General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Can I begin by thanking the Rt Hon Winston Peters for describing me as Lord Denning. All I would say in response to his virulent attack on me is that at least I was never fired by Russell McVeagh after 6 months.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the record will prove, that is an outright lie—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and I want an apology.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! It is now the general debate, and that is very much a debating matter. If the member thinks that he has been misrepresented, it is not to be done by raising it as a point of order in the House. He is to refer to the Standing Orders, particularly Standing Order 359.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I hope—well, no, I just need to give the member a very clear warning. I have ruled on that matter. If the member wants to raise any other issue, that is absolutely his prerogative, but if he is continuing in any way to relitigate the statement I have just made with regard to his previous point of order, I will take a very dim view of it and be likely to be asking the member to leave the Chamber.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: The reality is that the rights of minorities are important in this House. The reality is that I am taking offence at a statement that goes to the very character and record of a person’s working history. To say that you—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member is in danger of being asked to leave. I have said that the matter was into debate. If he feels that he has been misrepresented, I have advised him how to do it.

💬 Hon Members: He’s taken offence to it.

Oh, if he has taken offence—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Oh—

—I apologise so that I can get on with my damned speech.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member is saying he has taken offence—oh, I did not pick that up in the statement that was made. The member has taken offence. Would the member kindly withdraw the last part of his statement.

I withdraw the last part of the statement, and I will go and indulge in some self-flagellation later on. Before the Speaker came into the House—

💬 Grant Robertson: Nothing unusual there, then.

—quite a normal activity—Mr Robertson, whose views I so greatly respect, called out to me and asked why am I not standing for the leadership. I did say to him that I have the dream team: me as leader and me as deputy leader. But, unfortunately, there have not been any takers, and I have been told to concentrate on winning Rongotai in 2026. Now that Mrs King is standing down, I believe that opportunity will be upon me in 10 years’ time.

I came in here in—[Interruption] I thought that would wake her up. I came in here in 2005, and what a gloomy place it was then. It was a gloomy country because Helen Clark tended to spread gloom around the place. The Rt Hon Winston Peters had his problems with Simunovich Fisheries. We had the Electoral Finance Act, of which Mrs King was the author and was the prime mover behind it. It really was such a miserable place. We campaigned in 2008 on bringing New Zealand a brighter future. And what a wonderful future the outstanding John Key has brought New Zealand. That is why I am so proud to stand in this House and say that he is New Zealand’s greatest Prime Minister and that it has been an absolute honour to serve under him.

I come to 2008. As soon as we came in, there was a global financial crisis, and the team worked on that. There was no zealotry. There was no “mother of all Budgets”. There was no—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Thank you, Michael Cullen!

Oh, that was our lot. There was no need for punishment. It was a sensible, moderate, liberal-conservative path, which this great Prime Minister led his team on. Time and time again, in whatever portfolio I held, one could see the Prime Minister’s very determined, yes—professional, yes—but true leadership skill shining through.

I come to the golden years of arts and culture, for example, and he was so supportive of me as Minister for the arts in that time. I recall, for example, just a little example, the Arras Tunnel—it was the Prime Minister’s idea to do it well. They got Mr Brownlee to go and talk to Mr Robertson, because Mr Chauvel did not like me, and they thought if I went and saw Mr Chauvel, nothing would get done. But there is an example.

In the Treaty negotiations area, as I said this morning, I would be nothing without the enthusiastic support of the Prime Minister. Groundbreaking, hugely innovative settlements like the Tūhoe settlement and the Whanganui River settlement—they were because of that Prime Minister and his support for his Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Another Doug Graham here, you know.

I know that the right honourable Mr Peters does not like Treaty settlements, because he lives in a negative, backward world. He dreams of a country that never was and never could be—utterly miserable and utterly negative, doomed to ask questions and do nothing more. He has nothing to contribute, unlike our great Prime Minister.

Then we move into the area of infrastructure. Mr Robertson, of course, as the member for Wellington Central, knows full well the need for proper infrastructure in this country. In 2008 Transmission Gully was a pipedream. The Kapiti Expressway was not even contemplated. In 2016 we are talking not about the Kapiti Expressway but the Ōtaki expressway.

I will never be prouder of this Prime Minister than when the Christchurch earthquakes struck. He was down there with Bob Parker immediately. He was working with Amy Adams, Gerry Brownlee, Lianne Dalziel, and the other Christchurch MPs to make sure that our second city could be rebuilt, and he has been an outstanding leader in that regard.

So although I am personally very sorry—[Interruption] I have just started. Although I am very sorry that he is going, I acknowledge his leadership. Whatever area he has done, he has done brilliantly, and there is a lot more for him to give.

It is always a great pleasure to be offered the opportunity to respond to the Rt Hon Christopher Finlayson—

💬 Hon Members: No, he’s not.

—the Hon Christopher Finlayson—who, I have to say, from my interactions with him, could not think of anything worse than representing a local electorate like Rongotai. That is why we are putting up such an outstanding candidate there—to put him out of his misery and make sure he is safe in the knowledge that he will never actually have to represent an electorate and deal with common people. Teall Crossen is the Green Party’s candidate for Rongotai next year. She is an outstanding lawyer, like the Attorney-General. She is an environmental lawyer. She is someone who is so committed to the environment, and it is a great pleasure that she will be facing off against the Attorney-General next year.

