General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Well, we are the daggy end of this Parliament, and we have in front of us a shabby, grubby, failing little Government that is now at the end of its useful purpose—assuming it had one in the first place. We know that one of the big tests of character and leadership is that when confronted with tough situations and when confronted with the consequences of your own past, you have got to step up and take responsibility, right? That is what leadership is about, that is what character is about. And what is the track record of that miserable lot over the last few months?

Well, let us start with the Todd Barclay affair—and there may well be more than one of them, but let us start with that. Here is a situation where we had our own Prime Minister running from it for months. He could not open up, could not be transparent. Asked to release his statement to the public at large, he refused to allow it to happen. He was finally confronted with the facts and has dodged and dived and ducked and weaved ever since then. It goes to integrity and it goes to character.

But it does not stop just at that grubby little affair. Just look at the fuel margins issue, which Judith Collins has been left to deal with. She got some plaudits for commissioning a report. Simon Bridges was the Minister of Energy and Resources once upon a time; he could have commissioned it. He knew that there were concerns about the massive margins being charged on fuel at the petrol pump, but he did nothing about it. So Judith Collins takes over, and she thinks: “Well, Stuart Nash is on to something here, because he’s a smart guy and he’s in touch with his community, and he’s in touch with ordinary New Zealanders.” She bends over backwards, commissions the report, and we get the report. It confirms what every driver in New Zealand has known, especially during the summer holidays when, mysteriously, petrol prices go up for no other good reason than that we know a lot more people are on the roads trying to get somewhere.

Judith Collins commissioned the report, and what is her response? Confronted with 9 years of inaction and inertia, what is her response? She says: “Commission another report.” Commission another report—we have had this problem for 9 years. We have had a Minister of Energy and Resources who has done nothing about it for 5 years, Judith Collins gets hold of it, she commissions a report that tells us in minute detail that we are being overcharged and it is all wrong—we have got the information, we have got the evidence, and her response is: “Let’s have another report. Let’s have another report. Let’s report after the election and then let’s have even another report in November, just before Christmas, just in time to do nothing about it for the next summer season.”

On housing we have had—and we know the crisis that housing is in New Zealand: prices through the roof, 80 percent of renters not being able to afford to save for their first home, 40,000 houses needed in Auckland alone, and this Government doing nothing about it. We have got a new excuse now from Steven Joyce, the Svengali of the National Party, there wheedling his way through every issue, hand in every point of failure of this Government. He now says: “Blame 2003.” It all goes back to 2003 and something that happened then. Nine years on, and they still cannot take responsibility. I just ask Steven Joyce to get out for once and talk to real New Zealanders. Talk to the young teachers I met in Auckland recently, who are on good salaries teaching in an Auckland Central school and have given up hope of ever owing their own home. That is the reality for them.

And what is this Government’s response to Hutt Valley and the desperate shortage of housing and affordable homes there? Mysteriously, 2½ months before the election, when Chris Bishop is on the back foot because he has done such a hopeless job, it trots out a plan for 60 affordable homes. This is when they are hundreds of houses short of what they need, hundreds of houses short of State homes, because they cannot rely on the local list member to do anything meaningful about it. It is absolutely appalling.

This Government is at the tail end of its life. New Zealanders expect better and deserve better, and they are going to get better. They will get a plan for more housing, for affordable housing, right across this great nation of ours. They will get a plan for restoring the cuts in health services, and especially in mental health. And they will not have Ministers parading around saying that they have been a Minister for 8 weeks and did not know this was even happening, even though they have been in a Government for 9 years and knew exactly what has been happening.

We have a plan to get it fixed, because New Zealanders deserve better and want better and, with a Labour-led Government, they will get better. On education, we will have a system that makes our young people fit for the 21st century—because this Government has given up on young New Zealanders.

The audacity of the Labour leader never fails to amaze me, how he can stand in this House and talk about leadership and secrecy and immigration and housing standards when his party has been bringing in illegal foreign workers, not paying them, putting them up in dodgy accommodation, and not making sure they are well housed. And to stand here not telling us who is paying for it—he still will not come out and tell us who is paying for it. His whole party has been complicit in bringing in these workers to work unpaid for their campaign; poorly housed, probably breaking immigration laws, probably breaking labour laws—certainly not giving truth to the sorts of housing standards they stand up here and continue to talk about—and he has the audacity to talk about leadership in this House.

He has the audacity to talk about housing supply when not only has Labour opposed the Three Kings Quarry development; it has opposed the Point England redevelopment, it opposed the Resource Management Act changes, and it opposed special housing areas. When I, as the Minister for Social Housing, announced 13,500 new social houses being built in Auckland—and just yesterday we announced 130 being built in the Hutt Valley, with many more to come.

How many has Labour committed to building? Zero—zero new houses. But it would far rather pick holes and throw mud and come up with off-the-cuff, back-of-the-envelope, unfunded, uncosted, and unidentified promises to build on fantasy sites that it cannot identify—does not know where they are, does not own them—and has the audacity to challenge and criticise us for coming up with costed, funded, designed plans on sites we can identify.

This is a Government that is absolutely not only talking about it but doing it. We are not opposing every development that comes before the House. We have a plan to build 34,500 new houses in Auckland over the next 10 years. Just to be clear, this is the biggest Government building project since the 1950s—the biggest since the 1950s. It is the equivalent of building 3½ houses on every single street in Auckland.

