General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I want to record for the House today a great opportunity for young people who are keen to learn about politics in this country. It has had a little bit of publicity outside the House but not so much inside the House. It is an important opportunity. It is indeed a special opportunity. I have a copy of it here. It is the 2017 Labour Campaign Fellowship, “a unique opportunity to immerse yourself in New Zealand politics.” Who could regret the idea to do that? It gives fellows “a glance into what a career in politics” is really all about. It offers the fellows “special access to senior MPs and important decision makers”. It has a lecture series, with the leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

—with a former Prime Minister—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

—with current ambassadors to New Zealand, and with senior party stakeholders. What a wonderful opportunity; you would be very proud of this if you had put this together, would you not? You would be saying: “This is fantastic. This is a great opportunity.” Except that it is not. Except that if you come to New Zealand, you do not get the lectures, you do not get to join in with the Democratic Party in the US. You do not even get to stay in reasonable accommodation; you actually have to have broken showers, you have to build your own accommodation, and if you are lucky, you might get a chance to—maybe—ring up some people and be an unpaid canvassing worker in a sweatshop for the Labour Party. That is what this is. It is very sad.

It is just appalling, because suddenly nobody in the Labour Party knew anything about it. It was weird. It was Matt McCarten, and he, of course, has never worked in the Labour Party—he has never worked with Labour. And if he has worked in the Labour Party, he has not worked in the Labour Party for a long time—at least 2 minutes. So—[Interruption] Oh, it was the Auckland Labour Party; it was not the New Zealand Labour Party. It was the Auckland Labour Party that was responsible for this thing, and they are not admitting that. And then it was not the leader of the Labour Party; he was not responsible for this particular exercise.

The Labour Party spent a week denying knowledge of it and now they want credit for cleaning it up. They want credit for cleaning up this absolute mess. But that is all right; the Labour Party leader is out there saying that New Zealand needs to sort out these sorts of schemes. This is the Labour Party leader on the subject of international education scams: “The reality is that many of these students are turning up to pretty shoddy jobs, often being paid less than the minimum hourly rate, often in a climate of fear. They are not allowed to talk about what they are doing and, therefore, are being exploited. We cannot allow this to continue; we have to look at the system and see whether or not we need to cut it back. It is not right that we have people coming here who are facing exploitative conditions in New Zealand.”

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Who said that?

That was Andrew Little, and he is, of course, right—except we did not know he was talking about himself. We did not know it was a confession—this confession of a speech. He says: “… we must stop the abuse of the system by dodgy employers who want to import workers on the cheap … We need to stop the rort that sees people overseas being sold meaningless qualifications here …”—and all the time the biggest culprit was the Labour Party. But it has some questions to answer still.

Here is a very interesting question: who paid? Who paid for this internship scheme? It cost $200,000, and it has not turned up in the Labour Party’s donations register. Now, apparently, it was the unions that were going to pay for it, but the unions are running a hundred miles. They are like that guy Andrew Kirton, who runs the place. He is running a hundred miles in the other direction. So it is not the unions—apparently it is not the unions—and there are no donors who have donated $200,000. So who is the mystery donor, and why do we not know? When will the Labour Party front up? When will Andrew Little front up and actually reveal the information that he is refusing to give, which is who has bankrolled this shoddy scheme for the Labour Party? When is the Labour Party going to declare the donation that it should have declared before it started?

Talking of fronting up and accounting for oneself, which would certainly be new to members on that side of the House, I want to say this: in life bad things happen and a test of character is how you respond. Maybe 4 years ago you lost an America’s Cup and you were in charge of that campaign and you were in charge of the group who did it. So you come away and you face up to your shortcomings. You have honest conversations, you pick yourself up, you dust yourself off, and you face the future. You might have spent generations being excluded from sports coverage, like the Women’s Rugby Sevens Team, but you keep on going and you do the right thing, and then you get victory and then glory is yours.

But in leadership things happen that you do not expect to happen, and sometimes they are wrong. If it is your organisation where that happens, if it happens in your party, then you take responsibility and you take action. New Zealanders are starting to see a huge contrast between at least two political parties where both have faced a difficult situation. One has a leader who runs and hides and cannot front up to New Zealanders, and the other steps up and takes responsibility. If there is one thing that defines the New Zealand character it is that you accept when things go wrong and you put it right. That is what I grew up knowing. That is what I was taught when I was growing up. You step up and you take responsibility, and you do the right thing.

Faced with the circumstances that the Prime Minister was faced with, with Todd Barclay, Bill English’s response has been a model of the failure of leadership. It is one thing to be heavily involved in trying to sort out what was then an employment dispute involving somebody who worked closely with Bill English—of course he would want to get involved and try to get that sorted out. But it is another thing completely to fail to step up and do the right thing when a backbench MP he was responsible for was caught up in allegations of a possible unlawful recording of a staff member and caught up in a police inquiry.

