Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the debates on the question that the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill be read a second and a third time to be taken together as one debate of 12 10-minute speeches.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Amended answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 8 to Minister, 10 February

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct outdated information that was given during my reply to question for oral answer No. 8 on Tuesday, 10 February.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is not.

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yesterday I told the House that I had received advice that increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour might result in the loss of up to 17,000 jobs. This figure came from the 2007 minimum wage review, and the most up-to-date figure from the 2008 minimum wage review is, in fact, up to 12,200 jobs.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Ministers—Confidence

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Ministers?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Why would the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister whose behaviour is described by the Otago Daily Times as “blatantly partisan scapegoating” and as “having compromised any semblance of the due process,”—that Minister being the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall—and is the Prime Minister prepared to tolerate such behaviour in a Minister?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have great confidence in the Minister of Health, who is prepared to look for accountability when there is a $17 million fraud. While I am at it, I congratulate the Minister of Health on ensuring that those New Zealand women who have previously been funded for Herceptin for only 9 weeks now have a 52-week programme.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister support and have confidence in Tony Ryall’s efforts to sack Otago District Health Board’s elected chair, Richard Thomson, on the basis of a fraud initiated before Mr Thomson became chair, and when Mr Thomson was in fact responsible for helping catch the crooks; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY: I understand that the Minister of Health is following a proper process, and at this stage no decision has been made.

Hon Phil Goff: If the Minister is following proper process, why did the Otago Daily Times describe him as “having compromised any semblance of the due process,”? Is the Prime Minister confident that Mr Ryall is right in this matter, and that Otago’s chief medical officer, the senior doctors and staff, the entire Otago District Health Board, the Otago Daily Times, and the big majority of the voting public that re-elected Mr Thomson are wrong; if so, what evidence does he have for that view?

Hon JOHN KEY: I repeat that the Minister of Health is following due process. I am not responsible for what the Otago Daily Times writes, although I have noted that in recent times it has written some pretty terrible stuff about the Labour Party.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister confident that the approach of the Minister of Health, Mr Tony Ryall, in arrogantly trying to bully the elected chair of the district health board to resign, is consistent with the views of one Mr Tony Ryall MP, who earlier said that a well-founded dismissal of another board was “appalling political manipulation”?

Hon JOHN KEY: The Minister of Health is following due process, but I repeat again—[Interruption] Members opposite might not like it, but he is following due process. The members opposite need to realise that when there is a $17 million fraud this Government will stand up and make sure that there is accountability. The Government that Phil Goff was a member of did not do so.

Recession—Infrastructure Projects

2. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What steps has the Government recently taken to help address current economic challenges and contribute to driving up New Zealand’s long-term economic competitiveness?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister for Infrastructure): This morning I was pleased to join the Prime Minister and three other Ministers in confirming almost $500 million worth of publicly funded housing, transport, and education infrastructure projects. This is the first tranche of what will be a number of projects committing funding of up to $5 billion that has been allocated over the next 3 or 4 years.

Chris Tremain: Why were these projects chosen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: These projects were chosen because they represent quality investments of public money, and also because they were among the few projects that were actually ready to go. I was surprised and disappointed to find that most of the announcements made by the previous Government about infrastructure spending related to projects that were unfunded and nowhere near ready to go.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister seen any reports on the comparative size of the stimulus injected by the so-called rolling maul of announcements, of which today’s infrastructure package was one; if so, can he confirm that although the Australian Government has introduced stimulus initiatives of about 4.5 percent of GDP, and the US of about 5.5 percent of GDP, this Government’s stimulus initiative in this package makes up less than 1 percent of GDP?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, New Zealand has a significant fiscal stimulus—at least in comparison with the Australian and the US Governments—of around 4 percent of GDP over the next couple of years. The difference is that New Zealand went into recession 12 months earlier than those Governments, under the previous Government. The 2008 Budget cut taxes increased spending significantly, which means that by now, when the recession is deepening, the New Zealand Government unfortunately has a lot fewer options than those Governments.

Chris Tremain: How will the projects announced this morning benefit the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The projects will benefit the economy in two ways. First of all, they will provide some short-term stimulus; they will soak up some jobs in a sector where jobs are being lost—that is, the construction sector. But secondly, and probably just as important, we need to get this economy ready for recovery. After 10 years of misdirected and complacent policy, these projects represent quality investments that will help lift the productivity of the New Zealand economy.

Hon David Cunliffe: What is the basis of the Government’s estimate of 2,000 jobs to be created by this package and retained over 2 years; and why, when Treasury has estimated that at least 68,000 New Zealanders will lose their jobs in the next 15 months, does he think that that is in any way an adequate response?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: These projects will have the effect of helping to retain some jobs and perhaps creating opportunities for those who have already lost their jobs. We have never said that we will be able to roll back the unemployment that is forecast for this year. The member quoted Australia; at the same time as the Australian Government announced its significant stimulus, it also announced that unemployment was likely to reach over 7 percent. This, along with other measures the Government has taken, will help protect people from the sharp edges of recession and send us along the road of lifting our economic capacity so this economy can grow when this recession is over.

Chris Tremain: What reports has the Minister seen on alternative approaches?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Roger Douglas’s latest package?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I have seen that report! Quite a lot of public discussion has been reflected in questions today about the difference between stimulus packages in New Zealand and in Australia. The net result of the 2008 Budget, tax cuts to come on 1 April, and the Government’s allocations to infrastructure spending, mean that the stimulus in the New Zealand economy is comparable to that in Australia and the US. It is just that it has not been announced in such a dramatic way, mainly because New Zealand started in recession 12 months ahead of those countries and we had an election around the time of the financial crisis.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Herald on 19 December 2008 reporting Treasury forecasts of between 68,000 and 87,000 new unemployed in New Zealand over the next year.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a transcript of an article by the New Zealand Press Association on One News today reporting the Government’s estimate of only 2,000 jobs created by this so-called infrastructure package.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection to that.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Could the Minister explain to the House why, given the experience of the last 10 years, when the Labour Government reduced productivity in this country from 3 percent to less than 1 percent as a result of its policies of redistribution, the Government is planning to spend so much of the $500 million on infrastructure in what can only be described as low-quality, low-growth projects?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I compliment the member on his analysis of the misdirected policies of the last 10 years, but I disagree with his description of these projects.

Research and Development Funding and KiwiSaver Reductions—Treasury Advice

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received from the Treasury on removing the research and development tax credit, removing the $700 million Fast Forward Fund, and reducing KiwiSaver contributions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Treasury gave us the advice to keep the research and development tax credit, to maintain the Fast Forward Fund in the form that had been proposed by the previous Government, and to make no changes to KiwiSaver. However, prior to the election National had made a number of decisions, which were to remove the research and development tax credit, remove the Fast Forward Fund, and change KiwiSaver contributions, and we are sticking to our word.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why did the Minister suppress the Treasury briefing that was critical of these moves, and release it at a time designed to minimise public awareness?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Labour Party complaining about compliance with the Official Information Act is like Jack the Ripper complaining about community violence.

Craig Foss: What other reports has the Minister seen of advice offered by Treasury to finance Ministers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Treasury advice is, as always, mixed. Some we agree with, some we disagree with. Treasury has given us other advice, such as the need for extensive review of the Resource Management Act, which the Government has followed, and a Resource Management Act Amendment Bill will be in Parliament within a few weeks. Treasury has also given us the advice that the performance of the Public Service needs to be improved significantly, and I would agree with that. After 10 years of bullying and manipulation, it can do a lot better and we will make sure it does.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a question about the relevance of that answer. The question was a patsy question designed to elicit the answer about my reference to an ideological burp, and I think the Minister read the wrong answer at that particular point.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a particularly helpful point of order, I must say.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why did the Minister not have fortitude equal to that of the previous Minister of Finance and release the Treasury briefing at the same time as other briefings to incoming Ministers were released?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Treasury briefing to the incoming Government has been released. There are absolutely no secrets in it, and I am surprised that in the context of the most significant economic recession in 90 years, this is what the Labour Party is focused on.

Hon David Cunliffe: Did the Minister or any of his staff talk at any point to the Prime Minister or any of his staff about the date of releasing the Treasury briefing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister advises me that he read about it in the newspaper. It is unlikely that a matter of that kind of detail would have been discussed at the highest levels of Government.

Infrastructure Projects—Green-collar Jobs

4. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: How many jobs will his Government’s infrastructure package create; and, of those jobs, how many will be green-collar jobs?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I have seen estimates that the State housing package could retain between 850 and 1,050 jobs, and that the State highway package could save up to 400 jobs. These figures are very imprecise, however, not least because the Government does not make individual hiring decisions on infrastructure projects. Regarding the second part of the member’s question, I say it is not my practice, nor is it the practice of Government departments, to classify jobs as being white-collar, blue-collar, green-collar, or any other type of collar—all jobs are important to the Government.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he agree with the editorial in the New Zealand Herald that he should reinstate the Green Homes Fund insulation programme for low and middle income private homes, a programme that is particularly job rich?

Hon JOHN KEY: I agree that improving insulation in New Zealand homes will play an important part for social, health, and climate change reasons. The member can rest assured that the Government is working on that. I take issue with the fact that somehow the billion-dollar Green Homes Fund was anything other than a fantasy, because, unfortunately, it was unfunded, like so many other promises of the previous Government.

Nicky Wagner: Has the Prime Minister seen any reaction to the Government’s infrastructure announcement?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have seen a press release from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions today, saying that: “The investment in schools and housing are exactly what is needed at this time”. I have also seen a very interesting report from Goldman Sachs, which said today it was unclear how much of the overall package was new work, but that it could see its 2009 forecast for national GDP to contract by 1.4 percent could improve by 0.6 percent. Lastly, I have seen a press release from the Leader of the Opposition, which states that education funding “might just paint a few classrooms”. Mr Goff might want to read just a little further on after his cornflakes this morning, and realise that five brand new schools are about to built and fast-tracked, a further seven schools will get funding to replace outdated and rundown buildings, 64 schools will receive funding for halls, gyms, libraries, and other buildings, and four Upper Hutt schools will get a major upgrade. I know that members out in that area, not the least of them being Mr Mallard, will be very appreciative that the National Government has finally fixed up the schools in Mr Mallard’s electorate.

Hon Phil Goff: What advice has the Prime Minister received on the number of jobs lost not just through the scrapping of the retrofitting of insulation but also through the biofuels legislation rammed through the House by Gerry Brownlee before Christmas—for example, at the Waharoa biofuels facility, which has now been mothballed as a result of that legislation?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have not received any advice on the former or the latter, except to say the following. Firstly, it was all very well for the previous Labour Government to promise things, but if there was no money allocated to them, then it was not going to go far. Secondly, even if one was to believe that the billion-dollar package was real, it equates to $60 million a year. Today we announced that by 30 June 2010 this Government, with real money, will actually be spending $220 million on the improvement of insulation and the improvement of State houses. This Government acts; that Government talked.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister really believe that building an extra 69 State houses over the next 6 months will met the increasing need, especially at the most urgent end of the State housing waiting list, and will he commit to accelerating the State house building programme over the full 3 years ahead, rather than just the next 6 months?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not think anyone could practically believe that 69 extra State houses will fix the entire waiting list. There needs to be a recognition that there is a long waiting list, but there also needs to be a recognition that over the last few years the Government that was in place prior to the election totally failed to renovate and keep up to date those houses, and this Government is now being forced to fix that up.

Nikki Kaye: Have all the infrastructure projects announced this morning been fully funded?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. These projects have been costed and will be charged against Budget allowances. We have made provision for all those projects, and they will actually happen. That is completely different from the last Government’s practice of making lofty infrastructure announcements, with no idea of and no concern about how they would be funded.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister promise New Zealanders that the process for awarding these and future infrastructure contracts will be absolutely transparent; if so, will he ensure that all those who bid for these contracts are required to declare any donations to political parties?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of the operational process that is undertaken for the administration of such contracts, but if in any way, shape, or form the member is implying that somehow contracts will be issued and the upgrading of these State houses is because National is now the Government, then I find that offensive. The reason we are doing this is that we want to improve the State housing stock in New Zealand.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister match his excellent promise of more schools and school facilities with a commitment for more teachers and support staff—a commitment that would employ far more people per dollar invested than buildings will?

Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot comment on the need for more teachers; I can say that there has been a significant increase in teacher numbers recently. We are now looking to ensure that teaching practices are changed through the administration of things such as National’s literacy and numeracy plans, which will make a significant difference to the output of students in New Zealand.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the difference is between announcing a programme today that is not funded but will be funded in next year’s Budget and announcing a programme last year to be funded out of the emissions trading scheme, which had already been legislated for?

Hon JOHN KEY: When we announced the projects this morning we intended to start paying for them as of tomorrow, when people start to work on them, as opposed to the announcement of the Greens’ fund, which effectively, as Dr Cullen pointed out when he asked the patsy question to David Parker last year, was all based on whether State-owned enterprises eventually gave some money back. As Mr Parker said at the end of the question, without that increased investment—in other words, unless the State-owned enterprises put up their money—there was not the slightest prospect of meeting the targets. In other words, there was no money.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Did the Prime Minister, in deciding to spend more on new roads, take into account research quoted in The Economist that spending on buses and trains creates 19 percent more jobs than the same money spent on new roads, or research quoted by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute that each million dollars shifted away from purchasing motor fuel into anything else creates 4½ new jobs per million dollars?

Hon JOHN KEY: When reaching the decisions we reached today and the decisions we will be reaching over the months ahead about further infrastructure investment, we take on board the fact that our roading infrastructure has a need for improvement that will help the environment. That is not to say there is not the need for further investment in both rail and public transport. I assure the member that both will get additional funding.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table the paper Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, which contains one of the figures I quoted.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table the Economist article “Be careful what you wish for: spending on infrastructure could easily run amok”.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in the Department of Corrections; if so, why?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): I am confident that the department understands that my expectations are significantly higher than those of the previous Minister of Corrections, Phil Goff.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister agree with her colleague Simon Power when he said that two escapes in 5 days was “a worry”; if so, how would she characterise the six escapes in 7 days that occurred in January, and another one that occurred from North Waikato Prison this morning?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: In relation to the escapes the member has referred to, two escapes are, correctly, part of the corrections system; the others were actually escapes not from the corrections system but from the police. If the member would like to put down a question on my other portfolio, I would be very happy to give him the answer.

Melissa Lee: What action has the Minister taken so far in the corrections portfolio?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Quite a lot, actually. We have had a very action-packed few months. So far I have visited three prisons, including the Auckland Prison (Maximum Security Division). I have spoken to and listened to prison staff and asked for their ideas on what improvements can be made to ensure they can do their jobs better. I have spoken to and listened to the prison unions and sought their ideas on practical ways the Department of Corrections can be improved. I have visited and listened to community, probation, and psychological services—something the previous Minister never did. I have reintroduced the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2), which was left to languish by the previous Government. I have asked the Department of Corrections to review the legislation and remove roadblocks to the private management of prisons, and I have asked that that be done quickly. I have sought a review of security classifications for prisoners, to see whether there is any way that this can be fine-tuned to better protect the public and corrections staff. I have given my support to the construction of prefabricated prison buildings to achieve cost reductions in the vicinity of 25 to 40 percent, initially, compared with the cost of traditional bed and campus-style cells.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is—

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There is just so much, Mr Speaker. There is just a little bit more. But, mostly, I have instructed the Department of Corrections to work with Vodafone and Telecom to ensure that cellphone towers built under the previous Government in prison grounds—in Auckland Prison—are relocated as quickly as possible. And, by the way, I have also asked that double-bunking proceed.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member, I remind Ministers again that giving answers to questions is not a time for making speeches. It is difficult to hold the Opposition to brief questions if the answers are very, very long.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why is it that it took the Minister 8 days before she publicly responded to the issue of six escapes in a week, given the seriousness of the issue—and when she finally did respond, she dismissed this as “an operational matter”, and then tried to blame the previous Government rather than provide assurances to the affected victims and their families—and apart from engaging in a tiki tour around the country, prison to prison, what specific action has she taken on prison escapes, given that we have had another one from North Waikato this morning?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Perhaps the member who has just resumed his seat did not listen to the answer. Of the six escapes he is talking about, only two are from the corrections system. Frankly, not one escape is acceptable, and that is why this Minister is going to hold people to account for their actions and inactions. Right now, I say to Mr Cosgrove, I am holding them to account—which is far more than 9 years of a Labour Government ever did; not one person lost his or her job.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Minister, given that she has blamed this on the Minister of Police rather than on the Minister of Corrections, talked to her “colleague” about this?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course in National we do not need to do that, because I am that same Minister. But I can tell that particular member—unlike the situation under Labour where members had to have a meeting—

Hon Member: What did she say to you?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: She said that the police have been asked right now to find out why they are not restraining prisoners by the same method the Department of Corrections uses, and they have been asked to look at the law changes that need to happen to change that. This Minister is not going to sit back for 9 years, as that member did, and wait for something else to happen, like Karl Kuchenbecker being killed.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Is the Minister concerned that the significant improvements within the Department of Corrections, which occurred over the last 9 years and which led to an 84 percent reduction—[Interruption]—I will say it again for the member at the back—which led to an 84 percent reduction in the number of prison escapes and a 90 percent reduction in the number of serious assaults on prison staff under the previous Government, despite the fact there was an increase in the prison population of 3,200, is now being compromised; if not, as she takes advice from the member beside her, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can well understand that under the Labour Government people were in fact queuing up to get into prison, but I can tell them that under this Minister they might not want to be there.

David Garrett: What, if anything, is she doing about the incompetence and corruption at the higher levels of the Department of Corrections that was ignored by the previous Government; and by what date can we expect to see some significant action on those problems?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: For a start, this Minister has been prepared, and will continue to be prepared, to listen to staff, unions, managers, and the public, and several steps are being considered. But I am not at liberty to further advise the House at this stage.

Schools—Building Projects

6. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to fast track school building projects?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The Government has announced today that it is bringing forward $216.7 million of spending on education infrastructure. Of this funding, $28 million will be an additional capital injection straight away in this financial year and a further $189 million will be used to bring forward school building projects from the middle of this year.

Allan Peachey: What types of school building projects will be fast tracked?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are a large number of projects. One example is the bringing forward of the construction of non-teaching spaces in over 60 schools across the country. Another example is a commitment to provide an initial investment of $34 million of information and communications technology infrastructure to schools that are most in need, in order to make them ready for the high-speed broadband roll-out.

Hon Chris Carter: How much of today’s school property funding announcement of $216 million is actually new money, and how much comes from the extra $3.4 billion that Labour had already allocated to school property?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am pleased that the member has asked me that question. Labour never promised money to build a trades academy in South Auckland; we have. Labour never committed an extra $30 million of funding to the Upper Hutt schools that it froze capital funding for; we have. Labour never committed an additional $28 million of funding in this financial year to taking advantage of spare capacity; we have. Labour never committed extra capital funding for special schools and satellite schools; we have. The real school property legacy that we have from Labour is a comment in the pre-election fiscal update that told us that the previous administration, under that member, had not set aside any funding for the $429 million of capital injection that schools needed over the next 3 years to accommodate roll growth and regional population changes.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask for your guidance. Yesterday we had an issue when the Minister of Labour was asked a very simple question, and she was asked to give a simple answer and lay it out clearly, but she did not. I ask the Minister how much—

Mr SPEAKER: I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer. The Minister gave a very full answer to the member’s question.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was a simple one; it asked how much of it is new money. The Minister never answered that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I have already ruled on the member’s point of order.

Chris Hipkins: Can she confirm that the $30 million promised to Upper Hutt secondary and intermediate schools today will be additional to the $14.6 million committed by the previous Labour-led Government, as the schools were led to believe during the election campaign; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am delighted to refer the member to National’s 21st Century School Building Programme, announced in October last year, which made it very clear that there was an additional $30 million to go to the Upper Hutt schools. That is what we have said in all the documentation we have released today. That is considerably more than what the previous Labour Government spent and offered to those schools after freezing capital funding under three education Ministers, destroying the hopes of a whole cohort of school pupils in Upper Hutt.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, the Minister was asked a simple question: does it include the $14 million, or not?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The Minister gave a very clear answer to the question asked, and the member will resist making those points of order.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The answer referred to a National Party policy document. You ruled before Christmas that we were not allowed to ask questions about National Party policy documents from before the election. I assume that once a Minister refers to such a document in the House, it becomes a current matter and we can ask further questions about it, contrary to your previous ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member has raised a very interesting point of order. It is traditional practice in the House that material the Minister brings into his or her answer can be followed up in further supplementary questions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your advice to the previous point of order, bar one point—that is, that the Minister’s answer was very clear. It was not very clear.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat because he is questioning my ruling. [Interruption] The honourable member may just reflect a little on how his behaviour is contributing to good order in the House. I have demonstrated that where clear questions are asked, as they were yesterday, I will support the member in obtaining clear answers. I believe the Minister gave a clear answer, and that is my judgment. The Minister referred, in fact, to dollar amounts in relation to the previous question by Chris Hipkins. I have made my ruling, and the member will not question it.

Allan Peachey: What steps will the Government take as part of this package to put trades training back into schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We committed today to provide $6 million of funding from the middle of this year to allow construction to commence on a trades academy at the Southern Cross Campus in South Auckland. This will be the first of at least five trades academies that this Government will fund to boost trades training opportunities around New Zealand.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the additional $30 million for Upper Hutt schools over and above the $14 million previously committed?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: At the end of last year I introduced and passed through the House a bill that allowed me, as Minister, to set standards in literacy and numeracy. I say to the member that in anyone’s language an “extra” $30 million is an “additional” $30 million. With any normal numeracy skill, one would add $14 million and $30 million and get $44 million.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Which new schools will have their construction brought forward?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Almost $69 million will be spent on bringing construction of five new schools forward: Mt Wellington Primary School and Hingaia Primary School in Auckland, Papamoa East Primary School and Papamoa Secondary School in the Bay of Plenty, and Kerikeri Waipapa School in Northland. These five schools are being brought forward by between 1 and 2 years to help provide jobs in these areas.

Simon Bridges: What reports has the Minister received about the state of the schools that are receiving funding in the announcement today?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen comments from a former member of Parliament stating that particular schools needed a “significant funding boost to help with the backlog of capital works that have been put on hold”. That comment was from the Hon Paul Swain, the previous Labour MP for Rimutaka, and was in relation to the four Upper Hutt schools that we have announced today will receive an additional $30 million in funding. Under the previous administration three successive Ministers of Education decided they would freeze capital funding for years while they conducted an education super-school Labour Party thought experiment. Our commitment to these schools today recognises that they and their community were done a tremendous wrong by the previous administration.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the press statement of the Minister of Education, which indicates the total spend is $30 million and not $44 million.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that press statement being tabled? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Chris Carter: I seek leave to table a press statement stating “Education Stimulus Package mostly recycled material”.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that press statement being tabled? There is objection.

Minimum Wage Increase—Real Income Gain

7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Labour: What will be the gain in real income per week, adjusted for inflation since 1 April 2008, of a full-time worker on the minimum wage, as a result of the Government’s decision on the 2009 minimum wage increase?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): It will be $3.78.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Minister consult the Minister of Māori Affairs or the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector before she took this issue to Cabinet?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am always open to receiving representations from the Government’s supply and confidence partners. I received a letter from the Minister of Māori Affairs. Te Puni Kōkiri also made a submission. We took those submissions into consideration when calculating a fair, balanced, and realistic minimum wage.

Hon Tau Henare: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the minimum wage?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have seen a report, on the recent change, in the New Zealand Herald, which notes that in the present recessionary environment “only the hopelessly optimistic or the ideologically blinkered could object”.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was her original proposal, in which she did not support an increase, a result of submissions from either the ministerial summit group, to which she was not invited, or her former Exclusive Brethren clients, who run sweatshops?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday you set new, very pedantic standards for the answering of a question. Those standards should apply to the asking of a question. I ask you to rule which bit of that question from the Hon Trevor Mallard—a man well known for his abuse of the question process in this House—actually complies with your new standard.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Firstly, you should be taking objection to having been described as having given a pedantic ruling because that is a pejorative term and one not appropriately used by the Leader of the House. Secondly, the member simply made factual references. There were no epithets, terms of abuse, or any of the other terms referred to in the Standing Orders. It referred to the fact that the Exclusive Brethren were formerly clients of the member when she was a practising lawyer. There is no—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point; he does not need to add to it. The Hon Gerry Brownlee made a perfectly valid point that where questions contain a number of issues, the Minister can choose to answer which bit she chooses to answer. I must say we have a bit of a problem emerging where some answers and some questions, especially supplementary questions, are too long. I applaud members on the structure of the primary questions today. They are good, short, and to the point, but some supplementary questions get too long, and some answers get too long. In this case the honourable Minister may answer which part of that question she chooses.

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Can I just refer to my answer to one of the questions yesterday, and it is the same answer today: the member is assuming too much. There was significant consultation throughout the process of the minimum wage review, and the decision was made based on that consultation, and based on the information received.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Progress

8. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What progress has recently been made in Treaty settlements?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Today the Government signed letters of agreement with three groupings representing eight iwi. Those three groups are the Kurahaupō ki Te Wai Pounamu, Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga, and Ngāti Toa Rangatira. When finalised, the agreements will resolve all outstanding historical claims in the South Island and substantial claims in the lower North Island. They mark a significant milestone in achieving the Government’s objective of justly and durably settling all Treaty grievances by the end of 2014.

Hon Tau Henare: What does the agreement signed today between the Crown and Te Tau Ihu iwi represent?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The agreements send a strong signal of the Government’s intention to maintain the current momentum in the Treaty settlements area. Te Tau Ihu agreements represent the first comprehensive regional settlements in an area where iwi interests are fully overlapped and highly contested.

Hekia Parata: What leadership has the Crown shown in reaching agreement with Te Tau Ihu iwi today?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Today’s signing is a clear example of the strong political leadership that the Government is committed to bringing to this important area of work. I want to acknowledge the personal leadership of the Prime Minister, and support of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, in making the agreement possible. I also acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen as Minister of Treaty Negotiations, who worked so hard on these settlements. I also want to make a special mention of the active involvement of the Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, who participated personally in talks with respective claimant groups, and who made a significant contribution towards making today’s signings possible.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Has the Minister seen a cartoon on the front page of the New Zealand Herald, which purports to imply the Government has agreed to allow Ngāti Toa to charge royalties for people performing Ka mate! Ka mate!; if so, would he care to comment on the veracity of that implied assertion?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I have seen the cartoon. I regard the cartoon as puerile and inaccurate. The suggestion of Ka mate! Ka mate! dollar! dollar! is highly offensive to Ngāti Toa. We are not talking about that kind of redress, and as we move forward in Treaty settlements I think it would be very helpful—and the member would understand this because of his experience, as Minister, with agreements on the East Coast of the North Island—if journalists, and I hope I do not sound like Winston Peters, would get their facts right.

Rahui Katene: How will settling Treaty claims improve life for Māori; and will improving life for Māori improve life for other New Zealanders?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Settling Treaty claims will, among other things, increase economic opportunities for iwi and their members. I am particularly optimistic that the agreements signed today when finalised and legislated for will inject substantial funds into Te Tau Ihu, and that is good for iwi and very good for the regions.

Otago District Health Board—Dismissal of Chair

9. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Is he contemplating the dismissal of Otago District Health Board chair Richard Thomson; if so, why?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes; because as chair Mr Thomson is accountable for leading a board that operates both effectively and efficiently. He has been the chair of the board since late 2001, during which time the largest fraud in the history of the New Zealand State services was taking place at the Otago District Health Board. This fraud totalled nearly $17 million of taxpayers’ money.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Minister rank his judgment higher than that of the people of Otago, who, when very well acquainted with the facts surrounding this fraud, judged that the health board members were part of the solution, not part of the problem, and re-elected every last one of them back to their jobs, Mr Thomson included—or is the Minister blessed with some unique wisdom and insight?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am not considering removing Mr Thomson from the board as an elected member; it is his position as chair that I am considering. This is a matter of accountability.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Can the Minister advise what health services could be bought for the people of Otago with $17 million?

Hon TONY RYALL: I can advise the member that $17 million would provide a significant number of services in the New Zealand public health service in Dunedin: over 1,100 knee replacements, or 1,200 primary hip replacements, or over 8,000 cataract operations, or nearly 700 coronary bypass operations.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Minister agree with the Otago District Health Board’s Chief Medical Officer, Richard Bunton, who said that the Minister clearly had Mr Thomson in the “crosshairs of his political point-scoring bazooka”, and that Mr Thomson has “the highest integrity and personal standards”; if so, might the Minister consider improving his own integrity and personal standards to match those of Mr Thomson?

