General Debate

Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Yes, I would love to move that we move into the general debate. I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today what I am going to do is contrast National’s announcements with the announcements that Labour has made this year, so that is what we are going to do. Here is a quick snapshot. The quick snapshot is that ours is going to be a very long list, and Labour’s big announcement this year is that it is putting one Māori whom those members do not particularly like on the list, and the ones that they do like are not going on the list. So that is pretty much Labour’s announcement for the year.

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: Dealt to them.

They dealt to the—

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: No, they asked for it. They asked for it.

Oh, they asked for it—of course they did. So it is one rule for one and another rule for others, so it is good. Yes, you go out there and fight for your seat. Do not worry about the Māori vote and the party vote. That is how it goes. That is good. I look forward to other members in the Labour Party making announcements that they are also not standing on the list because they do not see that.

I must say, just personally, I cannot help but have a moment to reflect on John Key because this is kind of his day, I have to say, and it is a bit of a privilege to speak in the general debate and just to get to put it on the record, actually, in Hansard. As that comes, I just want to say, at a personal level, a genuine thankyou to him for the opportunities and support that he gave. I personally needed both.

Then I also want to say, from the National Party, thank you very, very, very much to John Key for his leadership, and—[Interruption] Yes, we do feel that. Then I want to say, on behalf of New Zealanders, just thanks for your unrelenting belief in New Zealand and New Zealanders, thanks for your optimism, and thanks for pushing us and believing in New Zealanders. Thanks for the confidence that you gave to us as a country. Thanks for the place that you gave us in the world, and you made us believe in ourselves and where we fit in the world a lot better.

There are things that I particularly remember. I know that when I was the Minister for Social Development, I literally used to get phone calls from John Key at all sorts of times and hours. They would be saying: “I have just met someone in ‘x’ mall or in ‘x’ situation, and they are going through this. Would you mind following up and making sure that they’re getting all of their entitlements? Would you check that there is something that they can get connected to?”. So he actually took a personal interest in New Zealanders, as well. And I can see lots of people nodding because they will have had similar phone calls in their time, either as a constituent MP—“This is happening. I have heard this while I have been out and about, and would you do something?”.

I particularly remember a teen mum in the South Island who met him, and he got into dad mode—which is what I like to call it—and really spoke to her about what she could do and the sorts of opportunities that she had. She then wrote to him a few weeks later and said that he had given her confidence in herself and in what she could do. She was going off the benefit, she was putting it on her family, she had got a job, and she saw a future.

I remember randomly bumping into a relatively young sports star and I got talking to them off the record, and they started saying that John had actually helped them with career advice. He had sat there and said that “When the sport is over, you need to have something else.” I just went—man, that man just went beyond the job of a Prime Minister at times and actually reached out at every chance that he could. I just want to say that I am really proud to have been one of his members of Parliament and, on behalf of New Zealand, I want that on record.

Let us go to the long list of achievements, because there is this really long list of not only achievements—

💬 Rt Hon Bill English: One minute—go fast.

—but, more than that, we have got what we have done. Here we go, in 54 seconds, Prime Minister, we have got the police announcement of 1,125 more police; ultra-fast broadband in 151 towns and 45 suburban areas, world-class fibre is coming your way; superannuation—you made the call, Prime Minister, to say: “Let’s raise the age in 20 years’ time.” Something had to be done.

I have seen Nathan Guy’s note. The Kapiti Expressway—$630 million, 4 months early, ladies and gentlemen, and 18 kilometres long. Nathan Guy got on his bike, and the Prime Minister got on his too. They rode it, they saw it, and they believed in it. Thank you, Simon Bridges.

Actually, thank you, Amy Adams, for your announcement this year on the historical homosexual convictions, which will be wiped. Thank you to the Government, business, and unions for working, for the first time, through pay equity with the joint working group. That is a huge one. Thanks for the $5.5 million extra in tourism infrastructure. Thank you—the list goes on.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s—

—regarding the Domestic Violence Act. The list is long. On this side are the ones with announcements. Sorry? Members opposite have nothing to say.

Well, what a weekend we have had, with youths running riot in Kaikohe, 27 burglaries and theft ex-vehicle in the Carterton district—

💬 Darroch Ball: How many?

—27—on Saturday night, and this on a backdrop of a Government that has been telling everybody that crime, and particularly youth crime, is under control and reducing. Then on Tuesday, 21 March the youth crime statistics were finally out, telling the truth.

We in this House have been subjected to 3 years of statistics manipulation by a Government trying desperately to convince the nation and convince every person who has had their house burgled and who has witnessed assault on the streets and the sorts of things that our Indian dairy shop owners are being subjected to in Auckland, time and time again—to the point now that they are suggesting they should have firearms to defend themselves; I have never ever heard of that in New Zealand before—that crime is on the decrease. I find it quite bizarre. I am sorry for the media up there—how short their memories are.

New Zealand First sits here and watches this debacle. Watching Labour and National arguing over crime is like watching two drunks fighting over a half-empty gin bottle full of law and order policy. See, the truth is that when we start talking youth crime and gangs, there is only one party in this House that has been consistent, year after year after year, and that is New Zealand First.

