General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. A former United States Vice-President once said: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the [disabled].” So let us put aside this Government’s bluster, bravado, and bull and look at how this Government is treating those who are in the dawn, the twilight, and the shadow of their life. I want to put to this House that this Government will fail that moral test. That moral test is just as relevant today as it was many years ago, and I say that this Government is failing that moral test in the provision of affordable, accessible, and timely health services. It is failing children and young people, the elderly, and the sick and disabled.

A measure of that moral failure is Trixie Cottingham. Trixie Cottingham, who is 96 years old, is living at home, like many of our old folks do. She is surviving on 1½ hours of home help a week to keep her in her home. She cannot bend over like she used to be able to, and so she finds vacuuming and hanging out the washing a little harder. So, with 1½ hours of home help a week, she is staying in her own home. But she received a letter from a district health board (DHB) that told her—it was a very callous, heartless letter, and it was sent out to hundreds of other people—that she was going to lose her 1½ hours of home help a week unless she also needed to have personal health services.

Personal health services are for being showered or bathed. She does not need to be showered or bathed. She still has her dignity. She still has her independence. She does not need someone coming in to wash her bottom—she can do it herself. And you have now got older people labelling it the stripping policy because they have to get home help by stripping off, because that is the only way that they are now eligible.

I have to say that is deplorable. That is moral failure to our older New Zealanders.

It is 1½ hours a week. Do you know what that costs at the minimum wage? It costs $22.80 a week to keep Trixie Cottingham in her own home, and the DHBs want to cut that because they are going to save money. Why are they doing it? Ask the question: why are they doing it? It is because the same DHBs that are doing it are running deficits. They are running deficits. Whanganui District Health Board, MidCentral District Health Board—we are looking at this happening around New Zealand in many DHBs. They save money on our poor, old, vulnerable New Zealanders.

💬 Grant Robertson: Shameful.

It is shameful.

Another measure of this Government’s moral failure is a letter I got 2 days ago from a 31-year-old woman with a young baby. She has a very rare cataract—most unusual in someone so young. She was told she does not qualify for elective surgery in the public health system. She is losing her sight. Her husband wrote to me and said: “I was told: ‘Pay $4,000 and you can have it done in the private system, but you’re not going to get it done in the public system.’ ”

Do you know what? We now know that 30 New Zealanders are threatened with blindness because they did not get any follow-up treatment. They got the first specialist assessment—that is measured; the Minister crows about that—but they got no follow-up service for the treatment that they needed.

A third measure of this Government’s moral failure is Isla Forbes, who ended up with very severe bronchitis because she could not afford to go to her GP, because the cost has gone from $29 under Labour, to over $40 under this Government because it has not put the funding in. That is a measure of the failure—the moral failure—of this Government to provide health services to New Zealanders when they need it. There is $250 million missing out of the primary health budget because the Government has not adjusted it to ensure New Zealanders can afford to go to their GP.

A measure of this Government’s failure has been access to mental health services, and it has been access to disability services. I need much longer, Mr Speaker, to go through the moral failure of this Government when it comes to health for those who are needy, those who are disabled, those who are young, and those who are old.

Like I have discovered many times over the last 8 years, and certainly while I have been a Minister of this Government, I expect something from the Labour Party members that might be interesting, that might actually be to the point, and that might lead a general debate in this House, and yet again I am disappointed—like most in New Zealand actually are. I will put our record of what we are producing for and doing with New Zealanders—this Government of 8 years—against the record of the former Labour Government of 9 years, head-to-head on a moral compass, any single day of the week. I am just absolutely relishing the opportunity to do it right now.

This is a country where we can see economic growth that we had not seen in a very long time. We have the fourth-fastest economic growth rate in the OECD. That means people have genuine security in jobs. It means that, for people like those in my electorate of Upper Harbour—which is actually the electorate with the most homeownership with mortgages—their jobs matter. Actually having a job, being able to pay off that mortgage, and spending some time with the kids—those matter to them a lot. So how we look after this economy, how we actually play our part in good stewardship is absolutely vital to them, and they can see the direct results of that.

There have been 144,000 jobs created in just the last year alone. That is real New Zealanders being able to go into real work, which gives them an income and means that they are able to provide for themselves. The list is long. The average annual wage growth that we are seeing is up $1,200 since 2008. Actually, there is the money that we are able to put into weekly superannuation for our superannuitants who desperately need that universal benefit, which I think is absolutely justified, and which they should be getting. But, actually, what it really means when we get down to it is that the Government now has public services at 30 percent of GDP, as opposed to Labour’s 35 percent—damn good at spending money, damn good at putting more public servants in.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Rubbish! Make it up.

It is absolutely a fact and, as I say, I hope you get a call, Mr Cunliffe, so that you can try to argue that one, but that is absolutely true.

We saw a Public Service that blew out, we saw money getting scattered around everything. What we saw, actually—and I see the Minister for Social Development here—was an increase of those who were sick on benefits. We saw an increase of those who were labelled as unable to work or not willing to—or not wanting to. What we have seen and what matters most, I reckon, when it comes to the kind of management that you are seeing under this Government, is that we are able to spend money where it is desperately needed and see genuine results for real people for it. So we are investing in those people early and over a longer period of time.

