General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The only question of the day is, of course, what is going on in the National Government? What is going on in the National Government? Why is it that it cannot get any consistency? Why is it all at sixes and sevens over an increasing number of policies and pieces of legislation? Shall we start randomly with, say, the shop trading hours piece of legislation, because that is topical. Everybody is talking about it. Michael Jones is talking about it. Other people are talking about it. People in South Auckland, people who are concerned about values, and people who want to preserve the integrity of Easter Sunday—they are talking about it.

You see, a few years ago, when the whole Parliament talked about it, a few National MPs actually had a view about it. So, for example, Bill English had a view about it, because he voted against it. Oh, yes—oh, yes. And he was not the only one. Chester Borrows had a view about it. He did not like it. He did not like the liberalisation of it, so he voted against it. They were not the only ones. Sam Lotu-Iiga—he voted against it. Tim Macindoe voted against it. And when there was a discussion about it a few years later, Alfred Ngaro expressed his opposition to liberalising Sunday trading on Easter Sunday. But, mysteriously, the National Government finds now, when it is confronted with this issue, that its members are all in harmonious agreement. But we know that is not true—we know that is not true.

You see, part of the integrity of this Parliament is that occasionally the House agrees that there are issues that are a matter of personal importance—matters of conscience—and so every member is entitled to vote in accordance with their conscience. That conscience might be dictated to by a number of factors, including one’s religious beliefs, and that is totally respectable and acceptable. But all of a sudden this issue—which is about the integrity of one of the great religious observances, at least on the Christian calendar, which has now become so culturally vital to the way we observe holidays and breaks in New Zealand—suddenly is not important to people’s individual consciences any more. And so we have a Government now, desperate to give the appearance of consistency and cohesion, having to tell its members of conscience—because there is only a handful of them—that they cannot vote according to their conscience. I just simply ask the question: what is going on?

It is a bit like the cigarette packaging legislation. You see, that has come up for debate too and that is an issue on which members have expressed personal views. And it is not just about what Benson and Hedges thinks or whatever the tobacco manufacturers out in Pētone think; it is about what members here think about it and the public health issues that go with it. But all of a sudden National decides that that does not matter anymore—that what was once an issue of conscience is no longer an issue of conscious anymore. What is happening with National now is it is using the same patronising attitudes to its own members as it uses to some of its coalition partners and supporters, such as the Māori Party.

The Māori Party expresses views on all range of things, and it often expresses views that support us.

💬 Hon Bill English: Labour wouldn’t let them do that.

But when it comes to having to vote for the measures enacted by Bill English and John Key and their Government, the Māori Party does not get a look in. It does not get a look in, and so the Māori Party members are compelled against their consciences and against their policy to vote for measures that are detrimental to Māori, such as selling State houses, such as doing nothing about low wages, such as freezing the education budget and the police budget. You see, the Māori Party does not get a look in with that lot. Government members talk a big game about being responsive and respectful to Māori, but they are not. They tow along the Māori Party on their coat-tails and it makes no difference, unlike the Labour Party where our rich, diverse Māori caucus is an integral part of who we are and they sit around the table and make those decisions.

The reality is this Government has given up. It has nothing meaningful to say on anything. What is its big priority right now?

💬 Hon David Parker: Schools without schools.

No, it is lost and found in the airports. That is what it is concerned about—it is the lost and found in the airport, and all its intellectual time and energy is going to finding the people who leave things lying around in airports. That is what it cares about. Forget about communities of online learning—the Government is not going to help them. The Government does not even know that the online learning that is happening at the moment is happening in classrooms to help students learn about collaboration. It wants to upset that and do the opposite. [Interruption] The Minister of Education does not even know what she is talking about. She does not know what her own policy is. This is a Government in total disarray, and it is coming to an end.

It is fascinating how obsessed the Opposition is with what is happening in the National Government. That is because there is so much happening in the National Government and so little happening in the Labour Party. That is why the attention is focused over here.

I am proud to be part of a Government that is governing for the 21st century. We are fully a part of the present and we are also focused on the future. That is why, for instance, we have invested so much as a Government into science and innovation. We know that that will underpin the economy of New Zealand and grow prosperity for all.

When Steven Joyce and I announced our Science and Society project in 2014 we were interested in how we could invest in a nation of curious minds, as opposed to a bench of pathetic minds. We are really into how we grow the inquisitiveness of New Zealanders. We have invested $760 million in this year’s Budget to show that we are prepared to put taxpayers’ money into what will count in growing the future of our country.

In addition, we have a very active regional economic development programme. This includes our partners the Māori Party. As we go around the country we support local communities to identify what will work for them now and into the future and how we can invest to ensure that we are growing strong regions, which will lead to overall national prosperity.

