General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. What a week we have seen in politics, and it has been a week. I am sure the Opposition can appreciate the lows, the highs, the lows, the highs, the lows, the lows, and the lows that it has been going through. As I said, you can change the lead singer, and the spotlight might go on, and the lights might be a bit shiny, but if the band is still out of tune, then nobody is listening. And the band is not just out of tune; it is actually still playing the same old song. I quite like that the first policy that Jacinda Ardern said she would stick with was R & D tax credits. That is from 2007, guys—2007. Most of the water stuff that we heard today was the same as Labour had in 2014, I have got to say. I think the highlight of it all for me was Saturday’s regional fuel tax, which was its policy, again, in 2007. So the song is still the same, and I can tell you, I do not reckon the public is going to listen for that long.

So in the first week—in the first week—we have seen two new taxes be introduced by Labour, and those two new taxes are going to put costs on the very people it purports to care most about. Those disadvantaged New Zealanders who are struggling daily—who, yes, do eat our food and need our farmers to actually produce that for them, and who actually do drive their cars—are going to see extra costs on them and their households from the very party that is supposed to be doing the most for them.

Man, do we have a marriage of convenience that has become very inconvenient and more than a bit awkward, I think, in the last few days. You know that memorandum of understanding (MOU)? Actually, I think MOU now stands for a “marriage of unpleasantness”, because that is pretty much what it is. We had Andrew Little, of course, who is the runaway bride—one of, I think, about four or five we have had so far. Then, of course, we have got Jacinda Ardern, who has stepped up to take his place. Now she has found herself pretty much at the altar with a partner whom there is no way she is in love with. She does not quite know what to do with the other one, and it is all starting to get a bit awkward.

I am not quite sure whether Metiria is actually going to be at the altar or not. Has that decision really been made? We have still got the co-leader of the Greens, who is still the co-leader of the Greens, yet not a Minister in any sort of Government—which they have to form together, by the way, just to get numbers that are anywhere close to being on the Government benches. Well, we have not clarified whether or not that member might actually be a Minister outside of Cabinet, because we have not actually heard from the Labour leadership—I am looking forward to hearing about that—as to whether or not it is genuinely ruling out Metiria Turei as a Minister outside of Cabinet. I think the public deserves to know that. By her own accountabilities, she is not fit to be around the Cabinet table and was withdrawn from that, but Labour, of course, wants to withdraw itself completely from any kind of conversation that goes to it. Literally, though, the Greens and Labour cannot live without each other and are still going through what I will call their marriage of inconvenience.

Then we have got New Zealand First, which is there trying to be the backup band, trying to say that it has to be around that table. Winston Peters is in the wings trying to make out that he is the one who is actually playing the tune, and I am not sure how that is going.

The guest list is looking decidedly messy. It is a messy divorce before the dowry has even been paid. It is a messy divorce with no real direction, so I look forward to the next few weeks. I look forward to going out there and talking to New Zealanders about what is genuinely important to them—about the growth in this country, about the direction that it is going. You will not hear this side saying—as we have heard from Labour members repeatedly, they are not sure what to do with the growth, so they will just whack on more tax and, actually, they think we should take a breather. Well, this is not about taking a breather; this is actually about driving forward the advantages that this country already has, which New Zealanders are up for. What New Zealanders are looking for is leadership and a Government that can really keep them moving in the right direction. To the Opposition: rock on.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. That speech from the Hon Paula Bennett is a classic example of the Government’s bombast on the economy. We repeatedly hear the Government saying what a wonderful economic manager it is, but we should remind the Government that we have just had a second quarter of negative, real terms, per capita growth—that is two terms of decline in per capita GDP. It is not only population that is pumping up the figures for the Government in a desperate attempt to make it look like it is a good economic manager; it is polluters. They are getting away without paying for the cost of their pollution. You cannot swim in 60 percent of our rivers. It is mining on conservation land, subsidised by taxpayers who are picking up the bill for cleaning up after oil production and mining. There has been a 19 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions that are uncosted, and we have heard that the Government is about to pay $1.4 billion in the future in terms of foreign carbon credits.

By contrast, the Greens will bring in a sustainable economy. We will make polluters pay and we will clean up our rivers. We will defend our conservation land and we will save the 80 percent of native bird species that are threatened. We will invest in a green infrastructure fund to reduce our emissions and create exciting opportunities for businesses in the rapidly expanding clean economy.

The second way that the Government is pumping up the economy is by dirty money and speculation. Tax-dodgers and criminals have, according to the Financial Times, used New Zealand as a soft touch. We have seen speculation driving up house prices in New Zealand, and especially in Auckland, making it the most unaffordable city in the world. The Greens, by contrast, will ensure that we have a productive economy. We will put in a capital gains tax to divert money from housing into the productive economy. We will crack down on multinationals and tax-dodgers. We will restrict house purchases to New Zealand residents only. We will support our small to medium sized enterprises and ensure that they are not, as they are at the moment, disadvantaged by unfair competition from foreign multinationals. We will support innovation and add value to our agricultural commodities. At the moment, our unprocessed commodities are a higher proportion of our exports than they were when this Government got into office.