This whole thing about Todd Barclay is not about an employment dispute—it has not been for 18 months. But it has been about allegations of potential criminal conduct. It has been about whether a member of this House fulfils his moral responsibility to be an exemplar to his community and cooperates with a police investigation. Bill English knows all about this case. He knows all about this matter. He was told about it by Todd Barclay. He told Glenys Dickson what Todd Barclay had told him—that there were recordings of her conversations. He told Stuart Davie that there were conversations, and he told Stuart Davie that there was a settlement that “was larger than normal because of the privacy breach” and he said it was part-paid from the Prime Minister’s budget to avoid potential legal action. The Prime Minister knows everything there is to know about this case.

In addition to all that, he gave a statement to the police. So when asked this year whether he had had any contact with anybody involved in this matter, he said—because he thought nobody else knew any better—that he had no direct contact. Then the story broke—no; before that he was asked by the police whether he minded if his statement to the police was released to somebody who had asked for it under the Official Information Act. He refused to give his blessing. He refused to release his statement. Then the information was disclosed last week, almost in full.

He was asked early on, and he claimed that he did not know who had told him about those recordings. He knew everything. He knew everything. Later he claimed that there may not even be any recordings, and then it was put to him that he was offered an opportunity to listen to those recordings. Seven days on and he still cannot be straight with New Zealand. Seven days on and we are still no nearer the truth about what he knows and about what he did, and that is not right.

In this day and age New Zealanders expect their leaders to be upfront and honest, to take responsibility, to front up, to put to bed any doubts about who knew what and when. All along this has been dressed up as an employment dispute, and it is not that. Somehow the whole thing has got out of control. It does not help when you have a party leader who shows no interest in taking it back under control.

It is time for leadership from that party, actually, for New Zealand. It is time to front up and do what New Zealanders expect—step up, open up, and take responsibility for what he knows he is.

Yesterday morning New Zealand rose to see yet another example of our small, wonderful country taking on the rest of the world and succeeding against the odds. This Government believes in New Zealand’s ability to rise to the challenge of growth, unlike, unfortunately, our political opponents, who think that we should shut down growth, that we should shut our borders, that we should shut down investment, that we should reduce our opportunities to trade with the rest of the world, and that we should take a breather.

This side of the House—if you think about coming back from Fieldays just a couple of weeks ago, we are ready as a country to absolutely seize the opportunities of growth, and anybody across rural New Zealand can see the strong position we are in. Rural New Zealanders are more upbeat now about their prospects than at any point since 2003. This is the Rabobank’s latest rural confidence survey. It shows that rural sector confidence rose to 54 percent in the June quarter, on the back, of course, of rising commodity prices.

The Ministry for Primary Industries is forecasting that primary sector exports will grow to $41.6 billion in the year to June next year. That is an increase of 9.1 percent—9.1 percent. So I am proud to represent rural New Zealand, and the confidence and the optimism and the aspiration of rural New Zealand.

Actually, I find it really disturbing to be surrounded by Opposition members, who really just want to keep this country down. The members on that side of the House are all doom and gloom, but on this side of the House—the Government members, the Government Ministers—we know how optimistic the rural sector is.

Let me talk just for a moment about one of the areas I am responsible for. In forestry, the outlook is just superb. In terms of the growth, we have seen significant growth in the last year, and, actually, the industry has an aspiration to reach $12 billion by the year 2022. This is a Government that supports its aspiration. I would hate to see what the Labour Party’s reaction to forestry is, for example. But what we want to do is to support that industry’s aspirations, work with it, and make sure that as it is the third-largest primary sector by export revenue, we are supporting the work that it does. Annual harvest reached a new record in 2016, so the industry is delivering results, supported by a Government that believes in growth, believes in opportunity, believes in rural New Zealand, and believes in rural New Zealanders and that backs their hard work and backs them to succeed.

Just one initiative that I think is going to contribute to its target of aspiration is the Steepland Harvesting PGP Programme. The Opposition wants to ask about health and safety. Here is one example of many, which is a research project to ensure that we can plant in areas where, currently, it is too dangerous to harvest. So one investment alone into the Steepland Harvesting PGP Programme means that we can get more trees into the ground in the areas where we need that.

In our regional economic development plans, whether it is in Northland, or whether it is in Tai Rāwhiti, we are backing rural New Zealand. We are backing regional New Zealand to succeed. There is another one coming shortly, so when we are across the country we are able to support the work that is happening, whether it is in the increase in skills—Northland is a great example. We are supporting those young New Zealanders into work and into sustainable employment, and they are increasing their skills and opportunities because we believe in their future and we are optimistic for what they are able to achieve.

In terms of connections, through our Rural Broadband Initiative and through our ultra-fast fibre, we are also connecting more Kiwis across the country. Smaller towns like Pūtāruru and like Tūrangi are the next in line, which will be absolutely fantastic.

It is really interesting, because that side of the House wants to run those small towns down. But this side of the House is proud of rural New Zealand and proud of their success, and we are backing them to grow even more.