This is underpinned by the extraordinary and untiring work that our Prime Minister does internationally. He goes out there, he makes connections that then set things up for our other Ministers to secure trade agreements, which will then allow for the export industries, off the back of our regional economies, supported by our science and innovation. And what is the critical exponential catalyst for growing all of that? It is education.

Yesterday in the House I introduced the biggest update of education that there has been in almost three decades. For a start, it focuses on children. It puts them at the heart of our education system. Next, it provides for a mechanism called a national education learning priorities statement, which will allow for the Government to set out what the strategic objectives are for early learning and for schooling.

The particular issue that has exercised the Opposition, because it has lost touch with its own policy proposals, is that we are enabling a legal identity for communities of online learners. How anyone could be opposed to that, given the fact that we live in a digital technological society, and how important it is that our young people in particular, but actually all of us—although I am a little sad at how many Luddites there are amongst us who think that there is only one medium of learning. There is a whole range of them, and different ways appeal to different young people. This Government is not prepared to risk the failure of any young New Zealander, so we are prepared to look at what the range of options is.

Someone from the Opposition has said that this is a tragic social experiment. I would commend to historians that that was what was said when education was extended to the working classes: “This is a tragic, dangerous social experiment.” I am appealing to the Opposition to join us in the 21st century, where people use digital technology all the time—indeed, we had the Assistant Speaker having his technology interrupt the House earlier today.

What I am committed to is disruption: disrupting the way that education is delivered, in order that young people can start to see their own potential, and be able to secure the jobs that are coming out of the information and communications technology industry. The demand for that from our businesses in New Zealand is powerful, and we want our young people to take advantage of that. We want more Frances Valintines of the Mind Lab; we want more Rod Drurys of Xero—people who are based here in Aotearoa New Zealand and are selling to the world, using intellectual capital and the digital platform that this Government has seen the power for in investing into every one of our schools. This National Government, led by the inspirational and aspirational John Key, is governing for the 21st century. Thank you.

After today’s question time, you have to ask the question: what on earth is the plan? The Government has got no idea what it is talking about now. Where is the Government taking us? The people of New Zealand are now asking that question. That party and those Ministers have got no idea. They sit there and they shrug. They shrug and they say: “Thank goodness for tourism.” They shrug and they say: “Oh, the New Zealand dollar’s killing export industry.” They shrug as, day by day and week by week, New Zealand exports are falling in real terms. That is what this National Government is doing with its so-called plan.

Banks owned by overseas companies reap billions of dollars every year. National shrugs as those billions of dollars flow offshore. The Government members speak about the importance of the regions. They love the regions right now. It is just unbelievable how the regions have suddenly come into their collective conscience. The spin machine works in overdrive, telling Kiwis how wonderful life is and how happy they should be living under the leadership of this Atlas of a man, the Prime Minister. It is just wonderful, they tell us. But what they cannot deny is that now and for the past several years the magnitude of the problem has been building such that National’s wonderful spin-machine cannot hide the magnitude of the problem. The people are beginning to see it for themselves right now.

I take Westpac as an example, taking my lead from the deputy leader of New Zealand First today. For 27 years it has been the banker for the Government of New Zealand, profiting tremendously for all that time—I think a $445 million half-yearly profit as at 31 March this year. Nearly half a billion dollars in half a year, and that money is going offshore. But what does Westpac do? There are 72 jobs being cut in the provinces as it closes its doors. Why? It is not making enough money, apparently. Its contract with this Government—the contract with the people of New Zealand—does not seem to be enough of a reason to provide core services to the people who so desperately need them, especially our seniors, who have been speaking out against this move of Westpac’s at the moment. What does this Government do? It sits there and it shrugs.

The Prime Minister’s determined and considered effort to stifle the Kiwi wage packet is working. But, actually, what big businesses—multinationals from around the world—are telling him is that they are still not making enough profit, and they could still cut more off the cost of operations and their margins could be bigger. So what do Messrs Joyce, English, and Key do? Unfettered and rampant record numbers of unskilled migrants are coming into the country, coming into Auckland in particular, creating a housing crisis, ensuring that working families cannot afford a home to live in, and ensuring—and here is the kicker—that wages in New Zealand remain stagnant. And stagnant they are. There can be no debate about that. I put it to the Government that they will start to decline in real terms.

In fact, my commendations to the Minister who spoke before me, Hekia Parata. She seemed to be the only one who has a plan. If you are a private corporate looking to cream a profit off Kiwi kids’ education in New Zealand, then Hekia Parata is the Minister with a plan. Ignore the fact that internet and online learning has been a part of the New Zealand curriculum—an integral and important part—for decades; she has got the plan. It is just wonderful—just ignore reality.