The difference is that we can identify where they are going. We have the land, we have the funding, and, actually, what is more, we put in place the process that set up the Auckland Unitary Plan to even enable that to be possible. What did we get from the Opposition members? Oppose that; oppose it and come up with random, totally free-form numbers that relate to absolutely no consistency. They talked in the Hutt about the fact that they were going to build 400 houses on vacant Housing New Zealand sites. Well, there are only, at most, 100 vacant sites where they could build. Where on earth are these houses going, how are they paying for them, and how are they ever going to deliver them when they oppose every single initiative that this Government has put in place to fund them?

The social housing portfolio will focus, unashamedly, on building the social houses that we need for our tenants. At the same time, you have had in this year’s Budget from us the first increase in the accommodation supplements since 2003. We are putting $400 million a year into updating those accommodation supplement rates. For many people, they will go up by $80 a week, and, actually, that does not even take into account the changes in areas, which make many more people eligible for greater accommodation supplement levels.

In total now, under this Government, not only are we growing the social housing stock from around 66,000 houses to 72,000 houses over the next 3 years, not only are we doing that; we have also committed the first ever permanent supply of funding for emergency and transitional housing—2,150 dedicated transitional housing places, for the first time ever, to support vulnerable New Zealanders while we get them into social housing.

And it does not stop there, because our social investment approach is making sure that we are not just housing them; we are supporting them with the needs that our community has and that our social housing tenants have, whether that be in mental health, drug and alcohol addiction services, budgeting services—whatever the needs are to support them. We are getting the homeless off the streets of Auckland through our Housing First initiative; we have announced another 500 places around the rest of New Zealand. The difference is very clear. It is one of action and credibility versus inaction and incredulous and unbelievable statements from Labour Party members, who have committed nothing to social housing and make statements that, frankly, no one can believe.

I am feeling very ambitious. I am feeling very ambitious and excited about the future that we have—

💬 Hon Member: And inaudible.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member to start it again. By that stage, we hope her mike is on.

I am feeling very ambitious for New Zealand and what we can achieve. I am extremely excited. We announced a project that is truly visionary today: getting airport rail finished by 2021, in time for Auckland to host the America’s Cup and APEC. And that is something that is entirely technically achievable, yet it will require an unprecedented level of cooperation between local and central government.

Now, Aucklanders have been waiting for decades. They have been waiting for decades for a decent public transport network. Ten years ago, when I was working as a transport consultant in Auckland, we were campaigning to get electrification of the rail line. And we won that, thanks to the Green Party, in large part, under the last Labour Government. And since electrification has finally been rolled out, we have seen unprecedented levels of people using trains in Auckland, and they want more. They can see that it works. They can see that it is the only way to deal with record population growth, record arrivals of visitors. Every city of its size in the world has a decent public transport network. And I, as a young transport planner, wanted to help make that happen.

But we have had a decade of a Government, under this National Government, that has delayed progress on rail in Auckland. It dragged its heels on electrification. That should have happened by 2012, but it delayed it by well over 2 years, and in the end we did not get it finished until 2015.

When I came to Parliament in 2011, I was coming down and questioning the Minister of Transport about the City Rail Link, saying that this has to be a big priority for Auckland. Finally, after 6 years, the National Government relented and realised that, yes, people want trains because it is the only way to fix our transport problems. So it is finally going ahead, but we should not have to wait another 6 years. Things are at a breaking point.

Between the transport crisis and the housing crisis, Aucklanders have suffered for too long, and, frankly, rail to Auckland Airport is a project of national significance. It is our largest city. It is where arrivals to New Zealand generally touch down, and their first experience, more often than not, is an unreliable bus service or a traffic jam somewhere on the way to the airport.

When I questioned the Minister about this state, it was great that he did not deny outright the possibility of completing airport rail by 2021, but he had some odd answers, like the Waterview Connection being open—suddenly, it is going to take 20 minutes less to get to the airport, so we do not need a train. I am not sure whether the Minister has been to Auckland Airport recently, but the best the Waterview Connection could do is to help people get to the queues on the road heading into the airport 20 minutes faster, and that is if it is completely off-peak and no one else is using the roads. It has been too long that we have had to have this debate. I mean, people across the political spectrum in Auckland—and around the country, I think—agree that it is time for forward thinking.

We want to catch up with other cities in the world. We have had to wait too long, and the Green Party is going to deliver it. We are delivering the vision and the ambition that Aucklanders have been waiting for and that New Zealanders have been waiting for, because there is a whole host of practical solutions to some of the challenges we are facing. Whether it is transport, whether it is the climate, whether it is cleaning up our rivers, or whether it is reducing inequality, all of these are very worthy and ambitious goals, and this National Government has proven in the last 8½ years that it will not even attempt to solve any of these problems unless it is dragged, kicking and screaming.

Well, I think New Zealanders have had enough. I think they are ready for a change, and I think they are ready for a fundamental change in direction, rather than just flailing around with increasing pollution, increasing congestion, increasing house prices, and increasing homelessness. That is not the New Zealand that most Kiwis identify with. Whether they were born here or whether they have emigrated here, as I have, they know that we can all work together to create the New Zealand that we want. That is a place where we have reducing pollution, where no one—no one—is homeless, where no child is growing up in poverty, and where we have an integrated transport system that gives people real choices where they have the option to hop on a train or to let their kids walk and cycle safely to school. All of this is achievable, but only if we change the Government.