The Government has managed the economy for the benefit of the few, not the many. Twenty percent of kids live in cold, damp homes and they suffer from respiratory diseases as a result. We have the highest number of people on low incomes living under housing stress. We have the highest rate of homelessness in the world. The Greens will fix our ripped social safety net. We will boost benefits and provide incentives for work, and make the welfare system supportive, not punitive. Our economy should serve people, not the other way round.

The Greens will build an economy for all New Zealanders, not for the few. We will add value to our commodities by supporting innovation, supporting high skills, and making our society fairer and more equal. These are the ways that we will drive our economy towards sustainability, towards productivity, and towards fairness. These would be profound changes in the economy in New Zealand. We would be a low-emissions economy that has a reputation around the world—deservedly so—as one of the leaders in being truly a clean, green, and sustainable economy that provides benefits for all New Zealanders. Thank you.

Farmers and growers up and down the country will be heading home later on this afternoon. They will be checking their mailboxes for their mail that comes through. They will be opening up those invoices today or maybe later in the week. There will be a special letter delivered to them today from the Labour Party. Inside there will be an invoice from Jacinda Ardern and David Parker. On the top of that letter it says: “Invoice for water”.

But there is something a little different about this invoice. Normally, when farmers and growers get an invoice, it is for feed, it is for grazing, it is for buying stock, it is for fixing the tractor or doing up the irrigation system and the like, but this one is a blank invoice. It is a blank invoice delivered to all of our hard-working farmers and growers up and down New Zealand today. It does not have any detail about price. However, in the fine print at the bottom of the invoice there are some very important details that our growers and farmers must read: “Sorry, we haven’t worked out how much we’re going to charge you yet. I hope you understand that I’ve only had a couple of days on the job. We’re going to work that stuff through after the election, with the Greens, if we get into power. I know this stuff seriously impacts your livelihood, but try not to take it personally. Keep positive. Lots of love, Jacinda Ardern. Kiss, kiss.”

Today’s Labour announcement on water policy sucks. It is badly thought out; it is badly implemented. It is going to damage the most productive sector of the New Zealand economy, and that is the primary industries. Today Labour slammed the door shut on the primary sector. In the process, Damien O’Connor got smashed to pieces. He got rolled by a caucus that is more excited about the urban vote than the rural vote. On that side of the House, they do not care about the regions. They do not care about provincial New Zealand. They do not care about hard-working farmers and growers up and down the country.

Let us just unpick this policy for a couple of minutes. Within 5 years, all intensively stocked land near waterways will be needed to be fenced but, importantly, there will be setbacks for riparian planting. Now, it is all well and good, is it not—setbacks for riparian planting—we applaud farmers who have made that decision. But let us think practically about the 26,000 kilometres that have already been fenced that may not have been riparian planted. So now Labour is out there proposing that all of those posts and wires should be pulled up and set back. Is it a metre? Is it 2 metres? Is that 4 metres across the entirety? Think about the productivity; think about the weeds that will grow. Think about the slowdown of the New Zealand economy as a result.

Then we come to the prices. Stuart Nash was exposed big time this afternoon, was he not? Because while Jacinda Ardern and David Parker are saying “Let’s all come together after the election.” Stuart Nash is out there already proposing 10c a litre. Then, very importantly, if you extrapolate those numbers across—I have got them here. Importantly, irrigation uses about 6 trillion litres annually across the country. So if you extrapolate 10c a litre across irrigators, that is $600 billion. Then, if you think about the water that needs to be utilised to produce just 1 litre of milk, that is $40 for a litre of milk. The cost of this policy is going to be enormous, and not just on the people who underpin the New Zealand economy, but consumers. Consumers are going to pay for this daft policy because up will go the price of vegetables; up will go the price of food. This policy is ludicrous.

Now my message to the people in the primary sector, who are really wound up on this policy announcement today, is that they should bombard Jacinda Ardern’s email. They should be ringing her office and demanding a meeting this week or early next week, not putting it off until 24 September, because that is terrible.

The member who just took his seat, Nathan Guy, is just making stuff up. Let me tell you why National members are making stuff up. They are making stuff up because they are worried. They have to talk like that. They have to downplay our policy, because they are worried. And why are they worried? That is because 8 days ago “Hurricane Ardern” swept into this country and has taken the political establishment by storm, and they are worried.

We saw it today in their questions asking about parity and the women’s pay gap. That is because they know they are bleeding the women’s vote. They know that Jacinda Ardern has cut through with women. She has cut through with men. She has cut through with young people. We have cut through with Māori. We know that the National Government knows that the game has changed, and its members are worried—absolutely scared.

But what are we here for in politics? We are here to make a difference for people. Let me tell you about one man I met on Saturday afternoon after the Northland rugby league final. May I just digress and congratulate the Moerewa Tigers for their win against the Takahiwai Warriors. But as I was walking out of that game, I met Victor. Victor is a 32-year-old fully qualified builder. He has got a young baby in his arms and the baby, he tells me, has a number of allergies that are life threatening. His wife, his partner, was there as well. Victor said to me “Look, I’ve saved $19,000 for a house,” but the cost of a low-quartile house—a low-value house—in Whangarei, is such that he will need a $71,500 deposit. He has been working for 12 years. He said “Kelvin, I’m struggling.” If he works for another 12 years and can save at the same rate, he is only going to have $40,000 for a deposit when he needs $71,500. He will be 44 by that time. So if he works another 12 years, he is going to be 56 and he still will not have saved enough for a deposit to buy his house.