I want to conclude by saying that where once you could forgive a percentage of the New Zealand public looking at the Prime Minister and considering him a titan, an Atlas of business whose shrug would change this country for the better, now we see a man who is only a man, who shrugs and has no idea and no clue about what tomorrow will bring. Thank you.

I would like to congratulate that member who has just resumed his seat, Fletcher Tabuteau. Now that is a proper Opposition general debate speech. So much better than that pathetic little effort from Mr Andrew Little—much, much better. That member has been in Parliament for only 2 short years, and he does really well. He knows how to do it: a bit of faint praise, a bit of “slap round the Government”, and a little bit of saying how much he admires the Hon Hekia Parata—and he would not be alone in that; a lot of people do. Well done. But, you know, what does Andrew Little talk about? Banging on, trying to stop me and everyone else who loves economic development from shopping on a Sunday—Easter Sunday.

You know, is it not up to us as adults to make our own decisions about what we do on Easter Sunday? Some of us will go to church, some of us will go shopping, and some of us will be just blessed that we have a day off. But one of the things that we do not want to be doing is harking back to the past, like Mr Andrew Little, who is living in the past and is very upset about technology and anything that is new. You know what, it is probably because, actually, iPhones and technology do not pay union fees and they do not vote for the leader of the Labour Party. That is probably about it, because if they did, they certainly would not vote for him.

Now let us look at what is really important: policing and corrections—fantastic, great areas. In police we have put a huge effort into technology as well as extra police officers. Police have got a mobility programme that has revolutionised the way that they work. I think back to the days when we first came into Government in 2008 and what we actually had to deal with and what we did not have. We did not have Tasers for police. I remember the great debates in the House about what was going to happen—police were apparently going to torture people with these Tasers. Did they? No, they did not. In fact, what the people who were so concerned—the Labour Party and the Greens—were all really concerned about is that police would do that. They forgot to say: “Oh yes, and there’s a camera on each of these Tasers that works as soon as it’s drawn out of its holster, and, actually, police are going to have to record that, and it’s digital, and it’s easily downloaded, and it’ll be reviewed, and all these things.”

We have got police, we have got better access to firearms, we have got stab-resistant body armour, we have got new ballistic body armour, we have got enhanced pepper spray, and we have got automatic number-plate recognition. We have got all these things going, but we have also got iPhones. We have got smartphones where police can actually—when they stop someone else, hopefully not me, on the side of the road for speeding—check all the details; they can put the driver’s licence details in. They are not little bits of paper—they are not trying to struggle with that in the rain and in the dark. They can scan the driver’s licence, hoping that the driver does actually have a driver’s licence. They can do all those things. It saves time, and what it has done is it has put a huge amount extra, in terms of police hours, on the road, on the beat, doing preventative work, and catching criminals—and boy, have they done well.

Crime is down by 16 percent since 2011—this is a huge drop—but in addition to that, what we are seeing is police being really proactive on methamphetamine. I think everyone in this House should be thrilled about that. This is a massive resource for police. It takes a lot of effort, a lot of surveillance, a lot of electronics—you know, that technology thing again—and it is very dangerous work. The trials involved are very time-consuming and very difficult, and the sentences handed out are very long. What we are seeing here, though, is police working particularly with their technology partner Vodafone in an innovation centre that they have got, constantly looking for new ways in which to use technology—and smartphones are just one of them.

Having files on their phones—this is the sort of thing, too, that the Department of Corrections is doing, particularly when it comes to its staff in the probation service, who go into offenders’ homes to check on what is happening and to go through their case management work. Those corrections staff are put in danger unless they have the right information about what they are going into. They now have smartphones with files on them; they do not have to lug round big files that can be left somewhere—people’s privacy is not compromised, as it could be—but also there are alerts on those phones telling them about anything that has happened with that offender, anything that might give them concern that they might end up going into a dangerous situation. They have help alerts on those phones to get someone should they need assistance. It is such a different world. And that is because technology not only throws up challenges but it throws up massive opportunities to actually keep our people safe, keep our staff safe. This Government is committed to that.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the general debate. We are beginning to see a National Government that is in a shambles, and the splits and divisions are beginning to show. We are seeing a Government that refuses to acknowledge that there is a housing crisis, especially in Auckland.

We hear the Minister of Education saying that she is focused on children, that the policies that she is bringing across are, apparently, because she is all focused on children—but you know what? She is not focused on all children. She is focused especially on children who are privileged, children who attend high-decile schools. When I look at this new policy that she brought in just last night, communities of online learning, I am not quite sure how it would actually be implemented on the ground for a lot of the young people in Manukau East in South Auckland. I will give you an example. When I go visiting the primary schools, intermediate schools, and many of the high schools around South Auckland, many of the young people do not actually have their own devices. Many of the homes that they live in do not have internet access. How can we expect that the access to this community of online learning is going to be of equal value to every single student regardless of where they live, regardless of the socio-economic status that their parents have, when they themselves do not have access to those devices? That is on the one hand, and that is for the kids and the students who are attending schools.

