General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. “We don’t know how lucky we are.” Of course, that is what Jacinda Ardern supporters were thinking last week when Andrew Little was in the dock—“We don’t know how lucky we are, mate.” That is what they were thinking. What a photo opportunity from hell that was for Andrew Little. And then also thinking about John Clarke and his famous words that we also should not forget: “If it weren’t for your gumboots, where would you be?”. Well, in my particular case, in Edgecumbe yesterday I would be standing in half a metre of silt or floodwaters indeed over my Red Band gumboots. My heart goes out all of those people who are affected by the Edgecumbe event, and now it has been broadened out to the Bay of Plenty.

But, importantly, the reason I am going to talk about not only John Clarke but Murray Ball this afternoon is that these two gentlemen are iconic rural people who have connected urban communities. They have brought humour into the households of New Zealand. They have brought humour with their cartoons and the film. When you think about those characters in Footrot Flats—who was it: Wal, Dog, Horse, and Major the pigdog—that gave the ability for everyone to connect to rural communities and have a good old laugh. And we have lost that now.

What we see this afternoon are questions of attack from the Opposition on water quality. Of course, they do not even want to acknowledge what farmers have done in a short period of time. Let us take them back for a step in time. Over the last 10 years or so, farmers have excluded livestock from rivers, water tributaries, streams, and lakes, to the tune of about 26,000 kilometres. Last time I looked, that gets you from here to London, and part of the way back as well. A lot of these fences are now riparian planted. They have nutrient budgets. They are very mindful of the fact that they need to do more. We are now having a discussion with other lowland farmers about moving the dial for them, and we know there is a bit of cost involved. We know that it will require 56,000 kilometres of fencing to occur. We know there are productivity benefits as well as environmental ones.

Farmers are environmentalists. They want to leave the land in a better state than when they came on to it, for their children and their grandchildren. We do not hear that this afternoon in any of the questions from the Labour Party or Green Party members. It is just full-on attack. They would prefer to have a moratorium: no more dairy cows anywhere in New Zealand—in fact, go and kill half of them. You just move farmers into the dole queue. We feed 40 million people. We export to 130 countries around the world. We should be proud of that. We should be proud of the fact that we produce premium food, and we need to do more in terms of environmental sustainability.

But what we do not hear from the other side of the House is that our farmers are doing their utmost, and we want to support them through this. But it is so easy for our Opposition members to have the blame game. It is so easy to cherry-pick Sir Peter Gluckman’s report and say that it is all farming. Well, the reality is that it is to do with urbanisation and it is to do with industry growth. It is pointless looking over your shoulder. It is about moving collectively forward as one.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: What a lazy Minister.

And what would Iain Lees-Galloway know in Palmerston North? What would he know? He would never back any farmers in his community. He will never acknowledge the fact that the Manawatū River is being cleaned up under this Government, and the great work that Nick Smith is doing.

Also I want to talk about something that was significant last night, and it focuses in on environmental sustainability. It is to do with our fish stocks. Here is a book that was launched last night: Roughy on the Rise. This orange roughy fishery collapsed in the 1980s and 1990s. Now with science, and third-party accreditation through the marine stewardship certification, we can take a premium product to market. I acknowledge our farmers, I acknowledge our fishers and foresters—they do a fantastic job.

Can I just start by saying that John Clarke, given the opportunity, would have done a fine impression of Nathan Guy—an absolutely fine impression. I want to acknowledge John Clarke and I want to acknowledge Murray Ball. They were the epitome of the Kiwi psyche. But I also want to acknowledge them as progressives—as progressives. They reflected back to the New Zealand public the very epitome of the Kiwi psyche, they were our conscience, and I think they were absolutely brilliant at pointing out our national pride and our national shame. When it comes to the two of them, we collectively did not know how lucky we were.

Surely, in politics, the measure of political leadership is your ability to deal with the hard stuff. That is the true measure. And question time today was a reflection of the inability of this Government to deal with the hard stuff. Now, I have actually heard it once said that the true measure of leadership is the ability to confront the anxiety of the people of the time. That is the measure of a leader: the ability to confront the anxiety of the people of the time.

What are the anxieties of the New Zealand people right now? Well, they are not too dissimilar from what we see in the international environment. We saw that when it comes to financial insecurity, that is what captured the American people. Financial insecurity was what captured people in the UK. We have a choice, as politicians, to capture that anxiety and answer it either with a measure of hope or with a measure of disillusionment and hate.

We have a choice here in New Zealand around that as well, because the anxiety of our time is captured by issues like housing. If you take the effect of housing on a person’s life, it affects everything, whether it is your sense of security of place, whether or not it is your disposable income, whether or not it is your ability to send your kids consistently to one school. We have the lowest homeownership rates in New Zealand since 1951.

💬 Dr David Clark: Since when?

