Wednesday, 30 January 2013

Wednesday, 30 January 2013

Wednesday, 30 January 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Motions

Cyclone Evan—Samoa

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate about Cyclone Evan.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I move, That this House express its acknowledgment and support to the peoples and Governments of Samoa and Fiji after Cyclone Evan wreaked havoc on these islands just before Christmas last year, and in particular convey its condolences and sympathies to Samoa’s head of State, His Highness Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese Efi, the Prime Minister Hon Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, members of Samoa’s legislative assembly, and the people of Samoa for the loss of five lives, and to the families of the 10 people still missing when floodwaters drove through settlements in the Apia township, dragging people, homes, vehicles, and personal property out to sea and destroying power, water, and other infrastructure, including food crops, and note that for many families it is a first-time experience of losing literally everything, and acknowledge the resilient response of families, peoples, organisations, and Governments in both the islands and in New Zealand to aid families and friends in need.

Motion agreed to.

Points of Order

Human Rights, Discriminatory Legislation—Leave to Move Member’s Motion

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 4 in my name, without debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Screen Production Industry—International Productions Filmed in New Zealand

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “the Government has actively supported the filming of the Hobbit movies in New Zealand because of the enormous economic benefits they are bringing to the country, including the creation of around 3,000 jobs”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, before I begin, can I wish you the best for your final question time. I am sure that in London you will look back with warm memories of these times. The answer to the member’s question is yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How and when did he first learn of the 3,000 jobs figure?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot give the member the exact date. I do not have it with me. I am advised by the business manager, I think it is, of Peter Jackson that that is broadly the number directly involved, but, of course, there are many, many other businesses and people who were employed as a result of the movies. I point out to the member that the Hobbit production team alone booked 6,750 domestic flights, slept 93,000 bed nights in hotels, paid for 1,800 rental cars and 1,650 work vehicles, and spent $9 million on construction and $1.5 million on food. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How easily these toads are fooled. Why was there no Treasury report substantiating the 3,000 jobs figure and verifying the economic benefits of his $67 million handout to Warner Bros?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because one was not required. I mean, if the member is aware of the Large Budget Screen Production Grant Scheme, he will know that it is paid as, essentially, a percentage of the qualifying expenditure. So, by definition, if these sums are paid to Warner Bros, it is because that expenditure is undertaken in New Zealand. If, by definition, that expenditure was not undertaken in New Zealand, of course we would not pay it, and we would not get all of the economic activity. I might also point out to the member that if he wants to go and have a look, for instance, at Air New Zealand, its website visitation was up 73 percent—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate the member’s concern. He asked a question, but he did not ask for that information.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My question asked why there was no Treasury report. It is pretty simple. I do not want to hear a long tirade about what did not happen.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well, actually, the Prime Minister did answer that. He said the reason why a report was not made is that it was not required. That is an answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are right. He answered the question and then he kept on going, vituperating on nothing. That is my point.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point that the Prime Minister’s answer was unnecessarily long, when the question was a fairly simple question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why was he prepared to give Warner Bros $67 million of taxpayers’ money, yet he could not stump up an extra $6 million so KiwiRail wagons could be built in New Zealand instead of in China, to save the Dunedin Hillside railway workshops jobs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, they are different issues. In terms of Warner Bros, that was part of the Large Budget Screen Production Grant Scheme, and that was the scheme that essentially was repayment of expenditure here. As we have already pointed out, there are around 3,000 jobs directly on the Hobbit movies alone, plus all of the other ancillary benefits. In terms of KiwiRail, the long-term model did not actually support those jobs at Hillside.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he used the figure of 3,000 jobs, did he mean jobs for overseas actors, casual work for a few weeks, or serious jobs for New Zealanders, and did he have reliable information as to the status of the jobs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There would, of course, have been a wide range of jobs. It is interesting to note, actually, that the screen industry in New Zealand supports over 2,700 businesses. There were 15,500 people employed and so there would be a range.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was a pretty straightforward question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not the case that the 3,000 jobs were like the computer-generated armies in The Lord of the Rings: pure fantasy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, they were real jobs, probably unlike the unreal caucus of New Zealand First, which has had one of its members AWOL.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order the—[Interruption] Order! A point of order has been called. The Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption] Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, you would not like your last day in this job to be remembered for that sort of intemperate behaviour from the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Members may recollect I am on my feet. The right honourable gentleman may reflect back on the question he asked, and that it was always going to provoke a fairly strong answer.

Prime Minister—Statements

2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the statements made in his prime ministerial speeches and in his Address in Reply speeches?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and in particular I stand by my statement in the 2011 Address in Reply debate that this Government has committed tens of millions of dollars to training places to make sure that we bring in the right skills, that we give young New Zealanders the opportunities, and that we encourage people to take up those opportunities. Just last week I announced an expanded and improved apprenticeship scheme called New Zealand Apprenticeships, which will lead to around 14,000 additional apprentices over the next 5 years. It was widely supported by the New Zealand public. No doubt Labour will oppose it. It opposes everything.

David Shearer: In light of his statement from 2011 that his year is about “building a brighter future” for New Zealanders and their families, does not the fact that unemployment has grown by 70,000, from 4.5 percent to 7.3 percent—the largest in 13 years—show that he has failed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. This Government is building a brighter future. That is why crime is at a 30-year low, that is why 65,000 more people have a job, that is why real after-tax wages have gone up 12 percent since September 2008, that is why we have had an average growth rate of 2 percent since the bottom of the recession, and that is why the lowest mortgage rates are in place in 50 years.

David Shearer: In light of his statement from 2012 that “In the world as it is today, the state of the country’s finances is all-important.”, does not the fact that New Zealand is projected by the IMF to have the worst current account deficit in the Western World show that he has failed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and if the member wants to understand the history of the Labour Party, he should go back and look at Michael Cullen’s speeches and see how he campaigned on halving the current account deficit only to just go and double it.

David Shearer: In light of his statement in 2010 that “The Government is committed to turning things around and in particular to closing the gap with Australia.”, do not the facts that the wage gap has grown by more than $30 a week and record numbers of people are going to Australia show that his policies have failed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not agree with that, at all. If we want to talk about failure, it will be the fact that house prices doubled between 2001 and 2007 under a party that is out there crying wolf at the moment.

David Shearer: Which of the 10 result areas he personally set was he referring to in his 2013 prime ministerial speech when he said that “some of them would not improve”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I would have to look at the context in which the member is reporting it, because, actually, from what I can see, all 10 of them are making progress. So if we want to talk about the one that sees 85 percent of young New Zealanders achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 under this Government, yes, it has gone up. If he wants to talk about the one about early childhood education participation—

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not finished, actually—

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

David Shearer: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

David Shearer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a pretty straight question. It was referring to what he had already announced in his prime ministerial statement yesterday, and it was about which of those areas would not improve—not the ones that would improve.

Mr SPEAKER: I do accept that is the question the Leader of the Opposition asked. The Prime Minister was answering it in his way, where he was starting to go through them one at a time, looking at which ones were improving. He might have got to some that might not improve, but that was going to take too long. I accept the member’s concern, but I think it is probably best to go on to a further supplementary question.

David Shearer: In light of his statement that Hekia Parata is “one of the smoothest communicators” in his Government, what did she mean when she said: “We are very keen to look at how we can get the whole of life journey of a learner opportunity operating”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I do not want to put words in the mouth of the Minister, but I suspect she meant that we will actually do what this Government is doing, and that is make sure that they get a decent education so that for the rest of their lives they actually have the potential to earn. And I say this to the member: if he wants to go and compare speeches off the cuff from Hekia Parata to himself, he had better be careful, because he is OK in front of an autocue—maybe 3—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is not necessary to answer the question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. What is meant—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Te Ururoa Flavell: What is meant by his statement that “Our focus is on changing the circumstances that trap people in poverty,”; and does he agree with the expert advisory group that the actions that will have the greatest impact on reducing child poverty will require significant new investment and enacting legislation that will measure and set short and long-term poverty reduction targets?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is in the process of forming its response to the expert advisory group, but what was meant by that statement was that it is quite clear that if we want to move people out of poverty, we fundamentally need to give them the opportunity where possible that they can work, and that means that they need the skills to be able to do that. That is why we are going to bring on 14,000 new apprentices over the course of the next 4 or 5 years. That is why we are prepared to demand national standards. That is why we are prepared to look at things like Whānau Ora and have a different way of looking at those issues. This Government is prepared to invest in those issues, despite the fact that these are economically very challenging times.

Economic Programme—2013 Plan and Projected Growth

3. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Finance: What will be the focus of the Government’s economic programme in 2013?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday, the Government’s economic programme will be front and centre for 2013. The Government will be pursuing a clear plan to build a faster-growing economy that can support more jobs and continued rising incomes in the face of ongoing uncertainty in the rest of the world. Our four main priorities will be to responsibly manage the Government’s finances so we can return to surplus and start repaying debt; pushing ahead with a wide-ranging programme of microeconomic reform to create a more productive and competitive economy; getting better results from public services; and supporting the rebuilding of Christchurch.

Todd McClay: What is the Government’s approach to supporting the investment and business growth needed to deliver more jobs and higher incomes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the Prime Minister said in a speech recently, we want New Zealand to become a magnet for investment in competitive businesses, because, actually, the only way to get more real jobs is to create conditions where businesses make the decision to invest more and employ another person. The Government has laid out, through its Business Growth Agenda, literally hundreds of measures that it is taking to achieve this.

Todd McClay: What progress is the Government making in achieving its target of returning to fiscal surplus by 2014-15?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is making good progress. The deficit in the financial year 2010-11 was $18.4 billion, in 2011-12 it halved to $9.2 billion, and it is forecast to fall further to $7.3 billion in the current year and $2 billion and then returning to surplus in 2014-15. This is coming about from firm control of Government expenditure, which is essentially flat, while Government revenue grows as the economy grows.

Todd McClay: What are the overall prospects for New Zealand’s economy in 2013, and how is it performing compared with other developed economies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We would expect continued moderate growth in New Zealand, despite the uncertain global environment. Since the low point of the recession in the June quarter of 2009, the economy has grown at an average of 2 percent a year in real terms—better than many developed world economies. Both Treasury and the Reserve Bank forecast our economy to grow at an average of 2.5 percent each year over the next 4 years. This is faster than the euro area, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada. Of course, we would like to see it grow faster than that, and will do everything we can to encourage faster growth and help New Zealand businesses take advantage of the positive opportunities that they have ahead of them.

Housing Affordability and Availability—Homeownership Rates and Alternative Policies

4. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I am keen to see New Zealanders be able to afford to buy a home”, given that the home ownership rate has continued to decline under his watch and home buying is becoming less affordable?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I am keen to see New Zealanders being able to afford to buy a home. That is why a comprehensive work programme will be under way to address the real issues of housing affordability, which are to do with land supply, building and resource consents, and the costs of building and materials.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister aware that since his Government came to office, seven Resource Management Act amendment bills and 11 local government amendment bills have been put before the House and none has improved home affordability, so why on earth would anyone believe that doing the same thing is going to get a different result?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I would reject the proposition that none has done anything. Secondly, maybe the argument is that they have not gone far enough. But the new one probably will.

Metiria Turei: Why will he not support a policy by which the Government’s low cost of capital is shared with young families to help them buy their first home, as past National Governments did and as the Greens have proposed in our progressive ownership policies?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think that is actually going to resolve the fundamental issue. I mean, if one wants to talk about interest rates, interest rates got up to around about 11 percent under the previous Government. They are at about 5 percent at the moment, so they are not an awfully long way away from the Government borrowing rate, and they are an awfully long way away from where they were at levels of 20-odd percent and higher in our previous history. So, yes, interest rates are a big factor, but that is why good economic management is important. Of course, if one were to get out there and print billions of dollars, that would put inflation up, that would put mortgage rates up, and, of course, that would have Russel Norman having New Zealanders paying a lot more for their mortgage. I am sure they would be very disappointed about that.

Metiria Turei: Does he not agree that our home building programme for homes averaging around $300,000 plus a progressive ownership scheme that is deposit and mortgage-free for young families would give young families that pathway to owning those homes and therefore reverse the major decline that we have seen in homeownership rates?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but can I congratulate the member on at least sticking to arguing that they are going to build a four-bedroom home in Auckland for $300,000 or less, because Labour is up at $550,000 now and it will probably be $750,000 by next week.

Metiria Turei: Why does the Prime Minister continue to oppose any option that sees the Government help kids into safe, secure, and stable homes, when that was exactly what the Government did when he was a child?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I reject that proposition. The Government spends $2 billion on accommodation supplements and support alone.

Louise Upston: What reports, if any, has he received on alternative policies regarding housing affordability?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I have seen a report of a policy that would use the National Land Transport Fund, interestingly enough, to pay for a rent-to-buy housing scheme. The people who put up this policy seem to be unaware that the funding is collected from road users through fuel excise and road-user charges. Paying for houses from the National Land Transport Fund would cause serious problems for the funding of other things like road maintenance, road policing, and, of course, public transport, which I am sure the Greens would be very concerned about. But oh wait—that is right—it is the Greens’ policy.

Metiria Turei: Did the Prime Minister listen to Connal Townsend of the Property Council today, who said that were thousands of available sections in Auckland but the problem was that private developers could not build affordable housing on them and still meet their profit margins?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I have seen reports from the Property Council that say that there are probably about 4,000 to 5,000 commercially viable sections available. I have seen reports from Len Brown that there could be 15,000 sections available, although that number is being drilled into rapidly as I speak. It started at 20,000 and we are at 15,000. It might be a bit lower. The interesting thing here, of course, is that if the Auckland Spatial Plan is right, then Auckland will need 13,000 new dwellings a year for each of the next 30 years. So even if there are 15,000, it is a year and a bit’s supply.

Metiria Turei: If the Prime Minister truly believes that building a $300,000 home in Auckland is impossible, as he said, has he never visited his own electorate and taken a look at homes such as those on Hobsonville Road, Cyril Crescent, and Mona Vale that are stand-alone family homes costing around $300,000?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have, and I have also seen reports from another member of this House that it is possible to get a four-bedroom home for less than $480,000 in Hobsonville. In fact, actually, yes, there are properties being built in Hobsonville for around $400,000 or less. They are one-person studios at the lowest end, or two or maybe three-bedroom terraced houses on 130 square metres. Actually, the average house price in Auckland is considerably higher than that, of course.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Is he satisfied with the progress made in actioning the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and the Auditor-General in relation to affordable housing?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am satisfied we are making progress. We have picked up almost all of the recommendations in the Productivity Commission’s report, and we have established a comprehensive work programme with four key aims: increasing the land supply, reducing delays and costs of Resource Management Act processes associated with housing, improving the timely provision of infrastructure to support new housing, and improving productivity in the construction sector. Obviously, there is a lot more work that we want to do, and much will be the responsibility of local councils. We have also made changes to Kāinga Whenua to promote housing on multiple-owned Māori land, which is included, not the least of them being the increase in the income gap, from $120,000 per borrower to $160,000, to ensure that trusts are now eligible.

Metiria Turei: Given that there are homes for sale for around $300,000 in his own electorate, will the Prime Minister now concede that the problem is not that building a $300,000 home in Auckland is impossible but that there are not enough of them and it is not in the interests of private developers to build more of them, and that that is why we need a Government-led building and progressive ownership programme of affordable homes for young Kiwi families who desperately need them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Look, in relation to the last point, no. In relation to the first one, I have never said you cannot buy a house for $300,000 or less in New Zealand. What I have said is that it is disingenuous to argue that that is a four-bedroom home. And guess what? As I said yesterday, David Shearer had a road to Damascus experience—or, actually, it was a road to Ponsonby experience—and realised that it would cost a lot more than $300,000.

Government Financial Position—Crown Revenue Forecasts, Crown Expenditure, and Projected Current Account Deficit

5. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Is he aware that anticipated Core Crown Revenue for the period 2012-2016 decreased by $13.2 billion between the October 2011 PREFU and the December 2012 HYEFU; if so, why has the Government lost $13.2 billion in projected revenue in little over a year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I think the black hole was what David Shearer is staring into. The other little thing was David Cunliffe getting ready to push him.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A member is entitled, when asking a question, to have their own visual aid. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with that at all. The Minister should at least attempt to answer the question before making that kind of comment.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There was actually nothing on the visual aid that related to the question, so I just made my own interpretation of it. In answer to the member’s question, first he needs to remember that over the period that he is referring to, the Government would expect to collect just under $300 billion of revenue, so that puts the $13 billion in perspective. The second thing is that the $13 billion reduction in revenue over that period flows from the forecasts that Treasury did in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, which took account of two things: one was lower projections of real growth in the economy, and the second was lower inflation.

Hon David Parker: Is it correct that the forecast $13.2 billion hole in Crown revenue would be even worse were it not for the additional $1.5 billion New Zealanders will pay for fuel tax and ACC over the next 4 years as a result of the decisions he announced after Parliament rose at the end of last year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course there would be less revenue forecast if we were going to be collecting less revenue. But, equally, the forecast would be worse if we, for instance, followed that member’s policies and let our spending get out of control, or if we went back to some of the crazy holes that that Government left in the tax system, there would also be less revenue collected. But it is well known that the forecasts for economic growth softened in the second half of last year, and it probably was not expected that inflation would be so low. That, of course, is a good thing for the cost of living for New Zealand households.

Hon David Parker: Given that, as he has already acknowledged, Treasury has stated that reductions in tax revenue across the forecast period are a result of a weaker economic outlook, does he bear any responsibility for that as Minister of Finance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The economy is affected by a number of things. One is a range of external influences over which we have no control, and clearly do not bear responsibility for that. The other is domestic policy settings, which in the case of this Government are intended to improve the competitiveness of the economy and therefore its growth prospects. Of course, we could have gone faster and harder with some of those changes, and we take responsibility for that, but we believe that this Government has struck about the right balance between encouraging investment and new jobs on the one hand, but on the other hand protecting New Zealand households as much as possible through the recession.

Hon David Parker: Does he admit that the $13.2 billion fiscal hole is a measure of his failure to grow jobs in the economy over the past year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. It is actually—the $13.2 billion refers to a reduction in the forecast tax revenue, not a fiscal hole. The picture for the Government is pretty straightforward: we are holding expenditure at similar levels this year to last year, and revenue continues to grow in line with the forecast growth of the economy. These forecasts will all be redone in the next couple of months, in time for the Budget, and no doubt we can have this discussion all over again.

Paul Goldsmith: What does the December 2012 Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update show in terms of the Government’s control over its spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a couple of factors that the half-year update confirms. It forecasts that core Crown expenditure will fall from a peak of around 35 percent of GDP over the next 4 years to 30 percent of GDP. Secondly, it shows that the track to surplus is occurring because the Government is, essentially, holding its expenditure to quite low or no growth, at the same time as revenue is gradually picking up as the economy grows. Of course, if the economy grows faster, that revenue will pick up faster. If many of the Government’s projects in respect of improving the quality of expenditure come to fruition, as some are, then we may even see a drop-off in Government expenditure, because we are getting better results, such as less crime, fewer young people going on benefit, and a more efficient police force.

Hon David Parker: Do the latest reports and forecasts that he has received show that after a $10 billion external deficit last year, the external deficit of New Zealand is projected to grow and is predicted by the International Monetary Fund to be the worst in the developed world in 2013?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, the Labour Party should not be lecturing anyone about the current account deficit—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I can—well, I will hear the member’s point of order.

Hon David Parker: I was not lecturing anyone. I was asking him a question as to what the reports showed about his own performance.

Mr SPEAKER: And I think that is a fair point. The Minister should answer the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm whether they forecast New Zealand’s current account deficit relevant to others. What I can say is that New Zealand’s current account deficit in recent years has regularly been a bit better than the forecasts. As I have said to the member before, I happen to disagree with the Treasury and Reserve Bank view that the current account deficit will deteriorate to anywhere near the levels at which the previous Labour Government left it. Having campaigned to halve it, it ended up doubling it to 8 percent for 3 years—the worst performance ever by the New Zealand economy.

Apprenticeships—Government Initiatives and Contribution to Christchurch Rebuild

6. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about boosting the number of people being trained in apprenticeships?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Last week the Prime Minister announced a number of changes to the industry training system to boost skills and support jobs. Our initiatives include that from 1 January next year we will combine Modern Apprenticeships and other apprenticeship-type training under an expanded and improved scheme called New Zealand Apprenticeships, where apprentices will be provided with the same level of subsidy and support regardless of age. We will boost overall funding for apprenticeships by around $12 million in the first year, rising over time. We will boost the educational content of apprenticeships to at least 120 credits, resulting in trainees gaining a level 4 qualification. We will set clearer roles and performance expectations for industry training organisations, increase competition by allowing employers access to industry training funding, and raise the profile and participation of apprenticeships through a reboot initiative.