So, in answer to Mr Nash’s questions over there, on 29 March, which piece of legislation did we try to introduce? New Zealand First’s Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. On 21 May 2008 who voted it down? Labour and National. Who is it that specifically, every time we tried to table the anti – gang organised crime bill to outlaw gangs, denied New Zealand First the opportunity to table that bill? Labour. Time and time and time again, it denied us—Labour—and who went out there with a proposed law change to raise the age of criminal responsibility? Actually, it was Labour. When was that? 2008. Who then said they would oppose it and that you would have to be dumb—you would have to be dumb—

💬 Darroch Ball: National—bunch of wussies.

—to pass such legislation? National. And who said you would have to be dumb? Judith Collins. Who else had a comment? I am looking at my colleague Darroch Ball, who is all over this like a rash.

Who else said it? Anne Tolley. Anne Tolley said, as recently as April 2016: “However, in a Cabinet paper, Social Development Minister Anne Tolley said she did not recommend lifting the age, saying it might send a signal the government did not take offending by children seriously.” Who now has got a bill in a select committee to raise the age of criminal responsibility, totally contrary to all the election promises in 2008?

Mind you, this is the same party that was going to put young offenders into boot camps. Who did that? Well, National promised it. Did it do it? No, it did not. Now we have this bizarre situation where the new deputy leader of the Labour Party, Jacinda Ardern, coupled up with her National Government mates, is attacking Darroch Ball in a select committee for daring to oppose this absurd law of raising the age of criminal responsibility.

New Zealand sees right through this claptrap and this game between those two parties, which are becoming known as “Pepsi” and “Coke”—“Pepsi” and “Coke”. Red and blue, there is nothing new—they are both the same. One says one thing, the other speaks against it, and then, when it comes to the time they are in Government, they break their promises. They go back on their word.

Youth crime is at a high, once again, and the only thing we know that is consistent is that the one party that has advocated sensible law changes, and will continue to do that, is New Zealand First. Those two parties consistently oppose New Zealand First’s attempts to eliminate gangs—to eliminate gangs—and to hold youth offenders accountable. We will not deviate from that. All we will ask is that the media, for once, do some homework, back check, and check the veracity and, actually, the integrity of what these two old hack parties are selling them.

I want to congratulate Ron Mark on a very good speech—one of the best speeches I have ever heard him make in this House. I think the only way it could have been better is if it were delivered by Shane Jones—only 6 months to wait for that.

We have a new Prime Minister and a new Deputy Prime Minister who are in touch with New Zealanders and who are working hard and who are every day going out to make the lives of Kiwis up and down the country, in all walks of life, better. The National caucus is in tune with the voting public, because we selected very easily a new leader and a new deputy, and the poll results show that the public prefers our leader as Prime Minister and then our deputy below that.

We now also have a new deputy leader of the Labour Party. Andrew Little and Jacinda Ardern are the dream team. Finally, after 8½ years in Opposition, the Labour caucus is on the same page as the voting public, because the Labour caucus, too, prefers Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister over Andrew Little. There are only 6 months to go before she can be the leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of the Opposition, and I wish her all the luck in that.

This is an incredibly focused and hard-working Government. Across all portfolios we have Ministers with fresh ideas, with energy, who are working hard and engaging with New Zealanders and talking to them about the challenges they face and finding solutions with them to make their lives better and to make New Zealand better.

I want to talk for a moment just to the area of trade, which the Prime Minister has given me the honour of being responsible for. I have jotted down a list of all the engagements we have—the trade agreements we are negotiating or moving to negotiate—at the moment around the world. After 8½ years, what is the Government doing? Well, we had an announcement with the European Union 2 weeks ago. We have finished the scoping exercise, and I expect that New Zealand and the European Union will be given a mandate to launch a free-trade agreement (FTA) negotiation with the EU later this year. It is very important to us—$20 billion worth of two-way trade. All of our competitors, mainly, have deals already, so we will be levelling the playing field. We have also got an opportunity with the UK, when it is in a position to do so, to launch an FTA negotiation. It is extremely important post-Brexit that we secure ongoing preferential access to that important market for New Zealanders.

The Pacific Alliance has announced that it now wants to negotiate with the world, and New Zealand is on the top of its list of the countries it will choose to do a first deal with. We have got the ASEAN Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership negotiation, with ASEAN countries and six others. It is very important to us; it would be our first FTA with India. We are putting a lot of effort in there to level the playing field, to fight for rights on behalf of New Zealanders. We have had a China FTA in place for 8 years, which we announced last year is to be upgraded. Our two-way trade with China is $23 billion; we think we can improve that. It offers opportunities and delivers jobs in every part of the country—every part of the country and every region—as a result of that. India, with a billion people—we are negotiating with it. The Gulf Cooperation Council—we are starting to see progress there, and I believe there is an opportunity for us to finally put pen to paper and open up access into that important market for New Zealanders. Sri Lanka—we announced with it that we would like to have a look at a deal. It does not have many deals with the world, but we decided to sit down and see what can be done, again, to level the playing field to make it fairer for New Zealanders overseas.