Since 1951. In 8 years the cost of renting in Auckland has gone up by 40 percent, and one in seven houses are sold to speculators. This is the anxiety of the New Zealand people of our time. But it is not just that. Environmental insecurity—the degradation of our environment, from our waters to our drinking water, to our climate—is also the anxiety of our time. What has this Government done to acknowledge either one of those anxieties? It has kicked the can down the road. It will not even acknowledge that housing is a problem, let alone environmental degradation.

But I want to add another anxiety—a hard one, a difficult one, which the Government has not even acknowledged yet, let alone made gains on. Yesterday the Waitangi Tribunal released its finding that the Crown has breached its Treaty obligations by failing to address high and disproportionate reoffending rates of Māori. It went further—it said that it created a devastating situation for Māori and for the nation. That is more than collective anxiety; that is our collective shame. That is our collective shame. The Government set a key performance indicator around reducing reoffending. Not only has it failed to meet that, it has failed to acknowledge the drivers of the imprisonment rate, let alone the reoffending rate.

I want to go back to those precursors, because I know the Māori Party, in coalition with the Government, has not. It has not gone back and adequately addressed the economic precursors to this situation. But there is another precursor: since the 1950s, a hundred thousand children have been removed from their families.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: How many?

A hundred thousand. And that has disproportionately affected Māori children. There is no denying it. We know what the effects of that have been. They have been manifested in our justice system. You cannot visit a prison without having a prison warden tell you the number of individuals in that prison who have been in Child, Youth and Family care. It is an obvious connection that we need to make.

Now, we cannot change history, but we can face up to it. If we had true leadership in this House, we would have an inquiry into State care. We would start addressing our national shame. We would confront it head on. We would learn from the lessons of yesterday and make sure that such would never again happen to the children of tomorrow, and that starts with the children whom we are now imprisoning because of the trauma that they have experienced in the past. That would be leadership.

It has been a difficult couple of weeks for New Zealand and New Zealanders with the passing of two men who brought great enjoyment to so many—Murray Ball and John Clarke. I would like to recognise that for many of us, when we were young, we grew up hearing their stories and learning much more about what it was like to have the life of New Zealanders in our rural areas.

We also have people in Edgecumbe who are facing very difficult times following weather events and flooding there. They know that this House stands behind them and beside them, just as the Government is doing everything that we can to support them. At the same time as that, we now see that there is more bad weather coming to the Bay of Plenty, and we have a Bay of Plenty - wide emergency having been declared. I hear from home, being Rotorua, that at the moment the lakes are very high and the streams, equally, are high, but it is a strong, resilient community; we are all very, very well prepared.

It is a sad day for the House, because yesterday in a speech we heard that we are losing one of our own. David Cunliffe has decided after many years of hard service that he too, like so many New Zealanders, has given up on the Labour Party. As I look through the many leaders that it has had—Goff: he is gone.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Like John Key gave up on the National Party, right?

Shearer: he is gone. Cunliffe is gone, and Little is pretty much gone. Largely, if we look deeper, we have got Jacinda Ardern, and that previous speech was one of the best speeches I have heard from a member of this House, reminiscent of somebody who is more popular than their leader. Largely, the members doth protest too much about their current leader, the highlight of whose career was being listened to by thousands of New Zealanders last week in the dock. That may well happen again.

This country is in very good shape, in terms of the economy, the positiveness of New Zealanders, and the leadership that we have shown. I hear members opposite talk about the former Prime Minister John Key. You can hear a very large degree of envy in their voices, because they wish that Phil Goff, David Shearer, and Cunliffe could have stayed, oh, just for a little bit longer through all of those 8 years. The reason the Government is in such good shape and the country is in such good shape is, fundamentally, economic management.

💬 Dr David Clark: 9 long years.

We have had 9 long years of a Government that is focused on the things that are important to New Zealanders, 9 long years of the Government being re-elected, and 9 long years of that member talking about 9 long years. But, really, when you go out and talk to the public, they are not looking at how long that period has been. They are focused on what is important: that there are more jobs today than there have been in 9 long years, more people employed and in work today than there were over 9 long years, and so much more opportunity for the country.

A couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister launched New Zealand’s trade strategy, a refresh of the direction New Zealand will take when it comes to the importance of trade over the next 10 to 15 years. Called Trade Agenda 2030: Securing our place in the world, it is an ambitious target of what the Government wants to achieve. I want to thank all members of this House who have played a part over the last period of time in the importance of trade. It sets out an ambitious target of 90 percent of New Zealand’s goods trade being covered by free-trade agreements by 2030, up from 53 percent today. If successive New Zealand Governments will not be ambitious on behalf of New Zealand and New Zealand exporters, then nobody will, because nobody owes us anything in the world.