Hon TONY RYALL: A $17 million fraud occurred at the Otago District Health Board over 6 years, nearly all of which occurred under Mr Thomson’s chairmanship of the board. It is the largest Public Service fraud in the history of New Zealand. Accountability is a critical role for a chair.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Has it occurred to the Minister that should he sack Mr Thomson as chair, then Michael Swann, the guy Mr Thomson helped catch, will be sitting in his prison cell grinning from ear to ear? And why would that be a good thing?

Mr SPEAKER: I alert the Minister to be careful in answering that question, because the people involved in that case have not yet been sentenced. So I just urge that care be taken.

Hon TONY RYALL: I am considering the position of chair, because accountability is a critical aspect of the role of chair.

State Highway Projects—Acceleration

10. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has the Minister made on accelerating State highway projects?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): This morning the Prime Minister, with my humble assistance, announced that we will be accelerating $142 million worth of State highway projects. This funding is over and above that available from the National Land Transport Fund, and will have an immediate impact on regional economies and their workforce. Further announcements will be made soon in respect of further increasing investment in New Zealand’s State highway network.

Sandra Goudie: What benefits will the Waikato region receive as a result of this morning’s announcements?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The replacement of the current one-lane Kōpū Bridge has been included, which means construction can commence in July of this year and be finished a year earlier than would otherwise have occurred. This bridge is a very longstanding source of frustration for people travelling to and from the Coromandel, going back many years. Members can expect further announcements on improving our State highway infrastructure in the near future.

Craig Foss: Will any projects be accelerated in the Hawke’s Bay region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Hawke’s Bay will benefit from the acceleration of both the southern link extension of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway and the Matahōrua Gorge realignment. These projects are worth a combined $55 million and will provide a significant boost to local contractors and suppliers.

Hon Darren Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that 20 percent of the State highways that have been named today are being brought forward by the grand total of 3 months, at the enormous cost of zero dollars, and is this not symbolic of the half-hearted nature of the transport package he has announced today?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can confirm that one of the projects is being brought forward 3 months, which does not amount to bringing money across 1 year, but it is interesting that with a new Minister and a new Government the New Zealand Transport Agency seems to be able to work quicker than under the old Government.

Amy Adams: What projects in Canterbury were announced for acceleration this morning?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am delighted to announce that construction work will finally be able to begin on the Christchurch southern motorway extension. This has been a long time coming. In fact, my colleague David Carter wrote to all Christchurch MPs back in June 2004, I believe, asking them to support this project. Members can expect further announcements on improving our State highway infrastructure in the near future.

Hon Darren Hughes: How can the country have any confidence in the figures used today by the Minister, when yesterday he overstated the cost of the Waterview Connection by only $750 million and made a mistake with Transmission Gully costings, and can he also confirm to the House that he is meant to be the Associate Minister of Finance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The figures I quoted yesterday in regard to the Waterview Connection were those from the business case commissioned by the previous Government. The figures in relation to Transmission Gully were from the announcements made by the previous Government as well.

Minimum Wage Review—Submission

11. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Did he make any submissions to the Minister of Labour on the minimum wage review; if not, why not?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou. Yes, I did.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Does the Minister understand that Māori workers will feel short-changed by the $3.78 per week increase, and by the fact that the Prime Minister, John Key, has confirmed that the Māori Party was told of the decision after it was made—hardly a mana-enhancing process?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I am not sure which part of the question I should answer.

Hon Members: All of it!

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: OK. My submission was for an increase in the basic wage to $15 an hour, incrementally—in two steps. Of course I understand the value of the minimum wage. If there is an increase, it gives an incentive for Māori to stay in employment.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I therefore suggest and remind that Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need to hear the point of order. The member will resume his seat. He should remember that he is no longer a Minister. He does not suggest; he asks questions.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Would the Minister agree with me that the last time the National Party was in Government it took the minimum wage up 86c over 9 years, and that the previous Labour Government took the minimum wage up nine times?

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Māori Party is interested in this sort of discussion, but I did not actually hear the question. Could you ask the member to repeat the question, please?

Mr SPEAKER: If members did not hear it, I am prepared to ask the honourable member to repeat it so that all members can hear it.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Does the Minister appreciate that the last time National was in Government it took the minimum wage up by 86c over 9 years, and the previous Labour Government took it up nine times—

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not the question that he asked the first time.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I must say to members that I am very impressed that Hone Harawira could determine that, because I could not. It was very difficult for me to hear the first version of the question, and therefore it is extraordinarily difficult for me to rule on it. I would ask the Minister, if he is prepared to answer the question, to please answer it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you reflect on that question, you will find that the Minister has absolutely no responsibility for any matters raised in that sort of question.

Mr SPEAKER: In the interests of fairness I am prepared to allow the member to rephrase his question. But I would point out that Ministers have a custodial responsibility for factual information about their departments’ activities that go beyond the current Government’s term, but they have no responsibility for policies of another party. In the interests of fairness I am prepared to allow the honourable member the chance to ask his question and—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek some clarification of that last point. Clearly, the Minister has no responsibility for another party’s policies, but factual information about what happened under a previous Government is a somewhat different matter, I would suggest.

Mr SPEAKER: As I understand the member’s point of order, that is correct. Factual information about what transpired under a previous Government is material that the current Minister has custodial information about, but he is not responsible for another party’s policies. I invite the honourable member to ask the question. Given the confusion, in fairness I think he should have a chance to ask his question.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Does the Minister agree that the previous National Government took the minimum wage up by 86c over a period of 9 long years, and that the previous Labour Government took it up nine times, and is the Minister prepared to say what effect that will have on Māori workers?

Mr SPEAKER: The member has asked for information going back a couple of Governments ago. I do not think he can expect the current Minister to have that information at his fingertips. It goes back beyond the 9 years of the previous Labour Government, as I understood the member’s question. I do not see how he can expect the current Minister to have information going back as far as that. In the interests of fairness to the member, I will give him one more chance to ask a question, but I make it clear—

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister feels comfortable answering the question, I will allow him to do so.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: My answer is no and no.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do we take from that answer that the Minister made a submission on the minimum wage in complete ignorance of—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows, as one who is most knowledgable about the Standing Orders, that that is not a point of order, and it is not appreciated when he raises that kind of point of order.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Is the Minister concerned that after 9 years of a Labour Government the Māori unemployment rate, which is 9.6 percent, is over twice as high as the general unemployment rate? How does he think lifting the minimum wage will change this?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Yes, I am concerned, and our commitment is to lift the minimum wage, and to ensure that there is sufficient incentive for Māori to stay in the Labour market and not to opt out.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Does the Minister agree that when the previous Labour Government came in the unemployment rate was running generally at 21.2 percent, and that the previous Labour Government brought unemployment down to 4 percent for the mainstream and 7 percent for Māori, and also kept Māori in the workforce a lot more than any other people?

Mr SPEAKER: I stress that that question is getting a fair way away from the primary question.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Unfortunately, it still is a high rate for under-24-year-olds at this time—18 percent.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Why did you make a submission to the Minister of Labour to advocate for lifting the minimum wage to $15 an hour?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although I am sure you do lots of things, I doubt very much that you made a submission to the Minister of Labour.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the honourable member’s concern, but interrupting a question is—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker, you made it clear last year, as a result of a submission by the Hon Bill English, that you would be strict about this matter. I think it applies to Government members and their—what are they called-supporters, as well as to Labour members.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. I invite the honourable member to state his question again so that the Minister can hear it afresh.

Hone Harawira: My apologies, Mr Speaker. Why did the Minister of Māori Affairs make a submission to the Minister of Labour to advocate lifting the minimum wage to $15 an hour?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Because it is my role as Minister of Māori Affairs to advocate Māori aspirations for an optimal quality of life.

Housing New Zealand Corporation—Increased Funding

12. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Housing: What benefits will the extra $124.5 million of investment announced today for the Housing New Zealand Corporation provide to the people of New Zealand?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): The initiative is a double win. First of all, we can address the disgraceful legacy left by the previous Government. Its inaction on upgrading State houses meant that Labour was a slum landlord. Secondly, skilled tradespeople in New Zealand, and the men and women who support those tradespeople, will continue to be in jobs for the next 12 to 18 months.

Jo Goodhew: What actions has the Minister taken to ensure that the $124.5 million of increased funding announced today for the Housing New Zealand Corporation will help deliver economic stimulus as soon as possible?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Since the approval of the stimulus package by Cabinet I have been working with my officials to ensure that upon the announcement we can proceed pretty quickly. The package achieves three goals: first, it addresses the need to improve the living conditions of State house tenants due to the previous Government’s neglect in that area; secondly, it gives the ability to start as soon as possible, particularly with the upgrades, because many of those will not require consents; and, thirdly, this work will stimulate local economies right around New Zealand. I understand from my officials that it will take approximately 4 to 6 weeks to award upgrade contracts, to get the work under way as soon as possible.

Question No. 4 to Minister

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to a supplementary question to question No. 4, the Prime Minister indicated that a particular school project in Hutt South, my electorate, had been brought forward. I have examined the list and it is clear that that is not the case. It was in Rimutaka in Upper Hutt, and I invite the Minister of Education to brief the Prime Minister so he can correct the reply.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member knows that that is not a point of order. He may believe there is something wrong with an answer given, but it is not a matter of a point of order if he believes that an answer has been given in error. There are other channels for following that up.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 10 February.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): As we work through the Address in Reply debate, it has become clear that the state of the economy and the outlook for the economy have become the major issues that the New Zealand Government has to deal with. The Government has made its strategy quite clear. We are setting out to achieve two things over the next few years. The first is to protect people from the hard edge of recession, and the second is to get this economy ready for recovery. That means that any of the decisions we take in the short term to assist people through this recession need to be consistent with our long-term objective, which is to get the economy ready for recovery. Only an economy that recovers quickly will be able to generate jobs to replace the jobs that are being lost, and return New Zealand to a path where its incomes are rising.

In pursuit of those objectives, the Government has instituted a range of measures, starting with the Restart package and a bundle of legislation before Christmas to support people who were made redundant, through to the tax cuts that are going to be implemented on 1 April to put money in people’s pockets. There has been a sense among New Zealanders that the effects of the worldwide recession have not reached them, but 2009 is the year when those effects are going to wash up in New Zealand. We do not know just how severe the effects will be. One thing that accounts for the fact that people have not felt squeezed by the recession is that there has been a succession of events over the last 6 or 8 months that have had the effect of putting more cash in people’s pockets. This is part of the debate about whether the stimulus in New Zealand is comparable to that being applied in Australia and the US.

Let me just take members through the basics of the New Zealand story. New Zealand went into recession 12 months earlier than most other economies. We had a recession starting in January 2008 that was a product of quite a different set of circumstances from those that existed prior to the financial crisis and the coordinated world recession. Those circumstances included a high-inflation economy that was running out of capacity, and that was driven by misdirected and complacent policy undermining the productive capacity of New Zealanders. So we started in that recession.

At the same time there was considerable debate about tax cuts, and a good deal of pressure on a fading Government that was reaching for taxpayers’ pockets to try to spend its way through to a successful 2008 election. So the 2008 Budget was quite a big-spending Budget, which came on the heels of two previous even bigger-spending Budgets. It also included the previous Government’s tax cut programme. That amounted to a significant stimulus to the economy that started flowing through about the time of the financial crisis in the US in September and October. As the incoming Government, we instituted our own tax cut package before Christmas, which will result in significant tax cuts on 1 April and an ongoing programme with lesser tax cuts in the next 2 years.

When we add all those things together, the reality is that by the time the incoming Government was presented with the effects of the financial crisis, it had fewer opportunities than, say, the Australian Government to have a sugar punch—a one-off cheque-writing exercise to put money in people’s pockets. But we have taken what opportunities we had, and we had fewer opportunities because the previous Government had already reduced taxes and increased spending. The net effect of all that, though, is that the stimulus in the New Zealand economy is among those of the top half-dozen countries in the OECD. Treasury calculates that over the next 2 years—this is the most recent calculation—the effect of the fiscal stimulus will be 5.1 percent of GDP. That is directly comparable to the fiscal stimulus of the US, and is in fact more than the Australian fiscal stimulus, on the best measure we can make of it.

Of course, a discussion about fiscal stimulus is inherently short term. We can easily forget, as most do, that any dollar spent today stimulating the economy has to be repaid with interest tomorrow. This Government has worked hard to strike a careful balance between what it can do in the short term to protect New Zealanders from the sharpest edges of recession, and the burden of repaying the bill for that in future years. I will just give people some sense of the size of that bill, which should, I think, engender some caution in their calls for more fiscal stimulus. For instance, the operating balance—we can go into all the definitions but it is essentially the operating balance—of the New Zealand Government for 2007-08 was plus $5.6 billion. In 2008-09—the year we are in—it will be minus $1 billion. In 2009-10 it will be minus $6 billion, and in 2010-11 it will be minus $8 billion. That is a huge swing-round in the large surpluses that New Zealand has experienced over the previous 10 years. In fact, over the next 3 years we will see the operating surplus turn around in total by about $14 billion. It will go $14 billion backwards.

That, of course, will flow through into the amount of debt that New Zealand incurs and the amount of debt it will have to raise. Our best estimate of the net amount of debt the New Zealand Government will have to raise over the next 3 years is around $35 billion. That is a dramatic change in outlook. The record over the last 15 or so years has been of significant decreases in gross debt, even of getting to the position where New Zealand had positive net debt. Not much debt was paid off, but financial assets were significantly increased. Over the next few years we will have to raise very significant amounts of debt, and we will be out there raising that debt in the context of every other Government in the developed world also trying to raise debt. In the case of the US we are talking at the bare minimum of a trillion dollars, perhaps of a trillion and a half—who knows—but a vast amount of capital will be sucked back into Government coffers. So we have to make decisions now that keep in mind that with the current settings, growth outlook, and expenditure trap, New Zealand Government debt will consistently rise over the next 10 years, from its current levels of somewhere under 20 percent of GDP to somewhere in the region of 50 to 60 percent, depending on how one calculates it. That is a huge challenge for the Government; I might say it is a challenge for Parliament. It is also a challenge for this country, but we are satisfied that at the moment we have the right balance between those contending pressures.

A particular focus will be on jobs, and I point out to the House that the number of people on the unemployment benefit is starting to rise reasonably significantly. Every forecast tells us that unemployment will rise quite significantly over 2009. We start from a position of lower unemployment than almost any developed country, and it is certainly the hope of the Government that we will get through this recession without unemployment reaching the double figures it did, particularly in the recession of the early 1990s. I expect that these matters will be discussed in some detail at the job summit at the end of February, where the intention is not just to have a discussion about what policy measures the Government might take to mitigate unemployment but also to have a discussion about what role the private sector can play in containing unemployment. Many New Zealand businesses have experienced skill shortages in recent years, and we believe, as many of them believe, that it is vital through this period to retain those skilled people, so that we do not run again, in a fast-growing economy, into skill shortages when so many people have been lost from the workforce. Managing the fiscal and economic outlook will be by far the biggest challenge for the Government this year, but it is one that this Government is up to.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I thank the Minister Bill English for his contribution, and say there are significant points of commonality between the Government and the Labour Opposition on these important matters. We agree that 2009 will unfortunately be the year when the global recession bites hard on many thousands of New Zealanders who will lose their jobs. We agree with the Minister that a judgment has to be made between the degree to which we stretch the Government’s balance sheet to protect New Zealand jobs and businesses and the fact there will have to be repayments someday as we stabilise debt levels.

Therefore, New Zealanders deserve a bold and comprehensive plan to get the country through the economic downturn, rather than the kind of tinkering we have seen in today’s announcements. Let us just stop the rhetoric for a moment and return to the facts. For roading across the whole country, over the next 3 years the total announced today is only about half that of a single major project under the previous Government. For education, the expenditure, if averaged across all schools, is worth only about $8,000 a school. That is not even enough for a coat of paint. For housing, there is a total of 69 new State houses across the whole country for 10,000 people on the waiting list. That is about one house per electorate.

We have heard all of that at a time when the US Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, is saying that given the scale of the crisis, the policy response has to be comprehensive and forceful. The IMF—the IMF—has warned Governments around the world about the dangers of under-investing and under-reacting, but that is exactly what this Government has done. That stands in such stark contrast to what a Labour Government would have done, and what it had announced, pre-election. In October 2008, on the data available then, Labour committed to a multibillion-dollar investment package that included at least a billion dollars in insulation for housing retrofits and hundreds of millions of dollars for education, health, and new roading projects—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Rail.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —and rail and public transport, which dwarfs what is in this package today. Labour signalled that those plans would have been reconsidered as new data arose. And what data we have seen come out in the last few days! By Treasury’s own estimates, between 67,000 and 87,000 New Zealanders will join the unemployment queues by this Christmas. Let us say 70,000; it is a round number. There will be 70,000 extra Kiwis on the dole, and a quarter of a million New Zealanders and families who have a family member newly unemployed. This package today, which is supposedly a “sufficient” response, might save 2,000 jobs. That is not taking the rough edges off a recession. That is not an adequate response to the pit of fear that is growing in the stomachs of many New Zealand families and many New Zealand businesses. Today’s investment package could prove to be a turning point for this Government. It is so patently inadequate, so woefully short of what is required, that it is actually less than what Labour promised 6 months ago. The fiscal injection is, in short, so small it barely rates as a small prick. Mr English told the House today that we face the worst recession in 90 years. One takes that to mean that it is worse than the Great Depression, yet this package is worth, maybe, 2,000 jobs. It just does not measure up, it is worse than spin, it is a joke. It is worse than insufficient; it is illusory, and it is an insult to the honest, hard-working New Zealanders who are worried for their families, worried for their homes, and worried for their futures.

Mr English in his remarks tried to give relative quantum between this package and those of some of our key trading partners. Let us get the facts on the table. If we do not count what Labour did last year—and it is time the National Government got over that, because Mr Obama does not count Mr Bush’s budget—and if we just count what the new Government is supposedly doing, its package adds up, generously, to about 0.5 percent of GDP, between yesterday’s tax cuts for small businesses and today’s figure of about 0.25 percent on infrastructure. Australia’s package is NZ$53 billion—2.2 percent on infrastructure and 4.5 percent of GDP, in total. In the US, with Obama’s package only—not counting Bush’s—it is $ 828 billion, 5.8 percent of GDP—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Change you can believe in.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —and change you can believe in, not dithering and deckchairs. In the UK the package is over £30 billion, and there is €200 billion across the Euro-zone. Labour’s tax package injected nearly $11 billion into the economy, but National’s has added no more because its changes are being funded from canning things like the research and development tax credits and the KiwiSaver contribution, which of course is contractionary.

If those are the economic facts, I think it is timely to reflect in this Address in Reply debate on the overall results of the Government’s so-called 100 days of action. It started with the Government doing its best to create the impression of action, rather than have real action, with a whole bunch of relatively unimportant bills hitting the House in extreme urgency before Christmas. Let us, then, fast forward to Hawaii and to John Key, while his mind was on a pina colada, lying on the beach trying to emulate Barack Obama’s tan—aloha, John Key. The response was a Job Summit meeting of five Ministers in Wellington. As one of my colleagues asked: if five Ministers is a summit meeting, what do they call a Cabinet meeting—a Nuremberg rally? That is not a response; that is not a plan. Meanwhile across the continent from Mr Key’s largesse, Mr Obama was planning an $800 billion stimulus package before he was even inaugurated.

John Key’s 100 days of inaction have been a disaster. Of course, 2009 started with a bang for him; he has now auctioned the results on TradeMe instead of focusing on Kiwis who are losing their jobs. In the absence of a comprehensive plan, we have a so-called rolling maul of initiatives. As I said, a meeting of five Ministers is a summit, and the small business tax package—wait for it—cut the use of money interest on provisional tax by precisely half of what Labour had already announced it would cut, pre-election. That is bold. That is bold—that is so bold.

Hon Bill English: Yours was reckless.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: He cannot have it both ways, can he? Now he says ours was reckless, but when he is asked about fiscal stimulus he counts everything we have done. What was it? Was it a good idea or was it reckless? Because if it was reckless I say to him that he should not count it. If it was a good idea, he should commend it. We say that if what the Government does is worthwhile, we will support it, because this crisis is not about us; it is about Kiwis out there. It is not about National and Labour and the Greens and the Māori Party; it is about New Zealanders. It is about families putting food on the table, and it is about businesses surviving week by week.

Bill English should know; he was in Australia the day the Rudd package was announced. No doubt he was given a good briefing. He had taken time out of his busy schedule to go to talk to Mr Rudd and, hey presto, there was $53 billion of spending over there. Mr English came back and what did he do? He announced half a billion over 3 years—if we are lucky. I ask Mr English to spend more time in Canberra.

Where does the charade leave New Zealanders watching in fear of their jobs, their homes, and their businesses? While our economy is being ravaged by an economic wildfire not of our making but from which we have no chance to hide, 70,000 more, by the Government’s estimates, will be joining the dole queues by this Christmas—merry Christmas. Maybe 2,000 of them will be helped by today’s package. Meanwhile, back in the Beehive, Bill and the dries beat John and the wets, and the so-called infrastructure package had not a bang, barely a small prick, and not enough to induce a whimper.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Making eloquent speeches from the benches on the other side of the House is what those members do best. We know that they are very good at talking and very poor at doing, so I want to take this opportunity to talk about some of the real action that has taken place in education as part of the 100 days of action.

When National came to office at the end of last year we had promised the early childhood sector that we would review the regulations the previous Government had put into place. Those regulations were going to put many early childhood centres out of business, put huge compliance costs on to some businesses, and put out of service a number of kōhanga that were unable to meet the regulations, which in general had caused a great deal of angst throughout the service. So we have done that. We are now almost ready to start on a consultation process to have another look at some of those onerous regulations, and we are looking to reduce costs in the early childhood sector so that it can get on with increasing the participation of our children who are able to take part in early childhood education—in particular Māori and Pacific children, who figure so poorly in the statistics when we look at who is attending and getting education prior to starting school.

Secondly, we introduced and passed through all stages in this House the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill. I was interested to hear the previous speaker say that the legislation passed before Christmas was unimportant, because passing that bill is one of the most important things we can do if we are serious about lifting the achievement of our young New Zealand students. For children to be able to read and write, and do maths, as they leave primary school, at a level somewhere near their chronological age, gives those children the opportunity to go on to secondary school and get qualifications that will enable them to then live good, healthy, and wealthy lives, contributing to our New Zealand society. So that Education (National Standards) Amendment Act is a hugely important step as we work to lift the achievement of our young New Zealanders. It will enable the Minister to set standards in literacy and numeracy that are about what we expect children to have learnt by certain stages through their schooling. It requires schools to involve parents by telling them in plain language what the strengths and weaknesses are of their children, so that parents can get involved in their children’s education.

In addition to that, we increased the maximum penalties for our hard-core truants, because we, as a National Government, want to make it clear that attending school is absolutely critical if our young people are to get a good education. We take that seriously, and we want the courts and the boards of trustees to take recidivist truants seriously, too. So we have increased those maximum penalties for truancy. But that is not all we have done about truancy. We are currently setting out to review the effectiveness of our district truancy services; we are consulting widely across the schooling sector, and we are consulting with the truancy services themselves. I, unlike the previous Minister of Education, want to know how many truancy officers we have out there on the ground, and how effective they are in the services they provide.

We will also carry out the survey that the previous Minister of Education cancelled, so that we can know how many students are truant from our schools at any one time. Why on earth the previous Minister did not pursue that last year, so that we had up-to-date knowledge, could clearly identify where the bigger problem areas were, and could put some extra resources into them, I have no idea. In fact, I do have an idea. I do not believe that the previous Government cared about truancy. It was a nuisance to that Government, and its members did not pursue getting some data, at least, so that they could take some action. This Government is determined to make sure that every child gets the opportunity to learn, and we want to know where those extra resources that we have made available for truancy services can best be used.

In addition, we have had a look at the work of the Education Review Office. This was part of the election promise we made to refocus the Education Review Office, and I have instructed the office to focus more on those schools that are struggling and to have a lighter hand on those schools that have proved themselves to be successful over a period of time and that are capable of more self-assessment themselves. Those schools that are performing successfully will be able to move on to a 4 or 5-yearly cycle with the Education Review Office. That will allow the office to focus its resources and its attention on those schools that are struggling, for one reason or another. We are determined to make sure that we take action earlier in schools that are having difficulties, in order to support the young people attending them. It is absolutely critical that we know which schools they are, what their problems are, and how we can get in and help them to get back on their feet and provide an excellent education for young New Zealanders. We have refocused the Education Review Office into a tiered system of cycling their investigations into schools, starting from the top with a 4 or 5-year cycle. We will retain a section in the middle with a 3-year cycle, and those schools that are having difficulties will be on a 1 to 2-year cycle from the Education Review Office.

That is part of what we are attempting to do to give a more light-handed touch to our schools. We are talking about high trust. We have around the country boards of trustees that are elected by parents to manage schools. We think that the majority of those boards are doing a pretty good job, and we want to say to them that we back them, we support them, and we want to have a light-handed touch rather than look over their shoulders all the time, double guessing for them what they are doing in their schools.

Part of that is about trying to reduce bureaucracy for our schools, so last week I announced that we will be removing one of the National Administration Guidelines, commonly referred to as NAGS—and many principals told me that they felt the Government was indeed nagging them over this guideline—the one that turned schools into food police. Boards of trustees had to measure how many times their tuck shops served sausage rolls to kids. A board of trustees had to take account of, and report to the Education Review Office on, the number of times a school was serving certain classified foods. The issue is not about whether junk food is good or bad; that is not the issue. The issue is whose actual responsibility it is to make that decision. Is it the responsibility of the Government? No, that is Labour’s answer—the nanny State knows best. National believes that boards of trustees and schools should not be held accountable for those sorts of decisions. Parents are the ones who should be making those decisions, so we have put the responsibility back on to parents. We have lifted the responsibility from schools to make those decisions, but we have not lifted the responsibility from schools, under National Administration Guideline 5/2, that requires them still to promote healthy food. Of course we want healthy food and drink habits promoted by our schools, but we are not going to say to schools that they will be regulating what food is served in their canteens. The reality is that we know that kids eat pies, whether or not they are banned at school. What happens is that they jump over the fence—

Paul Quinn: They go down to the corner dairy.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Exactly! I talked to a dairy owner, who said he had doubled the number of pie warmers in his shop. He had bought extra pie warmers because of the increased business in pies that he was doing from his local school. The regulation did not have the effect of stopping kids from eating junk food. I can tell members that principals all over the country have reacted.

Finally in our 100 days of action, which has been a whirlwind in education, we have announced today the infrastructure we are bringing forward. There is $216.7 million worth of spending on education infrastructure. The Opposition tried to say that we were recycling. I ask members: where was the Labour Government’s investment in information and communications technology? Labour cancelled it; the National Government has put it in. There is $34 million in the next financial year for that. Where on earth was Labour’s $30 million for those Upper Hutt schools? Labour members could not even add up. They do not even know that “an additional” means plus. They cannot even add up that $44 million will be going into those Upper Hutt schools. As I say, there has been a whirlwind of action in education in the last 100 days.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I have not repeated the error that you, Mr Assistant Speaker, unfairly pointed out last night when I did not address you properly. But being a suitable representative of Tai Tokerau, I say that I would not treat a man of the south in such a fashion.

We have just heard from the Minister of Education who has been predated upon by Mr Peachey who is sore and angry that he did not get the role of Minister of Education. Of course, when the Minister goes to South Auckland the police are hoping to join her because when she talks to the youth gangs in the schools there she will send them to sleep.

Paul Quinn: Are you taking your own bitterness out in terms of the leadership?

Hon SHANE JONES: We are hearing from Mr Quinn. I am not entirely sure whether Mr Quinn has stepped down from the New Zealand Rugby Union yet. He is on parole from there and he has a role here. He has just told us that he enjoyed having pies after his rugby games. He has eaten pies before his games too many times. He seems to think that he can come in here, and enjoy roles in other parts of public life. Unless he changes that status we will painfully point out to him that one standard pertains in private enterprise but when one is a public figure, unfortunately that person will be possessed of a degree of hardship and pain. Of course, the pie went from over here and up to the upoko, up to the brain, and it swelled. I will not waste any more time on Mr Quinn, other than to say that when an excessive number of pies are consumed, things swell. In his case it was the mātenga, the head.

However, let me come back to this dreadful, pitiful, piddling announcement called infrastructure—an example of 100 days of plagiarism. Let us go to an area where our friends from the Māori Party have obviously failed. They have failed to secure the necessary support. They have failed to sell the idea that the most profound sort of investment in infrastructure to advance the affairs of the Māori community is in housing. Not one single house can be built in the rohe of Tai Tokerau, Hone Harawira’s area, despite him wildly saying that the best thing since sliced bread was his now communing with the National Party and that we will see a massive improvement in his area—69 houses. Pathetic! But what is really sad is that it is a reflection of how weak and irrelevant their contribution is.

