shocked me that they are unable to comprehend the importance of the TPP agreement, even when explained in such simple words. It is a pity that they do not see the importance of the TPP to our businesses and households. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is always ironic to note that female members from the Opposition always talk the loudest while a female member of the Government is on her feet. I suggest to members to take a breath and allow the member to complete her speech.

Thank you. This side will continue to focus on—

💬 Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at that remark.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member may well take offence. I do not believe that the observation of the Speaker in respect of that is a matter that the member can take offence to. I look to the Clerk—I am sorry if the member has taken offence; I will not withdraw the comment.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this raises an interesting issue, and I appreciate the Clerk’s advice that there is no Standing Order relating to when a member takes offence to something that the Speaker has said, but I think that on this side of the House we would appreciate it if you would, perhaps, give some thought to this and come back with a ruling. Clearly, a member has taken offence at a comment you made relating to interjections that were being made. There seems to be a gap in the Standing Orders, and I think it would be helpful to the order of the House if we had some ruling on what members should do if the Speaker has caused offence.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be pleased to know that I have reflected in the time that he has been making his point of order, and in the spirit of cross-House collaboration I withdraw and apologise.

On this side, we will continue to focus on getting free-trade agreements. We have achieved a free-trade agreement with Korea, and we have started negotiations with the EU. Now, in the second year of our third term, as per the Prime Minister’s statement, we will continue to invest in our families and households. And we are seeing results. Unemployment figures have dropped to 5.3 percent. There were 21,000 jobs created in the December quarter, and that figure carries a very important significance because, after working for the whole year, people evaluate, analyse, and see whether they want to change jobs. So 21,000 jobs being created in the December quarter is very good news. There were 175,000 jobs created in the last 3 years.

To support that kind of growth, we need investment in our infrastructure, especially in Auckland, because Auckland is our largest commercial centre. That is why the Prime Minister has already announced bringing forward the start date of the City Rail Link. And, of course, we have our roads of national significance. Victoria Park Tunnel is a great tunnel, and riding through that tunnel is a great experience. Commuters are saving a lot of time going through that tunnel. We have finished digging the Waterview tunnel, and when the boring machine, Alice, finished boring that tunnel, I was there, just next to the Mt Roskill electorate’s boundary, with our two Ministers, the Hon Simon Bridges and the Hon Paul Goldsmith. I can tell you that the excitement there was huge.

We will continue to invest in our transport system and our motorway system to make it reliable, safe, and efficient. We have accomplished a lot, yet we will continue to invest more in our infrastructure in different sectors. We will continue to listen to the people of New Zealand, and we will continue to create opportunities for our current and future generations. Thank you.

It is a real pleasure for me to rise in support of the Prime Minister’s statement, which will be of no surprise to the House. It has been an interesting debate thus far. A comment that I heard from the other side of the House referred to the thinness of this statement. I thought it was only appropriate for me to go back and have a look. I suppose, from a distance, this does look like a rather thin document but, when I looked at it, it has got quite small type, to be honest. But it is 10 pages long, and, on average, there are about 10 paragraphs per page.

There are a hundred—at least—different things that this Government proposes to do over the next year. This is not a tired Government; this is not a Government that in its third term is running out of ideas. This is a Government that is working hard for all New Zealanders. It is working hard to ensure that New Zealand is the kind of place that we all want to live in.

I am proud to be associated with a Government that puts people and families first. This is a Government that over this time period has increased the minimum wage—as the Minister of Finance said today—I think by 27 percent, while inflation has been only 11 percent over that time period. There have been significant increases in minimum wages. We are increasing the amount of paid parental leave, and we have decreased ACC levies. We have been the first Government in 43 years—43 years—to actually put up the real amounts of benefits to families with children.

This is a Government that puts jobs, the economy, and increasing opportunities at the centre of economic development. We are moving forward; we are moving on with new ideas. We are taking an innovative approach to solving some age-old problems over this time period, over recent times, and we are going to continue to do this, as outlined in the Prime Minister’s statement. We are going to continue our investment approach to public services.

This is a Government that cares enough about the poor of our communities, those who are most vulnerable in our communities, to ensure that we are looking at the causes of those things that will, potentially, lead them into long-term benefit dependency and other things. If we just simply say we are going to throw money at this or we are going to continue doing things the way we have always done and somehow expect to get a different result, we will be fooling ourselves. And so what we are doing is ensuring that we take innovative approaches, an investment approach, to ensure that those people who are at most risk of long-term welfare dependency, who are at most risk of suffering harm, those who are at most risk of not achieving educational standards—we are going to provide better, more targeted services to them to ensure that their needs are met.

We are doing it through the social housing reforms. We were debating them last week. It was good to see some of those bits of legislation go through that will ensure we can provide better social housing for our people—that we are not sitting back and simply saying that because someone came up with an idea in the 1930s that that is the only good idea you could ever have about social housing. No—we are moving forward, we are trying to be innovative, and we are looking for new ways to do even better things for the people of New Zealand. But this document is, I think, particularly good because it is not a narrow-focused document. The Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament for this year is wide ranging.

I have just talked about our social investment strategy. We are also committed to the regions of New Zealand. We are committed to a regional growth programme. We have seen regional growth studies across a number of communities in New Zealand, and that is going to keep happening to others as well. This is about setting a blueprint for regional development and regional growth. I am privileged to live in a community where we can take by-products from animal slaughter and turn them into pharmaceutical products—it is fantastic to see the innovation that is happening there—that can take New Zealand’s pāua crop, the majority of it, and can it and export it to places around the world.

We are moving forward economically, we are moving forward socially, and we are moving forward environmentally. We are committed, as a party, to continue to clean up New Zealand’s rivers. That is why we have got our new freshwater consultation document out. There has been great work done, I know, in my own backyard, in the Manawatū, where $5.2 million from the Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund has been invested. The community is working together, alongside the Government, to clean up the Manawatū River. We know that the progress is slow in these areas but we are going to see progress. This is a great statement from our Prime Minister, it outlines exactly what we want to do over the next year, and it will be better for New Zealand.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Engari, i mua i te haere tonu o tēnei wāhanga, e tika ana kia tū ake tēnei ki te tautoko i ngā mihi i mihingia e tēnā o ngā rōpū tōrangapū ki a Whakatōhea, ā, me Te Waka o Mātaatua, i te hingatanga o tō rātou rangatira, a Ranginui Walker. Ko ia te tangata hei tauira mō tātou o Te Ao Māori puta noa ki te iwi whānui o Aotearoa. Mēnā e hiakai ana koe ki te kai i ngā mātauranga o te ao, kāore kau kē koe e hinga atu. Nā reira, e kara, e Rangi, haere, haere hoki atu. Takahia e koe i runga te ara whānui, i kawe atu i a koe ki te kāpunipunitanga o ngā wairua. Nā reira, kua ea te wāhi mā koutou e noho nei i roto i te ao wairua, ka hoki mai ki a tātou nō te ao tūroa, nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri noa ki tēnei o tātou Whare.

[Greetings, Mr Deputy Speaker. But before this session continues, it is fitting that I rise to support the tributes accorded by that one of the political parties to Whakatōhea and the Mātaatua canoe at the death of their esteemed elder, Ranginui Walker. He is the person who is a model for us of Māoridom and for the public throughout New Zealand. If you crave to feast on worldly knowledge, you will never perish. So to you, dear friend, Rangi, depart, farewell. Walk upon the broad path that will take you to the gathering place of the spirits. Our part in regard to the spiritual world is therefore fulfilled, and I come back to us of the real world to acknowledge, greet, and salute you throughout this, our House.]