A very important part of achieving this is focusing on non-tariff barriers, issues that businesses raise all of the time. We have applied $90 million of new money to target this to achieve much more. We have announced that we will establish an all-of-Government approach to dealing with non-tariff barriers, today and going into the future. As part of that we have announced a clearing house for non-tariff barriers. This will mean that those who have difficulty and challenges with them will be able to approach the Government through a portal, and it will be the Government’s job, through our agencies, to deal with those to make sure the right people are looking after the challenge, to respond within a 48-hour period, and then to focus on the things that are important for New Zealand businesses. We are establishing a flying squad to make sure, when something happens somewhere in the world that has the possibility of having an impact upon New Zealand exporters as far as non-tariff barriers are concerned, that the funding is there with the people who are experienced to go out and deal with that very quickly.

The final bit of this is recognising that exports are not just about the parts of the economy they have been before—a focus on digital services, on investment, and on services themselves. Again, I welcome the support we have received.

Well, it is interesting sitting here today and listening to the Prime Minister’s answers around decisions made by his Government in policing. I think what is starting to unravel now is that the Prime Minister got it totally wrong when he fired Judith Collins from the police portfolio. Not only did he appoint Paula Bennett to become the Minister of Police, something she is clearly not doing very well at, at all, but his caucus also made her the Deputy Prime Minister. They did what we often see in the Civil Service: they promoted her completely above—completely above—her level of competence and skill. And why do we say this? Why did we say that “Inspector Clouseau” is now the Minister of Police, and that Paula Bennett is a disaster? Well, let us go to the 2 February announcement where the Government talked about their great announcement to increase police staffing by 1,125.

Here it is: “ ‘We’re making a commitment that people in cities, the regions and rural areas will have officers they can call on 24/7,’ Mrs Bennett says. ‘Our commitment is that 95 per cent of New Zealanders will be within 25 kilometres of patrolling police day and night.’ ” Yeah—95 percent of rural New Zealanders, on the back of these announcements, are within 25 kilometres of a patrolling police officer? You have got to be joking. Go to Pongaroa, as I did last weekend. Go to Ākitio. Go to Porangahau. Go to Flat Point. Go anywhere outside of the bubbly little metropolises, be it Auckland or Wellington, and ask rural New Zealanders whether 95 percent of them are within 25 kilometres of a patrolling policeman. What an absolute joke.

These numbers announced today prove a couple of things. One, the promise made by the Minister on 2 February has fallen flat. It is good for her in Auckland, great for her in a leafy lane, and all of the rest of the National Party caucus, who all live in Auckland, but here is a newsflash for Mr Guy, who stood up and gave such a raving, rousing speech in defence of rural New Zealand: rural New Zealanders are way outside of that. What, 40 kilometres, 60 kilometres—how far from a closed police station in Pahīatua is Pongaroa? Well, maybe the member for the Wairarapa should get in his car and drive out there occasionally, and then he would know.

The other promises around policing—let us have a look at 9 February. On 9 February—this shows how out of touch the Minister is—we asked her how many of the police were going to be allocated into rural New Zealand. She did not have an answer. “Oh, it’s the responsibility of the commissioner.” She ducked and dived the question. We pointed out that between 2008 and 2016 there were 215 burglaries in Taihape, for which there were only three arrests—35 cars stolen for three arrests. The last arrest has been in 2013. How many police officers is Taihape going to get? We still do not know. And now we have an announcement saying: “Oh, they are going to keep some police stations open 24/7.” What they do not say is that there are 271 that are not; 271 police stations will not be operating 24/7—271 police stations from which people in rural New Zealand will not get a patrolling officer.

Are we meant to hail and applaud this Government for its wonderful initiative that it has announced on increasing police numbers? Well, let us have a look at what the Police asked for. The Police gave the Government three options. The first was prevention, to change the trajectory of rising crime. That is not our comment. That is the Commissioner of Police’s comment—rising crime—that blows into the ether those members’ assertions that crime is going down. That was prevention to change it. It gave the Government another option: targeted crime response—this is the dollar-down one, is it not? And then there was an option for meeting demand pressures—this is just going to keep your nose above water, but you are treading water like fury. Which one did the Government go for? Did it go for the best option for New Zealanders, for the safety and security of rural New Zealanders? No, it did not. It went for the el cheapo model. Did it approve the 1,450 officers that Police actually asked for? No, it did not. It gave it the dumbed down, cheapo model, which will do absolutely nothing for the people in Northland, the Wairarapa, Hawke’s Bay, Bay of Plenty, or any other rural province you care to look at.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. This afternoon’s debate, in terms of the speakers who have spoken so far, really manifests the difference between those of us here on the Government benches and those in Opposition. The anger and the pessimism that are just coming off in waves from the Opposition are not what New Zealanders are interested in. They do want people who are ambitious and aspirational, positive and optimistic, constructive and productive on their behalf, and who are focused all the time on refresh and refresh.

💬 Ron Mark: Why is the member leaving?

The member keeps asking why I am leaving. It is because I do not see this role as a sinecure for life because I cannot get another job. I see this as an opportunity to make a difference. I have been privileged to be the Minister of Education, and I am working right up to the time that I will stand down, and I stand down at a time of my choosing. I do so on behalf of a Government with a strong caucus full of potential, any one of whom can willingly and ably fill the footsteps of someone such as me.