Colin King: What does the apprenticeship reboot initiative involve and where has the funding come from?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Under our reboot initiative, we will give the first 10,000 new apprentices who enrol after 1 April this year $1,000 towards their tools and off-job course costs, or $2,000 if they are in priority construction trades. The same amount will also be paid to their employers in support of their costs in taking on an apprentice. The apprenticeship reboot and the general increase in funding to support New Zealand apprentices is being funded from the savings the Government has achieved by removing phantom trainees from the industry training system. When we came into Government, about 100,000 people a year were listed as being in industry training who were not actually achieving anything at all, and in fact 11 of them—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We all know that this Minister has had notice of this question, and the supplementary question as well, probably, and surely he could be far more terse and to the point than that. It is tiresome.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister was actually giving information he had been asked for in the question, and that is why I did not stop him, but it was getting longish. I think the Minister had got through most of his answer though, had he not?

Colin King: How will the Government’s changes to industry training support the Christchurch rebuild?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: These announcements form part of a comprehensive plan to boost trades training to take advantage of the Christchurch rebuild. Over the last 2 years, despite the memory fade of the Opposition, the Government has invested $64 million in trades training through Skills for Canterbury, which provided 12,000 additional places in polytechs in 2011, more than 2,500 last year, and a similar number this year, plus, of course, our successful Māori and Pasifika trades training initiatives. This announcement will invest $106 million more in New Zealand Apprenticeships and wider industry training, as the construction phase picks up in Christchurch and employers look to take on more staff.

Grant Robertson: Does the $106 million in funding for the apprenticeship package that was announced last week include the increased funding required to cover the base training costs of the additional 14,000 apprentices over the next 5 years that were part of the package?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, the $106 million was calculated from the actual increase to those apprentices who are already in the system and, on top of that, the apprenticeship reboot, and also the increase in subsidy for industry training. The actual money for the additional 14,000 is on top of that again, which just increases the size of the Government’s investment.

Grant Robertson: So can he then confirm that the package did not include that base training cost for the 14,000 extra apprentices, which means, using his own funding rate, there is a more than $50 million hole in the package he announced last week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, not at all. The member is simply incorrect.

Chris Hipkins: Where’s the money coming from?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I will tell the member where the money is coming from. Removing some of the 100,000 phantom trainees has saved us, in fact, $40 million to $50 million a year. That money has been put into these new initiatives. I am absolutely confident we have the funding not just for the reboot, not just for the increase in subsidy for apprentices, not just for the increase in subsidy for industry trainees but also for the ramp-up of the additional 14,000 apprentices.

Child Poverty—Prime Minister’s Statements

7. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he stand by his statement on Firstline this morning, when asked about child poverty, that “there are … isolated examples that are being reported of a child being hungry …”; if so, how many isolated cases are there?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot give the member the exact number, but, in relation to all of the children who go to school, that number would be relatively small. But the Government has been aware of that. That is why I have extended the contribution to Fruit in Schools, that is why we have extended the money we give to KidsCan, and that is why we have supported Fonterra’s milk in schools programme.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with the charity Variety that children in poverty in New Zealand should be assisted through a $1 a day - style sponsorship programme; if so, will he be sponsoring a child?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, firstly, I welcome what Variety is doing. We welcome the private sector and not-for-profits actually helping New Zealand families. It is not new; that particular programme might be, but there are other great examples of charities. The Government needs partners to work alongside it. The Government itself is doing a huge number of things in this area. Just for the member’s education, in case she has forgotten, the Government, for instance, has rolled out the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme for a lot of New Zealanders. It has increased the funding for early childhood education. It is running a very extensive rheumatic fever programme. It has now ensured that there are free doctors’ visits and after-hours visits for 6-year-olds. It has improved maternity services—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is well beyond the question asked.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he believe that the two out of five children living in poverty in the homes of families where their parents are in work should have to rely on charity to survive?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. It would be my preference that they would not. That is why the Government has supported Working for Families and supports the in-work tax credit. But I simply make this one point, because I think it is a fair point around the overall debate of the member. In 2007 this country posted a $7 billion surplus. At the time, what was reported in terms of the number of children likely to be living in poverty was somewhere between 170,000 and 240,000. So when we had a $7 billion surplus we had up to a quarter of a million New Zealand children in poverty. So this issue ain’t new.

Climate Change Policy—Priority and Direction

8. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Why didn’t he mention climate change yesterday when he outlined his Government’s priorities for the year in his statement to Parliament?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): The statement to Parliament does not list everything the Government intends to do in the year, and the overall structure of the Government’s emissions trading scheme going forward was well established last year.

Dr Russel Norman: Was the reason he did not talk about climate change in his statement for the year that addressing climate change is not a priority for his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, that is not the reason. The Government has some very clear top priorities, and climate change is an important issue. That is why we have an emissions trading scheme, and that is why this year we will have a binding emissions target. Well, actually, interestingly enough, let us quote what Labour’s increase in emissions was when it was in office. Oh, that is right, it was 23 percent, and under National emissions went down.

Dr Russel Norman: Was it more important to use his speech to talk about the Green Party 11 times and the Labour Party 23 times and to make a joke about putting a bell on David Cunliffe, rather than discuss the biggest threat facing the planet and how New Zealand could do its share?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, one of the biggest threats facing New Zealand could be a Labour-Greens Government. Let us get it right. The Green Party policy—correct me if I am wrong—is that it supports a target of a reduction of between 25 and 40 percent in global emissions by 2020. It would demand a huge increase in the emissions trading scheme and the cost on New Zealand families. Let us be upfront. Let us have that debate when we are on TV in those debates talking about how the Green Party is going to force New Zealand consumers to pay a truckload more money every single week, and let us see whether New Zealand consumers like it. If they do, good luck; he will be Minister of Finance.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister confirm that under his Government he is proposing to put the costs on to taxpayers rather than consumers, so that taxpayers are subsidising greenhouse pollution, which is the exact opposite of what those of us who believe in using market instruments to reduce greenhouse emissions think we should do?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not agree with that, and I go back to the fundamental point. If the member wants to see New Zealand with a more significantly increased target, as he does—fair enough; that is the Green Party’s policy—let us understand what that means. It means much bigger costs for New Zealand consumers and New Zealand businesses. That means fewer jobs, and that means New Zealand being less competitive, while the rest of the world is doing very little. If that is the member’s policy, fair enough. That is why he wants to be the Minister of Finance. But in the world that we live in over here, which is the real world, we do not support his view on climate change.

Dr Russel Norman: Is it his plan to subsidise polluting industries and hence lock in old investments rather than encourage new investments? Is that plan consistent with his plan as a Prime Minister to put off all the hard issues because he would rather make jokes than make tough calls?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Dr Russel Norman: Will he commit to accepting Pacific climate change refugees in light of comments from the President of Kiribati, who said: “Climate change is eating away [our children’s] future … For low-lying countries, such as Kiribati, which are at the frontline of climate change, the threat it poses is real and immediate.”? It is no joke, Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is right, and that is why this Government will have a firm and binding target in its long-term plan for reductions in global emissions. That is why we have an emissions trading scheme, and that is why we are investing in the greenhouse gas alliance. But I go back to the point I made earlier. The member wants New Zealand to have an emissions trading scheme and a cost on its consumers way above everywhere else in the world—fair enough. He wants New Zealand consumers to pay way more than the average American, way more than the average Australian, way more than the average Canadian, and way more, actually, than people in Europe—fair enough. But he should go into the election campaign and be honest with those New Zealand voters: vote Greens and you will pay a lot more money.

Housing Affordability and Availability—Policies and Government Work Programme

9. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Prime Minister: Following his decision to appoint a new Minister of Housing, what new policies, if any, does he expect his new Minister to implement to address the growing housing affordability issues in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I expect the Minister to work with his colleagues on policies to address the real issues of housing affordability, which, as I have said before, are to do with land supply, building and resource consents, and the cost of building materials. I also expect all Ministers to support the Government’s policy of keeping spending tightly under control. This is keeping interest rates lower than they would otherwise be and making a big difference to New Zealanders’ mortgages.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, where did he get the information that led him to state last week that it is ridiculous that developers can wait 6 to 18 months for resource consents to build residential homes in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is the advice my office has received, but over the years, actually, I have met—

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked where he got the information—not just saying “from my office”. I asked where he got the information—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s point is fairly made. She did ask where—[Interruption] Order! She did ask where the information came from. I guess what is not automatically clear is whether that is to the Prime Minister’s office or to the Prime Minister, but since the Prime Minister is answering, one assumes it is to the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would have to check with my office. I am not going to go and mislead Parliament. But I can tell the member that in the time that I have been Prime Minister I have heard much worse horror stories than 6 to 18 months in terms of getting resource consents. Maybe that is the reason why house prices doubled between 2001 and 2007 under a Labour Government. Maybe that is the reason, or one of the reasons, why section prices went up, and maybe that is the reason why New Zealanders were paying twice as much for their mortgages under Labour as they are under the National Government.

Hon Annette King: Is he aware that comprehensive data is provided to the Government from the Ministry for the Environment on councils and resource consents, that the same data was provided to the Productivity Commission for its housing affordability report, and neither of which backs up his figures of 6 to 18 months; if so, why has he resorted to exaggeration and blaming councils when he should be focusing on the real issues that are stopping New Zealanders getting their first homes?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I am aware of the first point. Secondly, let me make this point. Interestingly enough, the Productivity Commission’s report that was released, which the Government is looking to follow, looks at the areas that we think are the real issues behind housing. They are land supply, building consents, resource consents, and the like. By the way, that happens to mirror the work and the report that were done by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for Helen Clark. She sat around with half of the department working on that, for years. By the way, here are the results under Labour: house prices doubled, mortgage rates went through the roof, and housing affordability was awful.

Hon Annette King: What factors have now enabled the Government to have built homes up to 300 square metres with four bedrooms for under $485,000 on prime land at Hobsonville, according to the Department of Building and Housing—not the one-bedroom or terraced housing that he claimed in answer to an earlier question today?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have got to be blunt: I am getting a bit giddy on the numbers. They started at $300,000, then they were $550,000, now they are $485,000.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been called. [Interruption] Order! There must be silence.

Hon Annette King: My question related to the Government having built homes at Hobsonville that are 300 square metres, that have four bedrooms, that are being built for under—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now actually using the point of order to enter debating material. The question was a pretty clear question. I think the Prime Minister should treat it as such.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There will be, across New Zealand and across Auckland, a range of prices to build a house. There will not be a four-bedroom house for $300,000, as David Shearer was trying to tell people. Interestingly enough, here is one mildly interesting statistic that the House might be interested in. I have seen reports that the basis for some of Labour members’ arguments is the Housing Foundation. Interestingly enough, it has produced 15 units with an estimated price of $425,000. What Labour forgot to tell New Zealanders is that, by the way, of that $6 million investment the Government had to—

Hon Member: You’re making it up.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —I am not making it up; it gets real good, though—we had to put in $2 million. So guess what?

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You did hear my question clearly. I asked about Hobsonville. The Prime Minister then answered about the rest of New Zealand and then about Labour’s policy. Why does he not address the question, which specifically asked about Hobsonville, about four bedrooms, and about 300 square metres?

Mr SPEAKER: I—[Interruption] Order! The member is not helping herself by bellowing that across the House. Because of the time that has elapsed I will invite the member to repeat her question, but it must be exactly that same question.

Hon Annette King: Exactly as I asked it. What factors have now enabled the Government to have built homes up to 300 square metres with four bedrooms for under $485,000 on prime land at Hobsonville in Auckland, according to the Department of Building and Housing—not the one-bedroom or terraced housing he claimed earlier in question time?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a start-off, this is not our policy. This is Labour’s policy that you can build a four-bedroom house, which it told us was for 300 grand. Secondly, if those members want to go directly to Hobsonville—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I can predict the member’s point of order, but I will hear it to make sure.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The question related to the houses built by the Prime Minister’s Government. He has talked about every other entity building houses, not the houses that his Government built.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member. The question asked what factors have enabled houses to be built at Hobsonville of a certain size for under a certain price. That was a very straightforward question. It seemed to claim that the basis of the information appeared to be Housing New Zealand Corporation statistics, and I think that is what is causing the disruption in the House—[Interruption] That member will not be doing too well, either, if he keeps interjecting when the Speaker is on his feet. It was a reasonable question. The member claims that houses of that size are being built for that figure, and is asking what factors enable that to be. I think that is not an unreasonable question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am advised that houses in Hobsonville—I do not have the numbers on $485,000, but I am advised that for $400,000—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Your Government built them.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, we did not. We do not have a bunch of builders out there. We use the private sector. But going back to one thing, for $400,000 you get a one-person studio at the lower end, or a two to three-bedroom terraced house on 130 square metres. But if it is all so easy, there is no housing problem, then.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps I could clarify for the Prime Minister where I got the data—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, order! The member must not do that when I am on my feet. Look, I gave the member the opportunity to repeat her question, and the Prime Minister clearly has a different view of the information. [Interruption] Order! He has answered the question by basically disputing the information, and he is at liberty to do that. He is at liberty to do that. The member can pursue it with further supplementary questions.

Louise Upston: What reports, if any, has he received on alternative policies that claim to address the issue of housing affordability?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen reports of a policy to build around 66,000 houses for $300,000 each. Then the policy got changed to be about building small apartments and terraced houses in Auckland. Then the cost went up to a maximum of $550,000. Then today I see it is back down to—I cannot actually work out whether it is $300,000, $400,000, or $485,000. That makes me tempted to think that Labour makes it up on the fly. But if I go back to my point about the KiwiBuild scheme, the example of the Housing Foundation, where the Government put in $2 million, the interesting point there is that if we were to do the same thing for an estimated price of $425,000, that would translate to 66,000 homes at a cost of $8.8 billion. That is the level of subsidy required.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a report from the Parliamentary Library for me, regarding council resource consents, which states that the figures Mr Key quoted cannot have come from the Ministry for the Environment survey, and it does not know where he has sourced them.

Mr SPEAKER: I—[Interruption] Order! The member is telling the House that this report from the Parliamentary Library states that?

Hon Annette King: Yes, it does.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Canterbury, Recovery—Progress of Canterbury Home Repair Programme

10. NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What progress has been made in the repair of homes in Canterbury by the EQR Repair Programme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I am pleased to report to the House that 30,748 homes have been completed under the Earthquake Commission Canterbury Home Repair Programme. The total expenditure on this project now exceeds $1 billion. These are homes that have damage costing more than $15,000 but less than the $100,000 cap. In addition, more than 47,000 emergency repairs have been completed and 18,000 heating units have been installed. There are approximately 84,000 of the 180,000 houses in Christchurch in this programme, which means that now about one-third of those repairs have been completed.

Nicky Wagner: How many houses does he expect to be repaired in 2013?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The programme is now repairing in excess of 2,000 houses each month. It would hope to have completed over half the required repairs by the end of this year. As building standards and foundation designs have become clearer with the ground settling, work will increase on repairs exceeding $50,000. These projects will take a little longer, but Fletcher EQR should complete in excess of 50,000 repairs by the end of this year.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does he stand by the Fletcher EQR repair strategy for damaged homes with asbestos in light of the medical officer of health describing it as a future “landmine”; if so, why?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have to very clearly say that I think the medical officer of health may have been misled as to the extent of the problem when he made his statements.

Question No. 11 to Minister

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order with you under Speakers’ ruling 151/5 relating to the transfer of this question. I will let you look that one up, but while you do that, this question was originally set down to the Minister of Education. In setting it down to the Minister of Education we needed to provide some authentication for raising “strained relations” in the primary question. The authentication that we provided made it very clear that the strained relations being referred to were between the Minister of Education and the Secretary for Education. The wording was negotiated with the Office of the Clerk, once we had presented that authentication to them, to make it clear where we were going with the question. Speakers’ ruling 151/5 prevents the transfer of a question where only one Minister, or the Minister that the question had originally been put to, could be expected to have the knowledge in order to answer the question and the issues around that. A breakdown in a relationship between a Minister and a chief executive is really something that only the Minister whose relationship has broken down can be expected to answer for. Therefore, the transfer of this question to the Minister of State Services seems to be an abuse of the transfer process, in that it is allowing a Minister to escape answering for their own actions and the breakdown of the relationship with their own chief executive.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think the first point is that the Opposition has relied, in getting this question on the sheet, on statements that were not made by the Minister, but by the other party. Therefore, they are of an allegatory nature. But it is a well-known and established precedent that the employment relationship with a chief executive is with the State Services Commissioner, and it is therefore appropriate that the Minister of State Services is the one who would answer in matters of such a breakdown. Otherwise, you could have chief executives making all sorts of allegations about Ministers and then the Opposition assuming that that gave it carte blanche to ask those Ministers any questions it likes.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an interesting point the member makes. There is a fundamental principle that questions can be transferred—and the member is quite correct—except where that would be objectionable in so far as the Minister it has been transferred away from is the only person who could possibly have the information. It is interesting, though, to look—the member, in raising his point of order, referred to the material provided to validate the question. He will recollect from that material that the view that there had been strained relations was the view of the State Services Commissioner, and therefore one cannot necessarily automatically assume it is the view also of the Minister. [Interruption] Order! No, no. The validation contained the view of the State Services Commissioner. I had a look at this, because when it was transferred I suspected that the point may be raised. Given that the view the member is referring to is the view of the State Services Commissioner, in addition to the point raised by the honourable Leader of the House that the State Services Commissioner is responsible for these matters, it seems not unreasonable that the question could be transferred to the Minister responsible, the Minister of State Services.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not go on further on this subject, but I do want to raise just one last point on this matter. If the Minister disagreed with the view put forward by the State Services Commissioner, the only person, really, who can answer that is the Minister of Education, not the Minister of State Services, so you have actually just reinforced the point that I was trying to make.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to that point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, no. I do not think I need any further assistance—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I think it is an important one, because we do not want to establish precedent for the House. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear from the Leader of the House, indeed. [Interruption] Order! Order! I will hear from the Leader of the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): If you were to accept Mr Hipkins’ point, Mr Speaker, you would deny the opportunity that Mr Hipkins has to ask that direct question.

Mr SPEAKER: Look, I will hear briefly from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because there is no need to take up more time of the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): We can solve this problem because the expert on this question is here, and I seek leave for the Minister of Education to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot seek leave for another person to answer a question. Look—[Interruption] Order! This matter is easily dealt with. I have allowed the House time to explore it. The Government had an absolute right to transfer this question, and the member should proceed with his question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that the House is actually the master of its own decisions and by leave can, essentially, do anything. The Rt Hon Winston Peters sought leave for a question to be transferred back again. My view is that you have got to put that to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the matter can probably be easily dealt with. I will check up to make sure. It seems to me that the member makes a reasonable point that the House is the master of its own destiny, so I am happy to put the leave. Leave is sought for—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that is the way you go, then I would suggest that we go through Speakers’ rulings one by one, seeing whether the House wishes to reconfirm them, because that is where we are getting to.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. Order! I think on this issue that it is—[Interruption] That is not very helpful, I say to the right honourable gentleman. Leave is easily denied. I will check further, to check on the specific issue around questions. Certainly, there are some limits around what can be covered by leave, but I am not aware of any reason why this should be limited. I think—the point that has been made to me by the Clerk is a very good point. If leave had been sought for the question to be transferred to another Minister, that would be the more appropriate way for the leave to be put to the House, because I am concerned about, you know, leave being sought for specific questions to be answered by one or another person. So if the leave is rephrased, I am happy to put it. The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that mean that the House determines now which Minister answers questions, as opposed to the Government?

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The Government determines which Minister should answer a question, but there is no reason why, just as a member can seek leave to have their question deferred, leave cannot be sought for a question to be transferred to another Minister, because it is very much in the hands of any member to deny it. It is not as if it is putting the House at any risk at all. It would be, I think, extremely inappropriate were leave to be regularly sought. This is an issue where a question that was transferred has caused some concern. I believe that the transfer of the question was absolutely legitimate on the evidence I have seen, and there is no reason for it not to have been transferred. However, leave is now sought for it to be transferred back, and I am prepared to entertain putting that leave.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave for question No. 11 in the name of Chris Hipkins to be transferred to another Minister, or, more specifically, back to the Minister of Education.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! That matter is now dealt with.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would call your attention to Speaker’s ruling 151/3, and ask you to give us a fairly prompt ruling as to whether or not that Speaker’s ruling stands, because it says in the Speaker’s ruling: “It is not for the Speaker or the House to determine which Minister has responsibility for a question.” It seems to me that in this circumstance either that ruling has been dispensed with or the House has just committed itself to a leave process that is contrary to the spirit of that Speaker’s ruling.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): It is quite clear that it is in the power of the House to move away from a particular Speaker’s ruling, if it so chooses unanimously.

Mr SPEAKER: I think we do not need to spend more time on this issue today. I mean, the fundamental rule remains. It is the Government’s responsibility to determine which Minister answers a question. Concern was raised over the transferral of this question. I have ruled that it was perfectly in order for the question to be transferred, and then leave has been sought for the question to be transferred back. The House is the master of its own destiny. Seeking such leave is never going to work. In fact, it is hard to conceive how it would ever work, because the Government does have control over that, and that is why, were it to become a regular practice, I think the matter would need to be dealt with more clearly. But I have got no problem with the procedures followed today, and so I think question No. 11 should now be put to the Minister of State Services.

