General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. A couple of weeks ago Television New Zealand, to the credit of all those who want to know what it is like to be a Kiwi, put out a survey called the KiwiMeter. It was going to take an academic look at how we view ourselves. There were some questions raised about whether there was any validity in the KiwiMeter and whether or not some of the questions were, indeed, racist. I put it to you that some of the questions were not only racist but also bigoted and misogynistic.

There is a portion at the end of the KiwiMeter that has a whole lot of symbols—symbols that we are supposed to identify with as Kiwis. No. 1: the rugby ball—fantastic. No. 2: the All Blacks, who play rugby—again, fantastic. No. 3: the haka, performed by the All Blacks, who play rugby—fantastic. Not anywhere in those symbols did I see rowing, knitting, gardening, or any other sort of pastime that other Kiwis in this country might like to enjoy. We get to the questions, and the questions come up and say: “How do you perceive yourself? Do you think that Māori are privileged in this country?”. Oh, my goodness! What sort of a question is that? What are we asking here? Is this really how we see ourselves as Kiwis in this country? Is this what this KiwiMeter was designed to do, or was it merely a guise for fleshing out the most controversial subjects in front of our nation at the time: the flag referendum, or whether or not we want more Asians or immigrants in this country. All of those questions are the focus of the KiwiMeter, and, really, is that how we see ourselves?

Do you know what? There is some misunderstanding in this country, that Māori are seen to have some sort of undeserved special treatment—some sort of privilege. Well, let me tell you a little bit about that privilege. According to the statistics that have just recently been put out in regard to the Better Public Services goals, Māori make up 50 percent in the men’s prisons and 63 percent in the women’s prisons. Māori numbers for children in the care of Child, Youth and Family are 60 percent, despite 15 percent of the population being Māori. Is that the privilege that we are asked to determine in terms of whether Māori have special privileges in this country?

Then we come to the Kermadecs. Yes, that is right. We are going to talk a little bit more about the Kermadecs because this is the sanctuary that is a gift to the world on behalf of our Government. Yet we can, with one stroke of a pen, wipe away Treaty rights guaranteed to iwi under the fisheries settlement. We agreed that there should be a sanctuary, but, actually, can we please address the issue of the rights and the property rights that have now been eliminated?

💬 Pita Paraone: Aren’t you sitting at the table?

And it is something that the member who likes to yell out from the right has agreed to as well. In fact, the very honourable—or not so honourable; I am not quite sure—David Parker, and that was in regard to whether or not he has been a Minister and not whether he is, actually, honourable, said that Māori do not deserve compensation and that environmental rights need to take precedent over Treaty rights at all times.

We are not saying that Māori would not have agreed with the Government and gifted that area to the country, to the world, as a sanctuary, but, actually, if you do not bother to go and talk to them first, before you remove their Treaty rights, then surely it is a bit hard to swallow when they want to take you to court and determine whether or not compensation should be paid.

Are those the sorts of privileges that we are talking about? Or is it about the privilege of whether Māori should be recognised in water rights? Should we recognise Māori in water rights? No, because nobody owns the water. Is that not right? That is what we have heard. Yesterday we had a wonderful petition come here saying “We need to have not just swimmable water, we think, actually, but drinkable water, and water where we can gather our food.” Do Māori own the water? Do they have rights in water? Well, I will tell you who think they have rights to own the water—regional councils, because they allocate it as if they own it. They allocate it to farmers, to horticulture, as if they own the water. Once that water has been allocated, in fact, they do own it. They can also then go and sell it overseas. And what did they pay for it? Absolutely nothing.

But here is the thing: the one thing that we do need to ensure that is put first before all other things is the rights of our children. When—when—will we be debating that under urgency? When will we ensure the safety of our children? Thank you.

The flag referendum has been and gone, and there has been a lot of debate, and an unprecedented number of flags flying—I think that has been a great thing. The people have spoken and the flag has been retained, and we have all, as a country, I think, unified and moved on.

💬 Phil Twyford: Ha, ha!

Or so I thought, Phil Twyford—or so I thought, but Sue Moroney did not seem to move on. She seems to think that rich people in baches are not allowed a view. The thing that is a little bit strange about that is that Sue happens to be a rich person with a bach. I think that on this side of the House we do not need highly paid political operatives like Matthew Hooton to tell us that that is a little bit stupid.

💬 Hon Annette King: But you’ve got him anyway.

What, though, I say to Annette King, is doubly strange about all that is that the Labour Party—Annette King, Andrew Little, and the front benches—has been cosying up big time to those rich people with baches. They have been cosying up. They want to give them a benefit every single week. They want to give those rich bach owners a benefit every single week, so that when they come off, the spa is still hot, the pizza oven pizza ingredients are still fresh, and I think we could call this—what is it called? “UBI: universal bach-owners income”. That is what we have got here.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Owner starts with an “o”.