And then the Trans-Pacific Partnership—whether or not there is a future for it is not clear, but we are going to work as hard as we can to make sure that New Zealanders have great access into those markets. It is far too soon to say that it is finished just because one country has decided that it does not want to be involved. Anything that gives New Zealanders better access to markets overseas, levels the playing field, and allows New Zealanders to compete more fairly—this Government will stand up on their behalf and fight for them overseas, for those rights, because if we will not do it, who will? The answer is nobody, because nobody owes New Zealand a living.

Finally, I want to recognise the fact that trade agreements open the door to opportunity. Whether Governments decide to walk through that door with their businesses and their exporters to make the most of the opportunity is a choice for all of them, but we need to recognise that there are many others that play an important part in that. Air New Zealand brings visitors to and from other countries here. From China we have record numbers of visitors coming on airplanes—more and more planes are good for our economy.

I want to recognise one company that has shown a lot of support to New Zealand over many years, and that is Emirates Airline. There are now five flights a day from Dubai to New Zealand, one of them direct, which means that there are more people flying here and more freight can go to this important market. It delivers for our economy and it is good for New Zealanders. This Government will continue to fight for the rights of New Zealanders for greater fairness overseas every day that we are in office. Thank you.

The Deputy Prime Minister stood up and said: “Let me tell you about National’s announcements versus Labour’s announcements.” Well, she did not actually mention many at all because she talked about John Key the whole time, but let me actually put a little bit of reality into the situation, just in my portfolio area, to highlight Labour’s police announcements and National’s police announcements, and how this has played out. What it does is it is a fundamental illustration of Andrew Little’s leadership versus Bill English’s following.

Let me give you a little bit of history on this—a little bit of a time line. On 27 May 2016 the Minister of Police signed off on the Police’s 4-year strategic plan, which said no more police until at least 2020. A week later—a week later—Andrew Little showed leadership and said this was not acceptable, and started going hard on this folly. A week after that—the second week of June—the Minister announced she was working on a plan for more police. It took only a week of Andrew Little going hard on this before the Minister said “Shivers, maybe there is something in this.”—maybe there is something in this. In October last year—October last year—Andrew Little released Labour’s police policy, which said 1,000 more sworn officers in 3 years into the communities of New Zealand, because we understood the severity of this problem.

Still, National’s policy was no more police for 4 years. A mere 6 months after that utterance, the first policy that National released for the 2017 general election was more police. That is good to see, but what happened here is that Andrew showed leadership, was listening to the community, and came out with a policy. Six months after National said no more police, Bill English announced more police. That is not leadership; that is following. It is a classic case of following.

The reason for this is, at the moment we have got dairy owners who are talking about arming themselves. We have got 50 youths in Manurewa, fighting in public and knocking each other out with knives and batons and clubs. We have got youths in Kaikohe going hard and smashing up a petrol station. What we have got here is a very committed bunch of men and women in the police force, but a police force that has been underfunded now for 5 years. It is not sustainable, and the Minister of Police believes that just because she has made an announcement of 880 more police, that is good enough. Well, it is not.

The mayors of regional and provincial New Zealand held a conference last week, and the biggest issue that they said was facing their towns and cities is law and order and an increase in crime. This is not the fault of the good, hard-working men and women on the front line. They have said that they are committed to New Zealand Police, but over 50 percent of them said that they are not delivering on the promises made. What they need is more police on the front line. What we need to know, what those mayors need to know, and what the people of New Zealand need to know as well is: what is the plan? Where are they going? We have made a commitment that a decent chunk of our thousand more police are going into community policing. We need men and women on the front line, keeping our dairy owners safe, keeping the burglars out of our houses, solving crime, working with key stakeholders in our communities.

What we are seeing in Hawke’s Bay and in Napier is the community cops stretched even further. We are seeing burglaries increase by 22 percent, we are seeing P at epidemic proportions, and the police just do not have the numbers. And the Minister has the nerve to stand up and say: “Well, we’ve got this policy: 880 more over 4 years.” Well, it is not good enough. We now want to know what the plan is. Where are these officers going to go? Are they going to go into our regions? What is the Minister going to say to the provincial and the regional mayors when they say: “We’re at our wits’ end. We should not have to employ private security guards to keep our communities safe.”? But that is what is happening.

This is a classic policy announcement where Andrew Little showed absolute leadership. He showed that he had listened to our communities and he came out with a completely costed police policy. What did Bill English do? He followed. That contrasts to the extreme: a leader versus a follower. Andrew Little is a Prime Minister and Bill English is someone who cannot even come up with an original idea of his own. Thank you.

I have come to learn that in politics there are two things in which a politician in their role of responsibility has to do in the community and in Parliament—two words—trust and confidence. I have to say that as I have gone out and had the opportunity to be able to be a Minister, it is about asking the question in our community. We know that trust and confidence is there because now we are heading towards a fourth term.

Trust and confidence is represented and measured in a number of different ways. You can talk about the polls. Well, we will not talk about the polls too much, because they are not looking too flash on the other side, because consistently over a period of time those polls have continued to be on an average 46 percent, 47 percent, 48 percent—up there in that percentage, which is unheard of in most times under MMP. So you have to say to yourself that out in New Zealand, out in the regions, and out in the cities there is trust and confidence because the polls determine and show that fact as well. People know it, the Opposition knows it, and that is important.