Can I say that just listening to the comments emanating from the other side of the House, I wonder sometimes whether I am in the same country, given that those members continue to extol the virtues of their Government and of their leader and how they have addressed things like housing, health, unemployment, and education, and yet where I come from, in the electorate that I am responsible for at this time on behalf of the New Zealand First Party, Whangarei, the statistics, particularly in terms of Māori, are not that good. That is in spite of the Government extolling the virtues of having the Māori Party sitting at the same table. So I need to ask myself: is this is another world, or am I just imagining things?

Can I say regarding Māori in the labour market that national Māori unemployment is still sitting at 12.6 percent. Findings from both the 2014 and 2015 surveys identified the exact same issues within Māori unemployment. Māori unemployment may have fallen marginally in both 2014 and again last year, but it still remains twice as high as the rate for all ethnic groups. I have not heard from that side of the House what the Government has done in that regard. I look at education. In 2015 Māori with degrees or higher qualifications had the highest employment rate, 86.3 percent. Māori with no school qualifications had the lowest employment rate, 42.4 percent. So it does pose the question whether in fact the education that has been provided for our people is relevant to them getting a job. There used to be a time when they would get their qualifications and head off overseas. However, it is not so good now, particularly in Australia where they used to go, because of the mining industry and the decline in work in that area.

I want to touch on something that I have had to face year in, year out, and that is the question of Waitangi Day. As the chairman of the organising committee that puts together a programme for that day, we can always, as a committee, ascertain before Waitangi Day whether the dust will fly, using a Māori paraphrase, or whether it will be calm and everyone will enjoy themselves. Unfortunately, the Government chose to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement 2 days out from Waitangi Day. One should not be surprised at the reaction, not only from Māori but from people across the nation. Although we might say that we have trade agreements that are good, I think the nub of the protest is, essentially, about what the detail is in those agreements. Although we have been assured by the Government that the Treaty will not be infringed on, we do not have any evidence that in fact that is the case. So one should not be surprised: although it has been said that Māori do not know what they are objecting to, they certainly know that they have not been told the detail. Likewise for the rest of the country.

Can I suggest to the Government that, in spite of the comment about consulting the people, the very people who were at Waitangi who protested certainly were not consulted. The Government may have consulted some of its friends from the “Browntable”, who are, in fact, behind driving a lot of the amendments to legislation that will help strengthen their position at the “Browntable”, but the ordinary Joe Bloggs—they have not been consulted. So one should not be surprised.

The other thing I am a little bit annoyed about is that every year we have a large number of protesters who come to Waitangi, do their protest, and leave their crap behind for those at home to have to deal with. To have a former leader of the National Party and the ACT Party say that the person was not charged because they were Māori is an insult, because the person certainly was not a Māori. The person was from Christchurch, and I would like to tell her what she has caused at home and the fact that we are now becoming a laughing stock of the world because of such activities. We should be concerned.

The other thing is the question of the flag. Again we have people protesting about that, and probably there may be a need for change, but did the people of New Zealand ask for it? How often have we from this side talked about the need to have more funding for particular social programmes, and been told that there is not enough money? Yet at the whim of the Prime Minister we can find $26 million to try to make a flag change that the majority of people do not want. The question has been asked: why should Māori not ask for a change? Well, can I just remind this House that part of the present flag includes the Union Jack, and if we go back to the Treaty of Waitangi, who was that covenant between? Māori and Queen Victoria. So the Union Jack is a reminder to all of us that the Treaty of Waitangi does have a part not only in the history of this country but in the future of it as a whole. I just want to say those things and to say that in spite of what Government members have said about how good their party is, how good their Government is, the facts certainly do not show that.

The member from Whangarei, Shane Reti, made comment about the different roadworks, and he started off by listing the roadworks on the Brynderwyns. Can I tell you that what has been done is not roadworks; it is probably more earthworks. It is creating four lanes going into one lane at the top. So what about the other side of the hill? He also used the Hikurangi bypass as an example. Can I remind the member that it was only a few years ago that that bypass was put in, so already either it is out of date or the work that was done at the time has become irrelevant. So let us not get carried away with what we think we might have done, given that there is still an unacceptably large number of our population, our fellow citizens, who are living in poverty. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.

The Hon Maggie Barry—a 5-minute call.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was with many of my esteemed colleagues who are gathered around me here tonight at the Bluegreens Forum in Tekapō. It is a wonderful part of the country, and I think it is good for politicians to get out of the rarefied atmosphere of the Beehive. Having heard several of the calls from Opposition members tonight, I think it would behove them well to get out and about a little bit more into the community, because, far from sitting braying about what might have been and fantasising about what they are not doing, it would be useful if they got together, as we did a few weeks ago. My colleague here, Alfred Ngaro, is, of course, an ardent Bluegreen, as are many of my colleagues here, because what we tend to do as a Government is unite behind our Prime Minister, behind our leader, in stark contrast to Labour. We do more for the environmental and conservation movements than the Greens would ever imagine, and I also think David Seymour made a couple of excellent points.

There seems to be a bit of braying. Maybe some of the people across the other side of the House might have had a little bit too much sun in the dinner break. They are a little flushed and unreasoned. I have heard tonight about the struggles some of my colleagues have had to be heard above the cacophony, so I am going to rise above it because I do feel that there are some important things to say about the vision that we have around conservation, in particular. I am sure David Seymour will be paying close attention, with his new-found love for sanctuaries and eliminating pests and ensuring that the things we love—the taonga species—are protected.

Let me talk to you about a broad, big, hairy, stretch vision—that is, a predator-free New Zealand. I am not talking about the Opposition at this time. I am focused instead on rats, stoats, and possums, primarily. Aerial drops of 1080 are working and will continue to be used. I would request that the Greens stand up and actually come out a little bit on this one and support—

💬 Eugenie Sage: We have.

—1080 in an obvious way. Keep up the work then, Ms Sage. It would be really useful if you joined the chorus of approval rather than carping from the sidelines. We will leave carp to another time, of course, in their substance.

The thing about having a predator-free New Zealand is that what you need to do is kill the things that are killing the things you love. So we take pre-emptive strikes. We have the technology to rid a valley or a peninsula of pests, as at Zealandia here and in other parts of the country, but we do need to have a longer-term vision that really is about eradicating these exotic pests. They have come here from different lands, made this place their own, and now, of course, they need to be dispatched. It is costing the economy $3.3 billion a year, the eradication of these exotic pests. I hope I am not disturbing any of my colleagues who are a little squeamish about extermination, but I do think it is important to address these issues.

The vast habitats our native animals need will be heightened and they will be safe, and the regions will also enjoy better tourism, if we can embrace this vision. Take Taranaki—the Project Taranaki Mounga partnership, which was announced in December, is an example of how big goals can be achieved, region by region, and you need to involve several partners. The Department of Conservation is contributing about a third of the cost of the $24 million project in Taranaki. I was there on Thursday for a very exciting launch, along with my colleagues the Hon Chester Borrows and Jonathan Young—if he is here—as well and Barbara Kuriger and others. We were talking about biodiversity in Taranaki. It is a very important thing to think about collaboration—an unknown for the Opposition, of course. Project Taranaki Mounga, with its biodiversity vision, has the ability to change the face of conservation in New Zealand. I think that it is incredibly encouraging, and it will be the start of what we hope to roll out over the next few years.

Wilding pines—and I commend my friend and colleague Nathan Guy on this. The Ministry for Primary Industries is leading the charge, and we are very focused on getting rid of these wilding pines because we cannot afford to back away from the problem. The Government, regional authorities, community groups, businesses, philanthropists, and the forestry sector itself need to combine forces. Wildings, for those of you who are not up to speed with it, already cover about 1.7 million hectares of land, and they are advancing at a rate of around 6 percent a year. If we sit back and do nothing, wildings will cover about 22 percent of our country within the next 20 years, and that is totally unacceptable. Most of the land that they would colonise is arable land. It is good, productive farming land and it is land that we need to use for other things.