Whether you are worth $20 million, David Cunliffe, whether you have got a house in Herne Bay—whatever your circumstances—you are entitled to a couple of hundred dollars a week. Here is the small, technical point about this that I cannot work out. What is the tax going to be to pay for that? Fifty percent? Eighty percent? Maybe. We do not know and we would like answers to that, but we can say, to be fair to the Labour Party, that it is based on some very clever thinking—robots are going to take over all of our jobs.

💬 Grant Robertson: Lift your game.

Grant Robertson says robots are going to take over all of our jobs. There are a number of incredibly clever people behind this—professors from all around the world—and there is one incredibly clever person who has got more good ideas than anyone in New Zealand. If you do not believe him, just ask him—Gareth Morgan. He has come up with many good ideas, and in the year of ideas for the Labour Party, I just say to Labour members: “Don’t take just one good idea from Gareth Morgan—take them all. Get him to write your manifesto, because he is full of good ideas.”

There is the fat tax he proposed, which I know the Labour Party is keen on. Listen up, Annette King: he says that food is the No. 1 killer in New Zealand—the No.1 killer. I am not sure that not eating is a very good idea either, but there you go. He has also got the cat policy, and I know Phil Twyford is keen on that one. All good parties need a cat policy: “That ball of fluff you have at home has to go.” I do not know whether cats are getting the universal benefit as well—that is something for the Labour Party—but everyone else is, Phil Twyford. On this side of the House we are not concerned about cats, or the “universal bach-owners’ income”, or any of these things, because, actually, we have got real job creation happening in this country. We are creating real jobs—

💬 Hon Annette King: What? Like the building of 10 bridges?

Well, Annette King mentions bridges. She mentions roads. There is transport infrastructure investment going on in this country. The roads of national significance, $11 billion worth of investment in this country, is creating 35,000 jobs, without robots. Regional highway projects throughout the country are creating, on Treasury’s estimates—which are quite conservative, actually—2,100 jobs. On this side of the House we do not need silly ideas like a universal benefit whether or not you are worth $20 million or are a rich bach owner. We have got real job creation in a country that is increasingly confident.

I think we will file everything that Simon Bridges just said under the heading of “blatant denial”—blatant denial about the current set of circumstances we are experiencing in the wake of the flag debate in New Zealand.

Do not get me wrong. I have always believed that Governments can multitask. I have always believed that you can do the big stuff and the progressive stuff all at the same time. Take, for instance, addressing social inequalities with a policy like Working for Families whilst at the same time pursuing issues like civil unions and greater equality.

Labour has always been the Government that has been able to multitask. The common theme for Labour has always been: we do it for the stuff that matters—the things that are important. Did changing the flag matter? Well, it could have. Does the future of our relationship with the monarchy matter? Does the idea of us becoming a republic versus choosing to stay within the Commonwealth matter? Does the role of the Treaty as a living document matter? Did a discussion and debate about constitutional reform in New Zealand matter? Yes, absolutely.

So in as much as the flag could have been emblematic of all of those things, then, yes, that debate mattered. But that is not what John Key and this Government delivered to New Zealand when he started the flag consideration process. It was utterly hollow. It was almost completely meaningless, and even then and of itself the process he established to just simply pick a logo, which is what it was, was utterly shambolic.

So I make this simple request to the Government: now that we have wasted $26 million on a debate that could have mattered, could it please return to the issues that, quite frankly, New Zealanders are not just having a discussion about but are having to face day by day? Put aside the petty politics of legacy that John Key is flailing around trying to find at present, in the dying years of his Government, and instead start looking at what matters. You do not have to go far, Mr Bridges. Perhaps just open the paper today and read an article about 500 jobs being lost within New Zealand Post. That story is not in isolation—46 percent of jobs within two decades’ time will be obsolete as a result of the technological transformation that is going on globally, not just in New Zealand.

This is not new information from the Government. The fact that Bill English can sit there and say: “Look, we acknowledge that these losses were happening. It was signalled a long time ago.” In fact, his actual response to New Zealand Post was: “They’ve done pretty well under the circumstances.” That will be cold comfort to the 500 people who are facing job losses. A Government that is doing the stuff that matters would look ahead and see not just what 500 workers are facing but what thousands of workers are facing, and ask: what can we do? What does a just and fair transition look like?

If Simon Bridges’ response was anything to go by, the Government’s current perspective on that massive dilemma is to laugh, is to make a joke, whereas Labour has, instead, not only established the Future of Work Commission, we have brought together international evidence. We have brought together some of the best minds. We are not afraid of having a debate about what we need to do as a future Government to make sure that New Zealanders have a future that is dignified, that has work that pays, and that acknowledges that we increasingly have insecurity in our workforce.

That, Mr Bridges, is no laughing matter. If even Robert Reich is standing up and telling Governments that there is almost an inevitability to us having to debate issues like a universal basic income in this insecure environment, then he should stand up and pay attention to that. To do anything else demonstrates that this is a Government that not only is ignoring what matters, it is ignoring the people of New Zealand as a result.