This is a Government that is truly delivering for New Zealanders and a Government that achieves outcomes that make a tangible difference to our quality of life. The strong economy we have built in the last 9 years needs to keep growing, and it will under National because we are the only party that knows how to fuel the economy, how to keep it growing, and how to manage the growth that we have, and we are doing it very well. By getting the books into surplus, we have choices. We have ways in which we can choose to help people’s lives, and we are doing it.

My colleague the Minister for Social Housing talked about the audacity of Labour and its leadership—an oxymoron, if ever we heard it. Slave labour is certainly an epithet that fits those members. When we look at what they have achieved and what their vision is, there is nothing left to say. So I will move on to our investments and what we have done, which is more jobs, higher wages with less unemployment, and a much better start for the 60,000 young people who are now growing up in households that are not benefit-dependent. By lifting incomes and reducing taxes, we are reducing the pressure on those families that are most in need.

I need look no further than my own ministerial responsibility for seniors. The elder abuse services that we rolled out on Saturday, 1 July really will help to protect a very vulnerable group of New Zealanders. In the 2½ years I have had the privilege of being the Minister for Seniors, I have listened to groups and heard what they have had to say, which is that one of the biggest challenges they face is the elder abuse problem. It is a scourge on New Zealand society.

Unlike some parties, we listen, and that is why we have implemented the Elder Abuse Response Service (EARS), which is a particularly good evaluation of response to elder abuse services. Annually, we have something like 70,000 New Zealanders who are being abused, either physically, sexually, psychologically—perhaps through neglect—or financially. These are the sorts of concerns that have really not been addressed directly.

We have very much a social investment outlook as a Government, so we expect to see measurable outcomes for investments made. That is why, on Saturday, we rolled out a new group of providers that will be providing elder abuse services to a much wider geographical area than we ever have had before and to far more ethnic groups than we have had before, because these are among the most isolated of all our seniors. We need to be aware that the cases that we read about in the news are ones that are going on all the time in New Zealand. They are horrific. Ena Lai Dung weighed just 29 kilograms and had 15 broken bones when ambulance officers found her body. Her daughter went to prison for 13 years for manslaughter. World War II veteran Ron Greenhalgh died last year without enough money to pay for his funeral because it was squandered at the TAB by his daughter, who is currently serving home detention.

Sadly, most of these cases remain unreported, which is another reason why, just as with housing, we are taking a whole-of-Government approach—a social investment approach. We are focused on outcomes and on interventions. The Elder Abuse Response Service has had an extra investment going into it that involves 18 new organisations and 10 Age Concern branches, which are being funded for the first time. Prevention and awareness work will be run through the Ministry of Social Development office for seniors, and that is going to free up front-line providers to do the necessary work.

The cornerstone of the new EARS service is a 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week helpline. It is a professionally staffed freephone—0800 EA NOT OK. I am very hopeful that it will encourage and enable people to report this problem, which some see as very shameful, or to phone the helpline to get professional advice from registered nurses as to what the options are and to be referred to their local provider.

A quick update on Predator Free 2050: this Government has a very proud record of achievement in conservation. Again, it is something that because the books are in order we are able to invest in, so we have had $76 million extra going into tourism and recreation and the values that we place on our estate, which, of course, will enable us to accommodate more visitors without spoiling their experiences through overcrowding. That extra revenue will be ploughed back into biodiversity.

It was about a year ago this month that we launched it. We have a Predator Free 2050 board, which is a limited Crown company. I met the CEO of it, Ed Chignell, today—a heck of a good guy. There are really exciting plans to engage in landscape-scale predator control throughout the country. The Department of Conservation has nine new—for each region—Predator Free 2050 rangers, who will help communities help themselves to attain their predator-free goals. Together we can do this thing, and we will achieve predator-free status by 2050. Thank you.

Watching members opposite is like watching part three of a movie series that should never have been made. You sit there with the cushion, kind of cringing behind it, because you know it is tired, it is out of ideas, and it just lacks any kind of vision.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Jumping the shark.

That is right. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway says, it is the epitome of jumping the shark. This is 9 long years in the making, this Government, what we are seeing here today. What we are also seeing in the speeches—it is very interesting listening to the general debate speeches, where you see the lines get refined. I notice that Government members have now stopped saying they are delivering for all New Zealanders. That is largely because, obviously, their polling is showing that is not what people believe. This is not a Government that is delivering for all New Zealanders. This is not a country where people are better off. This is a country where people are crying out for housing. This is a country where people need more from their health system, and this is a country where people need more from their education system.

The train crash that we are seeing opposite starts at the top. What we are seeing is a party headed by a leader who has no vision and is losing credibility with the New Zealand public. He is also losing moral authority. You only need to have a look at the Barclay affair. The story changes every day. Today again, in question time, we saw a man who thinks it is credible that the Prime Minister—the leader of our country, so-called—can stand up and basically “plead the Fifth” time and time again. He will not front up. He will not take responsibility. That is not leadership or what we need.

We heard the Minister responsible for housing talking about housing. Well, this Government needs to realise we have people living in cars. Newsflash: a car is not a home. It has four doors, in the main, and that is not a home. That is not a place I want to see New Zealanders calling home. We see a Government that in the middle of a housing crisis is continuing with its ideological agenda to flog off State houses. In Christchurch it is wanting to sell 2,500 State houses, and one of the consortiums that have been shortlisted to buy those houses has been accused of human rights breaches on Manus Island. These are the kinds of people who this Government thinks are capable of running our social housing. This is the one that Alfred Ngaro is not fronting up to and threatening to take away their funding if they happen to say a word out of line about the Government’s absolute failure when it comes to housing.

