Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

The Prime Minister began her speech on Tuesday by reflecting what a privilege it is to serve in this place. She said we’re here to make life better for people, to serve New Zealanders. I’m proud of the leadership of this Government, and, as the Prime Minister said on Tuesday—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Could we just have a bit of respect for the speaker and a bit of quiet. The Hon Phil Twyford, you can continue.

As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, Governments have choices: they can govern and manage the shop or they can choose to lead. After nine years of drift and neglect and managing the shop, we now have a Government that chooses to lead.

We’re leading on housing. When you look back on last year, I’m incredibly proud of what we’ve achieved in housing. We’ve built over 1,100 extra State houses. We stopped the National Party’s mass sell-off of State houses. We’ve built 1,100 extra State houses since we’ve been in office, 1,900 more families are now in public housing, and consent data shows that Government agencies are now building more housing than at any time since 1978.

Last year, for the first time in a number of years, wages grew faster than house prices. Last year, first-home buyers became the largest group of homebuyers for the first time since 2006. Last year, there were record numbers of building consents. We banned letting fees, we started investing in making all Housing New Zealand homes warm and dry, and we fronted up to Housing New Zealand’s poor treatment of vulnerable families and the misuse of the methamphetamine standard. Under this Government, Housing New Zealand is a very different organisation, and we’re going to enshrine their new social objectives in legislation to make sure that their focus is on continuing to be the compassionate landlord they’ve become. Housing New Zealand, under our Government, is a public housing landlord, looking after some of the most vulnerable citizens of this country. It is not an opportunity for Ministers to try and look tough or build a brand by stigmatising State house tenants.

Of course, we’ve built 62 KiwiBuild homes, 4,000 KiwiBuild homes have been contracted, and we’ve started a number of large-scale development projects, with over 20,000 State, KiwiBuild, and market homes to be built in them. That’s in the first six months of the programme.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind the Minister that the Standing Orders are quite clear that you don’t read speeches. A very experienced member of Parliament should be able to do it without notes.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been upfront about the difficulties that we faced building additional KiwiBuild affordable homes in the first six months of the programme, but we knew it was always going to be tough. This Government is doing something in affordable homeownership that no Government has attempted since the 1970s. We are working directly with the market to get builders building affordable homes that the market simply hasn’t produced. We are changing things. We are a Government of reform, and after nine years of a Government that denied there was even a housing crisis, that sold off public housing by the thousands, and that took billions of dollars out of public housing in the middle of a housing crisis, we now have a Government that is committed to building more houses, and that is what we are doing.

This year, we return undeterred by the challenges and absolutely committed to ensuring that every New Zealander has a warm, dry, and secure home. This year, we’ll keep on building public housing. In this financial year, we’ve made 867 extra public housing places available already, and we’re well on track to meet the target of 1,600, which is the yearly target that we’ve committed to for public housing. That will mean more than 3,000 extra families in public housing instead of languishing in garages and overcrowded, substandard housing, which is what we saw under the former Government.

Our build programme and the private sector are both crippled by the constraints that we inherited from nine years of inaction by the former Government: high land prices in our major cities, high costs of building infrastructure, an overly restrictive planning system, and a shortage of construction workers. These are all constraints which hold back our plans, and that’s why we have a detailed and comprehensive plan to address all of those obstacles. Our Urban Growth Agenda is far-reaching and ambitious. It’s designed to tackle the fundamentals of restricted land supply to find new ways of financing the infrastructure that our towns and cities need if they’re to grow. And this year, we will continue to reform the planning rules to support quality built environments, incentivising quality intensification in our larger cities, and bringing urban land prices down. Later on this year, we’ll bring to the Parliament legislation to reform infrastructure funding and financing, which is currently a massive roadblock to urban expansion.

Yesterday, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development announced new leadership for both the KiwiBuild unit and the new Housing and Urban Development Authority that we are setting up. I’m pleased to say that Sir Brian Roche, one of our most distinguished corporate leaders in New Zealand, has taken on the job of chairing the transition to the new Housing and Urban Development Authority. Helen O’Sullivan, formerly the chief executive at Ockham, one of our most successful residential developers, has taken on the job of being the head of KiwiBuild Commercial. She’s joined by Brad Ward, the deputy chief executive of the ministry, who will be responsible for KiwiBuild and large-scale projects. These appointments demonstrate that we are not cooling our heels; we are moving ahead with establishing the capability to implement our reform agenda and fix the housing crisis.

This year, we will also implement the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act standards. By passing that legislation in the first couple of weeks of this Government, we signalled our intent to drag residential rental housing stock into the 21st century. The Healthy Homes Guarantee Act standards will ensure that it will be mandatory for all rental properties to be insulated; to have a fixed, modern, affordable heating source; and to have requirements for ventilation, draft stopping, and drainage, as we have signalled. These homes—the cold, damp homes that are so predominant in the rental sector—cause significant respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, such as asthma and pneumonia, toxic reactions, allergies, and other infections that can have lifelong repercussions. We cannot continue to accept this in the 21st century, and our Government will not accept it.

This year, we will also introduce legislation to make life better for renters and to modernise the Residential Tenancies Act. It will improve the security and stability of tenure, which is such a harsh force in the lives of the one-third of New Zealanders who rent. It wasn’t uncommon during the peak of the last real estate cycle for renters to be moved on out of their homes every few months or even every year, because the law affords them so little security of tenure.

We’re also leading on transport and climate change. The Prime Minister talked about how we need to transition to a clean, green, decarbonised economy, and our transport plan is critical to achieving that. We’re investing nearly $4 billion over the current three-year period in rapid transit throughout the country to ease congestion in our cities and get people out of single-occupant vehicles into public transport, walking, and cycling, and mobility as a service, including things like Lime scooters. Throughout New Zealand, more and more commuters will be able to leave their car at home because of our investment in public transport and walking and cycling. Our Government is getting our cities moving after a decade of inaction, worsening congestion, and a blowout in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. In Auckland, we’re building important infrastructure like the Eastern Busway and light rail from the city centre to Māngere.

We’re also investing record amounts in regional roads, and the spending on regional roads in the regions is $600 million more under our Government in this three-year period than it was under the former National Government over the last three years, who starved the regions of investment in their roads so they could put 40 percent of the entire transport budget into a handful of gold-plated expressways that carry 4 percent—4 percent—of vehicle journeys.

💬 Brett Hudson: Why don’t you just build something? Just build something—come on.

If that member cares about spending on roads in the regions, he should support our transport policy, not his.

I know we’re not allowed to make ironic statements in the House, but for the Prime Minister to say that this is the year of delivery is absolutely! From day one when a Government is elected, they should be delivering for New Zealand. But oh, no, no, they take a big breathing space. They send off 200-plus working groups to do the work and then decide nearly halfway through the term of Parliament that this year is the year of delivery.

Well, I’ve got news for Mr Twyford around housing. Or should we call him “Mr 47”? Forty-seven is not delivering.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: 47 percent.

Forty-seven is definitely not 10,000. It’s definitely not 1,000, and it’s definitely a lot less than 100—47! Forty-seven is a tragic amount, so if that’s the first result out of the gate in this Government’s year of delivery, goodness help us all. It’s going to be a tragic year.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: 1,100 extra State houses.

