General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. “Barbecue at Phil Goff’s” has gone down in New Zealand political folklore as a euphemism for a coup plotting meeting, and, boy, does the Labour Party need such a get-together just now, because it is in an absolute dire strait. But the problem for it is that Phil Goff has pulled down the hood on his barbecue, wheeled it away, and, quite frankly, these days he is far more interested in spending time with National Government Cabinet Ministers than with his previous colleagues. The real question is, with the Labour Party in the state that it is, where it will be having the 2016 equivalent of the barbecue at Phil Goff’s. I do not know. It might be the DJ mega-mix session at Jacinda Ardern’s; that is a possibility. It will not be the Chinese takeaway at Phil Twyford’s. But my money, really—I tell you—is probably on the mid-afternoon nap at Grant Robertson’s, and I do not know how far that is going to get them.

In his valedictory speech, you will notice that Phil Goff spent a lot of time praising the Roger Douglas years. He was not too keen to talk about the current Labour Party. He was very much aligned, I think, with Nick Leggett and his comments that in 8 years in Opposition, the Labour Party does not have anything to show. Those guys are in real trouble, because when you have got Andrew Little getting advice from Helen Clark that “You know, son, you’ve got to get back to the centre.”, and he is saying “Well, that’s actually meaningless and a little bit hollow.”, and when you have got Vernon Small saying “Well, that response sounds strangely intense and odd.”, you know that those people over there will be looking for a place for a barbecue pretty soon, and they know it is going to be urgent.

Literally and metaphorically for Andrew Little, it is going to be interesting to see what is on the barbecue for 2016. When you stand back and look at the big picture, as the Minister of Finance was saying earlier, you know, there are only three other countries in the world that are in New Zealand’s position. You have got to look at that helicopter view. I mean, wage is growing far faster than inflation. Wage is up 25 percent over the last 8 years, compared with inflation of about 12 percent cumulatively. You have got unemployment continuing to drop, and you have got the books in balance. I mean, that is an amazing position to be in—a future track of 3.5 to 4 percent growth for out-years, depending on whom you listen to, giving the Government options over what happens with those surpluses. So when you look at the state of the public services and what we have focused on, there is a lot to celebrate.

The health system is running fantastically. There has been a great injection of $560 million in the Budget, and we have record levels of expenditure—$16.1 billion. We are doing more elective surgery than ever before. We have raised those electives by about 60,000 a year, from around 120,000 to 180,000. We have raised the availability of appointments by 110,000, from 430,000 to 540,000. I was talking today in the House about what has happened in terms of those free GP visits for under 13s. There are far fewer people going to emergency departments as a result of that. Our young people are staying out of hospital, and they are staying well for longer. This is very much aligned with the health strategy. We have heard about housing—in my electorate of Northcote, there is a fantastic redevelopment of the Northcote town centre, where 400 State houses are going to be replaced by 1,200 affordable houses. That is the sort of progress that we are getting. We have had great house building projects in Christchurch, we have heard about Tāmaki, and we have got land for 30,000 new dwellings across Auckland. Real progress is being made.

Really innovative steps are being taken by the Minister of Education to raise standards to get the education system moving. The Minister for Social Development, Anne Tolley, is continuing to get people off benefits and back into work. We are focusing on the things that really matter for people. When you look at the choices that the electorates are going to face in 2017, there is going to be a real clear difference there for them. There are going to be these 8 years—9 years by that stage—of clear achievement, focusing on the things that are important to New Zealanders: the economy, law and order, health, and education. Meanwhile, what will those on the other side have to show for their 9 years in Opposition? Very little. We have not heard any policy from them and no new ideas. All we hear are these rumours of dissent and how they would like to remove Andrew Little, but, of course, with their crazy constitutional arrangements, they have got absolutely no chance of ever achieving that. Christmas 2016—where is the barbecue going to be? It will be interesting.

What makes a house a home? What is it that makes a house a home? It is things like having your kids’ birthday parties in the backyard. It is things like planting a vege garden for you and your family and to share with your community. It is a photo album full of the years of tears and laughter in the house that you have made a home, where you and your family have been safe and secure.

New Zealanders need safe and secure rental homes in which to raise their kids, put down roots, and build a decent life. There are families in Aotearoa who have never and will never own their own home. They will rent their whole lives, and, the chances are, so will their children. We need to do what is right, and help them make their rental house a home—a home for them and their children. Why is this so important? We have always had renting in Aotearoa New Zealand. Well, it is because renting is growing at twice the rate of homeownership in Aotearoa. Over half a million households now rent their home—it is a third of all households in this country. In just the last year there were 13,700 more renting households than owner-occupied households, of which there were only 6,000 new ones in the last 12 months. Renting has become the new normal for Aotearoa New Zealand. Families cannot afford to buy their own home, so they are raising their kids, from little babies to high school, in rental houses. They need to be able to build, from that rental house, a home, even if they do rent the property itself from someone else. It is still their home, in which their kids live and should thrive.