We do have a plan. We certainly have a plan for how many houses we are going to build in the Hutt Valley, and I can tell you there will be more affordable options. We do not think that we can keep shutting New Zealanders out of housing, like this Government does. Its plan in the Hutt Valley just shows that it has given up on affordable housing for a generation of New Zealanders. Labour will build houses. We have a housing crisis in New Zealand, and when you have a housing crisis—newsflash: you need houses. That is exactly what Labour will deliver, through its KiwiBuild programme.

When I am out and about in my electorate, in Wigram, when I am in the doorstep, when I am out meeting people, and when I am on the phone, the No. 1 issue that is raised with me is mental health. This is a Government that is absolutely letting down the country and the people of Canterbury when it comes to mental health. You only had to listen to the Minister of Health slipping and sliding in questions today, in response to Dr David Clark about what the Government is doing. We have a population that has been left traumatised by a series of events, and the latest event to traumatise them is the funding-pulling that this Government is doing in the area of mental health. It is an absolute dereliction of duty, when it comes to the people of Canterbury and their well-being. And it is something this Government will be judged by, by the people of Canterbury, on 23 September. This is a Government that is not delivering for all New Zealanders. It is a Government that is facing a crisis in housing, in health, and in education, and it is out of ideas.

This is a Government that is delivering for all New Zealanders—for all New Zealanders. The member Megan Woods can stress and strain; those members can yell, and they can try to sort of make it sound like it is plausible. The member talked about a plan. Well, let us talk about Labour’s plan. What was the Labour members’ plan, which their own leader turned up and said was an embarrassment? Why? All the things they have said about immigration, all the things they have said about students coming over—that they would regulate, that they would change, that they would ensure they would restrict—all of a sudden it came back to bite them. At first they were saying they did not know about it and they were not sure, trying to hold it at arm’s length, but that member knows for sure that if they really took a look, their leader was right; it was an embarrassment for what they had to say. All of a sudden the so-called plan to make changes, so-called, was not happening.

The member then said that this Government should be held to account. She talked about housing. Let us remember that there were the Opposition members, three of them who came together, who started to have this inquiry into homelessness. There were 20 recommendations that came out of the inquiry, and I can say to you that the No. 1 recommendation that came from the Opposition, from its inquiry, was that the Government should initiate Housing First. Housing First—that was the No. 1 recommendation from the Opposition parties. That is what this Government is doing. Opposition members could turn around and say: “Well, here you go, you just initiate it now”. That Opposition knows that there has been a pile of programmes that have been happening for 2 years over in the Waikato. What we were able to see from those programmes—over 274 residents came along, the chronically homeless, working with people from The Wise Group, with those who are practitioners in the field, who are making the difference. What they were able to achieve was a 92 percent residency rate—the retention to residency over that period of time, over 2 years.

💬 Sue Moroney: You believe that?

That is right—the member over there knows. It happened in the Waikato. It was a successful programme making a difference for homelessness.

So what have we done? Out of that lesson, we have now extended it through to Auckland. We have got the Auckland City Mission, with Chris Farrelly, which has come on board. We have got VisionWest. We have got Lifewise. A number of other practitioners are coming together to address this, and so far, since this has been initiated, we have begun to see more of those organisations dealing with the chronically homeless.

In those 20 recommendations, there was another recommendation—I think it was recommendation No. 3—that this Government should increase the State housing stock to meet the needs. Well, just to let the members know, they would have seen that we have not only increased it in the announcement of 2017, but this was the first Government to introduce $354 million to address the issues of emergency housing. Special needs grants—for those people whom the Opposition members have been talking about, those who are sleeping in cars. Yes, we know there are those who are struggling. There is an opportunity there for special needs grants, then moving into transitional housing, and then moving into social housing. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. I will not put up with that level of interjection coming from Sue Moroney.

There is a little bit of excitement, I know, because they are enjoying the news. This is good news. This is a Government that is delivering for all New Zealanders. So that was another recommendation that came from the inquiry from Opposition members. We know that we have increased the stock out there. It is making a difference. The announcement has made 2,150 places available, for emergency places, to deal with the issues of those who are challenged by homelessness and the homeless conditions that they have been in.

The other issue that was in the 20 recommendations was around the review of the accommodation supplement—that is right, it was in their recommendations. I am proud to say, and the members know this, that in Budget 2017—since 2003, by the way, when there was no review—we are reviewing the accommodation supplement. The members next door are asking for the proof of the pudding—in other words, where is the action that this Government is taking? It is taking those actions. Those were recommendations that came out of the 20 recommendations, and around about 15 to 16 of them have already been put in place by this Government. So the inquiry that they had—we know that we are making a difference in that regard.

I have been available and have been down to places like Gisborne, where there have been some challenges. I have been proud to announce that even down in Gisborne, we have been able to see the Eastland Motor Lodge—19 units—able to help 76 local families, and we are working alongside providers like women’s refuge that can provide wraparound support. Let us think about Hawke’s Bay, with 23 short-term transitional places available—the Clansman Motor Lodge in Hastings, and the Napier Garden Motel, which is centrally located.