Victor is struggling, and I thought to myself “My gosh, this is what we’re here for—to help people like Victor.” What am I going to do as a politician? What are we going to do, as politicians, to help people—not just this Victor, but all the other Victors right throughout the electorate of Te Tai Tokerau and all the other Victors and their families throughout New Zealand?

Then as I was driving back to Auckland I thought “Actually, this is what we are going to do.” We are going to fund a health system so that his son can get the medical attention that he needs. What else are we going to do? We are going to build thousands of houses to allow people like Victor to buy an affordable house. What are we going to do? Our families package is going to put just a little bit more extra money in their pockets so that maybe, as well as saving for a deposit, they can put a little bit away, something small, and do something special for their family. Look, Victor has to have something to hope for. He wants the dignity to be able to buy a house and give his family safety and security, like any other hard-working father in New Zealand.

And what else are we going to do? We are going to make sure that—it does not matter where Victor buys his house—the nearest school is going to be an exceptional school. We are going to do small things like pay $150 a year for school fees also just to help Victor out so that he can probably put a little bit extra away for that little something special for his family. But not only that—when his son finally gets to university, his son is going to be able to study for 3 years for free. So Victor has the hope that he will have a house. He has also got the hope inside him that his son does not have to carry on the struggle that Victor, his father, has. So that is what we are going to do for New Zealand. That is what we are going to do for all the Victors in New Zealand.

So let’s do it. Let’s do this for Victor. Let’s do this for Victor’s partner. Let’s do this for Victor’s son. Let’s do this for all New Zealanders and make sure that all New Zealanders get on with life and have a little bit for the family. We do not ask for much. All we ask is that every Victor in New Zealand is able to provide for his family and have hope and dignity that his child’s struggle is not going to be the same as his struggle.

I am going to tell you what they are going to do for Victor: the Labour Party is going to destroy the New Zealand economy.

The first thing that we see today in Labour’s water policy—I want to see that member, Kelvin Davis, go to Ngāi Tahu, who are doing a major investment with irrigation in the North of Canterbury, and tell them that they cannot do that anymore. That is what you did today. The Ngāi Tahu development is closed. It is gone. It cannot happen under Labour. What about your Māori caucus with that? What about going around the rest of the country and telling the farmers that they cannot produce; that they have to cut down the number of stock on a property; and that, as the Minister said, they have to fence inordinate lengths and they have to re-fence? Go to all those sheep and beef farms in Northland and tell them that they have got to fence every little waterway. I would love to see you do that, mate, because you would last about 2 minutes with them.

And with your mates over here—New Zealand First—this guy here, Mr Winston Peters, has been going around the country saying that he is going to stop these plans around water. He is going to stop this. He has been going to Waikato. His very candidate from the Waikato stood in the regional council against plans that are half as bad as Labour’s. Come on, Winston. Stand up and tell the truth about what you actually want to do.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that there is a reason why that member is infringing against parliamentary rules; it is because he is going to go shortly, but he cannot get away with it now.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You cannot get away with making a point of order like that, but I assume the point of order you are wanting to make is that he has to refer to a member correctly.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Precisely.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is very well made. The member will refer to members with the correct intitule.

Let us have a look at this policy. This policy says—

💬 Hon Member: Unpick it.

Yes. Look at the policy—irrigation of farms.

💬 Sue Moroney: Are you worried about the famers’ vote? Is that going out too?

I will come to that, Sue Moroney. Irrigation of farms—what about farmers who have bore water out in the Waikato? Do they have to pay for the bore water? We do not know. How about horticulturalists? Do they have to pay? We do not know. How about businesses that use water, like the breweries or any of those kinds of businesses that use large amounts of water for their production? Do they have to pay? Do dams have to pay? Apparently not. Do cities have to pay? Does Auckland have to pay the Waikato for our water? I reckon that is what the Labour Party is wanting to do, but it is not actually going to do it, because it knows it cannot do that.

The leader of the Labour Party was on TV this week, and she said that it has to be a consistent policy. There is no consistency in this policy. It is a deliberate attack on farming communities, the productive heart of this country, and it will ruin this country—and it cannot happen. In the Waikato there have been a number of proposals to do this through the regional council, and it has taken an 80-year plan. The Labour Party intends to do a lot more than that in one generation.

In one generation the Labour Party wants to clean up every river in New Zealand. That is not possible in the plan that this country has got through our regional councils. Work needs to be done in that area; nobody disputes that. We need to work on our water quality, but we cannot do that at the expense of our productive sector in one fell swoop. That is a deliberate and prolonged attack on the dairy sector and other sectors in the New Zealand economy.

This shows the true colours of the leader of the Labour Party. The leader of the Labour Party is not a moderate Labour person. She will want to be seen on TV as the smiley, moderate person. The leader of the Labour Party is actually a Green Party member. The leader of the Labour Party is taking Green transport policy and Green water policy, and that is the real nature of what we are seeing in this House today. This is a deliberate attack on New Zealand farmers and it should not go ahead, and it will be stopped at the ballot box, because people know that.