I want to take the opportunity of this general debate to talk about this small, smart, sassy nation of Aotearoa New Zealand. This Government absolutely believes in the possibilities of this country and has invested in those being realised. In terms of the economy, we know that for the past 8 years this Government, year on year, has built the strength in this economy, which realises the expectation of New Zealanders, which backs small-business people to be successful, which backs employers to employ more people, and which sees New Zealanders keeping more of their hard-earned cash and understanding that that which they entrust to us the Government in tax is going to be spent as prudently as possibly.

It is in the interests of this fabulous nation that all of us work. The previous speaker on this side of the House, Todd McClay, as Minister of Trade supported the Prime Minister to announce Trade Agenda 2030, which is all about how we continue to trade successfully overseas. We have to trade in order to afford the First World economic aspects we want for ourselves. We have to have relationships with export markets all round the world. To do that successfully, we need to make sure that we have New Zealanders capable of understanding the particular interests of those counties. We are outward-looking, unlike the Opposition, which is very inward-looking and very downward-looking. We have our eyes raised to the horizon and beyond, and we know the potential.

As Minister of Education I completely understand that a great education is the cornerstone of young people being able to realise their own aspirations and their own dreams. That is why we have been prepared to be publicly accountable. As we have said, we want all 18-year-olds—as many as possible; at minimum, 85 percent—achieving our minimum qualification. It is why we put in place vocational pathways, so that our young people can be participants in this export-led economy. It is why the Opposition member over there celebrates the increase in Pasifika students having more qualifications than they have ever had before. It is a pity that the member over there, Ron Mark, does not celebrate the number of Māori who are doing better than they ever have before. The member instead wants to wring his hands and make character attacks on Ministers who work extremely hard to support communities, whether in terms of law and order, their safety and security, the increase in policing, the expansion of ultra-fast broadband and ICT to make sure that we are a connected country, the freshness of our water, or the backing of our primary resource space. This Government understands that it is not a binary proposition where either we have farming or we have clean water; we are devoted to both.

We completely understand that it is the skills and qualifications of young New Zealanders that will secure our future. That is why, as Minister of Education, with the complete backing of this ambitious Government, we have invested in every young person being as successful as they possibly can be. That is why the provisional results for 2016—here we will take a pause because we will give you a chance to be celebratory—show that over 85 percent of our 18-year-olds will have the minimum qualification. So the Opposition can go on and on about what is wrong and what it would not do; we are all about what we will do, what we have done, and what we will continue to promise this country.

We need to talk about the weather. So far, in 2017, it has been wild. Last week Cyclone Debbie tore through the North Island, and today another cyclone is tearing down upon us. There have always been cyclones, of course, in New Zealand, but two in the space of a week is not normal. Of course, 2017 has not been a normal year, has it? While we were having the worst summer imaginable here in Wellington, the farmers of Hawke’s Bay did not see rain for months. In Christchurch it was so dry that when the Port Hills caught fire the images looked more like an Australian bushfire. They were not the only wildfires this summer, were they? There were wildfires around Queenstown, Marlborough, Coromandel, and Hawke’s Bay.

And then came the floods. In Northland they went from being parched to being inundated inside of a month. Shops in New Lynn have been flooded twice already this year. In March the people of Coromandel found themselves completely cut off from the rest of the country by floodwater. Then, of course, last week was ex-tropical Cyclone Debbie. The people of Edgecumbe felt it the most, and they are still not home and there is more trouble on the way today.

We asked the Prime Minister last Tuesday whether he thought that, just possibly, climate change might be causing all of this wild weather, and do you know what he said? I am going to quote him: “I don’t think it matters too much.”—he said—“We don’t spend time trying to connect the two.” That is a remarkable thing to say. I cannot think of any other catastrophe in New Zealand when the Prime Minister has decided that he did not need to know what the cause was. Think about that. When somebody has cancer, you do not ignore the cigarettes. When there has been a car accident, you do not ignore the smell of alcohol on the driver’s breath. When the people of Havelock North start getting sick, you do not ignore what is in that water. But that is exactly what the Prime Minister is proposing here.

The thing is, the causes of this weather do matter. They matter to the people of Edgecumbe. They matter to the people of the Coromandel, Northland, Hawke’s Bay, and Canterbury. They matter to the homeowners in Christchurch who faced down wildfires for 2 whole days.

Climate change is causing more floods, more fires, and more droughts, and we need a Government that is ready to help ordinary New Zealanders to prepare for what is coming. We need a Government that is actually willing to admit that there is a problem. We need a Government that will admit that sea levels are rising. We need a Government that will admit that storms are happening more frequently and that they are getting worse, that droughts are longer and deeper, and that climate change is actually a problem. And we need a Government that is willing to step up and actually do something about it—not talk; do something about it. Greenhouse gas emissions in this country have risen 19 percent since this Government came to office. We need a Government that can recognise that solving climate change is actually a change for the better.