The wilding conifers do not respect the boundaries. They seed widely and freely—up to 20 kilometres, in fact, with some of this very fine pollen—so we really need to be on top of this issue, and the New Zealand Wilding Conifer Management Strategy is something that we, as a Government, have bought into. We, at central government level, will take a leadership role in this, and we will work with others to achieve the goals. That is what this John Key - led Government is all about: fine leadership, a strong, united caucus and Cabinet, and strong, united thinking and philosophies that will deliver a vision.

💬 Sue Moroney: That got leaked, eh, Maggie?

Again, the Opposition members are incredulous. These are unknown territories for them.

War on Weeds is another element of our vision that is not to be underestimated. It seems to me that while we focus on the birds and while we focus on our creatures—a very important part of our biodiversity—we cannot forget the plants. The War on Weeds, which we declared about 6 months ago, has rolled out the dirty dozen, which are common or garden plants that have got away on us a bit and we need to pull them back—“a bit” is actually understating it. We spent something like $1.2 million from the Department of Conservation Community Fund to help community weed control groups, with Weedbusters and the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust, and I commend a lot of these smaller groups. Up and down the country they are united.

I was visiting a place in Taranaki on Friday, as the Minister for Senior Citizens, and I would have to say that it was incredibly heartening to see a group of about 40 people in their 70s getting together to weed, to plant, to destroy pests, and to create habitats for our creatures. It gets them together, doing something with great purpose and meaning, and it is good exercise. That is another of our programmes, which we call Healthy Nature, Healthy People, which is where you get people into the great outdoors. They are doing something for themselves but also—in the case of the people in Taranaki, and so many groups up and down the country I have seen in the last year—they are working for the good of our nature. They are working together in a cause that they believe in. We help them out with funding.

We also encourage, through the Kiwi Conservation Club and a successful bid for new money that we got across the line in last year’s Budget of over $11.2 million—we have invested that in the future of our national bird. The number of our national birds is declining at about minus 2 percent a year. That is a decline that we need to reverse. We have a target, we have a name, and we have a vision. That is how you measure what you do and that is how you manage the problem—again, unknown territory to the Opposition members, who have fallen very silent because they are completely at sea with these notions.

When it comes to Kiwis for Kiwi, the turn-round has begun. We are working with New Zealander of the Year nominee Rob Fenwick to help community groups to protect the birds and protect their habitats. We are boosting the Department of Conservation’s own funding by more than $6 million a year—and that will be from 2018 onwards—expanding breeding programmes such as Kiwi Creches, Kōhanga Kiwi, and pest control, as well as monitoring all of the existing populations. The whole game, really, around this is to protect the birds—the kiwis, in particular—so that they get to a stage where they can help themselves, and at the time when they are about a kilogram in weight, they are then able to. They can fight off anything actually, kiwis. That is why they are our national bird, I think. They are fierce. They may not look the most elegant birds. They do not fly, but they have commendable character. They are extraordinary birds at looking after themselves, but they need a bit of help along the way.

So if we turn that minus 2 percent decline into a plus 2 percent increase, we will have about 7,000 more birds, and that means they will be able to proliferate in the wild. My dream is to ensure that they are audible—that they keep people awake at night in the suburbs around New Zealand. We want the bird numbers to go up. We need to be able to work with the tools that we have in nature and conservation.

Just going through some of the issues that we have been dealing with in the arts, culture, and heritage area, tonight I signed a co-production agreement with the Israeli Government so that we can have films and television—shared projects and shared collaboration between our countries. That is the 17th co-production agreement we have signed over the past few years, and it means that the ties that bind the countries that we have cultural links with will only increase at a stronger level.

The Ministry for Culture and Heritage is working with a lot of different regions to mark the anniversary, as well—WW100. This year we are moving away from Gallipoli and into commemorating the battle sites of Europe, and we are opening plinths and telling the New Zealand story internationally.

I would like to finish my call tonight on seniors, which is the third portfolio responsibility that I have. Leading the fight against social isolation—which is a newfangled way, maybe, of describing loneliness—we need to get rid of that corrosive element and stop the lead and decline of loneliness and social isolation into elder abuse, which is a big problem in New Zealand. Around 2,000 cases are reported currently, and that is probably a real underestimation. There are closer to 18,000. So the challenges continue, but I think this Government, under John Key’s strong leadership, is well up for the programme.

You will see that I am wearing the alternative flag on my lapel. I will be voting for that, and I would urge others to look beyond the—

I am sorry to interrupt the member. Her time has expired.

I just want to spend 5 minutes—but I want to pick up where that woman, Maggie Barry, has just left off. I spent my holidays in Northland this year, and I did not hear the birds. I did not hear the birds, and I will tell you why—because pest control in Northland is so abysmal that the birds are being killed off. The conservator up there in Northland did not even have the guts to be able to ask for any more money—which is less than $1 million a year—to ask the Government for more money to preserve those birds, because she knew that she was going to get turned down. That is the legacy of this Government. The legacy is that it has got no money, it has cut the budgets, and now our forests—certainly in Northland—are at risk.

So that is where I wanted to start off, but I want to talk about a meeting that I had yesterday with a young guy called Sudhvir Singh, who is from Generation Zero. He spoke at the Auckland Council meeting a few days ago. He talked about pulling up the ladder. What he meant was that while he was trying to get things that we all want—a house, a job, and everything else—the well-heeled people and everybody else around the Auckland area were pulling up the ladder. He was booed and hissed at as he gave evidence to the Auckland Council about the need for more housing in Auckland.

We all want the same things—the same things that I want, he wants. He wants to be able to have a piece of that Kiwi Dream that I have, which is about getting his own house. But inequality in New Zealand has grown wider and wider. I am talking not just about the inequality between the rich and the poor; I am talking about the inequality between young and old. Today the younger people come out of university with a huge student loan. They have to pay that off, and then they are confronted—if they are living in Auckland—with average house prices of $900,000-plus. Who could possibly afford that? These people are being priced completely out of the market.

I want to say that this Government does not look forward. It does not look to those people who need their help. It is not like the Labour Party, which has just recently put up its proposal to have 3 years’ free tertiary education. At least there is a plan there to address the intergenerational inequality that exists in this country. Not only that, but this Government will not address—will not even look at—the issue of superannuation. Right now, this year, we are spending more money on superannuation than our entire education budget, and it is still going up. That is something that is a legacy, once again, that these younger people are going to have to pull up.

Sudhvir Singh is wanting what a lot of other young people have been asking for, but this Government defends the people who booed and hissed. Basically, those people are desperate to hang on to their privilege and desperate to keep their property prices high—desperate to pull up the ladder so that young people do not get a chance any more. That is something that we in the Labour Party detest—we detest unfairness. We want the best for everybody.

We do not want to see the inequality gap growing in terms of poverty and also in terms of intergenerational equity. So we are willing to put our money where our mouth is. We want to see people going on to tertiary training and getting it for free, so that they are not burdened down with great big loans and so that they get a proper leg-up and a proper chance in life, and we want to see them get affordable housing. That is why we have always supported the building of 10,000 affordable houses a year. Those are two bold initiatives about addressing what we need to be doing in the future, and that is something that this Government has nothing to say about because it allowed the property price to go to an average of $900,000 in Auckland. It has nothing to say to those younger people who want to get a chance in life.

A 5-minute call—Rino Tirikatene.