It is all fine to have the Government books in great shape like we do, and it is all good that new jobs are coming on, but unless we are actually investing and targeting in the right areas for the right people, so that they have a level of resilience and independence of Government and are not dependent—quite frankly, like Labour members would like them to be. You love it when they are a bit dependent, love it when they need the Government so badly and cannot survive without them. They kind of like that because it makes them feel worthwhile and they can sort of patronisingly go out there and say: “We know what is best for you and we will provide because you are unable to be providing for yourselves.” This is opposed to actually building that kind of independence and resilience and the numbers going forward, which you can see.

It means we can put in things like—and actually take responsibility for—emergency housing, which has never ever happened from a central government before. This is the Government that has put more than $350 million just into emergency housing in the last 12 months alone, because we are able to take responsibility in a social area that we see needs our assistance and needs us working alongside community housing organisations and helping.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: What a fantasy!

Well, actually, in all of those years that you were there, Mr Cunliffe, we never saw a penny going into emergency housing, or any responsibility from central government in actually giving back to those who are really at the hard end and the bottom end of this.

The member can talk about all sorts of numbers that are out there and that sort of thing. We count operations. There are more operations under this Government than ever before. We see results in NCEA, and we see our children and young people achieving more, so that they can go on and lead independent, good lives that really make the biggest difference for them. I see the Minister for Disability Issues here who just yesterday put out an amazing strategy that involves really working alongside those with disabilities so that they can determine their outcomes and how they do with the assistance of this Government, which will continue to work hard every single day on behalf of New Zealanders.

On a rather different note, I want to talk about the abuse of children in State care. We know that in New Zealand between the 1950s and the 1980s, more than 100,000 children were taken from their families, and not only because they were not safe with their families but because, at times, their families were poor, or their mother was a solo mother, or blatant racism.

These children were put into residences. Over half of these children were Māori, and that has had a profound impact on the future, the collective future, of iwi across this country because so many of those children—we hear—were abused. They were emotionally abused. They were deprived. They were beaten. They had the people who were supposedly taking care of them telling the other children to beat them, and were beaten in front of the people who were given the authority to care for them. These children were sexually abused, and I have heard from some people horrific stories of electricity being used to abuse these babies—who were in our collective care, as a country.

The impact of that on us as a society is not understood. This is 100,000 children, potentially, who were either directly impacted or who saw that happening around them. We have had no process as a country for those stories to be told for us to hear and for us to understand. We have heard from our Children’s Commissioner that, I think, 83 percent of people in our prisons at the moment have at some time been in care. The impact of this is so deeply profound, and we are not talking about it.

I am not sheeting this home, in this speech, solely to this National Government. That would be ridiculous. I do want to say that this first started to be talked about when people went to lawyers to try to get their cases addressed—that is my understanding—in the 2000s, and that that process was fraught. In fact, when the first cases went to court in 2006, it was the full weight of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the Ministry of Health and the range of ministries against these people who had been abused in care. I just want to take a minute for people to think about that—that the weight of our State stood against these people trying to get recognition for what harm had been done to them.

Then, in 2008, the main law firm that was supporting these people had its legal aid withdrawn from it. How extraordinary is that—to try to shut down the process? It was only when the Human Rights Commission and then international attention came on to this—this absolute shame—that we got this Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, which is not independent.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: What?

It is impartial—we hear from the Minister for Social Development—but it is not independent. It is still run by the State across—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: It wasn’t. It was run by a judge—an independent panel.

It was run by a judge, but you went through MSD.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: No.

The system is—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: No it didn’t—DIA.

The judge herself has said she wants an independent system, that this is not independent, and that—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Just check your facts. Go to the website and download it.

—we do need an independent—well, you can say it is impartial, but we do not have independence. People have not come forward—I have spoken to many people who have not come to the system because they do not want to go to the State. They perceive it as the State. The Minister can sit there and shake her head, but if you are not referencing your experience to theirs, then you are part of the problem.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Me, or you?

Minister—Minister—this should be grounded in their experience. And the Minister has been seen to be protecting the institution of the State, rather than addressing the needs of these people who have been so, so unfairly harmed by this State. When Judge Henwood has said that the Minister—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

It is a great pleasure to speak here in the general debate. We are in our last session in Parliament before New Zealanders go out to enjoy the great summer that we have in New Zealand.

It is a very strange environment in the House today. This is the first time I can remember coming along to question time and the Prime Minister is sitting there in his chair, and nobody is asking him a question. The Opposition is too scared to ask him a question. It is a bit like watching the cricket. It is like the Pakistan cricketers, who have worked out that there is no point in bowling your deliveries at the best batsman because you are just going to get knocked over the fence for six, and so those members have stopped asking the Prime Minister the questions any more. What an admission of defeat. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has decided that it is better to use his time trying to persuade Nick Leggett not to stand for the National Party, rather than reflect the decline that we are seeing these days in the Labour Party in New Zealand.