Education, Ministry—Resignation of Secretary for Education

11. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of State Services: What were the factors that contributed to the strained relations that resulted in the resignation of Lesley Longstone as Secretary of Education?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of State Services): As the member will be aware, there were several high profile matters in education last year that contributed to strained relations across the education sector. Ms Longstone’s reasons for her resignation are a matter between her and the State Services Commissioner.

Chris Hipkins: Was the State Services Commissioner correct in stating that strained relations with the Minister of Education, Hekia Parata, were largely to blame for Lesley Longstone’s resignation?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: He did not say that they were largely to blame for the resignation. Ms Longstone reached her own decision, which she conveyed in writing to the State Services Commissioner. And I would make the point that employment matters such as this are a matter between the employee and the State Services Commissioner.

Chris Hipkins: Was it a ministerial decision to increase class sizes in last year’s Budget, a ministerial decision to propose closures and mergers for schools in Christchurch, a ministerial decision to close Salisbury School—a decision overturned by the court—and a ministerial decision to sign off the implementation of Novopay; if so, why is the Secretary for Education being asked to fall on her sword, rather than the Minister who actually made the decisions?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Secretary for Education has not been asked to fall on her sword.

Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that the Minister of Education’s remark on the way to the House today that the Ministry of Education not paying its staff today was “karma” is going to lead to an improvement or a further deterioration in the relationship between that great communicator Hekia Parata and her officials?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I am not going to rely on any report of a remark given by that member, because I could not be sure that he is reporting it accurately.

Chris Hipkins: Why should the New Zealand public have faith that the right person has resigned, given that the Minister who made all the decisions that led to the major controversies in education remains in office but has had all of her major responsibilities apparently taken off her, and now is not even being allowed by the Government to answer her own questions in the House?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member is allowed to answer her own questions.

Prisoners, Rehabilitation and Rate of Reoffending—Working Prisons Scheme and Drug and Alcohol Treatment

12. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Corrections: What steps is the Government taking to improve prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): The Government will be establishing Auckland Women’s Centre, Rolleston Prison, and Tongariro/Rangipō Prison as full working prisons. All prisoners at these three prisons will be engaged in a structured, 40-hour week of employment and rehabilitation activities. Many prisoners have poor employment histories. Over 50 percent of prisoners did not have a job when they came into prison—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hate to do this on your last question. I do not know whether it is the ambient noise in the Chamber or whether something has happened with the volume, but I think we are not getting it over here. We had a bit of trouble hearing the question, and the answer also is not coming through very clearly.

Mr SPEAKER: Could I ask the Minister to maybe speak a little closer to the microphone, if it is difficult to hear.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Do you want me to start again?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I would not ask the Minister to start again. Please, if she could just finish her answer. [Interruption] Order! Order!

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Over 50 percent of prisoners did not have a job when they came to prison, and most have no formal qualifications. Working prisons will ensure that more prisoners have the opportunity to gain work experience and qualifications, which will increase their chances of finding employment on their release.

Jacqui Dean: Why is employment training important in rehabilitating prisoners?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Prisoner employment has been shown to have a significant impact on reoffending rates. Research undertaken by the Department of Corrections has shown that the reoffending rates were reduced by over 8 percent for prisoners who participated in prison-based employment activities, and over 16 percent for prisoners on the Release to Work programme. International studies have shown that having a job after release is a critical element to leading someone away from a life of crime. That is why this Government is committed to increasing that employment and skills training for prisoners significantly over the next 5 years as part of its programme to reduce reoffending by 25 percent.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister see the provisions in the National - United Future confidence and supply agreement regarding mandatory alcohol and drug pre-release assessments for prisoners as complementary to the employment training strategy and helping position those inmates for long-term employment once they are released?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, we agree that drug and alcohol addiction is a major driver of crime. In order to reach that 25 percent reduction in reoffending we need not only to train the prisoners so that they have the skills to get a job but also to treat their addiction issues. That is why this Government is significantly increasing drug and alcohol treatment both for prisoners and for offenders in the community. An extra 33,000 of them will get some form of drug and alcohol addiction treatment. Pre-release drug and alcohol assessments will complement all of these efforts and will help ensure that prisoners have the assistance that they need to overcome their addiction issues and remain in stable employment.

Mr SPEAKER: That brings to a close my final question time. I fear I have blotted my copybook, in that it has taken somewhat longer than usual.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 29 January.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, it would be curmudgeonly on my part to say that that was probably your worst performance, as in the longest question time, that I can recall you have had, but those issues will be dealt with tomorrow. The Prime Minister set out yesterday his priorities for the year, and the Leader of the Opposition attempted to do the same. Well, it was a case of something like that movie from many years ago, “Honey, I Shrunk the House”. Three months ago the much-fabled free house from the Government was three bedrooms and a lawn. By yesterday the $300,000 house is one bedroom and a lift. That is how much it has shrunk by in that time. And the one that was $300,000 is now $500,000. That is the promise. Then the Opposition backed it up today with questions from the spokesperson on housing, who I think was trying to say that the Government should agree that you can have a four-bedroom house for $480,000 because someone is building them in Hobsonville. So, hang on, it must be able to happen, because it is happening. So if it is happening, why does the Government need to build 10,000 of them? I mean, the lack of logic about that policy is so startling, I am still not sure I can be right about what she was saying today.

But let us run through it again. Because someone is building a four-bedroom house in Hobsonville for $480,000—which is now what the Opposition is promising the Government will give you a Government house for—the Government should accept that it is a good policy from the Opposition. Well, actually, what the Government accepts is that if you can build them now—and that is the promise—then that is not a problem.

Why do we not just let people get on and build them, rather than have the Government build them, because what will happen if the Government builds them? Well, a Labour-Greens Government would do what it did when it was building houses for State house tenants, right? So it did not have to worry about the market. It did not have to worry about nasty developers and evil bankers. This is when the wonderful, caring Labour Government was in charge. What it left at the end of 9 years of what was meant to be the most caring, brilliant, intellectual, smart housing policy in the world was a housing estate of 69,000 houses where, by the admission of the Housing New Zealand Corporation, one-third of them were the wrong size in the wrong place, in poor condition, and with no insulation—20,000 houses, $5 billion worth—and that was when those members were completely in charge. It was a disgrace. It was negligent, it was incompetent, and it was wasteful of PAYE dollars, handed over at the rate of $120 per week by low-wage earners while the Labour Government blew it, wasted it, on the incompetent management of its own housing estate. Now Labour is saying: “Why doesn’t the Government build all the houses?”, because it did such a good job of its own houses. It is pathetic, incompetent, and, worst of all, it has left the lowest-income, most vulnerable New Zealanders without, in many cases, reasonable housing.

Fortunately, this Government will have, by the middle of this year, insulated every State house that the Labour Government left uninsulated, with one-third of them rotting and suitable for only demolition because they were the wrong size in the wrong place and going rotten. And Labour says: “Let’s build 100,000.” Maybe it will get it right. It had 70,000 and it got that mostly wrong, so it says: “Let’s do 100,000, because we might get it right.”

I have worked out what those members mean by high-tech Government. We have discussed in here the Greens’ principal political policy tool, which is the photocopier—how to get that through the door into the Beehive to print off that money. Well, I have found out that there are 3-D photocopiers, and the Labour housing policy is the equivalent—the 3-D photocopier will just fix every problem in the economy by manufacturing one-bedroom apartments in high-rise blocks, which are the Kiwi dream for people who thought they were voting for a three-bedroom house with a lawn, but that is not what they are going to get. What it shows is the Labour Party has thought of nothing new in 5 years in Opposition—nothing at all. Its housing policy is just a worse version of the State housing policy it executed in Government. It is not new. It is just saying: “Let’s try and make the same mistakes on a larger scale.” That is all. What those members should have done was look at the advice that was given to the last Labour Government after 2 years of study by a cross-departmental agency thing, which came down to the point of saying: “The Government should deal with constraints on supply. Don’t go ahead and subsidise the bad practice of councils, developers, land bankers, and everyone else who does too well out of housing.” So we are just following the advice that the previous Government got in the middle of 2008. I recommend Labour goes back and looks at that advice, because, actually, it is good advice. But what Labour has done is go back further.

I listened for some new economic ideas. The Leader of the Opposition went back and he read the speech Helen Clark gave in 2001 at the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference. He said: “Let’s stop milking cows. Let’s do some high-tech stuff.” Well, actually, I invite him to go and visit a cowshed and see what is there these days. What it shows is a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives the New Zealand economy, which is a deep, refined culture of the very broad knowledge of how to turn our biological and production advantages into profitable exporting and jobs. If there is anything that is old hat, it is clichés from 2001 about how New Zealanders are too dumb and are doing a whole lot of stupid things, and about asking why they are not doing software. That is the sum total of Labour’s thinking in the 13 years since the knowledge wave. We know where the knowledge wave ended up—on a beach, actually. The thing simply ran out, because it had no credibility with anyone in the real world.

So I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants to sound new, then he should come up with something new, not something from Helen Clark’s 2001 Catching the Knowledge Wave speech—cheap slogans, but, worse than that, they show a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world has changed. The bit that did not really fit was saying: “We’ve had a global financial crisis, so what I’m going to do is give the same speech as the Labour Government gave when the world economy was having the best decade it had ever had, and we’re going to have the same housing policy that didn’t work then.” That is the new Labour Party.

As one of its friends pointed out, it is the only political party they know of whose health spokesperson has as their main initiative legislation that is about licensing our doctors to kill people. Would you go into a hospital run by Maryan Street? That is how shallow the thinking is. There is not one single new idea on health, welfare, or education, which are meant to be the Labour heartland issues. It is an Opposition that does not understand how the world has changed.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): We had 10 minutes from the Minister of Finance and he did not talk about his own record or his own Government’s policies once—not once. This is a Government that has unemployment at a 13-year high—over 7 percent, which is the highest since when he was last Minister of Finance—a Government that has created no extra jobs over the last year, and a Government with the worst growth record in 50 years, where the real economy of manufacturing and exports outside the primary sector is shrinking and continuing to shrink, where the current account deficit last year was $10 billion and this year is forecast to be worst in the developed world, where the Crown revenue forecast for the 5-year period has dropped $13 billion in the last year, and where the overvalued dollar is crippling our exporters. I would have expected the Minister of Finance to address those issues rather than misrepresenting Labour housing policy, rather than misrepresenting the numbers we have used, and rather than claiming credit for the insulation of State houses, which was funded by a Labour Government under a Green Party initiative that was promoted by Jeanette Fitzsimons. I recall it because I was there. I was part of the Cabinet that approved that bid by the Greens.

Mr English continued on from what we had yesterday from Mr Key. Mr Key stood up, and I am going to quote what he started with. He said: “What a good strong start it has been for the National-led Government, has it not?”—self-praise—“What a cracker of a start—full of energy and full of new ideas, ready here to continue the 4 years of sold work and progress we have seen in the past. It is not even February and we have had a Cabinet reshuffle,” and then he listed the new initiatives. He listed only two. He said “14,000 new apprentices to be hired over the next 5 years …”, which will not even make up for the loss. And what was the next thing? What was the next thing on his list?

Andrew Williams: Warrants of fitness.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Exactly—warrants of fitness. The next big idea was “warrant of fitness changes that will support every New Zealander around the country.” What an embarrassment—what an embarrassment!

You know, it is little wonder when the biggest economic idea the Government has for this 3-year cycle is selling off State-owned enterprises, and what is the latest news on that? Brian Fallow, in the New Zealand Herald on 24 January, under “SOE sales folly without smelter sorted”, said: “When the Prime Minister outlines the Government’s plans for the year ahead he will no doubt be clear that it is not going to shrink from doing something foolish just because it is [so] unpopular.” It is foolish, given that the price of power is uncertain because of Tiwai Point problems. Therefore, not only will it make the Crown deficit worse but also the price it is going to get is suppressed.

If you are a serious Government addressing New Zealand’s problems, you would actually be doing something to address the problems of our exporters. The Government does not like it. It blocked an inquiry at the Finance and Expenditure Committee into the shrinking exports outside the primary sector, and now it complains that it was not invited to the inquiry that was outside that process. Talk about spin! Well, I will tell you what: we have had over 130 substantive submissions from organisations and manufacturers. That is in addition to a far greater number of form submissions. That is 130 submissions of substance.

We have had people like HamiltonJet. HamiltonJet came along to us, and I will quote what was said in the New Zealand Herald about what it said. The heading in the New Zealand Herald this week was “CEOs slam killer dollar”. “The single monetary policy goal of targeting inflation is now past its use-by date.”—Keith Whiteley from HamiltonJet came along and said that. HamiltonJet is one of our proudest export companies. It is dominant in the large marine jet market. It has got over 50 percent of the world market. Its closest competitor is Rolls-Royce and it is better than it. At the moment, it needs to invest $20 million to improve its productivity. At an exchange rate of US80c—and our exchange rate is currently more than that, at about US83c—it would make a 2 percent return on that investment, despite the fact that the company is debt-free—2 percent. No wonder our exporters are not investing. No wonder our exporters are not expanding.

We heard similar things from others. We heard Stewart Hyde from Wyma Engineering. This, again, is a world-leading company. It manufactures machines that wash vegetables before they are sold in supermarkets. It is a big market internationally, and it is the world leader. What did it say? In recent years, because of the exchange rate, it has been forced to outsource four-fifths of its componentry from overseas. So it has exported four-fifths of those jobs—exported them. It said that it has cost it 40 local jobs—this is one company alone—and the company is now considering moving its final assembly overseas because this Government will not do anything to change monetary policy.

The world has changed. I am going to read you a couple of excerpts from The Telegraph newspaper recently: “A monetary revolution is underway.” This is from The Telegraph on 1 January, 2013.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: It’s good that you read The Telegraph.

Hon DAVID PARKER: What was that?

Hon Christopher Finlayson: It’s good that you read The Telegraph, not the Guardian.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I do read The Telegraph in respect of these issues, because Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has got a lot to teach the National Party, who are up to date—not the National Party; The Telegraph. The IMF is also up to date. It is saying that the world has moved on. This is how the article starts: “The US, Japan, Britain, as well as the Swiss, Scandies, and a string of states around the world, are actively driving down their currencies or imposing caps.” They are all doing it, and in New Zealand we sit here like saps.

We lose 180,000 people to Australia. The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union told the inquiry that is has had redundancies every week in the last year in the exporters, and where are those people going for their next job? They are either going to Australia or moving into insecure jobs, where they have insecure income from week to week, in other service sector jobs outside of manufacturing. That is what we were told.

We were told by chief executive officer after chief executive officer of export companies that outside primary processing, the situation of manufacturing—the future lifeblood of this economy—is dire. One of the submitters said that the Government says things like “The manufacturing performance index is improving.”, and then he pointed out that that is what happens when the weakest, the tail-enders, fall off. “That is not good news,” he said. This is what he did say, and I thought it was a good metaphor. He said: “That’s a bit like a cricket team improving their batting average by shooting the tail-enders.” That is not a sustainable solution, Mr English. And why did you not in one instance address the fact that under the current Government we have amongst the worst current account deficit in the developed world—$10 billion last year—causing more borrowing from overseas and more asset sales to foreigners?

This Government has no plan. This is why we are losing people to Australia, this is why wages are not keeping pace with housing costs, and this is one of the issues that this Government should be addressing.

What did the manufacturers say they wanted? They said that they wanted changes to monetary policy, first and foremost, which the Government refuses to address despite the fact that all these other countries have moved on. Manufacturers say that they want the exemption for capital income removed. Having the exemption for capital income removed was the second thing on their list—a capital gains tax. Again, the Government is ignoring the advice of Treasury, of economists, and of all the other countries in the world that want a neutral investment signal so that the money goes into productive enterprises, instead of driving up the price of land. The Government will not address that, yet it pretends it wants to do something about housing costs.

The next thing on their list was that they want a research and development tax credit. They do not want to be told by a Government quango like Industrial Research Ltd how to improve the efficiency of their business. In fact, they were horribly insulted by the likes of Mr Joyce telling them that they should be increasing their prices or becoming more efficient. They say that that is their job, they are very good at it, and they do it despite the fact that they cannot prosper, as the HamiltonJet example showed.

We heard from A W Fraser, the biggest bronze manufacturers and turners in Australasia. Again, it cannot make a quid. Mr Sutherland said that Mr Joyce and Mr Key say that it is good that its new machinery is less expensive. He said that it cannot afford to buy the new machinery, because when it uses it, it cannot turn a profit from what it sells because of the high dollar.

The next thing on their list was also something that is in Labour Party policy: improve the savings that we would achieve through universal KiwiSaver. Is it not interesting that businesses are saying that they need the improvements to tax that Labour is promoting and that they want changes to monetary policy that we have led—that we have led?

Hon Bill English: No, you haven’t. What change have you proposed?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, we have proposed changes to mandate and the membership of the board, to have the decisions taken by the board rather than the governor, and we propose that macro-prudential tools should be able to be used for fiscal and economic outcomes and not just for stability of a financial system. So these are substantial changes. The National Government is failing in its duties.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Mr Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging your outstanding period of service to the State, and to wish you all the very best for the future. I want also to apologise to you that from time to time you asked for my assistance in getting Paula Bennett to “zip it, sweetie”, and I failed because she is very hard to handle.

Unlike Mr Grant Robertson and “Mayor” Annette King, I am an authentic Wellingtonian, and I want to welcome all my colleagues back to this beautiful city, which is enjoying one of its trademark summers. For those members who come into Parliament by going round the bays, can I say to them that I think it would be very wise if they came through the Mount Victoria Tunnel and past the Basin Reserve. Of course, the Basin Reserve is one of our most famous cricket grounds. I was there in 1978, when we beat the English for the first time. I certainly hope we will be able to perform well against Alastair Cook’s magnificent team, which I think arrived in the country just last night.

One goes round the Basin Reserve, and what does one see? Well, I say to Mr Robertson that one sees Mr Brownlee’s magnificent new road. Gerry Brownlee has made a tremendous contribution to the rebuilding of Christchurch, and he has done a wonderful job in ensuring that that road is going to be constructed in time for the centennial of the First World War. I am very pleased at the progress on our motorway, and I frankly cannot believe that Helen Clark was prepared to put a motorway right through our park and past the playground of a primary school. That is exactly what she was going to do—but she never liked children.

I could criticise the Labour Opposition for that and for other things, but I am intending to be positive. First, I want to focus on my colleagues in caucus, because it is my last day as the Acting Minister of Labour. I want to acknowledge the contribution of that fine member for Waimakariri who tipped Clayton Cosgrove out, Kate Wilkinson, whose work on health and safety, and particularly on setting up the independent task force, is going to lead to some important reforms. I am sure that Simon Bridges is going to do very good work. I have to tell you that work is already well under way to implement the 16 recommendations of the royal commission’s report on Pike River, and I think the work product, which I have said in this House will be in place by the end of 2013, will be very good indeed. I also acknowledge my good friend Tim Groser and express my support for his campaign to become Director-General of the World Trade Organization. His success is going to be very important for international trade, but it is also sorely needed to prove that there are indeed New Zealand politicians who are up to the job of running large international organisations.

I could criticise the Labour Party’s lacklustre start to the year, but, frankly, that is boring and I am not really interested in the Labour Party. I am interested in the Government and, frankly, the Labour Party is hopeless. I could comment about Labour’s scheduling of David Shearer’s state of the nation speech on the same day as Metiria Turei’s state of the planet speech, the first clash of many to come, because in reality, as can be seen around the world, social democratic parties hate green parties. In reality, I have to say that David Shearer’s speech was not so much a state of the nation speech as a state of the planet speech, because he borrowed catchphrases and words from Labour Party leaders and social democratic leaders all around the world. Take, for example, some of the statements that Ed Miliband made to the Fabian Society. Basically, David Shearer borrowed all of those. He did what could be called a Joe Biden, who wrecked his presidential campaign in 1988 by borrowing—unbelievably, borrowing—Neil Kinnock’s phrases. That was a sign of desperation if ever there was desperation. But there we have little Ed Miliband’s favourite phrases being appropriated by David Shearer. I say to Mr Robertson that if the Labour Party cares so much about New Zealand jobs, why does David Shearer not hire a New Zealand speechwriter?

I could talk about Labour’s proposed reshuffle, but what is there to talk about? I have to say that the depth of talent is such in the National Party that our great Prime Minister rejuvenated the Cabinet with members from National’s strong caucus. I wonder what talent David Shearer is going to be able to find in the murky recesses of the Labour Party. It is kind of like looking for the Loch Ness monster in the Thorndon Pool. Thorndon Pool is very shallow, and what you think is Nessie is in fact a branch or a log. I am sure poor old David Shearer is going to come back from all his hard work and find that all there is is Rajen Prasad.

Contrast that with the attitude on this side of the House. How fortunate we are to have one another. We are not only fine colleagues but good friends, united behind a great leader. But the only person the Labour Party members can unite over is Charles Chauvel, because they all hate him.

I have a very busy work programme planned for this year, but one—

Grant Robertson: Nastiest person I have ever met.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, Mr—what is his name? That fellow from Rimutaka, Mr Hipkins, is laughing.

Chris Hipkins: I’m laughing at you, not with you.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, with me. I have a very busy programme this year. But one of the things I want to talk about—

Hon Annette King: Nobody laughs with that member.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I will laugh when that member stands for the mayoralty, and that will be a great fight.

As Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, one of the issues that I have been very interested in focusing on is reforming Te Ture Whenua Maori Act—the Maori Land Act. I want to say something about this issue, which is not often talked about in this place but it is very, very important. About 5 percent of the nation’s land mass is in fact covered by this legislation—about 27,000 blocks of Māori land, comprising about 1.42 million hectares. If you look at it in the context of the North Island, then it climbs to about 10 to 11 percent. Reform, which is long overdue, is going to provide great opportunities. We all know the power, or the potential, of agribusiness to grow this country’s wealth. Māori agribusiness accounts for about 8 to10 percent of milk solids already. There are any number of reports that have been done over the years—and Dr Sharples will attest to this—showing that opportunities are there to grow Māori agribusiness. But the unfortunate thing is that because of this legislation 80 percent of Māori land is either undeveloped or underperforming. It is an issue that has been around for a long time, and it simply needs to be addressed—major structural issues stemming from the 1993 legislation and compliance costs created by the legislation. That legislation was last reviewed in 2002, and, despite the same problems being identified, the vast majority of the recommendations have not been implemented. I am going to be working on that with Dr Sharples this year, and I am very much looking forward to it.

We have got a very busy year, as the Prime Minister said, on Treaty settlements. I want to acknowledge all members of the House for their contributions last year that meant that 12 settlement bills were passed. In the week before Christmas, I signed five deeds of settlement and three very important agreements in principle with Ngā Ruahine, Taranaki, and Te Ātiawa. I am looking forward to bringing them to deeds of settlement this year, and to continuing to work with my Māori Party colleagues on this hugely important work of providing long-overdue justice to iwi around the country.

There is also our success in the arts, because there is a lot going on there, but I particularly want to mention World War I commemorations. A lot of work, as I said, is being done on the Gerry Brownlee park. That will be the centrepiece, but a huge amount of work is also being done both here and overseas in terms of commemorations. I had a very interesting meeting in Paris with the French Minister of veterans’ affairs, who is very keen to see New Zealand do its bit in Europe. There is so much to do, so much to be positive about with this group of outstanding New Zealanders, led by such a fine Prime Minister—lots of work to do, and I cannot wait to get stuck in this year.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Can I say to the member Christopher Finlayson, who has just resumed his seat, that the name of the park is going to be “Bury Gerry Park” or the “Gerry Brownlee Memorial Park”. But I also say to Mr Finlayson that I have beaten him twice at an election and I am looking forward to thrashing him for a third time at the next election.

Mr Speaker, can I begin also by wishing you well in your new role as our High Commissioner in London. You have been a very good Speaker. You have given me a very fair hearing. I just hope that you have given a few pointers to the next Speaker so that I can continue my very good relationship with the Chair.

Prime Minister’s statements—well, I have listened to a few. Some have been substantial and enlightening, some have been about real policies that are to be implemented, some have been about challenges and opportunities, and some are believable. Then there is the other sort. There is the bluster, the blatherskite, the blame shifting, and, another word that starts with “b” that you know a lot about, Mr Speaker—animal manure. Yesterday John Key, in his fifth Prime Minister’s statement, was in the “other sort” category, because after 5 years of Prime Minister’s statements he finally got around to mentioning one of the big issues facing New Zealanders, that of affordable housing. It is an issue that ordinary Kiwis, hard-working Kiwis, are very concerned about. Well, he got 13 lines in his speech. That was all he was prepared to commit to the issue, but there was no policy, there was no programme, and there were no ideas, just a handful of meaningless words. He said this: “We need more houses built in New Zealand, at a lower cost.” He said that we need more land, he said that we need more streamlined processes, and he said that we need to be more proactive. So you add those 13 lines up and the conclusion is a big fat nothing, because there was a lot of kneading going on but not much was rising.

I have no idea how National is going to go about housing affordability in New Zealand, but he did manage to do a lot of ad libbing about Labour’s KiwiBuild policy. What I know is that we have got the National Party rattled on this policy, because I have never seen the Prime Minister fizzing, frothing, and fibbing as much as he has been over KiwiBuild. And then we watched Bill English today. He got to his feet and he spat, and he yelled, and he screeched, all about Labour’s housing policy. I am delighted—absolutely delighted—that we are talking about Labour’s housing policy. The whole country is talking about Labour’s housing policy. Why? It is because the public like it. They like it. In a recent survey, 70 percent of New Zealanders said that they like KiwiBuild. They like the idea that there will be 100,000 affordable houses built in New Zealand over the next 10 years, which is going to give our young people a chance to own their part of a Kiwi dream.

I have to tell Mr English that once again National gets all the facts wrong and it makes them up. The Government is not going to build the houses. We are not builders. We are going to have the private sector build the houses, but we are certainly going to front up and stump up, and be leading a building policy in this country, the likes of which we have not seen in probably the last 50 years. The public of New Zealand welcome a party that is prepared to roll up its sleeves and to face head-on the issues that directly affect them, that affect their lives, that affect their kids, and that affect their sense of security and their place in the future and where they belong in this country. They want a smart, hands-on Government.

And then we have the Prime Minister, who, because he is so rattled over this policy, decides that he has to make up figures. He has been spinning as fast as he can. In fact, he has even enlisted TV3 to help him talk about Labour’s policy, while trying to keep the focus off his own pathetic and shonky response to KiwiBuild. Today was a classic. He got caught out today. You see, who has been spinning the figures? Who has not been telling the truth about housing in New Zealand? Unfortunately, it happens to be the Prime Minister. He does not even know that in the last few days his own building department has said that at Hobsonville, in his electorate—the most expensive land in Auckland on build at the moment—it is going to be able to build four-bedroom homes, 300 square metres, for under $485,000. What did the Prime Minister say? “That’s not our policy.”

Well, unfortunately for him, it is what the Building and Housing Group says is going to be built on Hobsonville land for the Government. If the Government can build four-bedroom houses, 300 square metres—that is a pretty big house, 300 square metres—for under $485,000, why can a Government that is doing a bulk build of 10,000 houses a year not build houses for, on average, around $300,000? Good, solid, first homes for Kiwis—not two bathrooms, two en suites, and garages for three cars, but good, solid homes, Mr Henare—a little bit like what you may have grown up in: solid, warm, reliable houses that people can get into and can afford. So why can National build these big flash houses in Hobsonville for less than $485,000, but it argues that this party will not be able to? Well, we have caught John Key out with his own figures.

So what is John Key’s response to our policy? Firstly, to sack the hapless Minister of Housing. Poor old Phil Heatley—you know, he is a nice bloke. He tried hard. He did not deserve to go, because he is not the worst Minister. The worst Minister in living memory has to be Hekia Parata. There she was sitting cosily today on her front-bench, cushioned seat, too afraid to answer questions about education and too afraid to open her mouth because what comes out is mumbo-jumbo and bureaucratic speak. It is unintelligible. So what does John Key do? He appoints Nick Smith. But what else does he do—

Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh, that was a bit slow.

Hon Anne Tolley: Yes, it was a bit slow. I apologise, but I do not think the Standing Orders allow the courage of a member to be debated in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: The member did not accuse the member of lacking courage or being gutless or anything; the member said “too afraid to answer questions …”. If we keep ruling out more and more words, I think it is pointless. The member is being critical of another member; the member is entitled to do that. The performance of members in this House can be challenged. I think it was not done in a derogatory way and I do not want to go ruling out words.

Hon Anne Tolley: Really?

Mr SPEAKER: It is the way it is done that is important. If one goes back over Speakers’ rulings over all the years, most Speakers have objected when language is used that is clearly derogatory. I do not want to be ruling out words just because they might be critical of a member, because I think we end up with too few words to use.

Hon ANNETTE KING: What was the action of the Prime Minister? Sack poor old Phil Heatley, and then appoint Nick Smith. But not only appoint Nick Smith; he has appointed two Associate Ministers of Housing. Never in the history of this Parliament have you had to have a Minister of Housing and two Associate Ministers of Housing. What was interesting is that one of the Associate Ministers spoke yesterday in the debate, the Hon Tariana Turia. Did she mention housing? Not a word about the most important issue that many New Zealanders face.

So we have got Nick Smith. I have to say that Nick Smith has the opposite effect to the Midas touch. Rather than everything turning to gold, it turns to something distinctly softer and smellier. So first of all we get Nick Smith, then we will get his action plan. I want you to write it down and I want you to put bets on it, because this is what the plan will be. First, he will manufacture a crisis—think ACC, think local government. Then he will lay the blame on everyone else but not the Government—think ACC, think local government. And then he will use made-up figures—for made-up figures, think ACC, think local government once again. And then he will apply an unworkable, unproven, unnecessary solution—think ACC, think local government.

Here is the crisis that he will manufacture first: it is all local government’s fault. It is too expensive, it is too slow, it is too useless, and it is all about resource consent. And you heard the Prime Minister: “It is taking 6 to 18 months and it is absolutely disgraceful.” Well, let us look at the facts. The Ministry for the Environment provides that data to the Government on resource consents. So do the councils’ annual plans. They look at the numbers, the types, and the time taken. What do the latest figures show? They show that 95 percent of resource consents are processed on time, and 0.5 percent of applications are declined. Those are the figures, not the bodgie, made-up figures the Prime Minister has given us over the last week or so. These are the very figures Nick Smith will use for his made-up crisis in local government.

Then, if you search the reports over the last year—go out and research—how many reports have there been of resource consents taking between 6 and 18 months? I found four reports over a whole year. One was for a mining project, the second one was for a river bridge, the third one was for a power substation, and the fourth was for a salmon farm—nothing to do with housing. So I say to members: watch this spot. The National Party will attack Labour’s policy with shonky figures and a made-up attack, with Nick Smith leading it—mark my words.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou. I stand in the House today refreshed after an Auckland summer. I have had the pleasure of spending quality time with my whānau—kids, mokopuna—at waka ama, touch rugby, kapahaka, mau rākau, kauhoe moana, and time at the marae with kuia and koroua This time spent with whānau reminded me of the great hopes and expectations that people have placed on us, and the duty we have as representatives in Parliament to carve a pathway so that our people may pursue their own dreams, whatever those dreams may be. This is rangatiratanga, this is self-determination, and that is what we the Māori Party have come here to do—to hold at bay the many policies that stifle the development of whānau, iwi, and hapū, and to push forward and progress the things that restore to tangata whenua our right to participate, our right to succeed, and our right to express our unique status as tangata whenua.

The Māori Party is a party built on kaupapa, manaakitanga, rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, and more. We come with a wide view of the world and a holistic view of what well-being is, and with a view to addressing the systemic issues that have contributed to the poor outcomes for Māori and for many New Zealanders. It is our kaupapa, our history, and our experiences that should remind all of us that well-being is not defined in economic terms alone. Yep, jobs are absolutely critical for restoring a sense of rangatiratanga to our whānau, and I am proud that the Māori Party has worked with this Government to provide more training and employment opportunities to establish cadetships and trade training programmes, and to enhance education and skills training outcomes. I look forward to continuing to work on this front, to ensure that every New Zealander has equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.

The Māori Party is also proud of the work done in the wider economic space. Last year we launched He Kai Kei Aku Ringa—The Crown-Māori Economic Growth Partnership strategy to 2040. He Kai Kei Aku Ringa is the vision—literally to provide the food you need with your own hands. It is all about rangatiratanga and supporting self-determination for our whānau and for our hapū. What I am most pleased with in this plan is that although the outcome is economic, the action plan is all based on creating transformational change. It focuses on education, it focuses on building relationships, and it focuses on a whānau-centric approach. That approach absolutely excites me, because what that strategy tells me is that economic outcomes will be driven by social, cultural, and structural transformation. That is what we, the Māori Party, are all about. We are about transformation.

When I was growing up in Takapau, it was important to us as a whānau to have kai on the table, to know that each of our whānau members were safe, healthy, and happy, and to know that we lived in the greatest metropolis in the whole world. It is these simple things—ensuring our whānau are fed, healthy, and happy—that should channel our focus in this House.

Economic development has a part to play in this picture, but we need to get the balance right. We need to concentrate on the things that matter to us as people. We need to preserve the way of life that New Zealanders treasure. We have bountiful lands, beautiful rivers, a unique cultural edge, and the resources to provide people with the richness of life that they deserve. But in order to take advantage of these things we need to protect our environment, our health, and the well-being of our people. We need to protect our cultural identity and the things that make us and make New Zealand a special place to live. The Māori Party is pleased to promote this vision here in Aotearoa.

We are pleased to have established a constitutional review that will look partly at the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our modern society. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding document of this country. It is the reason that there is a Parliament sitting here today. It is the cornerstone of the relationship between Māori and the Crown, and it sits at the heart of our policy. Yesterday we heard passionate dialogue about the role of the Treaty in Aotearoa. This is a conversation that should not be reserved for politicians. It is a conversation that must include all New Zealanders—all whānau, young and old—and I think you would find that our younger generations of New Zealanders will have very different views to some of us sitting here in this House. That gives me such hope for the future of our communities.

Another thing that we know is that culture counts. We are working hard to ensure that culture is respected and reflected in the way we do things across the spectrum of the Government. I am proud that the Māori Party has introduced Whānau Ora into our political landscape. It is truly an innovative policy that recognises and promotes the primacy of the whānau or family in navigating through a wide range of interconnected issues. It is an approach that puts in practice all the kaupapa that we stand for, and that many other New Zealanders believe in, as well.

I am proud also of the work that we have done in education to build bridges between cultures through the Tātaiako programme, and to celebrate the wonderful potential of our kids to succeed and the role of the whānau in supporting educational outcomes. If we are to truly address the issue of poverty in this country, then education is a key area of focus for us. Literacy and numeracy are critical to educational success, so I am pleased that we have secured funding for a Reading Together programme for all deciles 1, 2, and 3 schools. This is a whānau-centred literacy programme, which is receiving absolutely glowing feedback. It not only supports children but also provides skills for parents and whānau members to support them participating in their children’s education.

Kāinga Whenua loans is another area where we have made an impact. We are proud to have supported this initiative, which will provide a means for tangata whenua to build on multiple-owned lands. Land supply is a major issue in the housing space and it is also a major issue facing Māori. For years we have talked about unlocking the potential of Māori land, and it is time that we looked at how to push forward on this issue—this is the year, and Minister Finlayson alluded to that just a while ago. Of course this year we must also ensure that we are all working hard to address the issue of whānau poverty. In our relationship accord with the National Party we have established a ministerial committee to look especially at how we address this issue in our country. We are extremely excited about the findings of the expert advisory group of the Children’s Commissioner, and we will be lending our support to the 78 solutions that it identified.

The work that Tariana has been leading in the prevention of rheumatic fever has been absolutely vital to ensuring that our kids have a decent quality of life. Make no mistake—this illness has no place in our country. It is an illness that results from poor living conditions and is associated with poverty. The fight to eradicate it must go hand in hand with the work to move our kids and our whānau out of poverty permanently.

If there is one thing that we know, that our kaupapa and our history tell us, it is that everything is connected. We must fight our battle for social justice on all fronts simultaneously if we are to see real transformation for our communities and for our tamariki and mokopuna.

In all of our mahi this year the key thing that binds us together is the expression of our kaupapa and tikanga; of manaakitanga, whanaungatanga, rangatiratanga, and, of course, whānau ora. These are our measures—our measures of well-being and success. We believe that these measures would also fit well within a new model of measuring well-being, such as a general progress index, and that is something that I am keen to promote this year—the general progress index. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I am very proud to be a part of a can-do Government. It is not afraid of working hard, and it is certainly a Government that has rolled up its sleeves and has been working hard for New Zealanders through some of the toughest times; through some of the toughest times that people of my generation, my children’s generation, and, hopefully, my grandchildren’s generation will ever experience.

Yes, we have borrowed as a Government. We have borrowed a lot of money, but we borrowed that money to protect some of the most vulnerable in our communities during that economic crisis. We talked about it taking the edge off the crisis for those vulnerable New Zealanders. We used that money to lift the minimum wage each year. We used that money to fund free tertiary study for kids who had fallen out of school, under what we called the Youth Guarantee. We wanted to give them the opportunity to be kept off the streets, off the dole, and in education. We used that money to fund trades academies and service academies to help keep kids in school.

Not only did we use that money to help all of those people in our community but also we introduced national standards to make sure that schools and parents had good information so that they could intervene early when their kids were not learning to read and write and do maths. I refer to the speaker before me, Pita Sharples, who talked about the importance of education to young Māori New Zealanders and how, if we are to lift the economic performance of this country, that is an enormous section of our community that needs to lift its educational standards so that it can gain qualifications and take its full place in our community.

We also introduced things like the 90-day trial not only to make sure that employers could take a chance on employing someone but also to give people who would not normally, during a deep economic crisis, have the opportunity to get their first job, to get that first step on the ladder. The Department of Corrections, of course, relies on that when it is talking to employers about giving ex-prisoners a go. It allows them to make a choice.

We introduced time limits on Resource Management Act consents for large projects so that we could get some of these large projects off the books, out of the courts, and actually happening in New Zealand. We funded, during that time of deep economic crisis, multibillion-dollar infrastructure projects that supported thousands and thousands of jobs.

One of those, of course, is the roads of national significance, which in my electorate the Labour list member continues to misrepresent and speak against in the local newspaper. Of course, what that member, Labour, and the Greens do not understand is that those roads of national significance are not all in Auckland. In fact, there is a very important one that runs through Tauranga that all the local governments in my electorate—that is, the Whakatāne District Council, the Ōpōtiki District Council, and the Gisborne District Council—supported, because they knew how important it was for them to get their freight to either the Port of Tauranga or the Port of Auckland. Seventy percent of Gisborne’s freight actually goes north, despite what some of the rail enthusiasts would have us believe—70 percent of Gisborne’s freight goes north to the Port of Auckland or the Port of Tauranga.

Of course, we have done a lot more despite the very unbalanced economy we inherited from that wastrel Labour Government, the global financial crisis and our own New Zealand recession, and, of course, the Canterbury earthquakes and the large destruction of our second-largest city. We are a Government that rolls up its sleeves and does what needs to be done to build a brighter future for New Zealand.

But, wait, there is more. Yesterday the PM laid out this Government’s plans for 2013. He talked of the four priorities of this Government. The first is the responsible management of our finances. This Government understands that it actually is not its money. It is actually the money of hard-working New Zealanders, so the Government has a responsibility to manage that responsibly; to make sure that when it spends that money it is spending it effectively and efficiently—something that the other side of the House does not understand. There are no quick fixes for this economy, and there are no silver bullets.

One of the things this Government has done, and has done successfully, is pull back the out-of-control spending by the Government that the previous Labour Government went crazy on. It lost control of Government spending. Even today when you hear the Labour members talking about what they are going to do, it is all about spending more money. Their answer to anything is to throw more money at it. Well, this Government has had to stop doing that. It has had to pull back on Government expenditure because, like every other New Zealand household, it has had to have a look at its own budget and it has had to cut back on the frivolous, ineffective, inefficient spending in order to pay the bills.

The second priority for this Government is one of the most important for the future, and that is boosting skills and supporting jobs. We had young people getting National Certificate of Educational Achievement credits, getting to the end of their high school years, and finding they were fully qualified but with no career path. They had not taken the right subjects, so they had to actually go backwards and restudy subjects in order to get into tertiary education and get their qualifications before they could ever consider a job. What we did was we got industry, education, and career experts around the table and developed five vocational pathways that will help lead young New Zealanders down a path that will lead to a qualification that they need for a job.

We are funding over 4,000 places in trades and service academies. Again, I look at my own electorate where there are kids right at the top of the East Coast who get to the school bus by 6 o’clock on a Friday morning. Some of them have travelled for three-quarters of an hour prior to that to reach that point. They travel down to Gisborne for their daily session at the polytech, and they are lucky to be home by 8 o’clock at night. Their parents say that they are better students today, they are engaged in learning, they have a clear expectation of what they want to do with their lives, and they are working hard and being successful. That is what trades academies are doing for youngsters throughout New Zealand. Gisborne Girls High School has one of the most successful service academies in the country. We pay it for 20 students; it has 29 enrolled and a waiting list of over 50. These are practical, sensible things that this Government has done to make sure that young people have the opportunities they need to get the skills they need to take their part in our communities. The recent announcements around apprentices expand that number of opportunities.

Finally, can I talk about the third priority, which is delivering on our public services. The public have a right to expect high-quality public services. They have a right to expect that when they send their kids down the road to the local school they will actually learn to read, write, and do maths. They have the expectations—rightly so—that their kids will get a qualification, that they can turn up at their local hospital and be seen in the emergency department in a reasonable time, and, of course, that they can get their hip operations and their cataracts done at their local hospital as well. They can reasonably expect to feel safe in their homes. Crime rates are the lowest they have been for 30 years. The fourth priority is rebuilding Christchurch. That is important. We heard today that we are delivering on that. I am proud to be part of a can-do Government.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Before I talk about asset sales I want to touch on three points that have been raised by speakers. Firstly, there are two that Ms Tolley raised. She accused the Labour Party of being “spend, spend, spend”. That we spend, spend, spend—that is what she accused us of. Everything is about spending. [Interruption] That is right, she says. There is a wee problem with that. You see, in Government we ran 9 years of surpluses, and I remember the debate when I was Associate Minister of Finance when Bill English got up and was kicking Michael Cullen, me, and others around for not spending the money. Of course we did not spend the money, which this Government inherited, which ensured we are not in the mire like Greece and Spain, but we are getting close to it, thanks to these guys.

