General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I am tremendously proud to be part of a Government that has not once in 8 years shied away from taking on the hard issues. Any Government can set targets that it can achieve easily, and when you are faced with the difficulties of a 3-year term, which I have never been a fan of, the automatic response is to go for the quick win, the quick turn-around, the quick sugar-fix response—not this Government.

This Government, from day one, has made it very clear that it will not shy away from the hard issues. I am not talking about launching a report or a study or an inquiry, but about actually getting in and doing something. Even if it is hard, even if it is not going to have it all fixed by the next election, we want to see the vulnerable New Zealanders assisted.

I think there was no better example of that than yesterday, when the Prime Minister gave, I think, one of the best speeches I have heard him give. I may be a little be biased, I will freely admit, but I think it was one of the most powerful speeches when he talked very clearly about how focused this Government is on ensuring that we are there for the women, children, and victims in this country who do not get to have that simple, most basic entitlement to a safe home environment. That is something that happens in far too many New Zealand homes. That is something that has been far too easy for too many parts of New Zealand, for a long time, to turn away from—to think: “Oh well, it’s not something that happens in my family, it’s not something that happens in my community. What are you even going to do about it?”. That cannot be the response.

We have to, as a country, accept that the rate of family violence is a national embarrassment. It is horrendous, and it is at the heart of almost all of the social issues that I know we all worry about. We have made it very clear, and the Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday, that where victims are not in a position to stand up for themselves, we will be there to support them to the very best of our ability. As he said, just as the impacts of family violence are widely felt, the responsibility for dealing with it is widely shared. The Government has a considerable role to play—we acknowledge that—and we are stepping up to be the difference in that space. But, actually, it is not just about the Government. The responsibility for addressing family violence sits across government and core Government agencies, Crown entities, non-Government agencies, social support providers, charities, families themselves, communities, and—most importantly—the responsibility sits with the people who are inflicting family violence.

The statistics are sobering. They are almost daunting, and yet they cannot be, I think, repeated too often. We know that there are 110,000 notifications to police every year, and we also know that that probably represents only about 20 percent of the family violence that occurs. So, actually, that tells us there is something in the order of half a million instances of family violence every year. If you want to look at crime rates—if you want to look at serious crime—half of the homicides in this country, half of all serious violent offences, are related to family violence.

One of the things that I find most devastating about the realities of this area is that in those estimated half a million instances of family violence, children are present in those homes two-thirds of the time. So whether or not the children are being hit, whether or not they are the primary victims, the children in those homes are absolutely victims of family violence. All of the information tells us that their life courses are significantly affected. Children who grow up in homes where there is family violence are three times more likely to take their own lives than anyone else. So when we talk about youth suicide—and I know that it is something that everyone in this House cares about—if one of the most significant drivers of that is family violence, that alone tells us that it is something we have to do better on.

We know that for those children, 57 percent of them will leave school without any educational qualification whatsoever. Again, we all know that if our kids are leaving school without an education, their chances of having a worthwhile, productive future are very, very limited. We know that half of the boys in those homes will grow up to be family violence abusers themselves and most of the children will have the risk of being either victims or perpetrators.

We have to—we have to—as a country do more. I am not suggesting for one minute that there is an easy answer, but this Government has made a commitment to reframe the system, to build a better system, and I look forward to being a part of it.

John Key gave the game away when he admitted, a little too candidly, a couple of weeks ago, “Better to win dirty than to lose clean.”, because that very much sums up this Government’s modus operandi when it comes to the New Zealand public, its attitude to democracy, and its attitude to transparency. Those were his words: “Better to win dirty than to lose clean.” That is very much the attitude of this National Government. It is no wonder that Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index ratings for New Zealand are plummeting when we have a Government that thinks it is better to win dirty than to lose clean. We already know—we already know—that this Government under John Key has overseen the development of the most sophisticated smear machine New Zealand politics has ever seen. The veil slipped before the last election, when New Zealanders got a glimpse at the lengths the National Government will go to, to discredit and to smear its opponents.

If members of the public want to know why members of Parliament are so protective of their email communications, there is a good example, because we know the types of dirty tricks that the National Government got up to in the run-up to the last election and before that. There are significant issues at stake when it comes to the ability of members of Parliament to interact with journalists and members of the public unfiltered, and I think that I am looking forward to the opportunity to get to the bottom of that.

But there are bigger issues around transparency and democracy that concern this National Government, because its modus operandi has been secretive—it has been to avoid public scrutiny at all costs. We had the Skycity deal—the dodgy Skycity deal. We had the Northland by-election bribes—although they were not particularly successful bribes, of course, because they lost. Then we have got the Prime Minister openly admitting that Government members do not take any notice of the Official Information Act. They comply with it only when it is convenient to the Government. This is a legal document. These National Government Ministers think they are above the law. They think that the Official Information Act should not apply to them, that the public should not have the right to see what they are getting up to.