That speech by Jacinda Ardern would have had much more credibility about work and job growth if it came from a member of a party that actually supported job growth. Labour opposes every single thing that the Government is doing, and the largest single thing it has done is signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. I thought that party believed in jobs and growth, believed in trade—a small, open nation wanting to trade with the rest of the world—but no. In opposition, Labour opposes. At least we have got to give it credit for that. It is certainly good at opposing because it opposes every good thing that is going on.

If that member really wanted to talk about the future of work, let us talk about the future of jobs under a framework that did not have New Zealand in the TTP. It is a pretty scary scenario. Let us take this: in Japan at the moment there is New Zealand lamb and Australian lamb. Both attract a 35.5 percent tariff into that country. If Australia joined the TPP agreement, over time its tariff would be reduced and then eliminated.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: What a static analysis.

It is an absolutely accurate analysis that brings home the folly of the Labour Party’s opposition to the TPP agreement, because in a future that had Australia in and New Zealand out, New Zealand lamb would be 38.5 percent more expensive for the Tokyo shopper. Which lamb is going to be bought? It is a pretty simple mathematical equation, and any party that purports to support jobs for our young and for our young Māori in freezing works and on farms but cannot support the TPP agreement has no credibility on this subject.

One of the other discussions that has been going on over the last few months is whether the strong positive net migration that we have right now is a good thing or a bad thing. One of the sad parts about that discussion is that certain people, including some in this House, confuse migration with immigration and immigration with residency. They are not the same thing. When Labour left office, for every Kiwi arriving home to New Zealand there were 2½ Kiwis leaving for the long term. Now for every Kiwi who is leaving, one is coming home. That is a sign of strength. It is a sign of and a contribution to positive net migration, but it is a sign of success, not failure.

The overseas workers coming in are also a sign of success, because we have a growing economy, and we are struggling to fill the jobs that are available. I accept that there is a mismatch. We have a hard core of unemployed and the Minister for Social Development and I are working extremely hard with employers to make sure that those people are at the front of the queue for jobs. But there is no doubt that if we want to rebuild Canterbury, if we want to support the horticulture and viticulture sector, which is growing gangbusters—even in the dairy sector we still rely on labour—we are going to need smart immigration policy to do that. I challenge those members on the other side to go to employers and convince them that it is easy to recruit an overseas worker, because it is not. There is no evidence that this policy is suppressing wages. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned a particular member once. He has just continued right throughout question time, and now throughout the general debate. Reasonable interjections throughout a robust debate I will accept, but a continual barrage like the one that I am getting will leave me no choice but to be asking the member to leave.

There is no question that there is a concern about the labour-market effects of migration policy, but we need to be very careful not to be the xenophobic ranters that some people are on the other side. Good migration policy contributes very strongly to this economy, and a strong economy contributes to good immigration policy. It is a feeding cycle. But the question of how many people are coming and gaining residence is a confusing one. If you listen to the rants on the other side you would think there are these floods of overseas people coming in and gaining residence. Nothing could be further from the truth. The highest residencies granted in this country were 10 years ago, when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Minister of Foreign Affairs in a Labour-led Government. That number of residencies dropped 20 percent, and is now recovering from that historic low. It is hard to believe, given the rants that we hear from the other side: 52,000 residencies were granted at that time. It dropped to 42,000; it is going up to 47,000. Good economies, strong economies, need good immigration policy.

Following from that contribution by Michael Woodhouse, good migration policy would not put at risk domestic jobs for Kiwis. It is that simple, and what the Government is trying to do is ensure that we open up the immigration doors and then say to our own people in our own local communities: “Oh, sorry. There’s no jobs here for you. We’ll go and get someone from somewhere else.” It does not work, because in communities it is a very simplistic but very simple message: the Government should not put at risk Kiwi jobs that could be gained here by people who have been educated here and skilled here—of different ethnicities, very diverse—and can be trained here. Invest in local talent. Let them have the jobs. Do not open up the doors carte blanche and then prevent Kiwis from taking up those jobs.

Those listening to this debate would be asking the question: why is the Government, after the fact, urgently going around to communities consulting on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? Having negotiated it in secret, now the Government is trying to convince New Zealanders just how good it is for them. The information has come a little bit too late, and there are a lot of concerns that need to be responded to.

For example—and we asked the questions of the negotiators just today in the Māori Affairs Committee—what exactly are the benefits of the TPP to the Māori economy? Let us be under no shadow of a doubt. Māori want to contribute to the growth of this country in ways that realise benefits here: back in New Zealand, back in our regions, and certainly back to communities. They want to know the detail of that, but after the fact people are a little bit cautious about the Government’s strategy of trying to secure support and say that it has a good process in consulting with people on the TPP.

Simon “10” Bridges—Simon “10” Bridges—will be for ever known as the Minister who made big promises at a point in time when the regions were saying that the National Government had neglected the regions. He went up there, promised 10 bridges for Northland, and failed, and the deal was done because that particular seat, a former National stronghold, actually went to New Zealand First. So the National Government’s view that it has done well for the New Zealand economy and this has been delivered to the regions is simply not true—simply not true.

