General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I am delighted to stand up today and announce that New Zealand will be ratifying the Paris Agreement, and doing it earlier than we said we would. As we know, it is a global climate change, and the difference we make there, as far as emissions are concerned, will make the difference, and the biggest difference, for this planet. The fact that we have the biggest international treaty signed by the most countries on the same day, and that New Zealand is part of that, I think, puts us in great stead for the future and in great stead for actually being part of what this amazing country stands for: its beauty, its integrity, and, equally, moving forward in the part that we will play. This shows our commitment to the momentum internationally, and the fact that we want to actually be part of that.

I must say that before I went to New York to sign the Paris Agreement in April, certainly all the advice I got was to take 18 months or to take 2 years to look at ratification—that there was not a big hurry in that, that it was good to be able to set those targets for 2030, and that you can wait and see what the international rules are before you ratify. However, with the momentum that is picking up globally, thanks to the Paris Agreement, being part of the 55/55—that is, 55 countries that need to sign, making up at least 55 percent of emitters. Seeing people like President Obama and President Xi actually standing up and saying that they will be ratifying this year—and certainly every indication that we are getting is that that is still happening—and seeing other countries, like Australia and Canada, and then getting a very strong message from our international community that we will not get to sit around the table and help make the rules on what those accounting procedures mean unless we have ratified, has led us to this day and at this moment saying that we will ratify early.

Of course, what all this means, though, is we need to bend the curve. We need to bend the curve and lower our emissions in New Zealand. Have no doubt about it—that is not an easy thing to do. We have a completely different emissions make-up from any other country in the world. We are looking at nearly 50 percent of our emissions being from agriculture, when already more than 80 percent of our electricity use is renewable. You will see other countries making big, bold statements and saying that they are having a higher degree of difference, if you like, in their emissions profile, and they might just be doing that, because they have got some pretty easy decisions that they can make; we have got some tough ones.

I suppose my call out to this Parliament today is that I think that there is some work that we can do cross-party. I think that if you speak to businesses, if you speak to consumers, and if you speak to people about what they most want, it is some certainty from us on some of the foundations. We can argue about what that means. I am sure that different parliaments and different Governments at different times would either go harder and faster or slower and more cautiously, but I think that people need a degree of certainty from Parliament as to what the base conditions are, and I think that this Parliament is well set to do that over the next year to 18 months. So—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: A leadership bid, but it’s failing.

I welcome the member’s contribution, and I hope that he is a believer in climate change. Mr Peters, are you a believer? You have been around long enough to see it changing, and I am sure, Mr Peters, that you care enough about this country and what we are leaving for future generations that you will want to play a part in this. I am sure that I am hearing from the member across the House that he would like to be part of a discussion on what it actually means to leave our country in a better state for future generations, and ensure that they can actually experience the beauty and the opportunities that we have as New Zealanders. Our identity is wrapped up in our land, and we have a role to actually look after that the best that we possibly can.

So I think this is a good day for New Zealand and a good day for Parliament. I would like to see some of that bipartisan—and congratulations and even a question in the House would have been nice, but I understand that Labour members are struggling a little and have got other things on their minds at the moment. But while they actually think about what house prices might mean for future generations, they might ask themselves whether, if we do not make a difference in our emissions profile, there will actually be parts of New Zealand that banks will not lend to and insurers will not insure because of the effects of climate change. It is a good day for New Zealand and a good day for us internationally.

I want to credit Paula Bennett for something. There is a proposition she made in her speech that I agree with, which is that New Zealand is a beautiful country. We have great natural assets and great natural beauty, and that is a reason why a lot of people love living here and it is why a lot of people come here. We are a great country. We are part of the developed world and we are not poor, and we can celebrate that and we should. This should be a great country for everyone who lives here. Whether they have been born here or whether they come here to chase their hopes and dreams, this should be a great country for everyone.

But the truth is, of course, that for many, for a growing number of people who are here, no matter how hard they work, no matter how hard they try, and no matter how long they save, they cannot get ahead. They cannot live a decent life and they cannot realise their hopes and dreams. That is the lot of far too many New Zealanders today, and it is not good enough for the Prime Minister to stand here and say, 8 years into the Government: “We have prospects.” “We have prospects.” Really? That is as good as it gets? “We might have prospects.”—those members have been saying that for 8 years.

This Government has lost touch. Those members do not know what is going on. That is why their priority is to track down lost luggage. That is what they care about. As New Zealanders struggle to own their own home and as New Zealanders struggle to get a pay increase and get ahead in life, members opposite are worried about lost luggage. The housing crisis is out of control. We had a nationwide average increase in the house price last year of 26 percent. That is ridiculous, when the Consumers Price Index—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not true.

—is running at below 2 percent. Nick Smith, of course, objects—because he objects to everything—because he does not know what he is doing, because he is the world’s worst Minister of housing. Once upon a time I would have said “the worst in the Commonwealth”, but I have to say he has now surpassed that. When it comes to the Olympics of Government, he is the world’s worst housing Minister.