Minister Finlayson referred to the promise 8 years ago of a brighter future. I think it is time now, obviously, that we talk about the leadership that the Prime Minister has provided and whether that promise—that hazy, wavy notion of a brighter future—has in any way been delivered. In my view, it has not.

The Government is fond of using big numbers like the rise in gross domestic product, for example, and the rise in the median wage. All those numbers do is obscure the real story about what is actually going on inside the economy. So, yes, the median wage has been rising, but for the bottom third their incomes have actually gone backwards relative to the cost of living over the course of the 8 years of this Government. You cannot say you are providing a brighter future for all when fully a third of your population have seen their incomes go backwards over the over course of your Government—the 8 years of this Government. I have to say that I think Mr Key has called it quits so that he does not have to sit through an entire year of Opposition members yelling “9 long years” at him next year. That is what is going to happen, because the Government’s record does not stand up to scrutiny.

As National prepares to vote on a new leader for its caucus and for its party and, by extension, therefore, on a new Prime Minister, it is time to talk about what leadership really means. Leadership is the ability and the means to go first and to show the way. That is what leadership is—to go first and to show the way. This Government has done anything but that over the course of the last 8 years. Everything has been focused on maintaining its popularity, not necessarily on fixing the underlying problems. It is about papering over the cracks when it should have been building houses. It has managed to maintain popularity rather than actually deal with the great crises that are facing us today.

The Government has dealt with some of the symptoms, or it is dealing with some of the symptoms; for example, in the housing crisis, where it is chucking a hell of a lot at it and hoping that something sticks, when in fact the housing crisis is a direct consequence of the way that it has managed the economy over the course of the last 8 years. It has encouraged an economy based on speculation and borrowing rather than on investment and productivity. It has presided over an enormous growth in inequality and a huge accumulation of wealth by, essentially, property owners in this country, because of the way it has skewed the investment flows and the taxation system towards property and property ownership.

On climate change, the single greatest challenge facing our civilisation and our country today, the Government has done absolutely nothing. Mr Key likes to stand up and talk about all of the things that the Government has done, but the results have achieved a 19 percent growth in our emissions over the course of the last 8 years. So Government members can say that they have done a whole lot of stuff, but their results show that we are going backwards when it comes to climate change.

Leadership is about getting beyond the politics of self-interest. Leadership is about the long term, not the short term. It is about much more than political gains over the course of the next few months, or the next year. We need a vision for this country that is about more than just staying in power, or staying in Government. The only way that we are going to get that is by changing the Government, and change is coming.

Mr Speaker—

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Announce. Announce.

No. This will not be the announcement, but it has not been the week that any of us has expected, and I do want to start by paying tribute to John Key, our Prime Minister. Enoch Powell’s ironclad law of politics—that all political careers end in failure—has been proved wrong in this context, as it has in the United States context, where they limit their presidents to 8 years in office. Our Prime Minister has done 8 years. He has given his all and described the tank as being empty. Having followed him around the country at various points and seen his regular habit of doing three functions in an evening—bang, bang, bang—and then up at 6 o’clock the next morning so that he could come back down the country, I can understand that he wants to do other things with his life. I do think the country owes him a debt of gratitude for all that he has done.

When you look at his legacy, fundamentally, he lifted the country’s confidence. He has showed us what we could do as a country—a small, little place in the South Pacific, but with so many natural resources, such great people, and such great skills to draw on. He was—and always has been—so upbeat about New Zealand’s prospects, and that infectious enthusiasm that he has had for our country has flowed through and made a real difference.

He has also delivered competent, sensible Government for an extended period of time, which has led us back to Budget surpluses. When we look around the world and at the very, very tricky economic environment around the world, with incredibly low interest rates leading to the asset price inflation that we hear about so much—particularly in the Auckland housing context—under John Key’s leadership, with the support of Bill English, we have successfully managed the economy for an extended period of time.

I think he will also be remembered for the welfare reforms as well. We have had 70 years of social welfare in New Zealand, all heading in one direction, and, for the first time, this Government, under his leadership, has strengthened the benefits and also started to put some boundaries around the system, showing responsibilities that are required from people who get help from the State. I think that is a very, very important signal that we have sent, and that will have a big impact longer term.

The other thing about the Prime Minister is his personal qualities. One of the previous speakers talked about leadership being something that people can follow. Again, when you watch the Prime Minister engaging with New Zealanders—I have never once seen him be anything but unfailingly polite to everybody he has met, whether they are young, small, or old. The way that he has done that and has shown leadership has been a real tribute.

We are going to build on that, and that is the point. We have had that legacy from the Prime Minister, but this is a Government that wants to continue the great work that is done for New Zealanders.

💬 Grant Robertson: Who’re you backing, Paul?

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Who’re you backing? Who’re you backing?

