General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I have never seen such a leaderless rabble in this House in a long, long, long time—in fact, I never have. Can I say that I recently got information about the approval/disapproval rating for the Leader of the Opposition, one Simon Bridges, and I can tell you that last year he got in a limo, he spent $113,000 of the taxpayers’ money, and the further he drove and the more people he saw, the more his disapproval rating went that way and his approval rating went that way. Now, there has never been—and this is what I’m reading out as well—a former leader of any political party whose disparity between the disapproval rating and the approval rating has been as high as Simon Bridges. That’s what we saw yesterday, and we saw today a leaderless rabble.

And here comes the point: we’ve had a Serious Fraud Office investigation into what? National Party funding and how they’d hide their contributions. We’ve had then, of course, the blame game about an emotional junior staffer who took down a petition on the National Party’s site because that person knew how inappropriate it was. When Mr Bridges had to explain it, he denied the truth of the matter, he claimed that it had already been taken down, but on the chronology of events people knew that what he was saying wasn’t correct. But here’s the real rub: he described that as being the work of an emotional junior staffer. It wasn’t; it was an experienced senior staffer, and that person has gone on to resign.

Then, of course, yesterday we saw the performing seal—unbelievable. But here was the real rub—because body language, as every psychologist will tell you, is important—he got ejected from the House. Last year when that happened, his colleagues got up and resigned with him en masse. Yesterday, I have never seen such a lonely, pathetic sight as a leader leaving and there wasn’t so much as a murmur or a mutter or even a protest from all of his colleagues. So the Ides of March—or, dare I say it, May—are here. They’re here.

You know, the biggest thing he could find in the last year was a thing called “slushies”. Amidst all this maelstrom of incompetence and corruption that he claimed to be happening in the country, the biggest thing he found was that the people out there in our prisons, working in tremendous heat, laden up with security equipment of 6 kilograms or more in full uniform, shouldn’t be able to cool down with some help from the taxpayer. He thought this was a massive political scandal, and it went and had all the levitation of a lead balloon.

Now, then you have this real important matter, which I want to stress: all of National’s options aren’t good. What was given to me the other day was the approval/disapproval profiles of four politicians, two on this side and two on that side, and the two on that side are equally as bad. Guess who the two good ones were? Well, modesty, and the defence of the Prime Minister’s modesty, doesn’t enable either of us to talk about it, but it’s all good news. Judith Collins, therefore, is not an alternative leader, but she’s lining up, and they’re desperate, and she’s going to be supported by all those top-of-the-town financiers who have tried to contaminate, for the exclusive interests of themselves against the interests of the many, politics in this country. So that’s where they’re going to.

Now, if anybody doubts that, just the other day Mr Bridges, who is planned and appointed to go to Washington, which is the annualised tour for the Leader of the Opposition to go to Washington, decided to cancel. Why? Well, he’s too scared that if he’s away—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Oh, he’s too worried that if he’s away—I can’t challenge his fortitude, but he’s so worried that if he is away, the mice will play. Can I just say this: you know, he should go, because even an inmate deserves a last meal—a last meal. He should go. National is a party of four d’s: distracted, divided, desperate, and divisive. The Government’s a party of four d’s: driven, determined, dynamic, and delightful.

Now, my last comment is: Mr Bridges has brought to politics all the excitement of a confabulation of undertakers.

Well, at the best, that was boring—absolutely, blatantly, the usual that we hear from a man who is absolutely boring. I would have expected a little more pizazz, a little bit more of the—but the jokes, quite frankly, now, ladies and gentlemen, have got to be about 26-27 years old. They get recycled slightly, with a different name, with a different version of it.

Quite frankly, what we’re seeing at the moment is a whole lot of horse trading going on between the Government and the various three parties, and it’s quite interesting to see how that’s going. I say to the Greens: you’re swallowing a lot of dead rats, whether it’s waka jumping, a capital gains tax, and now a binding cannabis referendum. I was with you on option four. I just felt that if we’re going there, the public deserve the most certainty they can have. They deserve to have as much say as they can. They deserve to actually go into a select committee process where we have the experts alongside of it, where, actually, it can be refined a bit and improved. We see that in bills all the time in this House, which is why we have that process, committee stage. I think we would have seen a better piece of legislation if it had been given that kind of process, and the public deserve that. My own personal views—and I know that everyone tries to say that I’m a bit here and a bit there. My job, actually, is to raise concerns, and my job is actually to test us all a bit more in this area on what I think is one of the most important decisions that we’re going to make in a while, because it really could change the fabric of society.

So in the year of no delivery that we’re seeing from the Government, it is interesting that the only thing we’re actually getting delivered is a referendum that is by no means, in any way, shape, or form, binding. If we had the interests of the public at the heart of what we were doing, then I think that we would have gone back to that and actually given them something where they knew what they were voting for, and I think it’s really important. There are a whole lot of questions.