The Labour Party is saying: “Trust us. We’ll negotiate after the election. We’ll work out the price. We’ll work out the distance. Come and talk to us. We’ll be there.” There is no way that it will do that. The Labour Party will screw every New Zealand farmer when it has got a chance—that is its history. It will do that after the election, and the farmers will have no power when they walk into the room and try to negotiate.

Remember what we are saying here if you are in the New Zealand agriculture business; if you are in the New Zealand downstream businesses, in every little town through this country; if you are in every provincial city that relies on agriculture for its base; and if you are in every major city that relies on exports coming from our agriculture—Labour will kill this industry. It will kill New Zealand. And Labour will not be allowed to get away with it, because the public out there will stop it on 23 September.

We cannot have this attack on the productive heart of New Zealand. It will take away jobs. It will take opportunities, and it will take away the future of New Zealand. And shame on all that side of the House who are going to stand behind it and let it happen. Thank you.

It is true. In the boardrooms, in the staff room, in the smoko halls, under the bonnets, even on the farms, and in those places where people are meeting, they are talking about what Labour proposes to do. It is true.

It is true because people want to understand that there can be a different way. I have heard the contribution of the member David Bennett around farmers. Now, what he did not say was what has happened in the Waikato with the healthy rivers plan—they are already making decisions around the change in land use that impacts on water. That was done through a consultative process and that was done with agreements of people from very different sectors, knowing that the hope is to improve water quality and by changing land use over a long period of time—not all of a sudden—things could be done for the betterment of the environment. So it is true, people are talking about the policies that Jacinda Ardern is announcing.

So let us look at them, because behind them sit some very strong ideas that will drive the future of the country if Labour gets the privilege to serve as the Government. Under Labour, the economy will be about people before profit. Under Labour, we will prioritise public interests over private interests. Under Labour, we will see investment in health and in education so that opportunity is made real for the majority of people, not just the few. And under Labour, we will see the prioritisation of an economy that is underpinned by environmental responsibilities. So let us look at some of the things that have been announced just over these last few days since the leadership change in Labour.

The regional petrol tax—the Government will frame this as yet another tax, but Aucklanders want to see less congestion. They want to see more investment in public transport. They do want to see a link to the airport, because if you are going to get movement to and through the city, your public transport system underpins what can be an effective use of public infrastructure and investment in public infrastructure to get people around the city in a more efficient way. People are worried about congestion in Auckland and they think about the lost opportunity of people just sitting in cars on motorways. So yes, a regional petrol tax will ring-fence investment into where there is need, and there is need in Auckland.

But let us take the issue of water pricing. The reason why Jacinda Ardern said that this is a matter that must, in the first 100 days, go to a forum where people need to talk about it—just like pricing on carbon, pricing on water will require people to think about how we transition towards an effective and efficient system. She has sent a clear signal to people that Labour is prepared to deal with the issue of putting a price on water so that the more sustainable use of water can be dealt with as a strategic priority, but how that happens over a period of time is something that must happen by talking with key stakeholders. So this is a key signal to farmers, to business people, to irrigators, and to environmentalists that Labour is prepared to have the conversation. It is a strategic conversation and it is a necessity. Pricing on carbon is the same type of debate, and Labour never shied away from that either.

So yes, people are talking about it, and it is true. It will require a shift in priority from where the effort is now to where the investment should be for tomorrow. It is about the next generation, and it is about a strategic vision for the future, because the structural challenge that we have as a nation is in reversing inequality and poverty and the significant gap between the haves and the have-nots. So that is why people are talking about the policies that Jacinda Ardern has been announcing over the last couple of days, and we welcome it.

We welcome it because no longer can people sleep in cars, no longer can people live in cold rentals, and no longer can people see the dim prospect of purchasing a home. Under Labour we want to see that reverse. But more importantly, for our kids—we do not want to see 70,000 of our kids not engaged in education, employment, or training. We want to ensure that where there is investment there is opportunity, and that that can be realised in a very real way.

Just coming back to the water issue—actually, planting off riverways could create opportunities for many young people. Riparian planting, fencing, and all of that could help people get back to the grass roots and to making a difference at a community level. I know my community would welcome it.

I am wondering how that member, Nanaia Mahuta, and her party are going to pay for all the things that they have been talking about this afternoon, like helping Victor pay for his house, and all the other wonderful things that she has mentioned, like health and education. The only way Labour is going to do it is by taxing farmers and sending them broke. Tax farmers—tax the people who are making 70 percent of the trade out of this country! While they are actually busy out there at the moment, calving their cows and about to lamb their lambs, let us give them a blank invoice, as Minister Guy said. Let them write out a blank cheque!

One of the reasons I came into this House was that I was pretty keen to close up the rural-urban divide. Absolutely, today, with this announcement, the Labour Party is turning the rural-urban divide into a chasm. We are all in this water debate together. There is no consistency in Labour’s policy. There is not even any detail in Labour’s policy. We absolutely do not know what it means.