It is my privilege to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in this debate. I have got to say, sometimes we sit here in New Zealand First, in the middle of this Chamber, and we look at National and Labour going at each other, and—please forgive me—sometimes it just looks like two old drunks fighting. The question is: which one is going to fall over first, and are you going to be able to contain yourself from splitting your sides? As Labour gets attacked for its new-found position opposing immigration and wanting to shut down immigration, and opposing the mistreatment of immigrants or visitors, then we have the revelations that Steven Joyce has been trumpeting out, but, you know, here we go. That is all about camouflaging up National’s own serious gaffe and failings in leadership.

It is really interesting. We were talking this morning, if you stay around this place—we used to have a saying in Waiōuru: if you stay in one spot long enough in Waiōuru, you are going to meet everyone in the New Zealand Army, because everyone comes through here. Well, the same thing happens in this Chamber. If you sit here long enough, you are going to hear the same old debates coming up over and over and over again. The only difference is the media is going to report them as though they are something new, and they are not.

In that respect, let us go back to 2009 when former Māngere MP Taito Phillip Field was found guilty of 11 charges of bribery and corruption, among other things. He used a Thai tradesperson to do work on his properties in Samoa and New Zealand in return for giving them immigration assistance. It sounds a little bit familiar to something that is happening right now, we would say. While we might need to be corrected, Mr Field’s conviction was the first time a member of Parliament had been convicted under section 103 of the Crimes Act. The former Prime Minister, the now Sir John Key, commented at the time and said: “What I can say is the whole event has been a very sorry saga and I think, although it was an isolated incident, it reflects badly on the New Zealand Parliament.” Hold those words.

Former Speaker, the now Rt Hon Sir Lockwood Smith added at the time: “It demonstrates that all members of Parliament are accountable for their actions and that none of us are above the law.”—none of us are above the law. Reflect on that, because another section in the Crimes Act, section 102, is entitled “Corruption and bribery of Minister of the Crown”, and, in light of events, National, this is worth reading: “Every Minister of the Crown or member of the Executive Council is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or herself or any other person …”, and it goes on, talking about their capacity as a “Minister or member of the Executive Council.”

So what does Sir John Key and Todd Barclay both knowing that a crime was committed mean? Proving that it is never the action but the ham-fisted cover-up, they then allowed taxpayers’ money to be misappropriated for the purpose of a settlement. This enabled Mr Barclay to slip away and saw the case closed, at least for the time being. How do we know this? Well, as the text messages from the now Prime Minister Bill English himself backed up—with stories that shift like sand, yet those messages admit a crime happened and that money was paid in the hope that it would all go away. Some might argue that that is perverting the course of justice. Some might say that, actually, their inability to use leadership and command authority and tell Mr Todd Barclay to get down to the police and make a statement and to cooperate with the police might have actually been interfering with the police in the performance of their duty—some might have argued.

Now we have got a mixture of sex, drugs, and surely rock and roll will follow not far behind. But look at the size of the money, the amount of money. On Radio Live former Labour Party president Mike Williams put the payout at $100,000. Well, New Zealand First wants to know that now. New Zealand First is interested in what Parliamentary Service has paid out. New Zealand First will be asking, under the policy—collective employment agreement 2, individual employment agreement. When the breakdown in employment relationships results in 4 weeks’ notice and 12 weeks’ salary, how come we end up at a figure of $100,000? What is going on?

New Zealand First is not going to let it lie there. We do not think the leader’s budget should be used like a piggy bank, or certain leaders should be allowed to negotiate their way out of embarrassing situations with special payouts. We want to know whether these payouts were legal, whether they are accounted for, and whether they are in compliance with the Parliamentary Service rules and regulations.

It is really interesting. But the final comment surely has to go to the Prime Minister. If you are any sort of a leader, Prime Minister, why did you not act when you knew that Glenys Dickson had been threatened over the phone and a man had made a statement, that “Your son has got a very pretty girlfriend.”? Do not go to the selection—

The member’s time has expired.

What a delight to be able to take part in this debate today. It has been an interesting few days, and, in my opinion, who knew that we had a slave labour camp operating on the North Shore of Auckland, which, of course, the Labour Party leader, Mr Andrew Little, is running from at the speed of light. I thought it would be a good idea to look at some of these things. Who is involved here? Well, Matt McCarten, who is apparently no longer involved with the Labour Party—actually, just a few months ago he was in fact the Chief of Staff for Mr Andrew Little. He was running the Labour Party leader’s office, and he was brought in by David Cunliffe when he was the leader. So he has been around for quite some time before that. But then, all of a sudden, he was sent to Auckland to be the director of the Auckland office, which, according to Andrew Little, was his Auckland office—so, no doubt, paid for by Parliamentary Service. As I drove past it just the other day, that office in Grafton Road, there were signs everywhere for Andrew Little MP, in Auckland. I thought it was interesting that it had the crest of Parliament all over it. So that might need looking at.

But as well as that there is a Mr Paul Chalmers who was part of the ruling council of the Labour Party. He has now, apparently, stood down from that. So I thought I should have a look at who he actually is. Well, he was in fact campaign chair for Jacinda Ardern. So I guess he must know a lot of people in the Labour Party, as well as having been on its ruling council. He has actually set up and owns a school for—guess what? Foreign students. But he will be all right in this case because he is actually the spokesperson for the Indian education group—the same people whom the Labour Party has spent the last so many months attacking and saying that they do not come to New Zealand for education. So I guess that would be experience speaking.