So what we constantly hear from the Greens—and I’m hoping that the Green member’s going to take a call, and that would be really good—is that we want to get rid of that black market, that we want to see fewer gangs. Who wouldn’t agree? You know, there’s no one that wants to see the gangs thriving, pushing more drugs to, particularly, our youth. What, unfortunately, we are seeing, and it’s not just in Canada—and, granted, it’s only one quarter—but in Canada, where it is legal, for the first quarter of 2019, actually, still 38 percent of those that used marijuana bought it from the black market. I would have thought that they would have gone and got it legally, because that would have made sense—it’s legal now, you can go to a local shop, you can get it. I expected it to be less than 10 percent, I’ve got to be honest, that would still be going to a black market. So that sort of proves it.

In California, where, of course, it’s been legal for more than a year, there are reports in the New York Times where they are saying, and the local mayor and that are saying, that, actually, they think that the black market is thriving and doing better, and actually they are seeing more of it and not less. It kind of fits logically. I personally think if it gets legalised—and I’ve got to say that at the moment, I would say I hope it doesn’t—I believe that we should be testing the potency and putting a regulation on the potency of THC. Canada and Colorado don’t do that, but that means we’re making sure it’s not too strong, yeah, particularly in edibles. To do that you need to test around 10 percent of the product—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: No one’s listening.

—right, to make sure that that THC—well, they should be listening, actually, Jamie Strange, because this is really important.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Jamie Strange! Ha, ha!

This is about—oh, well, I do get them all a bit mixed up, I’ve got to say, because there’s a lot of those guys that all look the same. Actually, I’ve got to be honest—I don’t even remember your name. I’m not sure if you’ve ever spoken.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Me?

I’m not being rude—it’s not at you, sir. I do remember yours, but I’m really struggling to remember the member’s name, which must be proof of his contribution to this Parliament so far. I really have no idea, so I’m not even going to try and go there.

But what is important is actually this debate and the fact that New Zealanders are going to be debating it. I believe that, actually, testing 10 percent of the product is going to be about a 40 percent tax, which means that gangs and things won’t be paying it, which means the black market keeps thriving, which means that they also get a higher-potency product, which means that there’s a market for it, it gets into our young people, and I think there’s huge risks in it, and I’m pleased we’re debating it.

The National Party is not fond of workers going on strike. I heard Scott Simpson, their representative on industrial relations, say that in the 21st century, there’s better ways of responding to an industrial dispute than going on strike. But what do we see today? Once again, something goes on in the House that they don’t quite like and off they all walk—off the job with the National Party again. They’re all on strike again. What’s good for them, what they say, is not what they want other people to do—same old National all the time. The Deputy Prime Minister was absolutely right when he said the National Party are the party of the 4 Ds: desperate, divided, distracted, and divisive.

Desperate—Simon Bridges, poor old Simon Bridges. He’s had a go on everything from slushies to gangs selling gummy bears. These are the issues that he has prioritised, and we all know how well it’s doing for Simon, “Mr 5 Percent”. Even his own team can’t express confidence and trust in him. Simon is getting desperate.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

But of course the—Simon Bridges, the Hon Simon Bridges, is getting desperate, but the caucus is divided as well. They’ve been told off by Simon for leaking to Newshub. How do we know?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Last warning.

Simon Bridges, the Hon Simon Bridges, told his caucus off for leaking to Newshub. How do we know this? Someone leaked it to Newshub. They are distracted, and if we want any more evidence on the fact that the National Party is completely distracted, it was the contribution from the Hon Paula Bennett in this debate. She gave an impassioned argument why she thinks New Zealanders that should vote “no” in the referendum on cannabis legalisation, but didn’t tell us whether or not the National Party will implement the will of the people. If people vote “yes”, will the National Party follow that? If the people vote “no”, will the National Party follow that? They can’t tell us either way, because they are completely distracted from the issues. It sounds like, from what Paula Bennett just told us, she is going to focus her attention on debating the referendum and has checked out from the campaign for the general election. That’s fine by us. If National want to focus on the referendum and which side they’re going to take on the referendum, that’s fine, because over here we will focus on the issues that matter to New Zealanders and focus on campaigning for this Government to be returned after the next general election.

And, of course, we know they are divisive, because they have Judith Collins—the Hon Judith Collins. Here’s the division: Judith Collins thinks she’s great; everyone else in her caucus does not.

Over this side of the House, we are focused on the matters that are important to New Zealanders. We have been addressing the plethora of failures that were left to us by the previous Government. We are dealing with the shortfall of over 70,000 houses. The New Zealand economy, Government, and private sector, in the year to March, built 34,000 new homes. That is more house building going on today than there has been since the 1970s.

In health, we have increased the funding for our hospitals—now over $14 billion for capital projects needed over the next 10 years because of the gap that was left in health by the previous Government. We’re dealing with education; we’re dealing with wages. We have lifted the minimum wage to $17.70 an hour, because working people in New Zealand deserve to get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. The average wage is up by over $65 a week during our time in office, and we’ve created 70,000 new jobs and unemployment is down to 4.2 percent. GDP growth is up 2.8 percent per annum. When, around the world, we are seeing economies slow down and a growth slow-down, the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are still strong, and this Government is focused on transforming our economy into one that is more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive, so that everybody in New Zealand can benefit from a growing economy.