It was really interesting—Mr Twyford might be interested in this particular figure that came out of the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report yesterday. The report goes back 12 years, but one of the graphs that was put up in the breakfast yesterday was, over the last 20 years, the number of consents for new houses. The interesting thing is that 2007, the end of the last Labour Government’s term, was when the number of consents for new houses bottomed out. In 2006-07, it absolutely bottomed out. That figure has absolutely escalated over the nine years in National. Have we got enough houses for the people that we have? Not yet—

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: You denied there was a crisis.

—but 47, Mr Twyford, isn’t going to cut it—10,000 may have; 1,000 won’t. Forty-seven KiwiBuild houses; $650,000—I’m not sure that that’s actually affordable, but anyway.

The other comment that Mr Twyford made in his first year, when he was definitely talking and not delivering, which is what we’re going to see more of, is in communities in this country—and as a local MP of a community that’s seen an increase in the number of people who don’t have access to housing, when I asked for financial support and I asked for financial support from the Government for people in Tokoroa who needed access to emergency housing, what was the answer? Zero—zero. So, delivering for New Zealanders, the Labour - New Zealand First Government: zero for vulnerable families who needed access to housing. The question was to the Minister of Housing and the response was quite clear: zero—zero dollars for those people, and the Minister said no one needs to live in a car. What a joke.

The other concerning thing that I think, given the back of the announcement yesterday around tertiary education and the massive reform—be very careful. Be very careful. In terms of our workforce and our people getting skills they need for the jobs of today, tomorrow, and the next decades, you’re buying an interesting challenge.

So, in terms of delivering, the Minister also made a comment about roads. I want to say, and I haven’t had a response to the letter that was written months ago now, inviting him to come and speak to people in Cambridge who are absolutely devastated that the Waikato Expressway extension from Cambridge to Piarere was cancelled. That was a planned, funded road that this Government cancelled. That’s delivery; it’s just delivery in the wrong direction. So I’m waiting for the Minister to say, yes, he’s coming to Cambridge to talk to the locals who are very concerned about the deaths on their roads, including one of the local schools at Karapiro. So I’m looking forward to your visit, Minister.

So the year of delivery—let’s have a look at what that means in the area of vulnerable New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: Jobs.

Beneficiaries. Beneficiary numbers going up, actually—

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: You’re making that up.

—11,000 more people on jobseeker benefit. So if that member’s going to crow about the unemployment rate, explain to me, explain to this House, why there are 11,000 more people on jobseeker benefit. That figure was going down—had been going down for five years. All of a sudden this Government comes in—yes, you’re delivering; you’re delivering more people on benefit, you’re delivering more people on jobseeker benefit when unemployment is supposedly at 4.3 percent. And at the same time you’ve got businesses around the country who can’t find people to fill their jobs. They can’t plant Shane Jones’ billion trees. They can’t pick the apples that are hanging on the trees. That’s a year of delivery for you!

It’s quite interesting in terms of the increase in the number of people on jobseeker benefits, because, you know, it is somewhat puzzling that that would be occurring at this point. But at the same time the Government has cut the obligations and responsibilities for very simple things like someone getting a jobseeker support turning up to appointments. So, sanctions—and I’m expecting that’s going to be a big word in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group that comes back next month. This Government is delivering: it’s delivering fewer responsibilities for people who are receiving benefits and who, actually, we’d like to see in work. And the Minister today, when I asked her about the number of children living in benefit-dependent homes—yes, they are the children who live in the poorest households, and they deserve, they absolutely deserve, our support.

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: And the numbers grew under your Government.

No, that member is completely wrong: 61,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent homes since 2011—61,000. So that’s what New Zealanders want to know. New Zealanders want to know, if this is the year of delivery, tell us the targets. Oh no, that’s right; the Government doesn’t believe in targets, because they know they can’t achieve them. KiwiBuild was 10,000, then it was 1,000, and guess what we got? Forty-seven.

So how are you going to demonstrate delivery? Delivery is not just about nice fluffy words and hot air. It’s about delivering for real New Zealanders up and down this country, whether it’s delivering to employers people to fill their jobs, whether it’s delivering for families and low incomes. Oh, and guess what? Talking about young people, we’ve seen the young people, 18- to 24-year-olds not in education, employment, or training, hit the highest record ever: 100,000—100,000 young New Zealanders not in education, employment, or training. What’s your response to that, Jan? What’s your response to that?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

My apologies—100,000 young New Zealanders not in education, employment, or training. Now, what does that do? That absolutely rips away the opportunity of that young person’s future.

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: That’s a legacy from the previous Government.

It is absolutely not a legacy. You’re dreaming. You are absolutely dreaming. I mean, the reality is this side of the House quite proudly believes that people are better off in work. The opportunities for their future are better. They’re also better able to provide for their family. And for a Government that is focused supposedly on children in poverty, I would have thought that reducing households’ dependence on benefit would have been a priority, but it’s anything but.

We think it’s important to support New Zealanders, and we did support the legislation around children in poverty, but we want to see the results. We want to see the results. We want to see the actions. We want to see delivery. Unfortunately, this side of the House isn’t too optimistic about what that’s going to look like, because we haven’t seen those results.

I want to touch on a couple of other areas, because it’s about trends and changes. Whether you’re looking at NEETs, whether you’re looking at recidivism with people leaving prison, whether you’re looking at those on job seekers, whether you’re looking at the number of children living in benefit-dependent homes, New Zealanders should be very disturbed to see that those statistics were all coming down over the last five years. Guess what? They’re all going up. So that’s this Government’s delivery. That will be the Labour Government’s delivery for New Zealanders. It’s hardship, it’s pain, it’s suffering, and this Government needs to do more than just talk about it; you need to deliver results.

So we’ll be watching. We’ll be holding you to account. That’s the job of the Opposition. We’ll be expecting 10,000, not 47, and New Zealanders will be watching to test whether your words actually count. Actually, a lot of them have decided that already. The Prime Minister’s statement, unfortunately, was a flop.

Kia ora anō tātou. Look, I will inject into my speech a tone of characteristic modesty—sentences that are designed to address some of the attacks that have been directed towards the Government, but in particular to the Prime Minister. I want to start with some of the falsehoods that have been spread around pertaining to China. I think it’s been a very, very dim and bleak episode when we had the other side of the House insisting that somehow, because our Prime Minister has yet to make her way to China, this is somehow hitherto unknown. In 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2017, John Key did not go to China. Now, they never developed the architecture that led to the free-trade China deal. That architecture lies with the largest party on this side of the House. So in terms of our Prime Minister being put under the pressure for not having gone to China, know your own history.

Secondly, the most egregious case recently, where matters did get very stressed in terms of exporters in China, was under the watch of the other party, otherwise known as the Opposition party, National, when their poor handling of the steel coming out of China being referred to the World Trade Organization—that did lead to problems for Fonterra; that did lead to problems for various other exports, including our major kiwifruit exporter. So it’s important that Kiwis realise that this is just fiction from the other side of the House. They realise that because we’ve struck out on a particular direction, where we value and do not conceive sovereignty through international popularity, we have changed the rules and changed the law so that it is not simply knock on the door and you can have whatever piece of land that New Zealanders own; you can sell it internationally. We campaigned to introduce those restrictions. Now, admittedly, I did provide some wriggle room for the forestry sector, as you would imagine—a forestry Minister concerned about forestry playing a bigger role in terms of climate change—but, by and large, what we campaigned on has been developed. That should not be construed or manipulated as to some sort of new set of problems in respect of China.