Well, the public does have a right to see what this Government is getting up to, and Government members should stop ignoring the law and start complying with it. They should stop thinking that they are above the law that applies to everybody else and start complying with it, the same as every other New Zealander does. The Open Government Partnership has said that it thinks that this Government pays lip service to the notions of transparency in New Zealand, and I have to say I think it barely even does that. I think it barely even does that, because this is one of the most secretive Governments we have seen.

A classic example of the secretive nature of this Government is this: where is the information about the $4 million bribe that got paid to the Saudi businessman? Government members are not releasing any information to back that up. That is a disgraceful episode in New Zealand’s international relations, and they are not willing to release any information about it. I know that there are members on the other side of the House with high levels of integrity who must be wanting to climb under their benches when they hear information about the New Zealand Government paying bribes to people overseas. They must be absolutely humiliated and ashamed of the actions of their own Government when they hear those things. It is no wonder that Murray McCully will not release any information about it, because it is a stain on the record of the New Zealand Government. It is a stain on New Zealand’s reputation internationally, and Murray McCully should front up and explain it and release all of the information about it. If there is a supposed legal claim, let us see what it is, because giving $4 million in a bribe simply is not the type of behaviour that New Zealanders should be able to expect from this Government.

Increasingly, what we are seeing from members of this Government is their ducking responsibility and pushing public servants out in the front line to defend their actions. That is not the way this system works. The buck stops with the Ministers who are the elected representatives, and they should stop hiding behind their officials and ducking responsibility by refusing to release information, by refusing to front up and justify their decisions, and by continuing to operate. They are doing it even more secretively now than they did before—the most sophisticated smear machine that New Zealand politics has ever seen.

This week has been the “Tale of Two Parties”, the “Tale of Two Poll Results”, in fact, the “Tale of Two Different Polls”—in other words, the best of times and the worst of times. It was the best of times, of course, for National; the worst of times for Labour. Anyone who was listening to that last speech by Chris Hipkins, anyone who had to sit through all those ridiculous points of order at the start of question time today, will be wondering “How the hell did Labour manage to score as high as 26 percent in that poll?”, because, quite frankly, these people are not focusing on anything that is relevant to the people of New Zealand, and that is a fact.

Labour members think that that poll was wrong, so they have released their own poll. In that poll they say: “Actually, we’re doing pretty well. We’re scoring 30 percent in Auckland.” Well, I can tell you what—if they think that scoring 30 percent on their own polling in Auckland is going to get them anywhere, and that that is a good thing, they have got a lot of work to do.

It is all bad on that side. I do not know whether anyone has read the Listener this week, but there is a very interesting profile of Nick Leggett that pretty much sums up the situation. He talks about the utopians and the pragmatists, and he says: “The Utopians are quite happy to sit in Opposition and have their positions validated by a small echo chamber on social media and in activist groups. They don’t really seem interested in the much harder task of actually building a plank for government.”

I think Nick Leggett has got it absolutely right, but I know there are a lot of members over there who agree with Nick Leggett. In that article it talks about the Labour MP who sneaked into the fund-raising dinner. I want to know who that was. I think it was probably David Shearer because David likes a late-night beer. He is a good guy. He knows there are problems on that side, but, of course, he wants to get out of there as quickly as possible, and he is chuckling silently away there. I saw him laughing at Chris Hipkins today as Chris was going on about email attachments. I do not know what on earth Chris Hipkins was talking about. One thing I did know—it was totally irrelevant to the people of New Zealand.

Of course, the chief of staff has gone. He has been sent to Auckland. I do not know why. I mean, the poll result is so good up there at 30 percent that I would not have thought they would need him there. Labour press secretaries—well, that skill is about to go on the long-term skill-shortage list. All the good people are going or are gone. Nanaia Mahuta—she is definitely out of here. Poor old Kevin Hague—Parliament, the Labour Party, the left, and even the Greens are too boring for Kevin. He is out of here and gone. Phil Goff—he is using blue on his billboards. He knows which side his bread is buttered on. That really just leaves them with Iain Lees-Galloway, Rino Tirikatene, and Clare Curran: self-importance, confusion, and wackiness—that is the story of the Labour Party.

It is all bad for Labour, I can tell you that, because Mrs King is in charge at the moment, and Mrs King does not suffer fools gladly. She has served under eight different leaders, and I can tell you she knows when it is time for a Labour leader to go. If I were Andrew Little—if I were Andrew Little—listen up, I would be very, very worried, because one week you can be the studly rug and the next week the tatty doormat, and that is the way it is going.

Meanwhile, on this side of the House we are getting on with the work that really matters. We had a very important announcement yesterday by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice around the steps that we are taking to tackle domestic violence. That, of course, is extremely important work indeed. Simon Bridges is up in Auckland today. As Minister of Transport he is announcing the $1.7 billion for the City Rail Link.