When the Opposition is asking for the proof of the pudding—are we delivering—this is a Government that is delivering. It is delivering in emergency housing, it is delivering in social housing, and it is delivering on addressing the issues, even of homelessness. We are not shirking our responsibility. When the people go to the polls on 23 September they can see that we are a Government that is delivering for all New Zealanders.

Oh, how far left the National Government has come. Today we are going to have legislation go through this House in order to change the Youth Court age, the youth justice jurisdiction, to include 17-year-olds. Guess what? Eight or 9 years ago, in 2008, Labour had this exact same legislation on the table, and what did National say? National said: “We would be a bunch of wusses if we supported this legislation.” That is what those members said. Now we have got a situation, 9 years later—flip-flop—where National is using Labour legislation. The Labour Party loves it, the Green Party loves it—that is how far left the National Government has come in 8 short years. I know for a fact that there are going to be some senior members in National who are cringing at the left, liberal pathway that this National Government is going.

The problem with the youth justice system is that National has got its blinkers on. It has got its fingers in its ears, and it does not want to listen to facts. It does not want to listen to the evidence. In fact, the major mistake that most people make in looking at the youth justice system is that they do not realise that 85 percent of the youth justice system is operated by the police. It does not even make the Youth Court. It does not even go through the family group conferences. So who is the first group you are going to ask whether you should change legislation? How about the people who deal with those young criminals, those young thugs, day in, day out—how about the Police Association? How about the fact that the Police Association said that 75 percent of the front-line police do not want this legislation to change? They do not want 17-year-olds to be involved with the youth justice system.

How about going even further? How about asking the police officers who deal with those young people day in, day out, the youth aid officers? Fifty-five percent of the youth aid officers do not want this youth age jurisdiction to change. Why? Because they know that it is not going to work for those young people. They can see that right now the youth justice system is failing the 16-year-olds and under, so all that is going to happen is that 17-year-olds are going to be failed as well.

The problem we have got is that the Minister stands up, day in, day out, and now Mark Mitchell stands up, and says there is evidence and there is proof—evidence and proof—that 17-year-olds will be better off in the youth justice system. I asked for that proof, and they sent it to me. I am going to quote from the evidence that the Minister and this Government have sent to me. I am going to quote from the evidence they use as justification to include 17-year-olds in the youth justice system: “the conclusions regarding diversion programs become rather difficult to interpret, as these two meta-analyses, which set out with the same goal, ended with virtually unique sets of included studies and opposing findings.”—opposing findings. And: “the evidence from these studies is insufficient to determine whether or not laws or policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles to the adult court justice system are effective… ”. They do not know whether they are effective.

What else? “As indicated in the above review, the findings from these studies were contradictory.” This is all evidence that has been given to me. How about this one: “the effects of transfer on crimes not regarded as violent are not yet clear, although transferred youth seemed to show lower rates”—lower rates—“of later drug offenses.” That is contradictory evidence—mixed evidence, at best. This is the best part—the conclusion: “There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether laws or policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal justice system are effective in preventing or reducing violence in the general juvenile population.”

This is the evidence that this Government and this Minister presented when asked for justification for the very legislation that is going through the House today. When asked for the evidence, that is the evidence that we got. That is the evidence that this National Government thinks is sufficient to include more 17-year-olds in a failing youth justice system—a failing youth justice system. I have been in this House for the last couple of weeks, and I have told that Minister that there has been an increase in serious offences by young people of 40 percent across the country, but there has been a decrease in the convictions in court for that same age group over that same time period. Is there any wonder that dairy owners, liquor store owners, and the hard-working small-business owners feel threatened and unsafe in their communities?

I feel a bit short-changed. I was looking forward to a Ron Mark special. I mean, he has got only 4 more weeks left as deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party, because Shane is on the way. Shane is about to take over. So I was looking forward to a Ron Mark special, but instead we got something from Darroch Ball.

I have to say, Darroch Ball—he has at least learnt not to read from speeches. Every other New Zealand First member does seem to read from speeches. But he is wrong. He is wrong because youth justice is actually working well for New Zealanders. Youth crime is down 33 percent since we have been in Government. Youth crime is down by a third since we have been in Government, and Māori youth offending is down by half. If we want to talk about youth justice in this country, I think we should look at the record, and see the record of the National-led Government, which shows youth justice is working. In fact, if we can see more young people getting in front of the Youth Court, there will be fewer instances of young people reoffending, and I think that is a win for young people in New Zealand.

When we look around the House and we look around the different parties and at how they are looking, I am proud to be on this side of the House. An election is a contest of ideas. An election is a time when parties go to the public and say: “This is what we believe in, this is what we stand for, this is what we’ve delivered, and this is what we’re doing for New Zealanders.” When we look at the record of the National-led Government, where more people are getting into work, where more jobs are being created, where wages are rising in our economy, and where there are 60,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent homes—I am going to be proud to be campaigning on that record.

When we look at the other side, those members talk about a race to the bottom. The only race to the bottom I have seen so far is the Leader of the Opposition’s approval ratings in the polls. He cannot even crack 10 percent in the preferred Prime Minister polls. The Labour Party cannot even crack 30 percent in the approval polls, yet those members campaign and they sit there as if they are about to walk over to this side of the House. I have to say, if they want to do that they have to earn it from New Zealanders. We have been earning it by ensuring we are delivering for New Zealanders and by ensuring we are doing more for them and putting more money in their pockets.