We now have the average Auckland house price at a fraction below a million dollars. Houses under $600,000 in Auckland have gone from being 78 percent of the market when that Government took office to now just 21 percent of the market, and the Government’s answer to that is, of course, special housing areas. This was the panacea—this was going to fix everything. Affordable houses would be available within years, and they do not—[Interruption] You see, they do not care. They do not care. So with the special housing areas, it was: “Well, we’ve blown the lid off that.” Three years into special housing areas, 154 of them have been created, only a third have got to consenting stages, and only 24 have actually got completed houses on them—154 special housing areas and only 24 with completed housing, because the truth is it has become a recipe for the land bankers. It has become a recipe for the land bankers. There are only 340 affordable homes amongst all the houses built in the 154 special housing areas in the last 3 years.

Those members crow about “Oh, there’s 1,300 houses built”—or 1,268 built, to be precise—but only 340 of them are affordable. The truth is we know what happens when there is a lack of houses built: more people rely on renting and rents go up. We now have overcrowded housing and we have poor-quality rentals. That is why we now have to regulate the rentals, and the Government’s feeble attempt to do that is a complete waste of time.

That is why it was so encouraging today to hear more submissions on my Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). It was so encouraging to see the Mayor of Porirua, Nick Leggett, supporting the legislation and making some constructive suggestions. Nick Leggett had very positive suggestions from Porirua, but what was even more heart-warming—[Interruption] You see, the problem with this Government is it is so out of touch, it does not think New Zealanders care about other New Zealanders. And what was very heart-warming was to see the submitters from Paraparaumu College making their submission. Esmay Goodman, Sophie Joines, Braidey Woodham, Elysia Hartley, and Luc van Kradenburg made their submission because they care about New Zealanders in a way that the members opposite never ever will.

Renting should give families the same security and the same quality of life as owning their own home does. Renting should not be a second-class option. Renting should not be a driver of respiratory illness in our children. Renting should be a secure, stable, and affordable option for New Zealanders in this country. Renters want that, tenants and families want that, and landlords want that, too. The vast majority of landlords in this country care well for their properties. They care about their tenants. They want their tenants to live well in these homes and to live healthily in these homes, and they go to great lengths to make sure that these homes are warm and dry and secure for their tenants. So we in the Green Party want to make the law work better for landlords and for tenants. We want the law to incentivise good landlords and good tenants, and make sure that those few bad apples who rent out homes—those few bad landlords—are held accountable for the homes, the cold, damp homes, that they let to their tenants.

My Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill will take small but none the less important steps to improve renters’ lives in New Zealand by encouraging longer term and more secure tenancies in this country. My bill will benefit over 450,000 households in New Zealand. We have had a considerable increase in the number of renting families because housing is now so unaffordable to purchase that families have no choice but to rent, and to rent long term. So for 450,000 households in this country the law needs to work better for them, and the Green Party will deliver that.

My bill makes six changes to the law. The first allows a tenant the first right of refusal when their lease expires, so that they can put down long-term roots in the community they love and have raised their children in, work in, and play in. This means that tenants will have the choice of being able to stay in their home when the lease expires. It does not interfere at all with landlords’ rights to evict, should they choose to, but when a lease comes to its natural close, that tenant in that home, the home they have built, has the first right to say they want to stay.

My bill will require landlords to write into the tenancy agreement the calculation that that landlord intends to use to increase the rent over time. This is just a means by which there is transparency between the landlord and the tenant about the rent increases. It will be up to the landlord and the tenant to decide what that calculation is. There is no prescription for it. But it means that the tenant will know by about how much the rent will go up, and can therefore budget for that when they are planning their financial future. My bill will restrict rent increases to no more than once every 12 months. At the moment it is once every 6 months. That is too frequent for tenants, especially when they do not know how much it is going to go up by. By having the rent calculation in the agreement and restricting those increases to once every 12 months there is greater transparency and it is much better for the families to be able to plan their financial future. They will know when the rent is going up, and they will know by how much.

My bill will restore the 90-day notice for landlords if they want to evict a tenant. The eviction process and the reasons for eviction will all remain as in the current law. There are no changes to that in my bill. But my bill will remove the 42-day notice. So many tenants now are so vulnerable that they are being moved from home to home, as landlords are trying to decide what they want to do with their houses. But the problem is that that house is the home of the tenant. Especially for families with children, who are very vulnerable in these situations, they need more security than a 42-day notice period. So we would restore the 90-day notices across the board for all of the reasons that evictions can be made.

My bill is a small but important step for renters and for landlords, to improve the circumstances for families in this country, and I urge all parties in this House to support the bill when it comes up for first reading. Thank you.

George Orwell said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” What many people have not wanted to hear is that immigration in New Zealand has long got out of control. Net migrant gain is nearly three times that of the UK in real terms, and we are creating a city the size of New Plymouth every year in New Zealand through immigration. Most are settling in Auckland, where we have a chronic shortage of housing, and hospitals struggling in places where people should have the services. Motorways are clogged, and so are the educational institutions, and Kiwis are finding it harder to get work because of the competition that is coming in.