So, anyway, New Zealanders will be going off to their Christmases reflecting on the world as they see it, and they see uncertainty all about, whether it is in the United States or whether it is in Europe or Korea. And who knows what is going to happen with the massive expansion of credit that we see in China? There is much uncertainty around there, and in New Zealand we have also been reminded over the last couple of weeks of our geological vulnerabilities. My thoughts are with the people of Kaikōura and the northern parts of the South Island as they have been through a difficult time, and it has reminded us of our vulnerabilities as a small country. We have also been reminded, by the US election, of the tendency around the world to think about trade protectionism as a way forward against our vulnerabilities as a small trading nation.

So there is a little bit to worry about in New Zealand, but then, when you look at the performance of this economy and this country, you cannot help but be filled with optimism. The country is growing at the fourth-fastest rate in the OECD, at 3.6 percent GDP growth. We have had 300,000 jobs developed in this economy since the global financial crisis. That is a jobs boom that is unprecedented in New Zealand’s history—an incredible jobs boom—and it is the result of the hard work and enterprise and vigour of New Zealanders setting up companies, developing their businesses, exporting around the world, and delivering incomes for their fellow New Zealanders.

The Government can play a role in that—particularly in providing a stable, predictable, and financially sustainable environment, which we have done for these past 8 years. We are one of the very, very few countries in the world that is delivering a surplus. When people look and ask whether they are going to invest in a new business or take on a new job or buy a new plant, they can look and know that the Government is sustainable in what it is doing. It is not going to have to veer off in a wildly new direction.

We are also concentrating on building the competitiveness of the New Zealand economy, and Aucklanders, such as me, can look and see the massive investment that we have been making in infrastructure to get the economy moving. Not just in transport; we are all looking forward to the Waterview tunnel opening in the next few months. We see the ultra-fast broadband going into our streets—massive investment in infrastructure in order to get the economy growing stronger. We are also concentrating on delivering better public services.

That is not just what Government is about. Government is also about preserving what is special in New Zealand. We know about the enormous investment we are making in the environment to improve the environment and marine parks and the many great bits of work that my colleague Maggie Barry is doing on that score. This morning we also celebrated another Treaty settlement, and that is another thing that is special about New Zealand. It is that we get along pretty well in a very multicultural environment. When you look around the world, there are so many areas where people within countries struggle to get along as well as we do in New Zealand. It is not perfect, but that is something we can celebrate.

The other thing I do want to mention is that we have that strong tradition of high trust and low corruption and a strong rule of law. That is one of our greatest inheritances. We, as a Government, want to keep on chipping away to raise the bar. I was pleased to announce today, in my ministerial capacity, some changes that we are making in the insolvency space, which is one little area where we have had, frankly, fairly loose arrangements around insolvency. Anybody could stand up, even if they have got a very chequered past, and act as an insolvency practitioner, which is a job that involves millions of dollars and requires high trust. And so we are bringing in a licensing regime there to clean up that area. We are looking forward to that and we have got a great story to tell. I wish New Zealanders the very best.

My message to New Zealanders is quite clear: this is not as good as it gets. New Zealand is a better country than this and it can continue to be a better country, and things can be a lot better than they are. We live in a fantastic country, but it can be better. And I tell you what, I want to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jnr who made that very famous quote that “our taxes are the price we pay for civilisation”. In order to live in a civilised society, we pay taxes.

The question that every New Zealander should be asking themself is: can we afford tax cuts now, when we had so many pressing needs that need to be funded and that the Government needs to fund? Can we afford those tax cuts now, particularly given that those tax cuts—if National’s past track record is anything to go by—will be rigged in favour of the people who are already doing all right? The first lot of tax cuts that National delivered when it first came into Government was paid for by working families–who found that GST went up. They paid more on their day-to-day bills and their day-to-day groceries so that National could give tax cuts that were weighted in favour of the people who were already doing well. In other words, the hard workers paid more so that the privileged could pay less. That is not right and yet we will see more of that.

I think of the education system, and I think of the pressing needs that we have in the education system when I consider whether we can afford to have tax cuts. I think about the families who were in tears at the Education and Science Committee when they were talking about the desperate need for their kids to get the support that they needed for their special needs. They were in tears; they had to fight; they felt like they had to beg in order to get their kids the support that they need. That is not good enough—we are a better country than that. Those kids deserve their fair shot at education. I think about the kids who are having to move school all the time because their parents cannot find stable housing—we are a better country than that. We can do better for those kids and those families than that.

I think about the parents who are working two jobs—or more—working every waking hour that they have because they do not want their kids to miss out on the same educational opportunities that other parents are able to pay for, despite the fact that our education system is supposed to be free. It is not. And increasingly we are seeing in our school system that the kids whose parents can afford to pay get a better deal than the kids whose parents cannot. That is not right. That is not the Kiwi way, and we should actually fund schools properly so that every Kiwi kid gets the opportunity that they deserve.

I think about the teacher-aides, who are barely earning a minimum wage. Despite the fact that they are working with some of the most vulnerable kids in the country and some of the kids with the highest needs, they barely earn the minimum wage. They have got no job security. They do not know, from term to term, whether they are going to be back. This Government will not do anything for them and says that tax cuts are affordable. All of these things need to be weighed up against the Government’s desire to deliver tax cuts that the country at this point simply cannot afford.