When we look at the Labour Party—it used to care about housing for New Zealanders. But it comes into this House and it opposes things like the Point England development. It opposed the Three Kings development. If Labour really cared about housing, it would be supporting us on those policies. The Labour Party used to care about jobs in this economy. It used to care about creating jobs in the economy. It has got an industrial relations policy, though, that harks back to the 1970s, will see strike after strike at Christmas and holiday time, will cost New Zealanders jobs, and will see more people in the unemployment queue. That is what the Labour Party’s industrial relations and jobs policy now means for New Zealanders.

It used to be the party of free trade as well. It used to be the party that believed we should be exporting more around the world and that we should be helping to grow the economy. But now Labour is opposed to more jobs being created in trade industry. It is opposed to more trading opportunities for New Zealanders. It is opposed to more opportunities for New Zealand business to grow and for more New Zealand businesses to interact with the rest of the world. When it comes to trade, Labour has gone off the reservation. It has joined Kennedy Graham. He is a hard worker, but goodness me! Kennedy, I am sorry—I cannot agree with your trade policy; Labour does now, though. Labour does not believe in free trade for New Zealanders and it does not support trade policies. It will be costing New Zealanders future job opportunities, should it ever get into Government over this side.

Labour used to care about low-income families as well. It used to care about policies that would put more money in their pockets. Year after year, though, it is opposing Budget measures that would see more support for New Zealand families. When we increased benefit wages, benefit numbers, and benefit payouts by $25 a week, Labour opposed that. When we increased and made changes through the Budget that would see 1.3 million New Zealanders have more money in their pockets, Labour opposed that as well. The Labour Party no longer cares about low-income New Zealanders. It no longer cares about people wanting houses. It no longer cares about more jobs for New Zealanders. It no longer cares about trading with the rest of the world.

The thing that I have to say stands out most is that the Labour Party—the Labour Party that cares and used to talk about migrant wages and migrant living conditions and working conditions—is the party that has now brought in place slave labour conditions for its overseas-imported volunteers, and those members should be ashamed of that.

We are creating more jobs. More New Zealanders have more opportunities in their lives. We are seeing crime rates coming down. We are seeing more police on the street. We are seeing more opportunities in the health system for people to get access to health, and our education achievement rates are rising. We are delivering for New Zealanders. We are proud of what we stand for, and we look forward to the next 3 months.

The previous speaker, Jami-Lee Ross, talked about a contest of ideas, and I think those watching on the TV will find it deeply ironic that all of the ideas that he debated in his speech were Labour Party ideas. He may have got them wrong and he may have sent us off in the wrong direction, but he had nothing—absolutely nothing—to say about what the National Party would do if it is the next Government. It has been here for 9 years.

He talked about unemployment and he talked about our industrial relations policy and tried to say that that would create employment issues. The Labour Government had unemployment at the lowest in the Western World when it left office. After the global financial crisis, unemployment went up. It is now higher than it was during the global financial crisis, because of this Government’s stewardship. That is what a track record looks like on industrial relations policy from that side. During the 1990s unemployment was between 7 and 11 percent—it jumped up and down. It has stayed high; this Government has high unemployment. A Labour Government believes in full employment, tries to get there, and puts policies in place to make sure people do have work. That is the contrast that we need to see today.

This side of the House does have fresh ideas. After 9 long years of failure on that side of the House, all we can see, when National members are proposing how they are going to boost the economy, is the rocketing sales of tape-recorders down in Clutha-Southland and a job creation scheme in National’s electorate offices down there. That is their fresh idea. That is the only one we have seen recently. We certainly heard nothing at all from that member, Jami-Lee Ross.

While we are on the Bill English “de-Barclay”, I think we need to examine whether we can now have confidence, as a country, in our Prime Minister. He was caught telling the truth by the police, but no one else caught him out in that regard for quite some time. He told this House that he knew nothing of the affair and that he knew nothing about recorded tapes of private conversations, which look like they are illegal activities. He said he knew nothing about it. Finally, he was caught up, telling the truth when the papers and the statements to the police were released.

That is a failure of moral leadership. We saw it with the Treaty of Waitangi celebrations up in Northland, where the Prime Minister did not show up—again. Every time there is trouble he ducks for cover. There is no moral leadership with this current Prime Minister. We have a Prime Minister, but I am afraid we do not have a leader.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Matt McCarten? How’s Labour dealing with Matt McCarten? Where’s your leadership?

Contrast that with what happens when Andrew Little faces up and deals with the matter that the Hon Maggie Barry raises. Andrew Little owned the issue and apologised. It was peripherally done in the name of the Labour Party, and he got on and dealt with the issue. He made sure that those volunteers were accommodated appropriately and looked after.

I heard Jami-Lee Ross claiming that they have no volunteers in their party. Well, I am not surprised, with ideas like his—with what he was trying to put across. He was trying to say there were no unpaid people working for his party. I am not surprised, with the set of ideas he tried to bring across in the House today. There were zip—zero, zilch—new ideas. After 9 long years they are out of touch.

We need a fresh approach, and that fresh approach will involve making sure that we fund services properly and that we get on with building new houses. Stop the excuses. Stop the excuses about not building houses, about how the market will set the prices, and about how people will come across from Australia, which we heard today. Goodness me! Nothing—everything but a policy on building houses. The Labour Party wants, with the KiwiBuild project, to build 10,000 houses a year and make sure that Kiwis have access to affordable housing.