Two or 3 years ago, when the dairy price was going down, down, down, guess who was sitting on the other side of this House going “Crisis! Crisis!”? Now dairy farmers are actually getting back into a better space, where they can make some money and can pay some tax, and all of a sudden that party wants to take it all off them. Well, that party does not even know it is trying to create a crisis. Its members sit over there and talk about regional New Zealand, and they talk about provincial New Zealand. I will tell you what—provincial New Zealand is starting to do pretty nicely. It is getting broadband, it is getting roads, it is getting policing, and it is getting all of the things that it needs to develop—provincial New Zealand. And, hello, guess what? Labour is going to make it a ghost town, because there will be nobody living out there. So we have got to keep going with the programmes that we are on about.

The other thing I would really like to know from that side of the House is—its members talk about taking young people who are on benefits out to fence waterways and to plant trees. I do not think that is such a bad idea, except that I am wondering: do they know where Āria is? Do they know where Te Anga is? Do they know where Marokopa and Tokirima are? How are they actually going to get there? It is all very commendable, but, you know, you are going to have to have a hell of a lot of transport to do that. Labour has not thought it through.

By the way, farmers in Taranaki have already, in Taranaki alone, planted 4.3 million trees. That is in Taranaki alone. That is waterways fenced off. That is trees planted. That is, actually, almost a tree for every person who lives in New Zealand, and that is in Taranaki alone. Farmers are actually out working on these things, and, in my experience, all that farmers want to know is: “Where am I now? Where do you need to go? Help me; provide the tools. Give me the tools. Help me with the productivity.” There is a whole lot of new smart technology coming on that is going to help those waterways. That is why we are putting broadband in. That is why we are making it happen. Farmers are quite capable and are doing these things on their own.

What is really interesting is that households and councils would be exempt, and that the money would be used to assist cleaning up the polluted waterways. OK, so farmers are already planting trees and fencing and cleaning up their waterways, and now we are going to tax them, according to the Labour Party, so that we can take some more money off them so that they can pay again to do what they are already doing? We are all in this together. We have got a map of what is happening with waterways out in the country, and it is not just the farmers who are responsible for what is happening in the waterways. They have done their share.

When we talk about irrigation—I have got a lovely little map here, and it talks about natural river flow being maintained. It talks about nutrient management plans but also coastal biodiversity. Guess what? With irrigation, you can actually help coastal biodiversity. Flow is restored to lowland spring-fed streams. All communities and marae have access to high-quality drinking water—thriving and prosperous communities. It does not actually take that much to work out. It is not rocket science that everybody in our community benefits from water storage.

And, hello, people, we do not have a shortage of water. Look outside on most days. On any given day of 2017, it has been raining. All we need to do is store it and use it wisely. So, New Zealand, let us not do this. Thank you.

Well, it is astonishing sitting here listening to these two old parties arguing. And, I have got to say, one thing we all know—nanna told me a long time ago—is that leopards do not change their spots, do they?

After our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, had done his magnificent tour of provisional New Zealand, actually visiting all the places that that member, Barbara Kuriger, just talked about—and my questions to that member are (1) do you know where those places actually are and (2) can you pronounce them? But our leader has been there, and the picture being painted is quite different to that which National is deluding itself over.

What we found absolutely astonishing was that when Winston Peters came back from the provincial tour, suddenly National and Labour rediscovered the provinces and put their hands up and said: “Me too. We too are concerned about the provinces.” But a day is a long time in politics, we say, and a week is an eternity. And 1 week later, with a change in Labour leadership, suddenly we are back to reality: it is a myopic focus, relentlessly positive, on Auckland—Auckland, Auckland, Auckland, Auckland. It has not been missed, out there in provincial New Zealand, can I tell the National Party. Now, National Party, they are hearing you guys say “Auckland, Auckland, Auckland, Auckland.” all the time, and they are saying: “Nothing’s changed.”

While we sit here and listen to the old hat parties, Pepsi and Coke, arguing over Auckland’s woes on its roads, provincial New Zealand is saying: “How come funding assistance for rural roads has been cut? How come we’re staring down the barrel of a one-road network plan from NZTA that’s going to carve up provincial New Zealand and cause some tarseal roads to go back to gravel? How come we’ve got no funding assistance for the tens of thousands of one-way bridges throughout provincial New Zealand? And, by the way, you still haven’t built the 10 in Northland—how come?”.

Do not bleat on about “Auckland, Auckland, Auckland” to us in the Wairarapa when the gorge is still closed and there is not one digger on site. Do not whine to us in your silly little squabble with Labour—a silly squabble over rail, fast rail, light rail, and roading problems—when provincial New Zealand is dying, not for its own lack of work ethic, not because it is not on the game, not because it does not have the best farmers in the world, but because it does not have infrastructure support from this Government. This Government is now in a bidding war with Labour over Auckland, Auckland, Auckland. Well, out in provincial New Zealand there is a message coming. There is a train coming. It is going to follow that bus that went right around the country. On that train is going to be New Zealand First, and it is going to come in with a mandate and an endorsement from provincial New Zealand that will tell the National Government that, clearly, it is over—over.