I want to now go on to the importance of what Mr Twyford is doing in respect of housing. There are two streams of work which the last regime failed to deliver on. I need to say no more than what Bill English said when he put up the white flag and gave in to the planners of the Auckland Council. He himself said—and I think he may very well have been the Prime Minister when he said it—that those unelected, obscure characters had more power than he did. Mr Twyford is bringing forward policy. We will have an uber - mega-authority where those shadowy, unelected officials will not be able to thwart the ambitions of New Zealand homeowners or the New Zealand Government. That organisation, unfortunately for both him and I, takes a tad longer than our rhetoric might suggest, but that organisation is going to root out those obstacles which have, under the last regime, gathered momentum and gathered strength. That’s the first thing.

The second thing: there are two sources of capital, initiative, and power to deliver on housing. One is through the State funding, developing, and owning houses. The other is finding the right mix of policies to unleash the ability of the private sector itself, not only to develop property to meet whatever the appetite is in the market but to work with the Crown and, within a certain envelope or permission space, develop property that can be onsold in partnership with the Crown. Now, why should we not harness the ability of the private sector to develop and deliver on those sorts of outcomes, because that’s what society wants? Now, we can’t be held responsible that there are land bankers rewarded by the last regime—probably funders to elements in the last regime—who sit and gloat—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

It’s all public information, Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but there’s a very clear Standing Order about it, and the member knows it well—he’s been here long enough.

I withdraw and apologise if anyone has taken offence. Please look at the pecuniary interests. After all, a number on that side of the House seem to, along with that discredited environmentalist Mr Norman—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!

—do that with mine. However, I will continue with my speech.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

I shall continue with my speech. I’ve identified two sources of power, two sources of capital, and two sources of initiative. I’ve identified that these things are long-term challenges because of the period of time that has elapsed since the State was a lot more atavistic in that regard.

I want now to turn to transport. Now, we’ve heard from various people, both elected on that side of the House and outside of the House—fiscal crock pots—alleging that, somehow, we are denying the regions of New Zealand roading relief because we’re no longer going to continue with this cult-like rhetoric, certainly in my area up North, that four-lane highways had one, been funded; two, the designations had been; and, three, they were just an insect’s distance away from starting—absolute rubbish. The four-lane highway mirage up North had never ever been funded. It has been allowed to gallop, as my own regional transport committee, unfortunately fouled by the presence of certain National MPs in that committee—what have they done? They have continued to use that committee as an echo chamber. That is wrong—in fact, that is wrong in politics, and I put them on notice: I’m not going to allow that sort of behaviour to be continued to manipulate and misrepresent what the Government is doing in terms of regional roads.

Of course, now I get to KiwiRail. KiwiRail was on—well, it actually wasn’t on life support, because the last Government hated rail. Now, this Government is investing in rail. Now, once again, these large capital infrastructure projects do take a long period of time to gather momentum. First thing you do is you change the settings. Second thing you do is you provide fiscal certainty. Third thing, get into execution and delivery, and this is the year of delivery. So we are already expanding KiwiRail’s reach into the regions. We are already endowing KiwiRail with capital to build new hubs, to build new logistics centres. Why? Because we want to effect the transfer from the roads of heavy transport and freight on to rail. And wait, there’s more: we’re now going to turn our attention to coastal shipping. However, I won’t steal the thunder, as I’m wont to do from time to time, from Mr Twyford.

I want now to turn to some of the foolish things that have been said by “Epsom salts”, otherwise known as Mr Goldsmith.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I really don’t think that that is within the Standing Orders. Every member is entitled to respect.

Right—OK. Let me elaborate what I’m meaning to say: there is too much sulkiness from that member when he stands against regional New Zealand, who are embracing, who are promoting, and who are owning the investment initiatives which are enlivening the economy of provincial and regional New Zealand. What do Kiwis see? They see that, number one, the National Party hates the idea. We’ve already had it stated by them: they’re going to close it down and they’re going to use that money for tax cuts—that’s what they’ve said—or they’re going to use that money, because there’s not enough money, to fund all these absurd promises they’re wandering around the country and making. Kiwis, do the maths: there is not enough pūtea for them to honour their promises.

But the reality is that deep down, it’s National Party grandees within the regions—and I’m not personally antagonistic towards them—who are bringing proposals and desire to see the fund dedicated to that purpose, and dedication is what we represent. For the next year, 18 months, until our date with success—whenever the next election is—you will find that we will roll out our projects and we will continue to fund them. We will not be deterred; we will not be put off by these sulky remarks emanating from the list member of Epsom. Now, to suggest in some manner or form that that’s breaking the Standing Orders—I fail to see that.

Look, my final point is that I want to stand with Mr Nash. Mr Nash has been very strong to ensure that our fisheries policy is a blend of environmentalism and industry. To suggest, as Russel Norman has done, that somehow he is breaking the law or breaking the rule, I say to Russel Norman—a known offender, who’s been in our courts—look in the mirror.

I didn’t interrupt the member, but I will warn the member that you do not argue with the Speaker. You were disrespectful to a member. That is not within the Standing Orders, and if you do it again, I’ll send you from the House.

If there is an image that defines the Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government coalition, it is the image of the Labour Party component of that coalition coalescing together for their two-day conference, and the Prime Minister, with the television cameras there, working from table to table, extolling them that this is the year for delivery, which, as an aside, makes me wonder what last year was. The year of pre-delivery? Oh, the year of being, I guess, delivery-adjacent.

I know what it was. It was the year when that side of the House had to work out what they were here for, because they hadn’t planned it. They spent most of the time working out how the swivel chairs worked and what the buttons were for, and, in the meantime, sending 200 working groups—[Knocks over glass of water]—oops—away.

💬 Greg O’Connor: Counting how many bills haven’t been paid.

No, this is called climate change! The water’s rising—you should know that, being a good man from Ōhāriu. So what is absolutely clear is that they weren’t prepared. They hadn’t done the work, hence, as my good colleague Louise Upston mentioned, we have all these working groups. But what was more spectacular was that they went from that moment to a press conference, where the Prime Minister, looking down the camera, said “This is our year of delivery.”, and then turned to her hapless housing Minister, who said, “You know that we said 100,000 homes in 10 years to be built in KiwiBuild—you know we said 10,000? Well, yeah, nah, it’s about 60. And, actually, it’s too hard to have a measurement of building KiwiBuild houses each year, and so we’re going to scrap it.”

In that vignette, you saw the flaw of this Government, in that when they were given the opportunity to stand behind a commitment that was front and centre for their election campaign, they have completely failed—completely failed—because they hadn’t done the thinking and hadn’t done the work. In all of these systemic, challenging, complex issues that Governments exist for to solve on behalf of New Zealanders, they have kicked to working groups to do the work for them, because they didn’t have the application while they were in Opposition.

Another example of such lightweight thinking, from my perspective, is this extraordinary rhetoric that we’re hearing emanating from the other side about the upcoming well-being Budget. I can tell everyone listening that I have a sense of what it’s going to be. For a start, there will be an extraordinary amount of money splashed out. They have $17 billion more in tax receipts expected than when we left as a Government. Off the back of their promises, expect a huge amount of money that they will flood around, and they will wrap it with an extraordinary amount of emotive language. They will say “We care.” because, in their view, the function of leadership, the function of caring, is how much money you spend, not the actual impact you make on individuals.