For far too long people did not want to hear that immigration was adding to this country’s problems. Any attempt to raise this issue has been dismissed as racist and xenophobic, with people hurling that abuse as though there will never be a day of reckoning where they are concerned. Well, there is going to be a day of reckoning for all who shouted that allegation. The johnny-come-latelys are starting to jump on the bandwagon as well. But this is not a part of courage, where they are concerned.

Last week a Chinese real estate agent, living in Auckland, told us what he thought of immigration and what effect it is having on Auckland. He told us about the housing crisis, and the impact that the Government’s immigration policy is having on it. His family came to New Zealand from Mainland China in 2001, looking for a new future and for the younger generation to have the chance of a good education. He said that in recent years Auckland had become too Chinese-oriented. Walk down Queen Street—[Interruption] Stop laughing, Arthur. Stop laughing, Arthur. Walk down Queen Street, and tell me what you are laughing at. He also said that on a visit to Tokyo, the Japanese said that going to Auckland was like going to China. This is what this Chinese agent said.

💬 Alastair Scott: You wrote that one.

This man wrote the letter. We do not come to Parliament without the facts, without the documents. He has seen young couples desperate to buy their own homes, and having their offers dashed by being outbid by Chinese buyers, whom he said then had the house back on the market within 2 weeks, for another $200,000. They are investment properties, and there are a huge number of them. They do not pay tax. They privately advertise through their websites or among their own social circles, and for them the Government’s IRD number is a joke. He said that in the event of a downward trend, they will be exiting the country without a thought.

What happened? Well, Arthur Loo, a lawyer and board member of the New Zealand China Council, said he doubted whether Adam—this man’s name, at the time—was even Chinese. Mr Loo, from his multi-mansions in Remuera, said he thought it came from the “back ops” department in New Zealand First. Mr Loo supports, of course, a Chinese tong type of silent society where you say nothing. What sort of a lawyer beats his gums without getting a few facts first, particularly in “Granny Herald”? What sort of a lawyer is this? But did he dispute what our agent said? No, he did not. He did not say that one allegation was wrong. No, he thought he could go there and use the coercion of the Chinese tong type of society and shut this guy down. That is what happens when you say things that people do not want to hear.

Then, of course, another immigrant—this man, from South Africa—a former judge, got here a fraction before our agent in 1999, and said that if this was written by someone Chinese, he would eat his hat. If this was written by someone Chinese, he would eat his hat. This is from a former lawyer and judge from South Africa. Well, let me tell you, Dr Marnewick, or whatever you call yourself down on Bucklands Beach—we are going to come down with a TV crew, and you will be eating your hat, because we do not come to Parliament without the facts. Is it a paradox? Who is launching into him? Why, another Chinese man, George Lim from Remuera—because it is always Remuera, is it not? He is not from Ōtara; oh, no, no, it is Remuera. He is saying: “Why is this guy making these statements when he is biting the hand that feeds him?”. So honesty, decency, and having some courage in your society mean nothing—it is all about egregious self-interest for all these people.

And then, of course, you go to Mr Ken Choe from Mount Eden—another highly established place—and he attacks the man as not being Chinese in the first place. Let me just say this: I am proud of this agent, and we will do all we can to defend him.

The Government is very proud of what it is doing in relation to climate change. I want to pick up from where Paula Bennett was speaking, and can I say, not only is the Government proud, the country should be as well. Today Paula Bennett has announced the early ratification, by this country, of the Paris Agreement at the end of the year. We will be one of the first countries that are doing this.

💬 Hon David Parker: That’s not correct.

I was in Paris—well, it is actually correct, David Parker. I do not live in the land of theory. I went to Paris—I saw the momentum that was there. We could be sitting there, sitting back, waiting to see what happens, but we are ratifying this agreement. We are going through the legal process. We are taking the “INDC”, the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, and we are getting rid of the “I”. It will be a nationally determined contribution. We are making a difference and New Zealanders should be proud of that. We are ensuring that the momentum that there has been continues—that it keeps going. It is real leadership from this Government, and from this country.

Indeed, we are a country at the bottom of the world, with the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme (ETS) in the world. We have, at the moment, the highest carbon price in the world, because we have, effectively, gone in there, we are reviewing it, we have taken away the two for one, and we are seeing the carbon price at a level where we will start to see action from foresters and from others, and we should be proud of that.

Of course, other policy settings will have to change over time, to help us reach our ambitious target, and to change the economy for good—and I mean that in two ways: to change it for good, but also to change it for the positive. As I say, the ETS is the main tool for incentivising change—there is no doubt about that—but there are many other things we will be doing, and we are doing. I am, and I know Nathan Guy and Nick Smith are, working incredibly hard. It will not be easy—Paula Bennett said this—because, of course, we have, as a developed country, a very unique profile. We are a renewable superpower.