I also see so many—too many—of our young people who do not even have a home. A lot of our young people who are living in garages and cars now not only have no access to a device but do not even have a roof to call a home. Too many of these young children are not even enrolled in a school. So this community of online learning will probably be a good idea for a lot of students, but it will not be of equal access to every single student.

But let me get back to the splits and divisions beginning to show in the National Government. We also see this in the shambolic approach that it has to the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. It is a disgrace that we are seeing the National Government whipping its National MPs just to get this Easter Sunday bill across the line. We know that bills on Easter Sunday trading have come through and been debated at least eight times before, and they have not passed. When we look at the previous votes, we see that nine National members of Parliament voted against this legislation. They voted with their consciences. I see the list, and there are five National MPs still here who have traditionally voted against the Easter Sunday trading bill. They are probably going to vote Yes now because they have been whipped into it by their Prime Minister.

I am most concerned about two MPs on that list in particular: the Pacific MPs who belong to the National Government. This is because this issue is of crucial importance especially to us Pacific Islanders—those of us who are churchgoers, those of us who are Christians. One of the National MPs, Mr Alfred Ngaro, was a church minister before he came into being a politician, and the other National MP, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, is a strong Christian. I know that if they were given the chance, they would vote against this bill. That is how, I believe, their consciences would tell them they should vote. It is my hope—there is still time; the third reading is not until tomorrow, I am told—that these two National MPs, Sam Lotu-Iiga and Alfred Ngaro, will find it in their hearts to vote with their consciences and to vote the right way. Thank you very much.

Spring has arrived. Lambs are being born, calves are being born, and there is a spring in everyone’s step. On this side of the House, we are in really good shape. We are positive about the New Zealand economy. The New Zealand economy is growing at 3.4 percent. The Reserve Bank Governor is predicting that it is going to grow at 3.4 percent for 2 years—is that not fantastic news? Brilliant. Unemployment is down to 5.1 percent and 100,000 jobs were created in the last 12 months alone. If you look at those apprenticeship numbers, they are now up to 10,000 in the construction sector. Interest rates are at a 70-year low.

It is no wonder that the Opposition members put their heads down in shame—over the other side of the House, it is all very gloomy. It is all very gloomy. We have got their leader, who cannot even get into double digits. It is going to take more than a tub-thumping speech by Andrew Little to move his numbers to get them up into double digits. He is even lagging behind Winston Peters. What is also interesting is that the cracks are emerging within the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Greens—big cracks. There are divisions already. Just look at Metiria Turei recently: she came out and said that Auckland house prices should be halved by 50 percent. Andrew Little, within a heartbeat, said: “Whoa, that’s nothing to do with us. Oh no, we weren’t consulted, oh no, that is not part of the MOU, oh”—put the handbrake on, drive in another direction away from the Greens. The MOU is in tatters. What is also interesting this week is that the Māori King cannot even support the Labour Party. Whoa, that is big news in Māoridom. There are all sorts of issues on that side of the House.

What was interesting the other day when I opened up my local paper, which I read every week as the MP for Ōtaki—who did I see in there, standing on the Kapiti Expressway, which we will hopefully have open before Christmas this year? A $630 million investment: 18 kilometres long, 18 bridges, a cycleway, a walkway, a bridleway, and millions of native trees planted. Who did I see in the paper—who were opposed right through the consenting process. Who did I see, but Andrew Little, Kris Faafoi, and a couple of their prospective candidates for Ōtaki, standing there in the middle of the expressway.

I have got pages and pages of quotes from—remember Darren Hughes and Darien Fenton, when they were Labour’s transport spokespeople? They were against the expressway. Remember Iain Lees-Galloway, when he was Labour’s transport spokesperson—against the expressway. Remember Kris Faafoi? I have got pages of quotes, how he said this thing will be terrible for Kāpiti. Then there was Phil Twyford. He said it was going to be a monster going through communities in Kāpiti. And then, of course, there was David Cunliffe—remember him? He was the leader at the last election. He was opposed to it. In the last election those members said: “We want to redesign the Kapiti Expressway.” As a result of this investment that the Government has made in the Kāpiti community, now Horowhenua District is going to benefit. A recent report shows that the population in Horowhenua is going to grow by about 10,000 in the next 20 years, 4,000 houses will need to be built up there, and a thousand jobs will be created.