We are backing our regions. We’ve invested in 195 projects over 14 regions. We’re changing our immigration settings to support growth in the regions, and to indicate to that migrant workforce that there are opportunities beyond Auckland; that they do need to go and look at Ashburton and Otago and Taranaki and Hawke’s Bay, because the opportunities are there, and we want those regions to thrive as well.

On this side of the House, we are united, and we are focused on delivering for New Zealanders. And we are proud of the work we have done through the last 18 months of this term.

Mr Speaker, thank you. Just over a year ago, in the Fieldays, Simon Bridges stood up and outlined the National Party’s principles that we intend to take to the conversation around climate change that unfolded over the subsequent year. He knew at his core that New Zealand thrives when we get the judgments right between what the science is telling us, the available innovation and technology to adopt across sectors, what the rest of the world are doing—being acutely conscious of the economic costs—and the value to this country of a commission that can stand above the day-to-day politics and provide that prudent, considered advice on how we manage our emissions down.

So we are pleased to see significant elements of what we have taken to those negotiations appear in the bill that has been announced by the Government today. We were supportive of a split gas approach, and it is in there. We’re supportive of the commission being advisory, and it is in there. We are supportive of the principles that underpin the National Party’s approach to climate change being in that bill. We’re supportive of the focus on adaptation, because, along with the journey to mitigate our impact, we must always be conscious of the fact that despite our efforts, the global effort may not be enough, and we must learn to adapt to climate change as it changes. And so we support that being in there.

But targets matter. The 2050 targets matter. Holding a view of where, ultimately, you need to go matters. Whilst we have signalled that we support the landing of the long-lived gases being reduced to net zero, the idea that we need to drive our methane emissions to somewhere between 24 and 47 percent less than what they are today—emissions that come from cows and sheep and other ruminant animals’ natural diet. This is not a function of a farmer building a fence to stop runoff meeting the river. These are animals. Our cows are no different to everybody else’s, yet this is a task that this Government thinks should be put in front of our agricultural sector when there is no technology available at this time to do it. What makes it worse is that it is our view that it is unnecessarily onerous, and there are many other scientists within the New Zealand context that suggest a much lesser target than what has been promulgated.

But I guess the issue which irritates me in particular—and we heard it traversed this afternoon in the House—is that this has been a good-faith negotiation. For the last eight of the 10 months it has been a good faith negotiation—and then there was silence. Then there was no opportunity to progress this critical issue of where we could meet common ground. And whilst I acknowledge the apology this afternoon from my counterpart James Shaw, it is the putting right that counts. There sits in front of us an opportunity, through the select committee process, to look at this point and find a solution, so that this House has the opportunity to stand in unison and support an institution. It should not be beyond us, and I am looking directly to those in the Government whose influence in this conversation does not go unnoticed.

There is an opportunity here to land, because we have to do it. As the Minister himself said, emissions continue to rise. It is all very well to create an institution to guide and advise our trajectory over the next 20, 30 years, but emissions continue to rise. And he has acknowledged that they will continue to do so to the mid-2020s.

Eventually, a tough transition awaits this country. It will be far better for the policy conversations that will need to be had in this House if there is an institution that sits above it that is filled with people who have the respect of both sides of the House; who are not there because of a political axe to grind but because of their deep understanding of the science on the available innovation, on the economic and distributional impacts, on what the rest of the world is doing to ensure that, ultimately, as we make this transition as New Zealand, we do it at a pace that means our communities can thrive. The people that send us here deserve that and I very much hope the Government takes up that opportunity and we find a solution. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ko ngā maharatanga me ngā whakaaro nui ka tau ki runga i te marae o Mātaatua ki roto o Rotorua, i te matenga o tētahi o ngā pou o Te Reo Māori, tētahi tohunga o Te Reo Māori, tētahi o ngā tino kaumātua o te motu whānui, arā ko Te Wharehuia Milroy, tēnā kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi. Ka takoto ia ki runga ki tōna marae, ki runga o Mātaatua. Ko ngā whakaaro nui ki a ia me tana whānau, ki roto i te wā pōuri.

[Firstly, I shall be continuing in the Māori language. Our thoughts and condolences go out to Mātaatua Marae in Rotorua, at the passing of one of the stalwarts of the Māori language, one of the notable experts of the Māori language, one of the nation’s most distinguished elders. Te Wharehuia Milroy is now lost to the land of the living. He lies in state on his marae, at Mātaatua. We extend our condolences to his family, at this very sad time.]

I wanted to pay acknowledgment to a great man—a man by the name of Te Wharehuia Milroy, who, as a staunch advocate for Te Reo Māori, is going to be sorely missed by the Māori people and, indeed, I believe, by the entire nation.