Actually, at the moment—the last 3 months—around 90 percent of our electricity is from renewables. If we look overseas, at Australia, across the Ditch—what is it at the moment? It is at about 13 percent. So we have that unique part of our profile. We also have, of course, the agriculture sector, where we are unique, really, in the developed world—to have such high agriculture here. We are doing it more efficiently per unit than anyone else, but that, of course, is something that has to be factored in. All are going to need to be involved in New Zealand. This is not just a problem of Government: civil society, cross-party—and we have heard Paula Bennett reach out on that today—and all New Zealanders.

I have got important portfolios in this regard, and I take the responsibilities in this area seriously. That is why in energy I am proud to have seen the renewables in electricity skyrocket over this tenure of Government—from 65 percent to well over 80 percent now. But we cannot rest on our laurels, because we know—and I do not mean to make a party political point here, but we know when David Parker was running electricity it was a shambles. Actually, they went backwards in terms of the carbon emissions in that area, but today electricity is only 6 percent of the emissions in this country. It is not the real game. So we need new energy targets and I am working on that. We have been consulting on that with the wider energy sector. So we are working in industry and we are working in transport to make a real difference and to move that renewables advantage into those areas.

We are refreshing our Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, because that has got a big role to play in this regard as well, to make sure that, as I say, it is not just about electricity, but it is about electric vehicles. It is about seeing coal boilers go into gas, become a more efficient—and actually into bio-energy as well. There are a number of programmes there that we can build on. And in transport we are investing more in public transport than ever before in New Zealand—more busways, more interchanges. We are investing more in rail—over $4 billion, in the life of this Government, into commuter rail. Look, obviously, there is a lot more to come, but also into freight and in cycleways, which will make a difference.

Finally, in electric vehicles, a comprehensive amount—some $200 million in a package—is going to make a difference and change the way that New Zealanders drive personally in the future. So this Government is proud of its record in climate change and what it is doing, and New Zealanders should be too.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki Te Whare. Right now a community is struggling with a very unpleasant water contamination issue that is affecting their health. It is not the only time that this has happened in this country, but it is probably the largest in our memory and the most serious. If we cannot sort out drinking water, how on earth are we going to get to swimmable rivers again? Remember that swimmable, not wadeable, is the goal, despite the weakness of the Government’s national policy statement on fresh water.

Wadeable is not an Olympic sport. Swimming and diving are Olympic sports, but wadeable is how you cross a river, or wadeable is when people wear those rubber clothes and go fishing—a very legitimate activity. Great, except if the river is contaminated, there will not be any fish for them to catch in their waders. So we need to change the goal for water and make it swimmable, not wadeable. It would be a gold medal if we could return to that, and that is going to take some leadership, which is absent at the moment.

Swimmable is not about the Ministry of Health standard; it is about a whole lot more. It means safe for kids, for native fish, for insects—for all life forms, it should be swimmable. Swimmable is not about subsidising big irrigation to suck up water to the point at which rivers are beyond their life-supporting capacity. It is not about sewage overflows, which contain a range of E. coli, ending up in our waterways. We have got a lot of work to do, which can be done with political will. Swimmable means kids bombing off the bank into a clean pool of beautiful, fresh water. It means tangata whenua getting up and doing their pepeha with pride because their river—their awa—is not contaminated. Swimmable means a river where people can be without having to check the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa website to see whether it has been contaminated this week; or without having to read the sign that says “Toxic algae—beware”; or without having to wonder whether this piece of paper nailed to this post by the river, which says it is a health risk, is true or not, and whether they should risk putting their head under the water when they have come to the river for an experience to renew their hearts. We love our rivers, and we want to be safe in our rivers.

It is worth noting some of the issues around this challenge. One is that, according to Statistics New Zealand, we now have 10 million cattle across the country—6.4 million dairy cows and 3.6 million beef cattle. That is quite a lot of large animals, considering that each one of them produces 15 times the effluent of a single human being—and that effluent is not treated. That is quite a lot of waste per animal. Even with the best will in the world—and we have got farmers planting, protecting waterways, and dealing with phosphorous and other issues—nitrates are a massive issue in terms of the swimmability and the health of our rivers, because they lead us towards contamination of all of the elements of that water column, including the risk of toxic algae. As climate change kicks in, we are going to get warmer water and more algae; mix that with nutrients and we have a problem.

So all the great work might be being done, but this Government is not leading it. It has created many collaborative process models to water down the issues so that powerful stakeholders can dominate the debate and so that business, as usual, ends up with more voice than iwi and community. The Government has subsidised big irrigation. It has allowed wadeable to win over swimmable. It has ignored iwi when they have said very clearly that this is a Te Tiriti issue and that they have a proprietorial relationship with water. It is not OK to say no one owns water, and to then let it be sold off in bottles overseas or taken commercial advantage of without anything being paid for it, which is what is happening at the moment—an issue that this Government refuses to face.