Then the other question that needs to be asked is: where has all this money come from to undertake this undertaking of 85 foreign students coming to New Zealand to live in substandard conditions and to advocate for the Labour Party? Well, there are all sorts of rumours floating around about this, and I really think people need to know the answers to it. I am really looking forward to Andrew Little asking some very hard questions of Mr Matt McCarten, Mr Paul Chalmers—Jacinda Ardern’s campaign manager—and various other people who must know about this.

The figure of $240,000 is being thrown around at the moment, because, apparently, that is what Mr McCarten thought the unions—in other words, the very people who clean in this place, the very people who undertake the work, as union members—should be paying for this scheme. I think there are actually some really good questions about this that need to be asked and answered. But, in the meantime, this Government is getting on with the business of governing.

When I look back at the Labour Party’s problems, you have to think—is it a conspiracy or a cock-up? I would have to say, in this case it is both. That is why we just have to get on with the job of governing. In the inland revenue area, of which I am very proud, we are actually getting on with making people’s lives a lot easier. All of those people in small businesses who do actually pay wages for the 30 to 40 hours a week that people work—unlike the Labour Party people—very soon, from 1 April next year, will be able to choose to not have to use provisional and terminal tax. They will not have to pay that any more. Instead, they will be able to come on to a system very much like PAYE, which is what all we salary and wage earners pay our tax through. So they will be able to decide every month. They will do their profit and loss, and they will pay their tax based on that month’s profit or loss. That means that at the end of the year there will be a bit of a wash-up, but it will be nothing like the extreme financial difficulty that so many small-business people find themselves getting into, particularly in their second year of business.

All the wonderful things we have done in our Budget, all the wonderful things we have been able to do as a Government, all the wonderful things that businesses have been able to do themselves—this is, in my opinion, the No. 1 thing that will make the biggest difference to keeping businesses going, particularly small businesses, and encouraging innovation. But also, let us not forget keeping people employed—keeping the people who are the salary and wage earners in a job, because the business that is paying their wages is still going to be around, past the second year.

So these are the sorts of innovations we are doing in revenue. It is what we are doing in Government. It is making technology work for people and for New Zealanders, rather than the other way round.

The “sex, drugs, and Gore” saga just rolls on and on and on and on. This is something that should have been nipped in the bud in a matter of hours, if it was dealt with by a real leader. Instead, it has been 9 long days—dragged out only because of the ineptitude of a person who calls himself the Prime Minister but is no leader. A leader would have dealt with this on the spot. Instead, all we have seen in this House is the person who calls himself the Prime Minister dipping, ducking, diving, and weaving. He reminds me of the old slimy tuna on the banks of the Taumārere River. He has just dragged this out.

Todd Barclay—where is he? He is on gardening duty. He has got 3 months on full leave and then after that, after the election, he is on 3 months of full pay as well. Todd Barclay will barely go down as a footnote in the history of this Parliament. He will barely be remembered; in fact, we are almost forgetting his name now. What Todd Barclay did was dumb and it was petty. It was immature and it was insecure. It also looks like it was pretty illegal as well. And all we have seen from the Prime Minister is dipping and diving and ducking and sidestepping and weaving and trying not to answer any questions on this. The most important footnote that Todd Barclay will leave in this Parliament is that he will go down as the person who managed to shoot himself in the foot and his leader and his party in the head, all with one bullet.

Leadership—Leadership 101 says: “In a crisis, be decisive and actively communicate.” So how decisive has Bill English been in this? This is what he said about the recording: “I didn’t know about the recording.” And then it was: “I did know about the recording.” He said: “I made a statement to police”. He said: “I was asked if I wanted to listen to the recording.” Then we hear that Parliamentary Service knew about the recording all the time, and now—yesterday it was—we heard that the recording was about sex and drugs. Then we heard from the Prime Minister that, actually, the recording may not even exist.

Now, the Prime Minister is a good Catholic. He goes to church on Sundays. I am a pretty failed Anglican, but John 8:32 says: “The truth shall set you free.” The Prime Minister needs to know that if he just told the truth it would set him free. So this is a classic example of a confused, mixed-up, defensive, “I’ve got something to hide” leader.

Active communication, as I said, is the second part of being a decisive leader. The emphasis is on the “active”. A decisive leader would have jumped up and front-footed the issue. He would have said: “This is what I know. This is when I knew it. This is what I did. And this is how it’s been resolved.” Instead, we have got this ducking and diving and sidestepping. We have seen Simon Bridges trying to shield the Prime Minister. We have seen Steven Joyce trying to divert our—the country’s—attention to something else, and we have seen the backbench there with a rush defence, a lot slower than the Lions, but still offside.