Te Wharehuia Milroy was one of those eloquent speakers in both Māori and English. He also had the kind of will for Te Reo Māori and aspiration for Te Reo Māori that would see more people come to Te Reo Māori. Whether you were Māori or Pākehā, he was so inviting with Te Reo, and his voice in the battle for Te Reo Māori will be sorely missed. We extend our condolences to his family and to the people of Tūhoe, and to the people of Ngāti Koura in particular. I, along with others, hope to make it to farewell him properly on his marae of Mātaatua in Rotorua. So I say to Te Wharehuia, farewell.

Te Wharehuia is a classic example of the intention of the good work being done by the Hon Kelvin Davis in the space of education. The Hon Kelvin Davis has a programme called Te Kawa Matakura that he recently announced. Te Kawa Matakura is an extension of the education sector to identify leaders, to identify what we would call tohunga and strong practitioners of tikanga and Te Reo Māori. We identify them young; we develop them in the hope that we can create more people like Te Wharehuia Milroy. And so I want to commend the good work by the Hon Kelvin Davis in this space, because it’s those kinds of positive initiatives that I actually believe will make a significant difference into the future. More Wharehuia Milroys will make this country a far better place. So I want to acknowledge the Hon Kelvin Davis and the work he’s doing there to increase Māori education.

On this side of the House, we’ve always had a goal for Te Reo Māori. We want over a million speakers by 2020—over a million speakers by 2020. Now, that sounds difficult, but we rise to those difficult challenges. We know that Te Reo Māori is being spoken now more than ever. We also know that what Te Reo Māori is doing is it’s being encouraged, garnered, and grown by a younger generation. It’s now not uncommon to see non-Māori children use the word “whānau”, use the word “aroha”, use the word “mahi”, use the word “kaupapa”. It is starting to permeate through our entire society, and I believe that is something that we should all be proud of in this country.

In my final minute and a half, I want to congratulate all of the Ministers in this Government for the hard work that they do. We do know that there are significant challenges. We commented today on the Welfare Expert Advisory Group and the work that they did to make sure that we have a welfare system that is fair and that allows our people to make sure they are able to access the system when they need to the most, and it’s important that we get the work right. It’s going to take some time, but I’m proud that, on this side of the House, we’ve set the direction. We’ve set the waka, if you like, in the right direction and we are going to get there, and we’re going to get there with all of our people on board.

The member Todd Muller, whose contribution I quite enjoyed, did speak about targets, and targets are important. Funnily enough, on this side of the House, the only target that matters at the moment, and that we’re all curious about, is the one on Simon Bridges’ back. There are a number of members on that side of the House who—just whispers, just whispers—are positioning themselves for promotion, perhaps even for the big job of Leader of the Opposition, and I say to the Hon Simon Bridges, kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui [stay strong, stay committed, stand your ground] and I’m sure that somewhere on this precinct there might be a flak jacket for him.

Thanks for the opportunity to have a chat and a debate this afternoon in the general debate. I just want to reflect on the last couple of weeks because it was about that time frame when the Prime Minister announced there was going to be no capital gains tax, and those horrible environmental taxes that were proposed in the Tax Working Group report have now been kicked for touch. I thought to myself, “But wait, there’s always more. There’s always another issue around the corner.”, and what was telling in that debate that played out in the Cabinet room—and preceding that—was the influence that New Zealand First have over the coalition Government. It wasn’t so long ago that Winston Peters said no to “Labour-led Government”. That phrase is now banned. It has to be a “coalition Government”. So what happened at that point in the Cabinet room we will never quite know when they were debating the Tax Working Group’s findings and recommendations.

What I can presume occurred was that New Zealand First, because of the leverage that the National Party and the public of New Zealand had put on the coalition Government, said, “No, we are not prepared to entertain a capital gains tax.” Well, straight away at that point, I reckon what James Shaw did was reach down into his Cabinet folder and say, “Here we have a climate change bill, Mr Peters. New Zealand First needs to back this bill.” So a deal was done at that point in time. Now we see that play out today. We see that play out. New Zealand First have signed up to the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, and you should watch them squirm over the next few weeks and months to come. They have signed up to a methane reduction target of 27 to 47 percent by 2050. This is going to be incredibly damaging for rural communities.

Just have a look at the economic analysis that has backed and that is attached to this bill. They are eye-watering numbers—billions and billions of dollars. Yes, it will be fine for people to say, “It’s out to 2050.”, but think about it—think about what this message sends to our hard-working farmers and rural communities. What it says is that you’re not prepared to look at decent science, because I can’t see the robust scientific reports and analysis that back this methane reduction up.

Industry and farmers were prepared to get on board with the Government. We were prepared to work with the Government. Todd Muller did a huge amount of negotiating in good faith with James Shaw. For the last eight weeks, we have found out that that was a terrible black hole. Never have I seen, in my 14 years, a Minister of the Crown stand up and openly apologise to one of our members because consultation went down the toilet for eight weeks. I’ll tell you why: that was because of New Zealand First’s influence. That’s why it was. They locked out the National Party—locked us away—and said, “No, we’re going to get on with this and we don’t care about all of the dealings that Todd Muller and Simon Bridges have had with the Prime Minister at that level.” That went down the toilet for two months.