That trust and confidence also began—and I want to acknowledge the Rt Hon John Key. There was the leadership that he had, which he has shown right throughout his time, which provided trust and confidence on the things that Kiwis value, the things that they regard as very important to them: their families, the health of their children, education, employment opportunities; the growing of an economy becomes critically important. Again, it is trust and confidence.

The media were asking: “What was the favourite moment that you had, or an occasion in which you saw that when the Rt Hon John Key spoke out it was important?”. I think, for me, I remember that out in west Auckland at the trust stadium, it was the state of the nation speech. When he spoke there he talked about his own story as a young man growing up in New Zealand, the challenges that his family faced, then growing up in a State house down in Christchurch. And the things that he was taught, the values that he had, were simply this: every child, every young person, every adult deserves the same opportunity as anyone else to succeed. That is what we have taken continually to the nation about trust and confidence, and the things that we believe that we can deliver.

So let us talk about some of those areas, around the Better Public Services (BPS). When I am out there in the community I say that the BPS is simply this: we as the Government are holding the mirror to ourselves. In other words, before we ask others to change, we need to say to ourselves: how do we hold ourselves to account? What are we willing to change in ourselves as a Government, as a department, in our role to publicly serve the needs of our communities? These are these Better Public Services targets.

One of them is in result area No. 1, welfare dependency. I am proud to say that we are unashamed of being able to say that we want to move people off dependency and into an opportunity for employment, into an opportunity for training, and for higher-skilled and higher-paid jobs as well. There were 8,000 fewer people on sole parent support from 2014 to 2016. That is trust and confidence that we can deliver on those targets that we have set for ourselves.

There was 10.3 percent of the working age population receiving a main benefit at the end of December 2016—the lowest proportion since 2007, before the global financial crisis. The number of people on main benefits has dropped by 57,000. That is worth saying again—57,000 since 2010. That has got to be the result that shows that the public has confidence in us to deliver.

Along with that, under one of my portfolios, the community and voluntary sector—it is not just about getting people into employment opportunities, but it is also about how we can also help them to look at an issue of social enterprise. It is about an opportunity where they can actually trial something—a hybrid between community and commercial—an opportunity to try their skills. Just today I was at Pomegranate Kitchen down in Wellington, where a group of migrant refugee women have come together and, along with support from Red Cross and others around them, have now begun to sort of show that their skills to be able to cook and manage that, provide catering services throughout the wider community, now giving them confidence and now a track record of employment. Again, social enterprise is one of the things that we are doing well.

One of the result areas is around rheumatic fever. We know that is a critical area of concern, especially for our Māori and Pacific communities—23 percent reduction in the national rate of rheumatic fever. What are we doing to achieve that—early screening in schools. We are making sure that housing, education, and health are collectively working together, making a difference to our communities. The immunisation rate is at 94 percent. Kiwis care about their kids. They want to make sure that they are cared for and they are immunised so they do not get sick and need those services. That is really important.

The last thing I will say in 10 seconds is about the “neets”—the young people not in education, employment, or training services. The number of 18-year-olds attaining NCEA level 2 is at 85 percent. That is a great result. Trust and confidence is what this Government has. Thank you.

Wherever you go in New Zealand, whether it is Auckland, Palmerston North, Hamilton, Dunedin, or Invercargill, what people are looking for is leadership. They are looking for leadership, and they all care about similar things. They care about housing, they care about health, they care about jobs, they care about education, and, now, they care about water. They do not need the kind of “non-leadership” leadership that you are getting from Bill English—that “nothing to see here, move on” Bill English and his numpty Ministers like Nick Smith.

Take housing. It is out of control. We know it is out of control. First-home buyers are locked out of the market, thousands of people are homeless, homeownership is at its lowest level since 1951, and there is the continuing sell-off of State houses. The housing crisis is now reverberating in Dunedin: unaffordable rentals, people taking in lodgers, no emergency housing, and now people living in garages. Getting on the list for a State house is virtually impossible.

Yesterday a woman contacted my office in absolute distress. She is 61, she works part-time, and she suffers from anxiety. She is in a good place at the moment: her health is stable and she has lovingly cared for and maintained her State house for 36 years. Last Saturday she got a letter in the mail from Housing New Zealand saying that Quotable Value will be taking pictures of her house. She was concerned. She rang the 0800 number. She was told that, yes, her house was one of 6,000 that had been marked for sale. This has shaken her world. She lives in the house with a small poodle for company. She knows that finding affordable rentals with small dogs will be impossible. The house has had rails installed by the district health board (DHB) to aid access. I ask you, Mr Speaker, and I ask the Government members over there: what is the point of that?

Then there is health. In February 89-year-old Doreen was admitted to Dunedin Hospital and was put on the acute list for surgery to remove her gall bladder. For the next 4 days she was prepped for surgery every morning—4 days, every morning—and, at the end of each long day, no surgery and no food; only a sandwich at the end of the day. I think she got a meal once. One of those days she was wheeled down to the theatre, only to find that there was no doctor. There was no doctor. For each of those 4 long days, as I said, she received something to eat only at the end of the day. When she came in, she was sprightly. She lived alone, she could swim regularly, and she could walk around the ward. By the end of the fourth day she was very weak. She has had her surgery now. She is still recovering—she will take a long time to recover.