Ha, ha! Some of the leaders around the House—it is a pity that some of the other people around the House have not followed the Prime Minister’s lead. We have seen the Labour Party leaders over the last few years having to be pushed by their caucus. I think of Mr Peters, who has been around for decades now and who has given a message of doom and gloom for over 40 years. I would say that Winston Peters is a good man, but he has been, I think, twisted over a period of time in this House. I thought it was amazing that he was the only leader who could not bring himself, on the news of the Prime Minister’s announcement, to say something positive about the Prime Minister. He had to come out with a negative, nasty comment, even at a moment when the nation was thinking about the contribution that the Prime Minister had made.

I have had the opportunity to watch a little bit of that programme called The Crown, which is about Queen Elizabeth II in her younger days. There is an ancient Winston Churchill who comes on the scene, who has been around a long time and is well and truly past his use-by date. I cannot help but think of Winston Peters in that context. He cannot look back on great achievements. All he can look upon, maybe, is holding Koro Wētere to account back in the 1980s.

I do not want to be harsh about Winston Peters, but I think there are plenty of other leaders of parties in this Parliament now who could take a leaf from John Key’s book and move on. In the meantime we are very focused on coming up with a new leadership team for this party that will carry this country forward over the next few years and build on the great strength that we have delivered in terms of growth, the number of quality jobs, the ability of New Zealanders to thrive in their own lives. Thank you.

Well, what a trio of contestants we have in National’s most entertaining reality TV show. It is not so much the X factor as the “why” factor. Why are these the only people the National Government can put up in front of us? Why has the National Government not created a deeper pool of talent it could present to New Zealanders? But these are the three we have, so let us run through our contestants.

💬 Bill English: “Old Caretaker Bill”—like a cross between the caretaker in Are you being served? and Arkwright, leaning on his broom giving you the minute detail of his view on social investment, boring his way to glory. He is, indeed, the architect of National’s policies; that is for sure. But there is a reason why people employ real estate agents to sell their houses, not architects. Bill English does not even have the energy to get his hands out of his pockets. His campaign is sponsored by Mogadon. New Zealanders are going to sleep. He is the political equivalent of microwaved fish and chips from the night before—leftovers from 2002, which did not taste that good the first time around and are now soggy, flaccid, and stale. What an unfortunate number for Bill English in the UMR Insight poll on who the preferred leader is. He was in front, on 21 percent. Any number but 21! It could have been 20, it could have been 23—any number but 21. But if he gets the job, and I reckon he might, he is just going to be minding the shop. He will never be seen as anything more than the caretaker, the guy John Key dropped in it, ready or not.

Then we have contestant No. 2.

💬 Hon Member: Who’s that?

Old cigar-smoking Jonathan Coleman: “To the bedside manner born”, as he was described by New Zealand Doctor magazine, or as he is known to most New Zealanders, “Who?”—or, cheerfully, “Doctor Who?”. Jonathan told us that he has been taking a series of soundings as to whether he should be the leader. I understand most of these soundings were taken in the bathroom mirror. We have had the results leaked to us. They have come back with: “You’re the man, JC.”, “Go for it.”, and “When did you get so gorgeous?”. Unburdened by modesty or self-doubt, Jonathan is the candidate of change, of rejuvenation. Finally a rich North Shore doctor, so long part of the forgotten class of New Zealand, will get his moment in the sun! And what a mess he has made of health. He is reduced, day after day, to a puddle of contradictions and jibber-jabber by the king of health, my colleague Annette King. Here is Jonathan Coleman bleating away about the need for more money in health today. What has he been doing for the last few years?

Then there is the third candidate, Judith Collins, who has done so much for the milk exports of New Zealand that she must be “Countess Homogenised—I’ve come to drink your milk.” She does not bear grudges. Rather, she embraces them, keeps them in a locked, dark cupboard, nurtures them into full-grown feuds, and then unleashes them to Cameron Slater for safekeeping. Let us just remember what she did in Oravida. She used a $36,000 taxpayer-funded trip as Minister of Justice to promote a company where her husband was one of only three directors. She told us she popped into Oravida for a cup of tea on the way to the airport, but she actually cancelled appointments in the justice area to drive 45 minutes in the other direction for that photo op. The National Government has two JCs in this contest. One of them thinks he walks on water, and the other one thinks the original JC was a weak, socialist hippy.

So that is what we have got: corrupt and nasty versus vain and incompetent versus tired and out of touch. Such are the choices facing National, a party that has relied for so long on the salesman skills of one man, now cruelly exposed. The good news is that there is another choice: a Labour Government under an Andrew Little - leadership, with a plan for New Zealand to be back at its best. Homeownership for young New Zealanders, a place for everyone to live and call their own, a health system where you get the best treatment no matter where you live or how much money you have, a country where you know that every school, the school your children will go to, will be a world-class school and that there are decent jobs all around for every New Zealander; a country where security and opportunity are possible for all—that is the real choice for New Zealanders.

I do not often get the opportunity to get this far up the speaking list, but I certainly have never heard a more interesting speech than that one. For that speech to come from a person, Grant Robertson, who has been through more leadership contests than I have had hot meals is pretty extraordinary, I think. We have an expert in the matter speaking to us on that issue, so we would have to take a little bit of notice of him, because he has been beaten only three times! He is well practised. But it was an interesting speech, and, of course, the statistics he was quoting about one of the candidates—Labour does not even poll that much.