We must modernise our renting legislation so that it meets the growing needs of families who need safe and secure rental homes. This is the principle on which my member’s bill has been based. It is due for its first reading soon—possibly as soon as next week. It is building a law that meets these 21st century challenges for families who will rent for their whole lives. My bill makes modest changes to the Residential Tenancies Act—only modest changes—so that renters will have a real chance to turn their rented house into a home where they can raise their children and be safe and secure.

Under my bill, renters will have certainty about how much the rent will go up and when it will go up. They will have certainty about staying long term in the home that they have created for the sake of their kids. They will not have to pay fees to land agents just for the privilege of renting a home. They will not have to fear being kicked out with just a few weeks’ notice and nowhere else to go. That is the uncertainty that families today are living with—families who have children to raise and lives to lead are living with this constant uncertainty that they will lose their rented house. Families can make their rental house their home if my bill succeeds when it comes up for its first reading.

Renting can no longer be the second-rate option for New Zealand. If we modernise the tenancy rules to provide more secure and stable renting—stable long-term tenancies are great for both tenants and for landlords. Properties get looked after better when tenants can truly call these houses their homes. Landlords can develop great relationships with their tenants so that they are both invested in maintaining a healthy, quality home. When families can trust that they will not be kicked out with just a few weeks’ notice and when landlords know that their tenants will care for their property because it is their home, we will have a much more secure and sensible renting situation in this country. So let us change the laws so that those good relationships between landlords and tenants are formed and are protected. Let us do what is right to help renting families make their house their home. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Huri noa i tō tātou Whare i tēnei ahiahi, tēnā tātou katoa. I am part of a Government led by John Key, who, from 2008, has ensured that we are focused on what really matters for New Zealanders and, in that context, on those most vulnerable—those families who most need the help of a caring and compassionate Government. We have seen very deft and prudent management by our Minister of Finance to ensure, as is reflected in the statistics, the kind of growth we are getting in our economy—growth that is essential to be able to invest in the way that we have across our country.

We have also had leadership about a social investment approach, which basically argues to invest early with impact to make a difference for those who otherwise would not be leading the best possible opportunities in their lives. We have Minister Bennett, who has been leading in one of the most difficult areas—around social housing—challenging some of the—

💬 Phil Twyford: What a disaster.

It is not a disaster at all, although I understand that the Opposition is afraid to embrace the changes that we are making and the comprehensive plan that we have in housing.

We have heard from Dr Coleman this afternoon, who is leading effective investments in health, and we are seeing the results of that for young and old New Zealanders—those with challenges, whom we are concerned with, to ensure they enjoy good health.

Just recently, the extremely competent Minister Adams launched our investment into family violence, understanding that this is very difficult for New Zealand. It has been a long-established one, and we must not shy away from it, so she has taken the approach there. Minister Tolley, in social development generally, but specifically in terms of the most vulnerable—the establishment of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. There is the inescapable challenge that we have to make sure that those kids who end up in the care of the State through no fault of their own get the best care of the State. She has been prepared to confront some very long-established problems there, and is supported by our Government to make a difference.

On to the Hon Judith Collins and the work that we have to do in the corrections system and Police to make sure that as crime rates come down, we continue to assure New Zealanders of a safe community that they live their lives in. And so it goes on.

But let me turn to education. Let me turn to education, the portfolio that is the most exciting in Government because it has the most durable solution for those who live in hardship. A great education makes the difference for many, many people.

💬 Ron Mark: What happened to the Māori Education Trust?

The member asks, because he knows how much progress we have had in Māori education. It is significant. It is significant—Māori education.

What we have seen is more Māori participating in early childhood education. More Māori are getting the interventions they need at primary school around reading together and reading recovery. There is more attainment for school-leavers, who are staying longer. There are more National Certificate of Educational Achievement results for young Māori—in fact, about a 62 percent increase. Māori, Pasifika, and all New Zealanders are doing better under our Government, and that is the most sustainable answer to poverty or hardship.

I know that the Opposition members want to whinge on, and we can hear them whingeing on, but this Government, with our coalition partners, the Māori Party, ACT New Zealand, and United Future, knows that sustainable answers come from a strong economy, from a great education, from investing in communities, from trusting New Zealanders know what is best for them, and from creating an environment in which they can take a lead in their own lives.

In education, this year, for the first time, we have targeted funding to those who we know from research and evidence have the most difficulty in being educationally successful. That amounts to $12.3 million in 2017. That is in addition to $1.35 billion of operational funding to schools. There has been no funding freeze.

💬 Ron Mark: How much money did you give to the Māori Education Trust?

The member wants to go on about a particular trust. I suggest he does some actual work and fixes stuff in his own area. What we are doing is focusing on New Zealanders as a whole.

In learning support for those kids most vulnerable in terms of clinical, behavioural, physical, or psychological needs, we have invested an additional $42 million in Budget 2016, and that reflects a 29 percent increase overall for learning support. Overall, Vote Education—in which there is now over $11 billion for the first time ever—represents a 30 percent increase since we came into Government.