I am pleased to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement, and, naturally, I am standing to oppose the statement. But before I launch into that, I would like to just join with my colleague Mr Shearer there in responding to Ms Barry’s waxing lyrical on the big goals of biodiversity in her portfolio. I always pause—because Mr Shearer said that he could not hear the birds in Tai Tokerau, and that is a sad fact—and I think of the slaughter by the Deerstalkers Association of the four takahē on Motutapu Island under this Minister’s watch. That is another reason. It is not only about underfunding but we had an incompetent Minister bring in amateur deerstalkers who wiped out 30 percent of one of the most endangered species there in one fell swoop. So that is the great achievement from that Minister right there.

But I would like to switch to the Prime Minister’s statement. If people sitting at home are confused as to what was in that statement, they have got a very good point, because we have got a chorus line here waxing on with their pre-scripted lines, but what I would say is that the Prime Minister gave two speeches. There is a very thin document that is the actual statement, but what he actually delivered in the House was just his normal court jester routine. So no wonder the public at large are confused by this Government.

I think there is so much spin going on that we need to really break through. We need to break through the spin from this National Government. We hear things like “a better Public Service” and “a sharper, leaner, more competitive Public Service”, and what that really means is—and I want to give an example from my own portfolio area. In customs, what that really means is understaffing, under-resourcing, and a front line in disarray at our border. That is what that really means, and I can give examples. We are seeing front-line customs officers taken off duty. They are actually there to screen passengers, but what we are seeing is hundreds of passengers coming through Auckland Airport and only seven customs officers are there to process 2,000 passengers an hour. That is an example of mismanagement not only from the department but also from the Minister.

But it gets even worse than that, because what is happening—and we had Mrs Collins talking earlier on about the great achievements in the law and order arena now that she is back on deck. But what that actually means is that not only are we under-resourced at the border but we are seeing a flood—a flood—of illicit drugs coming into our country. Mrs Collins herself said that 330 kilos of methamphetamine was intercepted last year. What is actually happening is that that is what was caught, but, actually, only one in 10 is actually caught at the border.

So we could extrapolate that number out and say that there were 3 tonnes of methamphetamine that came into the country, and we can actually back that up—true. So that is an actual failure of this National Government. National came in after campaigning in 2007 about how it wanted to crack down on P—crack down on the scourge. Well, that is an actual failure there, and the Government itself has admitted it. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has admitted that the availability and the usage and the purity of P is on the rise, so there is a complete failure there, and the Ministry of Health is also saying that the usage among average Kiwis has not changed. It is right up there, and it is above the international average. So there is a failure right there from the Government, and we are seeing that.

What that does, though, is it cuts across and it is damaging to our communities. It is prolific, and that is one more thing that is hurting our communities at large. People want to feel safe and people expect to have the Kiwi Dream of being safe in their communities and safe in their households, but what we are seeing is actually the opposite from this Government. It does not care about the communities at large. It does not care about the people who are struggling to buy a house. People are being turned away by our health system, which is overstretched. The thousands of children who are in poverty—that is really a sad indictment on this Government, and that is what our country is subjected to today. I oppose the Prime Minister’s statement.

A 5-minute call—Andrew Bayly.

I was going to talk about a number of things tonight, but I just thought I might respond to some of the speeches, particularly the last two that we have had from Rino Tirikatene and David Shearer. They followed an excellent speech by my colleague the Hon Maggie Barry, who was talking about what we are doing in the area of conservation, and then I heard the two speakers talking about the lack of birds up in Northland. Well, I would just like to invite both those speakers to come and visit me in Hunua, because we have got a wonderful programme around the kokako, in the Hunua Range.

In 1974 there was only one breeding pair left in New Zealand, but thanks to the good efforts of the Auckland Council and also the Department of Conservation we now have 66 breeding pairs in the Hunua Range. This is a wonderful achievement in bringing back a bird from the brink of extinction into something that is viable, and, what is more, I am raising $10,000 to go towards that programme. I would like to challenge those two former speakers to put up some money and come and help our programme and come and join in and see how these birds live in our wonderful part of this country.

I heard a couple of other things mentioned. I heard a little debate about superannuation. I just wish these speakers would actually spend 5 minutes looking at some facts and figures. I heard Mr Shearer saying that our superannuation is dreadful and it is out of control. Well, actually, the facts are that currently we pay 5 percent of our total Government spend on superannuation every year. When you compare that with most OECD countries we are well below the average. Most are about 9 percent and up to about 15 percent. Even stretching it forward many, many years up to 2050, we will ultimately hit about 8 percent of our total spend. Just to put that in context, over the last 8 years through the good efforts of our Minister of Finance we have reduced Government spend by near on 4 percent. When you are spending nearly $70 billion a year, that works out to be roughly about $9 billion to $10 billion of savings a year. That alone is going to offset a lot of that increased cost.

But what we are also doing is growing an economy and reducing debt. So even now our debt is at 27 percent of GDP, which will be half of Australia’s by 2020, and England and the EU will be four times ours. The US will be five times ours by 2020. We will have modest debt. That is all about preparing ourselves so we can meet these future commitments.

Finally, housing—I heard that magic word about housing. Again I invite the members to come to Hunua. Come to Hunua because 12,000 sections are going to come to market over the next 5 years—12,000. And I heard someone saying we need 10,000. Come to my wonderful electorate and you will see it. The issue we have got is we need to continue to invest in infrastructure and that is what we are doing—$4.25 billion into roading into Auckland alone over the next 3 years, and all those other good things like schools that our new mayor will be able to come and open over the next few years. I am looking forward to doing it. Thank you.

A very robust act to follow there—well done, Mr Bayly. I would just like to talk in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. I will start off by talking about a remark made by Mr Shearer with regard to the Labour Party’s free tertiary education policy. It is probably fair to say that I am the probably closest to that space of policy in this House. I have actually just recently paid off my student loan. But one of the things that I think is important to remember is that the Government already, effectively, carries the cost of about 75 percent of student loan payments. When you look at it in that context, you see that 25 percent of that loan is still being paid for by the student. It is still quite considerable as part of their salary, but, actually, the cost of appreciating that is considerable as well.

I do not think that there is much in life that you get for free, but if you do receive something for free, many people do appreciate it. But if you are receiving a free education, the ability or the incentive for you to actually work hard and study to try to get the best results that you can are not there if there is not a cost to you and there is not an incentive to complete your education. And I can tell you about that first-hand. I think that what the Government is doing with regard to tertiary education already is a very positive move. We are already incentivising students enough to study but not making it unaffordable for them to do so. If you come from a family, or if you are in a position where you cannot afford to pay for accommodation or some course-related costs, there are payments through the accommodation supplement and payments for course-related costs. There are subsidies there to assist people into education.

Just regarding the Prime Minister’s statement, New Zealand is in good shape, and I say that with strong confidence as someone representing a large rural electorate at the bottom of the South Island. That progress is actually due to the hard work and positive attitude of New Zealanders, but it is also because of the stability and cohesion and confidence that come from having more than 7 years of strong and stable Government under John Key’s leadership.

We have got a busy agenda in 2016, carrying on from 7 years of hard work and consistent policy development. We are pressing on with social housing reforms to do a better job for our tenants. Many residents in Invercargill will, hopefully, benefit from that as those discussions progress over the coming years, and I am sure that if my colleague Sarah Dowie was here she would be remarking on that.

We are also maintaining a strong focus on law and order. To that end I want to compliment and acknowledge the hard-working police officers in my electorate. Particularly, I want to name three people, and they are the area commanders responsible for the Queenstown-Lakes area, the Clutha area, and a large part of the Southland area. They are Alastair Dickie, Richard McPhail, and Olaf Jensen.

I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the staff of the Otago Corrections Facility, and the manager, Jack Harrison. It is an important part of our electorate. It is Milton’s largest employer. It has created opportunities for that town, for employment, and for other staff to move on. The reason why I mention those areas is that they are often thankless jobs, but there are a lot of people who go out every day and protect and serve our constituents right across the country.