The second point she raised, and a number of speakers have raised, was apprenticeships. These guys have had the road to Damascus experience. This is the party that in 1995 abolished the Apprenticeship Act—point one. Then when we got into Government in 1999 we introduced a thing called Modern Apprenticeships. What is our record on that? Before I get to that I will read you a quote from that genius Nick Smith, when we introduced Modern Apprenticeships. This is what he said on 13 December 2000: “I am not convinced as to what great gain there will be for young New Zealanders wanting to work and build up skills in this sort of window-dressing,”. Well, I tell you what. It was a hell of a lot of window dressing all right, because by the end of our time in Government we had 4,500 kids who had got their ticket and 10,000 additional ones who were in apprenticeships, called Modern Apprenticeships, which National members carped on about, had a go at, and poured cold water on. They did not like it. National abolished the Apprenticeship Act, and now, after 4 years—4 years—when we could have had, after the 2 and a bit years since the earthquakes, thousands of young people in apprenticeships, halfway or three-quarters of the way through their time, out there, ready to go, instead of importing people, which we now have to. These geniuses get up and say “We are now believers in apprenticeships.” Well, I reckon, maybe.

The other point I make to Ms Tolley is this. We have had Gateway, career training, pathways, tunnels, and God knows what else, but the one thing a young person needs at the end of the pathway, the gateway, whatever, is a thing called a job, which she never spoke about—never spoke about. Maybe, since we have heard there will be a Gerry Brownlee park in Wellington, a Gerry Brownlee park, those young people may be employed in the drive-through that is going to be built in that park, I assume. There is another big park in Wellington, I am told, called the Cake Tin. If it is nicknamed the Cake Tin, I wonder what “Gerry Brownlee Park” will be nicknamed. Maybe the “Breadbasket”—sourdough of course.

But now we get on to some more serious issues. Asset sales—the big hit, the big plan, other than the warrant of fitness, in the Prime Minister’s statement. Here is what Brian Fallow said on 24 January: “It is folly to press on, full steam ahead, with the partial privatisation of the state-owned power companies when the future of Tiwai [Point] aluminium smelter is unresolved.” Why is that important? That is important because if Meridian Energy is bent over the barrel and that contract goes, that creates oversupply by about 14 percent. What does that do? That then says, which generator are you going to close? Maybe one of Genesis’ coal-fired power stations? That has an impact on Solid Energy, which supplies the coal. What happens then to the state of power prices? It is good news for consumers. Prices go through the floor. It is bad news for the electricity generators, because their profit projections go down, the value of those companies goes down, the share price, of course, goes down, and then we have, of course, all this based on what Brian Fallow calls “an uncertainty discount”. Either the Government takes a hit on the share price or those who want to invest in that share price, as he quite rightly says, will want an uncertainty discount so as to ensure they have not overpaid.

There is one thing about an initial public offer, one rule of thumb: clear the decks, tie up all the issues, tie everything down, create confidence, and present to the market—they should not in these cases, of course—an offering that is high quality. But, oh no. We have got legal action. Everyone is off to the Supreme Court. We have got the uncertainty of Tīwai, we have got Solid Energy in a difficult position, we have got Air New Zealand’s share price in a difficult position, and we have got the global financial crisis. Who in their right mind in the private sector—I wonder whether, if John Key was sitting at his desk at Merrill Lynch, he would be turning to his clients and saying that now is a really good time to do it.

Well, I say, like 80 percent of New Zealanders, that no time is a good time to flog off the people’s revenue-generating assets. We know, of course, that Treasury has told us we are going to lose $100 million on the deal, through dividends. We know that, if you compare that to the price of borrowing. We also know, given the Tīwai events and the state of the market, that there is no way the Government can hang its hat on $5 billion to $7 billion worth of revenue that it will get back from the sale price. These guys were warned of these uncertainties. Bill English comes out and says “Maybe we might flog three off this year.”, even though Brian Gaynor and other investors said basically that if you flood the market, the market does not have the capacity to ensure that the share price and the return to the Government is maximised. Then he backtracked and said “OK, we will only do two.” These people have been all over the place on asset sales, and this is the only major strategy that they have, as they borrow $300 million a week—to flog off the family silver.

Then they say Kiwis will be first in the queue. Well, we know that has virtually no credibility at all, because, if it did have credibility, why is it that the Government is prepared to introduce a loyalty scheme for those shareholders who can afford two to three thousand bucks out of the household budget to go and buy them. Well, I say this. The workers who were made redundant at the Hillside railway workshops will not be able to afford them. The workers who were made redundant at Solid Energy will not be able to afford $2,000 to $3,000 parcels, $1,000 parcels, or $100 parcels. If the Government is going to keep that loyalty scheme in, here is the prediction. I bet you a hundred bucks that it will expire after the next election. It is fictitious. It is about John Key and his pride, and it is about John Key being bloody-minded enough to flog those assets off, at whatever cost. He has had experts say it is not a good idea. He has had 80 percent of New Zealanders say it is not a good idea. He has had over 300,000 New Zealanders sign a petition wanting a referendum who say “We do not want our assets, which we have already sold, flogged off.” But, oh no. It is bloody-mindedness—absolute bloody-mindedness.

I say this to the Government: it ain’t been a good start to the year. It has not been a good start to the year at all. They mentioned the reshuffle. Well, it is true. John Key bayoneted the wounded. He bayoneted them—absolutely bayoneted them. And, by God, some of them were wounded big time—the member for Waimakariri for one.

Chris Hipkins: Not all of them were wounded.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Not all of them were wounded, oh no. But I have got to give credit to Hekia Parata. She is here today. There is a military term, I am told. It is called hiding in plain sight—hiding in plain sight. I think the spooks and the spies try it. It is some sort of military thing—hiding in plain sight. Well, I say that Hekia Parata, after today, is an absolute expert at hiding in plain sight. You look at the litany of botch-ups, the emotional harm and stress, that that Minister has caused, not only to Christchurch but also to parents, over the class ratios, and to teachers over Novopay. That was too tough. That was whipped away from her. I got a letter from a person today who said: “Could somebody tell me what is the Minister of Education”—I am happy to give it to her—“responsible for?”. All the tough stuff, as Chris Hipkins and others have said, has been taken away from her.

This, of course, by John Key’s own admission, is the smoothest communicator in the team. Well, by goodness! If this is smooth, I would like to see rough—I would like to see rough, I tell you. I really would like to see rough. You know, grade 10 sandpaper, I reckon—grade 10 sandpaper. If this is the best communicator in the pack, after Novopay, the student ratios, and the botch-up in Christchurch, then I tell you that Anne Tolley is looking pretty good. Pretty good—verbally, I mean. So if this is smooth, I would like to see rough. John Key could have done the right thing and said “I am sorry, Miss Parata. Game over. You’re out of luck. It’s gone.” But no, no, his political reputation is gang-nailed, pot-riveted, and welded to hers. As one of my colleagues said, I think yesterday, her mistakes are now absolutely vulcanised to the Prime Minister. It ain’t been a good start this year for those guys.

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I join the rest of the House in expressing our confidence in this great National-led Government, led by our awesome and great Prime Minister, Mr John Key. We have stable leadership over this side of the House. We continue with stable leadership, and in tough times, challenging times for this country and around the world, that is what is required. Yet day after day we read about coups, about numbers, and about what Mr Cunliffe may or may not be doing—challenging Mr Shearer, or not. Apparently Mr Shearer has the vote tied up for the Labour caucus in a few weeks’ time, but I understand he is afraid to put the vote to the entire Labour membership, which is interesting and there has been a fair bit of commentary on that.

But there are many challenges so I will speak to what this Government has done, and what it intends to do as outlined in the Prime Minister’s statement. Also I will talk to some of the other interesting issues out there. We must remember the challenges we face. When this Government was elected, yes, 4-ish years ago now, we faced, remember, the decade of deficits. Recall that, because the Labour Opposition and its friends the Green Opposition are in denial, actually, of what the state of the economy was, what state the accounts were in at that time, and what state the world economy was in at that time. So we had an unbalanced economy where the State sector had grown phenomenally over, particularly, the previous 5 years. The State economy was suffocating out the real economy that creates real jobs. We faced a decade of deficits.

The global financial crisis was really starting to kick in. Remember, New Zealand had been in recession for 1 year prior to this Government coming in at the end of the previous Labour regime, and the Government is having to deal with that. Of course, tragically we are having to deal with the effect, the aftermath, of the Canterbury earthquakes, and now the rebuild. So when we hear the Labour Opposition and the Green Opposition talking about spending, or the state of the Government accounts, or whatever, we need to remind ourselves of the three major challenges that this Government has faced, has faced down, and is continuing to deal with in spite of what is going on around the rest of the world. Those challenges are the unbalanced economy, which we inherited, which takes so long to put right. It is a bit like an oil tanker—once we get the direction changed, we are off. It is a hard, hard job.

The global financial crisis continues. This country is reliant on global capital to fund its wants and its rebuild. It needs the world to try to perform a bit better than it is, but the global financial crisis is still around us even though the Opposition seems to be in denial of it. Of course the social and economic impact of the Canterbury earthquakes still will have a large impact on the Crown, the taxpayers’ accounts, for many, many years to come. But to deal with that we have laid out four main priorities. Of course we have to responsibly manage the Government’s accounts, or the taxpayers’ finances, if you like. We have to build a more competitive and productive economy. We cannot just talk about it—some like to; we have to do it. Some hard calls are needed to be made in there to build a more productive economy.

We have to export, we have to grow our exports, and we have to become more productive if we are to fulfil the wants of our population. Of course we have to deliver on better public services. That sounds pretty simple stuff. That is a pretty tough job. But we have got there in spite of flat Budgets, which we have had to deliver. There was no real growth in those Budgets other than education and health, over 4 years now, but we are delivering better public services.

Of course we are under way on rebuilding Christchurch. The bulldozers are under way. It is really starting to ramp up there. Of course there are ongoing issues. Of course there are personal tragedies, but we are getting on with the job, and I salute Gerry Brownlee for the leadership he has shown there—the personal leadership he has shown the people of Christchurch—and of course our Prime Minister, Mr John Key.

So what does that mean, though? If you are sitting at home, what does that mean? Well, the changes we have made, the challenges we have faced down, the decisions, have resulted in a 12 percent increase in after-tax incomes for New Zealand—i.e., your take-home pay, on average, is up 12 percent over the last 5 years under this Government—under this Government, 12 percent. Interest rates are half what they were when we came into Government. That is what the changes and the discipline we are making in the economic sense means in the household. The cost of the home mortgage is half what it was just 4 or 4½ years ago. It means we can afford 35,000 more elective operations. That is what is meant by better public services. It means we can afford and prioritise to have every State house insulated. In spite of the social rhetoric on the other side, this National Government is insulating every single State house. That should be applauded.

We are hearing a fair bit about this hands-on rhetoric from David Shearer. We are hearing a bit about hands-on so I think it is important to remind ourselves of the last time Labour and its Green colleagues had their hands on the economy, because when they had their hands on KiwiRail it cost the taxpayer about $1 billion—a bit of a donation, essentially, to an Aussie corporate. When they had their hands on the Public Service there was an absolute explosion in the numbers and the cost of the Public Service, without any corresponding better outcome. When Labour and the Greens had hands-on on the tax system the tax take doubled. The highest tax rate was about 39c and there was an explosion in loss attributing qualifying companies. There was an explosion in loss attributing qualifying companies, yet the other side—Mr Parker earlier kept talking about capital gains taxes, etc., and he was part of a Government responsible for that.

When the Labour and Greens Opposition had hands-on on the health system we had waiting lists for waiting lists for waiting lists. We had people lying in corridors of hospitals, bleeding into buckets. That is when it had hands-on on the health system. When it had hands-on on the economic development side of things we had things like Sovereign Yachts. Remember that one? There was $25 million just written off. That was its idea of economic development.

When they had hands-on on export policy they declared an export year. That was it—declare an Export Year and, therefore, exports should grow. It did not happen; in fact they declined. When they had hands-on on the levers that influence inflation, inflation was well outside the top of the band of 3 percent. It was at about 4.5 percent in the year leading up to this new Government coming in. When the Labour Government had hands-on on the tools that influence interest rates, interest rates for home mortgages were in double figures, near 11 percent. They are now around 5 percent. That is what Labour’s hands-on means to the economy.

When they had hands-on on the education system 20 percent of our kids were failed or failed within that system. It does not matter why; they did. But they did not do anything about it, other than constantly criticise the initiatives we are making—particularly in that low of 20 percent—to try to improve that outcome. When Labour had hands-on on those things that can influence the current account—and campaigned on it ferociously—actually, they doubled once Labour got into Government. When they had hands-on, the current account under Labour doubled. When they had hands-on on the Treaty settlement process it stalled, and stuff-all happened. A huge credit to the Hon Chris Finlayson for the effort and work he has achieved over recent years.

When Labour had hands-on on the State housing stock, 20 percent of that stock—about 20,000 houses—ended up dark, rotting, and damp, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and the wrong size. When it had hands-on in a previous Government looking after the State assets, it flogged off about $13 billion. We have just been lectured by one of its members about what one should or should not do regarding leveraging of the balance sheet on State assets, yet I presume that was the lesson that that Government learnt when it sold—without any caveats, without any controls, regardless of who the buyer was, offshore or onshore—about $13 billion of State assets when it had hands-on on the economy.

One thing—despite what this Government is doing, every change we try to make to try to address some of the issues in this economy, the Labour Opposition opposes and the Green Opposition opposes. They constantly oppose them. There is one in particular, in my area of Hawke’s Bay, that they are opposing. The water storage project, which the Labour Party seems—I would like to have clarification—to be opposing, is about a 3 percent growth in Hawke’s Bay, a longer season for jobs, longer processing, better farming, better cropping, and more certainty from your farmer, your farm worker, and to your port worker in Napier. The Labour Opposition and, I definitely know, the Green Opposition are opposing about a $200 million to $250 million investment in Hawke’s Bay. I am very interested to find out exactly where the Labour Opposition stands.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am enjoying working as part of this hard-working National Government with stable leadership.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, otirā, huri noa i tō tātou Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Ngā mihi nui ki a tātou me ngā mihi mō te tau kei mua i a tātou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and indeed throughout our House this afternoon. Huge acknowledgments to us, and for the year ahead. Salutations, acknowledgments, and salutations to you and us all collectively.]

Can I just make a few remarks to the outgoing Speaker to acknowledge the comprehensive, thorough, and courteous yet emphatic way that he has managed our House and to wish him well in his future. To all of us, I am absolutely delighted to be speaking today, to follow the Prime Minister’s statement and to follow all of my colleagues who as part of this debate have shared with you and with New Zealanders our ongoing record of achievement as a Government and our commitment to getting even more done.

I am going to talk about education—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Just a chicken. Didn’t have the guts to front up.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It would be quite nice if I had the opportunity to be heard. New Zealand does, indeed, have a world-class education system. That has not happened by accident and it will not continue without attention. It has happened off the backs of many, many New Zealand educationalists, teachers in classrooms, principals who have led schools, boards of trustees who have committed many hours of voluntary time to that, researchers and academics, and predecessors who have created the legacy that we have inherited, and we have a responsibility to ensure that the education system is even better.

Our Government and our Prime Minister have talked about what our four priorities are. They are about getting back to surplus, they are about reducing debt, they are about building a stronger and productive economy, they are about better public services and getting better value for the taxpayers’ dollars, and they are about rebuilding Christchurch. Education is absolutely critical to each and every one of those priorities. Our Government recognises that education is not just the transformative power for a young person to get an educational qualification and be able to lead a better quality of life but also about strengthening the cultural and social background of our many and diverse communities that make up who we are as a nation. New Zealand is a small country; it has a small population. We will never out-procreate those countries with whom we seek to have strong trading relationships, but we can out-create, we can outsmart, and we can out-think, and the quality of that is going to be dependent upon the quality of education that each and every learner, each and every child, has in our education system.

There was some wondering this afternoon about what I meant when I said a whole-of-life learning. Well, here is the thing. The education system might be organised according to sectors, because that is how it works for those providers—early childhood education, primary school, intermediate, secondary school, secondary-tertiary transition—but for every kid going through our system, they are simply having their learning experience, their education. We know as a Government that getting greater success at the end of that pipeline—that is, kids able to get a better job or not, kids able to do more training or not, kids able to set out on a strong career pathway or not—absolutely relies on the quality of education that they have had. That starts at early childhood education, and that is why our Government has set a Better Public Service target that 98 percent of new entrants in 2016 will have participated in a quality early childhood experience. Whether parent-led, whether home-based, whether centre-based, we are agnostic about that. But our kids having the best possible start in life is absolutely critical to the quality of education they go on to have, and this Government is committed to that.

Under that previous Labour Government, more and more money got poured into early childhood education with nary a change in the actual level of participation and the quality of achievement. This Government? We have not stinted on resources, with $9.6 billion in Vote Education this year, the biggest ever, of which $1.4 billion is dedicated to early childhood education. We want every kid to get the best possible start. We know that kids who start behind too often stay behind. When they get into primary school, we want to know, their parents want to know, and they want to know how well they are doing and what more needs to be done to help them to be successful. National standards are a way of monitoring and reporting that. Parents love knowing every 6 months, and, indeed, more regularly, how well their child is doing and what more they can do to help. For the first time ever that was reported last year. What we know is that on average 70 percent of our kids are at or above the standards for reading, writing, and numeracy. That is not good enough.

Hon Trevor Mallard: And what does that tell a parent?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: And what does that tell us? That that previous Government sat on its hands for 8 years and did nothing with that information. That is what it tells us. This Government is not prepared to do that. We are prepared to confront the fact that it is not good enough to consign 30 percent—30 percent—of 8, 9, 10, and 11-year-olds to follow the rest of the system. We know that kids who fall behind too often stay behind. We know from the first year of national standards reporting that about 70 percent are at or above the standards, but we also know from that that too many boys are trailing girls and that Māori and Pasifika kids are trailing—

Hon Trevor Mallard: And we’ve known that and published it for 5 years.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: “And we’ve known that …”, the former Minister of Education is saying—and what did he do about it? Sweet nothing. He did nothing about it. He shut 280 schools, in fact, and has the record of any Minister of Education—

Hon Trevor Mallard: 180—get it right.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Two hundred and eighty-one schools, to be exact, closed under the previous Labour administration. This Government and I, as Minister, have been charged by our Prime Minister in being relentless in delivering achievement, and that is what I am about. So, yes, this year, the second year of national standards reporting, we will want to know in the charters what the targets of each school are, in order to continue to raise achievement, because far too many kids are disengaging at years 9 and 10.

Hon Trevor Mallard: And they’re already published in the annual reports.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Look, the Opposition wanted to hear how and why I communicate, but instead wants to shout all the way through. I am learning about what the challenges of keeping us as a world-class education system are. I am seized of those, I am focused on those, and parents want that for each and every child.

By the time children get to secondary school, they have 4 years to secure the minimum qualification of level 2 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Under this Government, we have seen an increase in the last 3 years of between 4 and 7 percent—in 3 years—in NCEA level 1, NCEA level 2, and NCEA level 3, and university entrance. So Opposition members can talk all they like, but this Government does. It does, and it delivers, and it puts its resources behind its commitments. Our kids are passing NCEA levels 1, 2, and 3.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It drops standards—it drops standards.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: These scurrilous allegations have no substance, in fact, but that is what the Opposition deals in. It is just prejudice and allegations and assertions. We deal in facts. We have got more kids leaving school with the opportunity to go into better training—14,000 apprenticeships announced. In fact, tonight in Porirua the Samoan congregational church will be celebrating the 300 Pasifika kids who last year won trade training apprenticeships, many of whom have gone off to Samoa to volunteer in the repair after Cyclone Evan. Why? Because they have been equipped with real skills out of real apprenticeships delivered last year by this Government, and we are committed to delivering more. We are committed to doing more, and I can tell you now that Pasifika communities are absolutely delighted about that.

We recognise that we are heading into different challenges in the 21st century. So as well as delivering a core education of literacy and numeracy for our kids, we are investing significantly in digital literacy. This Government right from the beginning in 2008 came in and said that ultra-fast broadband was not a desirable; it was an essential contribution to 21st century learning. This Government has spent $200 million on connecting schools to ultra-fast broadband. This Government has committed $400 million to the Network for Learning, because we understand that digital literacy—e-learning—is part of a future that we need to equip our young people for. This Government understands the evidence and the research, and it understands the challenge that our young people, every one of them, have to have the best possible education in order that they can be powerful actors in their own lives, contribute to their own families, whānau, and aiga, and build strong neighbourhoods and communities upon which this country will blossom and grow. This Government understands that.