Of course, I can tell you that we get a lot of correspondence in my office from people who have had great experiences with our health system, and that is no real surprise when you look at the progress we have made there: an extra 119,000 more appointments—those are up 25 percent over the last 8 years—and 54,000 more operations. More Kiwis than ever before are getting access to the services that they need. The Healthy Homes Initiatives—we announced yesterday that $18 million from the Budget is helping 25,000 vulnerable families into well-insulated homes. Of course, we are taking a long view, the social investment view. We know that having warm homes means better kids’ health. It means they do better in the education system, and as a result they are going to come out, through the education system, with the skills to succeed in the modern economy. In terms of hospital infrastructure, we are obviously working hard on the Canterbury rebuild. The West Coast is next and then Dunedin, so there is a very clear sequence.

The economy is going gangbusters. Wages are growing well ahead of inflation. Unemployment is well down and, of course, we are all looking forward to those economic statistics that come out tomorrow. But I could not say it better myself than the New Zealand Herald today, which says: “Politically and economically, New Zealand remains an island of stability in an uncertain world.” That is pretty hard to argue with.

It is Conservation Week and today we have become aware that there is a new endangered species: DOC rangers. It is Conservation Week, and it is time that we acknowledge that the National Government is not truly committed to conservation. We can see all too clearly that what National values is publicity and looking good and great announcements, but it does not care about action or results. Throughout its time in Government, National has systematically underfunded the Department of Conservation. This means that the Department of Conservation is not able to carry out its core functions and it means that more species are at risk than ever before.

This Government makes a virtue out of its so-called commitment to conservation. It has announced the Battle for our Birds and Predator Free 2050 with great fanfare. It is certainly happy to pay for the photo ops, but it is not happy to pay for those things itself. Behind all of that spin is the reality. Let us take a look at its so-called ambitious plan—the Apollo shot—that it has set for New Zealand of becoming predator-free by 2050, which is a laudable goal. It is so ambitious, in fact, that the National Government has given just $7 million a year for 4 years to pay for a mission that expires in 2050—a mission that has had an estimated cost of $9 billion. So you can see exactly how this Government is committed to looking good and to making grand announcements, with no substance and no plan to actually pay for them. That is typical of this Government: cutting funding by a lot and then claiming a small increase back as some kind of massive win.

Over the past 8 years DOC has missed out on $368 million of funding, which is every year added together since National took office adjusted for inflation. The 2016 budget was $40 million less, an undercut of nearly 9 percent on the 2015 budget. Funding for native species, in fact, fell by $27 million, which is a 14 percent cut. We are told that in 2015 there were 833 DOC rangers, and this year there are 788 DOC rangers. At that rate of decline, DOC rangers themselves will become extinct in about a dozen years. The last DOC ranger to be spotted in the wild will be sometime around Christmas of 2027. Even today there is only one ranger for every 35,000 acres of land that the Department of Conservation is responsible for. That is the equivalent of 16,380 rugby fields of conservation land for each DOC ranger to cover.

We need to fund conservation properly. National is not doing this. Our species are more at risk than they have ever been before, and DOC is struggling to cover its core basic functions. In May this year the Green Party asked the Minister of Conservation whether DOC was meeting its basic functions, and the answers showed the following: 46 percent of our DOC tracks are not up to standard; 25 percent of our huts are not up to standard; seven huts have closed and have not reopened; and eight structures, including boardwalks for viewing platforms, failed barrier assessments, 167 failed load capacity assessments, and 37 are listed as needing “serious or critical work tasks outstanding”. The Waikaremoana, one of my first Great Walks when I was an early teenager, is listed multiple times for this—the same walk where four French tourists were violently thrown from a bridge when the cable snapped. Most critically, 142 species, including the kea, the flesh-footed shearwater, and the wandering albatross, have had their threat status increased since this Government came into office in 2008.

The Green Party knows that what conservation needs is action, not spin. It is time to change the Government. In Government, the Green Party would properly fund the Department of Conservation and support thousands of volunteers around the country, who are doing great work. We would ensure that DOC at least has the funding to cover its basic functions. This Government is failing on conservation. It is Conservation Week. The Minister of Conservation should restore the Department of Conservation’s funding to at least the level that it was before her Government came into office, so that it can do some conservation. Thank you.

Tomorrow I start the celebration of 123 years of suffrage in New Zealand, an area that New Zealand is a world leader in, giving women the first vote across the world. We are also proud at the moment of our Paralympians, including Sophie Pascoe, and we are a world leader in terms of the medal count per capita. Unfortunately, another area that we are a world leader in—but it is something that we do not talk about and are not proud of—is our tragic record in the way that we treat women. Each and every day there is sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse, whether at home or at work.