So now we are left in a position where we are trying to decide whether we want to support this bill and take the politics out of it, or whether we’re going to be signing up to a methane target that is going to help to bankrupt the economy in the future. Others on that side of the House will say, “Oh, that won’t happen.” Well, it’s typical of a Labour Government to treat rural communities just like a cash cow. If it had been backed by decent scientific evidence and the decent consultation in good faith that we signed up to, it might have been a different story. We will hold our counsel, we will debate this further in our caucus room, but I’m so disappointed in the process by this Government in the last eight weeks.

I get back to where I started: I reckon New Zealand First will cave in. It’s only a matter of time.

Anyone with a sense of history could go and have a look through the Hansard and they will find that the same sorts of terrible doom and gloom speeches were made by the Opposition when the nuclear ships decision was made, and so often throughout history. Here’s an absolutely classic speech of someone who is absolutely locked into the status quo because that member represents people who are absolutely advantaged by the status quo. Well, transformation means, actually, that we’ve got to start thinking about what our future world will look like, and, yes, it means that there will be a bit of discomfort, but only with an understanding of where we’re going will we come up with the necessary science and necessary changes. I actually have confidence that we will get there.

I go back to growing up on a farm. I remember growing up when we used to have all of our effluent going straight into the local stream and that was as a right—of course we could do that! Then those damned commies from the local council came along and made us dig a cesspit, an effluent pond—a settling pond! How dare they! It was our inalienable right to actually put our effluent where we wanted! Then they made us dig a double one so that not only did it settle once, it settled twice. Then we could actually whitebait in the same creek it was going into because, actually, we suddenly realised the whitebait came up because the cow manure wasn’t going in. That is actually an example that, in those cases, unless we’re actually forced to open up and say, “There is another way—a better way to do it.”—we won’t do it. So just have faith and remember those who think that doom and gloom will happen: go back and have a look at the Hansard—see the doom and gloom that was going to happen from those same speakers, from exactly the same place, when the decision was made, among others, around nuclear, because I can just imagine that speaker being exactly the sort of person who would have said that.

I’d just like to take the couple of minutes left to me to just change the subject slightly. We’re still in a place in the House, where we are still reeling slightly from what happened in Christchurch on 15 March, but I don’t want to dwell on that. I mean, that’s often been spoken about, but what I want to dwell on for a second is that what we have really learnt now—there will be an inquiry; we will learn much more—and the public learned and was absolutely astounded by, was the ease of access to semi-automatic weapons. OK, we’ll fix it. Again, I won’t dwell on that, but that was no surprise to anybody who understood how that industry worked. Certainly, where I come from, I’ve stood in front of a select committee and predicted all those things would happen, but until we had a tragedy, nothing was done about it, and that caused me to reflect on what it is about New Zealand society.

I mean, again, we look at what happened with methamphetamine. When that arrived, there were all sorts of warnings. There were those who were close and saw what was happening, but it wasn’t until we had the tragedies, it wasn’t until the tragedies—quite well documented; the William Duane Bells, the Antonie Dixons, and Millie Elder, daughter of Paul Holmes—it wasn’t till those things happened and we saw it in public that the public of New Zealand dropped their jaws and some political action was taken. That political action, we saw, eventually became the Methamphetamine Action Plan. I actually reflect now on one of the other problems that we have inherited as a Government—how badly that failed—because, actually, we saw just recently the water tests that have come out that show the extent of the problem we have with methamphetamine in this country. OK, it’s been accepted; we now know we’ve got to do something about it, but I’ll actually put it down to nothing being done in the previous Government. All the talk about “hard on crime, hard on drugs” that we hear—we hear it often—but it actually got extremely worse under them. It got much worse during that time.

The other thing that happened as a result of that—and, again, I look at another emerging problem—that actually boiled over into the public was organised crime. Again, all these things are very heavily related, and I have to say we talk about some of the problems we’ve inherited from the last Government. There was a police Minister in 2009 who stood here when the Rebels Motorcycle Club was coming to New Zealand and stood and said, “They will be crushed.”—they would crush that gang; they would never be allowed to become established in New Zealand. What is the huge problem we have in New Zealand? The rise of Australian organised crime, which is changing the crime scene in New Zealand. The 501s—so known—are Australian criminals exported to New Zealand, and when did it all start? The previous Prime Minister but two actually had the best relationship, had little sleepovers at the Lodge, and what happened? At the same time as this wonderful relationship and sleepovers, it was the time when the problem we have now got—the rise of criminals coming here—was sown. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a very interesting contribution where the member just wanted us to have faith in them. How can we have faith in them? This year, 2019, is going to be the most important year in this election cycle. Yes, I know some would be thinking that it’s next year, 2020, when we are going to have the general election and that should actually be the most important year. Of course, that’s going to be a very crucial year, because we are going to have the general election, and people are eagerly waiting for National to be back in Government. I’m calling on the Government, saying that this is your year to show up, because if the Government will continue to talk around their promises people are going to get more and more frustrated. That is what we are hearing from people.