Marama Fox talked about the KiwiMeter. Well, here it is: if the flag had been put on that particular survey, I suspect the outcome would have been the same, because New Zealanders wanted more than just a change in a symbol. They wanted to know what sat behind the choice of a different flag. There had to be a better reason. What does our country stand for? What should the symbols reflect in terms of the country we look like? What would be the type of change that would show we have moved on as a country? It is a country that represents all New Zealanders. That was just a vanity project that simply did not get over the line.

Labour is prepared to talk about the things that really matter, because New Zealanders deserve that. They want to know what kind of country will build the economic opportunity and the social prosperity that will advantage the 99 percent of New Zealanders, who deserve a fair go. They want to know that there is going to be a Government that will look at the things that are most important for a changing demographic, and that understands that the demographic is younger, is more disenfranchised than ever before from community and also from opportunity through education. There is a big group of our young people that is simply not taking up the advantage in the system that it could.

Then there is the reality of technology and how that will change the workforce. No, it is not as bland as Simon Bridges has put it, that the robots are coming and therefore all the jobs will be gone. It is to recognise that technology will have its place in a modern economy, and we have to invest in the skills—the life-long learning opportunities for all New Zealanders to upskill and reskill—and continue to invest in our domestic workforce so that it can take advantage of higher-value jobs, a more skilled workforce, and a continually evolving and innovative economy.

These are the types of ideas that Labour will not shy away from. These are the types of ideas that we believe New Zealanders want to talk about, and these are the ideas that Labour will put well ahead of a vanity project, because we are serious about the future that we want to create for New Zealand.

Kia ora to the House and thank you to that last speaker, Nanaia Mahuta. Can I say that the OECD has suggested that a 10 percentage point increase in trade openness—that is, a share of exports plus imports to GDP—lifts GDP per capita by 4 percent. I think, deep down, that New Zealanders know this. I think New Zealanders know that we are a trading nation. They know that the very first people who came to this nation traded with each other: they traded between villages, between hapū, between different iwi groups. New Zealanders know that when settlers came to this country, they traded with them. And later on, as there were better trading links created and transportation, then New Zealanders—Māori and others—sold to Australia.

We are a trading nation, and I think everybody, in all parts of this Parliament and around the country, knows that without selling the things that we produce in abundance and the great services that our education system provides to New Zealand overseas, then, as a country, we are poorer not richer, and, as a Government, we do not get to provide the quality of living and a standard of life that New Zealanders demand and deserve.

That is why I think, in particular when the Hon Annette King said earlier to Michael Woodhouse that the reason so many New Zealanders are coming back to New Zealand is everywhere else is worse, that that is a bit glass half-empty. What she meant to say was that, actually, New Zealand is in a privileged position and a better position than almost every other country we have a relationship with and almost every other country we trade with because of the hard work of this Government, and successive Governments before us, when it came to opening up markets and giving opportunity to New Zealanders to sell the things that we produce to countries overseas. In many cases our nearest neighbours do not have the same quality of production to consume and to enjoy.

So that is why New Zealanders are coming home, because they know that, actually, it is better here than in many other countries in the world. We had 2.3 percent economic growth in 2015—much higher than most others that the Opposition likes to compare New Zealand with—with forecasts from Treasury of growth rates of 3 percent for 2016-17. The manufacturing sector has notched up 41 straight months of expansion and services, which at 70 percent of our economy, have been growing at the fastest level in the last 7 years. Indeed, our unemployment rate has just dropped to 5.3 percent. One hundred and forty-eight thousand additional jobs are expected over the next 3 years. Mrs King, that is why New Zealanders are coming home; not because everywhere else is worse than New Zealand but because New Zealanders are working hard, the economy is growing up and down the country, and there are opportunities for them and their families back here—that is, jobs.

Let us dig down into this a bit further. Tourism directly contributes $10.6 billion to the economy. Beef exports topped $3.3 billion—up a third in the last year. International education, another export—$2.8 billion—is supporting more than 30,000 Kiwi jobs. Wine exports—the wine industry has just had its best year ever with $1.5 billion worth of sales, which are predominantly exports, and 14 percent growth on last year. The ICT sector is, actually, a growing sector—one of the fast growing parts of our economy. It is still modest, but has had 9 percent growth since 2008. The kiwifruit sector in my area is having the best year it has had for a long time, through the hard work of kiwifruit growers.

So there is good news in all of this, and that good news is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), because in all of those areas I spoke about, there is greater access, greater liberalisation, and better access to 800 million consumers in 12 countries, who spend $28 trillion every year. It will be worth $2.7 billion extra to our economy by 2030. This is absolutely about good access to countries that a previous Government—a Labour Government—said it wanted free-trade agreements with.

And here is the final bit of it: Andrew Little knows that he got it wrong when he said to New Zealanders that he would oppose the TPP. That is why we have heard nothing from Labour on this for more than a month, and we will hear nothing more, except at the end of the year when it comes time to vote against hard-working New Zealanders having access to 800 million consumers who spend $28 trillion every year. Mrs King, as with your last Government, Helen Clark was always right.