Anyway, back on to the real issues of the day. I want to take a very brief time to acknowledge the Prime Minister, who is about to take leave of this House. I came into Parliament in 2011—like many of us who have been in the real world, not really knowing what I was coming to. I came into a place where we had a leader who, I think, was extraordinary. I will say no more about him, because I do not think he needs any more said about him. I think it has been an extraordinary time for New Zealand, under his leadership.

I want to make another comment about leadership, which James Shaw led off with. I have noticed that anyone who leads by being up front and showing the way very seldom looks behind themselves, and often those kinds of leaders find a massive gap behind them. We saw one in this House not that many years ago. When she left there was a massive gap behind her. I think leadership is much more about enabling people around you to perform at their best and to front things in troubled times.

I want to get on to some real facts of the issue now. I note that a previous speaker, Paul Goldsmith, spent a bit of time talking about the welfare reforms of this Government. I too think that they are a pretty special achievement, and I think the Prime Minister certainly led that for us. I will say no more about those, because, in fact, Paul Goldsmith covered a lot of that.

What I really want to talk about is the fact that in recent years this Government has created an environment where our unemployment rate has dropped to—[Interruption]—it is OK, Mr Speaker. I am happy with them talking like that, because they are talking to themselves. Our unemployment rate has dropped to 4.9 percent. We have, in the last quarter, created 35,000 more jobs in New Zealand. We clearly need this population to continue growing at the rate it is, just to supply the job market with people. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is now predicting some 400,000 more jobs in the years leading up to 2021. I think, in fact, that will prove to be conservative, so we certainly need to increase our population at a great old rate. We are doing that, fortunately, because from a producing or agricultural perspective, the more people—well, not necessarily the more people, but certainly it is to our advantage to have more people living in New Zealand. I think it is most important.

The other thing I want to touch on is the tourism industry. The north part of the Rangitīkei electorate, my electorate, significantly benefits from the massive increase in the number of tourists coming to New Zealand and from the investment that we have been making in that sector, particularly around cycling, walking, climbing, and the Whanganui River. In fact, the Whanganui River settlement came through Parliament this morning—and that will progress very quickly, in my part of the electorate. The other settlement that came through Parliament this morning was in the lower part of my electorate, in the Rangitāne, and I think that is pretty special for them as well.

Very quickly on the dairy industry—we have seen extraordinary growth in the dairy industry in recent years. It has slowed down significantly, and that has enabled some of the environmental challenges that dairy industry growth was causing to be managed. I think the dairy industry is in a much better space now. It is much stronger than it was in the boom times of 4 or 5 years ago, and I think we are going to see a very good return to those dairy farmers in the next year or two. I also think we will see some of our major challenges around the environment overcome.

Finally, my electorate relies on sheep. We are the biggest sheep electorate in New Zealand, and we have seen the sheep-meat industry, I think, turn around to some extent. Interestingly, it has turned around on the back of two very significant investments of overseas foreign currency into our two biggest firms: Silver Fern Farms, with that deal going through yesterday or the day before; and the other one where we had the Alliance Meats company having a strong partnership with overseas companies, which will enable those to grow too. So I think we are in pretty good order, and I will take my leave.

Look across at the other side of the House right now. Look at them. Look at their eyes opening like newborn babes as the thumb comes off and they realise: “We can think for ourselves. We can think. We don’t need to be told what to say and do any more.” Look at their eyes. They are like headless chooks right now—they are like headless chooks, they really are. They do not know what to do with themselves. They are running around the room, and they are literally bumping into one another. Then they are running to corners and they are whispering to one another. Today, for example, I saw a group of Ministers and MPs I have never seen together, sitting down, chatting to one another. Goodness knows what about—goodness knows what about.

💬 Hon Member: Asking them their names.

“Doctor who? ‘Crusher’ who?” So here we are now. It is wonderful. The thumb has come off, the leader has left the building, and the sycophantic bobbleheads no longer have to bobble their heads quite as hard as they had to the week before. It is wonderful. It is empowering for them. But it is freaking them out—it is freaking them out. I think it is fair to say that the “Hunger Games” have begun. What we are now seeing is the aspirants fighting one another now—

💬 Todd Barclay: Mahesh. Give Mahesh a go.

—for the leadership of the National Party, a party that has passed its use-by date and is probably on its way down anyway, Mr Barclay.

Now we have to ask: what has the New Zealand public been saying to those people over there? What has the public been saying? What has the response been to this amazing news that John Key has left the building? Actually, it is quite simple: now is not the time for tax cuts, look after the people of New Zealand first—talk about that. Now is not the time to be talking about housing consents; now is the time to be actually building homes for New Zealanders. Stop talking about it and start doing something about it. Stop the flood of migrants coming into the country, and manage the population of New Zealand for the benefit of New Zealand. Make it work. Make it work. Fix the gap. Here is the critical one, because—I will get into the detail shortly for some of the smiling members on the other side. Fix the gap between the ultra-rich and the desperately poor. That is what the people of New Zealand want to see.

Those backbenchers, like the rest of New Zealand, now want to see an actual plan. For too long they have been detritus or debris, floating on the sea of random chance. To be fair to Mr English, it has worked out not too bad for him. He has been able to paint some pretty numbers, but New Zealanders know that there is no plan, and right now the future is not looking bright at all.