Within that, of course, is the critical area of early childhood education. When we came in it was $780 million. It is now $1.79 billion. We are putting the hard-earned tax from New Zealand taxpayers into what counts: growing the quality of participation and the quality of achievement. Kia ora.

Both National Party speakers so far seem to have lost track of time. They have certainly missed the last week—not one reference to the local body elections. We know in history that Tories, particularly in the UK—actually, many a Tory loves a good thrashing, just not in public. But last weekend they were thrashed publicly by voters across New Zealand. And I think it is true that National has been truly humiliated—humiliated publicly—and those members hate it. Their arrogant response, particularly on Sunday and Monday, just showed how much scorn they have for the voters who voted them out and their opponents in.

National lost badly in the big cities. It lost badly in the regions. It lost in the South, in Dunedin and Christchurch. It lost in the North, in Wairarapa, in Wellington, in Whanganui, and in Rotorua. And in Auckland, John Key’s home town, National was truly humiliated. It was so bad that John Key heartlessly, on Monday, denied the parentage of Auckland Future. Did anyone else hear him on national radio? It was shocking. He cut off his Auckland arm. He denied he knew about it. This is the man who was there, present—by video link—at the launch. His Ministers were behind the push at Auckland Future. It is run by the National Party’s former president Michelle Boag, and what happened? Humiliated.

The only person elected for Auckland Future was a retread, rebranded, existing councillor. They had the ambition of winning the mayoralty and taking a majority of the council. They got slammed by Phil Goff, and they went backwards on the council. So what was their response? Well, having lost numbers, what did they do? They turned around and they, effectively, criticised the voters and told them they got it wrong and told Phil Goff to adopt their policies to cure the housing crisis in Auckland—which they deny—and gridlock.

Why would any politician with half a brain follow the National Government to the dead-end of the million-dollar house crisis, people living in cars, pensioners in camping grounds, and gridlock in Auckland? But that has been their message to Auckland voters and councillors since the election. The arrogance of this is that it is not just the voters telling them that; it is the CEOs and the mood of the boardroom. They say they have got a housing crisis in Auckland and it is adversely affecting their business, and so is gridlock. We have had Michael Stiassny, a very senior director, saying that in Vector they are losing staff. When teachers and nurses cannot afford to live in Auckland, then the city is going backwards and it is unsustainable.

Still the National Government members—8 years into their Government—make excuses, deny that it has caused the crisis, which it has, deny responsibility for the crisis, which it has, and deny that there is a crisis, which is still their line.

The truth is that some of those commentators following the local authority elections quite rightly say that these are not national Government elections—I agree. They are not. They are not a predictor of the outcome of the next election. But they are not good news for the Government. Some of them seem to have swallowed the snake oil parleyed by the National Government, that being humiliated in local elections is somehow good news and a harbinger of better things to come.

The truth is that National is around 45 percent in the polls. Look at the polls, and that is where it is. Some polls have it as low as 40 percent. Some of the polls have it at 47 percent. The Greens and Labour together are around 45 percent.

💬 Hon Nicky Wagner: How much is Labour?

We are around 33 percent—33 percent. The Greens are around 12 percent. Even you should be able to add that up—33 plus 12 equals 45. New Zealand First and Winston are on the rise, and they are already at about 10 percent. That is why National is panicking. That is why, having being humiliated in Auckland, their own organisation has been treated like a gangrene-ridden, festering pustule and has been cut off. I think that is a rather tough treatment of Michelle Boag, but others might disagree.

I love hearing the Labour Party members trying to cheer themselves up. They have had more leaders than we have had hot dinners, and if they want to look at the local body elections over the last weekend, the reality of the matter is that there has actually been very little change. More to the point, let us look at Phil Goff. There he was out there campaigning with blue hoardings because he did not want to be associated with red ones, and Lianne Dalziel—well, Lianne is a lovely person, and who was she up against but John Minto. Well, she was probably perceived as being the right-wing candidate.

I have to say there was not much about the local body elections that should cheer up the Labour members, but I guess they can say that in most parts of the country they got a result. Back in Hamilton, we do not even know who our mayor is, and I do feel for Andrew King and Paula Southgate, who are waiting on the knife-edge of a cliffhanger election, and good luck to both of them. I thank them for standing—and everybody.

I do want to acknowledge the Hon Phil Goff, who is a respected parliamentarian and who has made a significant contribution. I think it is right that we should wish him well, and I congratulate him on his election to the mayoralty. I wish him well because it is a vitally important job. And, as has been acknowledged by others, he is now very keen to be a good friend of National Cabinet Ministers. So he should be, because the relationship between central government and local government is important, and I do not think he expects to be spending quality time with any of his former colleagues any time soon.

What we have seen in the last few years—and one of the reasons why I am so proud to be a member of the Government on this side of the House—is that it has been a Government that has governed through incredibly challenging times, with the global financial crisis and the earthquakes being the two most obvious examples, but other challenges have beset us as well. We have managed to get the fundamentals of the economy back on track. We are now held up as a model to be followed—one of the best in the OECD—and many countries look to our programmes that we are implementing across a range of different areas and say: “New Zealand’s on the right track. New Zealand’s the country to follow.” I am very proud of that.