In the health sphere we want to make sure that policies are in place to deal with the rising crisis in mental health. We know that the need for mental health services has gone up 60 percent in the last decade, and yet that Government has funded less than half of that amount for support services. It has gone up only 28 percent in that time. When you have demand on hospital services going up and you do not fund those services, they get cut. We have seen that in terms of many kinds of services in the health sector. We have seen it with hip and knee surgeries. We have seen it with cataracts. We have seen it with plenty of other services. Over half a million Kiwis could not afford to go to the GP last year because of rising prices—$42 is the average price now to go and see a GP. That has happened under this Government’s watch. Health services are becoming less accessible to the New Zealanders who pay taxes and expect to have adequate access, affordable access, to quality healthcare.

We will also put money into education and make sure every kid has the opportunity to get ahead. The Labour Party believes every New Zealander should have a world-class education at their local school, and will give opportunities post - secondary school too, working towards 3 years of free post - secondary education.

This party believes in the future of New Zealanders. We believe in strong public services and in making sure every Kiwi has the opportunity to get ahead.

If I were a bookmaker, I would say the odds on David Clark standing there in 3 years’ time saying “Oh, 12 long years.” are pretty good.

💬 Dr David Clark: Arrogant. Out of touch—out of touch. Arrogant. Claiming 12 years already—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

While I certainly do not want to concentrate on the negative—he did not like that, did he—I do want to talk about provincial New Zealand and about what has been going on in provincial New Zealand as a result of the activities of this Government over a number of years. Of course, in my own region we have an economic development strategy called Accelerate25, which is moving very quickly to deal with some initiatives that this Government helped with—set in train—and that will make a big difference to my region.

This is a Government that will work for a New Zealand where innovation and hard work is recognised and rewarded, and a New Zealand that looks after the most vulnerable and helps them change their lives. That is what our last two Budgets have been about, and it has made a significant difference. Our philosophy is to enable and encourage personal responsibility and a positive attitude, and it is working.

I want to talk about a number of initiatives in the Rangitīkei electorate. The first one that I want to get on to is the Ruapehu Alpine Lifts, or RAL, which is putting $100 million into developments on Mount Ruapehu. That is a massive injection of money into the tourism industry, and it shows the confidence that that company has in what is going on in provincial New Zealand and what is going on in New Zealand in general. It is hugely exciting for that region. It will create a number of jobs—a large number of new jobs—in the region. It will create the incentive for companies to get on and build new facilities and new accommodation, and it will encourage the use of a large number of—well, the two national parks, for a starter—tracks and cycleways that have been created as a result of this Government’s investment in the national cycleway and the Tongariro Crossing, as a result of the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) investment in the top end of my electorate, which has been significant, particularly around the Tangiwai Memorial, which was opened by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage some 4 or 5 weeks ago, and, as I said before, the Tongariro Crossing.

Sometimes in provincial New Zealand we are challenged by issues that are significantly difficult for us to manage. In the top end of my electorate I have a company called the Lines Company, which for some years now has been quite challenging. It has been challenging for the local MP, I can assure you. It has been challenging for its community. It has now got new leadership, a new chief executive officer, and a new chair. It has adopted a new methodology, which was researched by Roger Sutton, and that will make a massive difference to the top of my electorate. I think the exciting thing about that is that eventually the market finds a way of resolving issues that, frankly, are hugely difficult for Governments to intervene in.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: They’re not happy in Taumarunui, Ian.

It is, actually.

I want to talk about the cycleways, the walkways, and the DOC investment, as I talked about earlier. The special infrastructure fund has put over a million dollars into the top end of my electorate, making a massive difference to the Ruapehu District’s ability to fund some of those projects that are so necessary where we have got very low populations. Yesterday some further funding for the “Great Rides” was put into the Mountain to the Sea cycleway, which, of course, goes from the top of the mountain, basically, to the Wanganui coast, and that is really exciting for a major part of my electorate.

I have not seen in my lifetime the primary sector in as good an order as it is right now. I think it is hugely encouraging that that whole sector has got its act together, producing really good product, and many of our newer industries—what I call newer industries, like the wine and kiwifruit industries, and things like that—are doing hugely well. It is very positive for provincial New Zealand, and it is very positive for New Zealand.

I just want to make mention, though, of one part of that sector that is doing very poorly, and that is the wool industry. It is ironic, is it not, that the wool industry voted not to fund itself and not to support R & D and not to support its marketing processes, and it wonders why it is going no good. That is a very strong signal, I think.

Finally, I just want to talk about the Silver Fern Farms investment and the turnaround of the meat industry. That investment has completely turned the meat industry on its head in a matter of 6 months. Who would have thought that 6 months ago lambs would have beaten the $150 that Federated Farmers have been talking about for some time? It has gone past that long since, and it has gone past it because the meat industry has suddenly got its feet on the ground and it is up and running. I do not think that will change in a hurry, so that is really very positive for provincial New Zealand. So thank you.

In New York right now perhaps the most important event ever to be held is under way. Some 130 countries are negotiating a treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The negotiations have a pedigree. It was 71 years ago, in January 1946, that the United Nations General Assembly, in its very first resolution, set up a commission to manage the elimination of atomic weapons from national armaments.

The first aspiration of we the peoples of the United Nations was this: a nuclear-weapon-free world. Progress has been slow and painstaking. Originally, five countries still thought it necessary to possess nuclear weapons—now nine countries—for their national security, as they deem it. A partial control was achieved half a century ago with the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), but it is a fraught deal. The nine States possess, even today, 15,000 nuclear weapons, with 1,800 on high alert. They are not negotiating to disarm, despite a legal obligation to do so under the NPT.