What is the legacy of this former Prime Minister, of the Prime Minister who has left the building? What is his legacy? Let me put it to the House in the form of numbers, because you cannot argue with the numbers. Since that National Government came into power, farmers’ debt has increased by $17.2 billion; businesses now owe $13.8 billion more, and it was $100 billion before that; and homeowners have almost doubled their debt in terms of debt for their homes. This is the legacy of that National Government. Here are some numbers for that side of the House: private debt has increased by $409 every second since that party came into power. That works out to be $24,000 every minute. That is $1.47 million every hour, and $35.5 million every single day, on that former Prime Minister’s watch—on that Government’s watch. It is debt—mountains of debt. It is businesses borrowing more and more to do less and less. It is people borrowing just to survive week to week. This is not John Key’s legacy, but the legacy of a decapitated snake now in its death throes. Thank you.

Well, I certainly do not mind being described as a wide-eyed, newborn babe, but I am certainly no bobblehead. So thank you very much for that description, Mr Tabuteau. I am not sure why it is so interesting that the party of competition and the party of promotion on merit is running a competition for the leadership, given the resignation of our most excellent Prime Minister, who has a record that is second to none over an 8-year period. I too would like to join with my colleagues in congratulating the Prime Minister on those 8 years in which he has delivered sound, stable Government, which has been compassionate to the vulnerable but was aspirant for New Zealand. He delivered his policies with dedication, energy, and, of course, warmth. I thank him for his service, and I think it is only fitting that he has left on his own terms, with such an excellent record. Well done to the Prime Minister—he deserves to be commended.

I am actually going to talk about the regions, because last Wednesday was a fantastic day for Southland, where the Government swung in behind the Southland Regional Development Strategy and invested millions in our action plan. This is a Government that is supportive of the regions, and the plan was to do with several can-do Southlanders coming together to work out a plan to attract 10,000 more people into Southland by 2025.

These people were divided into action teams, and they led from the front. There were teams such as “Vibrant Urban Centres”, which is looking at rejuvenation in our centre city of Invercargill—a fantastic city, but one that needs a little bit of work around its CBD. There was one looking at “Ease of Doing Business”: when you come to Southland, there are several governing councils that rule over Southland, and so it is looking at a consistent regulatory framework across the four. There are things like “Destination Attraction”, building on tourism, and, certainly in respect of our new industries, there is “Business Extension”, “New Industries”, and a team looking at innovation. These people came up with a plan—which should be commended—because they are Southland business people and community leaders who came up with a plan and they turned to us and said “Would you like to get involved?”, to which the Government said: “Absolutely.”

The one thing that I would like to focus on is in respect of “New Industries”, because I was very involved in that team, and we were responsible for investigating the potential of aquaculture in our region—and there is potential there. We had an initial survey in respect of what the community thought about aquaculture, and 91 percent of Southlanders were in favour of investigating and delivering on aquaculture in our region. Let us look at some of the statistics. For one surface hectare of aquaculture, it delivers 70 jobs and creates $14 million worth of revenue. That is fantastic. It is a sustainable industry, and it is a very low carbon footprint for those salmon farms.

The Government has swung in behind that project and delivered $950,000 in research to help Southlanders, firstly, look at their environment to see where aquaculture could be feasible, and then has delivered some more money in respect of looking at community engagement as to where, in respect of these sites, it is appropriate to deliver on aquaculture.

It is a fantastic project, and the community has been very involved. I also want to thank Ngāi Tahu, because iwi have also led from the front in respect of this project. Often people can be somewhat apprehensive about iwi getting involved in projects. However, Ngāi Tahu have been completely progressive on this. They would like a slice of this action. They want to deliver jobs and wealth for their families, as well as jobs and wealth for Southlanders. This is a plan where we are capitalising on our strengths. We are building capabilities, we are creating jobs, and we are investing in our people. We want to attract more. Thank you.

The scab has been ripped off and the pus is now spewing forward in the National Party. All of that naked ambition, those divisions that they have been covering up for so long, are now spewing forth into the public arena. The digs at each other, the snide remarks, the plotting in Copperfields, the asides during select committee meetings—it has all started. All we know is—and I tell you what, I have read this book before. I can tell the members opposite that it all gets worse from here. I can tell them with some certainty that their troubles are just beginning. It is all going to get worse from here. Whoever the next temporary leader of the National Party is, the plotting will continue. All of those ambitions that have been uncovered in the last 48 hours are not simply going to go away. They all think they can do the top job better than the person sitting next to them, and they are all out to get each other. It is absolutely clear.

But of course we have got the retirement bench over there, who clearly are no longer interested. They are checking out of the building.

💬 Hon Hekia Parata: I’m staying.

Hekia Parata is thinking about staying. She is probably going to throw her hat in the ring. She would be the only person left on the front bench who has not. Of course, we know that the National Party is absolutely ripped open. We saw that in question time today when Jonathan Coleman had a dig at Bill English about staying past his use-by date. It has already started—Jonathan Coleman talking about Bill English staying past his use-by date. Jonathan Coleman thinks, of course, that he is the young, refreshed face of the National Party.