Let me just talk about Awataha Marae. I am really sorry that two out of 80-something American teenagers did not enjoy their marae experience. I am really sorry that two out of 80-something American teenagers did not enjoy their mince and fried bread for dinner. I am really sorry that two out of 80-something American teenagers had to wait an extra few minutes because one shower out of eight was broken—but welcome to our world, New Zealand. Those people over that side of the House do not even know what a marae is, have probably never ever driven past one, never stayed at one, never picked up a tea towel, never peeled a spud, never done anything on a marae, and I do not know why they are bagging Māoris in maraes. It is totally unacceptable from that crew over there who are totally out of touch.

What a load of rubbish from that previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, saying we do not know what a marae is like. I know Awataha Marae; I have been on it. It is a lovely marae, but, yes, there are places there that need some refurbishing.

Now, if you want to bring in 85 overseas students, why do you not house them? Why do you not house them yourselves? Why do you not look after them? Why give them out to the marae? Why did you not go in and pick them up and look after them? But you did not. You did not go and pick them up. Bringing them in to be volunteers for the Labour Party, under the auspices of whatever it is that you brought them in under, was a load—it is absolutely deceitful to the people of this country and to your own people, to your own supporters, Labour. How disgusting is that, Mr Speaker? When we start talking about ducking and diving—about our leader ducking and diving—well, hey, you need to take all of that back and place it back on your side. They need to take all of that kōrero and place it back on their leader, because I have never seen someone ducking and diving as much as I have with Mr Little.

As I carry on with my contribution to this debate, I want to read a quote that was made by one of the members, Iain Lees-Galloway, in 2016, around immigration. What he said was: “Labour supports active management of immigration to make sure New Zealand gets the skills it needs and migrants are safe from exploitative employers.”—from exploitative employers. What have you guys done over there? You have brought 85 students in and you have totally exploited them. That is disgusting. As I was listening to the kōrero that was going on in the House today, I heard another member from New Zealand First saying that it was like watching—National and Labour—a couple of old drunks fighting. Well, he would know, because I know what it looks like when you see some MPs in here—old drunks. Note that, Mr Speaker; old drunks—New Zealand First.

I want to talk about the amazing things that this National Government has done for the country in its 9 years. We are delivering a strong economy. And how do you do that? Because, Labour, you need to hear this, because you do not know how to do it. You only know how to spend. You only know how to take all the baubles and spend, spend, spend. There are four significant things to bring the benefits of a stronger economy for all New Zealanders. The first one is making big investments in public services, which is what this Government continues to do. It continues to invest in health and education. Within social development, we have set up the Ministry for Vulnerable Children. We have done many investments into our Public Service sector. Why? Because that is delivering for New Zealanders.

When I look at the record investment in new infrastructure, there have been roads of national significance. In Christchurch alone—in Christchurch alone—there are new highways going from north to south across our city, because our city needs it. We need to keep the people moving through—visiting our city and moving through. In Northland, all the new infrastructure that has been going on in this country, and it has been a National-led Government that has done it. We are improving the resilience of our country to future shocks. We have brought this country through the global financial crisis, and we are on target for over $7 billion of surplus by 2020. We hit surplus way before the economists thought we would do that, as a Government, and we will continue to make surplus, because you cannot give people stuff, you cannot invest in anything unless you have got a strong economy.

Finally, we are strengthening families by lifting their incomes. This is the family tax package—the very package that Labour did not support. Everybody else in the House supported it, but no, Labour would not support it. I do not know why that is the case. I do not know what kind of raruraru happened within its caucus when it came to discussing it. I have no idea. But to actually walk away from something like that is bad testament to the fact that you consider that people on low incomes are your people. Well, I can tell you that they are their own people. When they go to the polls this year, they will look at all the things that they have received and continue to get through this Government delivering to the people, and they will come to support us. I am adamant of that. Please, at the end of the day, do not invite young people here and exploit them; do not do that. Use your own volunteers if you have got any.

E te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. There were cows on Parliament’s lawn today—cut-out cows, so they did not defecate there. They were there to mark the release of a Greenpeace report that highlights the increasing impact on New Zealanders’ health of intensive livestock farming, particularly dairying. It is the National Government’s preoccupation with increasing intensive farming—increasing the volume, rather than the value, and not constraining the industry’s desire to increase milk supply—that is helping make New Zealanders sick. We have seen a 90 percent increase in dairy cow numbers between 1990 and 2014.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What rubbish. The report is full of maybes.

The Minister, Nathan Guy, is saying “rubbish”. The Minister should actually read some of the health reports—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: I’ve read it.

From the medical officer of health? I do not think so. We know what impact the increasing number of cows and agricultural intensification is having on our rivers, our lakes, and our aquifers—that so many of those are now unfit for swimming because of high E. coli levels, and that high levels of nutrient pollution mean they are clogged with algae and are unsuitable for swimming.

But it is the impacts on human health that deserve much more attention. For the Minister’s education, zoonoses are diseases that are passed from animals to human. Pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in the gut of ruminants like cows and deer can pass from animals to humans through human contact with faecal material, either directly or through contact with faecal material that ends up in our waterways. Minister, New Zealand has one of the highest reported rates of zoonotic diseases in the developed world. Our rates of cryptosporidiosis are higher than in Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States of America. Things like cryptosporidiosis mean that you get violent attacks of vomiting, stomach cramps, and diarrhoea. Those are serious health impacts.