This week alone in the news, we have seen a business leader, we have seen rugby teams, we have seen a news presenter, and, in fact, we have seen a politician who did not make it into Parliament. If I was to comment on every single case that I was asked to comment on, there would be nothing else that I could do, because it is rife in this country. That is why, as a Government—I am proud of our Government and our strong record in terms of what we have already done, and yesterday’s announcement of our comprehensive package of reform for family violence and sexual violence should have every single member in this House celebrating the tough issue that we are confronting. But that is fine—if Opposition members want to take to personal politics and instead have a go at me personally, go for it. At the end of the day, when I came into Parliament I said I would focus on the issue, and that is absolutely what this Government is doing in focusing on the issue. We are tackling the toughest area and the area that affects more women in New Zealand, from one end of the country to the other.

One of the things that I am particularly proud of is being a member of the Ministerial Group on Family Violence and Sexual Violence. This is a comprehensive piece of work that our Government has embarked on, and the difference is, instead of trying to tackle it from individual areas, it is comprehensive. I am particularly proud of the work that the Ministry for Women has done in the space of primary prevention because, at the end of the day, unless we are tackling primary prevention, we will continue to see more girls and more women harmed in New Zealand. So in the space of primary prevention, whether it is involvement in things like ACC’s Mates and Dates, whether it is family violence with the multi-agency group pilot in Christchurch and also in the Waikato, or whether it is the Ministry of Justice’s programme announced yesterday, this is a Government that is tackling the hard issues and progressing them each and every day.

I am proud of what we have done, I am proud of what we are doing each and every day, but, as this House knows, it is about every single person—and what they do and what they say about this particular issue—actually standing up and taking action.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: What about rugby players?

And if the Opposition wants to say it reflects on one particular sport, I am sorry that that is where your focus is, because it is easy to say and anchor it on one particular sport when the reality is there are men up and down this country who do not respect women. That is the fundamental issue, and it is why we have such significant rates of family and sexual violence. Focus on the issue. The issue is the lack of respect, and that is where primary prevention starts.

I am also particularly proud of my colleague Joanne Hayes and the member’s bill that she has, which has been accepted into the family violence reforms, around coercion to marry. [Interruption] I do also want to acknowledge the cross-party work—the cross-party work, I am happy to acknowledge—of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group in terms of progressing this issue.

💬 Hon Member: They’re not the Minister for Women.

Where do you think those discussions get progressed? In the ministerial group on family violence. If you are not big enough to accept that, I feel sorry for you. At the end of the day, our Government is taking this job seriously.

As a white, middle-class, rugby-playing, beer-drinking male, I completely agree with the Minister for Women on the travesty that is violence against women and children in this country. But what I am absolutely positive about as well is there is an equal travesty here, and that is the lack of resolution for such crimes; I am told that one of the reasons why a lot of women do not come forward is that they are not taken seriously and they know that this will not be dealt with by the police in an acceptable way. The police are at their wits’ end on how to solve crime—on how to deal with the sort of travesty, the sort of crime, the sort of disgrace that that Minister talked about.

Let me talk about the police for a second: 60 percent of them—60 percent of police—say that they cannot deliver on the promises they make to the public, 55 percent of them say they have too much work-related stress, and 60 percent of them say that their views and their opinions are not listened to. But there is another side to that: 88 percent said that they are committed to their communities and the work they do, and 80 percent said that they are committed to the police.

What we have here is a group of highly professional men and women who want to do what is right and who know that they should be spending a lot more time solving the crimes that that Minister talked about—but they simply have not got the resources to do this. They have now been told they have got to investigate every single burglary. That means an extra 8,000 burglaries every single year. But what we have also got is a Minister of Police who told the House today that success, for her, is providing the funding for the police to do their job. What I can also say is that the Minister signed off on a strategic plan for the next 4 years—she signed off on this in May of this year—that said, no more police. So crime is increasing, the type of crime is increasing, people are becoming more and more disenchanted, and the Commissioner of Police himself has said “I want you to do 40 percent more work around solving burglaries.”, but the number of police has not increased at all, and it is not forecast to. We simply cannot keep asking the police to do more with less.

Then we had a bill before the House last night that talked about user-pays. Certain groups, like kindergartens and schools, which we require under law to get employees vetted—when they have this undertaken, they must pay the police force. The police force is going from a model where it is about the community to—now—a model where it is about money. That is a fundamental change in philosophy. We need to get it back to where the police are there to serve our community in every single aspect of the work they do, not a user-pays system; that is not what we expect from our police force in New Zealand.

That same Minister, Judith Collins, said in 2011 that there must be harsher punishments for those who assault police. I think—well, I hope—every single person in this House would agree with that. But 5 years on, the same police officer who prompted the call from that very same Minister was knocked out by a rogue—not a rogue punch; she was knocked out, and when she was on the ground unconscious she was punched again. This lady’s attacker received what—3 years in jail? No. Maybe 2 years in jail? No. This guy received a community service sentence—of 300 hours. That is an absolute disgrace.

What we want is for a Minister to stand up and back their officers—for a Minister to say “If you assault a police officer in this manner, then you are going to go to jail. Anyone who does this to a police officer is off to jail.”, because it is totally unacceptable that someone who perpetrates a crime like this against an officer does not go down. I think that is a disgrace.