Right now this Government is acting like an addict—an addict who cannot admit that they have a problem with climate change—and we cannot afford to wait for it to hit rock bottom before things change. It is time to change the Government, and change is coming.

My turn came a little bit more suddenly than I was anticipating. When I first came into this House as a member of Parliament, it was back in 2008 at the end of a 9-year Labour Government. It was back when a stadium full of New Zealanders headed overseas for what we called a “brighter future”. Well, things have changed much since then, and the economy under National has been growing ahead of our global friends, despite the natural disasters that the learned colleague from the Green side has been talking about. Despite conflicts and strife abroad, we have worked for New Zealand families and pushed New Zealand on the world’s stage, and have seen our country get to the forefront of trade and industry across the globe. As a result, we no longer have planeloads of our best and brightest leaving our shores and leaving our country. They are staying because this is the country that is providing the brighter future for them.

Look at the amazing trade relations we have with countries around the world, and the excellent free-trade agreements we have signed with our partners to further both our nation’s capacity and economic growth. With recent visits by the Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, who agreed to update the China - New Zealand free-trade agreement in a way that benefits both our countries, the memorandum of cooperation that allows for exports of chilled meats to enter China will be a huge benefit to our beef and lamb industries, as the Chinese population looks for better food alternatives and better access to a greater variety of world-class products from overseas, and we are willing to provide that. We are also improving our relations by opening a high commission in Sri Lanka to increase access to business as well as establishing an embassy in Dublin, symbolising the growing relationship that New Zealand has with our trade and international partners across the globe and across cultures.

This Government’s books have again exceeded forecasts, with a $1.4 billion surplus for the 8 months to February, due to better tax revenue, lower expenditure, and the Government’s strong economic management in the face of adversity from earthquakes, floods, and other unforeseeable disasters. Our regions are growing as well. If we look at some of the numbers, it is quite astonishing. The Bay of Plenty, which has the largest ports, obtained a massive 7.7 percent increase in GDP. Auckland, our largest city, has grown 6 percent.

I would be a bit remiss if I do not mention a recent trip overseas, via the Inter-Parliamentary Union, to the European Parliament and the United Kingdom at the end of last month with two of my colleagues. I see one of them sitting across the Chamber—Tracey Martin. A notable part of the visit was meeting with the Scottish National Party MP Angus MacNeil, chair of the International Trade Committee, and also with a member of the Labour Party, Hilary Benn, who was chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee and son of a man whom many of those opposite might recognise—Mr Tony Benn.

Meeting with these members, in Opposition to the current United Kingdom Government obviously, was enlightening because their support for New Zealand was spectacular. Our engagement as an international trade partner and as a global citizen was fantastic. The same was true also in the European Union with members of Parliament whom we met in Brussels. They were full of praise for New Zealand and our way of life and our way of doing things. I thank members Tracey Martin and the Hon Annette King, who were champions for the virtues of the great free-trading nation that we are. It was a wonderful trip.

I do not have a lot of time left but I just want to mention that New Zealanders and our servicemen are still looked upon fondly with reverence by the people of Belgium to whom so many of our youth sacrificed to keep their nation free a century ago, during World War 1. In visiting gravesites in Tyne Cot, Ypres, Messines, and St Quentin, we came to a brand new burial site of unknown New Zealand soldiers brought there to rest only a few days earlier. I had the distinct privilege of laying a very small scroll there for the Grey Lynn Returned Services Club, who gave it to me to do that. In Ieper, where they hold The Last Post ceremony under the Menin Gate, it was a privilege to read the ode For the Fallen by Laurence Binyon of behalf of New Zealanders, veterans and widows, and active service personnel. As Anzac Day approaches, I just want to say that I will remember all of them, and I hope that other members in this House do too.

New Zealanders are rightly proud of the rating that we get from Transparency International. We are usually around No. 1 or 2 for lack of corruption and transparency in our country. That is why it was so concerning to read the report into the alleged conflicts of interest at the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) that was released yesterday. We congratulate the State Services Commissioner on commissioning this report and we welcome its finding.

This is a Government that has shown over the last 8 and a bit years that it has been willing to govern by virtue of facilitation payments. We saw it in the Saudi sheep deal, and now, disturbingly, in this report we see allegations that members who were employed by a public entity were lining their own pockets through their public knowledge. This is not something we are used to seeing in this country, nor is it something that we should tolerate. We were used to shades of black and white in our Public Service in terms of the standards that we expected of them. The shades of grey that we are seeing creeping in are simply not acceptable. What we are seeing here is not something that any Government should be willing to tolerate. It is time that the Minister who is responsible, Gerry Brownlee, took some leadership and took some responsibility.