A seminal, historic breakthrough occurred in December last year at the United Nations (UN) when the General Assembly agreed to negotiate a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons for good. Progress has been rapid. A final text is expected this Friday. The draft is extraordinary. The parties will not manufacture, possess, use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons. After seven decades the world is beginning to rid itself of nuclear weapons. There is one weakness. The draft allows a State to withdraw. So why is that a problem?

The central purpose of the treaty is to outlaw nuclear weapons. The World Court judges their use to be generally contrary to international law. The treaty notes this. It also says: “Nuclear weapons are abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.” The treaty talks about the irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons. How can a State negotiate, sign, and ratify a treaty declaring nuclear weapons to be prohibited, contrary to law, abhorrent to the principles of humanity, and for their elimination to be irreversible, and then proceed to withdraw and acquire and use them? In human logic, not easily—actually, not at all. Why is there any withdrawal option? Because of a State’s traditional right to exercise its national sovereignty. But customary international law provides for certain universal norms that no State can violate. Neither the UN Charter nor the human rights covenants have withdraw clauses. It is strange that this treaty would.

A related consideration is that the court, back in 1996, could not conclude whether nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in extreme circumstances of self-defence in which the very survival of a State would be at stake. In making this judgment, the court noted that there is neither a customary nor conventional international law for any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, as such. That is what this treaty is designed to achieve: a final prohibition by a majority, then universally. The seminal contribution of this treaty is a total and irreversible prohibition. Once a State enters that tunnel there can be no backing out, only going forward towards the light.

So what to do? It is late in the piece and many States remain fixated on their national sovereignty in the age of the global commons, but there is some middle ground. If there is to be a withdrawal option, there should be a high threshold. If a State declares it necessary for its very survival to withdraw and acquire a prohibited weapon, it would be understood that this would trigger an extraordinary meeting of the parties, to consider the merits of any stated reasons and establish a reconciliation body to avert withdrawal. It is not perfect. The treaty would be better and more logical without withdrawal, but this might be a reasonable compromise, and New Zealand could lead on that after signature and ratification.

It is a fantastic opportunity for me to round off this debate as speaker No. 12 of 12, because, obviously, I get to end the debate, conclude it, on a note of truth, especially in acknowledging what this Government has achieved in 9 years, and the fact that this country is a fantastic country. We have moved so far in 9 years under the leadership of this Government and with the help of the New Zealand people.

I want to acknowledge that this country is a fantastic place to live, work, and raise a family. Looking at our economy, it is growing at 3 percent—the envy of the OECD—creating 200,000 jobs in the past 3 years. Average wages are going up. An average wage at the moment is $59,000, increased by $17,000 since 2008. We are doing this by diversifying our economy and investing in R & D and Primary Growth Partnerships. We are delivering in the dairy, sheep, and primary industries. We are investing in manufacturing. We are investing in ultra-fast broadband (UFB) so that our businesses can connect with the rest of the world to sell their wares. International education is booming and a thriving industry, as we attract internationals to our world-class universities and polytechnics. And, of course, we are investing into tourism to show off and showcase our fantastic, clean, green country, and we can do all this because we have got our books in balance and we have created momentum so that we have a surplus that gives us choices to invest across a range of portfolios and deliver for all New Zealanders.

I am very, very proud of the fact that we are delivering for all New Zealanders. We will not leave the vulnerable behind. We are firmly entrenched in our social investment model, and we will continue to analyse the data, look at trends, look at the drivers of things that are holding back our most vulnerable, and invest in them. Let us not forget that we are the first Government in 43 years to raise benefits in real terms. We are the Government that has had a $2 billion families package to put more money in the back pockets of low to middle income New Zealanders so that they have that money to spend. We are the first Government to start reducing ACC levies and, again, to put money in the back pockets of New Zealanders, and that all comes about by prudent management of the books.

We have invested a record $17 billion into health to make sure that our children get the best start in life and to make sure that our people are getting the surgeries that they need and the health attention, so that they can lead healthy lives moving forward. Of course, we have our flagship policies like free doctors visits for under-13s. In Southland and Otago alone, 48,000 children have benefited from free doctors visits in that region. It is such a help to be able to take your family to the doctor, get early intervention, and make sure that children are healthy and happy moving forward. In Southland, again, with our investment into early childhood education (ECE), we have 97.7 percent ECE participation rates. So not only are our children happy and healthy but they are also getting an education from the word go so that they can create a platform to springboard from to gain the skills that they need to become productive citizens in the future.

As my colleague Mr McKelvie has rightly noted, this is a Government that is interested in regional development. We are a Government that has created a Business Growth Agenda and swung in behind the regions with regional strategies, making sure that we put our money where our mouth is so that tangible results can be achieved.

As part of that, I have to mention that it has been a challenge of late, in Southland, with the Bonamia ostreae situation that has occurred down in Stewart Island. That has been a distressing situation, but, again, the Government, through the Ministry for Primary Industries, has swung into action. We are going through the phases of removing the infected stock and making sure that it is done in a controlled way to protect the $20 million wild fishery that exists. As part of that, we are putting recovery officers in place so that they can work with Work and Income, the district health board, and all of the businesses, to make sure that those people are supported in a mental health capacity. So I am very pleased with the delivery and the goals that this Government has achieved.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.