Just to sum up, what we need to see in this country is more money to provide more police in our communities, so they can solve the crime that that Minister, Louise Upston, was talking about; so they can prevent crime; so they can work within the community; and so they can deliver on the expectations of New Zealand. We all want that; that Minister over there, the Minister for Women, Louise Upston, highlighted the problems we have got. We need more police in New Zealand now. Thank you very much.

I just want to say that that member, Stuart Nash, needs to understand that the particular case he was talking about in his kōrero is actually still before the courts.

💬 Tracey Martin: No, it’s not.

Yes, it is.

💬 Stuart Nash: No, he’s been tried—

Yes, it is, and I am not doing a “yes-no-yes-no” across the House today. I just want to say that I am very proud—I am very proud—to belong to a Government that, as Minister Adams said, actually tackles all the hard stuff, the hard stuff around family violence and sexual violence.

The overhaul of the legislation is because we have recognised that it has been really, really difficult for some of those victims. We have recognised that, and that is why we are overhauling it. That is why we are going at it, and we are looking at all the various ways that we need to overhaul that particular piece of legislation.

Last year I met with a group of family violence support providers in Christchurch—Aviva; He Waka Tapu, based out in Christchurch East; Te Runanga o Nga Maata Waka; Shine; the Mental Health Education and Resource Centre; and the Christchurch police—to discuss exactly the things around the issues that we are facing with family violence. They came up with some amazing insights for me to bring back and add to the rest of the information that was being collected around the points to get to here today and the announcement that was made yesterday. Those were around protection orders and police orders, and most of all around the areas of women and children not being used as punching bags by partners who have no respect for them at all. That was what it was all about—it was about protecting those women and children from those terrible outcomes.

Point three of the announcement yesterday talked about the strangulation of women. Women are the most prevalent group that suffers from strangulation by their partners. Just yesterday the research has shown that women who suffer strangulation by their partners are seven times more likely to die at their hands, and that has got to stop.

Part and parcel of that particular point was also, as Minister Upston talked about, around the coercion of marriage. As part and parcel of my Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill, we discussed that. We discussed the age of marriage and the consent for young people to be married at 18, in that particular bill. [Interruption] Yes, it is a cross-party bill, and I know that it is a bill that, when it does come to this House, will actually have a very smooth ride through the House.

In this particular bill, the coercion of marriage being made against the law and being placed into legislation will actually enhance my marriage bill. It will actually bring along something that I heard about when I was overseas and talking with members of Parliament from Australia around the way that they deal with child marriage in their country. This piece of legislation is actually coming up to where the Australians and other countries have got to with legislation around child marriage.

When I start to look at some of the information that has come out over the announcement yesterday, I see Dr Jackie Blue, who is the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. She made a comment to do with the overhaul of this piece of legislation. She said “I’m particularly pleased to see that coercion to marry will now be an offence under legislation”, which is what we have been pushing for, and this is what this bill is doing. So many things are going to be improved for women and children. I do not see that there is anything in any of our lives that should allow one person to beat the hell out of somebody else just because they think that they can, and get away with it. It has got to stop. It has got to stop.

Every single one of us—this is not just about Parliament and MPs doing things and placing these orders into legislation; this is a community issue and it is a community problem. It is all of our responsibility to reduce and to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. It is our responsibility to look after our babies, our children, our women, and those few men who also suffer family violence and sexual violence.

When I stand here and I say that I am proud of this Government, I am proud of this Government. I am proud because it has taken the big step and said: “We are going to take care of this and make sure that the legislation that we have put in to do with eliminating family violence and sexual violence—we are going to make legislation that will actually address the situation and empower the police to be able to uphold that law around that.” Thank you.

Earlier in this afternoon’s contribution we had a Minister stand up and ask the New Zealand public to judge the National Government by its actions. I think it was symptomatic of a Government and MPs who are now in a vicious cycle of self-denial and a belief in their own spin machine. I want to talk to that. More and more we see—the New Zealand people see—that this is a Government that will not be defined by its actions. Rather, it will be defined by its inaction.

This Government refuses to make decisions, and by its inaction we will know it. GST on imports distorts and disadvantages the market, especially for our smaller and regional retailers. I note the Government’s lack of action on the Auckland housing market and the subsequent fallout as the bubble grows to encompass towns and cities neighbouring the Auckland crisis, facilitating an unnatural, unwelcome, and unnecessary growth in homelessness. Never has a Government defined itself more by its lack of action—on tax evasion, for example. As confidence in and respect for our economy and our political system spiral downwards, this Government spends years refusing to act or to do anything about it. By its inaction we will know it.