Do not talk to us about Labour’s water plan. We know it is a load of rubbish. We know that Labour has forgotten the poor. We know that Labour does not understand the impact on poor families, the working poor, and how it is going to hit them in the supermarkets. We know that. We had the discussions with Federated Farmers; we know what food production prices will do. We know all that. But, National, do not sit there gloating. We are not interested in your silly little speeches. Tell us what you did behind the scenes with the deal with the Waikato authority over fifty-fifty allocation with Māori and royalties to Māori. Who is going to be paying that?

Do not talk to us about these things, and do not talk to us about the impact on farmers when you are signing off and endorsing the Horizons Regional Council’s One Plan. The One Plan—in that document it says that farm profitability will drop by 40 percent.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

Farm profitability will be cut by the Horizons Regional Council under this Government—by this Government allowing it to go through—by 40 percent, or, in a best case, 20 to 25 percent. That is going to see farmers walking off their land. That is going to see farmers being told by Horizons: “You can no longer farm dairy—sell your cows.” Those farmers will probably try to sell their farms to Jacinda Ardern or the front bench of the Labour Party, which now wants to put them out of business as well.

But you are both the same, National and Labour. There is no difference. This lot purports to represent the poor, but it is just going to hand the poor a grocery bill that they have never ever thought of or dreamt of. And over on that side of the House, the National Government is going to preside over the death of farming in the Horizons region. We are tired of Pepsi and Coke. It is time for a change.

It is—your time is up.

Might be Lemon and Paeroa over there, eh? Anyway, I am really mad as hell about this water policy that Labour is touting around the countryside. I am mad as hell because this is harking right back to the Rogernomics days when Labour kicked the guts out of farmers. I am standing here, and I am going to be a voice for the sheep and beef farmers, because that is where I come from. Those are my roots—sheep and beef farming.

To kick the guts of the farmers again—is that the only Labour policy that is actually coming out there? I am going to say that the primary sector—and I will keep on saying this, along with my colleagues—is the backbone of the economy of this country. It always has been and it always will be. If you tax the water that farmers use, you may as well just kiss this economy goodbye. Not once have I heard from the Opposition members on how they are going to replace that piece of the economy. I have not heard a damn thing, just “Let’s kick the guts out of the farmers”. I do not want to see any farmer in this country go back to those days.

Let us talk about forestry. I think it was under—let us have a think. Oh, yes, it was a Labour-led Government that strip-felled between Rotorua and Taupō. Yes, there were lovely farms there, but it strip-felled and it never replaced those trees. When we start to look at all the things that Labour has not done for this country, and things that it is proposing in its tax, tax, tax, and spend—nowhere in any of the things that it is saying is how it is going to grow the economy.

If you take out the primary sector, we will see an increase in unemployment. Three hundred and fifty thousand people work in the primary sector. There is touted be another 50,000 more people who will be looking to work in this sector up to 2025. When we start to look at that water policy, we are going to see all of that gone. All of those people are going to be lining up, with Victor, on the unemployment benefit, because this water tax will have kicked the guts out of their bosses and out of the primary sector, and they will have lost their jobs.

So we will have an increase in unemployment, an increase in the number of beneficiaries, and an increase in the cost of food products. Just today I was having a talk with some of my colleagues, and they talked about how once you start increasing the cost of food to all New Zealanders, that is when we start to look at the imported stuff. That would be a very sad day. The previous Prime Minister, Sir John Key, set this country up so that we would be like the farmers market of the world—of the world. This country has been set up for that, and under the Labour Party water policy that is going to be chucked out the back door. We will no longer be competitive. We will lose our trade advantage, because our farmers will be pushed to the wall. They will be pushed to the wall, and we cannot have that on this side of the House.

I can see our farmers coming out in protest on that particular bill. I can see Labour on the Opposition benches for another 3 or another 6 years because it has not got—

💬 Hon Member: Probably 9.

For 9 years it is going to be there over there rotting, because its policies are about attack, tax, and spend, and no way is it going to replenish those coffers.

In fact, National has replenished those coffers. That is why we are in surplus. We are in surplus; we are leading the world when it comes to surplus for this country. So when we start looking at that, we see that Labour’s policies are wanting to spend all of that. Labour is wanting to take us back to those dark ages, and we are not going to go back there. We are going to be standing there fighting alongside our people within the primary sector, because they deserve a voice in this House. All of this side is giving them their voice.

Let us talk about Māori farmers, because not just the Pākehā farmers; it is the Māori farmers as well who will not benefit from a water tax. We have just managed to get them to a point whereby everybody is starting to make headway within the primary sector, and that side of the House wants to cut it out. New Zealand First sits over there and talks about Pepsi and Coke. Well, it is just a flat Lemon and Paeroa—a flat Lemon and Paeroa. You would not even have it with your gin, and you would not even have it with your vodka. It is so flat you would not even put ice in that Lemon and Paeroa. I should not really say Lemon and Paeroa, should I, because that is a New Zealand town, Paeroa. I should really say—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: That’s right. In the Coromandel electorate.

Ha! I should really say that it is some sort of foreign something from overseas that that group is. It is absolutely a nothing, coming in here and saying that to us. This side of the House is the side that has actually grown this country and the economy, and we will continue to do that after this election when we are voted back in.