Only today—the day after this report was published—we found that it was not just the three individuals who were originally brought into question and the two who have been referred to the Serious Fraud Office for further investigation, but today we learnt from Andrew Kibblewhite that there are three further individuals who were employees of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority who are subject of another inquiry. What is the investigation going to entail? It is going to take a look at the shopping list of names that has been supplied to it. There is no political will from this Government to get to the root of what kind of culture was operating within CERA when at least five employees saw that it was acceptable to set up private interests that would directly profit off their public sector jobs. That is not what happens in this country. What was the culture that was operating within CERA that allowed this to exist?

Even more concerning is that there were internal investigations done of these very issues that the Heron report looked at. Did it find that any wrongdoing was done? No, it did not. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was not able to get to the root of what was happening inside this organisation. We need to have a systemic look at what was going on, because it is not good enough.

The two individuals who have been referred for further investigation by the Serious Fraud Office were so well-thought-of within the organisation that when the new entity came to replace the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Ōtākaro Ltd, their employment was transferred. Their employment was transferred because they were seen as doing such a sterling job—these men who have allegedly set up a private company to profit off their public knowledge. This is not good enough. This is not the standard that any politician in this House should tolerate from our public sector.

The Minister needs to take some responsibility and ensure that Cantabrians can have faith in the integrity of their rebuild. We look around our city and we see delayed anchor projects. We see the Crown has not done its bit on getting our central city back up and running. On this side, we see that within the very entity that was responsible for getting those projects off the ground, there were individuals who were, potentially, more concerned with making private profit than getting our city back on its feet. Gerry Brownlee, as the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration, must take responsibility for this.

This morning I had the great privilege of returning to my electorate in Hamilton to attend a very poignant ceremony that was held at Hamilton West School. I was given the privilege of both delivering an address and helping to unveil a plaque honouring 26 former pupils of that school who were killed in World War I. Members of the public may not be aware that it is fairly rare to be able to return to one’s electorate on a sitting day, so I would particularly like to thank the very benevolent senior Government whip who made it possible for me to do so.

I was impressed by the children and the school and the real interest that they showed in the stories that some older people told about people from that school who had gone to war. I just want to acknowledge, as we approach Anzac Day, that this year we are commemorating the centenary of some of the most tragic and horrific losses that occurred at the Western Front. I know that on Anzac Day, yet again, New Zealanders will turn up in great numbers to honour those who fought, particularly those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Members of Parliament usually enjoy each other’s maiden speeches and their valedictory addresses, even if we seldom appreciate much of what our opponents contribute between those two significant events. In recent weeks we have had outstanding addresses, first from the Rt Hon John Key—

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: Case in point.

Thank you, Professor Tabuteau. I always particularly enjoy your contributions, memorable as they are. We have had a very, very fine contribution from the Rt Hon John Key, full of his trademark self-deprecating humour, some very entertaining anecdotes, but also really interesting and incisive comments on some of the dramatic events that he had to deal with during his 8 and a bit years as Prime Minister of this country, such as the Canterbury earthquakes, the global financial crisis, the Pike River tragedy, and many other challenges.

Last night we farewelled another gifted orator from this House, a former Minister in the Clark Government and, at the time of the last general election, the Leader of the Opposition: the Hon David Cunliffe. I just want to say that both of those men have served this country well. It has clearly been a great honour for them to hold those offices. I thank them and their families for the support that they have given during that time, and I wish them both well for the next stages of their careers. I also want to acknowledge my very good friend the Hon Hekia Parata, who has this afternoon given her final speech as the Minister of Education. Her passion, vigour, energy, and, most importantly, achievements have been outstanding, and I place on record my considerable admiration and gratitude to her.

I have always been a very proud member of this Government. We have governed through very tough times; there is no doubt of that. The global financial crisis and the recession that New Zealand was already in when we came into office really knocked New Zealanders around. But we are now back in surplus. Jobs are growing at an exciting rate. We are back up and running with one of the best growth rates in the Western World—in the OECD. That has not come about by accident; it has come about by hard work by all New Zealanders and good policy and leadership from a focused Government. We must not put that at risk by succumbing now to demands for all sorts of spending promises without ensuring that we continue to manage the way that the economy is able to continue to grow.

That is why this afternoon National Government speakers have been talking about the importance of trade, because our trading arrangements are absolutely crucial to our future prosperity. That is why the Prime Minister recently set out the National-led Government’s commitment to forging and improving trade ties and further investment to achieve that under the new trade strategy, Trade Agenda 2030. We have set an ambitious trading goal of having free-trade agreements cover 90 percent of New Zealand’s goods exports by 2030, which will be up from 53 percent today. It is a major challenge, and it is one I am firmly behind.