I rise to take a call for New Zealand First in the general debate today. I have to say, I have never seen as much animation or excitement from the Hon Simon Bridges as I did with his contribution today. In fact, at one point he got so excited he almost launched himself across the lectern, and I actually think he touched a little bit of cloth, because he very quickly stood bolt upright and his cheeks were closed tight and his eyes were wide open, and the reality was he tempered himself down. But we know, and New Zealanders know, that he must be taking his stupid pills, because there is nothing in anything that we have heard from the Minister of Transport that has an integrated transport policy that includes rail. We have to take New Zealand seriously and involve rail into our discussions. I am not here in the general debate to have a complete smack at Mr Bridges, but he does make it very easy, I have to say.

Today we are on the precipice of change. Come Monday, 4 April we are heading into new, uncharted territory with the legislation arising from the Health and Safety Reform Bill coming in. There is a lot of fear, and a lot of that fear is driven by uncertainty of what is going to take place come 4 April. We had questions—patsy questions, all of them patsies—with Mr Woodhouse today in the House to try to bat away some of those concerns. The reality is that there are some serious concerns, but the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and this Government need to take ownership and responsibility for some of those concerns, because the reality of it is that we are coming so close to this new legislation and very little has been done to appease and ease the minds of the rank and file of New Zealanders. And there is no guarantee that this Minister can give the people of New Zealand that there are not going to be some serious changes when it comes to people being pulled before the courts and having some hefty fines put upon them. Case law will determine the way of this new legislation arising from the Health and Safety Reform Bill when it goes into action on 1 April.

Also, the reality is that only 5 weeks ago—5 weeks ago—the Minister released the regulations to actually encompass this legislation that is coming into the days and the lives of all New Zealanders who are going to be affected by it. Five weeks for the regulations to come in is just not good enough, and this Government is flying by the seat of its pants trying to push something down the throats of New Zealanders without giving them real time to engage and to get to appease themselves and settle into what is going on. On 18 and 25 February the 33 regulations were put through, giving New Zealanders only 5 weeks to adjust and get themselves ready. I think this is an embarrassment to this Government.

But, let us be honest, it is used to being embarrassed in recent times—you only need to look at the flag referendum. That was a bit of a Watership Down, a little bit of egg on the face—a little bit of Cadbury Creme Egg down the side of your cheek there—and, of course, we have had the Northland by-election. But get used to it: there are going to be plenty more embarrassments coming your way, as New Zealanders know the real truth behind this Government, which is not actually standing up for the best interests of New Zealanders. You are looking after your corporate buddies, your foreign nationals, and all those people coming in and making it harder for New Zealanders to own their own homes. The list goes on; I could spend hours just talking about that—how is my time looking, Mr Speaker? You are looking at me like my time is up, but I am still going.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: You have got a minute and a half.

Communication is the key with the new Health and Safety Reform Bill, and we have got to see more from this Government to appease the minds. Perception is reality, because, unfortunately, we have got school principals who are stopping children from climbing their trees because their perception of this bill is that that is what they have to be fearful of. What we could actually look at are the unintended consequences of the Health and Safety Reform Bill, and one of those unintended consequences is those not-for-profit organisations that are seeing their qualified and valued board members stepping down. You only have to look at Peter Jackson, for example, who stepped off his Weta Workshop board. There is not a more qualified person to be taking a position, and he is stepping down out of fear of the legislation arising from the Health and Safety Reform Bill—and his fear is a reality. There are organisations throughout our country—in fact, most councils have council-controlled organisations, which are boards put together by councils. They get seconded on there, they get paid a small honorarium—they are stepping down from those positions because they are up for huge amounts of penalties if there is a serious accident, a breach, or a death under their charge.

We needed to cut out clause 29AA—that was an amendment New Zealand First put through right back when we were debating this, to actually indemnify people in certain positions to stop things of this insidious nature happening the future. In saying that, I think health and safety is something we need to make a priority, but this Government has not done a great job of integrating it into the rest of New Zealand. Thank you.

I want to just explore a little political axiom with the House today, and it is literally about how the public vote. I think that the New Zealand public are to be congratulated, because they vote on the things that matter, and they decide when it is time for a change.

Let me just give you a little example of a simple indicator that almost sort of passed me by for many years. I stopped at the Ōhākea weigh station once when I was transport Minister, and one of the policemen there said: “I don’t know why you pay all those officials at Treasury to measure the GDP.” I said “Why is that?”, and he said: “Come inside.” I went inside, and he had a big piece of tracing paper. On the plane was the amount of tonnage of trucks that passed through the weigh station by the day, and he put the tracing paper on top it, which was the New Zealand GDP, and it was an exact copy. He said: “I can tell you every day that I work here whether the economy is going good, or sluggish, or dropping, and I’ll know that the grocery store down the road will be getting fewer people buying stuff, and so on.” It is that simple. It is that simple. He said: “You just need my piece of tracing paper, and I could phone you every day with the latest value of the New Zealand GDP.”—and he was right.