How can I forget that the Prime Minister has said that this is going to be the year of delivery—the year of delivery? So far we have had, in these 18 months, just talk, talk, and talk, and we know that talk is cheap. The issue that is in front of them—the big issue that they are tackling at the moment—is legalising cannabis. Yes, that is the big issue in front of the Government at the moment—to legalise cannabis. They haven’t put enough information out, and that is what they are busy doing. On this side, we want to base our judgment on evidence.

When they talk about evidence, I don’t know what kind of evidence they are looking at. We look at proper scientific evidence. There is clear evidence that, with cannabis, it has adverse impacts on the developing brain. I’m not just talking about people who can make choices in their lives—I’m not talking about teenagers, I’m not talking about people in their early 20s; I’m also talking about unborn babies. We know—there is enough evidence—that if pregnant women use cannabis, there will be adverse effects on the brains of those unborn babies. Yep, we know alcohol is bad during pregnancy. We know smoking cigarettes is bad during pregnancy but still there are some women who continue to drink, they continue to smoke. With easy access to cannabis there will be more women accessing cannabis during pregnancy. That is going to have a huge number of social implications. This Government is making this move at the cost of our future generations, and our future generations are not going to forget this Government for this step that they are taking.

There are so many things that are still unclear about what this Government wants to do in this space, but then we also heard about their move to tackle climate change through their legislation—the approach that they have taken.

We know there is clear evidence what should be done. There is technology that is available, but the Government doesn’t want to adopt the technology. They don’t want to look at the proper scientific evidence for tackling climate change. They don’t want to utilise technology to find novel solutions. Instead, they want to impose costs on people and have negative impacts on our economy.

I challenge the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, on his statement that their approach is not hurting our economy or the environment. It’s definitely hurting our environment and economy, and I’m here specifically talking about biotechnology, genetic modification, and gene editing, because—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Ah, there it is.

—yes, yes—because that side is still stuck in that 2001 mentality. Yes, they’re still stuck in the late 1990s and 2001 understanding of what genetic modification or gene editing is. This field has advanced really fast in the last 10 to 15 years, and I ask the Minister to go out and connect with some people to understand how this technology can help us tackle climate change and other environmental issues, and benefit our economy too.

I would ask the Minister to make his first stop at AgResearch. AgResearch high metabolisable energy ryegrass—funded by New Zealand’s taxpayers—is being trialled in the US, and we don’t know when we’re going to see the benefits of that grass. It could be 10 years, it could be 15 years. We know that that’s looking really promising to reduce methane emissions, but the Government doesn’t want to know that. AgResearch says that it’s estimated that with that grass we can raise GDP by up to $5 billion. How can the Minister say that that’s not hurting our economy or hurting our environment?

We are a small country, we are a small economy, and other countries, including Australia, have changed their stance towards gene editing. That is what we need to think about, because we’re competing with all these nations and we need to have this new approach, a rethink, towards this technology, but this Government wants to remain anti-science.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am absolutely delighted to take a call in this, the general debate. I was actually quite surprised to find out that I’ve only been able to speak in three general debates since we’ve been here in the House, so over the last 18 months I’ve had three contributions and now today I’m delighted to take the fourth. I am going to take the time in my contribution—it will be short, unfortunately—to highlight all the good things that this Government is doing. I would need far more than five minutes to be able to highlight everything that we have been doing.

I also wanted to celebrate the fact that I am standing here on this side of the House as, in what Minister Iain Lees-Galloway said, united and focused and delivering for New Zealand. Alongside with my colleague the Minister Henare, I also want to congratulate our Ministers for the superb work that they are doing in Government. Far too often people complain, particularly the Opposition, about things that aren’t going well. So I actually want to take the time to acknowledge our Ministers and congratulate them for everything that they are achieving. I’m really proud that we’ve actually got a progressive, aspirational Government, and I think that is something that all New Zealanders are excited about.

We’ve been investing in so much, in this Government, and I was trying to think about what investment we saw from the previous Government, and I thought “Hmm”. I sat and thought long and hard. So the flag referendum, investing in a sheep farm somewhere—I don’t know. Can any of my colleagues help me out here and think of anything that was invested in in the previous Government? No. OK. Oh well, never mind, let’s move on. Let’s move on to something a little more positive, things that this Government is investing in: things like health, things like education, and things, most importantly, like families, and actually, really, really importantly, we’re investing in regional economies. Absolutely essential.

I just want to talk a bit about education, first. You know, I was absolutely alarmed to find out that the previous Government had not allowed or accounted or planned for roll growth in our schools. So what we ended up with was overcrowding in our schools. We had children having lessons in school gymnasiums, staff rooms, libraries, cloakrooms, if you please, surrounded by school bags, even the dental clinic. Remember the old dental clinics that we had onsite? How on earth is that a conducive environment for children to learn in? And then, you know, we need more teachers to come in and work in this sector. How on earth are we supposed to attract teachers into teaching in a dental clinic, teaching in a cloakroom, or teaching in a library?