Of course, this infrastructure development is very timid. The small reference the Government makes to housing overlooks the fact that it has now cancelled the new housing out in west Auckland, in Whenuapai—Hobsonville. In addition, it has canned the previous Government’s proposal to spend a billion dollars on making houses warmer, more insulated, safer, and healthier—all of which was to be funded by the emissions trading revenue, which was killed off by Rodney Hide. In the zest of the Prime Minister going to Peru he agreed, much to his current embarrassment, which has led New Zealand to slip right off the pace in relation to greenhouse gases.

But let us go back to this infrastructure decision. Not only is there no new money and no new projects—these projects are well known—but also it shows how timid and frightened those members are. I fear that the Prime Minister has already fallen prey to Treasury. As is its role, Treasury takes a very conservative, pettifogging, finicky approach, and we are seeing that type of thinking at a time when New Zealanders are not only concerned about their jobs, but also want to see evidence of the bold leadership that Bill English and his team promised prior to the election. He promised a narrowing of the trans-Tasman wage gap. We have not seen that. If anything, National’s treatment of the minimum wage shows that the gap is likely to grow.

Secondly, what about the ideas that they brought forward of additional investment in productivity? The best we have had served up to us is the current Minister of Education, who wanders around New Zealand. She has not a single policy or clue to offer as to how our young people can be encouraged to stay in school, or how practical application will be given to National’s wild rhetoric. National’s members are afraid to admit it, but they fall back on the ideas of my excellent colleague Mr Chris Carter, who was ably funded by Dr Cullen. Gosh, New Zealanders are beginning to appreciate that they voted for change, but what they got was, first, plagiarism, and now this very timid, fearful approach from Bill English—how embarrassing. The man goes to Australia not to get ideas, but to work out how it will salvage its economy so he can come home and shoehorn that result here in New Zealand, because he has nothing to offer.

We are going to wait and see whether National will have a mini-Budget and what the elements of the Budget are going to be. In October, Dr Cullen and the previous Prime Minister announced that if Labour were re-elected, there would be a mini-Budget and the focus would be on joining environment and economics, such as marginal hill country and all those kinds of projects that would soak up relatively unskilled labour. It is worth funding. That type of deficit is worth suffering, because it takes more vulnerable New Zealand families into the workforce and keeps them there.

Forestation can have massive benefits on our Māori land, but that is something we never heard anything about from Hone Harawira or Dr Pita Sharples. You know, it is almost as if the Māori Party members, because of historical grievances, teamed up with National and, having achieved a small measure of status, have given up trying to influence National. Perhaps they are waiting for the Queen of Persia, Hekia Parata, to advocate for them behind the scenes, or Tau Henare, who sits wild and angry that he has been passed over, or Georgina te Heuheu, hoping that she will be a representative for Dr Pita Sharples.

Of course, when the Māori Party agreed to this pact, it was a diminution of the status of the Minister of Māori Affairs and a very, very sad day for that portfolio to diminish in that fashion. We saw the difference today. There was Parekura Horomia. He asked fantastic questions, and he was capable of capturing the same message in so many different ways. It was fantastic. The man has shown how far away Dr Sharples is. But, of course, I am going to give Dr Sharples a chance, because sitting behind him is Tau and, as I said, royalty from Persia. We need to give him an opportunity. I say to them that if they want to maintain the confidence of the people, then come up and demonstrate where their projects are. Do not just copy.

We are capable of defending our own record on issues such as infrastructure. Look at our housing. Fix up our marae. Fix up our kura. Do not just come to town with the same tired rhetoric that colonisation is the blame for everything and the Labour Party took the seabed and foreshore; we have been there, done that.

Of course, what we saw at Waitangi is that the Māori Party seems to think that just because it enjoys two positions in the executive, it will no longer be challenged and the protest movements will now fall into line and march—kotahi te whiu o te wae—in some sort of frog-like sense. But no, we find that our own young people from the kura kaupapa movement can see through this charade. They want to see the tangible results and the financial benefit, not the tired, jaded rhetoric at the point where the National Party has hit the high-tide mark. Until we see that, we will know that this is just a 5-minute wonder.

The infrastructure was an opportunity to bring Māori projects forward, rather than the piffle that somehow public-private enterprise investment strategies within which Ngāi Tahu and Tainui are given a chance to own the roads, the bridges, and the State-owned enterprises. Fortunately, the members of those tribes, if not the leaders, are not foolhardy enough to be sucked in by that. So there is no content, no substance, and clear evidence of rhetoric, as is the case with this entire infrastructure announcement—[Interruption]—and pies to everyone. Kia ora tātou.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. The Speech from the Throne delivered by the Prime Minister, John Key, spoke of the desire of New Zealanders, as expressed at the polls, for a fresh approach to our country’s challenges. Within a fortnight of the ballot boxes closing, negotiations were being sealed for the formation of a new Government, strengthened with the tripartite confidence and supply agreements. For the first time in the history of this country, an agreement to govern was signed that recognised the importance of mana maintenance and enhancement for both parties. I acknowledge the courage of this Government to state upfront their commitment with the Māori Party to act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are proud that our agreement establishes the opportunity to examine our constitutional arrangements and, significantly, to initiate as a priority a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In this Parliament we must be brave enough to build on the foundation of change and challenge sweeping through our land. We must look anew at ways to achieve greater security and permanent peace, and to invest in the well-being of all.

A key statement in our confidence and supply agreement was the recognition that the Māori Party seeks significant outcomes in w’anau ora. In the agreement, we suggested that this would be achieved through eliminating poverty, advocating for social justice, and advancing Māori social, cultural, economic, and community development. These are the outcomes that will demonstrate that w’anau ora is achieved. They are outcomes that surpass traditional measurements of inputs and outputs, and instead recognise the full value that can be added to our economy, our communities, and our families.

Question time in the House is often fixated on what can be seen as conventional measures of success, such as inputs, outputs, services, programmes, funding contracts, and budget specifications. While the numbers and the dollars are counted by the number crunchers, there is always the risk that analysts become far more focused on the time, the money, and the goods invested than on the ultimate goal of any particular intervention or the outcomes that are achieved. As the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, this is an area that I am looking at, as providing us with new insights and new avenues of thinking on how to build stronger and more strategic organisations.

As a case in point, I am impressed with the report Counting for More, produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers. This report focused on organisations in the tangata w’enua, community, and voluntary sector, targeting Literacy Aotearoa and Plunket as case studies. The project mapped out specific outcomes: measures such as reduced family violence or rates of unintentional injury of children, for Plunket. In the case of Literacy Aotearoa, there were outcomes such as income, education, employability and improved home life. The project measures what counts and the tangible differences made to people’s lives. Measuring what counts is what will make the greatest progress towards achieving performing organisations. We need to embrace the willingness to do things differently, to be more creative, to cooperate with other groups, and to build for the future. Counting for More proved without doubt that the outcomes for people who use services provided by voluntary welfare organisations are often significantly understated and undervalued. It demonstrated that across justice, health, social wellness, and education, investment in the community can achieve significant cost savings across those agencies, the Government, families, and communities.

The greatest challenge in these times must be to trust in communities to find solutions rather than top up a contracting regime that is taking us nowhere. We need to be firm in our resolve that some of our most intractable problems will be best managed through encouraging ownership and innovation, for local communities to find their own solutions. Last night in this House my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell talked about the trouble that has recently gone down in Murupara, and the commitment of the local people to work with their community leaders, to engage with the gangs, and to address issues in their own way. They have negotiated their way about an enduring solution to the community conflict that keeps erupting and disrupting their lives. They are engaging directly with the gangs in a process model to try to work with their community, including those who participate in gangs, to create solutions they can all own. It is an approach based on face-to-face contact, or what we know as kano’i ki te kano’i. It is an approach that stands strong in their determination to say that if any one group is targeted as a problem, then it is vital that the same group is targeted to come up with solutions.

Another community-driven model I want to speak of today is the Kapai Kai project based in Maraenui. This project has involved a group working over the last 4 years to deliver kai to all their families across Maraenui. The outcomes are wide and various. It provides access to fresh, affordable vegetables; it re-orientates families towards cooking nutritious kai as part of the programme, and it encompasses a focus on health, nutrition, and physical exercise. The outcomes are tangible, and able to be proven on paper with qualifications in organic horticulture and rongoā that lead on to employment opportunities. The Maraenui Medical Centre has come on board and monitors the health of the w’anau participating in this Kapai Kai project, observing notable differences in the health and well-being of those who attend. If that is not proof enough, we can measure the outcomes in the growth of high-quality crops for the local and export markets, as well as the establishment of the community gardens, the māra kai, as key training grounds.

Murupara and Maraenui are just two of the amazing communities making creative choices about how they can make the difference necessary to meet the needs of their own. As we move into the rocky roads ahead with the after-effects of the global recession, this local autonomy will be critical in ensuring we have a solid base to ensure that our communities remain in good heart. I am really pleased to announce that later this month, on 25 February, Philanthropy New Zealand and the Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations are hosting a workshop on the impact of the economic downturn on the community and voluntary sector. The workshop has been motivated by the obvious need to prepare for the days to come as we consider strategies to manage finite resources within the context of an economic recession.

Similarly, I firmly believe that the single most important thing we could all do within our respective communities is to reignite interest in the concept of collective care. This does not have to reside with the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector. The commitment to truly care for the well-being of our neighbours in order to contribute to the greater good is a challenge that all of us can practise. Tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration): This is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to speak in the life of this new Parliament. I congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker, on your appointment, and I also congratulate the new members elected to this House.

In reflecting on the remarks made by the Hon Tariana Turia, I cannot help feeling that this is an extremely optimistic time for the people of New Zealand. Although this country faces severe and serious economic challenges, it is clear that there is goodwill between the National Party and our partners the Māori Party to address these issues in a constructive manner. To hear Tariana Turia speak about giving communities ownership of problems, and looking to the people to try to deal with some of these seemingly intractable social problems we are faced with in this country, gives me great heart and optimism about the time ahead. There is no question that big government does not necessarily mean better solutions. In fact, under the term of the failed Labour Government I think we very much saw the proof of that. Big government and big spending ended up leaving this new Government with a whole host of problems.

When we go into the community, we find that there is enormous goodwill towards this new Government and towards the partnership between National and the Māori Party. I have had a lot of people say to me: “Look, I might not have even voted for you guys, but I can tell you that John Key is doing a fantastic job as Prime Minister.” People have been waiting for this. They have been waiting for a leader who will step across some of those traditional boundaries and be a leader for all New Zealand. The enormity of the challenges we are facing requires that sort of leadership.

There is no doubt that when that mob opposite were in power they ended up making a mess of things. Talk about 9 years of wasted opportunities! It was quite a revelation to this new Government, when we opened the books, to see the mess that was left behind. There was a $2.3 billion hole in accident compensation that the Labour Government completely failed to tell us about. It was completely negligent. It must have known about that months before, and if that is not a breach of the fiscal responsibility legislation, I do not know what is. It is something that will really impact on New Zealanders in the coming crisis we are facing.

The Labour Government left the health system in a mess. It had 9 years and it racked up spending to over $12 billion a year, yet New Zealanders are getting fewer services and less access to services than ever before. Nine years of missed opportunities to reform the Resource Management Act has left a mess—an endless trail of bureaucracy and red tape that will be left to this Government to sort out. We have many challenges ahead of us in justice and law and order. We have failing education standards in our schools. One in five New Zealand children cannot read or write. That is the legacy of this last, failed Government.

When we look at the Labour Party today we see a divided, transitional leadership. It is no secret that the people on the Labour backbenches are pretty unhappy with what they see going on. Phil Goff has no chance of ever leading that mob over there anywhere. As Guyon Espiner said in his recent North and South column, we do not even know who the next Labour Prime Minister will be—it is someone who is not even on the map politically, as Labour is so far away from making an impact on the polls.

Only three members from the Labour Party who are in the Chamber at the moment are interested in contesting the debate. Labour members have given up. The former Minister Pete Hodgson is probably filling out his curriculum vitae and thinking about options ahead. These people have lost the debate. The debates were held before the last election and, despite all the rhetoric and all the stuff we are hearing in the House, Labour has lost the argument. Labour was fundamentally and comprehensively rejected by the electorate at the last election. The reason for that was basically that people had lost trust in the Labour Government. They no longer believed anything that the Government had to say, and they were right. The last election was about trust, but that is over now and the arguments have been won. We have a new Government, and the challenges are ahead.

It is interesting to note that Labour had 9 years to cut taxes, but it did not take the opportunity to do so. Within the first 100 days of the new National-led Government, taxes have been cut. There will be a continuous programme of economic reform. John Key will be relentlessly focused on what we need to do to get the economy going. We will have to do more with less. Departments will have to manage within their baselines. We will have to increase productivity and get the country going again.

I notice that there has been a lot of blather and criticism from the Opposition about the fiscal stimulus package. Labour saw the recession coming, it had all the surpluses, but it never did anything about it. Members can see the spending that has been announced in the fiscal stimulus package. Action is being taken immediately to get the economy going. There is $500 million being spent on new infrastructure projects, and $100 million of that will go into projects that will start before 30 June. There are crucial projects in roading, education, and transport. In transport we have $143 million of spending, five large State highway projects, and a programme of small, regionally funded projects that will take place. The Kōpū Bridge has been, frankly, a festering sore on the transport system for years. Labour did nothing about it. It had huge surpluses, and it could have taken action. Nothing has happened. But in the first 100 days of the National Government, it has been announced that action will be taken—it actually will happen.

New schools and education will be a major focus for this Government, with the provision of $217 million of spending and five new schools that the population is crying out for. Most important, the economic activity around those schools will actually contribute to getting New Zealanders into work, keeping them in work, and stimulating the economy. I tell members that it will be about jobs this year, and, frankly, that is where the emphasis has to go in order to make sure that we keep Kiwis in jobs, and to make sure that we keep the economy going through people continually spending, putting money into the economy, and keeping businesses going. There has been a major effort put in there.

In respect of housing there will be $125 million of spending, which will allow Housing New Zealand Corporation to upgrade and renovate 10,000 more State houses. We are building 69 new State houses over the next 6 months, so there is major pressure in the construction industry. These are new projects that will keep people in work and keep people focused on working.

One would have to admit that under the previous Government there was no investment in infrastructure—it was completely neglected. There was a lot of talk about it. One billion dollars was spent on buying back Tranz Rail. In terms of looking at ways to stimulate the economy, if we had $1 billion to spend—we wish this Government had that luxury now—what could we do with it? What did Labour do with that $1 billion? It funded an ideologically based promise to buy back what was New Zealand Rail. The list of things that these guys would have liked to have nationalised makes one’s eyes water—terrible stuff.

Let us look at the ridiculous stuff that has gone on in respect of the Resource Management Act. In my electorate, in the area of Glenfield, there has been a 20-year battle to get a Pak ’N Save supermarket. This battle has basically come about because one competitor has blocked another competitor, through the misapplication and misuse of the Resource Management Act, from building a supermarket that the people of North Shore are absolutely crying out for. These guys could have done something. Within National’s first 100 days changes have been made to the Resource Management Act. Nick Smith has been on the job, and we will get this sorted out.

Health spending was totally unfocused under the last Government, which was more focused on getting a statue out the front of North Shore Hospital than worrying about what was actually going on inside the corridors.

There are a lot of areas where this new Government can bring focus. We must have discipline in spending, and we must make sure the economy gets going. National has been stuck with one heck of a handicap, thanks to the Labour Government’s legacy of red tape, poor-quality spending, and a bloated bureaucracy. The country was going nowhere under Labour. We now have a new Government, a new partnership, an inclusive Government that is focused across the breadth of the New Zealand population, a great partnership with the Māori Party, and a fantastic leader and visionary Prime Minister in John Key—who I am sure will go down as one of the great Prime Ministers in New Zealand history.

We are facing tough times ahead—there is no question about it. We are facing economically difficult times, but the people of New Zealand know that this Government is up to the challenge, it will meet the challenge, and it will be absolutely focused on bringing the economy and the people of New Zealand through the tough times ahead.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour): As this is the Address in Reply debate, I pay my respects to the Governor-General and Mrs Satyanand. I congratulate the Speaker, the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith; you, Sir, the Deputy Speaker; and the two Assistant Speakers on taking up their roles in this Chamber. I also congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply debate, Sam Lotu-Iiga and Melissa Lee, and all the new members of Parliament who gave their maiden speeches at the end of last year. It was great to hear why people had come to Parliament and what they hope to achieve while they are here. I am particularly proud of the 13 new Labour MPs, who are making a really positive impact on our caucus, and who, I think, you will see a lot of in their political futures.

I would also like, at the beginning of this parliamentary year, to thank the people of the Ōtaki electorate, whom I had the privilege of representing as their electorate member of Parliament for the last 6 years. A lot of good things were able to happen in our community under a Labour Government. I think of things like the Horowhenua Health Centre, funding for the Western Link Road in Kapiti, and the pensioner housing that we opened just a couple of weeks ago. That is a good example of social housing where local government and central government work together. This is why there is some sort of irony in the announcement today that there will be only 69 new State houses under a National Government. The Leader of the Opposition said it was one per electorate, but he was wrong because one electorate will miss out and that will be John Key’s electorate—we all know how he feels about State housing. He opposed the development at Hobsonville, and we can guarantee that if there are only 69 State houses to go around this country in the next 3 years, Helensville will be the electorate that will miss out, at the insistence of the Prime Minister.

There were initiatives that Labour took, like the Buy Kiwi Made campaign—which this Government has jettisoned—that would have been enormously beneficial at this time in order to make sure there could be jobs in the manufacturing sector and also some confidence across locally made products and services. I acknowledge Sue Bradford for that, as well, because every single item of clothing that our Kiwi Olympians wore at Beijing last year was made in the Ōtaki electorate. But one of the very first things the National Government did on taking office was to cancel the Buy Kiwi Made campaign. People can take whatever lesson they like from that, in terms of an economic stimulus, when they see that a Government does not want to back manufacturing in its own economy. It seems a little odd to me.

I am in support of the motion of the Hon Phil Goff, the Leader of the Opposition, because he sets out in that motion exactly what expectations the National Party has allowed to be built up in its Government. There is not a single thing in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition that the Government can oppose, because they are all things the Government has allowed people in this country to believe would be possible if it were just time for a change. Well, National members have got their time for a change, and now they will be accountable for the things they said across the previous term of Parliament, laid out on the Order Paper, on the motion of the Hon Phil Goff.

It has been fantastic to watch the new Government take shape. It is very clear to me that it had only one principle—to win the general election. I admit that it was quite tight in its discipline, quite focused in its message, and quite organised in its approach towards that one principle, that one focus—to win the general election. But ever since then has it not been a mess, a rolling maul of disasters—absolute disasters—as National has shimmied from one little issue to another with no plan of what it actually wanted to do once it became the Government?

There is a great example of that—the Ministers themselves. The Ministers are full of bravado and false confidence. We just heard from one, actually, who will fix all the problems so effortlessly because he is so brilliant. That is quite optimistic for the Minister of Broadcasting—however, lots of great things could happen in lots of portfolios. We have seen some Ministers at question time who huff and puff to blow the House down. I think it is a style that will come back to bite them quite badly. Then there are those with their “chicken in the headlights” kind of approach to their ministerial career. They cannot believe they have been saddled with the job. I think the Minister of Labour has demonstrated, at all three question times we have had so far, that she fits into that category. Then there is the third lot of Ministers, who sum up this Government’s approach to office so far—those who are totally depressed by it all.

When the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, spoke today, he sounded like a man in therapy, not a man on the joys and the highs of being in the first 100 days of Government. He was a man who was not happy, because he had gone around painting an image of what the country could be—marked out by Phil Goff’s amendment to the motion before the House—an image of all these things that were going to happen if we just changed the Government. Life would continue ordinarily as it had under Labour. While John Key bounced from cloud to cloud, as he said, Bill English would be there in the engine room, organising an effortless approach to running New Zealand. But he has got there and discovered that it is actually quite hard. You see, members can stand around, over on the Opposition benches, giving those kinds of evening speeches that “Dr the Hon Sir Richard Worth” used to give, as if everything were simple and easy to do, but once a Minister is in charge of a department and tries to go through budgets line by line, or tries to work out what staff to sack, that Minister finds that it is actually quite hard to do. That is why Bill English is finding it so difficult to come to terms with.

I want to defend very strongly today the record of the Clark Labour Government. We are proud of what that Government achieved for 9 years in New Zealand. It is disingenuous to an absolute “t”—or “d”, as it happens—for the former Opposition, the new Government now, to be trying to pretend that Labour was not anything other than a successful Government. There is one thing that Chris Finlayson knew: his party could not get elected until it adopted over half the policies of the Helen Clark Labour Government. It was when National campaigned in opposition to Helen Clark and her policies that we saw it returned to the Opposition benches three times in a row. But when National adopted most of the programme of Labour, it was able to achieve Government. So let us not hear the rhetoric and the empty words of National MPs trying to write off the last 9 years. They are only in Government because they adopted the policies of Working for Families and interest-free student loans. They are only there because they adopted Labour’s health policies. Actually, Jonathan Coleman said we were mis-focused in the area of health care. He should tell that to the families who pay significantly less to go to see a doctor now. He should tell that to the families and the old people who have to pay only $3 for a prescription item. It will be interesting to see whether they pay $3 at the end of this term. At the end of this term I think they will be paying a lot more.

Paul Quinn: Tell that to the 3,000 in Huntly who don’t have a doctor.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I say to Paul Quinn, who is interjecting, that at $3 a prescription he should pop along now to Bennets Pharmacy and get some pharmaceuticals. He is clearly in need of quite a few of them, given the way he is yelling and screaming over there. He is going to have a wonderful 3 years achieving nothing in Parliament, in my view.

Then of course there were the policies we were setting up for the future. There is no better policy than KiwiSaver to try to turn our economy, and to turn our households from being net dissavers—that is, from spending more money than they earn every year—into being households and families with assets they have built up over their working lives. What National did was to come into Parliament at the end of last year, rip open those KiwiSaver accounts, and haul out the money of hard-working Kiwis, which will not be available to them when they get to the age of 65. You know, every National MP sitting over there now will say privately that what Muldoon did in 1975, in getting rid of the Norm Kirk superannuation scheme, was a mistake—and I understand that another member who is present in the Chamber had something to do with that at the time. Government members will say “What a mistake he made!”, but they voted with their feet and went out of the lobby doors to do it once again in 2008. Once again they did it, because these people never learn from their mistakes. They never pick up the lessons of political history.

Where else have we seen that? National members said that Labour never cut taxes, but National was the party that voted against business tax cuts when the Labour-led Government voted for them. National was the party that voted against tax cuts for working families every year from 2004, while every year from 2004 the Labour-led Government voted for them. If we are going to have a debate about politics, let us make sure it is on the facts, not on the myths that those members are trying to peddle. For example, National members have talked about policies that were unfunded. Those projects were all earmarked in the Government accounts. They were all there. So Government members cannot get up at question time every day and say that those policies were not funded by the Government, because they are there in black and white for all to see.

Here we are on the 100 days of action, most of which has been spent on a beach. That is fine; people should take a holiday. But if a Government has been elected, with a sense of urgency because it thinks the country has so many problems that it should change, I ask whether that Government could at least turn up for work a little earlier. That is all we ask. Soon the Government will be at its 90-day mark. I am reluctant to say this, but I am pretty dissatisfied with its performance so I think we will have to sack it. It is good enough for this to happen to everyone else. It is good enough for every other worker in the economy to be sacked if he or she does not perform after 90 days. I tell the Government that it has about 10 days to get better, because we are not happy and we think it should be sacked.

I turn to the area of transport, because our new Minister of Transport has been busy today announcing projects. One big, bold project to kick-start the economy is to bring forward one project by 3 months at the cost of—nothing. This is going to be how we have a stimulus for the economy. The bright architect of the National Party’s campaign has been given a ministerial warrant. He had no work to do before the election, but now he has the flash car and his big project has been to fast-forward something by 3 months, put no money into it, and say that will kick-start the economy! Everyone would think that National members had invented the Kōpū Bridge, but they have brought the project forward by only 12 months. That is a good thing, and we support it, but those members should not try to pretend that that is going to rescue the economy, and that Secretary Geithner is waiting over at the Treasury in the United States to say “Thank God for the New Zealand Government. Not only has it agreed to investigate climate change for us, because the rest of the world ain’t sure about it; it has also decided to build a bridge in the Coromandel—and we should be investing in its ideas!”

I say to Government members that when it comes to projects like Waterview and Transmission Gully, we will debate how Government members fund them for as long as they like. But they should tell us the truth when they are quoting the figures. Maurice Williamson is a right-winger—he is mad on a lot of these things—but I like him, because he can be debated with, on the facts. That is one thing about Maurice Williamson that cannot be argued about. But this guy, Mr Joyce, has inflated the cost of Waterview by $750 million. He is not comparing like with like, and we cannot have a rational debate like that.

We are going to have a great 3 years. We are into it; we cannot wait to go. We are going to hold this Government to account, and I think that it is going to be a failed, one-term Tory Government. I cannot wait to see that.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I begin by offering my congratulations to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, on your election as Assistant Speaker. You are a great member for Invercargill, in the tradition of Ralph Hanan and Norm Jones, and I believe that you are going to be a superb Assistant Speaker. I also congratulate Mr Speaker on his election to office. History shows that extensive parliamentary experience is a vital ingredient in making a good Speaker. We now have a Speaker who has come to the role with that experience, and I very much look forward to the next 3 years in the House under his chairmanship.

I also congratulate my opponent in the marginal seat of Rongotai on her re-election as the member for that great seat, and on her election to the deputy leadership of the Labour Party. I intend to keep up the good fight in Rongotai, and on current projections I should have a shot at winning the seat in the 2020 general election. I may, however, have a chance to pick it up earlier when Ms King contests the Wellington mayoralty and the former boy wonder from Ōtaki contests the by-election as her anointed successor.

I am proud to be a Minister in a Government that is ambitious for New Zealand, a Government that is interested in different points of view, not in blacklisting people who disagree with it, a Government that is interested in the politics of aspiration, not the politics of envy, and a Government that is interested in the things that matter and in the future, not in dirt digging and the ideological debates of 30 years ago.

I have to say that I am in awe of the maiden speeches made by the new members of the National caucus. They are a great bunch: Hekia Parata, Paul Quinn, Simon Bridges, Melissa Lee, Sam Lotu-Iiga, Amy Adams, and all of the others. They will make a significant contribution to New Zealand. Today the National Party is a party that is truly representative of New Zealand. It is a true liberal-conservative party. Labour’s gene pool has remained largely unchanged. It has added some more unionists and former ministerial staffers to help them fight yesterday’s battles, but there is no real difference. There was Bob Semple in the 1930s, Eddie Isbey in the 1970s, and today we have Carol Beaumont and Clare Curran—some things change; some things never change.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister started his speech by saying he was against name-calling and dirt-digging, and I am just wondering how quickly he will do a U-turn by the end of the speech. Will it be peace and love in 10 minutes’ time?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Order!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Obviously, that is not a point of order—silly man.

What an honour it is to work with my colleagues in the Māori Party. We will sometimes have different views, but so what? I say to Mr Hughes that achievement, not ideology, is the name of the game. I am very much enjoying working with Dr Sharples as the Government progresses its Treaty settlement programme. The area of Treaty negotiations is one that should be non-partisan. There is no place for dissention and discord here. We are not dealing with problems; we are dealing with exciting challenges.

I want to record the work of Dr Cullen, who, to his credit, picked up the ball after 8 years of neglect and did a very good job as Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. The task of this Government is to maintain and build on the momentum that he established in the last 2 years. This morning we had three historic Treaty settlements in the Legislative Council Chamber, and I hope there will be many more such occasions over the next 3 years.

In addition to my Treaty negotiations role, I am truly honoured to have been appointed Attorney-General. It is a great thrill to hold the same office as my old friend Sir Jack Marshall, and the same office as Ralph Hanan, one of the National Party’s greatest members of Parliament—and one of your predecessors in the Invercargill seat, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I am pleased the Labour leadership has appointed David Parker as shadow Attorney-General. He stands head and shoulders above the other lawyers in the Labour Party, and I look forward to engaging with him on matters that call for a bipartisan approach.

I offer my condolences to Mr Chauvel for missing out on being shadow Attorney-General. I remember that one morning he spent a number of hours in the Justice and Electoral Committee writing his own press release announcing his appointment as parliamentary private secretary to the Attorney-General. He is a man so ahead of his time that he did not get the job for another 2 months! I am pleased he has finally altered his website so that it no longer proclaims that he is serving as my parliamentary private secretary. Although he no longer holds the position, I am happy to report to the House that his work product has not decreased at all since the election.