So this Government has a plan. It links back into technology. It links back into solid economic performance. It links back into our Prime Minister and our Deputy Prime Minister, who are providing fantastic, strong leadership. Just look across at the country—over in Australia, where the Liberal coalition just hung on. Just look at what has happened with Brexit recently. Just look at what is happening with the US presidential election. This country—we should be incredibly proud of it.

I am positive and upbeat. I am positive and upbeat about the primary sector. Today I was talking about the growth of the wine industry. It is going to get to $2 billion by 2020. The dairy industry coming off the bottom—two very positive global dairy trade auctions. The Opposition is anti - free trade, anti-irrigation, anti-cows—we heard that today—and anti - supporting the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. I am positive about the future. We have got the direction sorted for the next 12 or 14 month. Roll on, the National Government.

I am not sure what I have been listening to. Was it an attempt by the Minister for Primary Industries to have a transplant of personality, to go from being a dour farmer to some sort of clown? Well, he may be bucolic and he may be full of the joys of spring, but that just highlights how this Government skates over the environmental impacts of its focus on a pollution economy.

It has been very distressing listening to the people in Havelock North this week and their descriptions of the impacts of gastroenteritis: the days off school, the days off work, cafes having to close, and over 4,500 people being very sick. We have seen similar problems with E. coli and campylobacter being reported in water supplies around New Zealand—in Pātea, in Darfield, in Hanmer Springs, in Springston. When you get E. coli in water, you know that it has been contaminated with animal faeces, and that is what this Government ignores. Its preoccupation with doubling the value of primary sector exports by 2025 by giving big handouts to agribusiness and by subsidising irrigation has meant a huge expansion in dairying and intensive agriculture in New Zealand, and that means there is a much greater risk to drinking water.

It is a core principle that if we want clean water in New Zealand, we need to protect the sources of water supply—that is, our rivers, our lakes, and our aquifers. In New Zealand we have one of the highest rates of gastroenteritis in the developed world. More than 6,200 people fell sick in 2015. That is not clean, green New Zealand, when we have a much higher incidence of gastroenteritis than Canada, Australia, and England. We need to get serious about looking at land use and the consequences of that for our water, and that is what this Government is in denial about. The Minister can go on about growth in the agricultural sector. What he will not front up about is the impacts of that on our clean water.

It was a Labour Government that developed a national environmental standard under the Resource Management Act for drinking-water sources. The purpose of that standard was to ensure that catchments were properly managed so that the sources of drinking water are protected. It will be very interesting in this inquiry into the situation in Havelock North to see whether the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has properly managed land in the aquifer recharge areas, or whether it has been preoccupied with promoting intensive agriculture and its compromised role as a regulator, and has been far too casual in the rules that it has got in its plans.

This Government continues to sacrifice clean water on the altar of agricultural intensification, and it is putting our economy at risk by doing that. Its failure to bring agriculture into the emissions trading scheme means that the industry can freeload on the environment and not take account of the effects of its greenhouse gas emissions on the climate. Its weak regulatory response in terms of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management means that we do not have decent land-use controls to protect water, because this Government is the master of the gesture. It is the master of doing a little in politics to try to persuade people that it is doing something, and I am sure we will see that next week, when the Minister for the Environment makes an announcement about swimmability.

The Government’s failure to set a standard for swimmable rivers in the national policy statement has meant that councils have failed to control the land uses that are leading to pollution of our rivers, lakes, and aquifers. We have got the problems in Havelock North. We have seen major increases in nitrate levels in waterways in places like Canterbury, Southland, and the Waikato, where we have had major dairy intensification. We have 1.7 hectares in New Zealand that is under dairy farms. We have 6.4 million dairy cows, and another 3.5 million cattle. That is equivalent to having a human population of 140 million people, yet without any sewage treatment. Agricultural intensification is polluting our waterways.

The Government needs to get serious about protecting our environment, because we cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy environment. The Minister completely misses the point in thinking you can focus only on economic development without protecting the basis of that economy, which is our natural environment.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Before engaging in the main part of my discussion today, I would just like to put on record condolences to the family of Lieutenant General Don McIver, who passed away 2 days ago. Don McIver was a very great servant of this country, who not only had a distinguished and long military career, he was a proud resident of Wellington and the Hutt. He also served as the Director of the Security Intelligence Service throughout the 1990s, earning the honour of Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George for that service, as well as serving as the president of the RSA. He gave huge service to that organisation and he will be sorely missed by all who knew him.

This is a Government that is focused on delivering futureproofed Government for the 21st century. If you look at a range of portfolio areas, from law and order—which my colleague the Hon Judith Collins was just discussing—through to economic development, and from the provision of passports and the supporting of tourists coming into our country through to the education of children, this is a Government focused on doing what is working and actually leading to positive results. We are not relying on outdated ideology from another century and another decade.