We have heard today from our Minister of Health, who is doing a great job, that no longer—as we did under the Labour Government—have we got people having to go over to Australia for cancer surgery, people waiting in hospital corridors, and that sort of thing. There will always be a bottomless pit—a huge demand for health services. There is no question of that, but the good thing is that we have seen the provision of healthcare services going up and up and up over the years and we have some of the best services available that we have ever had, and I am very proud of that.

In education, we have just heard from our outstanding Minister of Education, the Hon Hekia Parata, who is doing a superb job, that one of the real focuses of all of the decisions that she has had to be making is: how do we lift that core of people at the bottom who are at the risk of falling through the cracks and not achieving in education? That is why our Government is targeting additional resources in this Government—$43 million worth—at those families who are most likely to miss out, and I am very proud of that. That means that we are using the data, which has told us what is necessary in an evidence-based way, to get better outcomes.

Another one that I want to focus on—and I am going to use a local example—is the whole issue of housing and homelessness, because, as Phil Goff said yesterday, all MPs come here because we want to make New Zealand a better place. We may disagree on how we are going to do that, but we are all here because we want to see our fellow New Zealanders better off—those who are most at risk of falling off the rails or into some form of deprivation or hardship are lifted up—and that is what we are doing.

In Hamilton they have embraced the project that is firmly at the heart of the way the Government is tackling the issue of homelessness and the provision of social housing. Rather than having this sort of ideologically blinkered approach, which some of our opponents have, that only the Government through Housing New Zealand can provide and that the way that things have always been done is the way they have always got to be done because you could not possibly look at alternatives, we are saying: “No, let us make sure that we grow the stock of social housing.” It is not so important who owns it as the fact that it is there. That is one of the reasons why I am such a strong supporter of Whānau Ora, because it is part of the policy of ensuring that we meet local needs with local solutions.

I want to acknowledge the People’s Project in Hamilton, based in Garden Place in the CBD in my electorate, which is working incredibly well. In the last couple of years since it got started—I think it was back in July 2014—it has housed quite a large number of homeless people. Nobody wants to see people sleeping rough—we will still see the odd person sleeping rough, but far fewer in Hamilton—and the really important thing is not only are they getting it; they are getting wraparound services that ensure that their overall needs are met.

In response to a comment that was just made by the last speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have the point of order, please?

Can I seek leave to table a table that I have just put together, showing political party leaders in the New Zealand Parliament since 1996, which shows National has had five, Labour has had five, and New Zealand First has had—

Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I am not prepared to put the leave. It is a matter of some authenticity to the document. It is not about tabling a document to make a political point. Does the member wish to take a call?

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. We have had a very interesting week with regard to announcements by the National Government around immigration, and that is what I want to address most of my comments around.

I want to go back to 1993, though, when New Zealand First was founded with 15 fundamental principles. Principle No. 8 reads: “Whilst this country, with such a small population, will continue to require an infusion of overseas skills and expertise, immigration will cease to be used as an excuse for our failure to train, skill, and employ our own people.”—New Zealanders. The reason why I say that is that in this amazing little piece of difficult information that Minister Woodhouse has had to swallow over the last few days with regard to the minuscule tinkering around the cuts to immigration in this country, what we have heard not a single word about is students—international students.

So I want to put a few facts and figures on the table. There is a really good reason why we have not heard anything about international students. First of all, since 2008 this Government has, up to 2015—not taking in this current year—approved 730,640 student visa applications. If that was export education, that would be brilliant. That would be brilliant. But what is inside that is the fact that if those 730,640 international students do 1 year or more of education inside a particular course, a degree, they get 20 hours a week working rights. That is not uncommon. Across the Western World, that is pretty much a norm, actually.

If this Government had more than 53 labour inspectors—when we receive emails like this one from a student, which says: “I have a terrible and confused trouble about finding job because I found a job, the owner told me I need to pay her to get a suitable position. She wants me to pay her $30,000. I am very confused about that.”. When the educational institutions actually ring up the labour inspectorate to report this sort of abuse for international students—if we had more than 53 labour inspectorates, and that is after a recruiting drive by this Government in December last year, we might actually be able to get on top of the exploitation of students that is taking place.

So the 20 hours a week is a standard norm, but, possibly, what most people do not know is that—take an international student who has come into this country and has signed into a 1-year course. It is a certificate course—a level 4, level 5, or level 6 course. They get, at the end of that course, a 1 year hunt year. That means they have 1 year inside any place of employment in this country to hunt for a job that has something to do with the qualification they studied. So they get a 1 year hunt year. If they find a job that has something to do with the qualification for which they studied, they get a 2-year opportunity to work in that job. During that 2-year opportunity, generally, they apply for permanent residency.