But that’s OK. This Government has funded over 200 new or rebuilt classrooms and school facilities and, in fact, announced a new school rebuild for Ashburton College. And guess what? It takes account of future roll growth. Now, that is something to be celebrated.

I also want to talk about—because I’m running out of time and I’ve hardly covered anything. But anyway—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Just like them.

Ha, ha! I’m going to move on to the Provincial Growth Fund. That’s right, Mr McNulty, and the fact that this Government is investing in regional economies.

I think that under the previous Government, in the electorate where I live, we might have got toilets. So, you know, we got some toilets. But under this Government we’ve had an announcement, particularly thinking about the area where I live: the Opuke Thermal Pools and Spa in Methven, and they’re hoping to open in 2020. That’s going to create 120 new jobs, inject approximately $162 million into the local economy, and could see 150,000 visitors within five years. So we are investing in health, education, families, regional economies, and we are on track to deliver better outcomes for all New Zealanders. In the words of the Hon Nathan Guy, “But wait, there’s more.” There’s always more.

It’s interesting to listen to the previous speaker, Jo Luxton, “There is more—there is more.” There is more. There are more disasters. Now, this Government is abandoning its flagship, its KiwiBuild. Now forget about KiwiBuild. This is supposed to be the year of delivery, but it is quickly turning into a year of non-delivery.

Look at the census, Census 2018. It’s a disaster, an absolute disaster, the worst-ever census in New Zealand’s history. I’m pleased that Minister Shaw is here. I’m not sure whether you have read my report, but it doesn’t matter. I’m going to give you a very brief summary of my report. Now, the importance of a census is obvious. Everyone knows that the census is particularly important to us. Billions of dollars are at stake. Many Government departments rely on census data to make their Budget decisions. It’s very important. Now we know that the response rate of Census 2018 was 90 percent—90 percent. It dropped 4.5 percent from census 2013. People have been alarmed by the drop, but the reality is even worse, actually much worse. Why? Because Statistics New Zealand changed the definition of “response” for Census 2018. Now the definition includes those who are listed on census dwelling forms but did not submit census individual forms. In the past, these people were counted as non-responses, but this census, Census 2018, counted those who were listed on dwelling forms but did not submit individual forms. If we used the past definition, the response rate of Census 2018 would drop to 85 percent—not 90 percent; 85 percent. That means that over 700,000 New Zealanders did not participate at all or only are listed on the census dwelling form.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Whose idea was that?

Exactly, a good question: who should be responsible for that? The current Government failed at the very final stage of the census. OK. In the crucial stages surrounding census day, this Government failed to lead, in that sense. Now, we’ll come to this later—we’ll come to this later.

Now, I asked Statistics New Zealand about the change of definition: when did they change the definition? They declined to answer my question. I repeated it four times at the hearing. They declined to answer my question. Similarly, I asked about the partial response rate—I asked about the partial response rate. I asked what was the partial response rate, and they declined to answer my question and then said, “Oh I can’t remember.” OK. Then I followed up with a routine question in the name of the committee, the Governance and Administration Committee—right? Still they declined to answer the question. They finally released the partial response rate after facing a potential parliamentary contempt complaint from Dr Nick Smith. They did so only after that potential complaint. So this is the Government which has done this absolutely miserable job but attempted to hide the fact. How can we trust the accuracy of census data when 15 percent of New Zealanders either did not answer at all the questions or gave very, very little information in the census? So this is a particular concern to us.

Also timeliness is a big concern, because by the time the full census data is released, it would be by mid-year next year—almost one year after the first deadline. So by then the data would be outdated. Now, this is an organisational debacle, right? The census access codes were sent out very late. People had to request paper forms and when they requested the forms, actually the 0800 number did not work properly. So it was an absolute shambles, and the Minister did not really take leadership. He was out of the country on census day. There was only one single press release about the census—no encouragement for people to take part in the census.

Although it’s very tempting to spend the next five minutes responding to the various fallacies in Mr Yang’s speech, I’m not going to do that. I’m going to talk about some other news that we’ve had today, of course, which is that the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill is finally in the House. What it does is it outlines our plans over the next 30 years to safeguard the future of New Zealand and the futures of those kids who were taking part in school strikes back on 15 March to protest the lack of action by adults who have had the duty of care over their futures. So we are acting now to preserve their futures and the futures of their own children.

Last year, the United Nations published an incredibly sobering report into what the consequences would be if we allow global temperatures to rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The results would be absolutely catastrophic. The critical thing—the critical thing—and the most important thing in this legislation is that we have to do everything we can to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, and that is the purpose of this bill. It’s written into the very first paragraph of the purpose section that that is our intention. It makes it the law that that is what we are trying to do in New Zealand. As far as we’re aware, we are one of the first countries in the world to make that commitment to living within that envelope.

Now that the bill is finally in the House, it will be the subject of a great deal of debate, and you can already see this afternoon it already has been debated a great deal and we can anticipate more of that, and I welcome that and that is good. But I do want to make sure that that debate has been had with some daylight on it, and already there’s been some misinformation that’s been spread around. So I want to address some of the things that have been said in the House and, in fact, some of the things that have been said in the media—in particular, as it relates to the component of the target around methane.