I want to touch a little bit on some of the things that we are doing. In New Zealand we have to focus on the things that we can control. We are a small Island nation at the bottom of the world. Things that we can control are our own competitiveness and our economic performance, and we are also well placed to meet external challenges in so far as we can, as well.

Otago and Southland, as I have already mentioned, are primary industry - driven communities, and as well we have got Queenstown, the Catlins and Milford Sound, which are largely driven by tourism. We cannot forget that New Zealand is performing very well compared with most countries in these areas. Just in terms of tourism, last year there were over 100,000 visitors who travelled to the Catlins, and there were over 600,000 visitors who travelled to Milford Sound, which is back up near pre-global financial crisis numbers. Queenstown was No. 1 for the international visitor spend, with 14 percent market share of international expenditure. So these parts of the economy are doing very well.

We had the southern field days a couple of weeks ago where 13 MPs came down, including the Prime Minister, the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English. That has provided a lot of support for our farmers down there, and I just want to acknowledge that. In closing, I have no hesitation in fully commending the Prime Minister’s statement and supporting it. Thank you.

I call Melissa Lee—5 minutes.

I would like to take the opportunity to speak to our Prime Minister’s statement to the House for 2016 and to commend it. I fully support his statement. We are incredibly fortunate in this country, I think, to have such a great leader who is working for families and supporting the needs of ordinary New Zealanders. I think it is well recognised that the people in New Zealand, the public, actually also recognise that in the Prime Minister.

The great work this side of the House is achieving can be seen through fantastic sets of policies, and I would like to kick off with the tourism portfolio, which the Prime Minister has been responsible for. Since 2008 this Government has invested $700 million in tourism and tourism promotion. In the year ended December 2015 we saw a huge rise—a more than 30 percent increase—in international visitor spending. That is up to $9.7 billion—not $9.7 million, but $9.7 billion—in international visitor spending, which is an increase of more than 30 percent.

I would also like to talk about the great achievement of our finance Minister, Bill English. He got the books back in the black, and that is not a small achievement considering the fact that we have had a huge global financial crisis and that New Zealand was faced with a lot of issues, including the Christchurch earthquakes that devastated the economy. We recently marked their fifth anniversary.

In 2015 this House saw the successful completion of the free-trade agreement with Korea, my birth country. Many members have already extolled the virtues of free trade. Last month we saw the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, one of the biggest free-trade deals in the world and a deal that will bring huge benefits to all regions of this country and to many people in poverty and hardship in developing communities around New Zealand.

It is a real shame that there are people in this House who do not actually recognise the amazing opportunity that exists for New Zealanders in this deal—a view that even the previous Labour Government saw with China. That free-trade agreement has actually boosted this economy. I see that the Hon Phil Goff is sitting over there. We know for a fact that he supports free trade, and there are other members in his caucus who actually do recognise the benefit of free trade, as well.

This partnership is going to revolutionise our markets and the way that New Zealand companies can engage with the global market. Whether they are squash and fruitgrowers on the East Coast or deer velvet suppliers in the South Island, we on this side of the House recognise their need for the reduction of tariffs and an end to trade barriers when we are dealing with international markets and we are actually selling to those markets. I recently saw, and actually posted on my Facebook as well, cherries that are being sold to Asia. We are seeing a huge openness in the market. Looking at Korea, for example, the tariff that it actually had was 25 percent—it is gone. The 25 percent tariff that it used to have is gone, and it means that it actually gives access to the market without tariff.

We will be able to send our world-class wines and other luxury goods to Japan without tariffs and restrictions. We also will see many New Zealanders export to our free-trade agreement partners tariff-free. This will greatly improve our market access in those countries, and support more New Zealand industries across our country. I think free-trade agreements—the likes of the Korea free-trade agreement and TPP—are something that we should all support and actually welcome.

The Prime Minister’s statement also shows what a fortunate nation we are to have strong leadership and the economic opportunity this country actually has. This year benefits for families with children will increase on top of inflation. This week actually saw the minimum wage rise to $15.25 an hour. We are getting more support for after-school care, and more cutting of red tape to give small businesses the tools that they actually need.

I am here to support the Prime Minister’s statement. This Government is in good spirits and is doing great work.

I call Alfred Ngaro, 5 minutes.

I rise to take a call on the Prime Minister’s statement in the House, but before I do so—I have only just returned back to the House this evening and heard the news that Mr Twyford’s mother had passed away. Though we may be in opposition in the House and candidates and contenders in our communities, the fact is that we are still people, and so I do want to acknowledge the passing away of Mr Phil Twyford’s mother. I give my condolences to him, and his family and his whānau as well, at this time.

I was away from the House because I was at the orientation week at Auckland University. I was there yesterday. I know that I saw Mr Cunliffe hiding under an umbrella, heading to the school. I saw Mr Clayton Mitchell—he was there as well. He was on the other side. He did not quite have his three-piece suit on, but he still had the suit and tie. He was out there talking to the students at Auckland uni. One of my sons is actually there at Auckland uni. It was quite interesting yesterday, in having these conversations with a lot of the students there and talking about what the Government is doing. They wanted to know what direction the Government is going in.

I had one student come up to me, and I could see by his body language that—he was looking like he was coming for a fight. He came there and he stood at a distance, and he said: “Oh, yeah, National Party, eh? National Government.” I said: “Yep, that’s right.” Then he said: “Yeah, well, what are you doing? What are you doing for our people?”. He spent the next 3 minutes telling me about all the things that we are not doing—not caring for the poor, not doing enough for Māori, not doing enough for Pasifika—and he just went on and on and on. So I said “Oh, that’s great. Well, why don’t I start by just introducing myself to you?”, and he said: “Oh!”. I said: “Maybe you don’t know where I come from. Look, I’m a first generation—born here. My parents came from the Pacific. My mum was a cleaner, my dad was a labourer. I come from a working-class family. That’s where I come from.” He looked at me and he goes: “Well, and what are you doing in the National Party?”. And I said: “Well, because of this: the values that my parents gave me as a working-class family were these—and my grandmother as well, and others who turned around and said this to me. They said ‘You know, we’ve come here for the same opportunities. We don’t want to have anything more special than anyone else, but all we ask for is this: we want the same opportunities as anyone else.’”

One thing I also told this young man was the fact that I am a tradesman. I think I am one of the few tradesmen who may be in the House here, in Parliament, of 121 MPs. I am an electrician by trade. I started off as a Māori Affairs pre-apprentice, and went to Domett Avenue Hostel. I said to him: “The fact is that I too come from a trade.” He said: “I was a painter before I came here to Auckland University, and now I’m doing law.” So I said to him: “So here’s the thing, right? In my background”—I said—“I don’t have political science, but the thing that I like about where this Government is going, and when we’re talking about our Prime Minister, is this: that we basically don’t talk about stuff all the time. We get on and do the job that needs to be done.” I said: “You’re a painter. You sit here. If you look at a building over days and days—you can talk about it till the cows come home, right—it won’t go anywhere.” In other words, you’ve got to say “Here’s a job. It needs to be done.”, and fix it and make it happen. That is the pragmatism of this Government.

So he said to me: “Give me some examples. Let’s talk about this.” He talked about “What are you doing for Māori? Let’s talk about this.” I asked him “In 9 years of a Labour Government, OK, how many Treaty claims were completed?”, and he said: “Oh, I don’t know.” Well, you can count them on just two hands—it is called six. Right? In 6 to 7 years of a National Government—Peeni Henare will know what it is—it is 43. So what is it? We can talk all the days that we can, but we just get on and do the business that needs to be done.