Swimmable is about standing with great water policy. The Greens have great water policy, and right now we are touring our communities and talking with people who want that pollution to stop. We are talking about solutions that will really work, not just talking to each other about the lowest bottom line. That is why I am on the water tour and fighting for swimmable, because wadeable is not an Olympic sport.

This Government is proud of its track record and the progress that it is making on improving freshwater quality. But this afternoon the Government wants to focus on the issue of climate change, because, I think members would appreciate, it is one of the most important issues of our time.

The announcement today by Paula Bennett, the Minister for Climate Change Issues, that the Government is proceeding to ratify the Paris Agreement is a significant step forward. There can be no single country that can resolve the climate change issue, and that is why the international negotiations are such a crucial component. It is particularly noteworthy that when the Kyoto Protocol was ratified, this Parliament went to and fro debating it for more than 4 years, and in comparison, the debate has moved on and there is actually very little controversy today on the step that Paula Bennett has taken.

I would also note with some pride that both the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed by one of the original Bluegreens, Simon Upton, and Tim Groser’s pivotal role in the Paris Agreement have both been under National Ministers, showing the genuine progress this side of the House is able to make on this crucial issue. New Zealand is committing, through the Paris Agreement, to a reduction of 30 percent in our emissions by 2030. That is a bold and challenging task, and I would invite members of the House to read the Treasury papers about the size of the economic challenge that is required to achieve that, because some of the quite naive commitments that are made by other political parties do not take on board the reality of the size of that challenge.

I also want to note, in the debate about climate change, the actual numbers that show that progress is being made. If we look at emissions after the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed, in the years from 1990 to 1999, New Zealand’s emissions grew under that Shipley-Bolger Government by an average of 700,000 tonnes per year. If you look at the period between 1999 and 2008—David Parker is in the House, so he would note it—the previous Labour Government, supported by the Greens, actually saw a massive increase in emissions. During that 9-year period, emissions actually grew, on average, by 1.3 million tonnes per year. Emissions today are actually lower than what they were at the peak of 2005 in gross terms, and lower than what they were in 2007 in net terms.

So when I hear members opposite talking about climate change, I say yes, it is true that Labour and the Greens were bigger on the rhetoric. They promised a carbon-free New Zealand, but if you look at the reality of the progress that has been made on policies that are actually reducing emissions, we are making good progress.

💬 Hon David Parker: A carbon-free New Zealand would rid us of Nick Smith.

If we take the emissions trading scheme, Mr Parker, we need to be honest that New Zealand is one of only eight countries outside of the EU that even puts a price on carbon, and the current price of carbon in New Zealand, at over $18 per tonne, actually compares with the EU price of $7—in other words, there is a stronger financial incentive in New Zealand to reduce emissions. If you look at the electricity sector, under our Government we have seen growth from 60 percent renewable to now 90 percent, which contrasts with under the previous Government, when it actually went in the opposite direction.

I look at the programme on insulating homes—500,000 homes insulated under the programme of this Government; 15,000—one, five—under the previous Government. I look at the progress that Simon Bridges is making with the initiative of electric cars, where we have seen a fivefold increase in the number of new electric cars. I look at the massive investment that Nathan Guy and Steven Joyce are leading around the agricultural emissions. You have a robust, solid, and realistic approach to climate change that today is marked by the significant announcement of the ratification of that Paris Agreement.

What a load of absolute greenwash from Nick Smith there. I can remember, in my very first week in this Parliament, my normally extremely cheerful colleague the Hon David Parker leaving the Chamber one night after we had been here in urgency, dealing with a National Government that did not want the 90 percent target for renewables, that was going to mine national parks, and that had got rid of the thermal energy generation ban that we had put in place. All of the things—

💬 Dr Megan Woods: And was excluding agriculture.

That is right—and was excluding agriculture from the emissions trading scheme (ETS). All of these things that David Parker had built up—

💬 Chris Bishop: Yes. That’s right—dumb policies.

—to put New Zealand in a position to stand up proudly on the world stage on climate change were dismissed by this Government. The pathetic, pitiful targets that Chris Bishop is so proud of, when it comes to what National is planning on climate change, are an embarrassment on the world stage.

This Government is clearly in trouble in the polls. It has done the polling and it has said: “Whatever you do, Ministers, don’t come to the House and talk about housing. Don’t talk about housing. If you are the Minister for Building and Housing and you’ve got a slot in the general debate, don’t mention housing.”

💬 Hon David Parker: No luggage.

No, no, you do not want to bring your housing baggage to the House.

So Nick Smith stands up to give us a lecture on climate change. Well, on this side of the House, we will not take those lectures from this Government until we see real action, until we see an ETS operating properly, and until we see New Zealand actually standing up proud on the world stage.