To give you an example in the law and order area, here in Wellington the police have established a Mobility Innovation Lab and Experience Centre in partnership with Vodafone New Zealand, doing useful research into the use of mobile technology such as smartphones to prevent people from committing crime; to help solve crimes; to keep our streets safer; and to enable the police to get more out of the hours they spend out on the beat and to spend more hours out on the beat, rather than sitting behind the desks and processing paperwork, as they used to have to do under a previous administration.

But if you turn to other areas where the Government is innovating, I think the discussion engaged in by Eugenie Sage—the previous speaker, who just resumed her seat—is an interesting one. With the council reforms that we are proposing under the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2), where you will see a greater enabling of council-controlled organisations (CCOs), exactly the sorts of problems that we have seen in areas like the Hawke’s Bay might actually be able to be avoided.

So, for instance, we heard on the Local Government and Environment Committee last week that Watercare Services, which is the CCO responsible for delivering water services throughout Greater Auckland—the new Auckland super-city—took on board assets that were previously not well managed by its predecessor councils. For instance, in the Franklin Council you had bores of the sort that exist in the Hawke’s Bay, which were not treated. It has implemented a programme of upgrade and change across that region, where all the water delivered throughout the Auckland region is now chlorinated or treated by UV treatment, prohibiting the formation of campylobacter, helicobacter, E. coli—[Interruption]—those sorts of risks to human health that Mrs Martin seems to find so amusing, but which this Government treats very, very seriously.

In other areas, Wellington is the capital of innovation, and I am very glad to work as the National list MP based here in Wellington Central. We have some of the great innovators of this country—for instance, Xero, a wonderful company, set up by Rod Drury, who is a serial innovator. This is not his first enterprise. Xero is delivering services to Government as well as to the private sector. So as well as being committed to the capital—they are building a new head office down on the corner of Cable Street and Taranaki; Street; they have 1,400 staff, and growing—they are delivering services, at almost no cost.

For instance, their accounting software is available to schools, many hundreds of which have taken up that opportunity. Not only does it allow a school to run its accounts much more simply, more easily, and less expensively than previously—they do not need the same number of administrators to run their accounts system—it can be done enabling them to add more teachers and more people delivering learning to students. But having that data available, so we know the investment into a specific area—for instance, the dollars being spent on library services in schools is actually delivering in terms of outcomes for those students—is useful for this Government, because this is a data-driven Government.

This is a Government that is concerned about what works, rather than about ideology or theory, Mrs Martin. This is an example of a very useful innovation that is being employed. I want to commend our excellent Minister of Education for her comments earlier in this debate. I had the pleasure of joining the Hon Hekia Parata on a visit to Xero and just seeing the capabilities of its software. There are many, many other providers here in Wellington, the innovation capital of New Zealand, and I am very, very proud to live in and to be working in that community. This is a future-focused Government. Thank you.

In order to solve a problem, first of all you have got to acknowledge that the problem exists. Sadly, this Government is still in denial. But in a poll that came out today, 84 percent of Aucklanders say that Auckland is suffering from a housing crisis. Worse than that, an astounding 31 percent of those Aucklanders say that they have contemplated having to leave Auckland because they can no longer afford to live there. Nearly a third of Aucklanders cannot afford to live in their city of choice.

There is a housing crisis in Auckland—of course there is. House prices in the last 4 years have gone up by an astonishing 84 percent. We are just about touching a million dollars for the average home, and the Kiwi Dream of homeownership is being denied an ever-increasing number of Aucklanders. It may be impossible to buy a home, but for a lot of Aucklanders it is becoming hard even to rent a home. Rents in the last year have gone up six times faster than the rate of inflation, and people are struggling to cope.

Over the last year I have seen the growth of homelessness in my city to a greater extent than I have seen at any time during my parliamentary career. But what has the Government’s response been? The first response, articulated by the Minister of Finance, was to blame the Auckland Council. The second response, by the Minister for Social Housing and others, has been to tinker around the edges. That is not what Auckland needs. Auckland needs a central government prepared to cooperate with the Auckland Council. It needs a central government prepared to take bold decisions, not simply tinker around and not make any difference. I applaud the Auckland Council, for this reason: it has grasped the nettle, it has passed the Auckland Unitary Plan. It has enabled the building of 422,000 additional homes in the next 30 years. What I say to the Minister is that the ball is now in her court, and the court of the Minister of Finance. What Auckland needs is a Government response that addresses the supply side. We need more affordable houses.