I think about housing. I think about the number of people whom we have living in transient situations because there is a pressing need for State houses, and Government members have their heads buried in the sand. Here is a classic example: in my own electorate the Government has demolished State houses and sold them off because it said that there is no need—and now it is scrambling to find more houses for families who need them. It sold them off and it demolished them and yet we have got a huge waiting list of people. Of course, the waiting list is much larger than the official waiting list for houses because the Government will not let a whole lot of people with genuine and real need even on to the waiting list in the first place; that is simply wrong.

I think about the police, and I think about the fact that they do an amazing job in our communities—and yet there are not enough of them. They simply are not being given the resources that they need to do the jobs that they have of keeping our communities safe. I have got a lot of sympathy for the situation that the police find themselves in: they are working extra time, they are working incredibly hard, and they are not being backed by this Government. There are not enough of them and they are not getting the support they need.

Most importantly, I think about the future generations of New Zealand—something that I have thought about a lot more, just recently—and I think, what kind of country are we going to be leaving them? Frankly, I want to leave them a much better country than the one they are likely to inherit at the moment. I want to leave them a country where superannuation is secured for all New Zealanders—not just the current generation while we kick in to touch debates about how we pay for future generations. We should be restarting contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund because that is one of the ways that we can make sure that superannuation is there for all New Zealanders and they get that promise—that Kiwi promise—of a secure retirement. We can be a better country than this, but tax cuts will set us backward not forward.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the general debate today. I think this will be my last contribution this year in the general debate, so I want to wish all members a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

💬 Chris Hipkins: You know there’s still 2 weeks to go.

Yes, yes, I do. But I know that I will not be speaking in the general debate, but on a number of other occasions, so you will have to listen for it. Ha, ha!

The previous speaker, Chris Hipkins, raised two points. On one point I agree with him, and on the other point I disagree with him. The first point he said is that we can do much better. Definitely there is always the opportunity for improvement. The second point he said is that we want to make sure that the future for our kids is brighter. But I do not agree that the policies he is advocating will write a brighter future for us. The Labour Party’s policies will make sure that we are writing a disaster for our future generations.

The National-led Government is ambitious and confident for the New Zealand economy. We are working hard, and we are trying to ensure that the future is brighter for this country, not only for us but for the generations to come. One thing I would like to clarify over here is that it is not just us who are claiming that the New Zealand economy is doing better. If you look at the international endorsements we have been getting over the last few weeks, they all say that New Zealand is one of the best places to do business. For the small and medium sized businesses it is the best place to grow. The second thing is that for safety and security, again we are placed very well—in the top five.

As you know, on 14 November mother Nature again struck with power, and residents of the North Island and South Island were woken up due to the 7.8 magnitude earthquake. These are the things that have been hindering us in growing at a faster rate, but still we are growing at a rate of 3.6 percent. As I mentioned, it is the ease of business for small to medium sized enterprises. I would like to thank the Hon Craig Foss for organising the roadshow in South Auckland last week where the ease of doing business was told to the small and medium sized businesses that were not aware of the many tools that are given to them online, which they can use for the ease of doing business. This is very important. We need to understand that we have to support our small and medium sized businesses because they are the backbone of our economy.

I would also like to congratulate the Hon Chris Finlayson, who has been working hard to do the Treaty settlements. Even today, we saw during the extended sitting that some more Treaty settlements were settled. If you look at the statistics, out of the total Treaty settlements, 19 percent were settled by the Labour Government and the rest have been settled by the National Government. This gives confidence to every New Zealander that we are standing by the commitment made before 2008 by National. We are ensuring that all the Treaty settlements are done as soon as possible, so that the grievances from those issues can be addressed.

I would also like to mention the $15 million that has been allocated to tackling drug abuse. This money has been allocated from the recovery being made by the Police and Customs from anti-drug initiatives. This is one of the main issues that create more crime in our society. We want to ensure that the people who are living in New Zealand feel safe in their homes, in their communities, and at their workplaces. It is important for us to ensure the safety of the people, so that we can live a peaceful life. With these words, I commend this motion to the House.

I do not share that member, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s, optimism. I am going to push really hard to be part of the general debate yet again before the end of the year. Ha! I am going to go hard. But on that, I do agree with the member on one thing: when he said that we should be allowed to live in our communities and feel safe and secure. We believe this. I think it is absolutely vital for the health and well-being of our various communities up and down the country that we can feel safe and secure in our homes, in our businesses, and on our streets. In fact, we have come a long way. My kids just cannot believe that when I was young and we used to go out, we would leave the door open, the car would be unlocked, there would be bikes on the front lawn, and there were no worries whatsoever. Those were the good old days, and there is no reason why we should not, or we cannot, go back there.