Finally, I am very pleased to have been appointed Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. I see that Mr Grant Robertson has come into the House. He is the associate Labour spokesperson in the arts area, and I am looking forward to working with him on occasion in this area. It is a tragedy that the same issues I was dealing with as chair of the Arts Board in the late 1990s are still unsolved. No provision had been made by the previous Government for helping recurrently funded organisations prepare for tough economic times, and I am dealing with that issue now. Times may be challenging, but the arts area is full of promise. Labour, of course, got more out of the arts than it ever put into them. My aim is to ensure that the arts really do flourish.

Over the summer break I had the chance to read Daniel Barenboim’s book Music Quickens Time. It is a book that tells about the work he undertook with the West-Eastern Divan orchestra, persuading young Israelis and Palestinians to work together. I will be emphasising as often as I can that it is the arts that heal and it is the arts that unite and cross boundaries, and that it applies equally to the Middle East as it does to our own country. But if we are to make the arts truly flourish in New Zealand, the Government can only do so much. Corporates and individuals have to play their part, as well.

Hon Darren Hughes: Nanny State.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: How is that nanny State? I am particularly interested in the issue of philanthropy and in persuading corporates and individual donors to do more for the arts. Even in tough times, I believe they have a responsibility to do so. New Zealand needs a stronger culture of philanthropy in order to strengthen civil society. It is probably no surprise that Mr Hughes and the Labour Party have trouble understanding the important role of philanthropy in society. Philanthropy is associated with liberalism, not with socialism or social democracy, and we all know from the last 3 years of that horrible Labour Government that the Labour Party is not a liberal party.

Hon Darren Hughes: What a nasty little man!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am not nasty. Mr Hughes is a chronic name-caller; it is time he grew up.

One should never forget that in bad times what does more to unite and sustain people than anything else is the arts. Daniel Barenboim said that the power of music, for example, lies in its ability to speak to all aspects of the human being—the animal, the emotional, the intellectual, and the spiritual. How often we think that personal, social, and political issues are independent without influencing each other! From music we learn that this is an objective impossibility; there are simply no independent elements. Music teaches us that everything is connected.

The John Key - led Government recognises the interconnected nature of arts and society. The arts form an integral part of so many areas of Government. Just last week I was in Nelson for the Adam Chamber Music Festival. The performances were of great quality, and visitors had come from all over the world to attend that festival. These events are of benefit not only to New Zealand’s cultural life but also to the tourism industry and regional economies, as well.

I am very happy to emphasise this Government’s commitment to the arts and to New Zealand’s cultural infrastructure. This is a Government moving forward energetically on Treaty settlements, a Government focused not on trivialities or on social engineering, but on the things that matter to New Zealanders.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour): I seek leave to table this script, which is a new play: Chris Finlayson: the Musical.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be no objection. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): Predictions of no economic growth in 2009 have moved from being the worst-case scenario to being a reality facing New Zealand. As the truth of the recession and higher unemployment hits home, politicians and households have become alarmed. Although right to be concerned about our economic prospects, New Zealanders are wrong to see our woes as largely driven by the global crisis. The challenges that New Zealand will face due to the international crisis will, no doubt, be great, but we must not be fooled, and we must not fool ourselves.

New Zealand has been in recession since the March 2008 quarter. We were in recession before the fall-out from the global financial crisis arrived on our shore. We were in a bad economic situation and the financial crisis has simply made that situation worse. Today I will set out some of those economic troubles and, if I can, touch on how we might redesign our tax and welfare system to achieve a high-growth, low-tax welfare State.

First, let us consider the deteriorating economic situation after 9 years of Labour control. In the private sector our current account has ballooned to the largest deficit since 1975. The large increase in the current account deficit—now equal to 8.5 percent of GDP—occurred despite New Zealand’s having the most advantageous terms of trade that we have had since the 1980s. On the household level the situation does not look any prettier either. During Labour’s rule household income did increase, but it was largely driven by people working harder rather than working smarter. Our labour productivity growth today is lower than it has been at any time since the early 1980s. Low productivity growth is causing low wage growth, and we have now become one of the lowest-growth countries in the developed world. There is only one way to increase wages and that is to increase productivity. Any increase that workers receive beyond productivity increases will merely exacerbate unemployment.

But while household incomes have not risen significantly, household debt certainly has. Despite slow wage growth we have continued in New Zealand to live beyond our means. To finance our wants we have turned to debt. Household debt has soared to 150 percent of disposable income. With cheap credit we mortgaged our houses to buy consumer goods. With the prospect of increased unemployment many families will struggle to pay the interest on their debt. That is the economic situation in the private sector.

Let us turn and examine the public sector to see what kind of fiscal situation we face there. When Labour was elected in 1999 the New Zealand economy was rapidly recovering after the Asian financial crisis. Growth had been high during the 1990s and was expected to continue to be high. The solid economic framework New Zealand had developed during the reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s ensured that we would continue to grow. The opportunities that this presented were squandered in the 9 years of an interventionist Labour Government. Labour embarked on a massive expansion in the breadth and depth of Government services. Whenever spending increases, we must ask ourselves whether the cost is worth the benefits it provides. Perversely, Labour measured the benefits by how much taxpayers’ money it spent. It turned waste into a positive. Despite warnings from Treasury that much of the spending was of low value, the Labour Government continued to take money from taxpayers, only to filter it back to them through incentive-destroying schemes.

The books are now in the red and the Government has joined New Zealand households in indebtedness. At a time when international credit is particularly tight the new Government has announced plans to borrow and spend on infrastructure projects. We have now been put on notice that our credit rating may be downgraded. Investors see our debt as risky; they fear that we will default. Labour let the softness of its heart spread to its head. We must put a stop to this situation. We need to unite as a country behind a policy goal. That goal should be to lift our growth rates and provide opportunities to those on all income levels. Policies should be judged not against their intention but against their effectiveness in achieving that goal.

It is worrying for New Zealand, however, that most politicians are continuing down the path that has led us to the situation we are now in. The last election represented a choice between more spending, or more spending and lower taxes. We offer a third option: less spending and lower taxes. National purports to represent limited government, but it does no such thing. The size of the Government is determined by the amount of Government spending, not by the amount of Government revenue. All Government spending must be paid for, ultimately, by taxpayers, be it through current or future taxes. In that sense, the size of the Government is set to grow under National. The latest Budget Policy Statement from Treasury shows core Government expenses will increase from less than 30 percent of GDP to 35 percent. If we use the broader OECD analysis and include local government, that figure increases to 45 percent.

In other words, the tax cuts are currently being financed by higher Government borrowing, which will be paid back—with interest—by future generations of taxpayers. We privately mortgaged our houses under Labour to buy consumer goods. The Government is now mortgaging our children for the next round of spending increases, and the response from our children is clear. They are leaving our shores in ever-increasing numbers to seek higher-paying jobs elsewhere. Unless tax cuts are matched with cuts in Government spending, we are merely redistributing the tax burden across time.

The lack of vision is clear when we examine the ideas that some politicians have come up with to deal with the financial crisis. With unemployment set to rise rapidly, the Government announced a temporary benefit scheme for people with mortgages. The Government, in other words, has resigned itself to increases in unemployment. Although the vision of most politicians is lacking, we do not have these problems because of politicians. Politicians—and we are all politicians in this Chamber—merely mirror the sentiments of New Zealand voters. As citizens, we have become more concerned with dividing the pie than with growing it. We have continued to sample the free lunch that politicians on both sides of the House have offered us, but it is now obvious that the price we are paying has become too high. The price will be higher still for future generations. The reality is that we have only ourselves to blame.

As voters, we seem to have bought the false notion that we can be made wealthy through the Government. Elections have become an opportunity for politicians to promise to take more money from us, only to give it back to us in another way—as a gold card for superannuitants, a tax credit for working families, or an interest write-off for students. If each of us pretends that we can somehow be made wealthy through taxing others, then we in New Zealand are destined for poverty. We are increasingly relying on others—be they foreign lenders or domestic taxpayers—to sustain our way of life. The problems we face are many and great, but we should not give up hope.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Me mihi ki a Papatūānuku, ki te whenua hoki o Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. Me mihi hoki ki ngā mana whenua katoa. E mihi kau ana ki ngā tangata whenua o te motu huri noa, huri noa. Me mihi ki a tātou me ngā tangata Tiriti o te Whare Pāremata nei. Me mihi hoki ki taku whānau, me ō rātau iwi i hara mai ki te tautoko i ahau. E kore hoki e wareware ngā kaiwhakakorekore me ngā tikanga o te Ao; me rātou kua ngaro i te kitenga kanohi engari mahue mai ngā taonga.

[My acknowledgments to Mother Earth, the land of Wellington, all land authorities, indigenous people throughout the land, us, and Treaty people of this House of Parliament, and also my family and their folk who have come to support me. I will never forget those in movements of resistance to protect people of the planet, and the ones who have passed on and are no longer before us but left prized possessions behind. I acknowledge you all.]

Acknowledgments to all my amazing friends and whānau who have travelled to share this day. Mr Deputy Speaker, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is like a rope between us, between the indigenous mana whenua and the tangata Tiriti. We, tangata Tiriti, hold on to the rope because we need it most. At our end, the rope is made of the bones and tears of migrants, many of whom left cold islands on the other side of the world, hoping desperately for a better life. That better life came to pass through systemic violence, theft, and denial. Te Tiriti, a frayed and stretched arrangement, is the tie that binds us to this place, and to the hope that violence, theft, and denial need not be the basis for our bonds in the future.

An openness to the story of Te Tiriti was a precious gift from my family. We are no longer from Somerset, Tipperary, and Ballymacelliott in County Kerry. We are citizens of the nation Aotearoa New Zealand, and we are Pākehā. I have been told that one meaning of “Pākehā” is “of a different breath”. We enjoy ongoing colonial privilege, but we have an opportunity to take responsibility for this, and to work for a justice-based peace. This justice is desperately needed from Ruātoki to Gaza. Our Government’s recognising of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would be a good start. But first, I thank my mother for her vital lesson that a background of privilege and racism need not distort the human heart, and that an unexamined life is not worth living. I thank my father for the feisty, rebellious energy and critical analysis that gave me the starting point for a life of political engagement, and a healthy suspicion of powerful institutions. Thanks also to my siblings and my beloved daughter for putting up with my unnecessarily robust speeches, and my acting like a megaphone next to their heads.

Despite my healthy suspicion towards institutions, I embrace this new chapter with all the illusions of a maiden. The last time I was a maiden was 40 years ago. It is refreshing to revisit that time of passionate conviction, when it was our unique duty to resist the system while wearing a lot of black clothing. I am not just here to be part of that enduring resistance; I come to work with a group of people. The Green Party is not a church or a movement; it is a maturing political party with all the contradictions that implies. I joined because of the kaupapa, but also because of the people in the leadership, and the way they do politics. Special thanks must go to the East Coast Greens, for all their work to help me here. I give thanks to the entire party, but particular thanks to the late Rod Donald: you encouraged me as you encouraged many others, and you represented a wholeness in your political work that drew people towards us, and gave us deep roots in both social and environmental justice. Russel has a big challenge walking in your shoes, but luckily he has pretty big feet. I say thank you to Jeannette: your depth and serenity has achieved more in politics than can ever be undone by the short-sighted hatchets of the ignorant. To the Green caucus, I say thank you for the kindness to me now, and for how kind you will have to be in future, and thanks especially to the indomitable Sue Bradford, for years of support and inspiration.

But the person who pushed me into this was my partner, Gordon Jackman, who lives issues of justice every day. They say that behind every great man is an exhausted woman, and that behind every great woman is a man trying to slow her down, but I say that beside this ordinary woman there is an extraordinary and totally supportive man. Thank you to all the Jackmans for being so generous to me in all ways.

Today I am speaking to the public gallery, and to the people who lead our country from the ground up. When I first marched on Parliament it was in a pushchair, protesting against nuclear weapons. At age 10, I stood with my sisters on these steps of Moehau granite as we protested against troops being sent to Viet Nam, and at age 16 I led the first union of high school students to those same steps. Then there was the time we from Coromandel Watchdog dumped the Waihī mining tailings into the miners’ cocktail party at the Beehive. But the last time Gordon and I marched here, it was all the way from Tūranga with Te Tai Rāwhiti iwi to protest against the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. We were fortunate to be Pākehā walking amongst a multitude of hapū, not a hater or wrecker to be found amongst them. If this legislation can be repealed under the leadership of the Māori Party I will be proud to vote with them.

When I left this cold city at 17, I went to live with a mountain and I learnt what love of country really means. The mountain Te Moe ngā hau o Tamatekapua is the great blue rock that rises out of Tikapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf. Moehau is the mountain of the Hauraki and Te Arawa peoples. It is the image of endurance, beauty, and life-force, which I hold in my heart. When a multinational goldmining company kindly offered to reduce Moehau to a lake, the hapū and the local hippies united to resist. We were successful because of some wonderful people, some living and some passed away. Never imagine that a small coalition of determined people cannot prevent corporate greed from digging up our mountains. We could, we did, and if need be we will again.

Today, I want to honour women you have never heard of, especially Veronica Black, and Betty Williams, Ngāti Whanaunga and Ngāti Pūkenga. Thank you, both of you. Not only did you open my eyes to Te Tiriti issues but you also helped me to see the life essence in all living things. Betty taught us the name for the awe and joy that Papatūānuku gives us. Kaitiakitanga is not a word to be appropriated by Pākehā. It belongs to you and all the other kaitiaki. But work together we must. These women inspired my feminism. Gender equity is real when the refuges are empty and the mothers and babies are at the centre of the economy, not when post-feminist women claw their way into high-status jobs.

In the 1990s, thanks to Gordon and Greenpeace I met a river. This river begins in the translucent waters of Lake Tarawera. It travels underground for a while and leaps sparkling out of the rocks at Kawerau, a waterfall of light and foam. The Tarawera River then rolls green and alive through the forest and the town, only to disappear again in a terrible darkness below the pulp and paper mills. What was once Tarawera is now the “black drain”, a sluggish dark brown body of water, whose life is polluted, whose people are alienated, and whose history is our shame. In 1954 this House passed a piece of law to turn the Tarawera into a drain. That enabling Act ranks alongside a number of other shameful pieces of legislation. My favourite remains the Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act 1894, whose purpose surely needs no further explanation. Yes, the Tarawera is a bit cleaner now but still for Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Rangitihi the Black Drain is a gross attack on their identity and food sources. I can still see Jack Fox, the rangatira, standing at the gate of his tiny house surrounded by the vast pollution of his wāhi tapu—Te Wai ū o Tūwharetoa the sacred spring surrounded by mill waste—and his wife, Isabel Fox, lifting her angry face to the toxic chemical air and challenging us to fix this mess.

The Black Drain represents the damage done by a timber processing industry that has failed to address pollution. This pollution goes beyond our rivers, we have dioxin contamination throughout our country and throughout the bodies of timber workers and their families. Joe Harawira, Kereana Ākuhata, and the Sawmill Workers Against Poisons, I salute your leadership and courage as family after family buries poisoned loved ones and you work constructively to heal land and people. I will never forget the time when a busload of your members sat on these Moehau granite steps outside this building and displayed their ulcerated and destroyed limbs so that no one else will have to live with this misery, deformity, and early death. Joe, the whakatauākī on your letterhead says not that honesty is the best policy but that honesty is the only policy. May this House one day embrace that truth.

So my friends from Whaingaroa, Whangamata, Moerewa, Tāmaki, and Māhia—the sewage warriors of Aotearoa—thanks for doing the dirty work that local councils cannot seem to handle. Humans might have landed on the moon but we are still dumping our bodily waste into our water. And to my friends of the last decade—the educators for social change and social justice—I say that these years have been ones of learning so much richer than any unit standard or university essay. We have travelled a road that is made by walking, and we have met with inspiring community activists and workers all along the way. Thanks to the Treaty educators, the disability activists, the women’s liberation and gay rights workers, the environmental campaigners, the unemployed rights activists, the community development leaders, the young unions, the collective gardeners, and all the other targets of SIS and threat assessment unit time-wasting.

In Te Tai Rāwhiti, the great ocean, Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, beats ceaselessly against another maunga, Te Kurī a Paoa, those wild white cliffs crumbling into the bluest water. It was there that Paoa of the Horouta waka lost his dog and the mana whenua first saw the sails of Captain Cook inch into the great bay. Within days Cook’s men had shot the first of the tangata whenua and Cook had attempted the first great renaming of Aotearoa. “Poverty Bay” speaks of the poverty of his leadership and the killings of the Ngāti Oneone men. It does not speak of the richness or culture and whenua of Te Tai Rāwhiti. When I first moved to Tūranga I was overwhelmed by the crystal dry scent of the air and the shimmering eastern sky. The blatant Pākehā racism and the obvious gap between the wealthy, drinking delightful wines, and the poor tangata whenua living in shacks and crowded flats also overwhelmed me. I did not mean to get embroiled in the most basic of struggles—those of beneficiaries to get the most basic entitlements. But we did because we had to. I can never represent the pain and anger in the faces of the young and disenfranchised. No matter how many prisons you build, they will keep coming, demanding their share in a wealth that was their birthright until one day when the white sails came around the corner and created Poverty Bay.

To my whānau, the Tairāwhiti Beneficiary Advocacy Trust, and all the beneficiary advocates, kia kaha, and to the wāhine toa from Ngāi Tamanuhiri and Rongowhakaata, and Ngāti Porou, especially Kay Robin, anō Jody Tōroa, we are in this for keeps. The hardest issue I have ever learnt about remains riddled with denial and taboo. As a “TAB”, a temporarily able-bodied person, I grew up with all the prejudices our society has developed to justify our discrimination against people living with impairments. We are primitive, cruel, and wasteful in our recognition of the full humanity of people who are in our own families and may suddenly be ourselves. I am here to listen to the people who say: “Nothing about us without us.” It is high time.

What about this Parliament? The Government has had its 90-day trial, and some of us say it has failed to perform and we are going to have to let it go. But in lieu of the power to actually fire the Government I would like to make some suggestions. Can we at least reduce the waste in the Chamber, perhaps to a daily time-limited ritual chanting session by the two major parties? They could take turns chanting: “You’re stupid and wrong because you’re the wrong party, and we’re clever and right because we’re the good party.” And once that was over we could all get on with the urgent work the citizens might have hoped we came here to do.

Last of all, to my daughter Esther and her partner Nick, thank you for my grandson, who was born on the day this new Parliament was sworn in. For Leo and every tiny person starting out in life, you deserve something so much more precious than individualism. In a healthy group the individual can thrive. It is not a war between nanny State and the free market. The real struggle is between earth-based collective well-being and a polluted globalised greed. Unless we wake up fast it will not be a case of “We won, you lost, eat that!”. It will be a case of nobody won, we all lost, especially our descendants from whom we have stolen the basics of life. I quote Auntie Betty: “The international financial crisis is inextricably linked to climate change, and if we can’t work out the linkage, then Papatūānuku will spell it out for us.” It does not have to end like this. There were always alternatives to Rogernomics, and we need them now. Parliament needs to listen to the people who have given their lives to the nourishment of the whenua and the collective well-being. My time and loyalty here are given to them.

I have dreamed on this mountain,

Since I first was my mother’s daughter,

And you ain’t gonna take my dreams away.

You may drive a big machine,

But I’m a big strong woman,

And you ain’t gonna take our dreams away.

This old mountain’s many daughters,

Some died young and some still living,

But you ain’t gonna take our dreams away.

Not with me watching.

No you ain’t gonna take our dreams away.

Not with me fighting.

I have dreamed on this mountain,

Since I first was my mother’s daughter,

And you ain’t gonna take our dreams away

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries): I acknowledge the previous speaker in the debate, Catherine Delahunty, for her very moving speech. As part of the Address in Reply debate it is worth laying out again for the House and for New Zealand the Government’s overall vision to steer New Zealand through this economic climate and to deliver on our 100-day promises. The driving goal of the new Government is to grow the New Zealand economy in order to deliver greater prosperity. Because of the international economic crisis, this is a difficult task, but it is one we know we are up to, and certainly New Zealanders are up to it, as well. Only a strong economy will deliver for everyone. Only a strong economy will deliver for the elderly, for young people, for those currently struggling, and for those facing very difficult times going forward. Part of our action was to introduce an initial infrastructure package, which the Prime Minister, John Key, announced today. A half-billion-dollar spend was announced today for those projects that have been sitting on the shelf, collecting dust, under the previous Labour Government.

Actually, that is not quite true. Most of the projects in roading and in the education sector were sitting on the shelf, collecting dust, under the Labour Government. The State housing upgrade projects, which are worth $124 million, were not sitting on the shelf, collecting dust; they were projects that the Labour Government was never going to do. Under the Labour Government we saw State housing upgrades all but ignored. Over the first year, second year, fifth year, and ninth year of the Labour Government we saw State house conditions deteriorate to the point where most New Zealanders understood that Labour had become a slum landlord. It is unbelievable that the Labour Government that was elected in 1999, which bragged that it was the representative of low-income people, has overseen the deterioration of the State housing stock to the point where New Zealanders understand today that the Labour Government was a slum landlord.

We have seen today a boost to the upgrade of State houses. We will renovate thousands of homes under the energy efficiency project, Healthy Housing—there is a boost here—and the general upgrade of State housing stock, because one thing that a John Key - led Government will not be is a slum landlord. Yes, it will be take a long time to make up the ground of underspend, millions of dollars, year on year, to bring up the State housing stock to a condition that we can all be proud of, but we are making a start today. That is why we heard the announcement of $95 million extra to upgrade State houses, $9.5 million extra to upgrade State houses under Healthy Housing, and the new builds package.

Some of those State houses are an absolute disgrace. Thousands of those State houses are an absolute disgrace. I noticed that there were no Labour Party supplementary questions today on housing. It is because they are living in shame. As a new Minister I received a briefing that stated that there was $2 billion worth of underspend on the State housing stock. What a disgrace! The Labour Government was a slum landlord.

How is it that under a National Government we can balance the increase in State housing to meet need in needy areas and upgrade the State housing stock, as well? All the previous Labour Government could do was to rob the standard of living of current State house tenants so that it could increase the State housing stock. It could not do both. It could not maintain the standard of living of current tenants while increasing the State housing stock. Under a National Government we will see an increase in the spending on current State house tenants’ conditions to the tune of $95 million plus $9.5 million—that is an increase—plus we will see an increase in State house numbers.

George Hawkins, from the Labour Party, put out a press release stating that only 69 new State houses will be built. That is extra.

Colin King: Over and above.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: That is over and above the 450 that we will be building to July this year. That is extra, I say to George Hawkins—over and above the 450 to July this year. Hello! The other interesting thing George Hawkins said is that it is only one per electorate. We are not putting one in every electorate; we are addressing need. We will be putting the State houses where they are needed. That is a new idea.

I cannot believe that the members have the nerve to heckle me when in the 9 years that Labour governed it became a slum landlord. What a disgrace! What an absolute disgrace that it would ignore current tenants just so it could get up its statistics. What a disgrace!

I do not want to spend all my time talking about the disgraceful legacy of what the Labour Government did or the solution of what we will do. I will talk also about—and congratulate my colleague the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, on—the $216 million extra spend on school projects. Those school projects have been sitting on the shelf for years, collecting dust, under the Labour Government.

Hon Paula Bennett: Years and years.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Years and years. I also congratulate my colleague the Minister of Transport on the $142 million he has said will be spent immediately on roading projects that were sitting on the shelf, collecting dust, for years and years.

The issue here is that in difficult economic times, suddenly, under the new Government—John Key’s new National Government—we can find the extra money to fund projects that have been sitting on the shelf during the good times, during a period when we had 5 or 6 years of wonderful international economic conditions. Under a Labour Government the projects sat on the shelf. In difficult international economic conditions the National Government can get the bureaucracy going, deliver projects, and fund them. Labour members should explain that. They should explain why those projects sat on the shelf during the easy years and we can deliver them during the tough years.

Labour members should feel a sense of disgrace that Labour became a slum landlord and that roading and schooling projects sat on the shelf, collecting dust, during the international economic good times. That is my message to the country. Thank goodness we have a Government that is prepared to get up, brush off the dust, fund the projects, and get on with the job.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū): I intend to spend most of my speech talking about education, but I cannot pass up the opportunity to comment on the previous speaker, Phil Heatley. For 2 years I had the privilege of being Labour’s Minister of Housing. I have to say, while listening to the nonsense we have just heard from Phil Heatley, National’s Minister of Housing, I noticed that he did not mention to members in this Chamber that National, when it was last in office, sold off 13,000 State houses. He used to bleat at me in this Chamber day after day at question time about waiting lists. He had the cheek to talk about waiting lists when his party, when it was last in office, sold off 13,000 State houses.

Hon Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to point out to the House that no one would buy Chris Carter’s State houses—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Sit down. That is not a point of order; that is a debating point.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Labour Government spent $2 billion on State housing. That included six remarkable urban renewal projects in places such as Glen Innes, Northcote, Porirua, Rotorua, and Hamilton. The projects were about lifting up the condition of houses that we inherited from National. The houses it could not hock off were left in the most deplorable condition. So when we had that member in this House talking about State housing I was surprised that we did not hear a cock crow and see him struck by lightning.

He told us that he has an amazing infrastructure project—which is part of the great package we have been presented with today—for 69 houses. The Labour Government added 9,000 houses to State housing stock to make up for the 13,000 he and his mates hocked off in their previous term of office.

Let us talk about education. We had the new Minister of Education, Mrs Tolley, in here before. I switched on my television in my office and I heard her talking about there being a whirlwind of activity in 100 days. Let us see what has happened in education during this whirlwind of activity. First of all, we got her broken promise in the first week of the new Government. She signed up for the 90-day rule in business enterprises of 20 or fewer workers. She told the education sector before the election that the 90-day rule would not apply to it. She then came into this Chamber and said she had never said that. Luckily, the New Zealand Educational Institute put on its blog site, which TV3 then ran, an image of Mrs Tolley saying: “No, the 90-day rule won’t apply to schools and early childhood centres.” Of course, she was not telling the truth; we saw that in the Chamber.

Her next whirlwind of activity was in the so-called national standards in literacy and numeracy. These were greeted by the education sector like a cup of cold sick, so Mrs Tolley got a bit of a fright, as did her Government, about this promise it had to keep as a result of the legislation it rammed through this House before Christmas. Then we were told that the national standards in literacy and numeracy were actually the progressions that all primary schools are currently using. It was a complete sham. It was not a whirlwind; it was a mirage. That was the second example of activity.

The third example was the changes to the Education Review Office. I heard her talking about the Education Review Office and about how she had changed the review period from 3 years to 5 years for schools that are perceived as doing their job properly. That sounds fine, does it not? But there could be a child in a primary school for 5 years, and under Mrs Tolley’s change to the rules that school will not be assessed. I am not sure yet whether, 3 months into the job, she knows what is happening and what the Education Review Office does when it assesses a school. It goes in, assesses the teaching standards of the school, gives advice, and checks that the school is a safe place and that the school and its board of trustees are following the National Education Guidelines and the National Administration Guidelines—the NEGs and the NAGs. I am sure that if we asked her she would not even know what they are.

The Government checks that the Education Review Office is doing that assessment and that it is published online and available to the public so that parents can know exactly what is going on—

Nathan Guy: What about the “Wassup!” badges?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We have a question about “Wassup!”. I will tell members what is up. It is about accountability and about looking after the interests of what really counts—the children in schools.

We had an example just recently of a primary school in one of the very highest-income areas in Auckland: Remuera, which is Mr Peachey’s electorate. It had had a glowing Education Review Office report. Three months later the staff walked out because the situation at the school had become totally intolerable. That school, under the new rules, might not be assessed for 5 more years. We have to ask ourselves whether that is a good thing.

The next thing Mrs Tolley talked about was truancy. She talked about the fact that she was going to take up a totally discredited sampling system that I had been told, when I was Minister of Education, was a complete waste of time. It was a snapshot of 1 week in June 2 years ago, and that somehow told Mrs Tolley and the rest of New Zealand how bad truancy was.

Let us talk about what actually happened in June. As all of us know, June is just about the coldest month of the year—it is certainly one of them. It is when every parent knows that lots of kids get influenza and get sick. It is also a time when quite a few parents decide that Queensland or Fiji is a nice place to visit. They can get discount fares in the winter and a bit of sun. The week being assessed was the week when the Māori Queen died. It was also the week when Dunedin had a snow event and virtually every school in the central part of Dunedin was closed.

Any school pupil who was away that week was counted as truanting if he or she had not brought a note from home. If pupils were on holiday, had been at the dentist or the doctor, or had been sick during that particular week, and they brought their note the following week, they were counted as being truant. Somehow Mrs Tolley sees this as a valid, statistical way of finding out how many truants we have.