These are not 730,640 students coming in, taking away some really high-quality education from New Zealand, being treated appropriately, not being exploited in this country, and maintaining the high standards that we expect and we need across the planet with regard to this nation and the way we treat visitors. These are 730,640 individuals who get 3 years’ worth of working rights—3 years’ worth of working rights. This is not what this Government would have you believe. This is not the way that the system should currently be managed. It should benefit not only the international student but the nation, so that it is truly export education.

All I can say is bring on 2017 and New Zealand First coming into a place of influence, because we know how to manage this business. We know how to manage this economy so that our education providers are well supported, well worked with, and consulted with appropriately so that we turn this into export education, instead of it being an exploitation of the New Zealand taxpayer. Kia ora.

As the National list member of Parliament based in Mount Roskill, I want to first acknowledge the outgoing member, the Hon Phil Goff, and I want to wish him well in his new role. As the National list member of Parliament based in Mount Roskill, as I always say, one of the most important things for me is supporting families and businesses. I understand communities in Mount Roskill, and I know their issues. There are some families that need some special attention, there are some children who need special attention, and how I see these things is that if these children are doing well now, they will have a good future. If they have a good future, our country will have a bright future. For me, education is the key to success, and I know that if our children are doing well in school, they will go out to make an impact on this ever-changing world.

We want to prepare them to compete in this highly competitive world, and that is why I am really happy to see more and more schools in Mount Roskill becoming part of communities of learning. Halsey Drive Primary School and Waikowhai Intermediate School are part of the Lynfield community of learning. We know that Monte Cecilia Catholic School is part of another community of learning. Mount Roskill Grammar School, Mount Roskill Primary School, Mount Roskill Intermediate School, Dominion Road School, and Three Kings School have formed the Mount Roskill community of learning.

What does this mean for Mount Roskill students? This means that Mount Roskill students will be doing better. We will have better educational achievements for these students in our classrooms, because our teachers will be working together and our schools will be working together in a collaborative manner. Students will now be able to benefit from shared practices and expertise, which is a great thing. The targeted funding approach that we have for our students is great news, because this is to help students—those who are at risk of not achieving in education. We need this targeted approach. We do not want these children to derail. We do not want these children to come in to contact with our justice system. We want them to do well in their life.

Talking about the justice system reminds me of the reform that we are doing in the Child, Youth and Family system. That is a very important reform. When I am talking to small businesses in Mount Roskill—most of our businesses are small businesses—what I see is that it is our young people targeting these businesses, so I am very, very confident with the reform that we are doing to the Child, Youth and Family system, which will reduce our young people from getting into offending. Those people do not want to see these young people getting into any kind of that behaviour.

Moreover, when I am going around, I am getting a huge amount of positive response for GP visits for under 13s being made free and a $25 increase in benefit. That increase that time was not just for families who were dependent on the benefit; it was also for Working for Families, so we are helping low-income families. Moreover, I am really pleased to see this new $4.2 million that is going through the community funding partnership, again to help low-income families. We are very careful where we spend taxpayers’ money, but when I look at the Opposition members—the Labour members when they were in Government—what did they do in their first term? They were taxing and spending. In their second term, again they were taxing and spending. In their third term—again taxing and spending. I believe in respecting taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

As I said, education is the key to success, and if I look at their education policy, which they announced sitting in Opposition, they thought they were being very, very creative, but we all know that they were just stealing another party’s education policy—the party that was rejected in the general election 2014. That was a new party that, I can understand, had no credibility, but Labour has shown that it has no fiscal credibility. Moreover, I am really happy to see a huge amount of residential construction activity that is happening around Mount Roskill, because that is not just about housing people, that is not just about making houses affordable, that is not just about helping first-home buyers get into their first homes; that is also about local jobs, because that construction activity is creating hundreds of local jobs in Mount Roskill.

Mount Roskill is being held back because of the influence of the Opposition—yes, Mount Roskill is being held back because of the influence of the Opposition. I am working hard in Mount Roskill with families, with businesses, with schools, and with our young people to help them realise their potential, and also to help them benefit from this ever-growing economy under this National Government. Thank you.

That was an interesting campaign speech from the National MP Parmjeet Parmar, the presumptive National Party candidate for the Mt Roskill by-election. She has not been selected yet, but we all know she has been campaigning for quite a while—we knew that from an email from Nick Smith’s private secretary, who said that Parmjeet Parmar was quite keen on using taxpayers’ dollars to raise her profile in the Mt Roskill electorate where there is likely to be a by-election at the end of this year. So we can be in no doubt that that was the opening of Parmjeet Parmar’s campaign in the Mt Roskill by-election.

She must be shaking in her boots—she must be shaking in her boots after last weekend, because let us face it, National got smashed in Auckland—absolutely smashed in Auckland. We know that it gave up on winning the mayoralty months ago, but—a bit like the Republican Party in the United States, which has given up on the presidency—it thought it could save the council.

I remember talking to a Cabinet Minister who was absolutely certain that the Auckland Council would have a majority of the National Party surrogate, Auckland Future. Well, where is Auckland Future today? It got hammered in the Auckland Council election, so Parmjeet Parmar and everybody else in the National Party must be very, very nervous about where National stands in Auckland.