Then, of course, we have got Judith “Crusher” Collins, whose career has been an absolute glowing success. She wants to lead the National Party into the next election. I say to Judith Collins that she has got my backing. There is no one else I would rather that we were running against at the next election than Judith Collins.

But, of course, the National members, at the end of the day, are going to chicken out and settle for Bill English, the caretaker Prime Minister, the guy whom they will let have the job if he can hold their numbers up enough—if he can hold their numbers up enough to lead them into the next election. But, of course, if the numbers start going down, we could see this happening again, before the next election. This may not be the end of the matter for the National members, as their numbers go into free fall because, of course, “Mr 21 Percent” is about to take over as the leader of the National Party. I have read that book before, as well, and that did not end very well for the National Party either. It is not going to like that one. It is not going to like that one, one iota.

But you can already see the plotting and the scheming. The more green leather we see over there, the more we know that they have hurried away. They are in their little groups. They are plotting their numbers. They have got their spreadsheets out and they are desperately trying to figure out how they can advance their own interests, at the expense of the interests of New Zealanders. Fundamentally, that is what this is about.

At a time when we have people who are homeless, when our educational rankings are plummeting in the OECD, the National members are focused on themselves and not on the challenges that face New Zealand. They are in the Government. They do not have that luxury, and yet that is the luxury that they are taking. This week it is all about the National members talking to each other and not communicating to New Zealanders and not talking about the hopes and aspirations of New Zealanders. Instead, they are busy fighting each other.

So let us look at some of the things that we have seen in the last 24 hours. I was taken by this photo of John Key hanging out in the corridor, desperate to avoid being seen with Judith Collins. Judith Collins was already in front of the media when John Key came to walk down to the House today. So desperate was John Key not to be seen with Judith Collins that he hung back in the corridor, all on his lonesome. How things have changed.

And then, of course, we have got the anonymous leaks from the National caucus. This is how it starts—with the anonymous leaks from the National caucus. But there is a huge mood for change on the backbench. I think that is Todd Barclay. Bill English did not back Todd Barclay, down there in Clutha-Southland, and Todd Barclay is getting his own back. He is getting his own back. He wants a mood for change.

Another National backbencher, another anonymous comment to the media: “Bill English shouldn’t just be anointed.” That was the other comment from a National backbencher. Of course they are not willing to put their names on record, yet, but the plotting and the scheming will continue. National members’ troubles are all ahead of them. In the meantime they are not focused on the hopes and aspirations of New Zealanders; they are focused on their own ambitions and their own internal squabbling. They are not acting in the interests of the country, and that is why there will be a change of Government next year.

I call Todd Barclay.

💬 Hon Members: Confess, confess.

I am not sure what I am being asked to confess to, apart from the fact that I am proud to be part of a strong John Key - led National Government, and have been for the last 2½ years. One thing I want to say about the Prime Minister is that he is relentlessly optimistic and aspirational for New Zealand. He has been, every day that he has been in this Parliament, and he is absolutely an inspiration to us all. That is more than the Opposition members can say of their leader.

We have heard a number of speeches this afternoon in the general debate. The general debate is meant to be about putting your case for talking about the positive aspirations that you have for New Zealand and for your electorate. But, instead, every single Opposition member has spent their 5 to 10 minutes talking about National, and that says a lot about them and what they have to offer. This is why I have absolute confidence that the next leader of the National Party and the next deputy leader of the National Party will be the next Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand in 2017.

We are proud of our achievements over on this side of the House. We have a lot to offer New Zealand moving forward. One of the things that the Prime Minister can walk away taking pride in is having built a successful, cohesive, passionate, and compassionate team. That is one thing that we have on this side of the House that the other side simply does not have.

I want to speak about an announcement that was made last week in Southland by Steven Joyce, Nathan Guy, Sarah Dowie, and me in support of them and in support of the 550 Southlanders who showed up for the launch of the Southland Regional Development Strategy action plan. We had almost 1 percent of our population at that launch, which is an incredible backing for a regional development plan that really has been led from the grassroots up.

One of the remarks that Steven Joyce and Nathan Guy made in their respective speeches throughout the day was that the people of this region took the bull by the horns and started this plan themselves, and then came to Government and said: “Hey, this is what we’re doing. Do you want to be a part of it?”. “Absolutely”—that is what the Government said. We have got behind this plan. Sarah and I, as local MPs in Southland, have been totally supportive, right from the start. Sarah has talked about aquaculture and some of the primary production benefits of this plan. I want to echo those comments, and I want to talk about some of the aspirational targets we have for the growth of our population.

We know that if we want to maintain and grow our potential as a region across New Zealand, towards our contribution towards our GDP, we need to increase our population by 10,000 people. Southland and Otago are lucky in that they have such low unemployment and such high participation in employment. We need more people to come to our beautiful part of the country, in order that we can continue making the contribution that we are towards New Zealand. We are about diversification, we are about resilience, we are about self-determination, and we are about ruthless passion. That was echoed by the 550 people represented in the stadium at Bill Richardson Transport World last Wednesday.