Public health experts—obviously, not the Minister—are also really concerned about the rise in Shiga toxin - producing E. coli 3. That is a really serious pathogen that can cause severe gastrointestinal illness and can, potentially, lead to kidney problems. Public health experts are concerned about that because it is ruminants like cows that shed that pathogen in their faeces.

One of the most memorable and searing public meetings that I have attended was in Springston in 2008. Springston is a small town near Lincoln. There were issues with the town water supply, but the extent of the illness that had been caused by people drinking contaminated water was not obvious until that meeting in March 2008. Having to listen to stories of mothers who were not prepared to bathe their children because of the risk of them getting sick is one of the reasons why I, and many others in the Green Party, are campaigning for clean water.

That was back in 2008, but it has got worse, not better. In 2012 we had a major incident in Darfield—again, a contaminated water supply. Twelve-hundred people got sick before the council put in a boil-water notice. In 2016, of course, there was the massive outbreak in Havelock North. Over 5,000 people got sick, and several premature deaths were associated with that. That was traced back to sheep faecal effluent contaminating a pond, which contaminated the water supply.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah, Greenpeace said it was cows.

It was sheep, Minister. Sheep are livestock, Minister. It is the increased intensive livestock farming that is contributing to these health effects. And it is not only gastrointestinal illnesses. In Canterbury we have the medical officer of health having to arrange for testing of water supplies of pregnant mothers who are getting their water from private bores, because of elevated levels of nitrate in groundwater.

The Green Party believes it is unacceptable for people to be getting drinking water out of their taps that they cannot trust, and for having rivers and lakes where they cannot trust water quality. We would ensure that there are controls on intensive land use, to protect the catchments of drinking-water supplies, to ensure that councils are getting water from areas where they know the water is safe and protected from intensive livestock farming. It is critical that we have safe drinking water and rivers that are clean enough to swim in. The Green Party will do that.

You know, we are only a few weeks away now from that time when New Zealanders get a chance to, yet again, show what they want to see in a Government. What they look for, most of all, is a party, a Government, that is relevant to them and is thinking about the things that are important to their lives and their inspirations. This is where, after 9 years, the National Party and this Government still stand out, in the most positive ways, as being the party, the organisation, that is the most aspirational for New Zealanders and is most relevant to the things that are important to their lives.

Just look at, for instance, the economy that has been stewarded under this National Government. We have seen growth at around 3 percent. It is forecast to continue at an average of over 3 percent over the next 5 years. That is a really strongly performing economy that is leading to more business success and, importantly—because it is the real essence of what is important about economic growth—more jobs and higher incomes.

So 200,000 jobs have been created over the last 3 years. There are forecast to be a further 215,000 jobs by 2021. Right at the moment, New Zealand is a jobs machine. Right at the moment, 10,000 net new jobs are being created each month—each month. That is incredible. And what is more, before some members start complaining or making noises about work being part-time or full-time, 80 percent of the jobs in New Zealand are full-time jobs. Contrast that with Australia, where it is only 70 percent.

So not only have we got economic settings that are creating more business success leading to more jobs, we are raising wages, raising incomes. Since we came into office in late 2008 the average wage has risen to just under $59,000. By 2021 it is forecast to be $64,300. That is $17,000 more than when this Government first took office. What is more, at the moment—and we would make sure that we have economic settings to encourage this—those wages are rising far faster than inflation, which means New Zealand families have got more money in their pockets to meet the expenses of raising their families and other expenses in their lives.

This Government is creating an opportunity for New Zealanders to flourish, for New Zealanders to achieve their aspirations, and for New Zealanders to be better able to look after their families and meet those needs, and there is a very bright outlook for the future. That is why this Government, this party, is aspirational for New Zealand and why New Zealanders see the National Party as the party that is most relevant to what they think is most important.

Contrast that with the other side—with the Opposition. One of the great failings in 2014, when David Cunliffe was the leader, was that he would say one thing to one group and then another to another. New Zealand might have hoped that that had ended. But just last week, Andrew Little told Federated Farmers that the old water policy was gone and he left them with the very clear understanding that there would be no resource rental under a Labour-led Government if it was successful this year. Unfortunately, roll along Sunday and, instead, he has an about-turn on that and says: “Well, nah. Nah, we’re going to have royalty charges on water use for private gain and we remain committed to setting a resource rental for water.” So what are we seeing? New Zealanders see the same old, same old—a Labour leader will say one thing in one context and the exact opposite in another. New Zealanders did not trust it last time, and they are unlikely to trust it this time.