We know that it is not just about little populist policies that that Opposition squandered—squandered—9 years of surpluses on. This Government, in the worst global financially challenging times, has nevertheless made substantial, measurable, and real change, and it will continue to do so under the inspired leadership of John Key, because it truly does believe in delivering a brighter future for every New Zealander today. Thank you.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to draw your attention to the procedures in respect of interjections. We heard, for instance, a constant barrage of interjections from a sole Opposition member through the course of the previous speech. On occasions, words such as “gutless” and “chicken” were applied to the speaker, the Hon Hekia Parata. It was obviously done in a way that would bait someone like me to take a point of order in the middle of her speech and so disrupt it. I would like to know that you are taking notice of those particular comments from the other side.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I am not sure whether that was a bid for the Speaker’s role, but any member with any experience knows that points of order must be raised at the time and not later.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): The member has just reinforced the exact point that he was doing it as a challenge to someone like me to take a point of order in the middle of the speech—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I do not wish the House to get into a slinging match. There are two rules: Speakers’ ruling 60/5, which is about constant interjections, and Standing Order 117. It was a rather robust debate, and I felt that the honourable Minister handled it quite well and was handling the interjections. That is why I let it go. But, having said that, there are Speakers’ rulings. The member is right.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): In following on from a Minister who stood in the House and said that this was a Government that does, could I just confirm that Christchurch feels that it has been done by this Government and particularly by that Minister, the Minister of Education. We have schools in Christchurch now that are still recovering, coming up to the second anniversary of the devastating February earthquake, and wondering whether their school will remain open as a result of a decision that she will make.

There was no prior consultation with communities or with schools about the decisions the Minister announced. I think that she has to think very carefully about how she performed in that role and the impact that it had on people who have suffered the consequences of hundreds and hundreds of aftershocks on top of the original devastating earthquakes, which have certainly shaken up our city in a way that she has added to by shaking up our education system.

Mr Key described as the final of the Government’s priorities the rebuild of Christchurch. With over 900 central city buildings already demolished, it is absolutely the case that this is one of the largest economic undertakings in New Zealand’s history. But it is not just an economic undertaking. People are part of the equation, and that seems to be missing from anything that has come from the Minister of Education, that has come from the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, and that has come now from the Prime Minister himself. He did not mention people in his statement.

In response to the devastation in the central business district, the Government has announced its own blueprint, which it has imposed on the city with no consultation and no engagement and which has anchor projects that we were never, ever asked about, with no business plan for any of them. This is a national Government, not a business plan for these anchor projects, with no costing attached to them. Most important, there has been no decision made as to how they are going to be paid for. Who is paying for what?

It is quite clear that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery made promises to the Christchurch City Council that he has been unable to deliver on. The word is that the Minister promised that the Government would pay the difference between the council’s plan and the Government’s plans for things like the covered stadium and the convention centre, which is four times the size of the one it replaces, but then Cabinet said: “No, we are not going to pay that difference. We are not handing that over to the Christchurch City Council.” That is what we have heard.

I want someone from the Government to stand up and answer the question of how the difference is being paid for—the difference between what the Christchurch City Council budgeted for and the National Government’s blueprint for the Christchurch Central Development Unit. That is what I want to know. Who is paying the difference? How is it being paid? I just want to make the point that if the council pays for it, they are the same people—a ratepayer in Christchurch is a taxpayer in New Zealand. So when you are divvying it up between the ratepayer and the taxpayer, all you are doing when you choose the taxpayer to pay a significant proportion is dumping more of it on Christchurch and not spreading the burden across that wider catchment.

This was not mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech, because it does not fit the narrative. The Government has not done the proper business planning that ought to be done in these circumstances, and there is a lot of smoke and mirrors on many of the things that are going on in Christchurch at the moment, with decisions being taken behind closed doors.

There is a view that the Government is determined to get the council to sell our assets to pay for the blueprint. Certainly, that is the methodology for the wider country. So let us sell Orion, our revenue-generating asset, without which we would not have recovered in the way that we did recover in terms of our electricity supply. We would not have recovered. If it had been a private company, it would not have invested the $6 million that it invested prior to the earthquakes—many years ago—as a result of a Lifelines study that was done. That investment of $6 million on the small, unreinforced masonry substations saved damage to $64 million worth of equipment.

The ratio of return on that investment is 10:1, and I believe that a private sector company would not have made that investment. But, no, the Government will for sure be trying to get our council to sell our revenue-generating assets so it can have the “Gerry Brownlee Park”. We are going to have the “Gerry Brownlee Stadium” in Christchurch. That might be called a cake tin, although it will have a cover over it, so it might actually be called something else. The mayor has exposed this in his book. I have read his book, and I think people should read his book, because there are elements in it that have never really been brought to public light and need to be questioned. The Minister and the Prime Minister need to be challenged on many of the things that that book contains.

The Prime Minister’s statement included his oft-repeated commitment to standing beside the people of Christchurch. Well, can I just say that when he says “standing beside” he actually means that metaphorically, because Mr Key has not come to Christchurch to stand beside the people who live in Christchurch since the initial weeks after the February earthquake. He comes only to launch plans or open buildings or anything like that. He will not come and talk to the people. In fact, he even passes correspondence that people in Christchurch write to him on to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. If the Prime Minister knew anything about recovery as a process, he would know how important it is to engage the community in the process itself.

For the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, community engagement means asking the chief executive to tell the people what the Government has decided, after it has decided everything. The key performance indicator for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is the number of meetings held and the number of people who attend. It is not genuine community engagement. In fact, the international groups that are looking at community resilience have stopped using the words “community engagement” because the phrase has been co-opted by so many Governments, and they have replaced it with the language of “meaningful exchange”.

There is no meaningful exchange in Christchurch. Government spin substitutes for genuine input into the redesign of our central business district. Government spin substitutes for effective communication with affected residents struggling with years of knowing, or not knowing, when they can get back into their houses and get on with their lives. Government spin substitutes for the truth for those whom the Government says it is helping to move on in the residential red zone. We are told that the offer is generous and that it is extremely fair, but privately the Government admits that there are winners and losers. Well, you cannot have it both ways. There are either winners and losers, or it is fair. If it is fair, there are not winners or losers.

The Prime Minister goes through the offers that have gone out and those who have signed up in his statement, as if that is the be-all and end-all, and for the Prime Minister it is the statistics that are much more important than the people who are affected. He knows that there are many people who are out of pocket by over $100,000. How is that generous and how is that fair? There are plenty of examples, but these are actually the lucky ones. These are the ones who have been offered the 2007 or 2008 rating valuation.

The Government used the schools debacle to hide the offer to the people with empty sections or who own commercial premises in the residential red zone. They thought that they would be offered the rating valuation. People who were part-way through building their houses were paid out, even though they did not have fire insurance, which is the route to Earthquake Commission cover, which includes insurance for the land.

The Government has been told by its own advisers that there is no insurance for land other than through this means. They had builders insurance to cover the completion of the house, but the house was not completed, so they did not have fire cover. The Government offered them 100 percent of their land value, so those in the other categories—those with the bare sections and those with the commercial properties—thought: “Well, that’s good. The Government has done that for those people. It will do that for us.” But under the cover of darkness, under the cover of the announcement of the schools shake-up, the Government offered those owners half the most recent rating valuations for the land.

Why did it do that—why only half? Well, the only answer that I can find is that it can. There is no transparency. There are no guiding principles. These simply go out the window when we are talking about a voluntary offer. But is it a voluntary offer? Is it a voluntary offer? Is it voluntary when the Government says to somebody: “You take this amount of money by this date, and if you don’t accept it by this date, then we will withdraw the offer, and then at some stage in the future we will enter into a compulsory buy-back campaign and we will”—[Interruption] I have not had a bell.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry. When I came in the clock was at 1 minute, 30 seconds to go, and my presumption was that a bell had been rung.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Whether it was or not, that is not something I can now attend to. I will give the member 15 seconds to wind up.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The truth is that the Government says it is voluntary, but it is not voluntary. The truth has been hidden in this matter, and I believe that it is time that this Government took responsibility for telling the truth to the people of Christchurch and telling the truth to the people of New Zealand.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): It is my pleasure to rise and speak in support of the motion of confidence in the Government as it stands at the moment, led by the Rt Hon John Key. I would also like to add, with others, my best wishes to the departing Speaker as he leaves to seek his fortune in other places, and to the incoming Speaker, whoever that person might be. I would like to note in respect of the departing Speaker my gratitude for the help that he has been to me at times as a young and inexperienced member of Parliament and, previous to that, on a number of occasions as a young and inexperienced candidate. I always appreciated his wisdom and advice and the opportunities that he gave to be part of his programme within his own electorate.

But the primary cause for standing and speaking, of course, is to speak in respect of confidence in this Government, a Government that is marked with aspiration and optimism—aspiration for people right across our society, whether they be young people who want to own homes, young parents who want their children educated, young people wanting to start out in business, or people who have been in business for some time who want to employ more staff and who want to attract the attention of people in other markets to the products they want to sell over there. It is a Government that has an aspiration for everybody to get up and to get on, rather than having the hallmark of an Opposition that is about doom and gloom, despair, and hatred—hatred for anybody who aspires to do well in this country and hatred for anybody who has done well in this country, whether they are employing hundreds, whether they are employing thousands, or whether they are employing five or six. The Labour Party does not want it, it does not like it, and it hates it, because it knows that as soon as somebody gathers assets around them, gets the aspiration of someone in business for themselves or in business for other people, and is prepared to work hard, they look at where they are going to spend their voting power and they tend to vote conservatively.

The Labour Party also hates farmers. We have seen that. Labour counters every possible initiative that this Government might have in respect of progressing farmers, whether it be by Primary Growth Partnership subsidies, whether it be by working with other markets to attract our produce overseas, or whether it be by encouraging people to be more productive on their land or, for instance, storing water so that that productivity can be seen right across our sector. Labour hates the farming industry. Without it, we would not have an economy. We would not have a free education system like we have now. We would not have a free health care system like we have now. We would not be able to live and enjoy the life that we have in this country without that farming sector, and Labour hates it.

Labour hates people within the energy sector, without whom we would not have our fourth-biggest contributor to our economy and Taranaki would be in a situation where many other provincial areas have been under the leadership, or lack of it, from that previous Government. Taranaki—and South Taranaki is my part of Taranaki within the Whanganui electorate—is experiencing high employment at the moment. It is experiencing comparatively high wages compared with other areas. A lot of that comes on the back of two industries, the dairy industry and the energy sector, and Labour hates them. Labour has hatred for anybody who has a different idea from Labour’s. So if you want to start talking about a different idea for education, Labour will hate you for that. If you want to talk about a different idea in respect of farming, it will hate you for that. If you want to have different ideas about youth justice, it will hate you for that. If you want to have different ideas about anything that Labour has got a stated policy on, it will hate you for that. It will hate you for your ideas about kick-starting the economy, about recognising growth, and about recognising opportunities and seizing them. It will hate you for that. Labour is built, unfortunately, on hatred.

Labour and the Greens despair at anyone who would like to support a National Government, and they hate those people, as well. Invariably, they hate them, as well. Time and time again over the last 6 years we have seen personal attacks on our leader and personal attacks on members of Parliament from this side of the House. What we know is that Labour members talk about “smile and wave” and they talk about all those sorts of things, but the rest of the public, fortunately for us and unfortunately for Labour, do not hate like Labour has learnt to hate. What we see is that the support for this National Government, 6 years into its term—5 years into its term; they will never put me in charge of the money. In any event, we are seeing those polls staying exactly where they have been on election nights, and good on them. All that really shows is that the Labour Government—sorry, the Labour Opposition—is out of step—shit, I am cocking this up—with where the rest of New Zealand is.

I want to talk about the sector that I have some responsibility for and that—my numbers are worse than David Parker’s; I do not know whether you noticed. A better headcount than David Cunliffe. In any event, if we look at those areas around youth justice and law and order, there are a number of really good initiatives that came in when we came in in 2008. They were Fresh Start initiatives. They ran through the Social Services Committee that a number of us sat on, and they were hated by Labour, as well. They were opposed by Labour and the Greens, and they voted against them on every move. But what we have seen is the result of those Fresh Start initiatives starting to pay off. We have seen a drop in youth justice family group conferences by 1,000 in the last 12 months. That is 1,000 young kids not being dragged before a family group conference, because there is not the need for that to happen. Court-ordered family group conferences are down by 500. That is an enormous impact on young people’s lives that does not set them down a course where they could be sucked into the justice system and eventually the prison system. Fresh Start has dramatically dropped the number of young people transferred into the District Court. Only a third of young people who used to go to the District Court for sentencing are now going there. There has been a huge impact by not putting young offenders into an adult environment for sentencing.

We are noticing that crime has come down, and youth crime has come down significantly, and that is as a result of the Fresh Start changes taking people out of the churn. I remember going as a member of the Opposition to the Rolleston youth justice facility there, into the residence there. Of the 32 young people who were in that residence, about 30 of them were back in that residence for their fourth or fifth stint of 3 months at a time. That is absolutely ridiculous, and there was no plan to get out of that. So just by creating legislation that enabled people to bolt on to the back of those short terms of supervision in residences with counselling, drug and alcohol treatment, therapy, and those sorts of things, we have stopped that churn of young people coming through those residences. We have stopped sending them off to a criminal university and giving them a gang affiliation. But Labour voted against all those things.

Another initiative that we have had huge success in is drug and alcohol placements. We are delivering double those numbers for drug and alcohol therapy. We are delivering double the numbers for youth mentoring. The military activity camps, which Labour labelled the boot camps and talked about incessantly—that conversation has dropped right off now. What we have taken over the last little while is 40 of the worst young offenders in this country, and, having intervened in their lives, we are seeing 13 percent less recidivism than if they had gone just to the supervision with activity course that they were destined to attend under Labour.

Crime is down. Court appearances are down. The courts system is being streamlined and is working far more efficiently than it has in a long time, and it is destined to see more changes coming that way as well.

I am proud to be part of this Government, which has aspiration and optimism for the future of this country. I look forward to exposing time and again over the next 12 months the hatred, the doom, the gloom, and the despair of the Opposition.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I wish to amend the motion as follows: to delete all words after “Government” and to substitute “only if the Government refrains from selling State-owned assets and addresses unemployment and the overvalued New Zealand dollar.” In moving that amendment and speaking to the motion and the amendment, we have listened to speeches in the last 2 days, yesterday and today, and one could be forgiven, if you were a New Zealander, for thinking that there were actually two New Zealands. On the one hand, we have the New Zealand that John Key sees: “Planet Key”. He reckons the economy is in good shape. It just needs some tinkering, like changing the warrant of fitness system. He thinks that interest rates are at a 50-year low. Well, that is what happens when you have a recession and unemployment.

He reckons that manufacturers have never had it better. Well, he should have perhaps sat in on the inquiry into manufacturing in New Zealand on Monday and listened to some of the iconic companies, like HamiltonJet and Wyma Engineering, and other such things, which actually are the real manufacturers of this country, which are definitely not saying they have never had a better time. He says there is no housing crisis, yet people in parts of Auckland are living with two, three, or four families—10, 12, or 15 members of a family living in one small two-bedroom or three-bedroom house. John Key tells us that primary exports are holding up and our terms of trade are high. He also says that, as for unemployment, we are not to worry, the labour market is a very dynamic place. Jobs are being lost, he says, and new ones are being created all the time, according to this Government. Those 175,000 people who cannot find work are just a nuisance to this Government. Ignore them and they will go away eventually! That is the New Zealand that John Key sees.

But, of course, as we all know, John Key is dreaming. He made a very telling comment, both in this House and later when he was interviewed, when he said that as we get closer to the finish line, it will show up. We just do wonder whether he was meaning in terms of his finish line, when he will finish his time in office and move on, and leave the destruction behind him that he has created during his time as Prime Minister, or whether he means the finish line is the next election, at which time there will be a change in Government and we will get New Zealand back on a true, stated course.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, there are the two New Zealands, and the other is the one that everyone else sees. We started the year with more New Zealanders out of work than at any other time in the last 13 years. The previous time when there were as many New Zealanders unemployed was when National was in Government in 1998. Up and down the country, people are begging for work. We have all heard the story about thousands of people who queued for hours in South Auckland to apply for a few low-paying supermarket jobs. This is the life for a lot of New Zealanders—not New Zealanders living in Parnell or with baches at Ōmaha or in Hawaii, but the lives of true New Zealanders, who holiday in New Zealand, by the way, and do not always holiday at their luxury homes in Hawaii.

The official statistics do not tell the full story. Under the household labour force survey, the definition of “employment” is 1 hour of paid work a week—just 1 hour of work a week classifies you as being in paid employment. This has created a new crisis, and that is of underemployment. Now we are hearing about not just unemployment but also underemployment. The Roy Morgan Research poll reckons that the number of New Zealanders who are not able to find enough work could be as high as 226,000 people. So when the underemployment is combined with the unemployment rate, this represents almost 20 percent of the New Zealand workforce. One in five New Zealanders are either unemployed or underemployed. There is a trend away from decent paid, stable, long-term employment towards precarious, short-term employment, and we heard this at the manufacturing inquiry on Monday. Good, stable, solid manufacturing jobs are being lost as more and more manufacturers close down, and those jobs turn into precarious jobs, part-time jobs, jobs that do not allow people to go to the bank and ask to borrow money to buy a house, because simply those people are not in stable, long-term employment.

Meanwhile, under the National Government living costs have skyrocketed. Not only are Kiwis paying more in increased GST—something National said it would not put up but it did—but they are now paying more in petrol, ACC levies, alcohol, tobacco, and just about everything else the Government can put a price on. At the same time, we have higher foreign debt, a worsening current account deficit, and, despite Mr Key’s rosy predictions, export prices are predicted to fall. This National Government has racked up more debt than all previous Governments of New Zealand combined, which is a shocking, shocking statement to have to make. But the reality is that in 4 short years—for many people, 4 long years—this Government has racked up more debt than all the Governments in the history of New Zealand combined. The terms of trade are at a 3-year low. We have a trade deficit of $700 million. The primary sector is not holding up, either. Income from dairy is expected to fall 20 percent.

So what can be done? Well, John Key would have us believe that the answer lies in positive thinking, with his smiley, happy clappy, “Mr Spray and Walk Away” approach to the economy—rather than face up to the reality, we should put all the negative stuff to one side and just concentrate on the good things. According to Mr Key, we should just put all the negative stuff aside and just concentrate on the good things. It is delusional, but so far it has worked for Mr Key. The trouble is, Mr Key, that people are starting to wake up to the reality. They are starting to realise that they are actually worse off than they were 4 years ago, when the current Prime Minister came to power. National has failed to deliver on its promise of a brighter future. The brighter future these days is in Australia or elsewhere for young New Zealanders.

Jobs for New Zealanders—how will New Zealand First attack this? Well, our objective—New Zealand First’s—is to ensure that every New Zealander who wants a job has a job. We want to see to it that unemployment is a thing of the past. This will not happen overnight. It is not something that can be done with the stroke of a pen. It requires openness to new ideas, innovative policy, and the political will to do it. Our first step would be to change the monetary policy settings, which have allowed the artificially high New Zealand dollar to cripple our export sector. We want to put policies in place that discourage speculation on the New Zealand dollar by the likes of the John Keys of this world—currency dealers in New York and Asia. We want to revamp the Reserve Bank and put in place more measures so it can control the exchange rate within a specified band, just as Singapore and many other countries do.

We are also investigating a number of innovative ways in which smart interventions could assist the creation of new jobs and the retention of existing jobs in New Zealand. In regions where job growth is low and unemployment is high, New Zealand First would move quickly to implement a community wage policy. We would work with local and regional councils to develop such a scheme. Whether it is planting trees, removing graffiti, or helping the elderly, we would be making sure that everyone who is collecting an unemployment benefit is giving a little bit back to the community and at the same time gaining valuable work experience. The way forward is not to pretend that problems do not exist. The way forward is with practical, common-sense policies such as these. New Zealand First will work constructively with any party to meet our objective of making unemployment a thing of the past.

I hope that we will hear more positive things from the Government in the remainder of this debate, because for the last 2 days I have mainly heard the Government just talking about and rubbishing the Opposition, and all parties of the Opposition, and spending most of its focus on putting down the Opposition. Perhaps we could, as New Zealanders, all expect in the next part of this debate to hear constructive ideas from this Government, rather than the destructive comments that its members just seem to want to make.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Mr Deputy Speaker, can I welcome you back to Parliament and wish you an excellent year. Over the summer I had the opportunity to read Steve Jobs’ biography. As you would be aware, Steve Jobs was one of the founders of the Apple company. He was an amazing individual, who through sheer determination, stubbornness, what some would call pig-headedness, and even probably a meanness of spirit, changed the way that computing is done around the globe and throughout the world. One of the most memorable quotes in the book came towards the end, when he was asked about his opinion of President Obama’s first term in office. Steve said that he felt he had shown poor leadership because he had not pissed enough people off. An interesting analogy. It was insightful, because there is no doubt that Steve Jobs had pissed plenty of people off in his life—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I understand what the member is doing, and the quotation was perhaps all right, but the member should stop there. I think we have got a better sense of decorum about the words we might use in the House.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: He certainly annoyed many people, but it was the quote that was in the book. I wanted to describe what he had had to do to achieve the likes of the iMac, the iPad, and things like that. That insightful leadership was about challenging the status quo. In fact, that is why I wanted to acknowledge the Speaker of the House, Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith, who has challenged the status quo in this House and has annoyed a few people throughout that period. But he has achieved some remarkable things through his time as Speaker, and I wanted to acknowledge that.