Why I brought that up is because the voting public is like that as well. They vote on one major thing. If they had 487 votes when they went into a polling booth, they would say “I like National on this, I think the Greens have got a better idea on that, and I think something or other.”, or whatever. But they get only one vote, and so they have to accumulate all of their views about the nation into that one party vote as to who is best to run the place. While the economy is actually functioning well, they will stick with the tried and true, always. I know.

I have been in an Opposition party on a number of occasions trying to ping the Government off, and you cannot do it while the economy is running smoothly and while it is going well. But the moment it turns to custard and the public think it is your fault—because they do give you excuses. They do allow a global financial crisis to impact, as has happened. They do allow the biggest sort of disaster, in terms of the Canterbury earthquakes, to at least affect whether the economy is going smoothly. But in general, right now, the public are showing, through polling after polling—and I do not care whether you go with Colmar Brunton or any of the other polls you want to look at. It is quite clear from that view that the public are comfortable with the economic management of this country.

All the issues that flow on from that—like whether my kids are getting a good education or whether my job is secure or whether my interest rates may go up—are all secondary to whether the place is being managed well economically. I would say that the message to the Opposition is that the one thing you have got to stop doing, because it is not going help you, is having a double standard—a double standard like attacking us for allowing foreigners to buy land when, in fact, foreigners bought twice as much land when those members were in Government.

💬 Hon David Parker: They’re talking about forestry.

That can only—I am not allowed the “h” word, so I can only use the “double standard” word, but those members sold twice as much land to foreigners as we did, and when they go on TV saying that it is evil, that has no credibility whatsoever.

When Labour members get up and say that it is wrong to be selling State assets, as they did when they opposed our mixed-ownership model, the public just said: “But didn’t they sell more of our assets than you’ve ever sold?”. I mean, we were babes in the woods compared with what Labour sold. So it is that double standard, which will not win you a single vote—

💬 Hon Annette King: You’d know about that.

—“Mr and Mrs Labour”. It will not win you a single vote while you know that you did it, and, in fact, you did it on steroids. Those members know, and they did it on steroids.

Similarly, with the flag referendum, what I think will not give Labour members a single jot in the polls is that they actually had a policy of holding a referendum to see whether we would change our flag, and as soon as they realised they could maybe get a bit of political influence to try to smack at the PM, they said: “Oh, it’s all wrong and it’s all evil and it’s all disgusting and it’s all disgraceful.” But the public do not see it like that. The public say “Well, hang on. Hang on, isn’t this, again, one of the double standards?”—and I have got a list of the double standards. I am not going to get anywhere near enough time but, I tell you what, you could go for 3 hours on things that Labour did when it was in Government.

Labour said—oh, look, there is a better one. Let us go with trade. Trade is one on my list, but I have got only a short time. Labour members negotiated some fantastic trade agreements—well done; good on them—and now, when we get the opportunity to bring 11 other countries into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because those members are so scared of their politics, they go against it. Well, they are wrong. They are totally wrong. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is one of the best things that has ever happened to this country.

Before the 1980s our country’s great achievement, which we were known all around the world for, was having a pretty level playing field, at least for Pākehā men. Since then we have seen greater recognition for women and Māori, amongst others. Of course it was not perfect back then, but successive Governments of both colours recognised the importance of ensuring families had enough to sustain themselves and a warm, dry home to live in. The goal was for everyone to have enough to be able to participate in society, because that was fair and right and because we wanted to ensure that we could get the best out of everyone for our society. We were known for this all around the world, and we were just a little smug about it.

But Government policies since the 1980s have created huge income and wealth imbalances that have harmed us all. Governments through the 1980s and 1990s removed the ability for working families to negotiate decent pay and hours, they cut the family benefit and made it harder to buy a house, and, of course, famously, Ruth Richardson set benefits levels below the poverty line. Then they said that struggling people were the problem.

This week the Government is, of course, proudly promoting the fact that it is giving some beneficiaries a few extra dollars, albeit with lots of strings attached, but it is not mentioning the fact that the ministry advice told it that this is not enough to get any of those families out of poverty. So what the Government is really announcing to the country is its decision to continue to keep these families in poverty. These are families where parents are unable to work while they rebuild themselves after leaving violent relationships, or provide for the physical and emotional needs of their children, who may have disabilities, or manage their own fragile mental health, while doing their best to care for their children. The Government has decided that these families do not deserve enough money to do those important jobs and pay all their bills and have opportunities in life.

Of course the Government has also failed to acknowledge the fact that it is taking this money from other struggling families. The Government is helping to fund this small conditional increase, which will not bring anyone out of poverty, by cutting the value of Working for Families and the accommodation supplement. These supports were introduced to try to keep people off the street and out of poverty. Eroding the value of these benefits means more families will now struggle to pay their bills, enjoy life, and contribute to our communities. It does not make sense to erode these supports, when rents are going up out of kilter with wages. Families are doing their best in increasingly tough circumstances, and the Government needs to stop making it harder.