In the remaining time that I have, could I just say how concerned we all are at the reports of yet another devastating cyclone bearing down on the upper North Island, and particularly on the Bay of Plenty. Our sympathy, as the Minister for Primary Industries mentioned earlier, is particularly with the people of Edgecumbe, who have suffered so much, but all of the people in the wider Bay of Plenty and central North Island region. Could I finally take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Assistant Speaker, all members of this House, our families, and all the many staff who work so well to support us in this Chamber a very happy Easter. It is a very important and blessed time of the year, and we all, I think, are ready for a break. I wish all the families the very best, and may the Easter bunny find us.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, and thank you to the previous speaker, Tim Macindoe, who wished us all a happy Easter. I am certainly looking forward to getting more than a few hours on Sunday home with the whānau, as I am sure almost everybody else in the House is. One thing I have learnt from being in Parliament, as an apprentice MP for the last 2 years, is that the people of this House come because they share a united passion: a united passion to make New Zealand the best country—or to enhance our beautiful country, in fact, and make it the best country possible by working in their individual electorates and in the House. We may differ on how we get there, but there is one thing for certain: every member of this House comes to this House to do the best job possible for their people, for their whānau, and for this nation.

It is with this in mind that I want to just set the record straight on a few things, and I call it the myth-busting 4 minutes with Marama Fox. Let us start with the myth that no one owns the water. Let us just go straight to that one, shall we, because I tell you now: as soon as you allocate the water, someone owns it, all right. In fact, that enhances the value of their property. It makes the value of a farm greater if you have a greater allocation of water, and when you sell your farm you can, in fact, sell your water allocation separately. So no one owns the water? Well, in fact, yes they do.

If we go down further: no benefit will come from having a royal commission of inquiry into institutional abuse of children in this nation. Well, that has to be the biggest myth of them all. We need to lift the plaster off the scab and reveal what has been hidden in this nation that makes us one of the fifth-worst abusers of our children. It is endemic across our society; it does not belong to any one people or any one particular socio-economic group. In fact, it belongs to all of us. It is a societal problem, and until we reveal exactly the depth and breadth of the problem of sexual abuse of our children in this country, then we will never overcome it if we continue to hide it. That is myth No. 2.

In the 2 minutes I have remaining—I had better hurry up—myth No. 3: building a whole lot of houses will solve the housing crisis. Well, there is some truth to that, but not if they are not affordable. We do not need another 11,000 million-dollar homes; we need another 20,000 $300,000 homes. We need another 20,000-odd just in one place; homes big enough to house families. I tell you what an affordable home in Auckland in the middle of a development gives you: it gives you two bedrooms in a townhouse—upstairs, downstairs—without a car-park and just a carport at low spec. If you are a family of five or more, three or more, or four or more in this country and you try to get an affordable home in Auckland, you had better just give that wish up and try to find a way to buy the house you are currently renting, because it is already out of control. So there is another one.

Here is another myth: the myth that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reforms will erode Treaty of Waitangi rights. That is a myth. The Treaty of Waitangi is central to the application of laws affecting Māori land. That the Māori land records will be handed over to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ)—another myth that shall not be further perpetuated amongst the lips of the members, because now I have told them that it is a myth. I am hoping that they will have some faith in me as a member, because I have actually read the bill. The Māori land records will not reside with LINZ; they will reside with the Māori Land Service.

Here is another myth: that the bill denies Māori the right to appeal the Māori Land Service decisions. That is a myth. You have every right to go to the Māori Land Court.

Here is another myth: Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill strips the Māori Land Court of its powers. It does not; the mana of the Māori Land Court will be strengthened. In fact, it will be given powers to adjudicate over things that, currently, you have to go to the High Court for. If I had it my way, do you know what? I would have kōti rangatahi, kōti matariki, kōti whenua Māori, and kōti Māori united together to become the kōti Māori in this whenua.

And with my last remaining 10 seconds, here is the last myth. The last myth that people hold to is that a vote for the Māori Party is a vote for National. I tell you now, a vote for Māori is a vote of faith in ourselves that we can be the change makers in this nation.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak about the electricity sector in New Zealand at the moment. I start by highlighting the fact that this Government has certainly shown no tender, loving care for the people of Taranaki - King Country. People are trying to live their lives and run their businesses under a regime that is dictatorial and impenetrable. This is a company whose spokesperson told stakeholders not to worry about a certain complainant as they would die soon. This typifies this company.

Actually, earlier on in the day the Minister was technically correct when she earlier referenced an inquiry by the Commerce Committee. It is true—it simply found no laws were broken in the undertaking of that business. Minister, do you not think that when people are literally dying, when they are getting sick and showing symptoms that arise from cold and damp homes—more than any other part of the country—that it would be appropriate for this Government to intervene, even that one? When councillors and mayors cry out for help, trying to tell that National Government that their businesses are dying and that their region is being strangled, did she not think that perhaps, in this instance, the free market was not working—that a region and its people needed their Government to show some leadership and take charge.

The Lines Company has accepted the report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, and soon we will have some transparency, which I respect and agree with. But with a weak and under-resourced Commerce Commission, which the Minister kept referencing in her replies to questions today—we have a weak Commerce Commission, and she cannot and would not give assurances to the people and the businesses of Taranaki - King Country that they will actually be better off under this new pricing methodology. She certainly did not give any assurances that that Government would be looking out for those people.