One of the benefits we have for Southland going forward is harnessing the potential in tourism, which already exists in the region, but growing on that. We have Queenstown as part of my electorate, just outside of the Southland region. There are 1.5 million visitors a year who visit Queenstown, over 3.2 million guest nights. We have the potential to claw back some of those visitors who are going to Milford Sound and through Southland, spreading the benefits more broadly across Southland. That is a project that I have been involved in from the outset. It was pleasing to see, as part of the launch last Wednesday, that the Milford Opportunities Project, which was an organisation that I established about 2 years ago to greater coordinate about a dozen projects that are in place in the Milford Sound, attracted $250,000 for a coordinator in order to shepherd those projects through.

We have a great opportunity to expand and to grow and to exponentially enrich our tourism proposition in Southland, to support the growing and the well-performing primary production sectors that we have. Agriculture is the backbone of our country and it is the backbone of my electorate. In support of the opportunities we have with tourism, it has been a privilege to be a part of the Southland Regional Development Strategy launch.

Well, it is a full-on, full-blown “Blue Wedding” over on the other side. We are seeing the blood being spilt, but, clearly, the word had gone out before today’s general debate: “Don’t mention the war. Everyone channel Bill and bore them into submission. Everybody make sure they are as uneventful as they possibly can be.”, and for that I give you a 10 out of 10. The Minister of Education may even achieve an Achieved on that one.

But make no mistake, this is a backbench in revolt. They have never had so much to do. You can see the lights in their eyes, as has been said somewhere else—the plotting, the scheming, the extra coffees in Copperfield’s. You can see it all happening. All over the second floor of Parliament House, it has been awash with bewildered and lost-looking Ministers asking us whether we know where so-and-so’s office is and what they look like, because they would quite like a chat. For once, this backbench in the National Government has something to do other than not last 10 minutes. So it is all on over there.

One member, one unnamed backbencher from National, told me that he never knew he had so many friends. I said: “Don’t worry, it will all be gone by lunchtime Monday. It will all be over.” But what happened at that pirate party last week? Well, a mutiny emerged. That is what came out.

💬 Kris Faafoi: The swords were sharpened.

As my colleague here, Mr Faafoi, is saying, the swords were sharpened. What may have been planned was that now-infamous barbecue at Todd’s place down in Gore on Friday. Who was there? Well, we know that the maternal overlord of the National backbench was the guest of honour—Judith Collins was the keynote speaker at this. But who else was there? Maggie was tweeting up a storm, saying what a hard-working member that member was, but his mate Sarah Dowie seems to be backing Bill, and it seems to be that Bill will not back Todd, so what went down at the barbecue? Was that Don of the South Island National Party, Roger Bridge, in attendance, desperately trying to secure a lifeline for his old mate Gerry B? Or has he given up on him too, as everyone else seems to have? But what went down?

Todd Barclay was at pains to say he was proud to be a member of a John Key - led National Government. I wonder whether John Key is as proud of him, or whether he has more pride in his mate from Merrill Lynch who is contesting that seat for selection. Nowhere were the fault lines in the National Government more revealed than in Gore on Friday.

But when we thought it could not get hotter, today it got hotter. Bill’s bridesmaids emerged. No one wants to be Jonathan’s deputy; everyone is queueing up to be Bill English’s deputy. There is Simon and there is Paula, both hustling it out to be the generational change. They have declared the 50-year-old North Shore doctor not to be hip enough to represent that generational change. I do not know—he knows how to smoke a cigar at a U2 concert. That might be quite hip enough. But Simon is making it clear that he is Generation X and Jonathan is not. This has to be the defining thing. So “Si/Bill”—as it is going to be known—is going to be offering 10 lanes on the North Harbour bridge at any moment.

But then, on her way into the Chamber, Paula Bennett declared her hand. She said that she too wanted to be the face of generational change, and that she was the one who was going to be the deputy. This is a change from the normally reserved Paula Bennett, who does not like to blow her own trumpet: as quoted in a recent article this month, when asked who was the politician, dead or alive, whom she most admired, she said: “Me.” But, most chilling for all the—

💬 Hon Annette King: You?

No, no, she said “Me.”—quote unquote—not me. But most chilling for members on the opposite side who are up against Ms Bennett is that when she talked about her softer side, her more tranquil side, she revealed that she likes to go fishing. She said: “I love being on the sea. I find it tranquil. I find it reflective. I find it cleansing. All that kind of good crap. And then I kill something.” This is why there will be a change of Government to Labour in 2017 and there will be an Andrew-led Government after the next election.

Every now and again an event occurs that is so unexpected that it sears into your memory, and for me, Monday lunchtime and the announcement by the Prime Minister that he was stepping down is one of those moments. For me, I was initially very shocked, and saddened, actually, that I would not have the opportunity to continue being part of his caucus and learn from his extraordinary experience and demonstration of leadership.

Ten years at the top is a long time, and reflecting on the judgment that he has given, or the reasons that he has given for his judgment, I can understand and see from his perspective why he has indeed made that call. At the core of it is integrity, which has been his touchstone for the time that he has been in Parliament, and certainly for the time that he has been the leader. He knew that he could not stand in front of the New Zealand public and say that he could commit to a fourth term when he knew that he could not. So, because of that, he has stepped aside, and, of course, we are going through that process of replacing him. But the ability to step aside at the height of his power, to me only reinforces his uniqueness.