This Government has got no plan on improving health. It has cruelly cut $1.7 billion from the health system. Nearly 60,000 Kiwis have been declined first specialist appointments because DHBs are struggling. The Dunedin Hospital rebuild is going round and round in circles. It is the major issue on everybody’s mind in Dunedin. Constant delays have stretched the process out, and vague answers and broad themes presented by the DHB have done nothing to restore confidence. Our community deserves better. Jonathan Coleman, the current health Minister, is just sitting on his hands. The next health Minister, Michael Woodhouse, is likely to build a worm farm—he may even turn Dunedin Hospital into a worm farm.

My colleague David Clark has just presented a petition from more than 3,000 people to Parliament—on the steps of Parliament, just a few minutes ago—to begin asking the Government to begin the rebuild before the 2017 election.

Finally, there is Cadbury’s, a major multinational that has pulled out of Dunedin, where Cadbury’s has operated successfully for 80 years, with nearly 400 workers losing their jobs. It was the biggest private-sector employer in Dunedin. This is not because it was not profitable—it was—but it is a chess piece on a board for a big multinational to make even more profit elsewhere. In 2006 the Labour Government invested $2 million to keep Cadbury’s in Dunedin. What does Bill English do? He comes to Dunedin last Thursday and makes the observation: “Gee, that’s a huge thing for affected workers.” He is hands-off, disinterested, and kicking the can—not a leader.

I want to speak today about regional growth and how Whangarei is growing—the population is increasing—the new population economy, and then a little bit on data. Whangarei is growing, the economy is growing, and a look at independent front-page newspaper headlines for any month will show this. Let us look at some of the front-page headlines for this month: Friday, 3 March, “Wellingtonians move north for stable ground.”; Saturday, 4 March, “State Highway 1 project will be biggest ever.”; Monday, 6 March, “mayors optimistic about growth.”; Thursday, 16 March, “Housing record $421,500—our highest median price ever.”; and just last Saturday, 22 March, “Chinese tourism surge on agenda.” Independent organisations are also telling us Whangarei is growing and the economy is growing.

In December last year Infometrics identified Marsden Point and One Tree Point as a future economic hub. Just last month the Maxim Institute identified Whangarei as one of seven areas close to Auckland with population growth through 2038 to 2043. Whangarei is growing and the new population brings a new economy. In the past 2 years Whangarei has probably grown by about 1,000 households. Each household has an average weekly expenditure of $1,000: housing, transport, energy, food, and accommodation. Over a year that is $52 million that has been cycled into the Whangarei economy through new population growth. Whangarei is growing.

With growth comes a need for infrastructure, and Whangarei is showing that infrastructure growth. There are new school buildings at Whangarei Girls’ High School, Pārua Bay School, Kamo Intermediate School, and Hora Hora Primary School. There is new roading—the Brynderwyns, Kensington roundabout, and the massive half-billion-dollar four-laning from Whangarei to Ruakākā roundabout. These are big roading projects that commuters see, but there are also smaller projects that smaller communities really notice. Tikipunga, Kauri, and Kaurihohore School are very pleased with the proposed safety improvement to the hairpin bend on Saleyards Road, just off State Highway 1, and we thank the New Zealand Transport Agency for this. The data is compelling: Whangarei is growing.

In a more global and general sense, it is data exploration that I want to briefly turn to. Over summer I read a fascinating article from the Smithsonian Institution looking at how data streams can be passed through a complex algorithm and turned into music. It actually passed 133 years of climate data through an algorithm and generated musical notes. I wondered what other data could be put through this, so I went online to the TV3 poll data and pulled the party vote data for Labour and New Zealand First and I ran it through this algorithm and created two music clips.

I listened closely to both of these clips, and I did not immediately recognise the melodies, so I played the clips through Shazam. Shazam is an application that recognises music and gives it a title. I was interested to know what titles it came up with. Unfortunately, there was no match, as both were fundamentally unintelligible and not of human origin. That was when I knew I was on to something. Not only was I mapping Labour and New Zealand First party vote data; I was also mapping their policies—unintelligible and not of human origin.

But I was not finished. I thought there has got to be some interpretation and some value to take from this. So without prefix, prelude, or prior knowledge, I sought the indulgence of an audience I was speaking to, to play the clips and do a little bit of mood analysis with a five-point Likert scale. It went like this: I said to them “I want to play this short music clip. When I’ve finished I’ll ask you to raise your hand across a five-point scale for what mood you associate—how does it make you feel?”. It went from happy, OK, neutral, anxious, or scared. I played the two clips and people raised their hands and expressed how they felt. The Labour music data—well, the room felt sort of neutral. It had no view either way and could take it or leave it—who cares. The music we played for New Zealand First data, however, had almost a complete majority in the room saying they felt scared.

In conclusion, is it not amazing how technology and a bit of applied science can so accurately describe the features of our Opposition colleagues—neutral and scary. With that, I leave the technology and corroboration of these findings in the hands of the House and the voters.