The Deputy Prime Minister finished her contribution to the general debate saying “rock on”, but the real thing is “it’s on”. It is on out there, and the thing is that the National Government knows it. Its members were sitting in their seats 2 weeks ago, kind of complacent, thinking this is in the bag, thinking that everything is all right: “Bill English is our leader—you know, we don’t really like him; he’s a bit boring, but he’ll be OK. He’ll get us through.” But things have changed, and the National Government is worried. I know that because you can just sense it in the air. Its members are hearing it when they out there campaigning out in their electorates: “Oh, we were thinking about voting for you guys, but not anymore.” There is something else, there is another alternative, and I am looking forward to that day when things do change.

I hope they do change for the people of my electorate, because I look forward to the day when houses are being built in the spaces that are empty, where this Government pulled down homes and said it would replace them, but for 9 long years nothing has been done. I want to see families in those houses. I want to see kids playing on those streets, in those areas that have been left and ignored by this Government. Because that is what New Zealand needs. We need some solutions around housing. That is what I want to hear—building going on in those neighbourhoods that this Government has neglected. It promised the 25 families who had their houses demolished that it would build those homes again, and nothing has happened.

That is what I want to see happen and hear happen in my community after 23 September, because it is on. It is on, and if you are listening to this on the radio or you are watching this on the internet, help us do it—help us do it. Be part of it, because when things change, they change in the community, and we can show this Government, which has ignored those communities for the last 9 years, that it is not good enough to leave families in the lurch—leave families in the lurch; that is exactly what it has done.

What else do I want to see after 23 September, when we change the Government? Proper healthcare in our communities. I have been the MP for Mana for 7 years now, and twice I have had to fight to keep the GP service at Kenepuru Hospital open—twice now. Back in about 2012, they said: “Oh, we’re thinking of closing it overnight.” Why? “Because there’s not enough money to run it.” Six months ago, it was: “Oh, we’re going to look at it again.” Why? “Because there’s not enough money to run it.”

We will make sure there is enough money going into health. We will not have to fight for the absolute basics for the people of Porirua and the Kāpiti coast. We can make that happen on 23 September, because it is on. It is not “rock on”; that is what these guys wanted. It is not “rock on”. Rock on—that is the Prime Minister; he is the rock. We are saying that it is on—it is absolutely on.

The other thing I want to do, and this is not necessarily something that—the National Government says it is tough on law and order. I am going to keep crowing on about this until 23 September. Over the last 9 years of this National Government, which says it is backing our police, I have lost in my area over 40 front-line police officers.

💬 Hon Annette King: How many?

It is 40. It is not my number—theirs. We started out in 2008, and the number I got from the Minister’s office was 146 front-line police officers in the Kāpiti-Mana area. So when I asked what the number is now, what did I get back? There are 102. This is from a Government that says it is tough on law and order and is backing our police, and yet in my area we have lost 40 police officers over the last 8 years. Does that make my community any safer? Does that make members of that community feel any safer, when you have to tell them that they have lost 40 officers over the last 8 years? Is that what this Government is telling people? Apparently, this Government is telling people that there are more police on the streets. But that is not the reality.

So ladies and gentlemen watching or listening at home, it is on. If you want action on housing, if you want building to happen for those families who want good, safe, affordable homes to rent and buy, it is on. If you want to make sure that people can get the operations they need, and see a doctor at 2 o’clock in the morning if their kids are sick, then it is on. If you want to make sure your community is safe, with enough police officers—and I can tell you one thing: police officers are coming up to me in the street and saying they are worried about the staffing levels in my area. If you are worried about the safety of your community and want to make sure there are enough—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you asking me, or someone else?

Oh, I am sure you did in your time too, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the people are worried about crime prevention and having enough police, it is on. On 23 September get it on, get out and vote, and make sure we do this. As the catchphrase goes, as the slogan goes: “Let’s do this”.

I would like to remind Mr Faafoi that we on this side of the House knew this was on, on 21 September 2014. You worked it out only last week.

I want to talk for a little bit about the primary sector in New Zealand and what is going on out there. We currently produce about 70 percent of New Zealand’s cash receipts in provincial New Zealand. We have GDP of about 7 percent, and that is not a bad thing. It shows we are reasonably efficient. Approximately 400,000 jobs rely on, or are directly involved in, agriculture. The farming community of New Zealand manages a large part of New Zealand’s land mass, and the primary sector as a whole also oversees a good deal of our offshore economic zone.

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: We can’t hear the man speak.

Ah, that is good. There are some factors critical to the future success of this sector, both as a vital part of the New Zealand economy and as a good corporate citizen. A truly sustainable environment is absolutely critical to agriculture—land and water. Playing our part in the climate change challenges and the solutions facing the world is critical to the future of our agricultural community, as well. Ensuring water is well used in a sustainable and productive manner is also critical, and ensuring our people involved in the sector are looked after and managed in a manner so that they can both enjoy life and get plenty out of it.

There are, of course, many other factors involved in agriculture, and I will touch on a couple of them shortly. However, I want to—appropriately, I guess—talk about water. Having listened very carefully to the Leader of the Opposition speak this morning, I want to express my dismay that a person in her position can have such a poor, ill-conceived, and misrepresentative view of our No. 1 industry, and I will touch on that in a minute.