After Phil Goff won that mayoralty with such a resounding mandate, what did John Key say? The arrogance of the man, after that fantastic mandate that Phil Goff received from the people of Auckland, going out and saying that he wanted to deal with the housing crisis, that he wanted to fix Auckland’s transport woes, that the Government needed to address the challenges that the huge rate of immigration is putting on Auckland at the moment. When Phil Goff won a mandate on those issues, the arrogant Prime Minister said that Phil Goff had to shift and cuddle up to the National Party.

Well, National, think about it: you have just been hammered in Auckland on housing, on transport, on incomes, on immigration. I think National needs to realise that it is completely out of touch, not just with Auckland, but with the rest of the country, because, let us face it, Labour did pretty well all around the country in the local body elections. National is out of touch with the people, and it is time it realised that it has to actually get perhaps a little bit closer to what Phil Goff was saying, not make Phil Goff come closer to them.

I know National likes a poll, and it likes to make its policies based on polling. We have seen that in the last few days with immigration, because after years of saying that anybody who even wanted to debate policy settings around immigration was racist and xenophobic, the National Government came out yesterday and told the country that it was going to reduce the number of people coming in through our immigration system. The problem was, of course, that those members actually changed their policy in the one area that most New Zealanders are not that concerned about—the permanent residency numbers—and what have they changed it by? A paltry amount that will actually result in a minuscule, if any, drop in numbers at all.

But, actually, that is not what we should be talking about. We should be talking about the bit that National avoided altogether, and that is the abuse of the temporary work visa system to bring in people to do low-skill, low-wage jobs, because employers would rather bring people in from overseas than pay decent wages and provide decent conditions. Do you think I am wrong on that? Let us look at the industries that are most reliant on temporary work visas: forestry, farming, and fisheries—do we really not have people in New Zealand who can work in our forests, who can work on our farms, who can work on our fishing vessels? What are the other areas? Hospitality—have we really not got people in New Zealand who can be trained to cook a meal and to look after people when they come and visit New Zealand? What is one of the other ones? One of the other ones is administration. Administration is hugely reliant on migrant labour—people on temporary work visas. Can we not get people in New Zealand to work in administration?

The reason New Zealanders are not participating in those sectors is that the pay is low and the conditions are bad. This Government should be encouraging employers to improve pay, to pay people more, to give people better working conditions, and to make sure that they get basic things like having a written employment agreement—because those industries that are most reliant on temporary migration are also the worst for actually adhering to their basic employment requirements.

This Government is out of touch. National got smashed on the weekend, and they are going to get smashed next year, too.

There was one reason I came to Parliament—one reason only—and that was to improve the lot of our children in this country. When I consider the place of, specifically, our tamariki Māori in New Zealand before coming into this Parliament, it was in a state of emergency. Our children suffered under poverty. It is still there, it has not been rectified, and we must do more to alleviate the hardship for children.

I have listened in this House to people stand up and blame each other for why we are in this situation. But do you know what? Left wing, right wing—same bird. It is time for a new bird. It is time for an independent voice, because an independent voice will tell you that Māori tamariki need to have a specific, targeted response to the issues that they are facing. They might be called race-based interventions by some people in this House, but, actually, that is putting a targeted response in the area where it is most needed.

We have a ministry called the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. Those two terms are an oxymoron. They actually are combative to each other, and if Bishop and Berryman taught us anything, surely they taught us that we need to stop talking about ourselves in deficit language. I want to work with the Government to ensure that the new model—an operating model—for the Child, Youth and Family reform is done in a way that will enhance and better the placement of our tamariki. But we must be careful—be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past, and not to simply take away children and place them somewhere else and create a whole new stolen generation. If we do not think that identity, language, and culture are important to the placement of those children, we are not listening. Yes, we must put the child at the heart of the solution, but all that is encompassed in ensuring that that child is supported means they have to know their identity.

Those provisions in the current Act were hard-fought for. They were hard debated, and our Māori whānau have said that if we alienate our children from the knowledge of who they are, the knowledge of who their tribe is, and the knowledge of how their people came to be where they are today, then we are not helping the situation. We are not setting them up for a brightness of hope for their future. We are further adding to the pain and despair of those children who, through no reason of their own, have been place in State care, and the State has come in and they have another double jeopardy because they have continued to be abused in our State care. We know that; we are trying to fix it.

I am asking the Government to be careful. Do not come with “DAD”—meaning we decide and then we spend all our time arguing and defending our decision. Come with “EDD”—engage first, develop the conversation, go out to the people and find out how they can support this process, and then make your decisions.

There is a group of women in this country who have sent an open letter to the Government, and I am not sure whether it has seen it, so I am going to quote from it directly. It says: “Over the past months a number of Māori women have worked collaboratively across Aotearoa to raise issues regarding the documents released by the Crown related to restructuring of current Child, Youth and Family services … We have advocated strongly against the development of a Ministry that is based upon deficit approaches to tamariki … We have not been alone in such a position, which has been advocated by a range of organisations including both the previous and current Commissioner for Children. The recent announcement that the government will remove the requirement to prioritise the placement of tamariki with whānau is alarming to us all. The associated statements of abuse in kin placements is largely reliant on an unpublished report which we believe raises critical issues in regards to how CYFS manages the placement of our tamariki and mokopuna.”