I just want to start by addressing the science of the methane target, because we’ve been accused of not listening to the science, and that is incorrect. There have been some reports that have been quoted—in particular, the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who put out a report last year, saying that methane needs to reduce at roughly 0.3 percent a year in order to stabilise. A similar report came from David Frame, who’s a very well-respected, leading climate scientist in New Zealand, and Dr Myles Allen, an Oxford University scientist—similar—and, in fact, that view is correct unless you are trying to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which in their models, they’re not. They’re actually operating off a different set of starting assumptions which is what they call no further warming beyond the current pathway, and, of course, the current pathway is not towards 1.5 degrees Celsius.

So this has caused some confusion—in particular, in the agricultural sector—and that is completely understandable. I can completely understand why that confusion is out there, because that is complex. The truth is that as long as we emit any long-lived gases like carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, you also need to reduce methane in order to create an effect that gets collectively that whole basket of gases—the short-lived and the long-lived—to within 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming.

So the reason why we’re having an argument about this is because, actually, there’s different sets of assumptions that have been informing the science, and we do need to clear that up. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on 1.5 degrees Celsius is actually the only scientific report that we have seen that models scenarios in which the world stays within 1.5 degrees Celsius, and that is why, provisionally, we’ve set the range that they suggested to say that that’s what the world needs to do. But because it’s not settled about what New Zealand needs to do in order to do that, that is exactly why we have asked the Climate Change Commission to go away and do that work. In fact, that’s the point of the bill. It’s to set up the institution to provide us with that kind of independent expert advice.

So while I can understand the concerns that people have got, I have to say that we have looked at the science. It is informed by the science. It’s not perfectly settled, and that is why we have set up a process to do that. So I hope that with that caveat, the Opposition members can find it in themselves to continue to work through with us to get this bill through the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

This Government will go down in the history books. It will go down in the history books as the “Spray and Walk Away” Government of all time.

During the election campaign, we saw many well-intentioned promises—spray statements. “We’re going to fix New Zealand”—it was spray mode. Then they found themselves in Government, in the reality of the Treasury benches, and then they said, “How do we meet our campaign promises without walking away?” Well, now it’s time to walk away, and I just want to talk—I’ve only got four minutes to go—about just a few of the walk-away moments in the electorate of Clutha-Southland and around Southland and Otago.

Let’s talk about those walk-away moments. Spray: “We will ensure we have effective and efficient emergency services across New Zealand”. Walk away: Te Ānau rescue chopper is now on call. If Queenstown’s is not about, it’s put on call, which has resulted in longer waiting times for some residents across Southland.

💬 Spray: “We will look after the most vulnerable children in New Zealand.” Walk away: in mid-2018, they closed down Roxburgh children’s camp, which looks after the most vulnerable kids across Otago and Southland.

💬 Spray: “We will provide better policing across New Zealand.” Walk away: reversed the previous National Government’s decision to staff the Balclutha and the rural Southland police station 24/7. Spray: “We will be the most open and transparent Government of all time.” Walk away: a question to the Minister of Police, Stuart Nash, through a written question on how many call outs there have been since 1 January 2018 for after-hours call outs in Clutha. Walk-away moment: “We don’t keep that data.” The following week, through an Official Information Act request, the police responded to the same question. There have been 312 after-hours call outs in Clutha, so the person is put on hold until the following morning.

This is the “Spray and Walk Away” Government of all time, and the biggest spray and walk-away moment of all has to be the Lumsden Maternity Centre: “We will take care of mothers and babies across New Zealand.” Walk-away moment: “At the start of 2018, we’ve decided to downgrade the Lumsden Maternity Centre.”, which puts the safety of rural mothers and babies at risk. Mothers in Te Ānau will be forced to travel for up to two hours to Invercargill to give birth. Meanwhile, the Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter can ride her pushbike to Auckland Hospital, and mothers in Southland will be forced to give birth on the side of the road.

I just want to acknowledge four brave Southlanders that came up this morning. The Minister of Health hasn’t listened, and I just wish he’d listen to the community over the downgrade of the Lumsden Maternity Centre. We heard from these four brave mothers this morning. They told us that babies will be born on the side of the road. Nearly half of all births at Lumsden are delivered within 30 minutes of arriving at Lumsden.

In the local catchment area, the service coverage schedule was supposed to be around pregnancies, but this Government’s refused to listen to that, and they’ve taken just births. This is disgraceful. This is about equality for rural people across New Zealand.

In summary, blood will be on this Government’s hands when babies are born on the side of the road, as warned time and time again from the communities across Southland, and my one suggestion to the Minister is to please reconsider—blood will be on your hands. As we’ve heard time and time again, this closure will result in babies being born on the side of the road.

National backs rural New Zealand. That’s why, if we’re re-elected next year, we’re going to reinstate full services at the Lumsden Maternity Centre.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.