He said to me: “What about housing? What are you doing for housing in our communities?”. He said “Labour’s doing a lot more.”, and I said: “In 9 years how many houses do you know that they actually retrofitted to make warm and dry?”. He said: “I don’t know.” It was 2,000 a year, 18,000 over 9 years. I said: “Do you want to know what we’ve done? I’ll tell you this: over 40,000 Housing New Zealand homes; under the retrofitting programme Warm Up New Zealand, over 300,000; if we do the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, it will be over 180,000 by 2019. That will come to 500,000.” I said to this young man: “What I stand for—I don’t have a political science degree. I’m a tradesman at heart. I come in here to do things that make a difference for our communities, for young people like you and your family. In other words, we just get on with the business. But”, I said, “I tell you what. Don’t just take what I say for granted. How about you let the facts speak for themselves? That’s the evidence.”

I commend the Prime Minister’s statement, because it is pragmatic, it is practical, and it gets on with doing the business, the things that Kiwis respect and have voted for in the last two elections. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ko Tūtāmure te tupuna, ko Te Whakatōhea te iwi. E te ahorangi, e Ranginui Walker, e te tohunga o te whakaiti, e te ahorangi o te ao mātauranga, tēnei e tangi apakura atu ana ki a koe, otirā, koutou kua ngaro atu ki Te Pō. Ka tāpiri atu ko te māmā o taku hoa mahi a Phil Twyford ki a ia, ka tāpiri hoki ko tōku tupuna 2 wiki ki muri, i mahue ake ki te pō. Nō reira, koutou e te hunga wairua ki a koutou, e moe, e moe, okioki!

Ka noho ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. He aha te take i pēnā ai? Kia kite tātou me te whakamātautau i tēnei Kāwanatanga me wā rātau manawanui ki tō tātou Reo Māori, tā te mea, aianei tata ake nei ka uru mai Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori ki roto i tō tātou Whare. Nā, ka kite tātou mehemea e manawanui ana tō tātou Kāwanatanga ki tēnei taonga o Te Reo Māori. E rua ana ngā take, pū ana ki a tāua Te Māori. Ko te mea tuatahi i tēnei wā, ko Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori, ko te mea tuarua, ko Te Pire Whenua Māori. Ka whakaaro ake Te Iwi Māori, ko ēnei mea e rua, he taonga. He taonga Te Reo Māori, he taonga anō hoki te whenua ki a tāua Te Māori.

Nō reira, ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā mahi nanakia, ngā mahi māminga o tēnei Kāwanatanga. Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kōrero a Ranginui Walker i roto i tana pukapuka e mea ana: “Me hui ngātahi Te Kāwanatanga me Te Māori ki runga i te marae. Me kaua Te Kāwanatanga e karanga hui ana ki roto i ngā hōtēra, ki roto i ngā wāhi Pākehā. Me tae atu ki te marae ki te āta kōrero i ngā take e pā ana ki Te Iwi Māori.”

Nō reira, ka tukuna atu te pātai ki tēnei Kāwanatanga: he aha te take i tū ngā hui e pā ana ki Te Pire Whenua Māori ki roto i ngā hōtēra o te Pākehā? Ko reira katoa te wairua o Te Māori? Kāhore! Kāhore! Kāhore! E pātai atu ana ki tēnei Kāwanatanga e i a rātou e huri haere ana i te motu whānui, i whakaae mai Te Iwi Māori ki ngā nekehanga o Te Pire Whenua Māori? E kāhore! E kāhore! E kāhore!

Nō reira, ka tukuna atu tēnei pātai ki tēnei Kāwanatanga: ko te aha koutou mō Te Iwi Māori—ko te aha koutou ki Te Iwi Māori? E tika ana te kōrero o taku hoa mahi, a Nanaia Mahuta, e mea ana: “Nō reira, he aha te painga mō tāua Te Māori?”. Ka kite tātou ki roto i ngā tatauranga e mea ana: e pōhara tonu ana Te Iwi Māori; kei te ngaro haere te whenua Māori; kei te mimiti haere Te Rēo Māori. Anā, kei te mauhere. Ā, ko te nuinga o ngā mauhere ki roto i ngā whareherehere, ko Te Māori. Anā, ko ngā tatauranga o te ao hauora. Ānā, ko Te Māori e pēhi ana ki raro. Nō reira, ki te whakautu i te kōrero a te mema kātahi anō kua noho ki roto i tō tātou Whare, ā, e hoa, he aha nei te painga ki a tāua Te Māori? Ka kī atu, horekau! Horekau! Horekau!

Nō reira, ka tū au ki te whakahē i te kōrero a Te Pirimia i te tīmatanga o tēnei tau tā te mea, kua kōrero ahau mō ngā tatauranga, kua kōrero ahau mō ngā nekehanga māminga o tēnei Kāwanatanga. Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō te kōrero ā tōku tupuna e mea ana: “I rongo ēngari, kīhai i rongo! I kite ēngari, kīhai i kite.” Koi nā te mahi o tēnei Kāwanatanga ki tōku Iwi Māori. Kua kōrero ahau mo te pōharatanga. Kātahi ano au ka mutu i ngā huihuinga ki roto i te tāone nui o Tāmaki-makau-rau, ā, ko te nuinga o ngā kōrero e mea ana, e pōhara tonu ana rātou. Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki Te Wharekura o Manurewa, kua roa rawa e tatari ana mō Te Minita Take Mātauranga, kia whakaae, kia tū te wharekura ki roto o Manurewa. He aha te take? Ko Te Reo Māori te take. He aha te take? Ko te oranga o tāua Te Iwi Māori! Hei whakakapi ake kua kite ahau i ngā māngai o te Kāwanatanga e kore aro mai nei ki tō tāua Reo Māori. Hei whakakapi ake, tukuna te poi, kia rere! E hari koa ana kua tatū te whakatau mō te mahi poi a te tāne ki roto i te ahurea kā tū ki roto i ngā mārama e tū mai nei, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tūtāmure is the ancestor and Te Whakatōhea is the tribe. To you, Professor Ranginui Walker, professor of humility and professor of the world of education, I lament here for you, but at the same time for all of you lost to the void. I add to him the mother of my parliamentary colleague Phil Twyford, and an ancestor of mine 2 weeks ago who was left behind in the void. So, to all of you spiritual ones, sleep, slumber, and rest.

I will remain speaking in the Māori language. And why do I do that? So that we can see and test this Government and its stout heart in regard to our Māori language, because not too far away now the Māori Language Bill will be introduced into our House. We will see then just how stout our Government’s heart is to this treasured aspect of the Māori language. There are two matters that we of Māoridom place emphasis on: the first one, at this point in time, is the Māori Language Bill, and the second one is the proposed Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Māoridom consider these two a treasure. The Māori language is a treasure and so is the land to you and me, the Māori.

And so I think about the crafty and devious actions of this Government and the statement made by Ranginui Walker in his book, which stated: “Government and Māori must meet together on the marae. Government must never convene a meeting in hotels and non-Māori settings. They must go to the marae to really talk matters through that relate to Māoridom.” So the question to this Government is: what is the reason why meetings for the proposed Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill were held in non-Māori hotels? Was the Māori spirituality all there? Not at all, not at all, not at all! I ask of this Government whether, as it went around the country at large, the Māori people agreed to the actions of the proposed Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill? Not at all, not at all, not at all!