Even Dame Tariana Turia has said that “these actions are a further act of Institutional Racism and that Iwi Leaders need to actively speak out against these reforms.”, and I join with that call. We must continue to care for our children and place them in loving and secure homes, but do not further harm them by alienating them from their identity. Kia ora.

As other speakers have said, it was a great weekend last weekend, with a rout right across the country: in Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin, even in Wanganui—Hamish McDouall, Labour Party to the core, wins in Wanganui. It was good to see Auckland Future—although I understand it is changing its name to “Auckland Past”—passed over, passed away, dead on the ground. It got only one councillor on to the Auckland Council. I listened to Parmjeet Parmar speaking just before, and I want to say two words to her: Michael Wood. Those are the two words that you will wake up to every morning, thinking “Oh my God, I don’t want to face Michael Wood, because he is beating me.”—and he will.

It has not only been a good weekend but it has actually been quite a good start to the week as well, and I want to tell you why. We see this National Government looking at policy and developing policy through its polling. Michael Woodhouse admitted the other day, on Monday, that tens of millions of dollars were being lost to parents of immigrants who have been coming to New Zealand and that he was going to curb those immigrants coming. The question we have is not how pathetic his policies are, because they are pretty pathetic, but why it has taken him so long. We have been telling him, as other Opposition parties have been, to start curbing immigration because it is putting pressure on our infrastructure, pressure on our housing, and pressure on our wages as well. Australia has already acted months ago, the Reserve Bank was warning about it ages ago, and this Government has taken months and months and months of sitting on its hands doing nothing about immigration. It is another example of this Government, which has run out of ideas, now turning to the Opposition for ideas instead.

Just to prove that point, Bill English yesterday announced that 30,000 houses were going to be built. What does it look like to me?

💬 Hon David Parker: KiwiBuild.

Thank you, Mr Parker. It looks like KiwiBuild—KiwiBuild, a Labour policy to build 100,000 houses, actually. It is a whole lot more ambitious—

💬 Hon David Parker: Announced when you were leader.

It was announced when I was leader in 2012, and if this Government had listened and picked up that policy, we would not be in the situation where we are now, where Aucklanders are paying an average of $1 million for each of their houses.

Just to pour salt on the wound, how many affordable houses have been built and finished in Auckland? How many have been built in the special housing areas? It is 18—18. Nick Smith knows the names. He knows every single one of those people, because there are only 18 people who have been able to move into affordable homes in special housing areas. Actually, seven of them are in Mt Albert. We thank you for those seven, Dr Nick Smith, but I am afraid we are going to expect more.

I am making a prediction, because the Government has stolen the Opposition’s policies on immigration and it has stolen them on housebuilding. My prediction is that within the next few months, the Government will ban foreign buyers in New Zealand or it will tax them. That is what is going to happen—mark my words. It is what Phil Goff has been asking for in Auckland. It is what Aucklanders have been asking for. Vancouver, in Canada, put it in. Its housing market was on fire and now it has gone down. This Government will do it because it knows its polling is telling them that that is what Aucklanders and people right across New Zealand want.

If you are going to get these wishy-washy, weak, limp, pathetic policies that are coming through from the National Party, why do you not get the full McCoy—the wholesome, red-blooded Labour policies that they were copied from? Next year, you get that opportunity. The Labour Party has been around for 100 years. It has transformed New Zealand and it will do it again in 2017.

Could I just say that last speech by David Shearer was an example of an Opposition that is arrogant, tired, lazy, out of touch, and out of ideas. Can I say, as the member of Parliament for Waimakariri, what an exciting place the Waimakariri is to live, work, and play. We are the third-fastest growing electorate in New Zealand. We are the third most populated district in the South Island. We have just recently taken over from Invercargill, so now it goes Christchurch, Dunedin, “Waimak”, and Invercargill. Our annual house price inflation is only 2 percent. Not that long ago we lost a lot of houses after the earthquakes, and it is a good example, when you free up land, of an increase in supply, and it equals demand. That is a real lesson for the rest of New Zealand from the “Waimak” and from Canterbury.

We have an unemployment rate of 2.8 percent. When I am out and about in my local electorate, business after business is saying to me: “How can we get more staff into Canterbury and into ‘Waimak’?”. We have a buoyant local economy fuelled by residential and commercial construction, and a very high-achieving retail sector. It was great to see the opening of the new Farmers building in Rangiora recently. That is very much the last of the anchor projects for our regeneration. It is great to see that district moving forward. I get to meet a range of people through my work, and people tell me that “Waimak” and Canterbury are on track and we are heading in the right direction.

We see that nationally, when you see the GDP growth rate that we have, which is the envy of all OECD countries, and an unemployment rate around 5 percent, which is one of the highest rates of workforce participation we have ever had in the history of New Zealand—it is great to see a vibrant economy. And let us not forget—because on this side of the House we know that a developed, competitive economy supports and protects its people and, especially, its vulnerable people.