The Green Party believes that we are in this society together, and our benefit will be better off if we fix the wealth and income imbalances. Although National Party members may groan at that idea, if we were in power we would improve the ability of people to negotiate decent pay and hours, crack down on corporate tax avoidance, introduce a capital gains tax, and put a price on carbon, so that we could ensure all of our families have enough to sustain themselves, while we protect our environment. We can rebalance our policies to ensure the dignity of every New Zealander. These are fundamental goals that are achievable.

All I can say about that contribution is that it was a lullaby and a diatribe. This is a land of opportunity. New Zealand is a land of opportunity, and I am very, very proud of this country and I am very, very proud of what this Government is delivering. We are delivering a framework that is creating a stronger economy and, through that, jobs, and that is where people gain opportunities. They gain opportunities through work, through being productive members of society, and through putting more money in the pockets of their families, which means that they can achieve their hopes and dreams. New Zealand is a land of opportunity.

Let us contrast this side of the House with the Opposition, on the other side of the House. Like I say, we are delivering results. We are delivering a framework that means our businesses have confidence to invest another dollar, to hire another person, and, again, to put money in their back pockets and achieve their hopes and dreams. What is the Opposition doing? Well, Opposition members are having a talkfest. They are talking about what work looks like. They are talking, they are yapping, but are they delivering? No. We are the ones who are delivering.

Let us talk about that delivery. What is happening is while they are pontificating about what work looks like, we have one of the highest labour participation rates ever in this country, at 69 percent. And what about Southland? Let me tell you. We roll up our sleeves and we are very, very hard workers. We are at 74 percent. Did you get that, Mr Hudson? Southland is at a 74 percent labour participation rate. We are the envy of the OECD. We have an unemployment rate of 5.3 percent, and in Southland, what is it? It is 4.1 percent. And why is that—why is that? It is because this Government has a framework to diversify our economy and to diversify our markets.

I am ashamed—I tell you, when I am out, talking to my dairy farmers and my beef farmers and my manufacturers, they are concerned that the Labour Party would be turning its back on 30 years of supporting free trade. That is disgraceful, and they are worried.

My people in Southland are export-driven. They are export-driven and they know that we need to open up new markets. We are treating people as New Zealanders to trade with, breaking down the tariffs, breaking down the barriers, and creating more opportunities so they can invest in their business and take on more people in respect of jobs. The Trans-Pacific Partnership? Well, they are thrilled, actually, to have that across the line. My beef farmers are absolutely thrilled to know that they will be trading with 11 other countries around the Pacific Rim. They are jumping for joy.

New Zealand First has the audacity to say that it is there for the regions. Well, I kid you not, they certainly do not believe that in Southland. We are pragmatic people, and we believe in free trade.

In respect of Southland, talking about dairy—yes, dairy—our dairy farmers are hurting at the moment, and my sympathies are with them. But we are more than a one-trick pony. We are a diversified economy, and we are providing a framework that allows people to take chances, to start up businesses, and to grow into other sectors.

Let us take a look at tourism in Southland—30,000 people visited Stewart Island, a fledgling tourism site that is steeped in absolutely wonderful nature. We have got our Minister of Conservation sitting right here. The work that she is doing with the kākāpō, with the natural beauty, with the geckos, and with the wonderful things that are going on down in Rakiura—people want to see our nature. They want to enjoy it, and they are paying good money to do it. How many jobs have spun off from that? A whole economy is supporting Stewart Island.

What about aquaculture? We have aquaculture as well. Aquaculture is growing, and it is an opportunity down in Southland. With regard to our Sanford operation, that is producing 20 percent of New Zealand’s national salmon production. It employs 20 staff on Stewart Island and another 80 in Bluff. That is traditionally red territory that I won back—80 in Bluff. Why are we winning that back? Why are we winning? Because we are supporting families.

I support families. I support growth. I support putting wealth in their pockets, and that is through jobs. Thank you.

This last week has been a week of contrasts, of highs and lows. Just before Easter, we saw the lowest low, when the results of the Prime Minister’s vanity project came in, in terms of the flag referendum, with an expensive whimper. Over $26 million has been wasted on a flawed process to change our flag. But New Zealanders have spoken. They have spoken, loud and clear: we are keeping our current flag. Only six out of 71 electorates voted for a change in flag. The Prime Minister could not even convince his own electorate of Helensville to change the flag. At Helensville 56.6 percent voted to keep the current flag and only 43.3 percent voted for a change of flag, which is quite ironic. It is ironic because that is exactly how the rest of New Zealand actually voted.

This Government has spent so many millions just to keep our current flag. But there are so many other issues, so many other issues, that should be of priority. For instance, let me give you a few examples. Addressing child poverty—we have over 300 kids in Aotearoa New Zealand who are living in poverty. Addressing homelessness—ensuring that people, including children, have a roof over their heads. That is another issue that could be of priority. Investing in our hospitals is another issue. Ensuring that those with melanoma cancer have access to first-line treatment and, at the same time, saving hundreds of lives—I would have thought that saving lives should be a priority. It would definitely be a priority when this side of the House gets into Government—let me assure you.