One might wonder whether it could possibly get worse. Well, it already has. You have got a party that has trumpeted in recent times how it is going to cut student visas for low-quality courses. It has railed about housing standards, and it has complained about worker exploitation and incomes, the minimum wage, and living wage—and when what happens? What happens? Under a Labour-branded programme, it brings in 85 international interns under false pretences. They were thinking they were getting some great education, with all these luminaries coming to lecture to them, and what did they get instead? Well, they got no pay, substandard housing, and no education at all. If there is anything more obvious than the double standard that is right throughout the Labour Party and the Labour members, it is that particular Labour camp, and Andrew Little sits at the very heart of it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. The lack of leadership from this Government—and let us call it for what it is: the dodgy, gutless leadership from this Government—is plain to see for all New Zealanders right now. Bill English has badly failed the leadership test over the Todd Barclay affair. We all thought John Key was the master of the brain fade, but Bill English is giving him a run for his money now. The Barclay affair has been mishandled and fudged, and, simply put, it stinks. It is a sign of the arrogance, the laziness, and the lack of any real compass for this Government.

It is in times like this, with a Government in disarray, that Māori really look to guidance and leadership from our people, not just with a political scandal that goes all the way to the ninth floor of the Beehive but with the scandal—the absolute scandal—of a Government that spends $29 million on consultants advising it to sell State houses in a housing crisis. It is the scandal of a Government that has spent, on average, $100,000 per night housing the homeless in hotels this year, totally blowing the emergency-housing budget, as hundreds of whānau a night are put up in motels—and that is not even taking into account those sleeping in garages, in cars, and on the streets, or the 50 homeless whānau my staff alone have dealt with so far this year. This is the real scandal: the Māori and our aspirations for owning our own home, or even for having a safe, warm, and dry home to sleep in, have been cast aside.

Unfortunately, if Māori are going to look to the current co-leader of the Māori Party, the Minister for Māori Development, for leadership, they will be looking for a long, long time. When the emergency-housing scandal broke, there was silence from the co-leader of the Māori Party Te Ururoa Flavell. When the Todd Barclay scandal broke, there was silence from the co-leader of the Māori Party Te Ururoa Flavell. When the funding to fight rheumatic fever was halved, there was silence, and on it goes.

This is the man who, on Māori TV last week, called me a liar. He alleged that Māori land owners are confused because of the lies I have allegedly told about the shambles of his Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. So I called him out. I do not like being called a liar. I challenged the Minister to a debate on his own bill, in his own electorate, and what did this leader do? He ran. That is right—he ran. He ran from my challenge. He is good at running. That is why the only challenge he puts up there is to other politicians for a running race. But a debate on his own legislation? No, never. “Nothing will come of it.”, he says.

So this is our Māori development Minister, a man who calls MPs liars in the media and then runs from an opportunity to debate those alleged lies; a man who stays silent on the critical issues facing Māori; a man who tells Māori that the Māori Land Service will solve all their problems with their whenua when he has known, since April this year, that Treasury has slammed it as a shambles. Let me quote what Treasury said in its report around the Māori Land Service. It said: “a suitable business case to assist with decision-making was not ready to support Budget 2017 decisions. Key areas still to be developed include…investment options…the design of enabling technology, and transition planning for affected agencies.”

Clearly, the Minister is out of touch. He has misrepresented the wishes of Māori land owners. It is time for change. It is time for a fresh approach. Come 23 September, we will see this in the House, with the largest Māori representation of Labour MPs who will come into this House. I leave that with you. Tēnā tātou katoa.

This Government is delivering for New Zealanders, and this Government is delivering for Whangarei people and for people in Northland. This is a Government that listens and delivers in Northland. The Government listened and is delivering on roading—$500 million from Whangarei to the Ruakākā roundabout, the single-biggest infrastructure outside Marsden Point. The Government listened and is delivering on health. Northland District Health Board received $21 million of top-up funding in Budget 2017. The Government listened and is delivering on police, with the biggest base increase of the 880 new front-line police of any region—19 percent. The Government listened and is delivering on jobs and the environment. Just last week, there was a $30 million announcement on end-of-life tyres no longer being in landfills, and decreasing their carbon footprint, as well.

The Government listened and is delivering on tourism. Two weeks ago, on Friday, 16 June, this was evidence again, when Minister Maggie Barry announced the last of the funding for the Hundertwasser Wairau Māori Arts Centre, the last Hundertwasser building ever to be built in the world. This has been a journey over several decades from when Frederick Hundertwasser first came to New Zealand and settled in the North. Travelling in 1973 as a guest of the founder of Dominion Breweries, Henry Kelliher, he then purchased the Shortridge farm in the Bay of Islands in 1976, got New Zealand citizenship in 1986, and died aboard a ship in the Pacific in 2000.

It has been my privilege to be the captain of just a small part of that ship for the Hundertwasser arts centre for a small part of the time, and I want to acknowledge on record the many people who have carried the baton beforehand, before it was passed to us, to prosper Northland—to the many, many volunteers. Everyone had a special role. My role was to take the voice of the city and community leaders, carry that voice to Wellington, and craft an audience that would listen and believe. Cruise New Zealand listened and believed. It wrote on 8 May, saying: “The visual appeal of a Hundertwasser-designed building, along with the inclusion of a high-end art experience, will create a new experience not only for Whangarei and Northland but also for New Zealand as a cruise destination. Completion of this development will add to the overall appeal of New Zealand as a cruise destination and will especially bring a true point of difference to Whangarei. They will stop.”