I would also like to reflect on I guess the opening salvo of the Government in the first week of Parliament this year. The Prime Minister has come back from holiday with a message for this country that he means business. His opening salvo was to reshuffle Cabinet, and I can assure you that Ministers such as myself are very clear about the expectations in Cabinet and the expectations of performance. Going around the country now, having made that announcement, people around New Zealand are comfortable with that decision and are happy with that opening salvo.

The second one that I wanted to reflect on was his time at Rātana and the second speech that he gave for the year, where he reminded the Rātana people of some facts that were important. He made the point, quite correctly, that many politicians come to Rātana with lots of promises, but few deliver. The first point that was made was about housing. He reminded them that the houses that are at the Rātana Pā were put there by a National Government, and actually it was the houses at the Rātana Pā that had fallen into disrepair that were repaired by a National Government, in coalition with the Māori Party.

The next thing he talked about was Treaty settlements, because that is something dear to the heart of the Māori people throughout New Zealand. He reminded them that over the last 20 years since we have been having Treaty settlements, there have been 59 deeds of settlement and 33 of those were signed in the last 4 years—55 percent of total settlements were achieved in the last 4 years. That is a fantastic achievement and something that Māori need to understand.

The third thing that he focused on was aspiration and education—aspiration and education—and the importance of education not only for all New Zealanders but also particularly for the Māori and Pacific Island communities in this country. We have set a goal of 98 percent of children attending early childhood education—98 percent. We are making good progress, with 95 percent as we speak. Secondly, we have set a goal of 85 percent of 18-year-olds getting National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. That is the minimum qualification you need for a trade in this country.

The point I wanted to make to those on the paepae at Rātana, because I have been there for 5 or 6 years in a row now, is we often hear in the speaking the criticism of Governments, but I want to understand where those leaders—I want to hear them making speeches about what they are going to do to encourage their people to get out and support these policies, and to get their children into early childhood education and provide the aspiration to encourage their whānau to get in behind and push for NCEA level 2 to ensure that their kids get a trade. I do not hear enough of that sort of speaking on the paepae. That is what we need to hear going forward: support for some of these policies so that that paves the way into the future for their families going forward.

The third of the opening salvos from the Prime Minister was his opening speech last Friday, and what a fantastic speech that was. It shaped the year ahead in a wonderful way. In that respect, he got to the heart of the challenges that we have ahead of us going forward, specifically in regard to the economy and jobs. He made it very clear that jobs are front and centre for this Government over the next year and forward throughout this term. In that regard, he did annoy a few of the Opposition members in terms of the policy around trade and apprenticeships. The announcement of around 14,000 new apprenticeships over a 5-year period is an excellent initiative to start the year. An investment of $28 million into those apprenticeships is something that I think we can be proud of and really get in behind.

But also the speech framed up the other Key Government’s wider goals, such as responsibly managing the Government’s finances to return us to surplus by 2014-15, which is something that the Opposition really struggles to understand. It actually means that we have got to live within our means going forward and cut our cloth to measure. That is a key focus of this Government as we move forward. The second one was building a more competitive and productive economy through our Business Growth Agenda. We have a huge agenda in that respect.

In regard to the tourism portfolio, and I am fortunate enough to be the Associate Minister, I am looking forward to a huge year within tourism, particularly working with Tourism New Zealand as it shapes its 3-year marketing plan going forward, as it builds on The Hobbit and various other initiatives that it has had, as we look at new markets—the Chinese market that is growing hugely—and the different strategies it uses there. I am also looking forward to working with Martin Snedden and the Tourism Industry Association as it shapes its plan for tourism businesses around the country and as it works out how it can better fund itself into the future without always having to go cap in hand to local governments.

The next part of his speech was about supporting the rebuild of Christchurch. If there is anything that is important to this Government—and to New Zealanders, for that matter—it is about how we rebuild that wonderful city; how we reshape her and use the opportunity that we have now to make her a modern, wonderful, sustainable new city. In that regard, I am looking forward to my new role in local government; to working closely with the Christchurch City Council and councils throughout New Zealand. I will be responsible for the second tranche of the Better Local Government reforms. I think there are some wonderful opportunities that we can have there, because at local government and central government we have got to reflect on who we are the servants of, and that is actually the voters out there—constituents in places like Napier and around the world—who actually depend on central and local government to provide services that are of an excellent level and that are as low cost as possible. I am confident that in local government around the country there are pockets of excellence. I am keen to acknowledge those, and replicate those around the country.

Lastly, the Prime Minister shaped his speech by discussing how we are going to deliver the Better Public Services programme to New Zealanders within tight budgets. In that regard, my own department, the Department of Internal Affairs, has a huge workload ahead of it as it shapes up information and communications technology leadership in this country and delivers on result area 10, where the Government is tasked with ensuring that New Zealanders can complete their transactions with government easily in a digital environment.

In that regard, we launched, last year, passports online. Just to give you a sense of the appetite of New Zealanders for online services, we have grown that from November last year to this point, where close to 20,000 passports are renewed online—nearly 40 percent of renewed passports are now being done online. That gives you a sense of the demand, when you get it right, for that level of service.

We have a lot on our plate this year. It is going to be an exciting year. It is certainly going to be challenging and rewarding. I am looking forward to being part of this Government, this Cabinet, this wonderful National Government and its awesome caucus, and taking this country and helping to lead it into the future. Thank you.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I applaud the previous speaker, Chris Tremain, on what was an overwhelmingly positive speech focused on the Government and what it is achieving. That has been very unusual in this debate from the Government side, where most of the speeches have simply been attacking the Opposition. It was good to hear, actually. It was good to hear someone from the Government who obviously believed in what it is doing, and it is pleasing to hear that there is a Government Minister who is focused on what it is doing.

From the Green Party’s point of view, we hope to contribute in a positive way to the political debate in New Zealand this year. We will be focused on making sure that the discourse around the economy is focused on having a smart but green economy. The Government’s agenda has been to simply focus on more resource extraction, which is a kind of simplification of the economy, if you like, making it simpler and simpler. We think we need to be a more diverse economy and actually encourage green economic opportunities and also the manufacturing sector, which, we think, is critical to that.

We will also be focused on making sure that we protect our environment. It is not only for economic reasons, which is critical; it is also in and of itself. The Green Party believes that the environment matters in and of itself, and, in fact, to have rich lives, to have lives that have meaning and that are full of the things that we love we need to protect our natural environment. Of course, we also need to protect our natural environment to protect our economy—the New Zealand economy in particular, but, of course, all economies are entirely dependent on the natural world, and we degrade the natural world at our peril. It is with some sadness that in recent years under this Government New Zealand’s position in terms of environmental management has gone so far backwards.

Finally, our third priority area, of course, is about making sure that everyone gets a fair go. We have seen New Zealand now has the highest levels of inequality that have ever been measured. As a result, to some degree, of the global financial crisis, and, to some degree, of the specific policies of this Government, inequality has grown quite radically in New Zealand. That is, I think, a very sad development, and something the Government should not be pleased with.

I wanted to touch a little bit on a few of the contemporary debates. The first one is the so-called hands-on, hands-off economic policy debate. The reason is that what I found around the Government’s approach to this is a little bit incoherent. On the one hand, we have had Bill English—and John Key, to some extent—telling us repeatedly that it is a hands-off Government. What we hear from the Government all the time is that Governments do not create jobs and so forth, but that the private sector does. On the other hand, we hear from Steven Joyce about being hands-on. Steven Joyce comes to us every day and tells us about specific businesses that he is supporting or whatever, so he talks about being hands-on. So the problem, I think, for the Government in this debate is that there is incoherence. Is it a hands-on or a hands-off Government? The Government cannot seem to decide which one it is. That matters, because if the Government is going around having a hands-on approach, which is obviously what Steven Joyce is doing with massive intervention, it is doing it without a theory, without a consistent approach. In fact, on the other hand, most of the rest of the Government members are saying that they do not do this thing that clearly they are doing. So there is incoherence in the Government’s approach to intervention in the economy, and I suspect that is part of the reason why things are going so badly.

The second debate that I wanted to touch on was around monetary policy. We have got the official cash rate announcement tomorrow. No doubt—I think it is highly likely—it will stay the same, which is relatively high by international standards. New Zealand’s interest rates and official cash rate are relatively high. This is a problem for New Zealand. It is a problem because the official cash rate drives up the level of the exchange rate. The high exchange rate makes it very difficult for our exporters and those who compete with imports. That means we run these big imbalances over time, big current account deficits. To service those current account deficits, we have to sell off more assets or we have to borrow more money, and New Zealand has been doing this for a long time. When the current Government criticises the previous Government for running current account deficits, it is a fair criticism. The previous Government ran enormous current account deficits. It is a problem. But it is not enough just to constantly blame the Labour Party. The current Government is the current Government, and as much as it wants to blame the Opposition for its own failures, at the end of the day it has a majority. The fact that we are still running large current account deficits and they are getting worse really does lie at the door of the current Government.

We do need to change the monetary policy settings. One of the issues has consistently been that what the Reserve Bank has been trying to do is control inflation coming out of the housing sector. The way it has done that is increasing interest rates or the official cash rate in order to try to squash the housing sector. This is in spite of the fact that we know that there are alternative tools available. The Reserve Bank board got some work done looking specifically at this. Loan devaluation ratios, which are able to control housing inflation, are a way to target the inflation coming out of the housing sector without increasing the official cash rate. This is a tool that is well known and widely used within the developed world. But for some reason New Zealand has been locked into a new-right ideological position. We are completely out of sync with the rest of the OECD. We have a Reserve Bank that is solely focused on targeting inflation. Most OECD countries do not do this. They look at things like exchange rate, output, and employment, and, of course, that is a very sensible approach.

Of course, we are also in the middle of this currency war. Most major economies that we relate to or compete with are putting downward pressure on their currencies through quantitative easing and printing money on a large scale. It is a very strange world where very large economies—the US Federal Reserve, of course, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank is looking at getting engaged in it in a big way, the Swiss National Bank—are all involved in quantitative easing of one sort or another to put downward pressure on their currencies. New Zealand, of course, takes the position that we could not possibly get engaged in anything like that. The effect is that our currency is overvalued and our export sector is getting squashed.

The Opposition parties set up the manufacturing inquiry because we wanted to look at the problem in manufacturing. One of the key problems that the manufacturers and exporters are telling us is the level of the dollar. They are saying it over and over and over again. Other countries’ Governments and central banks are responding to the cries from the productive sector by intervening on the currency. That is now normal practice within the OECD. Anyone who reads what is going on from the Bank for International Settlements or from any of the international institutions knows that it is normal practice now for Governments and central banks to put downward pressure on their currencies by putting their official interest rates down towards the bottom of the band, and by using quantitative easing to intervene on their currencies. It is just normal practice now. The fact that New Zealand refuses to do it is part of the reason why our currency is much higher than other currencies.

Hon Chris Tremain: The only way that intervention would work is if you were the only one.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: So Chris Tremain, who is now shouting out, whose speech I politely listened to, is now I think showing great impoliteness by shouting out. In fact, Mr Tremain, this is normal practice now within the OECD, and if you read OECD documents, as I do on a regular basis, you would see that this is standard debate. The tragedy is that we cannot have a rational monetary policy debate because we get this kind of shouting out that we get from the National Party, which makes it very difficult to have a rational monetary policy debate, as they are having in other countries.

In other countries, they are saying how do we protect the export sector, the manufacturing sector, and the productive sector of our economy, which generates jobs? How do we intervene on our currency to do that? It is not a simple thing to do. It is not an easy thing to do. Nobody has the silver bullet around this issue, but it is the debate that we need to have, and unfortunately we are not having it properly in New Zealand, largely because of the Government, which is intervening against the debate. At the same time we now have record high unemployment, so in terms of jobs, which the Government should be judged against, it has been a failure. We had the highest level of unemployment since the National Party was last in Government, so that tells you about its success.

In the manufacturing sector we have lost 40,000 jobs in 4 years. So this is a major problem, yet the Government tells us repeatedly that it is not a problem, and it refuses to act on it, so we are seeing a decline in manufacturing exports. Just in nominal numbers we have had a 9 percent decline in the value of manufacturing exports over the course of this Government. It has been a failure. We have got record unemployment and a decline in manufacturing exports.

Then, of course, when it comes to the environment, the Government’s policy is extraordinary. Since the election we have seen an extraordinary attack on the New Zealand environment. It is a broadside, led, of course, by Steven Joyce. Policy after policy is just about attacking the environment. We have seen it particularly with regard to mining. The thing about mining is that, you know, obviously we need some mining, but mining as an industry does not employ a lot of people. It never has, and it is likely that it never will. Compared with 200,000 people employed in manufacturing, it is relatively small. So, while the Government sits on its hands when we lose 40,000 jobs in manufacturing, its whole economic approach to generate jobs is premised on building up the mining sector. Even if you doubled the employment in the mining sector, it would make a marginal difference to the number of jobs that are being lost in manufacturing. That is how out of touch this Government is in its economic policy. It simply does not get it. Look at climate change: it is the same problem. This Government has no priority around climate change and dealing with climate change issues.

The Government has done some positive things—the home insulation scheme was a positive development—but in this term the Government really does not appear to have any ideas.

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The John Key - led National Government remains intently focused on the thing that really matters to New Zealanders, and that is building a strong, growing economy that can deliver the prosperity that New Zealanders want. The Government is working tirelessly, building the momentum so that it can put behind the last 4 years of difficult economic times, in order to help New Zealand into the future and to give New Zealand those opportunities that it is looking for for all our families and for all our communities.

But, I can tell you, the one thing that is not the answer to the significant challenges facing New Zealand is printing money. The last thing an economy like New Zealand—small, vulnerable, dependent on international trade flows—needs is printing money. Yet that is the only economic solution offered by the Opposition parties in 4 years—printing more money. Oh, sorry, there was a second one: a capital gains tax on your family home. So that is what their solutions are: a capital gains tax on your family home, plus printing money. Neither of those is a recipe for getting the country moving. Neither of those is a recipe for the country moving back into surplus and paying our nation’s debt. That is why every day—day in, day out—our Government is talking about what really matters to New Zealanders: building the economy, investing for the future, investing in infrastructure, and investing in important social services. Those are the things that will help this country get ahead.

The Government has been sensibly managing our nation’s finances, but every time it takes a decision to help balance the books to get us back in the black so that we can start paying off that debt and not burden our children, the Opposition opposes it. Every time we ask the Public Service to tighten its belt and focus on value for money, we are told that that is wrong and to just turn the printing presses on—that printing presses are the solution to everything. But our Government is very sensibly turning round the financial crisis that we inherited from the previous Government. It had a decade of deficits facing our nation; we are working to be balanced by 2014-15. It is a huge effort, but we can continue to do that, and we know that both Treasury’s economic updates and the Reserve Bank’s monetary statements are looking at this average 2.5 percent growth over the next few years. We shall be working harder to increase that, but it does mean that New Zealand will be growing faster than many of the European countries, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada.

We are continuing to focus as a Government on building a more productive economy in New Zealand. Huge investment is going into infrastructure in this country. Over $400 million is going into the eastern arterial roading route in the Bay of Plenty. This will save a significant amount of time as our logs and exports go to the Port of Tauranga, the biggest export port in New Zealand. A huge amount of investment is going into the Waikato Expressway. That is linking those two hubs of economic development in the Waikato and in Auckland. A really significant investment is going into roading, right throughout the country. It matters because it means that goods can get to the port and to the market faster, but it is opposed by every party opposite. They are against the investment in roading. What is more, the Opposition now wants to use the roading money to pay for building houses. So the motorists are paying for roads, but the Opposition parties are going to spend that money on building housing.

We are also investing in our human capital in New Zealand, boosting skills and the opportunities for job training. We heard a tremendous announcement by the Prime Minister on youth apprenticeships in New Zealand. That was a tremendous announcement. It will see the first 10,000 new apprentices enrolling after 1 April this year getting $1,000 towards their tools and off-job course costs, and $2,000 if they are in those priority construction trades that we so desperately need for the recovery happening in Christchurch. There has been a huge amount of money go into these areas. Just in the last few years, $64 million extra has gone into industry training across New Zealand. That is really significant, and it is making a big investment.

But the Government is also very strongly focused on Better Public Services—delivering for New Zealanders. If you just look at what has been happening in the health portfolio, our Government has continued to invest very strongly in health—$2 billion extra has been put into the health service. We have more doctors and more nurses than ever before, and more operations. They are now at a record level—over 30,000 patients a year are getting elective surgery. That is more than before, and they are waiting less.

But the one policy we have got from Labour on health is on elective surgery, where it has announced it will cut the numbers of hip, cataract, and knee operations, and make people wait longer. That is its only health policy—cutting hip—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Absolute rubbish!

Hon TONY RYALL: Oh, rubbish? Read what Maryan Street has said. She will cut elective surgery. That means fewer hip operations and fewer cataracts operations. In fact, Labour’s plan will see, I think, around 5,000 fewer operations a year for people over the age of 65. Labour is cutting hip operations, cutting cataract operations, cutting knee joint replacements, and making old people wait longer. So that is its plan. It is the only policy it has announced in health.

Our side, though, has got this comprehensive plan about a real investment in health promotion and disease prevention through our six national health targets. We have record levels of immunisation—no gap between Māori, Pacific, and Pākehā New Zealanders. We are making huge gains in diabetes and heart checks. We have introduced a systematic national programme of diabetes and heart checks for people once they reach a certain age. We have got a huge effort in fighting tobacco, which is an unparalleled—unparalleled—effort in fighting tobacco. We are speeding up cancer services, and emergency departments are faster, and we are saving lives through that. We are delivering better public services with the investment that has been made.

In education a huge investment is being made in lifting standards not only in early childhood education but also in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. A huge investment is going into that. Our goal is to see 98 percent of all school entrants having participated in early childhood education and 85 percent of 18-year-olds having achieved NCEA. We have got more teachers than ever before. We have got more and more investment going into the capital of our schools—new buildings and new equipment. We are renovating and rebuilding a whole lot of schools that suffered under the leaky homes debacle that happened under the previous Labour Government. We have got a huge investment going into education to lift standards so that that one New Zealand child in five who leaves school unable to read or write well enough to get a job is not in that position any more. And, yes, it is demanding in education, and, yes, the Government does have a zero-tolerance approach to failure. We do want them to do better in our schools, and the Government is going to continue doing that.

We are delivering safer streets for New Zealanders, with the lowest crime rates in 30 years—the lowest crime rates in 30 years. We have more police on the beat—more police on the beat. There is a significant lift in the number of on-the-beat police walks—more than there has ever been. A real investment is going there. In welfare we are getting the incentives right to encourage people into work and to give them the support that they need to be independent. There is a huge amount of work that we are doing.

But the Government also has a very, very focused plan, which the Prime Minister talked about in his statement, that continues to focus on the things that really matter to ordinary New Zealanders: a strong, growing economy, the changes we are making in the Resource Management Act, the changes we are making in local government, the changes that will come out of the housing work that is under way, the changes that are happening elsewhere in the economy, the changes in water, the changes in agriculture, and the changes to the Crown mineral estate. All these were opposed by the parties opposite, though, I have to say, did Mr Norman not give a speech last year saying that the Greens welcomed mining? It is all very odd. There is a lack of coherence there. The Government has got a huge investment of work in the things that really matter to get the economy moving.

The next year is going to be characterised by nasty politics from the parties opposite—nasty politics—focusing on sideshows and irrelevancies, but our Government will remain absolutely determined and absolutely focused on what makes the boat go faster, what makes the economy go faster, and what provides the opportunities New Zealanders want. You will see over this next year or so really significant lifts in Christchurch. We will begin to see the economy elsewhere around New Zealand moving very strongly. We are expecting to grow faster than so many of our trading partners. But it will remain challenging. The economy will remain challenging. Printing money is not the answer. A more productive, strong, growing economy is the answer to the opportunities that New Zealanders want, and that is what John Key and his team are strongly focused on.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): For a Minister who says that this Government accepts no failure, I cannot understand how Tony Ryall can sit there and not walk from the benches, because the only mark that that Government can get is F for failure. This week we had a profound announcement from the National Government—a National Government under John Key that is attempting to deal with the unemployment and housing problem. Well, they had one profound announcement. This is a country under John Key where if you want 40 hours’ work per week and you want a—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Not you, Mr Speaker. If any New Zealander wants a secure roof over their head, then the only place they can get that is in prison. In prison, under John Key’s National Government, you get a roof over your head and 40 hours’ work a week.