So this is really the question to Government: what are you, then, to the Māori people—what are you, then, to the Māori people? What my colleague Nanaia Mahuta is saying is true: “So what is the benefit for you and me, the Māori?”. We see what the statistics state: Māori people are still impoverished; Māori land continues to be lost; the Māori language is diminishing. Look at imprisonment: the majority of prisoners in the prisons are Māori. Consider the statistics in the health world: there you are; Māori is down. So to respond to the address by a member who has just taken a seat in our House: shucks, mate, what then is the benefit for you and me, the Māori? I must say none at all! None at all! None at all! Therefore, I stand to oppose the Prime Minister’s statement at the beginning of this year, because I have spoken about the statistics and the nefarious actions of this Government. I recall a saying by my ancestor, who said: “I heard, but I didn’t hear; I saw, but I didn’t see.” That is what this Government has done to my Māori people.

I have talked about the impoverishment. I have just completed a series of conferences in the city of Auckland. The majority of the conversation is saying that we continue to be poor. I think about Te Wharekura o Manurewa. It has been waiting a long time for the Minister of Education to agree to such a school being established at Manurewa, and for what reason? The Māori language. And why? For the welfare of you and me, the Māori people! In conclusion, I have witnessed Government representatives who have no regard to this Māori language, which belongs to you and me. Finally, let the poi fly! I am overjoyed that the question of males performing the poi at the festival to be held this month has been settled. Mr Assistant Speaker, acknowledgments to you and to us all.]

I call the Hon Phil Goff—5 minutes.

In my brief 5 minutes tonight, I want to focus on a very special group of New Zealanders. They make up about 35 percent of our population. They make up 35 percent of our production. Do not come to Auckland—Auckland is coming to you. These are Aucklanders, and we are growing by 800 people a week—40,000 people a year.

Compared with the problems of some parts of New Zealand, having the problem of growth is probably a good problem to have. But I would rather have growth with a Government committed to working in partnership with Auckland City to provide the infrastructure that enables that growth to be properly dealt with. Sadly, that is not happening. We do not have a regional development policy in New Zealand that works. I challenge any member of the Government or the Opposition to tell me one—one—regional development policy that works, other than housing unaffordability and congestion in Auckland, which drives people out of Auckland. I do not think that is a satisfactory regional development policy. We do not have a policy that tries to match population growth to the infrastructure that serves it. Once upon a time we would tweak the pointing system for immigration. We would lower the threshold if we wanted more people coming; we would raise it if we wanted less. But the Government knows that the only thing that is sustaining growth in New Zealand is immigration at the moment, so it is allowing that immigration to come through at the speed that it will.

Now, I am in favour of immigration. I think the immigrants to New Zealand—and we are all immigrants to New Zealand, actually, at some point in history—really add strength and diversity, and make a huge contribution to New Zealand socially, economically, and culturally. But I worry about the impact of growth that the Government is not addressing. I worry about the road congestion that makes it almost impossible to get around Auckland at peak hours. The Productivity Commission says that it costs us $1.5 billion a year in lost time alone because of traffic congestion in Auckland—$1.5 billion. The New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development puts it at $3 billion. That is like taking $3 billion a year and tipping it down the drain, because in the lost productivity you have got nothing to show for it. We desperately need infrastructure that will match the growth.

We had a number of things that were very useful. The City Rail Link was to double the amount of passenger traffic on rail lines, but for 5 years various Ministers in the Government opposed that, so when we get it, it will be 5 years late. We had a thing called a petrol tax for Auckland, which enabled the council to have the money to invest in transport infrastructure; the Government repealed it. I am really pleased to say that the Government has done a U-turn on the City Rail Link and is about to do a U-turn on road charging legislation—but it is too late. We are building a motorway up the north-west into Henderson and Te Atatū. It is good that it is being broadened, but there is no busway there—no separated lane for buses, yet we know that on the North Shore it is the busway that has been the most effective way of getting more people into town from the North Shore by public transport than we get by private transport. We are not thinking ahead. At the moment we have got the major Port Future Study that we are looking at to know whether or not we should move the port out of Auckland, like they did in Sydney. But the Government will not participate in that, so we do not have a regional or a national strategy for it.

What I am saying to the Government is that we have to have that partnership between central government and Auckland City if we are to make Auckland work. Auckland is a great city. It is the only global city in New Zealand: it is the place where we can retain New Zealanders and where we can attract the best talent from overseas. For New Zealand to succeed, Auckland has got to succeed. My call on the Government in housing and transport—the two major infrastructure deficit areas—is for the Government to get off the sidelines and to collaborate with Auckland City, so that we can make Auckland a truly great place for New Zealand and a great place for people to live.

I thought John Palino sounded angry yesterday when he was announcing his candidacy but, compared with that effort, I am beginning to think he is probably a tutor in seances and transcendental meditation. What a great time it is to be a New Zealander, what a great time it is to be in Government, and, I have to say, what a fantastic time it is to live in Hamilton. We have just enjoyed our annual Hamilton Gardens Arts Festival, and it has been a fabulous experience as always. There are wonderful things happening in the electorates that David Bennett and I are lucky enough to represent. We have just had the opening of the new Rototuna Junior High School—634 foundation pupils began on 4 February. What an exciting time it is for that community. I congratulate them all. I want to acknowledge the great advocacy that David Bennett did over many years, and say thank you.

After the boundary changes at the last election, that school is now neighbouring my electorate; in fact, it is in my electorate, and we are looking forward to the new senior high school beginning next year as well. While I am mentioning schools, can I congratulate Pūkete School on the unveiling of its magnificent new pou by the Māori development Minister, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, last week. It is a great historical monument to our city and to that school community, and I know that the children were absolutely delighted with it. I want to acknowledge Horsham Downs School, which has also come into my electorate—I think, Mr Assistant Speaker, from your electorate recently—on their centennial. Last weekend I had the honour of opening their new multi-purpose room as they marked that wonderful event. It was great to see so many former staff and pupils there enjoying the occasion.

All the schools in Hamilton West are in great heart, and I am delighted with the work that they are doing. I want to acknowledge the principals, the teachers, the boards of trustees, the parent teacher associations, and, in particular, those wonderfully hard-working support staff in all our schools, not just in my electorate but all around the country. What a great job they do and what important work they are undertaking with our young people.

This year has begun well for New Zealand. The Prime Minister’s statement has highlighted what a busy, focused, purposeful, and effective Government he is leading. The signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is excellent news for an export-dependent country like New Zealand. I have not met a single exporter, producer, manufacturer, or business owner who is not excited by it, because they all know that the world does not owe us a living; we have to make our own way. We have to grow our economy, we have to create opportunities to invest and for new jobs to be created. Every free-trade agreement that New Zealand has ever entered into, from CER right through to the Chinese and the Korean agreements in more recent times, has shown just how important free trade is for New Zealand.

I am very proud of the National Government’s announcement last year of the magnificent marine sanctuary around the Kermadec Islands. I am very proud that yesterday we announced yet another lift to the minimum wage, because every year since we came into office we have lifted the minimum wage sustainably, knowing that you have got to have a balance between what can work for businesses—you do not want to push them too far, where they end up having to lay off staff—but also knowing that those at the bottom end need that extra assistance. I am delighted that we have been able to boost their earnings. Those who work 40 hours on the minimum wage will have another $20 in their pocket from 1 April. I am hugely proud that we are the first Government in more than a generation to give a significant lift in benefits, and that is just around the corner, as well, for people who are on welfare. I am so proud that we are the Government that has introduced free doctors visits for children under 13.

I am really proud of our rising standards of achievement in all levels of education. I acknowledge the great work that the Hon Anne Tolley started in that regard in her time as Minister of Education. Did she not take a lot of flak at the time but, boy, are not the fruits of her labours being seen now? Well done, Anne Tolley, Hekia Parata, and all who work in the education system, because it is a partnership and they are all doing it together. I am incredibly proud that unemployment is now much lower, that mortgage interest rates are low, and wages are rising well above the rate of inflation.