I rise to advise the House that the report from Vivid Economics on New Zealand’s emissions mitigation potential has been completed and was released publicly yesterday. The report is entitled Net Zero in New Zealand: Scenarios to achieve domestic emissions neutrality in the second half of the century. It was commissioned by GLOBE New Zealand, a cross-party group of 35 MPs—one in four MPs in this House—drawn from every single political party represented. The group is chaired by my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham and has an executive committee composed of the Hon Peter Dunne, Marama Fox, Tracey Martin, Scott Simpson, and Dr Megan Woods.

In my first speech as co-leader of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, I said that our climate cannot wait while politicians squabble over how to fix it. Let us build common cause on climate change. We should talk to each other rather than past each other and agree on an ambitious target that New Zealanders can be proud of. New Zealanders want their politicians to work together and act on common interest. Let us find common interest on climate change. That was my challenge to John Key back in the middle of 2014.

The debate has moved on. It is hard to imagine that only about 10 years ago a National Party MP was driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament to protest the idea that you would put a price on carbon pollution. There are four stages of the debate that countries pass through. The first is whether or not climate change is actually happening—people say it is not happening. The second stage is to say: “Well, if it is happening, it’s not us. It’s not humans.” The third stage is to say: “Well, if it is us, it’s actually not that bad.” The final stage is to say: “Well, if it is that bad, there’s nothing we can do about it.” Those are the four stages of climate denialism that we have been passing through over the course of the last 25 years in this country. Of course, the antidote to those is that it is happening, that it is us, that it is bad, and that we can do something about it. The report that was released yesterday shows that the debate has finally, finally, finally moved through all three of those first stages to the final stage of what we can do about it.

I would like to take a moment just to talk about the sort of non-partisan nature of the report and of the committee that has pulled it together. The Hon Paula Bennett, in her speech at the launch yesterday, said that Dr Kennedy Graham was a dog with a bone. I really want to acknowledge his leadership and his tenacity in pulling together that group of people—that committee of 35 members of Parliament who are concerned about climate change—and in commissioning what has been a very significant report.

I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Paula Bennett, because I have to say that without her acquiescence at the very least, it would not have been possible for National MPs to safely participate in that group. In fact, it was not until after she became the Minister that National MPs could join the GLOBE group. I recognised the political difficulty—the risk that some members of the House have had to take in order to be able to participate in a non-partisan cross-party parliamentary group on climate change. So I want to acknowledge her leadership in that role and, in particular, Scott Simpson, who has really led the National MPs on that committee in order to make it a truly cross-party, cross-Parliament committee. I also would like to acknowledge Vivid Economics and all of the officials, businesses, and NGOs that contributed to the report, because it is a substantial and substantive piece of work.

For half my life—more than half my entire life—we have been debating climate change. There have been reports and reports and reports, and targets that have been met, but New Zealand’s emissions have relentlessly climbed for decades, and they are still climbing. It is now time for us to move to action, and urgent action, if we are to prevent dangerous climate change. I welcome this report. It gives us an opportunity to debate what we do about it, and the time for that action is now.

Under National, we have an outward-looking Government—a Government that is focused on opportunities for all New Zealanders. No one has exemplified that more in the past 10 years than our former Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key, a man who had the absolute confidence in New Zealanders to achieve what they set their minds to, and a man who was prepared to back them all the way. I, for one, feel privileged to have been able to serve in a caucus under his leadership. Like most of New Zealand, I will be looking forward to his final speech in this House, later this afternoon.

I am also privileged to be serving now under the leadership of the Rt Hon Bill English. It is actually interesting because we had a poll last night, and the reason National is sitting at 47 percent is that the public sees a seamless transition to new leadership that is equally focused on opportunities for New Zealanders and equally focused on the knowledge that in order to deliver for New Zealand, the Government must be outward-looking; it must be open to the world. Through trade, we create opportunities for New Zealanders. These are the things that help to contribute to a country that grows amongst the fastest in the OECD, that saw 130,000 jobs created over 12 months, and that was able to lift the average wage by $12,000 since this Government took office—and is forecast to raise it another $7,000 over the next 5 years. At that stage, the average wage will be $66,000 a year—it is, again, one of the highest in the OECD.

It is not just about jobs and incomes. Because trade that works is bilateral and bidirectional, it also offers greater choice and more affordable goods and services for New Zealanders here. Wait, there is more: it also opens New Zealand to foreign investment that lifts our capabilities, that creates even more jobs, and that helps to grow and strengthen economic diversity in New Zealand. Just this morning, Huawei announced a $400 million investment in New Zealand.

💬 Todd Barclay: How much?

$400 million over 5 years—$400 million. Of that, $120 million will be in procurement from Kiwi companies. That alone is going to raise incomes and create jobs in New Zealand. But there is still more. It is going to help develop a New Zealand cloud data centre, one that will enable even greater cloud-based IT services not only to New Zealand customers but for New Zealand to sell to international customers, bringing even more income into the country. Ah! But there is still more: a local example here in Wellington. Huawei has said, in its announcement, that it is going to build an innovation lab at Victoria University in Wellington. What is more, it is going to open that lab in 2017. That is great for students in Wellington who are looking to expand their careers into a fast-growing area of the New Zealand economy.