At the end of May this year the police Minister, Judith Collins, signed off on the Police 4-year plan. On page 51 of that plan there was a little table and it highlighted the number of police from 2016 through to 2020. The surprising thing was there was no increase whatsoever in sworn or non-sworn staff over those 4 years. Let us move forward 6 months to question time today. The Minister said to me—one thing that I agree with her about—“Mr Nash, I’ve been telling you and the Prime Minister has been telling you for months there is something coming.”, and that was it. She has been telling me for months: “We’ve got a plan. We’re gonna do something about this.” Then, surprisingly, Minister Tolley stood up and she said something that I completely agree with as well. What she said was: “I judge a person on their actions, not their words.” Well, I think Mrs Tolley should have talk with Judith Collins, because Judith Collins has been saying for 6 months: “New Zealand, something is coming.” In the meantime, the Tauranga Women’s Refuge said that in 60 percent of their cases they have problems with P. In the meantime, burglaries go up, sexual violence assaults go up, violence in our communities goes up, and resolutions drop. The Minister has a lot of good words, but no actions.

What we are talking about here is a group of men and women who are absolutely committed to the New Zealand Police and the communities they serve. In fact, their workplace survey showed that over 85 percent of police officers are absolutely committed to the community and to New Zealand Police. That is fantastic. But what that survey also showed is that 55 percent of respondents said that they had far too much undue work stress, and 60 percent of the respondents actually said that the police are not meeting the promises they make to the public. It is quite a dichotomy, is it not? We have got a highly committed force here, but down here they are quite dissatisfied, because they know they are not meeting the promises.

Then, in the paper on Sunday, we see that the police has closed down the Panmure, Ellerslie, and Epsom stations. When the Minister was asked about this on Tuesday she seemed as surprised as the rest of us. Maybe, because they are closing down the Epsom station, there might be some action, because I expect the people in Epsom will not be particularly happy about this, but we never know. Then, in Mount Roskill, what do we find out? The Mount Roskill police station is not even open during the day.

💬 Phil Twyford: What?

It is not open during the day in Mount Roskill. This is not unique to Mount Roskill. This is up and down our country. The Napier police station is not open during the day—no, sorry, that is not true; it is not open after hours. There is a phone there. If you have got a problem after hours, you pick up the phone outside the police station. If you are lucky someone might turn up.

I am not blaming the police for this. I am not blaming the police at all, because I have immense respect for the work that our police do in our community. In fact, they are out there working day and night doing a job that I could not do. In fact, what they are doing is they are making sure that all of our families can sleep safely in our beds. I have immense respect for them. But I actually think at this point in time they are being let down by the Minister.

The Police Association is saying “We need a thousand more police.”, and there is only one party that is listening. Well, no, that is not fair; New Zealand First has said it wants more police as well, but Labour is the only party that has come out with a costed policy that says: “You know, communities of New Zealand, we have listened. We are going to give you 1,000 more police.” It is a fully funded, fully backed initiative that will deliver to our communities, because we believe it is imperative. If our communities are not only to survive but to thrive, do well, and feel safe, we need more police on the streets. That is why we are saying to the National Party, to the people of New Zealand, and to everyone: 1,000 more police under Labour.

It is a pleasure to follow the mildly tanned member for Napier, Stuart Nash, in this afternoon’s debate. I would have to say that I got 3 minutes of sun on Sunday—the only 3 we have had in the Rangitīkei this month—and I got sunburnt. Anyway, I want to get on to a couple of other issues. This afternoon I had 47 very senior members of my electorate in Parliament, and you can imagine their disappointment when they arrived here and found the Prime Minister sitting here for a whole hour and not being asked one question. It was the first time, I think, in my time in this House that that has happened. They were disappointed.

I just want to move on to a couple of other issues that I think are critically important, and they are the earthquake and the problems that that earthquake has caused in Canterbury, particularly around Kaikōura and up into the Marlborough area. This country, under the leadership of this Government and our finance Minister, Bill English, is very well prepared to deal with these kinds of problems. This is a different problem from the one that the Christchurch earthquakes created, to some extent, because it has had a significant effect on a large piece of isolated rural New Zealand. There are a lot of challenges that that creates that perhaps are not created when those earthquakes happen in more populated areas. Of course, there are some significant problems when they do happen there, as well.

I want to get on to the legislation that went through the House yesterday, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Act, and some of the legislation that is being passed in the next week or so in respect of this disaster, because I think the House is to be commended and I think the Opposition parties are to be commended for the way they have worked to make this legislation possible and to get it moving as quickly as we can. One of the things we have learnt, through a series, I guess, of floods, earthquakes, and other things in our country throughout the years, is that the quicker we can move on these things the quicker the repairs happen and the quicker people feel better about their lives. These disasters are real and very testing, but almost inevitably the affected businesses and communities eventually come out of them in a much stronger state than they were in when they went into them. I think it is really important that this House works together, as it has done, to continue to support those. I think it is to be commended and I think it is a great effort on behalf of everyone.

This Government’s prudence under finance Minister, Bill English, has allowed our country to show its resilience and given it the capacity to deal with whatever nature throws at us. Of course, in New Zealand we have one of the largest coastlines. In New Zealand we are one of the most exposed countries. We have geothermal fields underneath us. We have major fault lines that run through just about three-quarters of New Zealand, so we are always going to be at high risk from one sort of disaster or another, whether it is a flood or an earthquake or whatever type of storm. It is really important that Governments have the opportunity and the ability to deal with those issues.