For years, month after month, New Zealand First has raised the issue and brought it to the Government’s attention that international corporates were using and continue to use New Zealand’s economy as a tax haven. Gun runners and drug dealers use New Zealand to hide their money. Nothing—nothing—happened. More and more, despite this Government’s frenetic and copious inaction, do the people of New Zealand know it for what it truly is. Its inaction on the Electricity Authority’s ruling around the latest pricing methodology will shut down business in our regions and our regions will lose jobs. There is no way that is a debate; that is the truth of the situation. Yesterday after a police investigation about money-laundering was published, finally, this Government’s inaction highlighted—and I note—that this is merely the tip of the visible iceberg of money-laundering in New Zealand.

For years and years New Zealand First has tried repeatedly to get some action from that Government on money-laundering in New Zealand. From around the world, people and corporates have been using blatant loopholes in our system. They have been using our law—or lack thereof, in fact—to launder dirty money, representing criminal activities of all sorts and every magnitude. At the beginning of the year, for example, on behalf of New Zealand First and angry New Zealanders, I asked the Government what it was doing about money-launderers using the New Zealand property market—our homes—to hide and launder funds and, in doing so, hugely inflating prices and distorting our New Zealand property market such that it has so severely hampered our economy.

Our economy is teetering on an edge because this Government refuses to act and do anything meaningful about the housing bubble. It is compromising our futures. It is compromising what little economic activity we have. It is creating a homelessness epidemic, and it is shutting out the next generation from homeownership. Not only has the New Zealand public and New Zealand First been ignored by that Government; we were attacked by the Minister of Revenue, in fact, who called our very rational questions in the House on this issue irrational and claims without substance. Minister, it was a billion-dollar problem then, and it is more and more of a billion-dollar problem now. How substantive do you need the problem to be before you acknowledge it and do something about it? The Prime Minister admitted yesterday he cannot and will not do anything substantive about money-laundering in New Zealand. He will not do it now because it might correct the housing problem.

How is that for inaction defining a Government? There is homelessness, intergenerational theft, and an economy teetering on the edge. This Government needs to act. It needs to do something now, but I think New Zealanders in the future will define this Government by its inaction and not its actions.

We all have moments in our life that, I think, we look back on and we can recall exactly how we felt at that time. One of those moments for me was in about 1994 or 1995, or thereabouts, walking out of the movie theatre after watching Once Were Warriors for the first time. As a relatively young man at that point in time, I suppose, who had grown up in a middle-class, European sort of setting and not having ever been exposed to anything like that quite so graphically, I remember how shocked, how drained, and how just embarrassed, I guess, in some respects, I was.

At that point in time, I think there were a number of people across New Zealand who were waking up to the idea that there was stuff going on behind the doors of the houses in our neighbourhoods that we were suddenly awakened to, and we realised we were not happy about it and felt the need to do something about it. Since that time, throughout our country subsequent Governments have endeavoured to do everything that they can to ensure that they reduce the level of domestic and family violence that is going on in our households. Over that time period it seems that whatever we have tried, it seems to still get only worse.

Yesterday this Government announced that we are now going to take a different approach. I know Mr Shearer does not like the word “comprehensive”, so I will use words like “thorough” and “multi-faceted” and “extensive” and “integrated”, because that is the way that this Government is looking to go forward in addressing what is an absolute blight on our society. There are some grim statistics, but, as has been said by a previous speaker, a woman who experiences strangulation from her partner is seven times more likely to die at the hands of that person. In 2015 Child, Youth and Family received over 150,000 notifications about care and protection issues for children. Nearly half of all homicides and reported violent crime in our country are related to family violence. It is absolutely time that we take a thorough, multi-faceted, extensive, and integrated approach to doing this, and that, as the Prime Minister announced yesterday, is now going to occur.

Recovering from a physical assault is incredibly challenging, and I know that a number of people have experienced that. But if that assault has been inflicted by someone who is supposed to love you, someone who is responsible for your care, then recovering from that act, and repeated actions, is even more difficult for people to do. We have got to ensure that our system does not re-victimise victims, and so, as a part of this plan, we are going to make it easier for people to get protection orders put in place. We are going to ensure that, actually, having been victims, they do not then have to go through big processes. NGOs and other people will be able to seek to get those protection orders put in place on their behalf.

I know that amongst the NGOs and community organisations I have talked to in Palmerston North, where I live, they will be welcoming this so that they can act on behalf of people, rather than simply giving them advice and sending them on their way. There are going to be greater resources put in to ensure that our perpetrators will take responsibility and to provide assistance to them—to those who, once they can take responsibility, seek to break themselves out of that cycle and start to take a better, more appropriate role within their families. It is about getting harder. We are going to put in place more particular offences so that we can strengthen the justice system to ensure that we deal with these perpetrators in the most appropriate ways.

This House is often divided on debates over ideology, but I look forward, when the legislation comes forward over the coming months, to this House working together to help put together legislation that will strengthen our fight against this thing, which is absolutely a scourge on our society. Thank you.