We had Better Public Services targets across the public sector. They were unyielding. They were tough. They were uncomfortable when we had to report against them every quarter. They’ve got rid of them because they don’t want to be held to account for delivery. They just would like the opportunity to stand in front of New Zealand and say “We care.” because they believe leadership and being in Government is a function of the warmth of your speech, not the ability to actually deliver an outcome.

The other aspect that sits, I think, quite strongly behind their well-being Budget rhetoric is a fundamental sense, almost, of paternalism—that, actually, well-being is something that is conferred by the State, and well-being is something that is a function of Government effort and contribution. They don’t have any sense that, actually, for lots of New Zealanders, well-being is something that is in their essence. It is who they are. It is what they bring to their communities, to their families, and to their lives. They don’t need to be anointed by Jacinda Ardern for well-being; they have it in essence in who they are.

That is a key philosophical difference in their view, which has well-being as rhetoric and well-being as emotive language that you can wrap around people in speeches, but no appetite at all for hard, difficult, uncomfortable measures that actually drive you to perform. All of those that were already in place that our side, when we were in Government, found difficult and hard to deliver against because that was their purpose—they’ve all gone. It’s much easier to give a warm speech; it’s much harder to deliver, as Phil Twyford knew as he looked down that camera and said, “No, not 100,000 homes; no, not 10,000; no, not 1,000; actually, 62.” That is woeful—absolutely woeful.

The other area that I’d like to cover off is an example that we have touched on already today, and that is Phil Twyford’s obsession with light rail at the expense of my community. We heard it earlier. It is roughly $3.7 billion, although we don’t have the numbers. We don’t have the business case. We have some theoretical assumptions of how many passengers might be impacted, and we don’t know when it’s going to be built and we don’t know when it’s going to be finished. I represent a community that had the numbers. I represent a community in the Bay of Plenty who were told “$520 million, April 2016, seven kilometres off Tauranga north”. The tender started in the middle of last year, and Phil Twyford and that Government took it off the table and said to the Bay of Plenty community, “We would prefer our little tram project in Auckland rather than your needs.” He doesn’t come to Tauranga, doesn’t come to front the community, and then will talk to the occasional local government representative and thinks that that’s actually delivery. It is hopeless, it is failure, and you have completely let down my community, Mr Twyford, and our community, I’m sure, will have a very long memory when it comes to that.

The previous speaker referenced China. My view is that this Government’s approach to that critical relationship is inept and clueless, because over the last nine years under the John Key - Bill English Government, what you saw were two leaders who understood the power of relationships and understood that if you have a critical relationship like we have with China, you actually have to invest in the relationship. You have to build it and, from that strong relationship, you can deal with the challenging issues that come along. But you have to have trust first. You have to have the connection first. This Government doesn’t believe in that. This Government is caught between the virtue signalling of Jacinda Ardern, who, in her heart, finds the projection of China influence and power very uncomfortable, and, reflecting back on her socialist youth, thinks, “Oh, I’m not really happy about this.”

On the other side, Winston Peters, who has built a career, in my view, of having an inbuilt anti-Chinese bias that would often come to the fore, who knows more than most people in this House about the power of words and the power of language and when to say it and when not to say it—and he is very deliberately sending a signal around where he thinks the priority relationships are, because that’s where his essence lies. He is not someone who is naturally aligned to the growth of China and the opportunity that that economy and country has delivered for my community and for this country.

It would all be funny if it wasn’t so important and critical to the lives of so many people in New Zealand, but they do not have the capacity to manage the relationship that they now find themselves in. You can see it in their eyes when we ask them questions. There’s that look, and you see it when people are in over their depth.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t actually see it.

You could see it in the Prime Minister’s eyes when we were pressing questions yesterday on this topic. They know when they are in over their depth, and at the moment, on this issue, with its sensitivity and the impact on this country and our economic fortunes, they’re making a complete hash of it, because they are caught in that half-pie student politics of “Let’s say what we think sounds good on television.” versus the responsibility that sits on that side for actually governing for all New Zealanders, and governing with a capacity and capability that articulates a vision for these critical trading relationships around the world.

They don’t have that vision. They don’t have that capability, and we are seeing it in terms of their failure of delivery, not only in a foreign affairs context, not only in a housing context, and not only in a jobs context. We left the economy with 10,000 jobs a month; now it’s 600. Climate change will be a very big test of their commitment. So far it’s rhetoric, with the exception of oil and gas, which is thumping Taranaki and, actually, from a net greenhouse gas global perspective, runs real risks of taking us backwards. Failure—an “F” for failure.

Now, I understand this is a split call.

Just in response to the member opposite’s conversation about targets, I’d just like to point out some of the limitations of the previous Government’s targets, where, month after month, they monitored waiting times for emergency department presentations, but what they failed to account for were the 40,000 hospital admissions every year for children with poverty-related diseases and their not actually thinking about the consequences of the previous Government’s policies on those children and their lives.

What I want to talk about today is just reflecting on some of the Prime Minister’s comments in her speech on Tuesday, because what she was talking about was the fact that the Government had to make a choice about the way they governed. What she was saying was that they could make a choice about governing the way the previous Government did—taking no risks; just governing year after year; deferring the challenges, which we call kicking the can down the road; and just doing governing—versus taking that strong leadership and tackling those big challenges that lie ahead, not just for the next three years but for the next 30.

Looking back on what we’ve done over the last 12 months, I’m really proud that we’ve taken that choice that the Prime Minister made to lead, because I look at all of the things that we’ve done in housing and for our children and our health system. But the other thing is, I look at the challenges that lie ahead in terms of building those new houses so people can get warm, dry homes and in terms of making sure people can access those hospital systems, and I’m still pleased that we took the Prime Minister’s approach, because even though achieving change is difficult, the consequences of delayed action are much, much more dire.

I think, for me, looking at what’s happening where I live in Invercargill, the best illustration of the consequences of a hands-off approach is what’s happening to our New River Estuary. What’s happened there is, year after year, we’ve just done the same business-as-usual. What’s been happening is, year after year, we’ve had sediments and nutrient from upstream agriculture pouring into our estuary. We’ve had our sewage discharging untreated waste water into the estuary. We’ve had stormwater mixed up with raw sewage going into the estuary because of the state of our pipes. We’ve had rubbish. We’ve had leachate from the old rubbish dump. We’ve reached a point now in our estuary where it’s completely tipped, so, basically, what we’re seeing now is just huge, thick, deep mud that’s smothering everything.

I just want to read you something from one of our recent reports. It says that in the most significant areas of oxygen depletion in the highly eutrophic areas of the Waihopai and Daffodil Bay, the sediments “were often characterised by strong odours of sulphur and, when disturbed near water, released black sulphide rich plumes.” Looking at our beautiful estuary that used to have that beautiful white sand and rocks going down to the water where people use to swim, now covered with black, thick mud, the problem is that year after year, resource consents were issued, and year after year, we just continued business-as-usual. The reports kept coming, but nobody stopped to think about the impact of what all that was doing to our environment. I think the problem is that we’ve got a lot of other areas around our country that are getting to the same point. They’re like an estuary that’s tipped—that’s at a point now where doing nothing is just not an option.