I want to devote most of my time today to talking about the importance in New Zealand of the idea of every New Zealander having a share in prosperity. As Andrew Little said at the start of his speech today, New Zealand is a great country—a beautiful country blessed with fantastic natural resources, great people, and fantastic opportunities. The reality of New Zealand today is that not every New Zealander and not every New Zealand child is getting a share in that prosperity—a fair go. The idea that most of us had in our families was that our parents had a desire for us to achieve more than they did. I grew up in a family where neither of my parents finished high school, but they wanted their children to go on and go to university, to be upwardly mobile, to be moving forward in the world, and to be building a better life than what they had.

What we are at risk of at the moment in New Zealand is that a whole cohort of New Zealanders are being shut out of that idea that they have got a share in prosperity. It is exactly that approach that has driven all of the social dislocation in Europe and what we see lying behind the Trump phenomenon in America—the idea that people do not have a place in the economy, that there is not a place for them to achieve their goals, to get that social mobility, or to build up their future for their family that comes. That is what we see from this Government. So when we look today at things like statistics on wages, if working New Zealanders are getting less of a share in the prosperity of New Zealand year on year from this Government, then we build up that gap in our society.

Bill English finally comes to the House today and says: “Actually, I admit it: Statistics New Zealand was right. Asset and income inequality in New Zealand has grown.” The top 10 percent of New Zealanders hold 60 percent of the wealth. They hold 60 percent of the wealth because we have got a Government with no idea of how to give New Zealanders a chance to get that social mobility, to buy their own homes.

We have a Government that does not care that we have the lowest wage growth in 6 years this year, or that 44 percent of New Zealanders did not get a pay rise at all. It is all very well for those at the top to get it—chief executives got their 12 percent pay rise in the last year. The average across the economy was about 2 percent. Two-thirds of New Zealanders got less than 2 percent in terms of wage rise. They are not getting their fair share of prosperity under this Government, and this Government refuses to acknowledge the reasons that lie behind that, even though there is now a chorus of people telling the Government that growth in our economy is being driven by increasing population. It is not being driven by the actions of the Government to create more productivity; it is being driven by the fact that more people have shown up. Per person, it is flat—it is not going anywhere. There is no stability in an economy that is built on immigration, speculation, and debt.

We need a Government that will support our regions, invest in our education and training sector, and build our economy up so that we grow wealth from the ground up, not rely on the failed trickle-down policies of this Government that exclude people from our economy instead of saying that every New Zealander deserves a share of prosperity.

I want to join with other colleagues from this side of the House, in this general debate this afternoon, and talk a little bit about the very important decision that the Hon Paula Bennett, Minister for Climate Change Issues, has made today in relation to the early ratification of our Paris Agreement obligations.

Listening to Grant Robertson speaking, one would be forgiven for thinking that he missed hearing his leader—the abject, desperate leader of the Labour Party—trying to talk back, earlier in this debate, the political damage he did last week. Last week Andrew Little was telling Labour MPs: “Do not be seen with the right-wing Mayor of Porirua. He is a right-wing person and you cannot be seen in the same room as he is.” This week, in this debate this afternoon, suddenly—guess what? The Mayor of Porirua is suddenly a good guy. He is a fine guy; he is a guy who is to be lauded and to be applauded, according to Andrew Little. And Andrew Little can, as desperately and wantonly as he likes, try to talk back the damage that he did last week—try to talk it back, try to walk it back, try to make it as if it did not happen—but it did. That week, last week, was a disaster for the Labour Party, a disaster for the Leader of the Opposition, and it only destined him to be in that role for a very long period of time to come.

This afternoon, we have had a terrific announcement for New Zealanders, for this Parliament, and, indeed, for the globe, because the Minister for Climate Change Issues has—very early, much earlier than was anticipated—been able to announce that New Zealand will ratify the Paris Agreement that was made in December of last year. That was when 180 countries from around the world, which collectively make up 99 percent of global emissions, agreed to make emissions reductions possible. There were many sceptics who thought that that Paris Agreement could not achieve what it had set out to do or achieve what it did, in fact, achieve. This is why this early ratification by New Zealand is important—notwithstanding the fact that we are a small contributor to global emissions internationally, but we have an important leadership role to play.

New Zealand is part of a much bigger global plan to address climate change issues that are facing the world, and Paula Bennett, in my view, is doing a terrific job of communicating that, not only on the international stage but also to New Zealanders here, some of whom are still coming to terms with the importance of climate change issues. I think that she can articulate and present and communicate those messages to middle New Zealand in a way that is worthy of this Parliament and this Government.

We have set, as a Government, some very ambitious targets for New Zealand, and it will not be easy for us to meet those targets—they are going to be difficult to achieve. We have set our target at 30 percent below our 2005 emission level by the year 2030. That is the sort of thing that is relatively easy to say, but when we take a minute or two to think about the ramifications of how that might implicate our businesses, our agricultural sector, and every sector of New Zealand society, then we begin to understand that every sector of New Zealand society has an important, pivotal role to play in reducing our emissions.