Certainly, in history, be it in corporate or in other areas, it is very easy for people to stay too long. They can see themselves and their judgments as indispensable. They have rehearsed the arguments and the strategic intent for so long that they find it almost frustrating and have a sense of impatience at having to continue to repeat it. The Prime Minister has never ever been like that. He is a person who has always held the view that he was in a job that he loved, for a country that he loved, working for people whom he loved.

Another observation on his incredible value to this country was the ability to check and adjust as needed. So often in the past, politicians and leaders boxed themselves into a corner over a particular policy or direction and saw that any movement or any direction or any change in direction was, somehow, weakness, but he knew that the real strength of character and leadership is the ability to check and adjust as necessary. He did that, in my view, at a level that has had no peer in this place, and it has been extraordinary to watch.

I first met the Prime Minister when he came to an event in Tauranga in 2007. He filled the Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre, and he was just the Leader of the Opposition—the first time that had ever happened. I have listened to a number of leaders, both political and corporate, and I could tell from the moment he spoke that we were in the presence of someone who was materially different. He had a different tone. He was incredibly relaxed. He was very comfortable about who he was and what he stood for and the vision he had for this country. He took the job seriously but not himself. That capacity is something that too few people can apply to themselves in whatever career, but he has set the benchmark for it. But above all, his stand-out ability has been the ability to frame up arguments in a way that spoke to New Zealanders in the language of their lives, and he has done that in a way that, in my opinion, has had no peer.

Look how far we have come over the last 8 years. He has talked often about being ambitious for New Zealand. It is very easy to stand behind that statement, as we do as a party every day, and talk to the various Better Public Services targets that we have driven in this country and the performance that we have achieved against them. But when the Prime Minister stands and talks about ambition for New Zealand, it is not just the statistics of success that stand echoing his performance; it is what he has done for the attitude and approach of this country. When I have been out in my electorate in the Bay of Plenty and the city of Tauranga, I believe his greatest legacy, and one that will go through the years, is his focus on embracing New Zealand with the world—a sense of optimism, of connecting ourselves with the future, and an unrelenting belief in the potential of New Zealanders.

Little by little, over the last 8 years, New Zealanders have caught that wave of self-belief. It has been an absolute privilege to watch that happen in this country and to be part of it in Tauranga, and it has been a huge privilege to be with him in the last couple of years and see his leadership in action. He has been a tremendous leader for this country. He will leave, of course, a great hole, but we have an incredible contest under way and I have great confidence that whomever we choose on Monday will take this country forward in a way that amplifies his legacy and will return this Government to the Treasury benches in 2017. Thank you very much.

In my contribution I would like to just riff loosely off the previous speaker, Todd Muller, and add a contribution to this House that may help fill that gaping hole that is going to be left for the country with the leaving of John Key. It is a contribution that will, hopefully, help build optimism in the country and restore our belief in our ourselves and our potential as a country. I am, of course, talking about my member’s bill, which was drawn from the ballot last week, to provide workplace protections for victims of domestic violence. It is a bill that I would like to commend to all political parties that have aspirations to lead after the next election and to all those many National Government members who are vying for the leadership of their party.

The reason I believe this bill will help all of you out is that Colmar Brunton research that was done this year on New Zealanders’ concerns had, at the very top of the list, violence in society. Among the top 10 concerns of New Zealanders were (1) violence in society; (2) the increasing cost of living; and (3) the protection of New Zealand children. My member’s bill will address all of those concerns. We also know that this member’s bill is being supported by The Warehouse, the Auckland chamber of commerce, many different businesses across the country, the Human Rights Commission, all of the unions—the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions as well as other unions—the National Council of Women, and the 290 community organisations that are part of the National Council of Women, as well as, of course, Women’s Refuge and Shine. So there is massive support for these interventions.

The reason is, of course, pretty obvious, sadly: we have an epidemic of intimate partner violence in this country. In 2014, the year of the last statistics we have, every 5½ minutes the police were being called out to a family violence incident. One in three women in this country is likely to experience intimate partner violence in her lifetime. This is having a massive impact on the lives of thousands of people right now and on their families, and it is impacting on workplaces. Research tells us that this is costing, at a very conservative estimate, about $368 million every year in lost productivity in our workplaces. That is because of the impact of that violence and our lack of systems to respond to it in the workplace.

My bill addresses—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am talking to Dr Woods and ask her to sit down. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. That was very helpful. My bill addresses that concern and it supports businesses to be able to reduce the impact of that violence on their work colleagues and on their workplaces. We also know from overseas research that 70 percent of people needing a sole parent support benefit are likely to be leaving a violent relationship. This is probably the key driver of the need for people to receive income support internationally, and it is probably the same in New Zealand.

If we want to increase productivity in our workplaces, reduce the need for welfare and the costs on the Government because of that, and, most importantly, provide victims of domestic violence with pathways to safety and protections in the place where they are most vulnerable when they leave a violent relationship—because if they are leaving a relationship and they are still in work, then that is the place their abuser knows where to find them—that is the place where they are most at risk. Significant research shows that women are stalked in their workplaces, either by phone or outside that workplace, so it is a dangerous place and time for victims, particularly when they are trying to leave. I commend my member’s bill to everyone in this House, to make a real difference on an issue New Zealanders really care about.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.