On the freshwater quality point, I’m proud to be part of a Government that’s going to take strong action and that’s going to develop strong environmental standards and a national policy statement for fresh water. But thinking about the same situation we’ve got in housing, where we’ve reached that tipping point, and now all those kids are coming into hospitals with poverty-related diseases, I’m proud of what we’ve done over the last 12 months. We’ve stopped that sale of State houses. We are starting to rebuild some new ones. In Invercargill, we’re having that conversation about how we can all work together to get those homes built as quickly as possible so that people can have warm, dry homes.

But also in our health system, we’ve made some huge changes. We’re making it much, much more affordable for community services card holders to go and see the GP. We’re increasing the wages for a lot of our health staff, and we’re looking at putting that huge investment back into those hospital buildings that have been let go for so long. We’ve just got so many other areas where we’ve got to move forward and where we’ve got to that point where we’ve reached the tipping point and we’ve got those huge issues we’ve got to grapple with. But, as a Government, instead of doing nothing, we’re taking that lead. We’re making that decision to tackle those issues, not just for the next three years but for the next 30. So I’m proud to be a Government that’s been so active in the last 12 months and working hard for the years ahead. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a new year, and this Government’s got its head down and it’s working hard for New Zealand. It’s also got its eyes fixed firmly ahead on developing a long-term blueprint for a better New Zealand, which means building a productive and sustainable economy for everyone—not just for a few, but for everyone. It also means improving the well-being of New Zealanders, and it also means taking a new approach to leadership, an approach that’s about showing compassion, showing positivity, showing dignity, and also showing respect for each other.

Meanwhile, the Opposition barks at cars, practises the machiavellian dark arts, demonstrates petty and vindictive politics—politics that are about dog whistling. We’ve just heard speeches about this this afternoon: dog whistling, condescending, and mansplaining, demonstrated just recently by the production of sexist advertisements, which turn New Zealanders off, quite frankly.

If you ask any New Zealander what they want from their politicians, they will say a hard worker, a local representative, strong local representation, focusing on the bigger picture, delivering for everyone, and thinking about the future. I recently just delivered—well, not personally; I had a good team—23,000 surveys into homes in my electorate. Hundreds of responses are coming in. There are more coming in every day, and they’re yet to be properly analysed, but a cursory analysis of what the 2018 Government actions were that had the most awareness and that people were the most appreciative of were the free under-14 GP visits, the winter energy payment, and the fact that Dunedin will get a new hospital. Minimum wage rises, the first years of fees free, and the extension of paid parental leave were highly appreciated, and there was very high awareness of it as well.

This is the demonstration of a Government that is actually delivering things that mean something to people and are making their lives better. It’s a sign of a Government that actually is doing what it said it would do, which will benefit all New Zealanders. It’s a sign of a Government that’s not afraid to face up to the big issues and that’s actually not afraid to take some risks. It’s a sign of a Government that knows that the measures of success are about building that sustainable, productive economy but are also about the health and happiness of New Zealanders and protecting the environment, as well. My colleague Dr Liz Craig just talked about that metaphor—for the last nine years, really—which has ended up being that dark mud of that estuary, where there’s been just a complete disregard for the importance of protecting the environment.

We said that Dunedin would get its new hospital, it would be in the central city, and we’d start work on it in our first term—we’re on track. We said that housing would be a priority—we’re on track. This is a Government that has built 1,100 new State homes. That was a Government that sold 5,000 State houses and left thousands and thousands of people homeless. We said that we would get the Hillside rail workshops up and running. We’re on track to start doing that. The Parliament heard that this is a Government that is investing in rail, and we are heading in that direction. We are delivering. You are seeing it in the regions, you are seeing the growth, you are seeing the investment in regional development and regional New Zealand, you are seeing the hope in people’s faces, and you are seeing a sense in our Work and Income offices of a change in culture, a change in attitude. This is a Government that is delivering for New Zealanders.

I understand that this is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Look, I always looked up to my elders, and my grandfather was one who I always used to listen to. He was a tough old guy. He was Irish, he was Catholic, and he was a truck driver. The one thing I always remember him saying was “If you’re going to do a job, you should do it properly.”, and I’ve always stood by those words myself. He took pride in his work, and there was one thing that he hated more than a shoddy job, and that was a job that looks kind of OK from the outside but, when you lift the lid, it’s rubbish. That’s exactly what the National Party has done to New Zealand for nine years, and that is exactly what this Government has been repairing. And let’s have a wee look. Let’s have a compare and contrast over some areas to see what’s been going on, because what happened for nine years was we saw spin and buff and shine, but the real grunt, the real building of giving New Zealand what it needs, was ignored.

💬 Housing: in Hutt South, where I reside, we saw houses torn down, vacant land, and people homeless. We saw people kicked out of their houses for earthquake reasons and vacant land for six years. That vacant land is now being rebuilt on, and all we can hear is moans from the other side of the House—rebuilding on vacant land that has lain vacant for eight or nine years.

Mental health: mental health in areas where people were ignored and put on waiting lists. We are now looking into how we rebuild that with a full mental health inquiry and pilots, like we announced just yesterday in Porirua for young people aged 18 to 24.

Meth testing: that’s a pearler, that one—making up stuff that didn’t even have a real meth-testing standard, which caused real issue. We’re having research, having a real basis to look at what’s happening, and establishing a meth-testing standard that actually works.

Paying people what they’re worth—that’s a good one. Front-line services have been worked to breaking point, whether it be teachers, police, doctors, nurses, or the midwives here today. All of those services have been relied upon for their goodwill and have had to work overtime without being paid. This Government has had a long job, and still much to go in advance, to put that right and reinvest in those front-line services.

The schools in which those teachers work and those students learn every day have been left leaking—left leaking and rundown, year after year. I only have to turn, again, to my own patch in Wainuiōmata, where just last year, we had the Prime Minister announce a complete rebuild of Wainuiōmata High School for $24 million. Kids in those areas had been going to a school which had leaked for well over a decade and had been left in disrepair, and what we see is that being rebuilt.

All through that we see families and New Zealanders with more money in their pocket on an average basis—another 75 bucks in the pocket for over 385,000 families. More money in their pocket and more money in the local economy, we see, because people can buy with that extra money.

We see making front-line services more responsive. I think the reason why New Zealanders are so pleased with this Government is because they can see the benefits of doing a job properly. They can see the benefits and the real examples of people being able to be put into homes instead of being fobbed off into motels—of being able to give people the services and the responses they need. All we hear from the other side is a complaint that we’re not fixing their mess quick enough, and that’s what I find difficult—not happening quick enough.

I believe that it is the Kiwi way to do a job properly, and that is why I am proud to be part of a Government that is doing exactly that, from building to reinvesting, to looking after people, and to governing with a heart. That is why I am proud to be part of this Government. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As someone who’s come to this House a little closer to the end of my working life than the start of it, I reflect that while I’m a young man—in fact, I enjoyed a game of rugby on Saturday and showed that I was well able to keep up with some much younger men. However, it does leave me some limited time to be part of a very successful Government that is going to achieve a lot and that has to achieve a lot. In doing so, I’ve learnt—a little bit like my rugby experience—don’t try and get to every ruck. Pick the important ones, usually the ones where you’re close to the sideline, where the cameras are, perhaps. But yes, be very specific about what you want to achieve.