We discuss a lot about Kiwis coming home, but let us never forget the tens of thousands of Kiwis who are leaving every year on that great Kiwi tradition, the OE. Those Kiwis get out there and they travel the rest of the world, and they quickly realise that in a globalised world, a country that has a competitive and a developed economy is a country that increases the living standards of its people and increases the sustainability of its environment. Countries that do not have a competitive and developed economy do not. It is as stark as that; it is a choice.

It is great to see that this Government is supporting a competitive economy, because what we know is that a developed economy will protect our vulnerable people. Look at the Salvation Army’s state of the nation reports, which clearly demonstrate, when you look at them, that the hundreds of thousands of jobs that this Government has provided in the last few years, and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that we will go on and provide, have a direct correlation with reducing child hardship. Child hardship is reduced by job creation. When you look at our ambitious target of removing tens of thousands of young children out of beneficiary-dependent families—that is, in fact, what we have done, and that is, in fact, what we are doing. We can be proud of that.

On this side of the House, we can be proud of a competitive, developed economy that is providing support and protection for our vulnerable. As a first-term MP, I am proud to be part of a Government that gave beneficiaries their first-ever benefit increase in 44 years—since 1972. I know that because I was born in 1972. So I know it was 44 years ago. We gave $25 per family, and then a $12.50 increase for Working for Families, and we increased expenditure in the allowance for childcare. When you look at increasing access to GPs for under 13s—the statistics came out: increased enrolment by 16 percent; prescriptions have gone up for children by 25 percent, showing that we are increasing access to medicines; Māori participation with GPs is up 17 percent; Pacific Island participation is up 14 percent; and the best benefit of all is that serious presentations to A & E for under 13s is down 5 percent. Thank you.

For a party that likes to pride itself on its economic acumen, National does seem woefully incapable of grasping some basic principles. You cannot buy real stuff with Monopoly money, and you cannot make progress on climate change with fake credits. I am talking, of course, about the use of fraudulent Russian and Ukrainian carbon credits to offset our own greenhouse gas emissions. The Government’s whole approach—its entire approach—to climate change so far has been to pay other countries to cut down on their pollution so that we do not have to. It allowed New Zealand businesses to buy certificates from the Russians and the Ukrainians at rock-bottom prices, by the way—at rock-bottom prices—saying that those countries were cutting down their emissions so that we here in New Zealand could continue to pollute the atmosphere.

Well, it turns out that you get what you pay for. Virtually all of those carbon credits were completely worthless. No actual emissions reductions took place. No dirty coal power stations were shut down. No electric trains were built. No trees were planted. It is like Murray spending the entire band’s savings on intergalactic real estate. Well, the certificates might be real, but Planet Jemaine is not. It is like buying a car that has no wheels off the internet and then insisting that you can still win the race because the certificate of sale says that it has got wheels on it, when it does not, and you bought the certificate of sale off the internet, from some Russian website.

What is worse is that when it was caught out, the Government went on to say that because those fraudulent credits were legal at the time they were bought, we can continue to pretend that our emissions went down, when, in fact, nothing of the sort happened. This is the Government’s shibboleth. It cannot tell the difference between what is real and what is fake. I started my career in the world’s largest audit and advisory firm. It has thousands and thousands of accountants the world over, and they will tell you that accounting does not trump chemistry and physics. The Government is pretending that these credits represent something real. What matters is not whether the credits were legal; what matters is whether our emissions came down, and they did not. And here is the thing.

Here is the thing: New Zealand actually has an enormous store of surplus, authentic carbon credits that we could use to pay back the debt that we owe on those fraudulent credits. But this week the Minister for Climate Change Issues, Paula Bennett, said that she was not going to do the right thing. It is like we were using Monopoly money to pay for dinner when we have still got real cash in our back pocket. She can cancel out those fraudulent Russian credits by using the authentic surplus credits that we have got, restoring our international climate commitments all at the same time.

We learnt this during the global financial crisis (GFC): when you build a tower out of imaginary credit, sooner or later that tower comes crashing down. The implications of the global climate crisis will be so much worse than the GFC. Our international reputation on the climate will be damaged if we knowingly continue to use these dodgy Russian carbon credits, to claim them as real and meaningful reductions in our own climate pollution. The Green Party is calling upon the Government to protect our international reputation as being clean, green, and free from corruption by dumping these false carbon credits and using real ones in their place.

The window is still open. The Government still has the opportunity to do the right thing. This is how we maintain our international reputation and how we maintain a seat at the table during future climate negotiations rather than having our face on a picture on the door saying: “Have you seen this person? Wanted in connection with climate fraud.” We do not want to be like the emperor—caught out in our fancy new clothes. The clothes were cheap because they did not exist, but now Paula Bennett is saying that they were real because they were somehow legal at the time they were purchased. Well, the emperor is still naked, and no amount of paperwork is going to cover up that fact. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.