At the very heart of our democracy, of our democratic system, lies the ability for elected politicians to communicate freely with whomever they want and to exchange information in the course of their work without fear—without fear of their work, of their communications, or of their attached documents being examined or filtered by any other party. If that is threatened, then our ability to represent is compromised.

I would like to ask Jonathan Coleman: how is sticking up for democracy not relevant to the people of New Zealand? I have got two valid and very vital questions to ask. Is New Zealand becoming more corrupt? Is the National Government allowing and enabling New Zealand to become more corrupt and less transparent? The answer to both those questions is, sadly, yes. That is not just my opinion; there is a raft of evidence.

There is slippage. In January New Zealand slipped from two to four on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, after being at the very top for 8 years. There is lip service. There is the open Government partnership amongst 69 countries that we signed up to—which sounds good, but we have not been fulfilling our requirements. In March we got a letter from the partnership saying that we had acted contrary to the process.

There is stonewalling. There are delays to responding to Official Information Act requests. This has got so bad that the Ombudsman did an inquiry. The result was a slap on the hand, but at least the new Ombudsman has said that he will institute league tables. This is the kind of response we are getting to Official Information Act requests—black pieces of paper and no actual information. There is gagging of whistleblowers. The system that protects whistleblowers is out of date and ineffectual. It is weak. Our law is weak. Government pursues whistleblowers instead of actually addressing the problems of waste and unlawful behaviours that they expose.

There is turning a blind eye—the Michael Woodhouse immigration scam is a classic example of that. There are deliberate and misleading U-turns. Bill English, who used false figures to veto the paid parental leave legislation is another example. There are so many examples of creeping corruption by this Government that the next transparency index result will inevitably see us slip further. Those examples include the teapot tapes, the Prime Minister’s supposed lost texts to Rachel Glucina about “ponytail-gate”, the Oravida scandal, the Saudi sheep-deal scandal, the Skycity convention centre debacle, and political interference in our media.

We know about New Zealand On Air. We know about Māori Television. More recently, we have seen Television New Zealand, the State-owned broadcaster, spend $60 million renovating its building in Auckland—$23 million, or 64 percent, more than it told us that it would cost, and to do that it got a 2-year holiday on paying its dividends to the Government. Two weeks ago it had a big opening of a new flash building in Auckland, and guess who opened it: John Key, the Prime Minister. Was the Opposition invited? No. That is very worrying—very worrying—and a very worrying sign. Meanwhile, funding for our public broadcaster, Radio New Zealand, has been frozen for the last year; our only independent non-commercial media has not been given any more money. The media environment is shrinking with the collapse of the traditional business models, and the number of news media outlets is shrinking; that is a real worry for our democracy. The culture in Cabinet has more in common with a hedge-fund boardroom than a public office accountable to the public interest.

The upshot is that this is not an honest Government. This is not a Government of transparency and integrity. Integrity is precious. Whether you are an individual, an organisation, or a country, it is something we should value. Unfortunately, ours is going down the drain, and our democracy is eroding.

This National Government is working hard to make New Zealand a better place to raise a family. We have a good lifestyle, and we are known to be great for social progress. Yes, worldwide we are known to be great for social progress, and it is because of the hard work of this National Government, because it is focused on delivering for families.

I would love to give some statistics to support what I am saying, because now the Opposition parties have learnt to respect statistics. They have learnt that statistics are done independently by Statistics New Zealand. If we look at the unemployment rate, according to the June quarter, unemployment is 5.1 percent. I am the National list member of Parliament based in Mount Roskill. Looking in Auckland, the unemployment rate is 4.7 percent—the lowest since September 2008. This is because of the number of new jobs that are being created under this National Government. Jobs are the No. 1 priority for families to flourish. We have delivered free GP visits for children under the age of 13. We have increased benefits for families with dependent children—this was the first time in 40 years.

These are only a few indicators of how well New Zealand is doing under this National Government. We are committed, we are helping families to have better lives, we are helping mums and dads, we are helping children to have the best-possible start in their lives, and we are helping young people to have better opportunities in their lives. This is possible because we are focused on managing our finances in a responsible manner, we are focused on supporting our economy to grow, and we are focused on delivering Better Public Services.

We also know that there are areas where we need to do more work, and that is why I am really proud of the work that the Minister, the Hon Amy Adams, is doing in the domestic violence space. The announcement by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, and Minister Adams to change the family violence legislation and to bring in wide-ranging changes is about helping families.

As a scientist and as a businesswoman, I was also involved as a volunteer for around 10 years in the NGO sector, helping victims of domestic violence. It is a heart-wrenching field. It is a field that people do not want to talk about. In migrant communities it is very difficult for people to come out and speak about family violence. Even families who are going through family violence do not want to speak about it; they remain in denial. That is why it is a very, very serious issue, and that is why we need to bring these changes to help families come forward. It is about awareness, it is about intervention at the right time, and it is also about crisis management.