Many people are listening and believe in Whangarei and in Northland. The Rt Hon John Key listened and believed when he came up with the first $4 million in 2015 towards Hundertwasser. Steven Joyce listened and believed when he made the announcement of the $4 million at the launch of the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan at the Marsden Estate winery in Kerikeri in February 2016. Simon Bridges listened and believed when he told the Northland Economic Action Plan progress meeting at Waitangi in February 2017 that Hundertwasser was a high priority. Maggie Barry listened and believed when she announced 2 weeks ago that the arts, culture, and heritage regional programme would fund the remaining $3 million, with most of that arising from new seismic compliance, and, in so doing, joined the Lottery Grants Board, Foundation North, Northland Regional Council, and many other contributors, including the children at Matarau School.

This Government listens and believes in Northland. Contrast this to other parties in Northland, which do not seem to listen and do not want to back Northland. For example, on this side of the House we support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and have listened and will back Northland. New Zealand First does not support TPP and does not back Northland. We believe in TPP trade growth for dairy farmers in Northland. We believe in TPP trade growth for avocado in Northland. We believe in TPP trade growth for red meat in Northland. Most economic spokesmen back TPP for Whangarei and for Northland, but not New Zealand First. I think there are some people in New Zealand First whose instinct tells them TPP is right, whose rational thinking tells them TPP is right, but once inside the New Zealand First tent they are forced to leave their principles at the door. They flip to an ideology of protectionism, and then will flop at the feet of voters—at the feet of the people of Northland.

This party has a track record of stable government and a prosperous economy, and the people of Northland are working with a Government that is delivering. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. First of all, I just want to pay tribute to Iwi Nicholson, Ngāneko Minhinnick, and, of course, my grand-uncle Mr Joe Shortland, whom I share with our colleague Ria Bond. I farewell him; he will be buried at our marae tomorrow. My pāpā Joe Shortland, he quite enjoyed tuna—not the kind of slippery tuna that my colleague Mr Kelvin Davis referred to earlier.

Boy, it has been one heck of a show over the past week. We have heard scandal, sex, drugs, and—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Slave labour.

—who else knows what is going to come—I am going to come to that, Maggie Barry. Anyway, what I want to talk about is that I have looked over the Māori Party speeches in support of this Government over 7 years. Words like this come about when describing their relationship with this Government and, of course, the current Prime Minister: “proud to be with this Government”, “proud to have the leadership of Bill English”, “great leadership and strong leadership shown by this Government”, and “we support them”. I wonder why the Māori Party has not said anything over the last couple of weeks, because the words indicated in these speeches say they are joined at the hip. They are so joined at the hip that the Māori Party is also supporting the failed housing policies from this Government, housing policies that have seen an increase in homelessness, more emergency housing needed and not being supplied by this Government—in fact, the taking of reserves in Tāmaki-makau-rau to solve the crisis that it has been ignoring for 9 long years.

I think about that housing crisis and I wonder when the Māori Party decided to come up with this concept called Kāinga Ora, launched in October 2015. Up until the end of May 2017, how many homes have been built? Eleven homes. In my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau, the electorate with the greatest need for housing in this country, how many homes have been built? None. Zero. So I also ask how many dollars have been given to trying to work through some processes to solve the housing crisis in Tāmaki-makau-rau. The answer is none, zero dollars, nothing. The place that needs it the most—Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland—was given nothing.

I want to stay in Tāmaki-makau-rau, the great electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau, and I want to say to my people of Te Awataha Marae: those people on that side of the House do not know that my grandfather built that marae and opened that marae. This Government calls marae slums now. This Government, though, was slow to assist Te Puea Marae 1 year ago when it solved the homelessness crisis facing Tāmaki-makau-rau. It was slow to help Manurewa Marae, which did exactly the same. Yet when things are going well, when the Kai Tahu marae at Kaikōura came to the assistance of the people of Kaikōura after the earthquake, the Government was there to pat them on the back and say well done. The Government came too late to the party with Te Puea Marae. Oh, but it was certainly there when accolades were being handed out. Those members were patting themselves on the back. This is just not good enough—this is just not good enough.

In September this year, this country has got to make a decision. It has got to make a decision as to whether or not it chooses a leader that is the slippery tuna that my colleague Kelvin Davis referred to, the kind of leader that is not fronting up to the issues that are facing our people, the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau: the lack of investment in infrastructure, the lack of investment in housing, and the lack of true investment in Māori development. In September the people will get a chance to choose.

I just want to say one more thing: just recently, there has been an announcement of the One Pacific party. It is joined now at the hip with the Māori Party, and I wonder just how much of an equitable say it will have in that party when it is already crowded at the top. Let us have a look at who is at the top: Hone Harawira, Te Ururoa Flavell, Marama Fox, Rāhui Papa, Howie Tāmati. I say to the Pacific people and to One Pacific: actually, are you taking your people in the right direction? I am going to argue no—no. In Tāmaki-makau-rau in particular, where there is a large Pacific Island community; in Ōtautahi, in Christchurch, the same; and here in Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, Wellington—I say to the Pacific people, please, go into the voting booth on 23 September with your eyes wide open.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.