A much better system would be to take a range of decile schools around the country and sample them over a very long period—say, a 3-month period. We could then get some sort of analysis about the truanting situation. That is how it should have been done and that is what I was working towards when I was Minister of Education.

But finding out how many pupils are away is not the real issue; the real issue is what we do with that data. What do we do to help schools address truancy? That is why I am very proud of the work the Labour-led Government did. We put an additional $2 million into individual schools to help them address truancy. We put $4.5 million extra into regional truancy services. We had an electronic enrolment system, called ENROL, so that for the first time ever we would know what was going on in schools. We had the Student Engagement Initiative, which was about making schools a more attractive place for kids to go. In other words, they were practical, sensible things that actually addressed the issue, not spins and not mirages, such as Mrs Tolley’s contribution to truancy.

She also talked about the previous Government being food police. I was laughing to myself when I heard this because I was thinking of a rather interesting letter that was in the Dominion Post this morning. It is very short so I will just quickly read it. The headline states “Despite all the evidence”, and the letter continues “Education Minister Anne Tolley thinks it’s a good idea for junk food to be sold in school canteens again, does she? Despite all the unequivocal evidence proving that junk food isn’t good for kids? Okay, how about allowing cigarettes to be smoked on school grounds, then? Clearly”—the letter from Mr Shaw in Te Horo finishes—“the new education Minister is an idiot.” Those were a few words in the Dominion Post this morning by someone who had just heard Anne Tolley’s reaction to junk food.

I would have thought that Anne Tolley would be the last person in this House to be encouraging people to eat junk food. She herself—as we all know and as she has said very publicly—has undergone some really radical solutions to her weight problem. The only way we can really address the growing obesity in our schools and in our society is by giving messages about healthy food. What sort of message is it to say to young children and their parents that junk foods are OK and that schools can sell Coke, pies, and lollies and confectionary in the school canteen and that it is OK? Actually, it is not OK. It is not OK for the kids and it is not OK for our country. Type 2 diabetes is already a major cost to the health system. The health issues associated with obesity, which we are all very aware of, are not just the impact on the individual—that is tragic enough—but also on society, and that is a cost we all bear.

The message that the new Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, sends out to New Zealand kids and their parents is that junk food is OK. I have had a flood of emails from principals around New Zealand who are outraged by this ridiculous stuff, and I would be happy to table them.

Today we had the spin about school property. It is a bit like Mr Heatley’s 69 extra State houses. Mrs Tolley has come up with $216 million in extra funding for property. We are not sure whether it is extra funding, because she had great difficulty in being pinned down on whether it was new money or whether it was for projects that Labour had already paid for. Under the previous Labour Government $3.4 billion was committed to school property. Indeed, one of the last things I did as Minister of Education in October was to sign out $69 million to build Albany Senior High School—and we built 41 other schools, as well. Thank you very much.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou. In the Speech from the Throne, the Governor-General acknowledged that for New Zealand to move forward as a nation the settlement of historical Treaty grievances will be vitally important. This is a bold statement, to which the Māori Party will be holding this Government to account, as we did with the previous Government and will do with the Governments that follow this one. We of the Māori Party stand on our belief that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the starting point for the process of reconciliation between iwi, hapū, and the Crown. The settlements are a part of that process of reconciliation, provided they are fair and durable in the eyes of both parties, and that is the huge challenge.

Today I wish to mihi to Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, Te Ātiawa ki Te Tau Ihu, Rangitāne o Wairau, Ngāti Kuia, and Ngāti Apa ki Te Rā Tō. I congratulate them on signing today. In just 10 days of this Parliament, we are celebrating a comprehensive and significant settlement for Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga, and Kurahaupō ki Te Wai Pounamu. Without making too much of a fine point of it, I remember a particular question time back in August 2007, when the former Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations had to concede that there was only one claim settled from the initial negotiation to completion, and that was for Ngā Rauru Kītahi. The Māori Party today welcomes the commitment of this Government to the speedy completion of final, durable settlements of historical grievances.

The Māori Party has campaigned vigorously on increasing the speed of Treaty settlements by a range of measures. We have promoted the notion of breaking the cap: abolishing the fiscal cap on Treaty settlements. We have always seen that as an artificial and ineffective constraint that impedes the progress we need in order to resolve the outstanding Treaty issues.

The $171 million redress package and the additional $128 million allocated for accumulated Crown forest rentals, emission credits, and other payments in lieu of Crown forest redress are important and distinctive elements of the specific and financial redress for these iwi. We are pleased that the comprehensive settlement of the multiple iwi grouping has been able to be reached in a way that maintains the integrity of their claim, without the undue pressure that sometimes comes to reduce or compromise settlements.

We in the Māori Party also seek to review the claimant funding. We are very much aware that uneven and inequitable funding creates barriers to full and final settlement.

For anyone who has any knowledge of the cluster of iwi groups in Te Tau Ihu and the lower North Island, there will be an awareness of the complexity of the relationships within that region. It is a region that is highly contested, with many overlapping claims. There has been a history full of conflict. The scale of the land loss is immense, and the impact of settlement upon the area has been extreme. When we look at this area, we think of the Wairau and Te Wai Pounamu purchases of the 1840s and 1850s, the alienation of land from the Motueka native reserve, the perpetual leasing of the reserves in the 1880s, the Crown’s failure to set aside adequate reserves, the kidnapping and detention of the Ngāti Toa chief Te Rauparaha, without trial, for 18 months, and the cumulative sense of grievance and despair at the profound breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That such injustices occurred, that the customary rights of the iwi were ignored, and that the operation of the native land laws served to deliberately undermine the authority of the iwi has only today been recognised as a failure on behalf of the Crown.

But that history does not reflect just on the poor performance of the Crown. It also sets a course that threatens the very nature of the relationship between all iwi groupings in this area. So we in the Māori Party take this time to acknowledge the leadership and determination of the eight iwi that have come together in the interests of their future generations. They have made a priority of maintaining kotahitanga in and between their own iwi and hapū, as well as promoting kanohi te kanohi, face-to-face, discussions with the Crown. We honour them for the long and difficult journey that they have travelled, like many other iwi, and the commitment they have shared to work together, to collaborate, and to cooperate, for the benefit of all.

It is in this light that I want to refer to one of the more controversial elements of the package released today, and that is the special provision to recognise the significance of the haka “Ka mate! Ka mate!” for Ngāti Toa. Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira has consistently raised its concerns around the inappropriate and culturally offensive misuse of its tribal haka, “Ka mate! Ka mate!”. Although today’s version of this haka comprises only a few lines, the original version dates back several centuries and it is intimately associated with Ngāti Toa chief Te Rauparaha. It is one of the taonga of Ngāti Toa’s tribal heritage. So when two New Zealanders decided to teach it to the Spice Girls at a concert in Bali, there was some immediate concern from Ngāti Toa about how the cultural integrity of that haka was to be maintained. Similarly, when an Italian advertising agency decided to film a group of women mimicking the haka’s words and actions, in an effort to sell Fiat cars, one had to wonder what the connection was between a street in Italy and Te Rauparaha.

The truth is that the haka “Ka mate! Ka mate!” has been associated throughout the world with the pride and the passion of Aotearoa. Whether it is the All Blacks stirring up the emotions with a pre-match haka or homesick Kiwis joining together in the middle of London in a rousing rendition of the haka, it is an experience that always conveys the sense of respect and pride we have in our national identity. The words create that feeling of unity, of bringing up the triumph of life over death, and of affirming the opportunity for peace and optimism. We honour Ngāti Toa for the unique ownership and authorship that they have for such a significant haka. The issue is about recognition and it is about respect.

If I could just provide one note of irony, it is that the New Zealand Rugby Union could cast aside the New Zealand Māori team, while still being prepared to incorporate that haka as a key part of its marketing strategy. That does not seem to be on. It would seem that the cultural significance of that haka to Ngāti Toa has been completely overlooked by the New Zealand Rugby Union, which fails to make any connection at all between the use of that haka as a branding tool and the investment in Māori participation in rugby. The pre-match haka, alongside the legendary Māori players who have formed the ranks of the All Blacks over the years, appear to have counted for nothing in the decision made at the end of last year to cut the New Zealand Māori team. Perhaps the settlement today, to record the authorship and the significance of the haka to Ngāti Toa, might inspire some more careful discussions around the New Zealand Rugby Union board table about exactly what benefit Māori receive from the high-profile use of Māori culture in the All Black marketing campaigns.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, the Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, and the Prime Minister, who have worked together with the ministerial team, including our colleague the Hon Tariana Turia, to ensure that such a significant settlement was able to proceed today. As the chair of Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga, Roma Hippolite, said, today’s signing ceremony is a milestone event. We welcome the focus of Mr Finlayson on achievement, which he mentioned earlier this afternoon, and we are certainly keen to continue to work with him and the Government on building up the momentum in Treaty settlement negotiations. I have been on the road with my colleagues Mr Finlayson and Georgina te Heuheu, and with others from the National Party. I am pleased that Mr Finlayson sees the value of promoting cheek-to-cheek negotiations, listening to the people, and engaging with hapū and iwi in making such a strong commitment to the resolution of outstanding claims as the basis of a strong and secure foundation for our future. We seek justice in the pursuit of reconciliation, and we are determined to do all that we can to improve performance in this regard. That investment is a key means by which, as the immortal words of “Ka mate! Ka mate!” remind us, with courage and with strength we can triumph over overwhelming odds—“Ka mate! Ka mate! Ka ora! Ka ora!”. Kia ora tātou.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I am proud to follow Te Ururoa Flavell and I support his words, because this is a Government that has a vision, a strategy, and a drive to work with and form relationships with other political parties. That is what has made such a difference to the governance of New Zealand. We have the fiscal and economic responsibility, and we are going to work through the economic climate that we are currently challenged with to deliver to the voters who threw out that lot over there. The previous Government was thrown out of office by New Zealanders who had had enough of its socialist ideology, its nanny State, its total incompetence, and its irresponsible stewardship of taxpayer money. Old Mother Hubbard stripped the cupboard bare. Those members even spent what was not in the cupboard; they spent income before it was even received.

The Government coffers were in a sad state before we were even hit with the current recession. New Zealanders knew it, and they knew that National was the only choice to take our great country forward, under the outstanding leadership of the Prime Minister, John Key. From the moment he took office, New Zealanders responded with hope, pride, and a new sense of purpose for our country as John leads us through these pretty tough economic times. We have had a wonderful start to what will be a long term in office, beginning with the 100-day plan, not least of which have been the announcements made today. There has been support for business and for changes to the Resource Management Act, which are long overdue. The Labour Party was in Government for 9 years, and did nothing. These changes are beginning to restore people’s faith in their Government, which is a National Government led by John Key. These changes have been incredibly uplifting and inspiring for so many New Zealanders. Add to that the announcement of infrastructure spending today and the boost to the economy, and people are further justified in their choice of Government and sound leadership.

I will make special mention here, of course, of the Kōpū Bridge. I have to talk about the Kōpū Bridge. I think that this is an awesome commitment and a step forward from the National Government. You know, there have been years and years of lobbying by successive mayors and I would like to name several: Chris Lux, who was an outstanding mayor for the Thames-Coromandel District Council during his time in office; Basil Morrison, who was another outstanding mayor for the Hauraki District Council and who is also staunchly supportive of a new Kōpū Bridge; followed by Mayor John Tregidga of the Hauraki District Council; and Mayor Philippa Barriball of the Thames-Coromandel District Council. They have worked long and hard for this, as have the individuals, the community, the locals, and all those motorists who have sat in never-ending queues for hours on end. At times, those queues stretched for 8 kilometres along a State highway. Everybody was sitting there, waiting until the light turned green. It was just extraordinary. Passengers would hop out of the cars while they were waiting and start jogging to the bridge, then wait for their driver to catch up, pick them up, and carry them forward on the next leg of their journey.

People said if the bridge was built, everybody would start to speed and race around the Coromandel. I have to tell people that I think the opposite is absolutely true, because of the frustration built up at the bridge. Of course, there could not be any deaths at the bridge, because there cannot be accidents while cars are stationary. The fact that those cars were sitting there stationary for hours on end meant that frustration grew, and by the time the lights turned green and motorists got across the bumbling bridge they vented their frustration on their ability to actually get on the road and start moving. At that point, they would start to speed. So I think that speeding is something we will not see. People will drive down to the Coromandel Peninsula from all points—north, south, and west—and they will take a much more leisurely pace, because they know that they will not have that same hold-up at the Kōpū Bridge.

The other issue that came up last year, which the previous Government completely failed to address, was the structural integrity of the bridge. That was a serious concern for a number of people. Although the piles underneath the concrete foundations might be sound—puriri logs become petrified and like rock—the concrete pillars on top of that were very questionable, indeed. There was no density testing. In my view, the assessments that were given were completely unacceptable, as they were made following a visual stocktake of the concrete structures under the bridge. Some people talked about the rolling camber of the bridge, as they watched trucks being driven ahead of them. There were serious concerns about the structural integrity of the bridge. The project has now been brought forward. It could have been done at any time by the previous Government, just like many other projects, but for some reason in its wisdom it chose not to do so. Those members chose not to go ahead with the project. Even when the Minister of Transport was challenged last year, she never gave any commitment to funding.

Hon Darren Hughes: Yes, she did!

SANDRA GOUDIE: Oh no, she did not. She never did. I never saw it.

Hon Darren Hughes: It’s right here: 11 December 2008, Waikato Regional Transport Committee.

SANDRA GOUDIE: The Minister might like to take a call and tell us when that was actually going to happen.

Hon Paula Bennett: He’s a member of Parliament.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Sorry, he is not a Minister. Of course, the member is absolutely right. New Zealanders turfed those members out. Why was that? They were not doing anything, so they were turfed out. They were found to be wanting because of their socialist ideology, their nanny State, and their incompetence with money. I would not put that lot in charge of a piggy bank, to be quite frank. New Zealanders made the decision, and sent the previous Government packing.

We are just delighted that we now have the Kōpū Bridge on a roll. I would like to make particular mention of the late Graeme Weld, who was mayor of the Western Bay of Plenty District Council. He was a wonderful man, and he was very committed to his community. At the time when he was unwell—I was unaware of that—he made me promise that I would take up his cudgels for supporting the Katikati bypass. At that time I gave Graeme my unswerving commitment to do that, and he then passed away about a month later. I had no idea he was sick at the time, so I just wanted to mention Graeme and pay tribute to him for the work that he did, which we will continue to carry forward.

With all the announcements made today in regard to infrastructure in schools and housing, I think the New Zealand public can take great heart from the extraordinary leadership of the Prime Minister, John Key, and his supporting Ministers and members of Parliament. They are a fantastic team of people. The talent here far outstrips anything that has ever gone before and anything else on offer in the House. I commend everybody who is supporting this infrastructure programme, the 100-day plan, and the National Party.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): It is incumbent upon every member in this House to vote in favour of the Government’s programme—every member of this House, including the dispirited, defeated socialists on the other side.

Hon Darren Hughes: There’s no vote! This debate doesn’t have a vote!

ALLAN PEACHEY: I suggest that the defeated member for Ōtaki—the member who lost his seat and is back here only by virtue of the fact that he held the former Prime Minister’s handbag—should wipe the smile off his face, close his mouth, and listen. He should reflect on why he is no longer the constituency member for Ōtaki. The electorate voted just 3 months ago to rid the country of the previous Government. It voted for a new Government to bring a new way of thinking and a new approach to the challenges that face New Zealand.

You know, the Labour Party came into Government at the very best of times; it left at the very worst of times. New Zealanders clearly understand that this country has been in recession for over 12 months and that Labour caused it. Labour members could not think beyond tax, tax, spend, spend, tax some more, and spend some more. When it became apparent in the last term of the Labour Government that that was leading New Zealand into a catastrophic situation, it did not know what to do. [Interruption] When we listen to the hectoring of the former member for Ōtaki we realise just how bereft of ideas and imagination that Government became.

Let us remember that Labour came into office at the very best of times, and as a result of its actions it left at the very worst of times. This Government, in the space of 3 months, has made huge steps forward in making New Zealand a better country with a better future than it would have had, had Labour remained in office. I will give members a couple of examples. There was the announcement today of infrastructure spending in schools. Let us be very, very clear what a vote against the programme would mean, and what speaking against that programme means. For the first time in many, many years a Government has sent a message to the least fortunate of our children, who are being educated in our special schools, that the Government cares. The investment in the development of many of our special schools has been neglected for a long time, to the extent that principals tell me that parents with a loved special-needs child often now find themselves on a waiting list for a special school. Do members know what being on a waiting list for a special school means? It means waiting for the loved child of another set of parents to die. That is what it means. Labour members had 9 long years to do something about that, and what did they do? They did nothing. I tell the people of New Zealand, and particularly the parents of our least fortunate children, that those days are over. They can look towards a better future for their children. I can now say to the teachers, the principals, and the trustees of our special schools that the battle is over. We listen; we are compassionate; we care.

There was also an announcement today about the investment of money in upgrading State housing. This is very, very necessary. National understands that poor-standard housing located in crime-infested streets—where people have to send their children to lousy, underperforming schools because Labour took away parental choice—is coming to an end. It has always intrigued me that those of a socialist bent are willing to say to the least fortunate of our people that they should be happy to live in a substandard house that is not insulated, to live in an unsafe street, and to send their kids to underperforming schools, and that they should be grateful to the socialists for that opportunity. The National Party is the party of opportunity for all New Zealanders, not just for some.

The Minister of Education is to be congratulated on her sharp, swift, decisive action in dismissing the boards of chronically failing schools. In my own electorate of Tāmaki, for far too long—for over a generation—children have had to accept being stranded in a school in which the examination performance was woefully poor. They were supposed to be grateful because they were part of the great liberal left-wing experiment that was more about adults and less about the learning needs of children. I have been delighted to tell the community in my electorate that as a result of the quick, decisive intervention of the Minister those days are over. It is interesting that for 9 years in my electorate the Labour Government did not want to know. After less than 3 months of a National Government action is happening and children in that community can have more confidence in the quality of the school they are going to.

Let us look at the work this Government is doing in health. Just yesterday I assisted an elderly constituent in the Tāmaki electorate. Nearly 12 months ago he was diagnosed as seriously ill.

Hon Darren Hughes: Oh, citizen of the year!

ALLAN PEACHEY: The member would do well not to mock the misfortunes of New Zealanders. Maybe that is why he lost his seat.

Three times, including yesterday morning, that constituent was admitted to hospital for major, serious surgery. Three times he has been sent home on the day of his surgery because the surgery could not be scheduled. Any member who speaks in this House against the proposals of this Government is defending that sort of failure, and the electorate will further hold that member to account. Labour members came into office in 1999 at the very best of times, and they left office having created the very worst of times.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): First, I acknowledge you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your new role. This is my first opportunity to do so, and as a colleague of some years I am sure you will do a fine job. I also acknowledge the Speaker himself and Assistant Speakers Eric Roy and Rick Barker. I know they will be competent in the job and I congratulate them and you on those appointments.

After 9 long years and the best economic circumstances that New Zealand has seen in a generation, the National Party has the good fortune—or the misfortune—of coming into office at a time when the economy is going down. It seems to be our lot in life. If one looks at the history of the National Party one will see that it has a history of coming along after some misguided, left-leaning, socialist Government, like the previous Government in this country, and it has to fix up the mess after 9 years of mismanagement.

The worst aspect of that is not that the economy is going down. Rather, it is the fact that during those 9 years we had some of the best opportunities a country could have had in a generation and we have lost them. We have missed them. It was a race we could have won, and we have come fourth or fifth. It was an opportunity to grow the economic base of this economy in a way we have never seen before, and it has been lost.

Let us consider a couple of our primary industries—agriculture, for a start. Year on year for the last 25 years agriculture has outstripped any other industry in this country in terms of growth. But what could have been? Let us look at our forestry sector. In Australia—and I acknowledge the tragedy of the Australian bushfires at the moment—the forestry sector has grown year on year for the last 7 years.

In Australia, a country that takes 5 years longer to grow a Pinus radiata than New Zealand, a country where the products of that industry are exported into exactly the same international markets at exactly the same prices, a country where the domestic market and the international market are exactly the same—except that we have the advantage of being able to grow the trees faster—there has been growth in that industry while we have had decline. Why is that?

When we ask members of the industry they tell us that every time a major proposal was put forward to build a computerised, modern, 21st century processing site in this country, they came up against so much red tape, and so many hurdles—the Resource Management Act for a start, and various other Acts of Parliament—that made it so difficult that they just decided it was better to make that investment in Australia. So National will remove those roadblocks. I know that the Deputy Speaker, in a previous portfolio area, did a lot of work in looking at what red tape was doing to small businesses.

What the Labour Government in 9 years could never understand—and still does not and probably never will—is that this country is a country of small businesses. We have a profile in that regard that is much different from any other country in the world. The average size of a business entity in this country is quite different from the average size of a small business, as it is described, internationally. Therefore, there were unique issues that this country had to face. The red tape created by taxation laws, resource management laws, employment laws, compliance costs, and any number of other areas has caused those industries and those businesses not to prosper.

So what does National intend to do about it? National intends to bring about massive changes to the Resource Management Act as fast as it is possible to do so sensibly. We intend to unblock the arteries. If a farmer has a major infrastructural failure on his or her farm and it is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars—and millions of dollars for New Zealand—then that farmer will borrow the money and fix it. That is what National is intending to do, and the announcements today in terms of our roading infrastructure are just the beginning. Members will see our objective of growing the economy, which National articulated during the election campaign, starting to take effect as quickly as we can unblock those arteries.

The second major issue is our ability to communicate with the world when we are doing business with the world. The dairy industry exports 95 percent of what it produces, but we would not know that by reading the newspapers or listening to some of the commentators. We do not actually sell dairy products in New Zealand; it is not where we sell them. We sell them internationally to something like 50 different countries around the world. At times we have done business with as many as 150 different countries around the world, but the majority of that product goes to about 50 different countries. So it is absolutely essential to have 21st century communications to be able to carry out that type of export activity.

Again, we will unblock the roadblocks. We will introduce broadband connection fibre-optic rollout cables, particularly in rural areas where the economy is actually based. One of the things I find a real irony as an MP is when I am talking to people who are talking about the growth in the economy and the importance of the economy and they always refer—particularly the financial commentators—to the importance of Wellington City, Auckland City, or any other major metropolitan area. Yes, they are important—there is no question about that—but they are not where the economy of New Zealand is based. They might like it to be based there. They might see it there in the future when they are crystal-gazing, but it is not where it is at the moment, and it has not been for a long time.

We are always reminded in these debates that a Prime Minister of New Zealand, in a Labour Government, was able to come to the conclusion that agriculture was a sunset industry. I am not sure how that could happen. It suggests to me that the advice that was given then was about as good as the advice given to the previous Labour Government—and it was not good advice. The one sector that has grown in this country consistently through good and bad times has been that of our primary agricultural land-based industries. Forestry is an excellent example. It is the third-largest exporter in this country. Who knows that fact? Forestry is the third-largest earner of overseas funds—and it has been in decline.

Let us look at another legacy of the Labour Government. What has it done in terms of the environmental front? It is interesting to note that over the last 9 years we have had a Green-supported Government. The Green Party has been a major supporter of the Labour-led Government over 9 years, yet on the environmental front we have had greater decline than we have ever seen in the history of New Zealand. It beggars belief that we could go through such a long period with a Green-influenced Government and go backwards environmentally.

I finish by saying that as a farmer and as someone from a rural electorate, it is engrained in us from birth—and it does not matter how many people disagree or how many times they say they do not believe this; it is a fact—that we should leave our land in better condition than when we found it. The only debate is about whether, scientifically, the argument that it is not in better condition can be backed up. I suggest that, particularly in the environmental debate, some of the science that has been used around what is happening in our agricultural sector is, at best, suspect, and, certainly, has been selected on a very selective basis.

I suggest that as we go forward in this debate it is incumbent on the new Government, or any Government, to make sure that all the science is considered and that that science is well founded, has peer review, and is backed up with the facts of the matter as opposed to the emotion that we have seen.

What we will see as we go forward with a new National Government is transparent fiscal leadership. We will see people who have experience in the areas that count in regard to the economy of New Zealand. We will see a number of people who have had leadership in a number of roles and will achieve the kinds of outcomes and the kinds of growth rates that will be absolutely essential if New Zealand is to be the prosperous nation that we all look forward to in the future.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): That is a bid for a ministerial portfolio, if ever I heard one. Not once did that member, who represents Taranaki-King Country, even talk about his own electorate. He is a constituent MP and not once did he mention the people or the communities in his electorate, so we know there are high-horizon hopes for that member. In fact, that member talked about some very virtuous things we are all considering, at a number of levels. But I would have thought that, as an electorate MP, Mr Ardern would speak about how those big ideals of this Government would actually benefit the people in his community: those farmers, those kids, and those mums and dads—he knows who I am talking about—in Stratford, Ōpunake, and New Plymouth. That is what they want to hear when they are listening to the vision of this Government—how it affects them when the rubber hits the road. The member knows that more than I do; I am sure he does. I have been out in those communities, in some of them alongside the member.

In Raglan, for example, he knows as well as I do that people want to know quite keenly the member’s views on the environment, and to tell him how this Government is not delivering on those particular needs. I was absolutely astounded when I heard that member speak, and not once mention how those many, ambitious aims of the Government would actually meet the needs of constituents in his Raglan community. At the meeting we both attended, at the top of the people’s list were environmental issues. And at the top of their list, in the event that Mr Ardern would represent them, was the issue of whether he would even be concerned about their concerns in the Raglan community. Do you know what? When the member was at that meeting—and I was there with him—he could not actually give a straight answer to that question. But, then, we should not be surprised, because from the time this Government took office it has totally ignored the environment.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I am pleased to speak in this Address in Reply debate, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. I acknowledge your appointment to the position of Assistant Speaker, and I certainly look forward to your balanced judgment in adjudicating and moderating the debates in this House. I join with other members in welcoming new MPs to this House, especially our group of new Labour MPs, whose talent, passion, and vision will continue to grow our team leading into the next election.

I am honoured to represent once again the people and communities of Hauraki-Waikato. Their trust has not been misplaced, and their determination to ensure that they get the very best opportunities from all that life has to offer will continue to provide me with great motivation. Unlike the Māori Party candidate who contested my electorate, I did not promise the world and deliver nothing, I did not say anything to get everything, and I certainly made it clear that when I called a spade a spade, that is all it was. I remember keenly the promises made during the campaign by Māori Party members to attract Māori voters: no GST on food, no tax for those earning under $23,000 a year, a $500 one-off payment for kaumātua and those on the benefit, the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the raising of the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and the entrenchment of the Māori seats.

Hon Ruth Dyson: They started that well, didn’t they?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: They certainly did, but not one of those promises has been made good in this Māori Party - ACT - National Government’s first 100 days in office. If those promises were such a priority for the Māori Party, then why have they not been implemented? It is simple: the policy agenda being advanced is a National-ACT agenda by another name. Where I come from, we call a spade a spade—and at least we know what we are dealing with. Even though the Māori Party took the trust of Māori voters and delivered it to National—no strings attached—expectations are very high about what this new arrangement can deliver, over and above those achievements already established by the previous Labour Government.

Labour has a proud track record of having increased the minimum wage over the 9-year period we were in office. Labour argued against the “90-day Fire at Will Bill” being put before the House, because we knew that the most vulnerable people in the workforce would be affected. Through the Hon Michael Cullen, Labour introduced tax cuts for low and modest income earners that made a real difference. The Treaty settlement process gained huge traction under the Rt Hon Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. The policies of lower doctors’ and prescription fees, and support for working families, continue to show great gains in electorates like mine.

But we cannot ignore the fact that the road ahead will be difficult. This Government, in its first 100 days, has shown what its priorities are. What has it done? It has passed legislation: to make tax cuts that hurt those on incomes under $25,000 a year; to penalise parents by charging them rather than working with them to keep their kids at school longer; to introduce the “90-day Fire at Will Bill”, which will see mixed results for young and vulnerable workers; and to get rid of funding for warm homes, a project that has contributed to community enterprises by employing local people to retrofit homes. National, in its first 100 days in office, has got rid of every single one of those things.

Hon Steve Chadwick: That mattered.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It mattered, all right; it mattered to many communities and families around the country. Government members should be ashamed of themselves.

More important, none of the promises that the Māori Party went into the election with have been delivered through its agreement with the National-led Government. People need to know that, they want to know that, and they are very concerned about it. The Government’s economic stimulus package needs to be delivered to those people who keep us accountable, and who keep us grounded back at home and in our communities. The messages from Hauraki-Waikato are that we should protect local jobs for local people, support low-income families, and give our kids a good start in early childhood education by keeping the 20 free hours for 3 and 4-year-olds.