This issue of family violence is bigger than we can see, because the data that we see is only for the incidents that come forward to seek official attention. We also need to note that this is not just an issue for New Zealand but an issue for the whole world. I am really pleased to see the pilot that is going on in Christchurch—the Integrated Safety Response pilot—and I am hoping that it will work and that we can expand it throughout the country.

This is about sending a strong signal to New Zealand that family violence is not acceptable. The Government cannot do it alone, as the Minister said; we need the support of the community. I want to commend the various community organisations that are already actively working in this field of family violence prevention. It is about thinking differently; it is about doing things differently. This National Government is prepared to think differently; it is prepared to do things differently. But if I look at the Opposition, the Opposition is drowning. The Opposition is unable to swim. If one is unable to swim, one looks for a source of oxygen. Yes, the Labour Party constantly finds itself in deep waters, looking for a source of oxygen. So it reaches out to the Green Party, thinking that it will be its source of oxygen. But no, what the Labour Party wants—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

—and what the Green Party is offering are not compatible. They are not compatible. The Green Party is not the oxygen, the Green Party is not even carbon dioxide, but it is going to be Labour’s carbon monoxide. Why carbon monoxide? Because carbon monoxide is reactive and carbon monoxide is unstable. An example of that is house prices: the Green Party wants to slash house prices by 50 percent. That is being reactive; that is being unstable. Yes, it is going to be Labour’s carbon monoxide, not its oxygen. The Green Party is now going to suffocate the Labour Party with its own agenda at the forefront of its intentions. That is going to hurt families. But on this side we will keep doing what it takes to support families. Thank you.

It might surprise the House to know that it has been nearly 3 years since I entered the House. I am very proud to represent the electorate of Christchurch East. I do not know whether other members of the House do this—it might be a bit naff—but from time to time, every few months, I actually revisit my maiden speech. This is because, for me, I want to know that I am actually living up to the principles that brought me to this House in the first place, that I am living up to the commitments that I made to my community, and that I ensure that the principles and the values that guide my life and my decisions continue to guide my work.

So in reviewing my maiden speech, as I often do, I know that the overriding theme is about the advocacy for children to live safe and fulfilling lives. I referenced James Whakaruru—his short life and his tragic and untimely death. I am here to protect our children, to make our country better—to be safe for our kids. I want our kids to live in dry, decent, affordable homes and to have a good education, and I want all the opportunities to be afforded to them, like any other children in this country. I have looked at the factors that have influenced and impacted on the life and the death of James Whakaruru, and I have examined the Government’s response to his life and his death, and I want to hold the Government to account for ensuring that we have safe and healthy lives for all of our children.

Let us look at the elements. Family violence is something that I know a lot about, having worked in the field for several years. Over 110,000 incidents are reported each year, which is only about 20 percent of what actually occurs—so there are half a million to 600,000 incidents of family violence each year. There were 150,000 notifications to Child, Youth and Family in the year 2015, up from 89,000 in the year 2008. I worked in the family violence sector in west Auckland. We did a study where we looked at all of the police callouts for a domestic incident where children were resident and present.

In the area of west Auckland, where I worked, there were 1,900 such incidents, and we identified 3,500 children who were resident or present in a home where family violence was a factor. Of those, about 350 children were notified to Child, Youth and Family, and of those, only 55 children actually got any support for their trauma. So of the 3,500 we identified, only 55 children actually got the support they needed.

Let us look at the factor of poverty. The Salvation Army identifies that one in five kids in this country lives in measurable poverty—230,000 to 280,000. This Government is actually a little cagey on the numbers, but I heard from Minister Anne Tolley’s own voice on Friday that she admits there are at least 100,000 kids she can identify who are living in poverty. That is from the Government’s own statistics.

Let us look at the area of housing. There are 42,000 people living in cars and 130,000 people living in overcrowded homes. The list of illnesses due to overcrowded houses for kids is: sores, cellulitis, abscesses, infected eczema, scabies, gastroenteritis, and infections. This is in a country that claims to be First World. Poor housing conditions in infancy and childhood have a cumulative detrimental effect on physical and mental illness.

Let us look at mental health—and here I tautoko my colleagues at the Waipuna Trust in Christchurch, who have done a lot of work in youth mental health. There has been an increase in the numbers of young people experiencing severe and persistent mental illness, not just in numbers but in acuity.

So let us look at these statistics in relation to James’s life and his mother. Here is my scorecard for the Government: in family violence, where we have increased rates of family violence and reports of concern to Child, Youth and Family, this Government’s rating is a huge fail. Let us have a look at poverty: 230,000 kids are living in poverty. This Government’s scorecard is a huge fail. Let us have a look at housing, and let us read Nick Smith and Paula Bennett into this: 42,000 people are living in cars, garages, and in overcrowded conditions. The Government scorecard is a huge fail.

The only way we are going to change the opportunities for our kids is to ensure that it is not just about legislation but about the State, the community, and whānau working together, and about us changing the Government.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.