I am not proud of the negativity of the Opposition. I am not proud that they cannot acknowledge any of these achievements. Soon we will vote down the leader of the Labour Party’s ridiculous amendment suggesting that the Government has given up hope on the future, has no plans to prepare New Zealand for the future, and is more concerned with scoring political points. Pot—kettle—black. What a ridiculous assertion that is. What abject nonsense from the Leader of the Opposition. In particular, we have seen it with his decision to place the Labour Party as the “Two-position Party” on the TPP agreement, turning their backs on their previously proud commitment to free trade. What a nonsense that is.

And, most recently, his complete lack of statesmanship and integrity in failing to honour the Labour Party’s policy at the last election to support the process over the flag referendum. We should be now having a discussion leading to a vote that is above petty politics; that is what we all went into the last election with. Nobody will care who the Government is when the change happens. Do you think the Canadians talk about that? Of course they do not, but they are mighty glad that they made the change and they now have a flag that they are very, very proud of. We should be able to do the same. We should be honouring our war dead who have the silver fern on their graves, by saying that now is the time to make the change. We should be embracing the emblem, and I am wearing my grandfather’s Boer War badge tonight, which is a silver fern, before we even had the current flag.

A lot of people say: “Oh, we have got to keep the original flag.” Well, the original flag was two flags back. The silver fern is the thing that our sportspeople compete under, that we are recognised for when we travel around the world, and it is something we can all embrace and be proud of. I hope New Zealanders will vote for it. I do not care who the Government is: let us just get on and make a change that is positive for our country, because that is what this great country provides us an opportunity to do. If we do not take it now, we will not get it again in our lifetime.

It is an honour to be speaking in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, and it is also an honour to give the concluding speech in this long process. I cannot say that I have heard all the speeches over the last couple of weeks, but the ones that I have heard from this side of the House have been positive, forward-looking, and celebratory, honouring New Zealanders and talking about a Government that is working hard for all New Zealanders.

I have to say the speeches that I have heard from the Opposition members pointed out and have shown very clearly that, actually, during their time in Opposition, the Labour and Green caucuses have not learnt the lessons of being in Opposition. They are still working as they were in the mid-2000s, judging everything on inputs. They judge everything on how much money you put into something. This Government—because it came through the global financial crisis, perhaps—has been focused on getting results for New Zealanders. So it is not how much money you put into something; it is the effect of that spend and the results that you get for the people of New Zealand. This Government has learnt those lessons, and that is why it has been so successful.

If you look back on the achievements of this Government, even through a global financial crisis, we have increased the minimum wage by 27 percent since National came into Government in 2008. At the same time, we have seen inflation kept to a rise of 11 percent. So that is a very real difference that those New Zealanders on the minimum wage have seen in their back pockets. Mortgage interest rates were almost 11 percent when we came into Government. Now they are down around the 4 percent mark. We have seen the economy growing—3 percent growth in the last 12 months. We have seen the average wage grow by $10,000 since we came into Government. When we came in, it was $47,000, and now $57,000 is the average wage.

Youth offending and our young people—fewer young people are appearing in the Youth Court. The number is down by 61 percent since National came into Government. Under this National Government we have the lowest reported crime rates that we have seen in 23 or 24 years. Teenage pregnancies are at a historical low. Participation in early childhood education is at an all-time high. Never before have we seen so many children taking part in early childhood education, and never before have we seen so many kids, particularly Māori and Pasifika kids, leaving school with a qualification, with National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. That has been hard work by a lot of teachers, staff members, and boards of trustees across the country, and this Government has supported them all the way. Immunisation rates for Māori and Pasifika children are at the same rate as for European children. We have never seen that before. It is a tremendous achievement.

On 1 April this year—a month from today—for the first time in 43 years, people who have children in their families and who are receiving benefits will get an increase of $25 a week. Twenty-five dollars a week is going to make an enormous difference, and all the families that I have been talking to have talked to me about the things that they will be able to do for their children. Then, for those lower-income working families, of course, Working for Families is being increased by $12.50 a week, and by $24.50 for those on the very low incomes.

We have done the research, we have got the evidence, and we have based our investment of taxpayers’ dollars in the places that we know are going to make the most difference to New Zealand families. And, what is more, we are working together. Whether it is the Business Growth Agenda, where we have got Ministers working together across Government; the regional development team, which is out and about; or the family violence work that we are doing—and even today with the whole-of-Government approach to reducing harm from gangs—we are working together, using good evidence, and using that research. We have been open enough to set ourselves some targets publicly—targets to show the public that we can get better results for them and their families—and will report on them openly and regularly. So we are investing the taxpayers’ money wisely, where we know it will have the greatest effect.

Let me just talk a little bit about what we have done in welfare, and I want to concentrate on two groups that we know have the highest long-term liabilities and the worst outcomes in their life. The first is sole parents. We are seeing that the number of people receiving the sole parent support has fallen by 23.5 percent over the last 5 years. There are now almost 42,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent homes. The Opposition has often asked: “Who cares? What difference does that make? Why is that important?”. Well, it is important because, again, through the evidence and the research that we have done here on this side of the House, we know that 48 percent of the children who are born into a benefit-dependent home will have a Child, Youth and Family notification before they are 18—48 percent. Someone will be concerned about them being either neglected or abused. Almost half of them will not get NCEA level 2.

These are children who are born into benefit-dependent homes. Forty-five percent of them will be on a benefit themselves before they turn 19 and, unfortunately, 5 percent of them will have either a community sentence or will be going through the courts and in jail before they turn 19. So that is why it is important that we help and support their parents get into work, because that gives not only the parents but their children a better chance in life.

Then, with young people, we have seen that the 15 to 19-year-old “neet” rate is the lowest since records began back in 2004. That has taken an enormous amount of work right across Government, from education to health, to justice, to the police, and to the Ministry of Social Development. We have all worked together to make sure that those young people get the best opportunity that they can.

The Prime Minister talked about the overhaul of Child, Youth and Family. Last year I appointed an expert panel to lead that complete overhaul of Child, Youth and Family because those children are the most vulnerable in our communities and they deserve to have the best lives. It is not their fault that they were born into families who abuse them or neglect them. They deserve to get the whole attention of the Government and their communities to make sure that they can live successful lives.

The panel has reported to me. It has identified during that time four building blocks of the new system. It has identified that we need a child-centred system. We talk a lot about it, but when you talk to the kids themselves, they say “Actually, no one talked to me. Actually, no one listened to me.”, and we do not feel it is a child-centred system. We need an investment approach. We need to use that same evidence and research to know where we need to put our dollars to get the best effect long term for those kids.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: They’re collecting some evidence and making decisions based on evidence.

The Opposition does not like any of this because it is content to sit back and watch these kids be abused, be re-abused, and be revictimised and continue to live lives where they are not succeeding in life. That member smiles, but, actually, the statistics are really bad because we know that the statistics tell us that 90 percent of those kids who live in care will end up on a benefit. The statistics tell us that 80 percent of them will not get NCEA level 2. They deserve better than this, and this Government is going to deliver it for those kids.

New Zealanders know that this National-led Government—and I want to pay tribute to our coalition partners, because we cannot do it without them. They have been part of all the success that we are celebrating here in the House in the conclusion of this debate tonight, and we welcome the input that we get from them. New Zealanders know that this National-led Government is working for them because it is actually delivering for them. New Zealanders know that this National-led Government is investing their dollars wisely, based on good research and based on evidence. New Zealanders know that this National-led Government is addressing the hard issues by addressing and understanding the drivers: the drivers of crime, the drivers of poverty and hardship, and the drivers of economic growth and prosperity.

New Zealanders have confidence in this Government. They have shown it time and time again—

I am sorry, but the Minister’s time has expired. Members, this debate has concluded.