You see, this sort of openness to the world opens up global opportunities for New Zealanders. That is why it is such a positive thing. But there is still more in the Huawei announcement. It also announced that it is going to expand the Seeds for the Future initiative, which will provide a further 100 places for ICT students around New Zealand, creating the skills to fuel the ICT engine and to fuel the strengthening of the diversity of the New Zealand economy. What does this stem from? It stems from a Government in a country that is open to the world, that acknowledges the benefit of free trade, and that looks to form bilateral relationships with countries around the world, because what is good for them can also be good for us and inevitably is.

Before I finish, I also want to acknowledge Huawei for another reason. It is also the principal sponsor, and a very loyal sponsor, of the Wellington Phoenix football club, a club that we treasure here in Wellington. It helps to show that although New Zealand is, rightfully, No. 1 in rugby, we can also build strength in other sports. You see that is another thing about this Government: we have a thought that you can walk and chew gum at the same time—that you can do more than one thing—and I thank Huawei for that sponsorship.

I would also note that this is good not only for New Zealand and Wellington, within Ōhāriu—an electorate that is No. 1 for internet connectivity and No. 1 for the highest proportion in the labour force—these announcements that lift incomes and creates jobs are as good for the people of Ōhāriu as they are for the people of New Zealand. I reiterate: they all stem from an ambitious Government that is aspirational for New Zealand and knows that it is by making connections with the rest of the world that we deliver prosperity for our people. Thank you.

Last Thursday, Rape Prevention Education and the Wellington Women’s Refuge had a small but very vocal rally out on the steps of Parliament. The women gathered there—and some men gathered there—because they were protesting the Ministry of Social Development’s desire to collect not just data but very personal information from clients of the sexual and family violence services. They argued that the collection of this data—this very personalised, individual data—actually runs the risk of clients not wanting to attend services, if that data may have the opportunity to be disclosed.

The Ministry of Social Development argues that good information leads to effective services for clients. But the argument that Rape Prevention Education and the Wellington Women’s Refuge made was why does that data need to be disaggregated? Why does that data need to be personalised to show that a service is effective? When I attended a meeting in Timaru a couple of weeks ago the Timaru Budget Advisory Service argued the same. It says that the people that attend services have very, very sensitive information, and they do not want to disclose that. The Government said that effective services—

💬 Hon Jo Goodhew: They’re not being asked to disclose that. They’re only giving the same information you’d give to your school.

—and programmes are due to data and data collection. The Government services say that services—

💬 Hon Jo Goodhew: Don’t worry about giving it to the school.

—are duplicated and ineffective. However, they have not been able to demonstrate that. If the member Jo Goodhew would like to actually take a call, she can actually get up and refute this. The community sector has said that it is prepared to hand over information if the Government can actually prove that this is actually going to be effective. The new data-collection system and many of the services that the Government is promoting are based on information it collects itself—not peer reviewed, not academically sound, not robust data—and yet Government programmes are provided on this basis. I see the Government has now gone quiet because that is absolutely the truth.

When you look at the information that is collected by the Ministry of Social Development on clients that it does not even fund—what is the point of that? What is the point of that? What is the point of collecting very personal information—because then what do you do with that? What you do is you track somebody through the Ministry of Social Development’s system.

💬 Hon Jo Goodhew: You can’t do that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

The Minister is saying that you cannot do that. However, what the Minister does know is that information is already collected on people who access services, not just by the Ministry of Social Development but the Inland Revenue Department, and that information is linked. The ministry would have you believe that that information is then anonymized. Well, how then are we able to track people through the services if it is then anonymized? I will go and access another service, and that piece of information will be added to the information already collected about me—that information will be added to the information already collected about me. So it is not cleaned and it is not anonymized; it is actually still live data attached to me as an individual. Not only that, but the Government also collects information about my children and my dependents.

There is an issue with this, and it is called the Privacy Act, and the codes that sit within the Privacy Act. One of the principles of that code is that I am aware of the information that is collected about me, I am aware of the purpose that that information is going to be used for, and I fully give consent for that. But there is also another principle that the information is collected from me directly as an individual, unless I give permission for someone else to pass that information on.

This is the sticking point that the Government now finds itself in, because there will be people who will say: “I do not give permission for my information to be passed on to the Ministry of Social Development.” The community sector needs to be celebrated for the work that it does supporting the people of this country—to keep them safe, to keep our kids in sport—and this Government is looking to undermine its effectiveness in our community, and I for one will not stand for it.

As the National list MP based in West Coast - Tasman, I was overjoyed in January this year when I learnt that the top three fastest-growing regions for tourism were, in fact, Tasman, Northland, and the West Coast. Tourism employed over 180,000 people last year in this country. That is a staggering 7.5 percent of the total employment in this country and just shows that domestic and international tourism creates immense value for working New Zealanders. That is why this Government is investing heavily in the tourism sector. I can attest to the fact that the estimated tourism visitor expenditure in the West Coast region for that year was $283 million. That is 17 percent up on the previous year—

💬 Brett Hudson: How much? 17?