I heard many presentations in this House before making my contribution today, and I, too, want to comment on the huge gains made as Labour has continued to advance the Treaty settlement programme. It was good to see tribes from Te Tau Ihu come here to Parliament to sign their agreement. More important, our continuing along that path will ensure that Māori will be able to build their own economic development opportunities and build the wealth of their tribes, not just economically, but socially as well.

I have heard Government contributions from the other side of the House that have said Labour did nothing to improve housing in our communities. Well, let me say that that is rubbish. The current Minister of Housing, the Hon Phil Heatley, should just go to the homes in Thomas Street, in Hamilton, Hauraki-Waikato, and look at the better housing provision that has been given to kaumātua.

Hon Ruth Dyson: He wouldn’t know where Hamilton was.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No, and he would not actually know about the amount of investment we have put into those communities, and into the people who matter most—our kaumātua. We have provided warm homes through the retrofitting programme, which actually created a lot of local employment. Let me tell the House that when we were in Government we modernised a great many State homes and we built many more State homes. But that member, the Minister of Housing, had the audacity to say that Labour did nothing—shame on him. There are families in those homes right now who know about the contribution and investment the Labour-led Government has made. We have built new homes, modernised existing homes, and retrofitted homes so that they can be warmer and the tenants’ kids healthier. The one project I am really pleased about is that we got rid of substandard homes in Fairfield, in the Hamilton East electorate. We got rid of them because we did not think that that was how many of our families should be living. But that member over there, the Minister of Housing, had the audacity to say that Labour did nothing—shame on him.

In this Address in Reply debate I have one message for the Government, insofar as it applies to Hauraki-Waikato: the Labour-led Government has supported a lot of good initiatives. We want that to continue. I urge this Government not to wind back the clock, or let those families and communities—who have made a good contribution by doing things for themselves—suffer. National members talk about raising the minimum wage by a meagre 9c; let us look at their track record over a long period of time. They have a lot to do and a lot to stand by.

More important, the other message I have is really for Māori Party members. If they want to make good on their many pre-election promises—certainly those made to the voters in my electorate—then they should stump up right here in this House and tell us which of their policies have been adopted. The Māori Party certainly was not consulted when it came to setting the minimum wage. Māori Party members can say they support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, but did they affect the decisions made around the Cabinet table? I say no, because we would have seen an effect on the thinking of the Minister of Labour, the Hon Kate Wilkinson. The minimum wage would have been looked at much more seriously than it has been. National members laud the great partnership they have with the Māori Party, but let us be very clear that expectations in the Māori electorates are very high. Why? The Māori Party’s pre-election promises clearly contradict those actions that have been delivered by National.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker; I congratulate you on your appointment.

On 8 November 2008 New Zealanders voted overwhelmingly for a change in Government. The results of the election were stunning—National’s share of the party vote, at almost 45 percent, was the highest it had achieved under MMP. I was not at all surprised. I fought the election in Mt Roskill, the home of Labour’s new leader, Phil Goff. On the ground in the lead-up to the election it was crystal clear that ordinary New Zealanders had had enough. They were well and truly ready to choose a brighter future; that was very evident. Phil Goff has been the MP for the Mt Roskill electorate for over two decades and had enjoyed a large party vote majority since MMP began. That changed on 8 November; the tide turned. The multicultural electorate of Mt Roskill, where there are over 100 ethnicities and a large migrant population, voted for change. Labour’s party vote plummeted, and after the special votes were counted our parties were neck and neck on 42 percent—a truly remarkable result for that electorate.

John Key did not waste any time forming a Government. National had 58 MPs, and within 2 weeks of the election he negotiated with the ACT Party, the Māori Party, and United Future to enable the formation of a National-led Government that commands the votes of 69 members of Parliament on confidence and supply. These agreements will form the basis of constructive and respectful working relationships that will enable this Government to govern in an effective, stable, and inclusive manner.

John Key will be a great Prime Minister; I have no doubt about that. He has integrity and a deep passion for making New Zealand a much better place to live, work, and bring up our children. His vision is based on prosperity, security, and equal opportunity for all. That is what drives him. He is tough and highly intelligent, and will be able to make the hard calls to get New Zealand out of the economic mess left by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen.

The fact is that after 9 years of the best economic conditions that New Zealand has had for decades, interest rates have doubled—well, they had doubled; they have now crashed—wages are low, and productivity has fallen. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have failed miserably to protect New Zealand from the rainy day that has now well and truly arrived. The Clark-Cullen legacy will become known as one of wasteful, low-quality spending, and of a “nanny State knows best” approach that dictated everything from how to spend one’s hard-earned cash and how to raise one’s children to how to have a shower.

It was clear to me over the course of the election campaign that the values the Mt Roskill people consider important are the principles that the National Party was founded on 70 years ago. National values honesty, fairness, hard work, respect for achievement, and integrity. The security, happiness, and welfare of our families are paramount. Our values are their values. In the 2008 election Helen Clark and Michael Cullen were desperate and pathetic. Their dirt-over-direction and fear-over-fact campaign said it all. They tried to use the fear that National would be selling State assets—wrong. John Key says he is all about building assets, not selling them. They insinuated that we would be cutting cheaper doctors’ visits and prescriptions—wrong. They said we would be increasing State house rents and cutting benefits—wrong again.

What we will do is strengthen the economy, increase after-tax incomes, and ensure New Zealanders can get ahead under their own steam by reducing personal taxes. We will confront failure in our school system by setting national standards in literacy and numeracy. We will extend 20 hours’ early childhood education to include playcentre and kōhanga reo. We will ensure Government spending is focused on front-line services such as health and education. National will make our communities safer by ensuring that the worst repeat offenders are not eligible for parole, and by increasing the number of front-line police. We will put more police on the streets, focusing particularly on South Auckland.

National is resolutely focused on the issues that affect all New Zealanders. The driving goal of the new National-led Government will be to grow the New Zealand economy in order to deliver greater prosperity, security, and opportunities to all New Zealanders. Going for growth will be vital, because it is only with economic growth that we can deliver high incomes, better living conditions, and, ultimately, a stronger society. A strong economy will guarantee financial security for families, well-paid jobs in New Zealand for our young people, and large superannuation payments for our older people. Underpinning our goal of economic growth is the principle of individual freedom and a belief in the capacity and right of individuals to shape and improve their own lives.

We face the most turbulent and difficult times. The financial crisis has been described as the worst since the 1930s Great Depression. That is why the Prime Minister moved quickly to protect small and medium-sized businesses—the backbone of our economy—with a relief package that includes a suite of 11 tax changes costing $480 million, an expansion to the export credit scheme, extended jurisdiction for the Disputes Tribunal, expansion of business advice services, and a prompt-payment requirement for all Government agencies. The relief package is aimed at urgently improving the business environment by reducing the impact of taxes on cash flows, improving access to credit, and reducing business compliance costs. Personal taxes will be further reduced from 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2011, which will mean that by April 2011 around 80 percent of New Zealand taxpayers will pay no more than 20c in tax for every dollar they earn. Tax cuts are an essential part of the Government’s plan. The National Government believes that New Zealanders need to have an incentive to get ahead under their own steam.

Also today Prime Minister John Key and the Minister for Infrastructure, Bill English, confirmed that almost $500 million worth of publicly funded building projects will be accelerated. These projects, which span the housing, transport, and education sectors and are spread widely around regions, have been fast tracked to contribute quickly to the Government’s economic stimulus programme. These projects will get under way quickly and will keep more New Zealanders working as the global economic crisis is felt here. They will employ New Zealanders and will create work for businesses, whether they are builders, plumbers, or electricians. The benefits will flow through to communities by helping keep suppliers, subcontractors, shopkeepers, and sales staff in business. About $100 million worth of fast-tracked projects will start before 30 June this year.

The $483 million of infrastructure spending brought forward under today’s announcements includes $216 million on education, including five new schools, school refurbishments, maintenance, and information and communications technology infrastructure improvements. It includes $142 million worth of spending on transport, spanning five large State highway projects and a programme of smaller regional roading improvement projects. It also includes $124 million worth of spending on housing, allowing the Housing New Zealand Corporation to upgrade and renovate 10,000 more State houses and to build 69 new State houses over the next 6 months.

Along with boosting infrastructure, we will be reforming the Resource Management Act, which is stifling growth and holding back development and job creation. The first stage of this reform will focus on improving the consent process and will include amendments to streamline and simplify the Act, including priority consenting for projects of national significance. The second stage of this reform will focus on improving decision making around infrastructure, water, and urban design.

National is serious about tackling the economy. We will maximise opportunities and do what we can to blunt the hard edges as the recession bites. My proudest moment was when John Key announced that Herceptin will be funded for 12 months, overriding the previous Government’s decision to fund it for only 9 weeks. I am proud of our decision; it was the right decision.

On 8 November last year New Zealanders put their faith and trust in John Key and the National Government. We will not let them down. Thank you.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to be back in Parliament, and to be on the Treasury benches in a John Key - led Government. From that point of view, coming back as the MP for Kaikōura, I am very pleased that we have a National-led Government. I intend to talk about educational achievements, 90-day employment agreements, tax cuts, amendments to the Resource Management Act, the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act, finding jobs and focusing on jobs, assisting small to medium sized enterprises, getting on with infrastructure, reviewing our stifled health system, celebrating the Kurahaupō signing of a heads of agreement with regard to the Treaty process, and celebrating the fact that we now have a Māori Party member holding the seat of Te Tai Tonga—the South Island.

There is a lot to talk about. But I would like to go back to probably 2 years ago, when John Key became the leader of the National Party and began to map out a positive future, a prosperous future, for New Zealand. It was from that time that John Key started to dictate the agenda of the political landscape, and it was at that particular time that those members opposite became totally irrelevant. They were more concerned about staying in power and retaining control of the Treasury benches rather than doing what was essential for the best outcome for New Zealand. The economic times we find ourselves in today were coming down the railway lines like a goods train. Unfortunately, the warnings were totally ignored and we are now in a very, very dire situation, courtesy of a very tired, lame Labour Government, whose members are now on the Opposition benches. In actual fact John Key smashed the shackles of envy and the policies of redistribution. As Prime Minister he has breathed a breath of fresh air into New Zealand politics, replacing the old, stale, out-of-ideas, controlling way of the previous Government.

I do not want to dwell too much on the past because we want to leave it there, but over Waitangi weekend we saw images of enthusiasm and aspiration at this year’s Waitangi celebrations, not only up in Waitangi itself but also down in Ōtorohanga and all around the place, and down in Marlborough at Ōmaka Marae, where we had over 200-odd visitors. That showed that New Zealanders are all focusing on what the future holds.

Let us go back to that list of things that have been occurring since the John Key - led Government took the Treasury benches. I must take my hat off to Cabinet for its hard work, its work ethic, and the way it has applied itself. While many New Zealanders were enjoying what was probably one of the warmer and sunnier summers, Cabinet was working overtime to ensure it had an agenda ready to roll out and to reinvigorate the agenda of the political landscape. Let us talk about education. It is wonderful, when we stop and think about it, that this Government is prepared to come to grips with the really hard issues of educational achievement, because regardless of what people say, unless they can read, write, and do maths to an adequate standard, they are not self-sufficient in today’s economy. It is very important that we come to grips with those challenging issues. We cannot walk away and accept a mediocre standard.

On the issue of the 90-day employment agreement without personal grievance, I say that I had the opportunity in Blenheim the other day to meet representatives of Workbridge. They try very hard to build up a portfolio of employers who will consider taking on people who would otherwise be considered a risk, and I was very pleased to see that the 90-day trial was being embraced wholeheartedly. In Blenheim and Marlborough there are more employers saying “Well, OK, I will give this person a trial. I will give them a go.” That is fantastic. If I was personally to see anyone abusing that provision, I would be down on them like a ton of bricks. There is a balance, and one of the wonderful things about this John Key - led Government is that it is striking that balance.

I will now talk about tax cuts. In my electorate we have a majority of small to medium sized enterprises, and OK, the previous Government did cut corporate tax. However, I make the point that in the Kaikōura electorate, the majority of enterprises are either partnerships or whatever; they are not incorporated. In that context, they did not get any benefits until Dr Michael Cullen was driven to it because John Key was driving the political agenda, and he knew that if he did not offer tax cuts coming up to the election that has just gone by, the Labour Government would be history. Within our electorate of Kaikōura we will benefit over the next 3 years from those tax reductions. That is incredibly important.

Another important aspect of the agenda of the John Key - led Government that will benefit the electorate of Kaikōura is the amendment of the Resource Management Act. It is an indictment on the previous administration that we got to the stage where it took longer to get the consent than to construct the infrastructure that one was asking to be consented.

I will touch for a few minutes on the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act. I think it was laudable that Phil Goff acknowledged, on becoming the Leader of the Opposition, that the Electoral Finance Act was flawed, and that it needed to have cross-Parliament agreement. Having said that, I can say that we are looking forward to the introduction of the appropriate bill to repeal that legislation. We can then clear the decks and build back the goodwill and clarity around electoral procedure. The Government of John Key is focused on jobs. It is focused on retaining jobs and training for jobs. The small to medium enterprise assistance package of some $500 million, largely around taxation and timing, will be greatly appreciated. Of course, people will argue about the detail of today’s infrastructure announcements. However, there will be action aplenty around housing, education, and roading.

I want to relate for one moment a visit to me as a constituent MP the other day by some very qualified health practitioners who work at Wairau Public Hospital. They made a very good point about how they were suffering from “managerialism”. I asked them to explain what this “managerialism” was all about. It was about the micro-management that is occurring within the district health boards, and it completely suffocates them. I want to put on record some of the facts they told me, which I have no reason to disbelieve. Wairau Public Hospital has two operating theatres and Nelson Hospital has six, yet 40 percent of the work is done in the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board area of Wairau. There is a very strong argument for a clinician-led hospital system, so I fully endorse Tony Ryall’s initiative around ensuring there is a full and complete review of the health system.

To finish, I say that it was very humbling to be invited by Kath Hēmi to accompany the Kurahaupō people at the signing today. It was a privilege, and I pay special tribute to Kath Hēmi, Richard Bradley, Raymond Smith, Carly Hemi, and Julie McDonald. It was fantastic. They are wonderful people, and what is good for Māori is good for Marlborough. I look forward to that settlement going forward. Finally, to wrap up, I welcome the Māori Party, and Rahui Katene.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): May I begin my contribution by congratulating John Key and the National Party on its election win and its support parties—the ACT Party, the Māori Party, and Peter Dunne—on their role in Government. I also give a warm welcome to all new MPs across the House. It is a wonderful privilege to be elected by our fellow New Zealanders to represent their interests in Parliament, to have the faith of the people in our ability to help make decisions to improve our country and make it a more prosperous, peaceful, and safe place for our fellow citizens, and to look after the wonderful environment that surrounds and sustains us and which, if protected, will sustain future generations.

I will divide my contribution into three parts. The first is to try to put on record the state of affairs that the Labour Government left New Zealand in, and to explode some of the myths that National is trying to write into history about the—in its view—difficult set of circumstances it has inherited. I will then touch on the international events that are upon the world, before returning to the issue of unemployment in New Zealand.

In its presentations in this debate, particularly those made by the Minister of Finance, the National Government has already tried to rewrite history. It has repeatedly stood on its feet and said the previous Labour-led Government left the affairs of this country in a poor state, when it is absolutely clear that the contrary is true. When the previous Government took power, gross Government debt stood at 38 percent of GDP. When we left power, it was at 20 percent of GDP—20 percent of GDP—the third-lowest level of Government debt in the developed world. The previous Government left the Government accounts in a very, very good fiscal position.

I contrast that with the calls for tax cuts heard not just from National members but also from the fourth estate. I have before me particularly strident editorials published by the New Zealand Herald and the Dominion Post during 2007, which stated that the Government should not have been running surpluses and reducing debt, but should have been paying that money back in tax cuts. That would have meant that the Government’s debt would be higher now. I think history already shows that the wise stewardship of Dr Cullen, Helen Clark, and the Labour-led Government was correct in running Government surpluses during a time of plenty so that Government debt could be reduced. The affairs of the State are now in very good order, amongst the best in the world. The incoming National Government has a lot of room to move compared with the state of affairs in other countries, and compared with what the position would have been had the previous Labour Government acceded to what were incorrect calls for inappropriate levels of tax cuts, which would have resulted in the present Government not being able to afford decent social provision during the recession we have now entered.

The second point that the National Government tries to suggest is that unemployment is somehow all Labour’s fault. The Labour Government reduced unemployment very successfully. In the last 2 years New Zealand has had, if not the lowest rate of unemployment in the developed world, then the second-lowest. We have flipped with South Korea between having the lowest and second-lowest unemployment rate. That is the standout performance of the previous Labour Government. People know that sharing employment is the way to share wealth, to share a meaningful place in society, and to reduce crime. Despite the fact that New Zealand has some problems with violent crime, there is no doubt that overall levels of crime have been reduced significantly along with the unemployment rate going down.

National would have us believe that it is on the side of the little fellow, that it has constructed its tax cuts for the benefit of the little fellow, when we already know that its tax cuts before Christmas came at the expense of low to middle income people in order to give more generous tax cuts to those who were already well off. That was proven by the veto put on the Table by the Minister of Finance, Bill English, showing that an amount of three-quarters of a billion dollars was coming out of those lower income groups to pay for tax cuts for those who are more well off.

I will now turn to international events. There is no doubt that the world is entering the most serious recession that I have seen in my lifetime. The effects on the world will be dire. In my opinion, the standout public policy challenge for the world in the next decade is how to deal with unemployment. We will see hugely rising unemployment rates around the world. Indeed, some estimates—and I think they are about right—are that unemployment in developed countries and in the industrialising, developing countries could rise by 6 percent or 7 percent above existing levels. A 6 percent or 7 percent rise in unemployment levels is unsustainable over the longer term for most countries, particularly countries that, unlike New Zealand, do not have low levels of Government debt already. The United Kingdom is already burdened with levels of debt close to 50 percent of GDP, rising unemployment, and a very, very difficult decade or two ahead of them.

Hon Member: What did they do wrong?

Hon DAVID PARKER: What they did wrong was that they did not bank surpluses in a time of plenty. They paid them all out in tax cuts, as National would have done, and they are in the cart now.

The real difficulty arising over the medium term for democracies in the Western World is that if they have high levels of unemployment for a prolonged period and already have high levels of Government debt and are running Budget deficits, then they will very quickly get into the position that Muldoon’s National Government left New Zealand in the 1980s, whereby Government debt spirals and interest compounds from year to year. It is a difficult position to get out of.

The sad reality is that at the end of this recession—and this recession will end eventually, but it will be some years before it ends internationally—the world will have a hangover of residual overcapacity in virtually everything. It will be in everything from finance—which we know has massive overcapacity because of the fictitious profits that were created in derivative transactions—to resource recovery in countries like Australia, to consumer goods production in China and everywhere else in the world, and to large manufactured items like trucks and cars all over the world. You name it, the world will have overcapacity in virtually everything at the end of this recession cycle. So the danger for the world is that we will come out of this recession cycle and will not have even a medium-term sharp rise in employment—that is, the world faces the prospect of prolonged high unemployment in a way that threatens the viability of a lot of democracies. This is very serious.

I come now to New Zealand. New Zealand’s position is not as dire as that of most other countries, partly because Labour left the Government’s finances in good shape.

Craig Foss: Oh!

Hon DAVID PARKER: No—that is undoubtedly true. It is also partly because of the mix of New Zealand’s exports. New Zealand’s exports remain primarily food-related. Although demand for cars might halve, demand for food will not. Prices might drop, but demand will not halve. Although New Zealand will be hit by this recession, we will not be as hard hit as other parts of the world.

I put all this on record because, against that background, New Zealand should be judging the performance of this National Government in terms of rises in unemployment very harshly, because New Zealand is better placed to weather this recession without having a large rise in unemployment than most countries are. It is interesting to note that some of the microeconomic decisions that have already been taken by this Government are already increasing unemployment instead of decreasing unemployment or increasing employment.

Shane Ardern: How do you work that out?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is already on record that the unnecessary demise of the biofuel legislation caused the demise of a number of small enterprises—small businesses, which members opposite say they stand for—and a loss of jobs. It is already on record that the unfortunate comments made by Mr Key that the Government would suspend the emissions trading scheme rather than just review details of it caused a loss of inward direct investment into the forestry industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and caused the loss of the carbon service industry. The abolition of the research and development tax credit in order to pay for bigger personal tax cuts for those who are already well off will have a deleterious effect on unemployment.

The latest infrastructure package does not have one significant infrastructure project south of Christchurch. [Interruption] This is news to National, but we pay tax in the lower half of the South Island, too. There is nothing in that package of any significance for the lower half of the South Island. Not only do National and the Māori Party insult the southern half of New Zealand by not sending a representative to the only official Waitangi celebration in the South Island but also they add to that insult the injury of not having our fair share of this infrastructure package. It is wrong.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I think that the member who has just resumed his seat is one of Labour’s associate spokespeople on finance. He may not be so for very much longer, after that little speech. I have to pick up on a couple of the points he made.

I think he said something about the previous Government having left the accounts in pretty good shape. If he was referring to the May 2008 Budget, yes, the numbers did look pretty good. But were they showing the full picture? We have talked about the pre-election fiscal update, where the numbers deteriorated somewhat. Is that what he was talking about when he talked about the accounts being in good shape? Or perhaps he was talking about the financial statements from towards the end of last year, in which the figures deteriorated even further. At that time the new Government had been in place for about a month and a half, I think. Yes, global conditions had deteriorated and impacted on New Zealand, but New Zealand had been in a recession for about a year prior to the rest of the world’s coming into recession. So most recent revelations about the Government accounts show that they are most certainly not in as good shape as the previous speaker tried to make us believe was the case.

In fact, New Zealand agrees with the National Party and this Government that the ownership of the current set of accounts, in terms of where they are and the decade of deficits inherent in them, actually fully and totally belongs with the previous administration. I am not referring to the May 2008 Budget but to the most recent set of accounts, which are actually a result of the policy that the previous administration followed for the previous 9 years. So the accounts that the National Government inherited were not in any way in good shape, at all. I will come back to that later in my speech, because the member did not talk about the Accident Compensation Corporation, the treatment of Housing New Zealand Corporation depreciation, or the nature fund being gouged from in order to buy a station in the South Island. That was about getting great public relations, but the full story was obviously not told nor revealed to the public.

The incoming Government peeled away at the accounts, looked at them line by line, put the borax on them, and tried desperately to find some of the lines to fund some of the announcements that the previous administration had made. Sadly, in many of the accounts we could not find one line, one budget, one department, one ministry, or one account for many of the previous Government’s announcements. The borax has gone on the accounts; it is still going on. In the next few months this Government will take full ownership of and inherit the accounts at that time. They have not been left by the previous administration in a very good state, at all.

Prior to the election the now Prime Minister, John Key, launched National’s 100-day plan. That plan covered a few facets—and I will come back to them. One was particularly around the economy and the tax cuts, which the previous speaker alluded to. Interestingly, many Labour members who spoke prior to me actually showed their true colours. Yes, we know that tax cuts were legislated for by the previous administration because it was about 15 points behind National in the polls, but in every single speech one could tell that the member was still speaking through gritted teeth about personal income tax rates. The Labour members were basically saying what a mistake it is for this Government to build upon what the Labour Government announced in the May 2008 Budget and continue to have an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts. So their true colours are showing, because the tax cuts that the Labour Government announced were actually built upon by this National Government. Either the Labour members are criticising themselves or I really do not know what they are saying.

I do now think Mr Cunliffe, the new finance spokesperson for the Opposition over there, truly understands the poisoned chalice he has been given by the previous Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, as he now has to try to explain his way through what was obviously a very dubious and somewhat adventurous explanation of the accounts towards the end of the last year. Perhaps what was said was according to the letter of law. But one might suggest that perhaps the spirit of the law and of the Public Finance Act, etc., was not followed. I am open to that, but we will watch with interest over the next few weeks to see what might be revealed. It will be quite disgraceful in New Zealand’s history if, in fact, it is shown that very solid platforms and foundations of our system, such as the Public Finance Act, have been breached. That would be very, very serious.

National’s 100-day action plan is well on the way towards being implemented now. I think 27 February is the end of those 100 days. Incidentally, I believe that 26 February may be the previous Prime Minister’s birthday. I am not sure about that; I think it is the case. If it is, then I say, in advance, happy birthday to Helen Clark on 26 February at the end of our 100 days. A key plank of the Prime Minister’s speech and of the 100-day plan was, of course, law and order. Law and order is a very, very serious issue. It seems to be a perennial issue, yes, but things seem to have got markedly worse and to have deteriorated over recent weeks, months, and years. Much of that perhaps is due to the leadership of—or a lack of leadership from—the previous administration. The bottom line is that law and order is a major issue and one of the biggest threats that face New Zealand.

One of the planks that National and our Prime Minister, Mr Key, announced is that we would be introducing legislation to clamp down on criminal gangs and their drug trade. I am very, very pleased that our Minister of Justice, Mr Simon Power, introduced the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill the other night, to follow through on that plan. That was also in the Prime Minister’s speech. Gangs are a major threat to 99.9 percent of us, and to our society, families, structure, and communities. They are an abhorrent threat. I will give members an example of that. Today in the Dominion Post and on the Stuff website was the headline “Gang raids in Lower Hutt”, then “Police have raided seven Lower Hutt properties today after reports of gang intimidation against a woman and her pre-school children.” What a disgrace that is!

Hon Judith Collins: Yes, and well done, the police.

CRAIG FOSS: Yes, I say “Good on the police.” I thank the member. It was well done by the police. The point is that this behaviour is going on and, sadly, now it is not a unique event; it is happening all the time, too often, and for too long. Too many people are being hurt and intimidated. It is now time to fight back. The legislation that the Minister of Justice introduced the other night is but one step in the direction of that fight back.

I will make a point of another reason why it is so urgent that the 100-day plan is followed through on. Recently, a good and decent Hawke’s Bay man, Mark Allan McCutcheon—also known as “Nippy”—was killed as he tried to intervene to stop a woman from being beaten. People would have recognised Mark anywhere in this country as a Hawke’s Bay man of the land. He could have been me or anyone’s husband, dad, or friend. His hair seemed permanently ruffled, and his shirt was never quite tucked in. He played hard and he worked hard. He was a true character, who volunteered and helped others. He loved his family. He had special cuddles for his girls and laughed as they ran along the beach. He went to the Magpies’ games and to his children’s school and sports events. Mark worked in the family business and paid taxes. He was 34 years old, a good husband, a good daddy to three lovely girls, a good son, a good brother, a good friend, and a good community man. He was killed, allegedly, by a person who was none of that. In fact, the person was probably quite the total opposite of good and decent.

I attended Mark McCutcheon’s funeral recently in Waipawa, where about—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Excuse me! Would the member just pause for a moment. This matter is currently before the court. The member should be very cautious about what he says, so that he does not appear to be interfering at all with the judicial process. I urge the member to be very cautious and circumspect.

CRAIG FOSS: Thank you for that guidance, Mr Assistant Speaker. I attended that funeral, and about 1,000 other good and decent Hawke’s Bay people were there to show their love and respect for Mark McCutcheon and his amazing family. I will do whatever I can to push back against those who laugh at our police and our society’s rules. I have had enough of the excuses; there should be no more of them.

Our Minister of Justice, Mr Power, has introduced legislation in Parliament that is a step in the direction of reclaiming our decent society. The time is long overdue for good and decent people—good and decent members of our community, as we all are here in the House—to say that enough is enough, and to begin to push back and reclaim our communities.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker; I congratulate you and the other people who have taken the chair on accession to those positions. I also compliment the previous speaker, Craig Foss, for his speech. Clearly, a lot of thought had gone into it.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Which bit?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think there were some substantial bits in it and the member made some important points. Frankly, I commiserate with him as he sits over there at question time looking at members answering from the Government’s ministerial benches: Steven Joyce and Kate Wilkinson today, and Paula Bennett yesterday. He must wonder why he is sitting there and they are sitting where they are. If Ministers’ positions were based on talent, he would certainly be on the ministerial benches.

Paul Quinn: At least he’s not over there.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I hear Paul Quinn and I say that I disagree with a couple of his colleagues and a number of mine who have sidled up to me and said that his was the worst maiden speech in the House. I thought Melissa Lee’s speech was pretty poor and I did not think much of the one from Amy Adams, either, so I do not agree.