When I was Minister of Housing a third of all houses being built were classified as affordable. Now it is 5 percent—5 percent of Auckland houses are affordable. The level of increase in social housing has been pathetic. In fact, we have the lowest number of social houses per capita in Auckland in 70 years. You have got to go back to the 1940s to see a time when we had a lower proportion of social housing in our city. We need the Government to kick-start affordable housing. We need the Government to provide social housing. We need the Government to build on what I thought was quite a good idea—an infrastructure fund—but to build it to a more realistic level. The amount of $1 billion is one-twentieth of the cost of the infrastructure that Auckland needs in the next 10 years, if the whole of the infrastructure fund went to Auckland.

Then there is the demand side. You cannot keep increasing the population of Auckland by 40,000 to 45,000 and not provide the infrastructure in housing and transport that the city needs. You should not be letting foreign investors buy up existing houses—only forcing the price up—rather than directing them into building new houses. You should not allow the rampant speculation, where people are making hundreds of thousands of dollars by doing nothing, and giving the first-home buyer a 50- or 60-year mortgage. It is not fair. You cannot keep increasing the population of Auckland unless you are prepared to invest back into Auckland the money that the Government is taking from those new arrivals in income tax, in GST, and in company tax. Central government is getting the revenue from the growth, and Auckland City is meeting the cost of it. If Auckland fails, because of poor infrastructure, New Zealand fails. If Auckland fails, a third of the electors of this country will not thank any party in any Government that allows that to happen.

Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. If I could respond to the Hon Phil Goff, who has just resumed his seat: “Don’t worry. We’re”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry, but there are two relatively senior members having a go, back and forth, when someone else has the floor. Just let him get started.

Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Starting again—Nuk Korako.

E Te Mana Whakawā, kia ora. I wanted to say to the member who has just resumed his seat: “Don’t worry, because they are already there. The National Government is there. It has got a comprehensive plan as well to address a lot of the things that you have been talking about.”

My general debate speech today is about following on from the Minister of Police. It is about law and order, and it is about policing. I think the important thing is that as a list member, based in the Port Hills, one of the many things I do is travel around, and particularly go on ride-alongs with the police, with community patrols, and all of that. I have taken a very, very keen interest in policing, particularly in Christchurch pre-earthquake and post-earthquake. But one thing that I think is interesting is that it is really great to be part of a Government that is operating within a 21st century environment. That is exactly what we are doing here, with policing. Our 21st century policing is about technology and innovation. In doing that, we have a more efficient and a more effective police force. I acknowledge and commend all of those men and women who go out there every day, 24 hours a day, and do the job that is one of the most difficult in this country. One thing, though, is the incredible strides we have taken that have enabled our front-line police officers, particularly as I said before, when talking about technology.

When we look at this, it has got to be underpinned by something. One of the great things with this Government is that we have contributed almost $300 million in police investment. I think the important thing there is that there has been a massive increase in innovation and technology. To meet the challenges there are a couple of interesting things that have been introduced. We have got to keep pace with the criminal world, because they are also there, using that modern technology as well. But there are two things—encryption of communications, particularly police radios.

The other one is that there has been the introduction of almost 9,000 smartphones and tablets. When we look at that, if we equate that, those gains from using technology have increased policing hours by the equivalent of around about 350 police officers. In terms of the increase in front-line officers also—since 2009, there have been over 600 new police officers sworn, which equates to over 9,000 sworn officers within the police force. Looking at the technological advances—and, as I said, there are new risks because of the sophisticated communications available to modern criminals, but our police really are meeting the challenges.

There is one other thing, particularly when we are talking about technology, because 21st century policing is not about just technology, in a lot of ways. It is more about also maintaining the Peelian principles, and actually looking back at the basis of how our police force started. What that means is that we have developed something that really defines our police force, and it is about ethical policing as well. In saying that, the principle summed up in that idea is called policing by consent, and when we look at that, that means the police have a police force of citizens in uniform policing with the consent of the general public. What I am talking about here is that it is actually about working in partnership with communities to reduce crime.

One of the big things is about prevention first—that is a huge part of 21st century policing—and the other part is understanding and responding to the drivers of crime. Instead of being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, we are there, trying to be a preventer—as opposed to being there and doing the after-the-fact thing. There is another part of this that we see, and it is a perceived problem—particularly from the Opposition—and the police call it deploying to beat demand. That is about “Why are these police stations not manned 24 hours a day?”. Kia ora.

This afternoon I want to speak about responsible government. I believe that responsible government provides a framework for all of our people and our environment to thrive, and, as compassionate and caring New Zealanders, I believe we all want our children to get the best start in life to be able to thrive. Yet we know that in this country, despite most of us sharing that value, we have the fifth-highest rate of child abuse and neglect in the OECD and that there are, on average, 10 children a year who are killed by the people who are supposed to be looking after them. We know also that around 60 children every year die before the age of 1, of low-income - related diseases.