The one thing I would like to achieve before I leave this House is something that this Government is focusing on, and that is housing. It doesn’t matter what else we do. Every other problem we look at, so often, all roads lead to housing. I was fortunate enough to go to Australia on a select committee trip with the Social Services and Community Committee, and we were looking at social housing and we were looking at social issues. It was very clear—often after a few days of being out of your comfort zone, looking at these things, you sit down and think “Now, what did I really learn?”, and do you know what I really learnt is that all roads really led to housing. If you can fix housing, if you can focus on that one area—OK, we will all have problems. It’s not going to be all singing “Kumbaya”, and it never will be, but what you do is focus on the things you can fix.

I think it’s no accident that the Opposition are focusing on housing. Every day we have the Opposition housing spokesperson there, performing like a television character—possibly thinking that Mr Waldorf and Mr Statler are up there in the balcony, watching while she does so. But it’s good, and when I listen to that, I think it’s great—bring it on. We’ve just had Mr Bayly talking about the very thing. Is it Mr Bayly? Yeah, I can never quite remember which of the “Stepford husbands” I’m looking at when they speak over there. But they’re bringing the same thing up, talking about housing. Bring it on guys. Keep it up. Keep talking about housing, because every time you do, everyone at home here listening—and I know on a Thursday afternoon there’ll be many of them listening—is thinking, “Yes, it is about housing.” So keep it up. Keep the pressure on. We’ll feed off that. We have to feed off it for the sake of New Zealand, because I know that when I leave this place, if there’s one thing, short term—yes, there are lots of other things that we can fix. Yes, there are other things we do need to fix.

I mean, I’m not going to climb into the Opposition. They were led by “Teflon” and the cars. I think one of the best things I heard about the previous Prime Minister was he prepared New Zealand for sale, and that’s actually, I think, one of the best descriptions of where we find ourselves—you know, where we have New Zealand prepared for sale. It’s like that car you prepare for sale. You shine the wheels, you make sure you get—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not doing any of that.

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: My husband does it.

That was a metaphorical “you”, but I will say one shines the wheels—an opportunity to repeat, please—shines the wheels. You know, one perhaps even goes over the scratches. But at the end of the day, it’s still a dodgy old thing, and so at some stage you’re going to have to do something about the engine. You’re going to have to do something about the diff, because—the other thing—it will grind to a halt. And that’s actually—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t even know what they are. Don’t bring me into it.

I just really am going to have to start concentrating on that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’ll come back down to earth if I can, but I’m finding myself so passionate about this that perhaps the vagaries of the parliamentary rules are escaping me, but I will endeavour at this moment to refocus, because refocus we must, and it’s all about focusing on housing.

You think about so many of the issues we have: health. I mean, growing up—how important is it? So many people stand up here and speak about their old family doctor. What family doctor, when you’re forced to move house every six months? We talk about education. I mean, how important is it, looking back—and I would say generally in this House, not everyone, but most of us have relatively stable backgrounds where we have family friends, where we get to go to family reunions. Our schooling was a big part of it. That’s where we build our friends. Imagine where you don’t have any stable housing, where you have to keep moving, and then, of course, you end up in trouble, because every time you got to a new school there are already established friendship groups. You’re trying to break into them, you end up in the wrong group, and you don’t only end up in the wrong group—part of the problem—you are the wrong group yourself, and so—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not in the wrong group.

Oh, there I go again, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the 25 seconds left to me, I’ll make sure. But, seriously, I invite the Opposition: keep it up. Keep up the attacks on housing. Keep it going, keep the debate out there, because that is what is going to be so important, because it does need fixing. What they are focusing on, they are focusing on the very issue they know that they have left—the biggest issue they have left. We will fix that. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

“We will fix that.”—isn’t that beautiful? I’ve just been sitting here, and for a start, my first observation is I haven’t heard one of these people talk about the Prime Minister’s speech—just nothing. It’s dead silence. But I’ve heard these lovely expressions. I loved the one before: “We have our eyes firmly fixed ahead.” Well, if you don’t, normally you fall over. I don’t know—it’s some sunset, going out there. And this sort of “Bring it on, let’s talk about housing.”—54 houses, actually. I just can’t understand why some of the members who have just spoken want to highlight that as your number one issue.

I’m just going to have a bit of a ramble here. Just over the last couple of months since I’ve had the opportunity to speak in the House—I just want to talk about some of the economic situations, and, of course, we’ve got a Government that likes to portray that everything is going swimmingly well. Well, it’s not, actually. In the last of couple of months since we reconvened, we’ve seen the growth rate of New Zealand drop quite substantially. So under a National Government, when we were in power, we were achieving growth rates of 3.5 to 3.6 percent. We are now at 3.1 percent, and every projection that the Reserve Bank have put out—and we had a meeting with the Reserve Bank today—has a figure starting with 2 percent next year. That is actually a travesty because, in many ways, the impact hurts most on people, but, for the Government, it means much less income—much less income that they talk about for all these social programmes they want to do. Every 1 percent drop in GDP is roughly a billion bucks—just a bit under. So that cuts to the core of their ability to govern and to be able to do the programmes they want. But through their poor management—and I’m going to talk about that in a minute—it means less revenue.

The other thing is it’s a loss of opportunity. It’s a loss of opportunity for New Zealanders, because it’s great to say we’re growing, but we could be growing so much faster in New Zealand, and that is the travesty about this. I just think what it leads to is a loss of security for people, particularly for their jobs and particularly for the small businesses that most New Zealanders work in, because when you have that environment, there is uncertainty and risk. Even the Reserve Bank stated in its Monetary Policy Statement—they’ve noted this, and I’m just quoting from them—“There is a risk that we have understated GDP growth”, and it’s shown to be more substantial than they believe at the moment.

Also, what’s happened is consumption growth: the spending that households go out and buy when they’re out shopping has dropped 2 percent from 6 percent two years ago to now just over 3 percent. That type of stuff is the stuff that fuels economies and that makes it more important for New Zealand, gives the money for Governments to go and do stuff, and it gives the money for people to go and spend and circulate it and make New Zealand a better place to live. That’s not taking place.

Why is there that uncertainty? Well, this is a Government that’s brought it on themselves. I know the Prime Minister wants to say it’s all international, and that unbelievable speech from the Deputy Prime Minister when he was only just the coalition partner—his first, inaugural speech—where he said, “We are about to go into Government with Labour, and it’s all about what’s happening overseas.” Well, actually, it’s not. It’s about what’s happening here in New Zealand. As a result of the policies of this Labour - New Zealand First Government, they have sown the seeds of uncertainty and risk in this economy. We’ve seen what’s happened with industrial relations, catering for their union mates. We’ve seen the issue around overseas investment and all of the stuff that’s going on, and we’re seeing a drop in the uncertainty around that. We’ve seen the slow but progressive slide in immigration, and, of course, we want to see only reasonable immigrants. We want to see the right immigrants coming to New Zealand, but for our certain industries—certainly in the area my colleague Todd Muller here beside me represents—where we do need workers, we need those workers and we should be getting them into New Zealand.

Of course, we’ve got other things like the idea that’s being floated about a capital gains tax—a lovely little proposition. So what happens when people get nervous, and businesses in particular?

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: They roll their leaders.

They stop investing, Mr Faafoi. They stop investing and they also stop hiring people, and that’s the thing that bites into ordinary Kiwis—not us here in this debating chamber, but the ordinary Kiwis in our electorates.