But I must say to the member that the classic example of hypocrisy came right at the end of last year after Parliament had finished. Paul Quinn, a man who called for the abolition of the Māori seats, himself holds the Māori seat on the Rugby Union. It became clear at the end of last year that he had abandoned his job: for the first time in about a decade, I understand, the New Zealand Māori rugby team did not get a single game, much less a tour and involvement in the Pacific nations tournament. Yet it seems classic behaviour that that member can take the baubles of office. In fact, I think that last year, instead of campaigning, he went off to Canada with the New Zealand Māori rugby team as the Māori representative. Then he came back to New Zealand and said that Māori seats should be abolished. I cannot call him a hypocrite in the House because we are not allowed to, but I am sure a lot of people will and a lot of people outside the House will be thinking he is just that. Having had the perk of travel, when he came back did he go to the meetings and try to see that the New Zealand Māori rugby team could continue in that tournament? Did he turn up? Did he do his job? Did he fight for them? No, he did not.

Paul Quinn: How would you know?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is fair to say that when that member fights for something, we all know about it. In this particular case he did not.

That is enough on him. I gather that he has already made an application to become the candidate in Wellington Central in order to fight against my colleague Grant Robertson at the next election. After going around telling people he was going to win Hutt South, he hardly knocked any off the Labour majority out there, even though it was a really good year for National. In a year that with a decent candidate National could have probably taken the seat, Labour ended up with a majority of 4,000. He stood in Hutt South. It was meant to be a low year in Hutt South. He lined up Tau Henare to try to help him, but he did not make much progress, and now he says he wants to be the candidate for Wellington Central. To be fair, he was the rejected candidate for Wellington Central last time. What was the name of the joker who got the seat?

Hon Member: Frankie Stevens.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, Frankie Stevens is a good guy from Upper Hutt. I think Stephen Franks was the candidate; they chose Stephen Franks over Paul Quinn. I ask members if anything could be more embarrassing than that situation.

I congratulate Catherine Delahunty on coming into the House. Catherine is an old friend of mine. Catherine and I were in the same class at school. I think she is probably about the fifth person from Onslow College—

Hon Ruth Dyson: She looks a lot younger!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: She used to look a lot younger. There is no doubt that the relaxed lifestyle of the Coromandel, which she partook of for a period of time, meant that she aged slightly slower than some of us who were in Parliament at around the same time. I acknowledge that through her political career, which certainly started—from my memory—in secondary school, she has made a real contribution. She is someone who thinks about issues carefully. I do not always agree with her, and I sometimes think she could have given Helen Clark and others more credit for taking ministerial decisions on mining in the Coromandel. The fact that Catherine did a lot of work to convince people is certainly true, but in the end people took decisions: Judith Tizard, Fran Wilde, and—earlier on—Helen Clark took some decisions in that area. My only recommendation to Catherine is that every now and again she might like to give some credit to people who took the decisions and not only to those who worked hard on those particular issues.

Today was an interesting day because we had been led to believe that the rolling maul was going to score a try today. I tell members that today the rolling maul collapsed with very, very little result. As members know, I am very keen on rugby and I have taken part in a number of rolling mauls in the past. But generally in New Zealand Kiwis have not been very good at the rolling maul. Generally, they are not successful; far too often the ball is dropped out of the rolling maul. I know that whenever it looked like a rolling maul was starting Mr Tremain’s father would get the ball and start running for the try line rather than continue with a rolling maul. Far too often in rolling mauls people get offside, lose direction, go backwards, get pushed, and lose the ball, and that is the case with National.

We were told that there would be a pile of infrastructure announcements, and what did we have today? We had something really pathetic: some projects that were brought forward 3 months. That will change the world; that will create a pile of jobs! What a pile of rubbish. What a desperate Government, scraping the bottom of the barrel for announcements to try to look good! It is absolutely pathetic.

But towards the end of my speech I want to make a serious point. That is, that we need to—[Interruption] I dealt with Paul Quinn earlier; dealing with Paul Quinn could not be serious, because he is a joke. The point I want to make is that this announcement was the opportunity to talk about transforming the New Zealand economy. This was the opportunity to make a massive change towards quality jobs and real jobs. What did we get? We got a little bit of stimulus at the lower end of the job market. Did we get training? Did we get skills? Did we get capital investment? No, we did not. We got a Government determined to get our workers in competition with those in India and China. We got a Government determined to deskill the New Zealand economy and not transform it. We got a Government determined to have an economy that is sliding downwards internationally rather than taking what is now a massive opportunity to take a step up and have real wages, higher wages, higher skills, and bigger investment. Every decision that this Government has taken has gone in the opposite direction to what is needed. It is just not good enough. I think Bill English understands that; I know that John Key does not care.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): It gives me great pleasure to stand here and to speak in this Address in Reply debate.

It has become very clear over the last couple of months since the election that National has set some new hurdles for others in years down the track. We have set the agenda, I guess, in some new ways. First was the pace with which John Key managed to bring together a National Government. An expectation was driven through the media and driven by members opposite leading up to the election about how long it would take to form a Government. Calculations were made about blocs on the left and blocs on the right and how long it would take. What happened of course was that a Government was brought together very, very quickly.

It is important too, though, to stop and acknowledge those who are new to the House and to congratulate them on achieving the title of member of Parliament. It is interesting to note that there have been less members of Parliament in this country than there have been All Blacks.

Hon Member: Fewer.

CHESTER BORROWS: Sorry. I am prepared to take the member’s advice. There have been fewer members of Parliament than there have been All Blacks in this country. So it is a privilege to be able to sit in this House and take up the role of member of Parliament. I congratulate members who are new to the House and I congratulate those who have returned to the House. I certainly count it as a privilege to be able to be here in this House, and to have the opportunity to stand and make this speech.

In drawing together those members who make up the Government and the parties in support of the Government on confidence and supply, the Prime Minister, John Key, has done an interesting thing. Although it was not expected, he has extended a hand to the Māori Party. Of course, the previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark, named it the last cab off the rank. Having done that, she found it incredibly difficult to forge an alliance with the Māori Party and to gain that party’s confidence during her administration. In taking this step, John Key has done something different. It was not something that was forced upon him; it was done out of a sense of the moment and with an eye to the future, and in order to create for Māori an enduring relationship. The relationship will, no doubt, endure for many, many years to come. The Māori Party has the opportunity now to do something that the Christian Democrats have done in Germany, and that is to be part of every Government pretty much since the war, regardless of which party is the lead party in Government.

National is enjoying the best of times at the moment, on the right of politics. It happens to be the biggest party in Parliament at the moment, and therefore it gets to form the Government. Some time, a long way down the track, many, many terms from now, National will get the boot, because that is the nature of New Zealand politics. But John Key has cast down the gauntlet in front of the Labour Party. If the Labour Party ever is in the position of trying to form a Government, at some time way off in the future, and if it is unable to form a coalition with the Māori Party or obtain that party’s support on confidence and supply, Labour will be seen as a failure. I am sure that the Labour Party understands that and respects it. That really has been the nub of the concessions made in speeches from members on the other side of the House. I am sure that many members opposite are sitting there, wondering why they dealt so harshly with the Māori Party in its early, formative months and years, because it certainly set them up for failure this election and it may well be that they continue to feel that sense of failure for a long time to come.

During the last election campaign John Key engaged with people, and we have found as we have wandered around our electorates that that has been endorsed time and time again. A real expectation of success has been created. I have to give some credit to the Labour Party too, because as it has returned in this term it has very much kept up the pace. Yes, John Key and the National Government hit the ground running, created a great deal of expectation, set about embarking on a 100-day plan, and certainly turned some heads amongst everyday New Zealanders. But it has been interesting to note that the Labour Party has been here, with its front-benchers sitting in the House, when they certainly were not here this time last year. They have a new broom at the sharp end of their party and their movement, so they will have to keep up the pace. It will be very interesting to see how they do that when we hit winter and they realise that they are going to be there for a long time to come.

The National Party has set out on its 100-day plan and put its vision in front of the country. The driving goal of the new Government is to grow the New Zealand economy in order to deliver greater prosperity, security, and opportunities for all New Zealanders, and New Zealanders have a hold on that goal. It is very interesting to pick up the little snippets that come through the media as they look at us approaching the 27th of this month and reaching that 100-day mark. We see in the media how the New Zealand public is responding to a new National Government, and, whether members opposite like it or not, it has been positive. We are enjoying the warmth of that feeling at the moment. But also the Government knows that only a strong economy will guarantee financial security for families, well-paid jobs in New Zealand for young people, and larger superannuation payments for our older people—and they deserve it, because they have done the hard yards.

What is unfortunate as we notice that we are now going into a cycle of recession and hard times is that we all know that we have been here before. Whether we like it or not, when times get tight New Zealanders like to have conservative parties running the cheque book. As times ease up, they will start to think they want money thrown around with a lot more gay abandon as has been done in the past by members opposite. But also both sides of the House have talked about what we were left with. The Hon David Parker made the point that at the end of the Labour Government’s term, Labour handed over a New Zealand economy that was relatively strong. What he did not talk about was the holes that were there. What he did not talk about was the missed opportunities. When the National Government went out of office at the end of the 1990s it had had some very tough times, particularly in respect of droughts and the Asian economic crisis, which knocked it around. But we accept that the 1990s were tough times, and the whole of New Zealand did it quite hard, and we had to respond to what we had been left with when we came into Government in 1990. We found that at the end of our term we were growing the New Zealand jobs market by about 500 jobs a week. That is what the figures showed, and that is what we left to the Labour Party when it came into office. Yes, the trend carried on and Labour grew those numbers, but it had those growing seasons. It had high commodity prices and it had a relatively low dollar for a long time.

But when Labour left office this time it told us that we were about $13 billion in the poo. What we found, from the Pre-election Fiscal Update, was that it was not $13 billion; it was actually $31 billion. In the first 2 months that the National Party has been in Government the deficit has been revised and revised and it has grown by a billion dollars each month. That is the legacy that the previous Government left us with.

My real concern is that when New Zealanders look back, all they will remember is the worldwide recession. They will not remember that Labour was a poor steward of the New Zealand economy, given the wonderful economic times that it had to play with. The money was squandered, the money was not returned to average New Zealanders in the form of tax cuts so that they could keep more of their own dough, and now things will be very, very tight for a long time. The bitter pill for National will be that New Zealanders will probably not remember whose fault it was. It is just like the way they never remember the 1980s; they talk only about the 1990s and the difficult times that we all had as a result of the position that the Labour Government left us in in 1990.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this very important Address in Reply debate. I must say I was most inspired this afternoon when I heard the Hon Tariana Turia acknowledging the courage of the new National Government. I emphasise that it was an inspiring delivery from her. She said there was considerable courage from the new National Government in its agreement with the Māori Party.

Of course, elements of that agreement have surprised quite a few people, but they have caused a wave of approval up and down the country. They include the agreement regarding the status of the Māori seats. The National Government will not seek to remove the Māori seats without the consent of the Māori people and, accordingly, the Māori Party. National will not be pursuing the entrenchment of the Māori seats in the current parliamentary term.

It is also clearly stated in the agreement that the National Party recognises the concerns of the Māori Party relating to the current foreshore and seabed legislation. Concurrently, the Māori Party recognises the public interest and concern of all New Zealanders to ensure that the usage of the foreshore and seabed is protected. As we all know, some fairly mischievous newspaper items appeared during the recess, and it has been made absolutely clear by the Attorney-General that they had no substance whatsoever.

It was very pleasing and, as I said, inspiring to hear that speech from the Hon Tariana Turia this afternoon.

The feedback I have had up and down the country from the Waikato, the East Coast, and down in the South Island has all been extremely positive. In fact, a few weeks ago we had the honour and privilege of the Maori Battalion Association visiting Pukekohe. Over a beer or two afterwards I was deeply impressed with the feedback I got from members of the association and from some of the old warriors themselves. They felt that there is a new wave of leadership in the country, through John Key, that is very much a uniting force in this country—and a very positive one.

I must say that during the recess I read a wonderful book about Nelson Mandela and about how he used rugby to forge national unity during those very pivotal days of the early 1990s. It describes him on one occasion dropping in by helicopter to a training run of the Springboks. He shook them all by the hand and announced to them that he would be providing them with a singing tutor for the new national anthem. Of course, the Afrikaners had their traditional anthem, which they were fiercely proud of, and were very much against the idea of a new anthem. On the other hand, the Boer dynasty, or legacy, was anathema to the African National Congress. Mandela brilliantly—and with tremendous background work—created that unity whereby on the day of the World Cup he came out in the number six shirt and both anthems were sung.

In many respects, we have an analogy here in modern-day New Zealand, with John Key announcing that he is prepared to fly the Māori flag over the Auckland Harbour Bridge and throughout New Zealand on our national day. I must say that I have heard waves of approval throughout New Zealand regarding that.

Hon Steve Chadwick: This is terrible!

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Those members over the other side might scoff, but, by God, they never did it. Certainly, it is one of the great leaps forward.

I also heard a most uninspiring speech from Labour’s finance spokesperson, the Hon David Cunliffe. He is one of the pretenders to Goff’s crown. The competition is between him and the Hon Shane Jones. We do not know which one it will be and we do not know when it will happen, but it will happen before too long.

One of the extraordinary things about David Cunliffe’s speech was his claming that New Zealand needs an integrated, comprehensive plan to face the economic crisis. That certainly was a bit rich coming from David Cunliffe, from a fellow who could not even recognise that the National Party had outlined very clearly before the election a clear, integrated plan, which was reiterated during the Speech from the Throne. In the succeeding 84 days it has been rolled out day after day in a methodical fashion.

It was a bit rich coming from a finance spokesperson whose party presided over a legacy that meant no gain in productivity in New Zealand over 9 years. His is a party that left New Zealand with a legacy of deficits for 10 years projected out to the future, and a Labour Government that forgot to mention $2 billion—or was it $2.3 billion?—that was just not quite there in the employers’ account of the Accident Compensation Corporation. It was a Labour Government that presided over an unparalleled growth of bureaucracy from 26,000 to 39,000 people, not to mention a Government that introduced the most anti-democratic legislation in New Zealand’s history. That has to go, and it will go.

Today I was looking at a report from the Auditor-General on one of Labour’s so-called flagship policies, the primary healthcare strategy, whereby $3.2 billion has been expended between 2002-03 and 2007-08. That is $3.2 billion. It is a huge amount of money, and the report from Kevin Brady will make very interesting reading. He was deeply concerned about how poorly monitored the expenditure of that money was and how poorly monitored the outcomes were.

I think it is important to now spend a little bit of time on the Speech from the Throne, which outlined a wonderful new breath of fresh air for New Zealand. After all, it was in that speech that the point was made that on the very day it was given to the House, the Government would be tabling a bill to reduce personal taxes from 1 April 2009, which actually happened on that very same day.

Since then, we have seen legislation rolled out to help our economy and to ensure that we have a far better system through amending the Resource Management Act. My word! That legislation has been long overdue. It has been holding up business development right throughout this country in so many ways. The Mayor of Franklin rang me today to point out that a particular project that has been held up for 3 years will be held up for even longer because of Labour’s legacy of bureaucracy through the Act. There is no doubt that it is long overdue that we streamline and simplify the Act. The Hon Nick Smith has put in some excellent propositions to ensure that that happens.

Before Christmas we announced the restart package to help those New Zealanders who are worst hit by redundancy. And it goes on and on. Today we announced the infrastructure package and we have also spoken on how to reduce crime. The news under the National Government is very good.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I rise to oppose the motion before the House, which was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Phil Goff. Along with Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, he committed political suicide last year and they are now living to regret their achievement. Helen is about to desert the ship before the end of the year, and she wants to go off to “bureaucracy central” at the United Nations. We wish her well in that task. Michael Cullen can be expected to leave fairly soon after that, which will leave Mr Goff—the media addict glued to the television screens searching for his latest appearance—starting to feel a bit isolated. I heard two very good speeches in the House this afternoon. They were erudite, perceptive, and from people who are well able to replace Mr Goff without much difficulty at all. I am talking about Mr Jones and Mr Cunliffe. Clearly, they have Phil Goff in their sights. My prediction is that Phil Goff will not be the leader of the Labour Opposition in 3 years’ time, for the next election.

We have to ask ourselves why the Labour Government headed by Helen Clark was rolled. It was rolled because despite many assertions by Helen Clark that we would be within the top 10 places of the OECD within her 9-year reign, we did not move at all. We did not move at all because many of the organisations that she presided over, directly or indirectly—and I think here of the Canterbury Regional Council headed by her good friend Sir Kerry Burke—have not behaved with integrity. For example, the regional council in Canterbury owned a company that last year defaulted on $3.6 million owed to companies, including one owned by my constituents. The Canterbury Regional Council has decided that it is not wearing a part of the loss. It is not alone, because under the stewardship of the Labour Government, AgriQuality invested $1 million in the company last year, and within 2 months sold those shares for $1.

On behalf of my constituents I say publicly here tonight to Sir Kerry Burke: “Be fair, be honourable, and meet your obligations, because unlike dealing with the private sector where you can extract personal guarantees from people, you cannot do this when you are dealing with Government agencies and with local bodies.” I think that part of the reason the Labour Government committed political suicide was the way in which it ran its businesses, and the community saw the lack of integrity displayed by those people.

In contrast, John Key and his Ministers and this National Government have a vision to steer this country through the very difficult times created by the Labour Government, which ignored the benefits of 9 years of strong export prices and squandered them. In contrast, the driving goal of this Government will be to grow the New Zealand economy, and, as Roger Douglas said in the House this afternoon, grow our productivity. The only way to deliver greater prosperity, security, and opportunities to all New Zealanders will be to grow our productivity.

We cannot stop the recession but we can blunt its sharp edges. Only a strong economy will guarantee financial security to the people in my electorate. Only prosperity and security for all New Zealanders will guarantee financial security. We should not be too negative. In my electorate, yes, there is a slow increase in unemployment, but at least 95 percent of those who want to work are still in work. If we think about individual circumstances, everybody has had one tax cut and New Zealanders are about to get another one next April. In contrast, Labour members were fair-weather economic managers. They had no ideas about how to get this country moving forward. They tied us all up in red tape and they constrained all sorts of economic activity, initiative, and productivity increases. In contrast, the National Government has a jobs and growth plan. It is about keeping the economy running as strongly as possible, easing the sharpest impacts of the recession, and preparing our economy for future growth.

Labour lost the election because it had no serious plan to secure rising incomes. It coasted on the back of strong export prices and it utterly failed to lay any foundation for reducing the gap between living standards on this side of the Tasman and across in Australia. Clark failed to mention—failed to understand—the importance of increasing productivity. The infrastructural programme that was released by the Government today will give our economy a $500 million boost. About $100 million worth of those fast-track projects will start before 30 June this year, including, I am pleased to inform my electorate, sorting out Muldoon’s Corner on the Rimutaka hill.

Education will also benefit from $216 million of spending. But before I talk about education I would like to come back and talk about Muldoon’s Corner. When I was elected to this Parliament as the member for Wairarapa back in 2005, the first meeting I attended was a meeting of the Hill Road Committee. It involved Georgina Beyer, who was then a list member of Parliament, and the local mayors and the Ministry of Transport. At that meeting we were told by Transit New Zealand, actually, by Mr Taylor, the regional manager: “We can’t give you a 70 kilometre per hour road over the hill, but if you accept one at 55 we can do that. We can get it under way this year”—I am talking 2005—“and we can do it out of our existing budget.” There was no need to get any extra money. Three and a half years later, nothing has happened on Muldoon’s Corner.

This Government will make a difference; it will begin very shortly. The package of business assistance last week to small and medium sized enterprises of about $480 million will be of significant value to many of the small businesses in my electorate. I have been talking to people up and down the electorate and they say that these are really good practical measures that can help their businesses.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: One end of Carterton to the other.

JOHN HAYES: I say to Mr Cullen that what is more important—and it is something you failed to do during your 9 years in power—was dealing to the Resource Management Act. Yes, you were the Minister of Finance who presided over arrangements—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

JOHN HAYES: I am sorry, Dr Cullen was the Minister—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has mentioned the word “you” many times. He cannot use the word “you”; that brings the Speaker into the debate.

JOHN HAYES: I was referring to a female sheep, Mr Deputy Speaker. Dr Cullen was the Minister who presided over arrangements under the Resource Management Act that required one of my constituents to pay $900 for a resource consent to build a chook house for five chooks. That is the ridiculous nature of that Act, which was not reformed by the Labour Government. That is why the community removed it. We also need to undertake a comprehensive review to improve our front-line health expenditure. Far too many people in my electorate are not getting the health treatment that they need. I strongly commend the work being done by Tony Ryall in focusing—

Hon Pete Hodgson: Who built a new hospital in the Wairarapa?

JOHN HAYES: Yes, that is dead right, but there are not enough operations there, or doctors or nurses, to deliver decent services to my community. I am very supportive of the work being done by Tony Ryall.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I have already congratulated you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker, but seeing as you are doing such a good job I feel the need to congratulate you again, and, of course, the Speaker, Dr Lockwood Smith, and the Assistant Speakers.

Before I start out I feel that I really need to remark on the comment made by Dr Paul Hutchison that John Key’s achievements are like those of Nelson Mandela. I think that is an extraordinary statement to be making in this House. First of all, we heard that John Key was just like Barack Obama; now he is like Nelson Mandela. Where will it end? Gandhi is my next pick; John Key’s achievements are like Gandhi’s. What an extraordinary statement to make.

Hon Member: Jesus?

MOANA MACKEY: Then Jesus, perhaps, as my colleague down the front says. Who knows?

I also want to congratulate my friend and colleague Catherine Delahunty on her maiden speech tonight. I have worked with Catherine for many years in Gisborne. We have done many election campaigns together, and it is great to finally have her here. She was always the one who just missed out on the night. I am very pleased to see Catherine here, and I am sure she will do good work.

We are at about day 90 of the 100 days of action—apparently. But if we calculate it based on working days, we are actually at about day 5. I think we are in serious danger of not reaching 100 days of action in this term of Parliament. Colin King said that Cabinet worked overtime during the summer break. I say that if that is working overtime, God help us if Cabinet ever takes a holiday.

What was clear to those of us who were watching what was going on in the United States at the time was that every other country in the world is progressing at a rate of knots. I talked to some of my friends in the United States and they said the hope they get from President Barack Obama is not because of his rhetoric, and not because he gives great speeches. It is because he is doing things, and he is doing them quickly and transparently at a time when we need to see that our Government is doing things, and this was before he had even been sworn in as President. This came from a friend who is not a Democrat, but who is a registered Republican. I could not but help compare that with what we are seeing here in New Zealand.

We have seen the Australian Government on its second stimulus package, and the United Kingdom Government on its second stimulus package. But what do we have here in New Zealand? It is a rolling maul. We know what that means; it means that we want it to fit in with the news cycle. We want to get as much media coverage for what we do, and we do not care if we are not actually doing what is right for the economy. We just want to make sure that what happens is good for the National Party, not good for the New Zealand people. I think that is a shameful position to take, if we look at what the Secretary of the US Treasury said: “Given the scale of the economic crisis, the policy response has to be comprehensive and forceful. There is more risk and greater cost in gradualism than in aggressive action.” What are we seeing in New Zealand? It is gradualism. What are we seeing in every other country in the world? It is decisive action. I think for that reason we should say we have no confidence in this Government within the first 100 days since the election.

Let us be clear that despite the spin from the other side of the House—the spin from the Government—we left the country in a very good financial position to weather this economic crisis. That is not what we said; Fitch Ratings said: “The long-standing record of fiscal prudence, marked by reductions in general government debt and net public external debt, will leave us well-placed to weather the economic downturn.” This is not the Labour Party talking; this is from economic commentators, and if they had said that about the National Party it would be forced down our throats every 2 seconds because it would be proud of it. And this country should be proud of what the previous Government did. We should be able to say that it did a good job, rather than throw our hands up in horror at the prospect that National might have to give the credit to someone else other than itself, whilst it goes about its public relations strategy of drip-feeding policy to make sure it gets the maximum benefit while our economy is in danger of disintegrating. People are losing their jobs, and our Government is sitting on its hands.

Of course, National backbenchers are desperate to believe that spin. I watched them during the first few weeks of urgency sittings, and I saw the looks on their faces, as if to say “What are we doing? Are we really doing this? Can it be true?”. They are desperate to believe the spin that is coming out from their caucus. Of course, all we have seen so far is Prime Minister John Key largely re-announcing existing Labour policy. So far we are meant to believe the huge infrastructure policy that was released today, which brings forward some projects by a few months—

Hon Darren Hughes: 3 months!

MOANA MACKEY: —as if projects that were already in the pipeline will save us. These projects were earmarked last year during the Budget, and Labour—going into the election—said it would have another Budget before Christmas because things had changed so much. The National Government’s response to that has been to move up a few infrastructure projects by a few months. National says this will create 2,000 jobs. That will be great, but we have lost 10,000 jobs while this Government has been sitting on its hands, and it is telling us there are more job losses to come. The Government will not put any bills on the Table of this House so that we can see them before they are debated, and likewise it does not think it has any requirement to tell the people of New Zealand who are really worried about losing their jobs what it wants to do, because that does not fit in with its media public relations strategy.

The first 100 days that we have seen so far have not only been slow, they have been worrying and shameful. An announcement has been made that the minimum wage is, effectively, to increase by only 9c an hour. I want to pick up on something that happened in question time today, concerning the Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, which I thought was rather disappointing. He was asked by my colleague Parekura Horomia whether he agreed with the factual statement that National lifted the minimum wage by only 86c in the 9 years it was in Government in the 1990s, and Labour lifted it every year in the 9 years it was in Government. Mr Pita Sharples said no. Well, either he does not know, which is very worrying for a Minister of Māori Affairs because he should know, or he just thought it was funny to have a bit of a laugh with his National Party mates while the poorest workers out there are getting increases of only 9c an hour. I think that is disgraceful, as my colleague has said.

I had a ride in a taxi the other day. The taxi driver told me that she owned the taxi company—it was a small business—but she questioned whether the Government understood that minimum wage workers were also its customers. These people do not own cars, and they will often get a taxi home from work. Jacqui Dean thinks it is funny. Of course she would, because that is how the National Party treats low-income workers. Does she not realise that the buying power of low and middle-income workers is incredibly important to small businesses? We can have provisional tax breaks, which are great, but if no one is buying their services it does not matter. We need to make sure that those companies are able to get the products.

Jacqui Dean: So bitter!

MOANA MACKEY: Ms Jacqui Dean says I am bitter. Does she know why I am bitter? It is because in the last 2 weeks before Christmas that member’s Government raised taxes on the poorest families in this country in order to give tax cuts to the richest people in this country. Am I bitter about that, I say to Jacqui Dean? Yes, I am because it is the wrong thing to do for our families, it is the wrong thing to do morally, and it is the wrong thing to do economically. Ms Jacqui Dean might think it is funny, but as my colleague Chris Hipkins said, the only mauling that is going on here is the mauling of poor families, the mauling of low-income workers, and the mauling of our economy as we go into very, very difficult times.

What else happened? In the 2 weeks before Christmas this Government raised taxes on our most innovative companies, the ones that we would think we would rely on to pull us through this crisis. The National Government raised taxes on low and middle-income families to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people. It raised taxes on our most innovative companies. It repealed every major piece of environmental legislation that has been put through. It repealed the biofuels legislation—and that cost jobs. A plant was closed because of the repeal of that legislation. The Government has stalled the emissions trading scheme, which has cost jobs and the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in this country—the forestry industry has told us that. It scrapped the $1 billion Healthy Homes fund, which has cost jobs, and it will cost money in terms of health and education for the families who are living in those homes.

The Government is lumbering our schools with extra compliance through legislation that did nothing but say that the people of New Zealand now have no right to challenge the Minister of Education on what she does when it comes to literacy and numeracy. I want to read a little bit out of another column written by the Ōpōtiki College principal whom I quoted before the election—he has done another blog: “I accept the National Party is now in Government and has the right to introduce policies. However, I would have expected that such a major policy would have been debated through the select committee process. The result is that schools from primary to secondary are having imposed on them a programme of regular testing against targets, without any consultation with schools. I would like to know how the research supports this.” The United States introduced such a programme several years ago called No Child Left Behind.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this Address in Reply debate. I will start with a taxi story because the topic was raised by my colleague Moana Mackey who, despite the speech she just gave, I think is quite a good parliamentarian. I have enjoyed working with her in the past and it is a shame that her speech was so bitter. But that is beside the point.

When I ride in taxis—as I do these days—and swipe my parliamentary card, taxi drivers often ask whether I am a parliamentarian. When they ask me which party I represent and I reply: “National”, they say: “Well, thank God.” That is what they say. Taxi drivers are relieved that, finally, we have a Government that is focused on what matters. I am proud to have come from a local government background, and one of the first and most important lessons I learnt there—and that I hope I have taken into my parliamentary career—is that we attack the issues. The lowest form of debate is to attack people, and I regret that that has been a feature of the contributions from the Opposition members so far in this debate.