It was only a few years ago that most New Zealanders did not recycle, that most New Zealanders did not sort their rubbish in terms of their landfill. They did not sort their glass from their newspaper, from their tin cans, from their paper, or from their landfill waste. Nowadays, it is very common and it is part of, probably, just about every household in the country. So in a small but important way, over a few years, New Zealanders have actually already started to make those transitional changes that are required to assist with reducing our climate change impacts.

So it is a good day for New Zealand, it is a good day for this Parliament, and I am enormously proud to be part of a Government that is going to ratify New Zealand’s Paris climate change agreement much, much earlier than we had anticipated. I congratulate the Minister on bringing it to the House today.

That speech from Mark Mitchell, like all other speeches—

💬 Hon David Parker: Scott Simpson.

Sorry—Scott Simpson. They all look the same from this side of the House. That speech from Scott Simpson was one of a series of speeches from members of the National Government who are desperate to shift the debate away from the topics that New Zealanders are discussing right now. The topics that are front of mind for New Zealanders are: do I have a warm, dry home to live in; are my children going to be able to get a warm, dry home to live in; are my grandchildren going to be able to get a warm, dry home to live in; and do I have a job, and does that job pay sufficient wages so that I can make ends meet? Those are the things that are front of mind for New Zealanders, and those are the questions that people are asking of this Government at the moment. This Government is desperate to avoid those issues because it knows that it is failing New Zealanders utterly on those matters.

Right now we do have stagnant wage growth. Wages in the last quarter only barely matched inflation. There was nil real wage growth over the last quarter, the lowest level of wage growth in the last 6 years, at the same time as this Government has presided over a 45 percent increase in housing prices. Houses are growing in price at such an enormous rate that they are becoming increasingly out of reach for ordinary New Zealanders. The Government likes to say that in its time wages have increased by 25 percent—well, they will when chief executives get year-on-year pay increases of 12 percent. But the truth is, for most New Zealanders wages are utterly stagnant.

We are getting an increasing gap between those at the top—those who are benefiting from the meagre amounts of economic growth that have occurred under this Government—and those who are working for wages and just trying to do everything they can to get ahead. House prices are completely out of reach of ordinary New Zealanders, and for John Key to get up and say that anything that would affect house prices is an attack on the poor just goes to show how utterly out of touch he really is, because in New Zealand, under John Key, the poorest people cannot even think about owning their own home. The people he meets in the Koru lounge might own lots of property, but, actually, if he got out and genuinely spoke to the people who have become the poorest under his watch, he would know that owning their own home has become completely out of reach for them.

That is because the only growth in New Zealand at the moment is because of population growth. GDP per capita is also stagnant, and wages are utterly stagnant, and one of the things driving that is this Government’s failure to manage the immigration system properly. It issued 209,000 work visas last year, for roles such as retail manager, cafe manager, chef, fast-food cook—100 people got work visas so that they could come and be fast-food cooks in New Zealand—at a time when there are over 200,000 people unemployed in New Zealand looking for work in those areas and looking for wages that will actually attract them to those jobs. Instead of saying to employers “You know what? We’ve got absolutely stagnant wage growth at the moment, we need employers to increase wages to attract people into the areas that have supposed labour shortages.”, this Government says: “No, we are going to open the gates to work visas for low-skill, low-wage jobs, to flood the labour market and keep wages down.”

That is what is happening under this Government—a Government that is utterly addicted to migration because it is the only thing that is keeping its GDP figures looking good. The Prime Minister likes to crow about GDP growth under his watch, but the truth is, it is all driven by population growth. We need an immigration system that actually works for New Zealand and delivers good outcomes for migrants, and this Government is so addicted to letting people into the country to stimulate GDP growth that it absolutely refuses to do what it needs to do to sort that out.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in the general debate. This Government knows what it is doing for the best for the public of New Zealand. The National Government is actively taking part in preparing for the impact of climate change, and is effectively planning to save itself from the uncertainty that could make our people, as well as our economy, vulnerable to its effect. I would like to congratulate the Hon Paula Bennett, Minister for Climate Change Issues, on committing to ratifying the Paris Agreement by the end of this year. This is an ambitious target, and I hope that we will deliver by the end of this year. The Paris Agreement, which was finalised in December last year, aims at setting an emission reduction target for all the nations. Through this we will be able to know how much we are focused on other commitments towards keeping our environment healthy through independent assessments and periodical reviews.

Here, I would like to touch on a very sensitive issue, and before that I would like to clarify a point. The previous speaker mentioned that there has been no growth in the minimum wage, but since we have come into power a 25-percent increase in the minimum wage has already happened, and it is continuously going up. Being a good person does not depend on religion, status in life, colour of skin, political view, or culture. It all depends on how you treat others. I believe that to forget your own sadness, you create a little happiness for others. If you are good to others, then you are doing the best for yourself.