We’ve seen the uplift in the unemployment rate in New Zealand. So what does all this mean? What does all this downturn in the economy mean? It means less money. When you’ve got a Government that sets about doing flabby spend, which is what this Government’s doing in a number of instances—flabby, inefficient spend—what are the other choices? Well, then you have a debate about debt, and we can already see the Labour Party and the Greens and all that sort of stuff saying, “Oh, we don’t like the debt word. We don’t want to have that discipline. We think we should spend more.” It’s fine if you spend that stuff on good stuff like capital spend, like infrastructure, like roads like Mill Road in Auckland, like the Tauranga one, or the Timaru motorways down in the South Island—those are the types of investment that we want to see, but not flabby spend.

So what do you do if you’re the Labour - New Zealand First Government and if you can’t raise the debt—and I think there will be a little bit of that in time, but what do you do? Well, what’s the only other option?

💬 Hon Louise Upston: Tax.

Tax. That’s right—tax. The incredible thing: this Government, in the last 14 months, has already put and imposed on ordinary New Zealanders another $2.6 billion of taxes.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: It’s working.

And they said they weren’t going to do it, Mr Faafoi. It only takes 14 months to turn that round and say, “Oh, no.” It’s a bit like the tram going down Mill Road—“Yes, we’re going to have it done by 2020.” No—14 months later, no. No—no.

So what are we going to do? I think, from our perspective, everyone in New Zealand should pay their fair share of tax, but no more. But does the Labour - New Zealand First Government regard New Zealanders, owners of businesses, like that? No, they don’t. They see them as a cash tin. I think the issue about this is that even without them changing anything from now, over the next four years there will be nearly $18 billion of extra revenue taken in by this Government on a per annum basis. That is a heck of a lot of money, yet this Government’s already talking about additional taxes. That’s not enough for them.

I think the issue around capital gains tax is going to be a fascinating issue, and I cannot wait for the announcement next week. Of course, who did they ask to devise it? The architect of some of the most complicated tax reforms in New Zealand—the very person. Of course, they’ve had him out there helping soften up the public on behalf of the Labour - New Zealand First Government. I can’t wait to see what happens, because that person was the architect of some very complicated reforms, and if you want to talk about complication, let’s talk about capital gains tax. It is complication innate. It is there, and it is the single most important issue about the introduction of this new tax.

I think the issue with it is that the need for it has not been proven—the need has not been proven. We all agree with the need to support our vulnerable and invest in infrastructure, but just to have this rapacious grab for money to fund ill-conceived goals is wrong. I think the issue around here is that there’s a perception that by imposing a capital gains tax, we are going to target the wealthy in New Zealand. The so-called wealthy—there’s this mystical sort of view about it, but, unfortunately, it is middle New Zealand who will be the worst off from a capital gains tax, because they’re the ones that own the investment properties. Forty percent of properties in New Zealand are owned by mums and dads. They are the ones who are going to be bitterly disappointed when they find out anything about capital gains tax and how it will affect them. It will also affect the 530,000 businesses owned by the mums and dads in New Zealand—the hard-working people who only employ one, two, or three people, or maybe none at all. They are the people who are going to be affected by capital gains tax. We cannot wait to see what you come up with next week.

I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Julie Anne Genter—five minutes.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I am so proud to be a Green Minister in this coalition Government. In fact, I was reflecting, listening to the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern give the opening statement, that I have not been so proud—I never imagined I could be so proud—of where New Zealand is right now. In all my time as a member of Parliament, I’ve never listened to the PM’s statement with so much pride. On the world stage, at the UN, she is setting the tone. She’s demonstrating as a young woman leader what the next generation of global leaders will need to do and can do to solve the challenges that we are facing of climate change and inequality. Already, this Government is delivering on some of that good green change that we campaigned on and will make a real difference to New Zealanders.

In the area of transport, we are investing record amounts to make zero-emission transport the easy option, the affordable option, that will enable more people to access opportunities, education, and employment. The tired old way that the last Government and previous Governments before them were planning for transport improvements actually limited people’s choice and increased pollution, and this Government is turning that around. We are giving people real choice in how they get around, whether that’s by car, bus, train, bike, or even e-scooter. That will make the big difference to congestion in our cities. By giving people more choice, we take cars off congested roads and free them up for the tradies and the freight that needs to move on them.

We’re making it possible to build more quality inner-city housing and vibrant neighbourhoods by linking people’s homes to the city with world-class light rail lines, and I know the Opposition loves to scaremonger about light rail. The truth is New Zealand is so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to investing in quality public transport, and Aucklanders are desperate for it, but it’s not just Aucklanders who will benefit from quality public transport infrastructure in our biggest cities.

We are making our roads safer because we do not accept that 380 people dying on our roads every year is an acceptable price to pay. Our investment in road safety is really about drastically cutting the number of white crosses on the sides of our roads, right across the country. It’s not about cutting a few ribbons in a few National Party electorates. I know that the Opposition would love to believe that you can cut taxes and spend billions on infrastructure at the same time—actually, that’s not possible. But also, instead of just spending the money on a few flash motorways, like a couple of kilometres of the East-West Link—which that Government was planning to spend an eye-watering amount on for 5.5 kilometres of motorway—we are actually going to improve safety right around the country, because that’s how you reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

As the Minister for Women, I’m incredibly proud at the progress we have already made in introducing pay equity legislation that will actually help women get a better deal, not put barriers in their way. Women in this country should be paid fairly for the work they do, and the undervaluing of so-called women’s work needs to stop. We need to recognise the incredible contribution—economic contribution but, more importantly, social contribution—that is made by women in the form of unpaid work.

In the health area, we are making real progress on mental health. When I was young, like so many other people, I went through some times that were extremely emotionally turbulent. I was fortunate enough to have access to counselling support when I needed it, and I believe all young people should have that kind of access to health. This week, I had the honour of launching, alongside Minister Clark and my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, the youth mental health pilot Piki in Porirua. This was a key part of the Greens’ confidence and supply agreement with Labour. This pilot will help an estimated 10,000 young people access support when they are facing mild to moderate mental health challenges. Young people are already leading Aotearoa’s response on mental health and are demanding change. I am proud to stand with them and deliver real results.

This year, I look forward to the Minister for Climate Change and the Green Party co-leader introducing the zero carbon bill. As a new parent, this issue is incredibly important to me. We are making real progress on the issues that matter most to New Zealanders.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s really lovely to get the opportunity to stand up and reply to the Prime Minister’s statement this year, and a real feeling of optimism and a sense of just the chance to get stuck in again to making a real difference for the people in my community and the communities around the country. The Greens—it’s probably no secret to anyone—are really excited by the big vision about how we can create a society that’s sustainable, where everyone has a place and the opportunity to reach their potential, and that is safe. I just feel incredibly privileged to play a role in this Government around our collective efforts as a country—including with the Opposition—to end family and sexual violence.

In the first year of Government, we got more money to our incredibly important front-line services for victims of domestic violence, started a review in the Ministry of Justice around the Family Court reforms to ensure that they’re safe and effective, and got a whole-of-Government response set up that means we’ll be able to stop the ridiculousness where the Ministry of Justice had one programme to change the behaviour of people who had been using violence and the Department of Corrections had funded a completely different one. So, potentially, people using violence and wanting to change were being told two entirely different things about what they needed to do to change—ridiculousness. So we’ve set things up so that we can make sure that never happens again, so that we’re all on the same page, walking in the same direction to that future free of violence that I am really excited about.