When the Government, last term, consulted New Zealanders—close to around 10,000 New Zealanders—on what the Government should be doing, or what we should all be doing in this society to ensure the safety and well-being of our children, New Zealanders, young people and old alike, gave the Government a pretty consistent message that they wanted the Government to keep families together by providing services and increasing household incomes, addressing inequality, and providing safe and secure environments for children.

That was a very consistent theme from the people of New Zealand for what we wish for our children. Yet, despite the terrible situation we have in this country for our children and a very common desire to create a strong safety net for our children, this Government has, over recent years, raised the Child, Youth and Family threshold, which means that more and more families who are struggling with some really complex issues like alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, and intergenerational deprivation are being supported in a community.

That may sound like quite a good thing for those people who have had a terrible experience with Child, Youth and Family, but there is a real problem with this, because the Government has not increased funding for those organisations in the community since 2008. It is giving these organisations a lot more families with some really complex issues, which they are supporting them with, and it has, effectively, cut their funding.

When I have been travelling around the country, talking to some of these organisations and meeting the workers, I have been seeing people who are visibly distressed—who are scared that their practice is compromised and that, because of the overwhelming amount of work, they are putting those children’s lives at risk. They are scared of mistakes that may be made because of that lack of funding and the undue pressure on them.

The Government has also taken money from established programmes to set up a bureaucracy. Its flash new toy of the 21st century, the children’s teams, are kind of a replication of an existing model called Strengthening Families, but they required a whole new layer of bureaucracy, and the Government provided, again, no funding whatsoever for front-line services—the people actually working with those families. We are now hearing very, very inconsistent stories about how that is rolling out in our communities, and again our children are put at risk.

The Government has moved funding from programmes, like Parents as First Teachers, which have been given great evaluations, and Strengthening Families, which, indeed, was inconsistent, but in some places was working really well, into this children’s teams initiative, despite it not having been evaluated. Although they say they are evidence-driven, their practice is in opposition to that.

The Government has cut funding to Child, Youth and Family, so 121 social workers have been lost from Child, Youth and Family since 2010. When the Office of the Children’s Commissioner said he was not able to properly assure the safety of children in State care and asked for more funding, to be able to follow this up, the Government said “No, we’re not going to give you more funding on that because you’re managing to advocate on child poverty issues, so clearly you have got additional resources there.”, despite the fact that it was a philanthropic trust that funded the child poverty work. Sixty children a year in this country are dying from child poverty, and it is absolutely in the Children’s Commissioner’s ambit to do that. The Government’s future plans are even worse.

Being from a rural electorate, I understand full well how vital it is that the Government continues to invest in the provinces. Although this Government is managing its finances extremely well, the investments still continue into the infrastructure that is needed to make sure that rural New Zealand thrives and can operate effectively in the 21st century. It is only by focusing on building a very strong economy that we have the privilege of being able to enjoy that investment into our infrastructure. We are investing hugely in our young people in this country through our social and education polices, we are investing in the health sector in record numbers, and we are investing in infrastructure.

I know too well the importance of connectivity, being based in one of the largest geographic electorates in New Zealand. Access to the internet is absolutely vital, and it is no longer a luxury in this day and age; it is actually essential for our rural businesses and our schools. As an MP, I rely on technology myself to communicate with my constituents across such a vast electorate. The roll-out of ultra-fast broadband (UFB) will have 98 percent of us connected to high-speed internet by 2019—

💬 Hon Member: How many?

Ninety-eight percent—and I am thrilled that the UFB build in Greymouth nears completion this year. Although this is welcome news, the Rural Broadband Initiative is actually the big one for me. For places like Motueka, Lake Brunner, Camerons, Dobson, Blackball, Tākaka, Kūmara, Kaniere, Gladstone, Barrytown, Tapawera—they have all benefited from new cell towers. Even two of our most isolated schools on the West Coast in South Westland, Haast and Jacobs River, have new remote wireless broadband, and I am very happy to report that there will be four new towers proposed for Wakefield, Pōhara, Tasman District, and even Hector. So this means that 100 percent of State and State integrated schools now have access to fibre, and the exciting spin-off that I am seeing in these communities is the innovation from businesses leveraging off that infrastructure and extending that infrastructure across their communities.

We heard today from His Excellency Lieutenant General Mateparae that his theme for 2016 is science and innovation. He understands how important it is, and this theme is strongly supported through this Government’s investment into education. As we heard earlier from the Hon Hekia Parata, digital fluency is essential in a 21st century world. Not only does investment in infrastructure help us adapt to growing demand from a growing economy but it gives people confidence and it gives them hope. New Zealanders have confidence and they have hope, and that is evidenced by the ever-increasing numbers of Kiwis coming home. This is a great country enjoying great leadership.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.