Some of the other critical things to agriculture are animal welfare, food safety, biosecurity, and health and safety. When you touch on the health and safety thing, I do not think Opposition members have thought for a minute about the ramifications of putting a whole lot of young people out in provincial rural New Zealand and, in a lot of cases, 50 to 100 kilometres from any kind of civilisation. Have they thought of the health and safety factors around that? No, they have not. Who is going to take responsibility for that? No doubt the future Government, if those members are to be the Government, will take responsibility for that. They have not considered it at all.

We must learn from our past mistakes, and to tax, charge, and implement policy without science or solutions to rectify an issue is surely not in New Zealand’s best interests. Farmers in New Zealand are great adaptors and innovators, who can move to best practice very quickly and effectively. National’s policy has always been to assist our business communities with the tools to do so, not hit them with a sledgehammer.

I want to get on to a topic that Ron Mark touched on, and every time he speaks in this House he displays his lack of knowledge of provincial New Zealand, frankly, which I think is an amazing thing. None the less, he talked about the Horizons One Plan. I want to talk about some comments that the Leader of the Opposition made this morning in respect of issues that arise from the Horizons One Plan and the challenges that Horizons Regional Council has had in implementing that plan. Ron Mark did touch on that, although not correctly.

One of the real challenges we have got in New Zealand is to implement nitrate- and phosphate-leaching policies in a manner that can be managed, that is sustainable, and that will ensure that our provincial rural communities remain intact. To listen to the Leader of the Opposition this morning, she clearly had no—I guess she did not gather the challenges that are involved in these plans that we have put in place, and the Waikato plan is now following the Horizons One Plan much down the same lines.

I do not have any problem with that. I do not think the agricultural sector has any problem with the ultimate goals of these plans. We certainly have problems with the implementation of these plans in 5 years, as the Leader of the Opposition talked about this morning. There is no way it can possibly work, and it will undermine provincial rural New Zealand. It will undermine our productivity. It will almost put a stop in parts of my electorate—particularly the northern Horowhenua and the Waimarino—to much of the horticulture that goes on there at present. It is also going to seriously challenge the horticultural areas around Pukekohe, but there will be no problem—we will just shove the houses on them, I guess.

There are some significant challenges to the policy that the Labour Party announced this morning that go way beyond the fact that it is another tax and another, I guess, increase in costs to the production in our food sector. So there are some serious challenges around this, and I think the biggest one is the fact that we are trying to implement something without sufficiently enabling the science to assist in the solutions to it, because there will be solutions to this, but they just will not be achieved in 5 years. They might be achieved in the time frame that this Government has given it, and I think that is the reason we have managed it in a moderate manner to date. Thank you.

It is a quote that has been used more than once, but it is one of my favourites, from Nelson Mandela, which is: “The true character of a society is revealed in how it treats its children.” It seems to me, too, that the true character of a Government is also revealed in how it treats children.

We have had a lot of discussion in this House over the last 4 or 5 years about the well-being of our children. We have had debate after debate about trying to get school lunches in our schools so that we can feed our children and make sure that our children have enough. We have had debate after debate in this House about ensuring that families have enough money to sustain themselves, to be able to make sure that their children have food, that the parents can pay the rent to be able to keep the roof over their heads for them and their kids, and that they have got that money there for the shoes and the school trips and for fixing the car when needed—to provide the childhood that I suspect most of us in this House took for granted.

We have had debate after debate in this House about child protection, about how we, actually, as a society create the structures to support our families to be healthy, well, and violence-free so that our children grow up without fear and learn to thrive in the absence of violence. We have had a lot of discussions specifically about what kinds of mechanisms are needed from the State to intervene when things go wrong, and now, as we are getting to that point of another election, I want to reflect on how we have voted on those different topics.

It seems to me that there is a very clear pattern—that the members on this side of the House and the Green Party, I am proud to say, have voted for feeding our kids. We have voted for increasing money for our families to be able to sustain themselves and protect their kids. We have voted consistently and spoken—I say for myself, possibly too passionately—about the need for early intervention around sexual violence and domestic violence, so that we get rid of those scourges on our society and bring back safety. On this side of the House we have been consistent and we have also strongly stood up for the Māori first - whānau first approach to caring for children and have resisted heavy-handed State intervention in the absence of those basic protections of enough money and support for families.

So I think we need to look at what the results are at the moment from the Government’s approach. Is its approach working? Well, when I got up this morning and was coming in to work I was listening to the radio, and one of the stories was of a child who had been left in an Oranga Tamariki office and found by the cleaners after everyone else had gone home. To me, this feels emblematic. Ahead of the last election, this Government was told that it needed 352 more social workers to be able to meet the need it had then in responding to crises for our tamariki, and now we have 66 fewer social workers than we had then, despite the number of children being taken into care being at record levels. So is it any wonder that a child is being left in an office and forgotten about while the people whose job is to protect them are so stressed out and harried that they are unable to do the job that we profess to have given them?

The Green Party stands for our children being well fed, our families being well supported, and a society that can stand proud in our care and protection of our children.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.