The recent dairy downturn pointed out how important it is to look after people in our industry. I think when you look at the effect of the earthquake on places like Kaikōura, which is obviously a significant tourist destination for New Zealand, it is very important that we create the opportunity for them to look after the people who work for them, because once you lose people out of an industry it is very difficult to replace them. They go off, they get another job somewhere else—they even move out of areas. It is most important, particularly when you have got a place as specific as Kaikōura, which deals with thousands and thousands of tourists every year, that we retain those people in that community. So the Government, I think, has moved very quickly to help with that, and it is to be commended for that.

The other thing I want to talk briefly about is what I would say is the unpredicted growth that has happened in New Zealand in the last few years. Clearly, in 2008 when work was done on our future projections they were very different to what is going on now. The massive growth in jobs, the large growth in population in New Zealand, and, consequently, the large growth in our economy have meant the future looks very different to what it did in those early days. Although we might criticise some things that go on, we might criticise the people we need, this country has changed dramatically, and I think it is really important that we recognise that as we go along.

The next thing I want to talk briefly about is our international relationships. The Prime Minister, the former trade Minister, the current trade Minister, Minister McCully, and a number of other senior Cabinet Ministers, who are all very well respected around the world, enable us to punch well above our weight. I think that is very special. It is most important for New Zealand, given that we are a trading nation, that we have great relationships around the world and that we enable our industries to work very closely with those countries. I think our political leadership in New Zealand—and I think it covers the Parliament, to some extent, as well—is hugely positive for us, and our relationships around the world are most important to us.

The Government has increased the health spend to record levels. It has worked through Minister Tolley to deal with some of the challenges of Child, Youth and Family. We are doing very well. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. If we ever needed a real-life example that the National Government is confused and out of touch, then the announcement of the “Parliamentary Palace”, part 2, is it. If we ever needed a real-life example that you cannot believe everything that falls out of the mouth of John Key, then yesterday’s question time and his answers to Ron Mark are the examples that should be held up.

Let us be clear. Yesterday, in question time, when Ron Mark queried the ownership of Bowen House and how it came to be sold out of the public hands, the Prime Minister suggested that it was done by the National Government from the 1996 to 1999 period, of which the Rt Hon Winston Peters was part. Let us just make sure we record history correctly, shall we? In some ways I do not blame Mr Key, because Mr Key was not around. He was too busy making money off the sharemarket, trading on the Kiwi dollar, at the time. So he had his head down and he might not have known what the facts actually are, but let us be clear.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: He knows how to run a business and the country.

In 1997—listen up, National Party backbenchers, because this is real history; this is the history according to Hansard, not according to your speech-writers—the Rt Hon Winston Peters blocked an attempt to build the “Parliamentary Palace”. As the Treasurer, and due to the Asian economic crisis, he rejected a new building because taxpayers already owned Bowen House. The very fact that he did that is why the National Party caucus, or part of it, under the leadership of Jenny Shipley, threw over Jim Bolger and broke their word in a 1996 coalition agreement with New Zealand First not to sell any more public assets. Because they were dedicated to making sure that they followed this ideology, they destroyed their own caucus to actually create this ability to sell.

In 1998—so here we are, Mr Prime Minister; have a listen—Winston Peters was no longer part of that National-led Government. There had been a coup—Jim Bolger was gone and Jenny Shipley was in place. In 1998 the following buildings were sold: Bowen House, Bowen State Building, Charles Fergusson Building, St Pauls Square building, Defence House, Freyberg Building, State Services Commission building, Vogel building, and William Clayton Building. How much do you think the taxpayer got—how much do you think the taxpayer got—for the package? It was $59.7 million—$59.7 million. In 2013 how much was Bowen House sold for by the private owners of that building? It was $62 million alone—close to $63 million.

The Prime Minister seems to have had some sort of epiphany now. It says here that the Prime Minister is being quoted as saying: “It just makes sense long term for us to own these premises.” Oh, my goodness! It is like Groundhog Day. You could take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ speeches from back then, in 1997, saying that it makes no sense whatsoever to sell into private hands a building that is owned by the New Zealand taxpayer, and which has a guaranteed tenant—a guaranteed tenant. But, no, no, no, no. Jenny Shipley, and the National Government—and they do not appear to have learnt very much—had no problem with it. The Rt Hon Winston Peters and New Zealand First were wrong, did not understand business, and did not understand the economy! Off they went and sold all those buildings.

What is even weirder is if we tie that into the KiwiBank adverts at the moment. Who has seen the new KiwiBank adverts at the moment? We have got some New Zealanders’ faces projected on buildings, saying: “Hey, are you banking with KiwiBank? Because we’re not a foreign-owned bank, and our profits don’t go offshore.” Oh, my giddy aunt! It is, like, straight out of the New Zealand First manifesto. Who was it who stood up, on the privatisation of the Bank of New Zealand and other banks into offshore hands, and said: “Now all the profits are going to go offshore.”? Do you know who is the appointed chair of KiwiBank? It is Jim Bolger. Crikey dick! The guy who said we should not own our own banks is now part of the campaign to try to get New Zealanders to recognise that when they bank with a foreign-owned bank their profits go offshore.