New Zealand First wants everyone in their homes today to know that their residential power prices have exploded 148 percent since National’s so-called reforms—reforms that were sold to Kiwis under the pretence that the market could do it better and make it cheaper for them. National has created a retail electricity market mess. Those members opposite need to know that electricity used to be about 11c per unit. Now it is about 29c per unit, on average. Minister, Kiwi homes are paying 148 percent more for their power today than they did when the reforms started. Let us be honest about it. That bears absolutely no relationship to general price increases. That bears absolutely no relationship to inflation. Power prices have in fact galloped a whopping 69 percent ahead of inflation over this period.

There have been winners. Of course there have been winners in this arrangement, but they have not been our Kiwi consumers, farmers, or small business. Most especially they have not been our Kiwi exporters, who could use a real competitive advantage right now—not the spin from the National Government about 90 percent full-time equivalents. It is rubbish.

Wholesale power prices are incredibly low right now, but power prices are so high for Kiwis in their homes and in their businesses. Someone is gouging the industry, and we want to know who that is, Minister. For the last year or so the Electricity Authority has been running rampant, scaring regional New Zealand with its idiotic theories on distribution pricing charges. It has been shown and proven that the Electricity Authority’s proposed price increases will lead to thousands of job losses, and we have now heard that Kiwi businesses have been scared off and have decided not to invest in their businesses in our country because they do not know the lay of the land.

Let us be clear. New Zealand First will take action. The electricity industry must take heed of this message today. New Zealanders had better be paying substantially less for their electricity, because we will hold it to account. Thank you.

I would just like to pick up where Fletcher Tabuteau left off, with the Electricity Authority. The Far North, in fact, is going to be hit particularly hard. There is one business I know in Kaitāia that employs some 300 staff. Its power bill looks set to go from $400,000 a year to $900,000 a year. That business will totally compromise the town of Kaitāia if it disappears.

The district health board does not know what is going to hit it, in terms of the price rises. I rang the CEO of the Northland District Health Board a week or so ago to ask him how the Electricity Authority proposal is going to affect them. He actually did not know anything about it, and he was really concerned, because, as we know, district health boards are struggling for funds and their budgets are completely compromised. This will quite possibly tip the Northland District Health Board over the edge.

As I listen to the speeches of the members opposite, I sit here and marvel at their ability to talk about—well, basically, to bounce from cloud to cloud to cloud and not recognise the real problems that are going on in New Zealand. We just need to look at the housing crisis that has been going for a long time. It is ongoing. People cannot afford those affordable houses. The supply just is not there. There are still people living in cars. There are still people who are struggling to rent. There are people being put up in motels. That is a real crisis that this Government just fails to address.

Then we look at issues such as water quality. There are some rivers around the country where I am scared that if I walk through them in my jandals, my jandals will dissolve. There is a creek up north, on our land, that is completely bound by native forest, but I have noticed over the last few years that there is a lot of algae growing on the rocks. It is very, very significant. I asked an expert why he thought that was. I thought that maybe it is pollution or nutrient run-off, which I thought was a bit strange, since the creek is totally bush-bound. He said: “Well, how many eels have you been catching lately?”. I said: “Well, there’s not many, actually.” He said: “That’ll be the problem. The eel life, the animal life, in the creek is dying off, so there’s nothing there to eat the algae on the rocks.” That is a concern for me and our creek up in the North.

One of the biggest bungles, though, that the Government has made over the last few years has been in Corrections. Yesterday the Waitangi Tribunal produced the report into the lack of progress about the reoffending of Māori prisoners. First of all, we need to look at why Māori disproportionately go into prison in the first place. Over 50 percent of our prison population is Māori. People say: “Well, it is because Māori commit too much crime.” We just need to look at The Hui programme on Sunday and at what has happened to those men. Marama Fox touched on it earlier. There needs to be an inquiry into abuse in State care.

That programme, The Hui, shows why there are a number of Māori in prison. Their families have been dysfunctional. We can go into the long history of why many Māori families live in dysfunction. But then there is the abuse that occurred. They were taken out of their families. They were meant to be put in the safe care of the State, and what happened was that the abuse was, in many cases, a lot worse than the abuse they were taken out of.

Too many men, too many boys, and too many young women have been abused in State care and abused in their dysfunctional families. That means that they are more likely to grow up with mental health issues and with alcohol and drug abuse issues. None of those issues are ever really meaningfully addressed in prisons. So we are throwing people in prison at a great rate of knots. There are over 10,000 people in prisons now. They go there, apparently there are rehabilitation programmes, but the Corrections annual report itself says that many of those programmes produce results that are less than statistically significant.

So rehabilitation is not working. These people are not getting the support, the counselling, that they need to address those core issues that caused their offending in the first place. So they do go on to have alcohol problems, drug problems, and that exacerbates their offending. If it is never addressed, when they come out of prison it is only a matter of time before they commit another crime and go back into prison. This Government has not done nearly enough to address that.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.