Another priority—fixing up and maintaining our State houses so that they are warm, dry, and healthy and so that they stop contributing to children dying. The young toddler in my electorate of Ōtara, in Manukau East, Emma-Lita Bourne, died because she lived in a State house in conditions that were so bad that the coroner said—[Interruption] Honourable Minister, the coroner said that the condition of the house that she lived in contributed to her death. Instead of continuing to waste millions of dollars on things like the flag referendum, this Government needs to get back to focusing on real issues—issues that affect people’s lives on a daily basis. As my colleague Jacinda Ardern spoke about earlier, let us focus on the things that matter.

While this wasteful flag process has been under way, Labour on the other hand has been working hard to build a national conversation about the future of work. We have been engaging experts, business leaders, economists, and workers alike to help define pathways into the future that will offer opportunity, a fruitful life, and a shot at the Kiwi Dream for all New Zealanders not just the privileged few—and it has not cost us that much money. We have convened lots of consultations across New Zealand over the last year and a half and the results have been that we have developed 10 big ideas. That has given us a snapshot of the kinds of ideas from the ground up that would help us with our policy development.

OECD countries are looking at the future of work. We are not the only party that is looking at the future of work and, instead of burying our heads in the sand like the current Government is doing, we are actually looking and addressing and talking to people and asking them how we address this. When the New Zealand of Economic Research comes up and gives us a report that states that 46 percent of our current jobs in New Zealand are not going to be around in the next 10 to 20 years we do not bury our heads in the sand. As the party of big ideas we try to develop policy ideas to address those head-on—the future of work. Thank you.

New Zealand is in great shape. We are making huge strides building a stronger, more resilient, more prosperous society—one where Kiwis can enjoy the lifestyles they want and have good incomes. It is a society, a country, that compares well against the rest of the world.

Let us look at our economic performance. Sustained growth over the last year was 2.3 percent last year and forecast to average 3 percent or more over the next 2 years. What does that mean for Kiwis? Well, that gives businesses the confidence, as my colleague Ms Dowie pointed out, to spend another dollar, to employ another person. It sees wages rise; it sees more jobs created. Let us look at that.

Over the last year, wages on average rose 3.1 percent—far greater than the rate of inflation. New Zealanders are better off, better off in work. Over the last 3 years 175,000 jobs were created and there is still good news because over the next 3 years a further 148,000 jobs are expected. This is extremely important across New Zealand and no less so in my electorate of Ōhāriu. In Ōhāriu we have the highest proportion across New Zealand of people in the labour force. There are 72.3 percent in the labour force—the highest proportion in Ōhāriu out of any other electorate across New Zealand.

We also have the greatest proportion on wages and salaries: 56.6 percent. Those are the people who are directly impacted by the work this Government does to create opportunities for business, which leads to more jobs and leads to higher wages. New Zealand is benefiting from the work this Government has been doing, and Ōhāriu is particularly benefiting and is particularly looking forward to this work continuing.

So let us look at what a Government does to support these strides in the economy that we want to see. Well, in the Government we call it the Business Growth Agenda. You invest in opening new markets for your exporters, you free up channels for investment, you invest in infrastructure that will enable businesses to be more productive, you harness your natural resources better, and you invest in the skills and safe workforce that you need to deliver all that. We call that the Business Growth Agenda and it crystallises perfectly in things such as free-trade agreements.

We have acknowledged that the previous Labour Government did a very good job in creating the China free-trade agreement—an agreement that this Government has leveraged to the hilt to grow into an enormous trading partner and regime. Along with the China free-trade agreement we signed the free-trade agreement with South Korea and most recently signed up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade agreement with 11 other nations that have almost 37 percent of the global GDP. In dollar terms that is about $27 trillion a year, and 800 million customers for New Zealand’s goods and services. This is a boon for all New Zealanders—for workers as well as businesses. This is the opportunity, as I said, for our businesses to grow further, to want to invest in greater production, to hire more people, and to see wages rise.

Along with opening up our export markets we have been making enormous investments in productive infrastructure. Ultra-fast broadband and the rural broadband initiatives—there is now over $2 billion invested by this Government in connecting Kiwis with the world. What do we see there? Well, we see New Zealand businesses able to harness that, to be more productive. There is the general practitioner up in Whangarei who is able to do retinal eye scans in his clinic and send the information off to the local district health board to be processed, saving him and his patients a great deal of time. Or there are the panel beaters on the North Shore who are able to take photographs and video of damage and send that off to assessors, having claims approved much more readily. There is over $2 billion invested in connecting New Zealand businesses and Kiwis to the world.

We are doing the same thing in roading. With our roads of national significance, along with some regional roading initiatives, we are unlocking productivity. We are helping Kiwis get to work. We are helping goods get to market more cost efficiently and much quicker, supporting our export businesses, supporting Kiwi businesses, supporting Kiwi workers. This is a Government that is working for New Zealand.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.