New Zealand First—I guarantee you—is the only political party where all of their accounts are held with KiwiBank, to make sure that we support the only New Zealand - owned bank—oh, Government-owned bank; TSB Bank, I take your point—here on these shores. It is like Groundhog Day over here. If this Government would only listen to New Zealand First in the first instance, you could stop repeating stuff.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I also want to speak about a dark secret in this country, but it is a sadder one, in many ways, for our kids. I do want to challenge the Government on seclusion rooms; banning them is not enough. Seclusion rooms are a symptom of a broken system, whereby some of the most marginalised children and the most stressed teacher-aides and teachers are struggling to deal with some complex issues. The Government needs to do a whole lot more than just putting out a Supplementary Order Paper—which we think we may support—banning this practice. We need to fix a broken system and support schools across the country, because these children are hurt and have been hurt.

For a minute I would like to think about the perspective of these kids themselves. Children who experience a range of learning differences and disabilities often do not find school easy and often have triggers that can result in behaviours that other people find difficult or confusing. There is no initial teacher training on this to make sure that these kids are taken care of. There are, maybe, a couple of hours. There is no professional development that is mandatory for teachers—they have to opt in to understand how to cope with the situation.

What we have seen with seclusion rooms is that 17 schools are not coping and are using this strategy because they do not know what else to do—they do not know. Without resources, training, and a culture of inclusion, this will continue to happen even if seclusion rooms are banned. These children will continue to be excluded from their rights in terms of safety and opportunity unless the Government seriously invests in the need for a programme of education around inclusion. Our society remains disabling and exclusive, so I am not blaming the Government alone; we are all part of it. However, it is the job of the Government to lead more than a piecemeal ban of an individual strategy that we all find frightening—and the children who have experienced it are traumatised.

We have to do a comprehensive change. That is why I initiated the inquiry, which we have just reported back on. That inquiry found a broken system. It found that there is no more money. The Government is not prepared to put more money in, and it is not prepared to enshrine children’s rights in law. So families have experienced things like seclusion rooms, or like having only 1 hour of school a day, and their child is seen as having a behavioural problem and they are asked to remove that child—which is exclusion, as opposed to seclusion, but amounts to the same thing. That needs to be addressed properly, and that has not been addressed properly.

The Education and Science Committee continues to hear, on all kinds of legislation around education, these families telling us story after story, and piecemeal responses will not work. I am not attacking individual schools. I know that there are individual schools that are going through hard times over this, as well as families that are going through hell, and, actually, it is not their fault.

We have not, in the history of this country—and particularly in the term of this Government—invested sufficiently in building a culture of inclusion. Mainstreaming of children has become “main-dumping”, and that has led to some strategies that are less than perfect by people who have less than optimum training and support. There are schools doing a fantastic job—they know exactly how to avoid triggering meltdowns for children with high needs, such as autism. There are many ways in which we can avoid seclusion or exclusion, but those magnet schools tell us that they are using best practice without the Government’s support, without the funding, and without the training, because they have made a cultural commitment to do it.

It is time that this Government and all of us step up. No more kids in dark rooms. No more excluding our children and leaving them at home because the school cannot cope. We must resource, learn about, respect, and uphold the rights of our children—all of them, no matter who they are—to a genuine experience of education and inclusion. We must teach every child that every other child has a right to be there. If that child is different, then that is OK. We must support all teachers and teacher-aides to be able to cope with diversity in the classroom, instead of doing piecemeal actions and an inquiry that disappointed me, despite all the work I put into it and all the progress. It is not good enough. The system is still broken. Kia ora koutou katoa.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much. Recently, I have had a change of staff in my electorate office in New Brighton, and I have welcomed back a staff member into the role of just kind of looking after the issues in the electorate; she has been with me for about 6 weeks. We have a practice in my office of keeping some pretty good statistics of what is going on in the electorate, and what kinds of concerns our local people are raising.

In the last 6 weeks, I have had 28 inquiries from people who are concerned about their inability either to be able to afford the rent in their home or to be able to afford bonds to get into properties. That is quite a lot of people, when you think about it. It is the MP’s office; we are not Work and Income, and we are not a social housing provider—it is the MP’s office. In 6 weeks we have had 28 inquiries, all from low-income people who are all beneficiaries, so all should qualify for Housing New Zealand homes. All of these people are in the private rental market. We would ask why they are not in Housing New Zealand homes. It is simply because there are not enough Housing New Zealand houses to house our people. Why would that be? It is because the Government has been on this mission to sell off what is actually its core responsibility to people, and that is to house them.

Recently, we have had an announcement that there are going to be another 2,500 Housing New Zealand homes sold in Christchurch. That represents 39 percent of the stock in Christchurch, and it is over three suburbs: Shirley, Riccarton, and Bryndwr. All of the Housing New Zealand properties in those three suburbs are going to be sold. They are going to be sold to social housing providers, according to the Government.

💬 Chris Bishop: To social housing providers?