—17 percent up, to $283 million. We are now hosting 1.8 million guest nights a year, and that is in a population of around 30,000 people. We know that that is putting pressure on our smaller communities, so I was thrilled recently to host our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism, the Hon Paula Bennett, on a tour through the West Coast. We started in Westport, and we drove down to Reefton. We stopped in Greymouth and Hokitika. We stopped in Ross. We stopped in Harihari, Whataroa, Ōkārito, and Franz Josef. We took the Deputy Prime Minister to small rural areas where tourism is causing some pressures. The Minister has come back and released the Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund. As a result, this fund will be used by the small councils across the country to relieve the pressure that is being caused by this booming industry called tourism.

Grey District was a beneficiary of the last round of that funding, and it received a little under half a million dollars for a carpark and toilets in the Cobden and foreshore area. In the Buller District, they received just under $200,000, again, for a block of toilets originally intended for the Fox River area but unfortunately diverted into Springs Junction to relieve the pressure from the Kaikōura earthquake traffic.

In Budget 2016, $45 million of original funding was released to support the tourism industry in this country, and that just demonstrates what high-value visitors bring into the country, and our Government is supporting that. There was also an additional $130 million a year for Vote Tourism, and that is going to help manage other pressures on our infrastructure. There was another $8 million over 4 years for Tourism New Zealand so that it can continue to promote this country internationally, and new funding of $25 million over 4 years for the wonderful New Zealand Cycle Trail networks. I am pleased that we are home to several of the best of those cycle trails in the country. We have the Old Ghost Road Trail—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Magnificent.

It is indeed, Maggie.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Minister Barry—ha, ha! We have the Kawatiri River Trail in Westport. We have the wonderful West Coast Wilderness Trail—all are recipients of significant Government funding to get those businesses and those trails established.

I would like to finish by making a point of thanking the former Prime Minister John Key. As we know, he gives his valedictory speech here today. He led New Zealand with dignity, with skill, and with compassion, and his legacy is a capable, tight-knit, forward-thinking team, and a country that leads the world in a range of measures. I wish John and Bronagh all the very best for their future, and thank them for their huge contribution to this country. Thank you.

The National Government is clearly out of touch on the need to charge for export drinking water. It is all so clear that one Minister does not actually know what the other Minister is doing or thinks about the issue. On the one hand, we have got Nick Smith, who says it is not actually worth thinking about this issue at all, because the amounts involved are so small. He is just not interested. On the other hand, we have got Bill English, who says: “We’ll look into it. Because of the force of public opinion, we’ll look into it maybe, some time, never—probably never.”

In fact, the exporting of drinking water, both bottled and in bulk, is set to explode in this country. There is such a demand overseas for it that it is inevitable that it will happen. So Nick Smith’s disinterest and Bill English’s fob-off are totally unacceptable and just demonstrate yet another failure of leadership by those Ministers and by the National Government.

On the other hand, New Zealand First already has a bill, and here it is—right here, already drafted. The Government today refused leave for me to introduce that bill so that it can be read and considered—

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: That’s a shame.

—and that is a shame. It is a shame because whereas New Zealand First does know what to do about this issue, the National Government does not know what to do about the issue and, furthermore, does not really want to do anything about it at all. That is the truth.

💬 Ron Mark: Well, Oravida exports it.

That is right. All that is actually needed, and what this bill does, is to make some simple amendments to the Crown Minerals Act. First of all, it inserts new section 10A, and this is what it would say: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act, or in any Crown grant, certificate of title, or lease or Water Permit, any water extracted or taken as drinking water for export, either bottled or unbottled, will be considered a mineral for the purposes of this Act.” Then it goes on to insert a new Part 2 into that Act, which deals with the funds already being collected for regions arising from royalties on other minerals under that Act. So it would just add water to that list.

In particular, it adds another new section, 107, which says, amongst other things: “(2) The Minister must consult the region or regions concerned before determining the forecast royalty income for the financial year, being no less than 25% and no higher than 50%.” So that is the share that would go back to the regions. And then it goes on to say: “(3) In each financial year the Minister of Finance is to cause to be credited to the Funds, an amount being not less than 25% of the forecast royalty income for the financial year [concerned].” And then it also goes on to say, in new section 110: “(1) The Minister, with the Minister of Finance’s concurrence with the relevant regions, may authorise the expenditure of money standing to the credit of the Fund for the following purposes—(a) to provide infrastructure and/or services in a region; (b) to develop and broaden the economic base of a region; and (c) to maximise job creation and improve career opportunities in a region.” That is what they are asking for, and that is what needs to be done.

So, you see, it is actually so easy to do this. We in New Zealand First did this in the space of a few days; the Government could have done it easily by now but really just is not interested in doing so.

I want to stress one thing: apart from charging royalties for export drinking water, water must not otherwise be taxed or subjected to any charge beyond the recovery of capital and the operational cost, and that includes taking, storing, and reticulating water—and, of course, as I said, the operational costs of dealing with that. So here we differ from the Green Party, which wants to charge for all water. We do not agree with that; we say let us charge a royalty only for the exporting of drinking water, not domestic commercial users in New Zealand. So I want to make that distinction very, very clear because it is a very, very important distinction altogether. It is so easy to charge for export drinking water. Why is the Government not doing that right now?

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.