On 8 November last year, New Zealanders voted overwhelmingly for change. New Zealanders chose to vote for a change of Government; they chose to vote for National and for what National stands for. National leader, John Key, on becoming Prime Minister, took only 2 weeks to negotiate a coalition that will be strong, respectful, and enduring. It is a coalition with the ACT Party, the Māori Party, and United Future. Together we have formed a Government that is looking forward and is focusing on what matters to New Zealand. It is focusing on growing our way out of the economic legacy we have been left with by the fair-weather Labour Government, which enjoyed 9 years of very favourable economic conditions and which, as has occurred several times in our political history, has left the incoming National Government to pick up the pieces.

Well, I have news for the Labour Opposition: we are here, we are ready, and we have a plan. I am the proud MP for the new electorate of Waitaki, which seems to take up a great deal of the lower half of the South Island. When I think about what this National Government is focusing on—[Interruption] I am asked what my majority was. My majority was just over 11,000. I worked hard to represent the people. [Interruption] Whom did I beat? Former Cabinet Minister David Parker stood against me. I am proud to be the member for Waitaki.

So what are we going to do? What do “Waitakians”—those people who live between Roxburgh in the south and Rangitata in the north—want? We want good education. Let me tell members how Labour did things. Let me take, for example, the growing community of Wānaka, which worked diligently and hard to get themselves a new primary school—in fact, they probably need two. They worked for a number of years, jumped through every hoop, and had endless negotiations with the Ministry of Education, but all to no avail. No work was being done. I tried to intervene, but as an Opposition member at the time I had no luck. Lo and behold, 10 days before the election, what happened? Mr Parker made one of his rare visits to Wānaka and announced that a new Wānaka school would go ahead. [Interruption] Ms Ruth Dyson just made a charge of pork-barrel politics-she has to ask herself, does she not?

If members want to talk about infrastructure projects for the South Island, I can say that our Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, has already announced that a new primary school will be built in Arrowtown. Speaking more widely about other education initiatives, I can say that across the country five new schools will be built. We are working at a much faster pace and making a far greater commitment to the children of New Zealand than ever occurred in the 9 years of the Labour Government. Which are the new schools? They are Mt Wellington Primary School, Papamoa East Primary School, Kerikeri Waipapa School, Hingaia Primary School, and Papamoa Secondary School. Those communities will be so thrilled for their children, after 9 years of lobbying the Ministry of Education under the previous Labour-led Government. The National Government is actually going to deliver on its promises.

What else do “Waitakians” want? They want to do business. Most of my constituents who are in business are in small business. They have been continually frustrated by the red tape that seems to proliferate under the Labour-led Government. What has National done? We have introduced a $480 million package that will provide small and medium businesses with a helping hand on their taxation issues and regulatory matters. There is cheering up and down the Waitaki electorate and up and down the Clutha River, where a number of small-business people in the fruitgrowing industry are particularly burdened by red tape. We can practically hear the cheering from here.

What will we do about the Resource Management Act? Some of the most common complaints I hear in my office, apart from those relating to health and education, are about the effect the Resource Management Act has had on any kind of development, especially in areas of high growth such as Wānaka and the Wakatipu Basin. National knows that fixing the Resource Management Act is crucial to future growth and to enhancing our environment. Last week, National announced the first phase of reforms to simplify the Resource Management Act. I can hear the cheering up and down the Waitaki, coming from business people large and small, from developers, and from farmers who want to put in a shearing-shed and have to pay thousands of dollars to their local authority. I can even hear cheering from the local authorities themselves, because they too are crying out for reform of the Resource Management Act.

The Resource Management Act will be referred to a select committee, and my office has already received three submissions from people who wish to have their say on the reforms. That is yet more good news delivered by the National Government. My people want decent health care.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: My people?

JACQUI DEAN: The people whom I represent—I say to Dr Cullen that I am a constituency MP and represent a number of people, unlike his good self. I represent the people in my electorate; I am very proud to be the MP for Waitaki. Those people come to me because they cannot get health care. The Otago District Health Board missed out on providing almost $12.1 million worth of hip operations, eye operations, ear operations, and knee replacements, and the previous Minister of Health did nothing about that. The new Minister, Tony Ryall, is calling for accountability, and it is about time, too.

What else is the National Government delivering that the people of my electorate want? My people want to feel safe in their homes. My people—[Interruption] Yes, I am so proud to be the member for Waitaki. The people whom I represent want to feel safe in their homes, and National’s law and order policy will deliver on that, unlike the policy of the Labour-led Government, which fiddled around the edges.

NICKY WAGNER (National): Last November, it is true, the public voted for National. They voted for a new, fresh approach to government. They voted for a safer country. They voted for more stimuli to control the economic situation that is affecting the world.

Since November we have been very busy. We have been busy passing law and order legislation and developing an economic stimulus package that will blunt the effects of the world economic downturn. Last week we introduced the small-business stimulus package, which will help New Zealanders to survive that global meltdown and will support the small businesses that deliver such value to our economy. And today we introduced a further economic stimulus package that fast tracked spending on schools and investment in State houses and roading infrastructure.

The people of Christchurch are absolutely delighted that National is fast tracking the Christchurch southern motorway. It has been a long, long wait for that motorway. The people of Christchurch are also delighted that three of our schools will be upgraded, as will many of our State houses. National is determined that we will be focusing on the things that matter most for New Zealanders.

But on a smaller scale, one of the things that matter most to Christchurch people—and, indeed, to people across the country—is to deal quickly and efficiently with the boy-racer problem that is so endemic in New Zealand. It is a multifaceted problem. It has three major elements: the noise, the speed and dangerous driving, and the unlawful assembly and criminally driven pack behaviour. All three issues have to be dealt with specifically and effectively.

Let us take noise first. Noise underpins the whole street hoon culture. Noise is the boy racer’s badge of honour. It is the noise that excites, it is the noise that intimidates, it is the noise that disrupts families and businesses night after night after night, and it is the noise that is giving Christchurch such a bad name both locally and internationally. Those huge, chrome-plated exhaust systems are just “look at me” devices. They serve no purpose except to advertise the presence of street hoons, and to intimidate and disrupt the lives of ordinary citizens.

New Zealand’s noise legislation is out of date and out of sync with the rest of the world, and the recent changes made under Labour have only made it worse. Do members know that any car that has been in New Zealand since before June last year now no longer needs to have an exhaust system that reduces engine noise or even controls the noise level so that it is less than or similar that of to the original exhaust system? Now, thanks to Labour, a boy racer or a girl racer can, as of right, add a chrome-plated monster tailpipe to any car and quite legally increase the noise level up to 95 decibels. I would just like to inform the House what 95 decibels sounds like. It is the level of noise that we cringe from when we are standing half a metre away from a four-stroke motor mower operating at full speed. Can members imagine that? A four-stroke motor mower at full speed half a metre away is 95 decibels. And now, thanks to Labour, it is quite legal for all cars that have been in New Zealand since before June last year to have that noise coming from them. No wonder the people of Christchurch and all across the country have had enough of Labour’s slack noise laws!

The second issue when it comes to boy racing is speeding and dangerous driving. We all know that cars are lethal weapons in the wrong hands. Street racing and dangerous driving must be curbed. Too many lives have been lost; too many people have been injured. Several families in the electorate where I live have suffered the loss of a family member to street-hoon crashes, and there is one family whose mother is permanently and tragically disabled both mentally and physically and is in a wheelchair. When we use the roads, we all accept that there is some element of danger and that some crashes are unavoidable, but there is no place for deliberately dangerous driving, senseless speed, and out-of-control racing. The Minister of Transport, the Hon Steven Joyce, has promised a full review of road safety, which will consider all our existing legislation and address these issues.

The final, and an increasingly frightening, aspect of street hoons is their unlawful assembly and criminal pack behaviour. Noisy, abusive, and dangerous pack behaviour has been gradually escalating around Christchurch City and in cities and towns throughout the country. On Friday, 31 January Sergeant Nigel Armstrong received a call for help from a security guard who was locking up for the night at the A and P grounds on the outskirts of Christchurch. He called the police because he was being pelted with bottles by a group of boy racers and he feared for his safety. Responding immediately to his call, Sergeant Armstrong arrived in his patrol car to be ambushed by a group of up to 300 boy racers, who attacked him with bottles and even shot at him with an air rifle. I saw that car myself. It had smashed windows and I could see where the bullets were around the driver’s window. Those people were aiming at Sergeant Armstrong. Can I remind the House that it was an air rifle that killed Sergeant Don Wilkinson in Auckland last September. It was only because Sergeant Armstrong was an experienced and capable police officer that nobody was killed. The group had cordoned off one lane of the street. He had to drive around the people, weaving in and out of young people and their cars to get out at the other end. The thing that terrifies me is what would have happened if he had run over somebody or if he had been caught himself. I do not believe those young people had gone out there thinking that they were going to kill a police officer that night, but that is what might have happened with that pack behaviour.

This incident has brought the whole boy-racer issue and the hoon behaviour to a head. The people of Christchurch are not prepared to accept this type of behaviour and the people of New Zealand are not prepared to accept this type of behaviour; nor is the National Government. The New Zealand Police need new legislative tools to manage the three aspects of street-hoon, boy-racer behaviour. They need new laws to deal with the noise, they need to deal with the speed and dangerous driving, and they must be able to manage the unlawful assembly of criminal packs. National will provide those tools.

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana): Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I offer my congratulations on your appointment, Mr Deputy Speaker, and also to the Speaker and Assistant Speakers on their appointments. I extend a warm welcome to all our new parliamentary colleagues. It is a real pleasure to welcome Catherine Delahunty, and to also welcome another Labour Pacific woman in Parliament—Carmel Sepuloni—which makes two of us. I am very proud of that.

I am really honoured to stand and speak in this Address in Reply debate. I am very privileged to be the Labour member of Parliament for Mana, and stand proud of the Labour Government that took up the challenge 9 years ago of a New Zealand that was very fragmented, that was divided between the haves and the have-nots. The Pacific community was the most damaged at that time. Under Labour’s watch we delivered many, many good projects and outcomes for our community. We reduced the Pacific unemployment rate from 14 percent in June 1999 to 6.3 percent in June 2008.

We launched the Pacific Economic Action Plan and the Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan, and we supported Pacific business initiatives. The whole aim of those plans was to stimulate upskilling, so that our people could move from lower-income jobs to higher-income jobs. We put in resources in terms of targeting more apprenticeships for Pacific people. We also supported the introduction of the Pacific Return to Nursing Programme for those nurses who had trained in the Pacific, so that they could get higher-paid jobs here. We provided access to better-quality housing, affordable primary health care, and many other initiatives.

There is a Tongan and Pacific saying that goes like this: takana enau fohe. We paddle our canoe together, we paddle in harmony, and ultimately we all reach our destination. The Labour Party is the party of the “we” and not the “my” or the “me”. It is the Kiwi and Pacific spirit that ensures every human being—man, woman, and child—has a right to belong and to participate, and a right to opportunity and to dignity. That is especially true for our most vulnerable. National’s response has been no bold and comprehensive plan for the economy, just a tinkering with infrastructure, and no development of a plan that is aimed at specific actions that build an inclusive society.

In education, expenditure developed across schools works out to a measly $8,000 per school—ha, ha. There will be only 69 new State rental houses, a measly 50c an hour increase to the minimum wage, and a new 90-day hire and fire law. Our families earning less than $44,000 a year now pay more tax and subsidise the more affluent. The worst thing of all is that the latest report says the Pacific community’s unemployment rates have jumped from 5.2 percent to 7.8 percent. We also have a Minister of Pacific Island Affairs who was hugely absent from the Government’s economic summit, and who has not even initiated an economic summit for Pacific peoples. Those peoples will be very, very successful in the future, and will contribute enormously. We have a Minister of Pacific Island Affairs in the National Government who has said absolutely nothing about what the Government is doing to protect our lower-income communities, and specifically to continue to build on the previous Government’s fabulous Pacific Island initiatives, which were focused on outcomes, targets, and value for money to deliver a better New Zealand. So it is back to the fragmented, exclusive, divided New Zealand.

Another spokesperson’s role that I have is for aged care. I recently put out a media release that talked about the issues of concern around aged care. Last year the then Minister of Health, the Hon David Cunliffe, talked about spot auditing of rest homes. I ask where the evidence is that spot auditing of rest homes will occur to ensure the elderly are secure, well cared for, and safe.

I am a very, very proud Labour MP who has been part of a team led by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen that left our economy and society in good heart. It was a New Zealand for everybody. Now Labour members are under the fabulous leadership of the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Annette King. It is very, very important that we have good, strong leadership that will help keep the National Government accountable and honest. “Integrity” is the word. We talk about an inclusive society. We talk about a society that really inspired Pacific people to fly. In Phil Goff’s words—no hidden agenda, no broken promises—we will hold the National Government accountable for what it does. Our Labour team is totally committed to doing that job. Takana enau fohe. We will paddle our canoe together. We will ensure that every human being in New Zealand—man, woman, and child—has equal opportunity, and we will strive in terms of their educational and economic achievements. We look forward to holding the National Government to account, and we will be holding it right there in our sights, making sure that those principles of an inclusive society are not lost in the rhetoric around a plan that has delivered very little for New Zealand.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is a pleasure to get up and speak tonight from this side of the House. It is the first time that I have spoken this term. It is a pleasure to be on the Government benches. What a great place to be!

First of all, I congratulate my colleague Tim Macindoe on his birthday today. I hear that he is 32 again. I congratulate Tim and wish him happy birthday.

It is great to be standing here as a Government member of Parliament, knowing that a million people of New Zealand endorsed this National Government and endorsed John Key to lead this country in some of the hardest times we have seen in a very long time. I think the country can sit back and say that, yes, we are seeing some action, we are seeing some determination, we are seeing some focus, we are seeing some consultation, and we are seeing a Prime Minister deliver a strategy and a plan to manage New Zealand through these hard economic times. That is what we have seen since the second week, when he formed a coalition in the fastest time ever in New Zealand’s history. The speed at which he did that, and the dedication he showed to pull together a strong team, were just the beginning of what this country will see and what John Key can deliver, and is currently delivering, for this country.

A lot of the things that John Key comes out with are not rocket science. They are not rocket science; they are common sense being applied to this country. Let us talk about his announcements last week—the tax cuts that he brought in. He brought these tax cuts in to focus on small and medium sized businesses. I know that yesterday one of the members, Jim Anderton, said John Key has done nothing for small and medium sized businesses, and nothing for the primary—rural—sector. In fact, farms are small and medium sized businesses. This type of packet is designed to address the rural sector, to address the sectors that are struggling and need a little bit of assistance right now. He went out and listened, he had consultations with the sector, and he has now brought in some very, very simple tax changes. They are $48 million worth of tax changes over the next 4 years.

A lot of them are just simple cash flow things to help businesses out in this very difficult time. Anybody in a small business would know that the hard part right now is cash flow. It is hard for a number of reasons. It is hard because it is hard to get credit for working capital. It is hard because people are not spending the same amount of money. It is hard because many people have stock coming through the pipeline at them and they cannot stop it. Their sales are dropping, but they bought stock, they booked stock for their shops and their factories, 8 months ago. They cannot stop that stock coming through the pipeline. For them it is a real cash flow issue.

Some of the initiatives are very, very simple, such as filing a PAYE return monthly instead of fortnightly. Raising that threshold means that some small-business owners can actually focus on doing the business, not on all the red tape. I am referring to simple things like raising the GST threshold from $40,000 to $60,000. If one is a small-business owner or a part-time person working or consulting for oneself to try to get one’s family ahead, that measure is great thing. Anybody who is in business will know that GST takes up a fair bit of time—sitting down, doing the returns, checking the returns, then sending them all off. Everyone knows how easy it is to make a small mistake on these returns, which results in penalties. So the lifting of the threshold is good for those who have just started out in business, have a small business, or are mothers who have gone back to work and are working for themselves. They do not need to be GST registered, and that gives them breathing space to build up their businesses a little bit. The change in the provisional tax instalments, where the threshold is lifted by 5 percent, helps businesses to pay less provisional tax going forward, thus freeing up their cash flow. A fair bit of work has been done around the fringe benefit tax and a fair bit of work has been done around simplifying some of the legal expenses that can be claimed.

This is not rocket science. This is not massive change. This is actually just helping businesses. That is what John Key is about—practical solutions that can be delivered quickly to New Zealanders. That is what the people of New Zealand need right now.

The tax package is not the only part of the economic stimulus. The Government realises it needs to keep people in jobs. That is absolutely crucial if the Government is to keep the economy going round. We need money to go round a bit to oil the economy in these hard times. Jobs are a very, very important part of that. The Prime Minister has put together the Job Summit. Once again, it is not rocket science. It meets on 27 February in Auckland. Two hundred leaders of industry have been brought in to meet and discuss how jobs can be kept safe for New Zealanders. When we look at the six topics to be talked about, we see that they are not flash. They are not exciting; they are the nitty-gritty of keeping businesses afloat and offering jobs. The topics are business investment tax infrastructure and new business; the workplace and labour markets; helping firms survive; workers, skills, transition, and adjustment; the Māori economy and local and regional government; and liquidity and capital. Those are the very basics, which businesses can struggle with in hard times.

Once again, this is not rocket science. This is not being done in Wellington, in a room with officials telling people how to fix the problem. We are going out into the sectors, we are consulting, we are listening, and we are forming packages accordingly.

But it is not only that. It is actually more real than that. Anyone can go to the website and feed to the chair of the committee his or her own views on how to support jobs in the next 12 months. It is very, very interactive, and it very, very easy to be involved in the process. We are also running a series of regional workshops throughout New Zealand. A person who has not been picked to be one of those 200 leaders can go to those workshops and have his or her say there. Those views will also be fed into the summit. It is very practical and hands-on. It is not a talkfest; it is a “do-fest.” It is about finding answers to simple questions like how to help provide credit for working capital for businesses that cannot obtain it. What is happening out there? Can they get credit for their working capital or not? These are crucial questions in terms of keeping businesses afloat. John Key has recognised that and is actually doing something solid. He is doing it very quickly; 26 February is only a couple of weeks away. So if people hear that the National Government is not moving very fast, they can be assured that it is actually moving very, very fast. People will see us delivering some very good results.

On the back of that I would like to talk about the announcements today: the $216 million that will be spent on education, the $142 million that will be spent on transport, and the $124 million that will be spent on housing. The great thing about these initiatives is that some of them were in the pipeline and have got consent already, but most of them can have their wheels down and be delivered within a month. The housing initiative can be delivered within a month and the education stuff can be delivered within a month, because they do not need resource consent. The Government is putting economic stimulus into the economy by injecting money straight in.

But the good thing about it is that it is not just in one location. It is not all in Auckland, Wellington, or Christchurch; it is over the whole country. The economic downturn has affected the whole country, and we have recognised that. Geographically, we have spread out where everything goes, and put priorities around it, so that the whole country will benefit from these initiatives.

I am talking about a huge amount of money—$483 million will be injected. That will help out our economy very, very quickly. That is the whole idea of this package. We will inject that money in as soon as we can. When we are putting these projects forward we are not saying that we will get funding for them in 6 months. We are applying funding now, and that is absolutely fundamental.

I am excited that I am standing here today as a member of the Government benches. I am proud to be a member of this Parliament. I think it can achieve some great things in very, very hard times. I think that all of us as members of Parliament have an obligation to go out there, listen to constituents, bring the views of those constituents back to Parliament, our select committees, and our caucuses, and work together to keep New Zealand going forward.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Last November New Zealanders voted for a change of Government. The National Party was elected to lead the Government, and I want to acknowledge our democracy and congratulate National on having that privilege for another 2 years, 8 months, and 3 days. The public of New Zealand have quite high expectations, and had anyone stayed awake for the 10 minutes that has just been used up by the member who, fortunately, has just resumed her seat, he or she would be very, very despondent. We did not hear anything about a plan. We did not hear anything about a solution to address the problems that not only New Zealand but every nation in the world is facing. All we heard was the fierce competition that is now going on between members of the National Party caucus to see how many times John Key can have his name mentioned in a 10-minute speech.

I give the award for this evening to the person who used to be the star of a radio show—the older members of the House, not young Nathan Guy, will remember this—that used to end with “Tune in next week for a further episode in this great drama of human conflict.”: Dr Paul. Probably no member of Parliament is actually less likely to give us any drama or human conflict than Dr Paul Hutchison, but this evening he exceeded even the Crosby/Textor expectations of a National Party member. John Key is not just the leader of the National Party; he is not just an extraordinary phenomenon of a Prime Minister; he is now New Zealand’s answer to Nelson Mandela! Dr Paul Hutchison came into this Chamber, having dismissed Barack Obama as not being good enough to be compared to John Key. He tried to do that, except that Barack promised change that people could believe in, which is quite different from what John Key promised. Tonight we had the extraordinary occurrence of Dr Paul Hutchison saying that John Key was New Zealand’s Nelson Mandela. What a disgrace! What an embarrassment!

What happened to the National caucus over summer, during those hard-working days? It must have been pretty hard work, sunning it up in Hawaii and wondering which flavour of pina colada to have in the afternoon, whether to turn over or go and sit in the shade, whether to snorkel or go for a swim, and whether to go to lunch early. The leader of the National Party had to face those stressful decisions, while other New Zealanders were figuring out what the backbench of the National Party had not figured out prior to Christmas, which was that the long-awaited tax package that was promised up and down the country by the National Party was not actually for the people who most needed an increase in their take-home pay: low-income earners.

In fact, the lowest income earners ended up with an increase in their tax rate. I had National Party backbenchers asking me about that over the dinner break when the Government rammed through that legislation, with no select committee scrutiny and no opportunity for the public to look at it. I had new backbench members coming to me, saying they had heard Labour members say National was putting up the marginal tax rate, and asking me whether that was true. I said “Yes. Read the legislation.” They had not even had the legislation presented to their caucus. Yet like sheep and lemmings—Amy Adams is a lemming from Selwyn—one after another the National backbenchers said they would vote for that legislation. They did not have a clue what was in it. It is just extraordinary for Amy Adams, a person who was well regarded in her previous profession, to put all that integrity aside, come into the Chamber, and say she does not know what is in the legislation. She is competent. She is far more competent than many of her colleagues. She is able to read and understand legislation, but she did not even bother to do that, thinking she would just put her name beside it. That is not what New Zealanders voted for. It is not what their expectation was, in my view.

We will certainly, as my colleague Winnie Laban has just said, hold this Government to account for the expectations it raised amongst New Zealanders. New Zealanders should expect to see a narrowing of the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia. I look forward to seeing that. New Zealanders should expect to see a reduction in serious crime, particularly a reduction in family violence, and I will be watching to see that very, very carefully. New Zealanders should expect to see a reduction in the waiting time for elective surgery. We should expect to see fewer working-age people on a benefit. We should expect to see lower greenhouse gas emissions—[Interruption]—and that member could contribute to that by not contributing any more to the debate. We should expect to see, given what National promised during the election campaign, an increased investment in infrastructure. We saw the first little dribble of that today.

I want to thank National for its commitment to Lyttelton Main School. That commitment is in the infrastructure package today. It has been brought forward by about 5 months, it will be warmly welcomed, and it is well deserved in Lyttelton. The transport infrastructure investment, the only other major investment in Christchurch, has been brought forward by 16 whole weeks. I heard Steven Joyce—I think he is the Minister for something—in the House today say David Carter wrote to his colleagues in Canterbury in 2004. It was the last letter we received from him; it was the first and only representation that I have heard of. That investment, 16 weeks early, is the only other major investment in Christchurch.

I have just heard the member who resides somewhere in the North Island say every part of the country will benefit from the infrastructure package. But south of Canterbury there is not one single infrastructure investment, so how is Amy Adams going to explain that to the good people of the Selwyn electorate? How is she is going to explain that her colleague from Wellington said every single person is important and every single town and city is important, but that there is nothing south of Canterbury? I am sorry; there is one State house per electorate. I do not think that is what the people of New Zealand thought they were voting for.

My colleague David Parker also referred to the other significant dismissal of the South Island. That was on 6 February, when South Islanders, as we always do, commemorated the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. This year the commemoration was held in Bluff. For the first time in my recollection, not a single Government representative was present at that commemoration, and that will be very, very strongly felt by the people of the South Island. None of the local members of Parliament, not even a new backbencher, could bother to make the effort to attend, and there are several of them in the nearby vicinity. One of them is Jacqui Dean, the financial whizz who explained to us all that we are not borrowing money but are just getting it from overseas, so I am sure she will be the Associate Minister of Finance within the next little while. We also have Jo Goodhew and Amy Adams—just to name three. Bill English is actually a local member of Parliament from not very far away, as is Eric Roy. Not one of those members of Parliament thought it was good enough on 6 February to share the commemoration of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi with the South Island in Bluff. It was the first time in my recollection that there has not been a Government representative at that commemoration. I am not sure how the National members’ colleagues in the Māori Party would view that, but I think it is an insult.

I conclude by saying it just adds to a long list of insults. We have had the scrapping of the research and development tax credit, we have had the reduction in the KiwiSaver contribution rate, and we have had the scrapping of the Fast Forward Fund. We know that we have lost significant investment and real jobs because of John Key’s dithering over the emissions trading scheme and his appalling reversal of the biofuels legislation. This is not what people voted for, this not what people expected, and we will be holding the Government to account for their disappointment.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I will address the members who are gathered here as the House draws to a close tonight. I stand here to make my first contribution to a debate in the forty-ninth Parliament, and I am proudly a renamed woman from the one who stood here in the forty-eighth Parliament. I am now proudly the member of Parliament for the new electorate of Rangitata. I grew up within a mile of the mighty river, and I am now proud to represent the many people—and there are plenty—who derive environmental, recreational, and economic benefit from that river.

I want to outline what my address will not do tonight. It will not be an address of personal vindictive attack. It will not be an address that is without positivity. It will not be an address that talks about individuals and that levels unusual accusations at members opposite.

This Address in Reply debate affords me the opportunity to congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. In addition I would like to congratulate the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith on his election to the venerable position of Speaker, and also the Assistant Speakers, Rick Barker and Eric Roy.

In the beginning days of this Parliament there were a number of reasons for me to feel excited. Firstly, unlike following the 2005 election, I was faced with the opportunity and the privilege of delivering on the promises and policies that I had campaigned strongly on, and that provided a very exciting sense of anticipation. This anticipation and excitement heightened as Prime Minister John Key moved to form an agreement with ACT, United Future, and the Māori Party with a sure-footed swiftness that surprised many and delighted still more, though I doubt whether it delighted members opposite, at all.

My delight was heightened as I listened to the new members of the National Party class of 2008 deliver their maiden speeches. During those speeches I realised what a rich diversity and depth of talent there is within the National caucus, and I celebrate that. The speed with which the executive took to the task of delivering on its promises—our promises, in fact—for the first 100 days was exciting, and for so many New Zealanders it was also a relief. I add my congratulations to all the new MPs who have taken their place in this House, and I wish them all well as they work to serve the people of New Zealand, to serve their constituents, and to deliver on the lofty promises they made in their maiden speeches.

The 2008 election presented New Zealanders with an opportunity to assess the grave importance of whether they would take a new direction, which would include a response to the global financial meltdown, and a new accountability for quality Government spending. New Zealanders were also given the opportunity to choose self-determination over nanny State, growth over stalemate, or survival over floundering in economic deep waters. The people of Rangitata sent a very clear message on election day. They voted resoundingly for change. They voted for a new vision and an effective Government, one that was totally committed to a strong future for New Zealand.

The mood of our nation before 8 November was an anxious one. The global financial situation was becoming increasingly gloomy by the day, and the question on everyone’s lips was how it would affect New Zealanders. It is fair to say that prior to any general election there is a nervousness within the electorate, but it was never more so than before this election. New Zealanders had woken up to the creeping control-crazy Labour Government that was meddling in their school lunch boxes; horrifyingly, in their shower cabinets as well; and also in the light bulb choices they were making for their living rooms. It seemed there were never-ending stories of bureaucracy and of control-freakery. The insidious nanny State had, however, been outed over recent years, and the people were sick and tired of being told what was good for them.

Helen Clark was, however, right in one respect. The election did turn out to be about trust. Did the Government trust the people of New Zealand to know their own minds? Well, no. The Labour Government did not. Did New Zealanders trust Labour to guide our country through the tough economic times? Well, in fact, they showed on election day that, no, they did not—

Hon Member: I thought this was going to be a positive address.

JO GOODHEW: This speech is most certainly not about negative personal attack. New Zealanders did not trust Labour to strive for excellence and growth, or to be truly ambitious for New Zealand. No, they saw that opportunity in a National Government, not in carrying on with the same Government. Did New Zealanders trust Labour to identify and drive out the needless compliance costs and bureaucracy that clogged the main arteries of our small and medium sized enterprises? No, they did not.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.