They are going to be sold to social housing providers by the Government. When we have a look at why this is happening—why is this happening? Is there support within the social housing providers for this? Let us have a look at what the Government has tried to do in Invercargill and Horowhenua. A similar scheme failed to sell 348 homes in Invercargill and, I think, about 150 in Horowhenua—because we just cannot make this work. It cannot work. Where is the money coming from? Where is the capital going to come from for these 2,500 homes that we are going to sell in Christchurch?

We have got respected social housing providers, like the Christchurch Methodist Mission and the Salvation Army, that are saying clearly that they do not want a bar of this. There is a level of mistrust amongst those very reputable social housing providers: that they are not going to be able to afford to purchase these homes, and that once they get them they are not going to be in a state that is habitable for people and there is going to be a lot of rework required; or that the burden that they are going to have, long term, to continue the upkeep and the maintenance on these is going to be outside their ability to deliver. And they want to deliver. They want to deliver good quality housing for the people of Canterbury.

Will this increase the number of social housing homes in Canterbury? It certainly will not. Will it improve the quality of that housing? I do not think so. Let us have a look at what the Minister said. The Minister, Bill English, said: “In Christchurch, Housing New Zealand has done an excellent job of repairing and rebuilding its earthquake-damaged stock, but one in five of these properties is underutilised.” He then goes on to say: “There is now an opportunity for a private provider to renew, reconfigure, and develop these properties to much better match demand, and finish earthquake remediation work.”

“Finish earthquake remediation work”—the Government is going to sell off Housing New Zealand homes that have not had their earthquake remediation work completed. There is the answer to the question “Will it improve the quality of housing?”. So what is the impact of this—the impact of the Government pushing the sale of Housing New Zealand homes when we clearly have a housing crisis in this country? I go back to my first point: it is those 28 people who have come into my electorate office over the last 6 weeks, looking for support to get into housing. That is the impact.

We have had quite a substantial history lesson this afternoon from Ms Martin about the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ prolonged history in Parliament. But we are a party that actually looks forward. I also want to respond to the conversation that we had with Mr Hipkins. Mr Hipkins, this glass, in my eyes, is half full. It may be half empty in your eyes. You did say it can get better, and, yes, it is getting better. Every day it is getting better and better.

Today I want to make special mention of our Taranaki and Te Atiawa iwi. We have had some momentous claims settled here today. It has been a long time coming, a long time in history, and the celebration is only in the beginning. It is not the end of the process; it is actually the beginning of a whole new process. So we have got things around Parihaka to look forward to. We have got things around the Taranaki maunga to look forward to. It is just the start of the project. So, yes, it can get better.

Exports are up, about $8.4 billion or about 13.4 percent, from 3 years ago. That is despite the fact that dairy has been in a hollow. Thankfully, the predicted milk forecast payout is now back up to $6 and it is starting to come out of that trough. So despite all the crisis calls on the other side of the House, actually, we have come through this OK because this Government has provided a very strong basis for our export industries.

It is really important to see all of the good stuff that is going out there at the moment. We have got Minister Todd McClay, who is just looking at recent reports on reviewing non-tariff trade barriers and working out how we can get some of that red tape and some of that stuff out of the road, because we are not here to sit and trade carrots and milk with each other. We are a trading nation and we have got a lot of work to do. The barriers are starting to get out of the road.

New Zealand has been ranked first in the world, in the 2016 Legatum Institute’s report. That is a global prosperity index. So despite the things that can get better, Mr Hipkins, actually, a lot of stuff is getting better and the world is looking to us because our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance are examples to the rest of the world. We hear that every day. They have got a great team backing them up.

The other point to make is that 90 percent of people in paid employment are in permanent jobs. We have just had an adjournment week. I was out there every day. I think there is hardly a spot in the electorate that I did not cover. The thing that I heard every day from our businesses was: “Please bring us more skilled people.” Anyone who does not know that there are jobs out there, in provincial New Zealand, had better wake up fast because the jobs are there and our employers are calling out for employees every day.

Yes, it is getting better and things are happening. We have a consultation about to start next week, in Taranaki through to the King Country, on the Mount Messenger and Awakino bypass roads. Our communities cannot get a hold of those maps and put their consultation in quick enough. That conversation started in 1918, and it is this Government and this Prime Minister and this Minister of Transport who are bringing that to fruition. The people have been asking for that for a very long time. I do want to acknowledge again people like former MP for Taranaki, Roger Maxwell, and Tom Cloke, and those people who have put 30 years of their life into advocating for that road. Well, actually, that road is going to happen, and the people of Taranaki - King Country are extremely excited about that.

The other consultation I have been to just recently is the consultation around Waikeria Prison. Interestingly enough, everybody is coming along with positive comments because—guess what—we are rehabilitating people. We are getting them to work for the Department of Conservation. They are making wooden seats for schools. When they start picking the tangelos out of the orchards in Waikeria Prison they take them to the food banks. They are helping to feed the people in the community, and that is very welcome. I also saw a great video yesterday from Minister Judith Collins about some of the toys for children that are being made in some of the other prisons. There is some fantastic work going on. Yes, Mr Hipkins, it can be better but every day it is getting better, under this National Government.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.