We’ve ensured that we’ve got a partnership with Māori, because, actually, there are so many solutions held within Te Ao Māori that we need to unleash as a Government and stop blocking, and we introduced two new pieces of legislation last year. I acknowledge Amy Adams for the work that she did around the family violence legislation, getting that there, and a world first around workplace protections. I notice Scotland—a council there has become the first European council to introduce that, specifically name-checking New Zealand for providing the example that they are now following. We have repositioned ourselves, as a country, as world leaders, and it’s pretty blimmin exciting.

I know that, as the Prime Minister said, there is so much more to do, because we’re not just about moving things around; we want people’s lives to be changed by what we’re doing. I do want to then talk about my excitement and anticipation for the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report that will be coming out later this year. I am focused on those stories of those lives of those people in this country who have been devastated. It isn’t an exaggeration to say that children have been dying because of the low income - related diseases. We have research that tells us that, as well as people’s stories, and that is entirely preventable.

When we hear a rhetoric coming from the Opposition about just the numbers—the numbers—they actually committed an act of violence against the people who are those numbers by ignoring their lives and the complexity of their lives that drives to get people into work, regardless of their situation or the decency of their work, ignoring the fact that over half of the people receiving income support are receiving income support for disability- or health-related reasons that mean they are unable to be in full-time employment. The stigma that’s created by their drive to drive down those numbers ignores the stories that we have been hearing of—for example, a mum, with a newborn baby, choosing to live in a shed, sleeping on a mouldy piece of carpet because she did not want to go back into Work and Income. Her experience of that place, created by the last Government’s policies, was so traumatising that she chose to live in a shed with a newborn baby.

We are absolutely committed to fighting and doing everything we can to restore a sense of dignity and whakamana tangata to this country, and I am so proud to be part of that mission.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and happy New Year to you. This is my first opportunity to take a call this year, and I’ve got to admit that I love the Government’s optimism, because, quite frankly, that’s all it is. When you look at the Prime Minister’s statement, let’s think about some of the imagery that she used. She wants to create an ambitious programme to build a stronger and fairer country—again, beautiful imagery; it’s something that I can actually agree with. She wants to put families and children at the heart of Government—again, that’s something that I would agree with on the face of it—and, as part of that, too, she says that she wants to back our regions. As a provincial MP representing the fair city of Invercargill, I would have to agree with that too. I didn’t vote for them, though—I didn’t vote for them.

I didn’t vote for them, because that Government does not have the competency to deliver, despite their saying that this is going to be a year of delivery. What have we seen in the past 365 days since they took office? Two hundred and thirty-three working groups, at a cost of about $300 million. They have, basically, farmed out decision making and farmed out policy making, because those people sitting over there now in Government failed to do the work while they were in Opposition. On the contrary, we have been here for 365 days, and we are embarking on a programme of intensive policy-making. We are going around the country listening to constituents, we are having mature conversations, and we are formulating policy that will take New Zealand forward and continue to grow its economy and create opportunities for all New Zealanders.

You can’t deny the stats. My colleague Mr Bayly, being the economist that he is, very aptly described to the Government how the economy works and talked about some of these stats, but you can’t deny the stats: GDP is falling. GDP was at, under our Government, 3.5 percent, and now there is a projection forecast for 2 percent. The economy is slowing, unemployment is up, 10,000 people are unemployed in the last three months, but what does that actually mean for families? What does it actually mean for people in the regions and for people in the cities who are just simply trying to get ahead and achieve their goals? Well, if GDP is slowing, policy making and decisions have been made that don’t back business, and businesses aren’t prepared to invest, then they’re not prepared to take on that extra person, to take a chance on another person being employed, and that means that people don’t have options. Mum and dad may not be able to get a job, mum and dad may not be able to earn, and that means that there’s no money to put into their families to feed their children and that they have to come cap in hand to the Government for a handout.

In real terms, what does that mean? Well, let’s look at it. The number of children in benefit-dependent households is up, and this is a Government that puts children at the heart of Government. The number of care and protection reports is up, family violence referrals for child abuse and neglect is up, young people not in education is up, household indebtedness is up, people on the jobseeker benefit is up, the cost of living has risen, and the number of early childhood education enrolments is down. This is not a New Zealand that I am proud of. I know that ordinary Kiwis want to achieve, I know they have their own hopes and dreams, and Government—responsible Government, competent Government—is about putting in place policies that enable that to happen and that enable people to feel a sense of productivity and contribution to their community to get ahead, to be skilled, to contribute to their community, whether it be in a paid way or through a community organisation, and to feel valued. But that’s not what we’re seeing out there with this kind and caring Government.

Let’s talk about backing the regions. Well, my goodness, what devastation has occurred with respect to this new vocational review? It was interesting at question time today, when the Hon Chris Hipkins answered questions about the positivity and the reception of his vocational review—well, not so much for the Southern Institute of Technology down in Southland. We are absolutely flabbergasted that this Government wants to take the autonomy of Southland Institute of Technology away from Southlanders and the community and centralise it and have some bureaucrats in Wellington calling the shots. Southland Institute of Technology is integral to our community. It is integral to our plan to attract 10,000 more people to the region by 2025. Its strength is that it attracts mature students and family members to our centre, and the pastoral care programme integrates them into the community, providing them with services and providing great networking opportunities. Centralising that decision making means that we will be a cookie cutter polytechnic, with nothing to sell and no point of difference to attract students to our town.

We need those skilled people to come to Southland to continue to grow our economy and to make life vibrant in our city, but this is a Government that simply wants to undercut that. Also, given that we have, approximately, a $3 million surplus because we do sell our international education, what’s going to happen to that surplus filtered off north to go into the deficits with the ill-performing polytechnics? Why should Southern Institute of Technology be punished because it’s a high performer? That is ridiculous.

The other thing that I’m not happy with is this lack of engagement with the sector. Six weeks of engagement and a meeting that only comes as far south as Christchurch? I don’t think that’s meaningful consultation. I think the decisions have already been made, and I think that it is simply about undercutting our region and centralising everything to a Stalinist model—Stalinist. It’s ridiculous.

I’m going to finish with something that’s close to my heart and, of course, that’s conservation. With the greenest Government ever, I’m quite surprised at the lack of direction that this Government is taking on environmental issues and its commitment to conservation. No cameras on commercial fishing vessels, despite the Minister of Fisheries promising to Forest & Bird that that would happen, and what have we seen so far? Hector’s dolphin deaths, seabird deaths, and a lack of commitment to conservation. Admittedly, there were technical difficulties to work through, and as a regional MP, I agree they needed to be worked through, but I actually believe that the technical difficulty is one Rt Hon Winston Peters and that it is simply New Zealand First calling the shots and holding the Green Party down with regards to their conservation agenda and not making any progress in that regard.

The other thing that I’m quite shocked about in respect of conservation is this lack of commitment to facilitating recreation and, again, engagement. For the most open and transparent Government of all time, there does really seem to be a lack of meaningful consultation with stakeholders and interested parties. It’s the same in conservation. Look at the tahr cull—completely ignoring recreationists’ and hunters’ views. The indigenous fish bill—riding roughshod over Fish & Game with regards to getting out and fishing game fish. And, when we move forward, looking at the Game Animal Council—completely undercutting them with funding. This is a Government that is not delivering, and they will not deliver in the future.

I move, That this debate be now adjourned.