The speech by the Rt Hon Winston Peters was appalling. Over the last 6 years, every time he has participated in a general debate I have seen he has always targeted migrants. Migrants are the ones who are really contributing to this country. He mentioned a story—I do not know where he got it from—about a Chinese agent who came in 2001 and is still struggling. But I can assure you that I came in 2001, I have established myself in this country, and I am contributing to this economy. I have got so many examples of those who came during that period between 1999 and 2003, when the maximum migration took place. They are all well established and contributing to this economy.

But the Rt Hon Winston Peters, whenever he stands in this House, always targets migrants, which is not a good sign for that party. Yet, on the contrary, I see him and his colleagues coming to the Indian functions, coming to the Chinese functions, and asking for their support. Why is that? Why do you want to have their support, if you do not want to support them? I really feel pity for Mahesh Bindra, who is part of the NZ First team and a good friend of mine. Looking at the anti-migrant policies of that party, he must be feeling alone in that party. I remember meeting—

💬 Alfred Ngaro: He’s isolated.

He must be isolated.

I remember meeting Ron Mark for the first time in 2004 or 2005. He introduced himself as Harnam Singh, an Indian name that he was proud of, and that he was given by his colleagues in the Middle East when he was working over there. But today he is part of that party that is anti-migrant. I am sorry, Ron Mark, what you are doing is not good for the migrants. You should stand up for your friends who gave you the name Harnam Singh. I think this is the right time that we should understand the party that is anti-migrant. People should not be supporting that party. The National Party is the only party that has given real opportunities to the migrants—the most zealous focus we have in this Parliament, and I hope this will continue in the years to come. Thank you.

Well, it is an absolute pleasure to be able to stand up on behalf of New Zealand First, and respond, firstly, to a couple of things that were said. The first thing I have to say is in response to David Seymour’s request to have the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill—“I’ve Made Myself Look Silly Nuk Korako Bill”. New Zealand First will not approve leave for that bill to be rushed through, and so removing the embarrassment for the Government, simply for two reasons. One, this Government—including David Seymour, who is part of the Government—if it truly wanted to save the country some money, it would have made it a statutes amendment bill and put it through on an omnibus bill. It would have been done and dusted, and it would not have cluttered up the ballot box. So, point one, we object to the cluttering of the ballot box with rubbish bills that the Government could easily pass itself. Two, now that the Government has decided it needs to go through the full democratic process, we applaud that, and we will support democracy being exercised, and full scrutiny of that bill, Mr Seymour. If you want to save the Government some money, if you want to save the taxpayer some money—given that, Mr Seymour, you lead a party of only one—resign. Walk out now. That would save us a hell of a lot of money, and the House would be the better for it, Mr Seymour.

The second point—climate change. We too are enjoying the change in climate in New Zealand right now. I have got to say right now that Rangiora has had magnificent turn outs. Invercargill has had magnificent turn outs. Dannevirke is looking great tomorrow. I want to welcome to the New Zealand First Party the chairman of our new electorate committee down in Clutha-Southland, Mr Mark Patterson—we know Todd Barclay knows him very, very well—along with other members of the committee, like Peter, Charmaine, and a whole bunch of others who have joined up. Thank you very much for joining and putting your faith in New Zealand First. Thank you for looking forward to changing the political climate in this country. This is the point: there is a mood for change now. People are saying, in places like Clutha, that they want change, they want real change, they want meaningful change, and they want it now.

One of the areas they want change in is this nonsense that is going on between National and Labour over law and order. I can actually think back to a number of policies that Labour implemented that National, when its members sat on this side of the benches, opposed. One, when New Zealand First proposed that the age of criminal responsibility be lowered, Labour made it clear it did not approve of that. National fluffed around and said “Well, we agree with you, Ron, and we’ll put the bill through to the select committee and a second reading.”, but, in the end, it lost its bottle and it voted with Labour to vote against the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. But it did condemn Labour. It condemned Labour year after year for its soft law and order policies. Now look who is ramming through legislation to raise the age of criminal responsibility—the new Labour-National Government.

And it is, like we said last week, Pepsi or Coke, red or blue. There is nothing new. You cannot tell the difference between the two. Some say it is like Macleans and Colgate: one has got a blue stripe, one has got a red stripe, but no one can actually tell the difference. They are the same.

Look at what is happening with police numbers right now. Since 2008 the total number of incidents police attended increased from 420,000 in 2008 to 525,000 in 2015. Of those incidents, the number of arrests has dropped from 72,000 to 69,000. What do we see in that? We see something similar to what Labour touted. National’s policy—well, it hooked up with the Māori Party and came in with this decision to lower Māori crime. How did it do that? By not arresting Māori offenders. That is something straight out of Labour’s closing the gaps policy. We will close the gaps by improving Māori statistics by not arresting Māori offenders! Well, this nonsense is about to come to an end.

And it does not matter—Labour can criticise National over its corrections policy, but it ran the goon squad. It brought in home detention, which was a disaster, and now National is making a bigger disaster of it with Serco and anklets that can be cut off with a pair of scissors. They truly are the same—Pepsi and Coke. Nobody can tell the difference. National or Labour, red or blue—there is nothing new.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.