History repeats itself. In 1984 a number of things happened. I have to acknowledge that the Hon Lockwood Smith came into Parliament and the Hon Robert Muldoon left Parliament. No, not quite—he left office. That was a year of crisis brought about by, we were told, a Prime Minister who was out of control in borrowing money—out of control. He left this country with huge public debt. He borrowed $17.7 billion. Well, 30 years on—in fact it is 29 years on, but it will be 30 years in 2014—the National Government under John Key has, so far, borrowed $50 billion, which is a record amount. New Zealanders understood the crisis in 1984. Labour, when coming into Government in 2014, will be facing the same crisis. It is a crisis of confidence brought about by a Government that fails to make the hard decisions, fails to intervene when necessary, and is failing New Zealanders every single day. Next year, if John Key is allowed to continue, he will have sold off strategic electricity assets, the dollar will remain overvalued because his Government refuses to intervene as most other Western countries are doing to protect their exporters, and unemployment will continue to be at record levels—20 percent is a fair calculation of those unemployed and underemployed.

Kiwis up and down this country—these are the ones with jobs—are saying: “How come I’m working harder for longer and I’m worse off?”. Well, John Key’s rhetoric and his smarmy smiles do not work any more. Kiwis are starting to ask where they are heading. The gap between the rich and the poor in this country has grown more than it ever has before. Why? Well, because when John Key’s Government came into power it cut taxes for the rich. It put GST up for the poor. It increased petrol taxes. It has increased school fees. Ask a parent about the cost of the so-called free education that Mr Borrows was rabbiting on about. There is no such thing. And there is no such thing as free health care. We have public health and education systems, but under the National Government they are far from free. The sooner those people on that side of the House—those in Government—understand that, the sooner we might have some intervention. John Key’s Government is failing. A thousand Kiwis every week have lost confidence in the future of this country. That is a very, very sad state of affairs.

What has National done in 5 years? Well, when it came into Government it started out by taking off the Auckland regional petrol tax. We heard some ramblings about road funding. Well, the only roads that are getting properly funded are the “roads of National Party significance”, to the point where we have a southern alliance of South Island councils coming together to try to defend their funding. They acknowledge that their funding has been cut because the National Government refuses to top up their roading funding—the very infrastructure that supports rural New Zealanders, the people who still are the backbone of this economy, and who were supporters of the National Party. That Government has slashed funding for that infrastructure. The Government promised rural broadband. Well, there are a lot of farmers out there who are still waiting for it. If the Government was really concerned about rural post, it would put rural broadband in place so the farmers could buy online and then get the parcels delivered. There are some simple solutions.

We had an increase in GST, which is a real pressure on all rural New Zealanders—the people creating the wealth in this country. We have a Prime Minister who said of his vision for the future that he would like to see a financial services hub in New Zealand, to drive a better economy. Never mind the speculation that that would have further created a higher dollar for exporters. He wanted, and still wants, to have a financial services hub here. Well, there has been a number of reports. In fact, the Government spent half a million dollars, giving Mr Craig Stobo money to go and do a report. There is huge debate between Treasury and Mr Stobo and Mr Key about the value of the financial services hub, but, mark my words, the Prime Minister is determined, once he has sold State-owned enterprises and once he has allowed the partial float of units in Fonterra, to get on and create a financial services hub, just like Ireland and just like other countries, where we have seen rorts in the system.

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

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I would just like to briefly acknowledge the existing Speaker for one more day or thereabouts. I would like to acknowledge his huge contribution to Parliament since 1984. One of the most significant things he did, of course, was play in the Parliamentary Rugby Team—a very worthwhile winger, I think, and Mr Tremain will acknowledge that.

I am here as Labour’s primary industries spokesman. I am here to try to keep the National Government accountable and to try to keep it on track. The National Government was the friend of the rural New Zealander. Well, it is no longer. John Key wants to set up a financial hub in New Zealand, at the expense of the exporters and traders of this country, at the expense of the people who produce this wealth.

There are a couple of acronyms I would like to mention. One is PGP, the Primary Growth Partnership, and the other is DCD—dicyandiamide. Firstly, on the Primary Growth Partnership. The National Government took from rural New Zealanders, from farmers, $700 million that we had allocated for research and development and for innovation and support. The Government took that money, it put it into the coffers to pay for the tax cuts, and it has allocated a new funding grants scheme called the Primary Growth Partnership. Any analysis, and it is starting to happen now, of that grants scheme will show that a huge amount of money is going to companies that are owned or majority-owned by overseas people, by foreign companies. That is, in itself, not bad but it does beg the question: can we guarantee benefit for New Zealand taxpayers from the investment made in that Primary Growth Partnership fund? We will be pursuing that and keeping the Government honest in that area.

The next one is dicyandiamide. There was a rather vicious attack from the chief executive officer of Fonterra on me for daring to ask questions of why it took so long, from September until the end of January, to raise the issue of dicyandiamide in milk. It is not a food safety issue. It is, however, an issue of integrity, honesty, and openness with our trading partners. The reality is that the company and Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative spoke to the Ministry for Primary Industries at the end of October, so there was a little bit of a delay there. At that time, the Government was informed. The question I have of the Minister for Primary Industries and the Minister of Trade and the Prime Minister is: why did they not act then, up front, telling our trade partners that this was not a food safety issue, but that it was an issue that we wanted to clarify with them? That delay, the procrastination, the attempt to hide it, has escalated this into an issue that is a huge challenge at this point for the dairy industry to deal with. There is no food safety issue, but an issue of perception and of integrity and of reputation.

I put it to you that the delay was in part because of the floating of Fonterra units on 30 November. That was a big issue for NZX, and it was a big issue for the Prime Minister because he is absolutely committed to the floating of Fonterra and to the strengthening of capital markets in this country. That wheeling and dealing by a trader Prime Minister has put our dairy sector at risk, and he should be held to account for that mistake.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs): It is a great privilege to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s motion and his statement from yesterday. Can I just acknowledge the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor, who spoke in the main a load of nonsense in his speech. But he did say one good thing, and that was to acknowledge the fine contribution that Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith has made in this Parliament over a very long time. Of course, I suppose—they are not quite eulogies—when the words are written in the papers, perhaps in the next few days, about him and his tenure, many will talk about him as Speaker, and of course he has made a fine contribution. But let it not be forgotten, of course—as Damien O’Connor was talking about some trade issues—what a great trade Minister he was for this country as well. He has a fine legacy in that, and he will be doing a very good job for this country in London, representing us in the United Kingdom, which is one of our oldest friends and allies. I just want to acknowledge him as a great parliamentarian, Minister, and Speaker of this House.

Can I just say that this is a Government I am very, very proud to be a part of, because we are delivering a brighter future for this country. You know, you heard from the other side earlier today—from the likes of Dr David Clark—as I say, a load of tosh. They have this mantra about how we have the worst economic record in 50 years. What a load of tosh coming from a party that talks about its $7 billion surpluses, and so on and so forth, and the best of economic times in the world when it was in Government—all on borrowed money—yet it could not do anything about the significant issues that the country had then. Those members harp on now about things like child poverty. Well, they had the opportunity to do something back then, and they did not. Now we are in, and we are cleaning up the messes that that party singularly failed to deal with. In that context, of course, we are in what has been the global financial crisis—a global recession. We have come out of that, and we are doing the right things to put this country in a very strong position.

As we look around the world at the context that we are in, actually, this is a country that is doing better than most Western countries, with lower unemployment, with low interest rates, and with low inflation.

Phil Twyford: What are those jobs?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is a good country to be in. Yes, we are not quite there, Phil Twyford. No one is acknowledging we are, but it is a great country and we are the party in this Parliament with the credible plan. We do not make up numbers about housing plans and then backtrack, as the leader of the Labour Party did. We are the party with the credible plan to make this a better country, and we are implementing it, day in and day out. I for one am very proud to be a part of that. We are responsibly managing the finances. That is not the chequebook activism that Phil Twyford on the other side wants. We do not go out and make new promises every day that we have not costed. Actually, we want to credibly and responsibly manage the finances and get back to surplus. We know you cannot just live in the borrow-and-spend world that Phil Twyford thinks is a good place to be. No, we cannot just have rail plans and bicycle plans and tofu plans here, there, and everywhere. That is not the sort of country that we want.

We also have a wide-ranging and comprehensive plan to build a more competitive and productive economy. Really, that is what this is all about. Day in and day out we are doing things. I will talk very shortly about some of the things we are doing, some of the areas I have been privileged to be a part of, but we are doing them. We are making a difference, while the other parties, particularly the Labour Party that Phil Twyford is a part of, flail around without any credible solutions. We are driving better public services.

If you wanted, I suppose, a symbol of what we are doing, there are, as Tony Ryall said before the dinner break, 35,000 more elective surgeries every year—hip operations, knee operations, and cataract operations. For the people in Tauranga and the people in Te Atatū—that place that I have lived in for longer than Phil Twyford ever has—we are doing those operations, day in and day out. We know, and we heard—I did not know this, actually—that Maryan Street has talked about how we need to tone down the elective surgeries, and that we need to do fewer of them. How bizarre. It is not exactly a vote-winning strategy, I would have thought, Phil Twyford. You know, we are a party of elective surgeries, and of better, sooner, and more convenient health care. Maryan Street is more concerned about her euthanasia bill—and I make no comment on it—than she is about elective surgeries for people in this country. Well, you know, there is the difference right there, and we see that replicated in health and in education.

I thought the Prime Minister made an excellent point when he said that of course the Greens and Labour want water-quality standards. They want to fetishise air-quality standards. They are not necessarily bad things, but how about a little bit about educational standards, national standards? If we are going to have standards for water and air, how about—this is radical, I know—we do the same for children? How about we do the same for children? Well, we are a party that has, and it is making a difference. Some of what we are doing is controversial, but we want five in five children doing well in this country. The results are actually getting there. They are getting better. The trend is right. Hekia Parata is to be commended for what she is doing and for what the Government is doing in that area.

We are supporting the rebuild of Canterbury. I know there are going to be great things happening down there as that rebuild picks up. The jobs and the story of growth are very exciting to hear about, and I want to see it this year. I am very impatient to get down there and see more of it and the good news that is coming out of that very vibrant part of our country that of course has been hit hard.

As a Minister outside Cabinet it has been a great privilege to be part of the story of building a more competitive and productive economy. As Minister of Consumer Affairs—it is my, touch wood, last day as Minister of Consumer Affairs—I have greatly enjoyed working with the officials and delivering some very good results.

Phil Twyford: The wheel clampers love him.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, Phil Twyford may laugh, but actually we acted on the wheel clamping. It is just one of many issues where we acted. Of course we have worked on the Consumer Law Reform Bill, which is going through the House, to pass this year, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, the consumer credit legislation—some call it the “Loan Shark Bill.” Those bills, when they become law, will be excellent for consumers, and we know in this party that what is good for consumers is good for business, because confident and informed consumers make for more efficient market places. So I am very proud to be a part of that. I know that Craig Foss, having talked with him, is going to see that work through with aplomb.

Climate change is also an area that I have been very gratified to play a role in. We have heard, again, some nonsense from the other parties on that, but the fact of the matter is that we want to be part of concerted global action. We are this year going to make more announcements around complementary measures and so on, and what we are going to do domestically in terms of our carbon footprint. I am proud to be part of that story.

In regard to transport, can I just say it has been a great privilege being Associate Minister of Transport, working with Gerry Brownlee. Because I am running out of time, can I just say on the warrant of fitness reform that it is going to save Kiwis time and money. Phil Twyford shamelessly came out against it because he wanted to be on One News with me. I know that, Phil—I know that, Phil.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Mr Twyford, member for Te Atatū. But the fact of the matter is that it is a popular reform, which is helping to make our economy more competitive and productive, as money goes from that area into other parts of the economy, and jobs are created where they should be. So it has been a great privilege to be part of that, to be part of the John Key - led Government.

Can I just finish by saying David Cunliffe has entered the House. He is still very much animated in the Labour Party, so David Shearer better watch out. On this side we are very strongly behind John Key. We are looking forward to a great year for the National Party, the National Government, and for all New Zealanders.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It is a bit strange to follow a valedictory speech by the erstwhile Minister of Consumer Affairs, Simon Bridges. He will go down in history as the great friend of the wheel-clamping industry, and that is a fantastic political epitaph. As David Shearer said in Wainuiōmata on the weekend, we should thank the focus groups for making the Prime Minister aware of major problems facing this country like youth unemployment and the housing affordability crisis. Otherwise, if it was not for market research, if it was not for the focus groups, how would the Prime Minister know that there is a housing affordability crisis? When you live in a mansion in Parnell it is probably not immediately obvious to you that there are people living five or six in an uninsulated Skyline garage in places like Henderson and Massey. You would not know when you live in a mansion in Parnell that there are people, dozens of people, in west Auckland living in their cars because they have been turfed out of their accommodation and cannot find a private rental. You would not know if you lived in a mansion in Parnell that there are thousands and thousands and thousands of people on the Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting lists who are eligible for houses with the Housing New Zealand Corporation, but stand no prospect at all of ever getting a Housing New Zealand Corporation house, because there are not enough houses. There is a whole generation of young people in Auckland who are watching the dream of homeownership slip further and further out of grasp.

We know now that the Prime Minister is aware that this is a problem. He is aware of it now, but what is he doing? What is this Government doing about the housing affordability crisis? It is blaming Auckland Council, because apparently the housing affordability crisis—the fact that in Auckland we have some of the most unaffordable housing in the Western World—apparently, according to this Government, is the fault of Auckland Council. We have seen the unedifying spectacle in the last couple of weeks of the Minister of Finance waging a war of words with the Deputy Mayor of Auckland and trying to blame Auckland Council for the fact that we have unaffordable homes. Never mind the fact that we need to be building 10,000 new homes a year in Auckland. We are currently building only about 4,000 homes a year. Well, 5 years ago when the economy was humming we were building 10,000 homes every year. There was not a shortage. But for some reason this Government thinks that the whole problem of housing affordability in Auckland is caused by problems with the Resource Management Act, even though 5 years ago we did not have the acute shortage of affordable housing that we do now.

There is in this Government’s response on this issue a terrible double standard. Only just before Christmas National blocked Auckland Council’s request to make the Auckland Unitary Plan come into effect at the end of this year. What does the Auckland Unitary Plan do? Auckland Council’s new mega amalgamated district plan? Well, it has got a whole lot of provisions that will go a long way towards delivering affordable housing. It changes the rules so that developers can get one resource consent for a bulk lot of homes. It makes it easier to mix up different styles—flats, apartments, bungalows, and terraces—on one lot. It makes it easier for developers to amalgamate sections so they can do residential developments. Most important, the Auckland Unitary Plan programmes land release over 30 years to guarantee a supply of new land for affordable housing. That is exactly what Bill English is threatening to do by legislating if Auckland Council does not step up to the mark. Well, this is absolute hypocrisy from this Government. It is stopping Auckland Council from doing the very thing that Bill English is now threatening to intervene with if Auckland Council does not do it. This Government blames the global financial crisis for unemployment. It blames the Christchurch earthquake for slow economic growth, and now it is blaming Auckland Council for a housing crisis that this Government will not lift a hammer to solve.

It is interesting to ask why the Government is flailing around blaming everybody else for its problems. The reason is that it has been caught napping. Labour introduced a policy at the end of last year, and David Shearer unveiled it at our party conference: a pledge to build 100,000 affordable homes over the next 10 years. Labour will build the affordable homes. We will intervene in the market. We will intervene to make that market work. We will guarantee a generation of young people in Auckland that they will be able to get into the housing market and that there will be affordable homes built.

What this Government does not like, and what has got it really rattled and defensive—

Hon Simon Bridges: Fabian socialist nonsense, that’s what we don’t like.

PHIL TWYFORD: —and angry is that 70 percent, Simon Bridges, the Herald-DigiPoll says that 70 percent of people support Labour’s policy. That is why this Government is on the ropes. That is why its members are rattled. That is why they have come to Parliament this term nasty and defensive and attacking every other party in this House, but utterly failing to come up with any kind of practical response that offers a real solution to the housing crisis. They are rattled. They have looked at the polls. Steven Joyce has said to the Cabinet: “Look, the polls are against us on this. The public really like Labour’s policy. We had better start doing something.” They are rattled.

I predict that this issue, the housing affordability issue, will be a nail in the coffin of this National Government, and the reason is this—this Government cannot, will not, act to intervene in the housing market. Government members cannot do it, because it is not in their DNA. This housing crisis is a result of market failure. The house-building and construction industries are currently delivering only about 4,000 new dwellings a year in Auckland. They should be building about 10,000. Very few of those 4,000 new homes are in the affordable range. It is that deficit, year on year compounding, that is delivering the scarcity, which is driving up the prices out of the reach of ordinary people.

But only a Labour Government—only a Labour-led Government—will intervene in the market. It is only Labour that believes in active Government and hands-on Government. National members—all they have to offer, all they bring to the House is that they are going to tinker with the Resource Management Act. They have been in Government for 4 years. They have brought several Resource Management Act reform bills to this House. They have had 4 years. They have done nothing—they have done nothing—about changing the Resource Management Act to make it easier for affordable homes to be built in our country’s largest city. It is only now that Labour’s KiwiBuild policy—a pledge to deliver 100,000 affordable homes—has got them rattled that they are now talking about tinkering with the Resource Management Act yet again.

Housing is not the only issue that is troubling Aucklanders. It is not the only issue on which the National Government is out of step with people in our biggest city. Transport is recognised by almost all Aucklanders as the single biggest problem that the city must confront and solve. Decades of under-investment in public transport have left the city facing gridlock. Just before Christmas Auckland Council and Government officials produced the City Centre Future Access Study, which was commissioned by Auckland Council. It was a direct response to the then Minister of Transport Steven Joyce, who asked for more detailed analysis about the case for the construction of the city rail link. So officials from the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Ministry of Transport—the Minister’s very own officials, mandated by him and his office to do this work—went away and produced an impressive and substantive report on the transport options for stopping gridlock in Auckland central city. They came back and they recommended that the city rail link should be built as a matter of priority. They said that by 2041, unless the city rail link is built, traffic will grind to a halt—well, to a walking pace, to 5 kilometres an hour.

What did Gerry Brownlee, the Minister of Transport say? He rubbished it, even though he mandated his officials to do much of the work on that project. Because this Government is so hostile to public transport, and because of its entrenched hostility to Len Brown and the Auckland Council, Gerry Brownlee could not help himself but pour contempt on the work of his own officials in the week before Christmas. Yet the last two opinion surveys have shown that between 63 and 64 percent of Aucklanders want to see the city rail link built. This Government is out of step with Aucklanders on the two big issues, housing and transport, and it is because of its ideological bias against Government intervention and against public investment. Who else but the National Party would have such a bone-headed idea that you can let the sprawl run and expect that a dysfunctional housing market will deliver affordable homes?

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): Malo le soifua and happy New Year, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on this, the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament yesterday. I support the direction that our Prime Minister has set for this nation because clearly—clearly—he is the only person equipped to lead this country at this critical time in our history.

I just want to make mention of the previous speaker, Mr Twyford. I want to know from Mr Twyford, around his housing policy, whether he lives in his villa in Waitakere, whether it is the bungalow in Kingsland, whether it is the apartment block in Auckland Central, or whether it is his flat in Mount Albert, because clearly the guy is confused, but I am glad he has found a home finally in Te Atatū, and I wish him well in his new residence there.

Unlike the divided Opposition over there, this National-led Government has a strong plan and a full agenda to encourage investment—strengthening the economy and boosting jobs for all New Zealanders. It is about building a bolder, a brighter, and a better future for all Kiwis. We are building on the momentum that was achieved over the last 4 years, which is more important than ever in the current economic climate.

Context, of course, is important. Around the world, we know, recovery from the global financial crisis is proving most difficult. We know that Greece continues to reel in crisis. We know that the United Kingdom is going through a triple-dip recession and that expectations of world economic growth are being downgraded on a consistent basis. So that is why the economy and jobs are front and centre in this Government’s priorities.

We know what the Government’s plan is; many of my colleagues have outlined it. It is about returning to surplus and reducing our debt. It is about pushing ahead with reforms to bring about a more productive and competitive economy. We have got to support our friends and families in Christchurch, and it is about driving better results from our Public Service.

But why, you may ask—and I think the Opposition members must ask this question every day—is economic growth important? I do not hear one person over there talking about the benefits of economic growth. Economic growth is about providing jobs and opportunities. It supports, feeds, and clothes our families and our communities. Economic growth is about enabling us to sustain the quality of life that we as New Zealanders are accustomed to in this country. But, critically, economic growth is about paying our way in this world.

The latest economic forecasts, Treasury’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update as well as the latest Monetary Policy Statement from the Reserve Bank, show that our economy will be growing at the rate of 2.5 percent on average over the next 3 years. At that rate, of course, New Zealand is expected to grow more strongly than the euro area, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada.

Locally, as the member for Maungakiekie, the message to me is personal and it is clear. Last year I surveyed 46,000 constituents—yes, that is every constituent in my electorate—and unequivocally the most important issue to the 2,000 people who responded to that survey was job opportunities and economic growth, so that must be my priority and it must be our Government’s priority. So there is a big opportunity in New Zealand over the next few years. It revolves around the rebuilding of Christchurch and, obviously, we are going to train more New Zealanders in vocational careers that will set them up for their lives.

I have heard members opposite ask where the jobs are. The SEEK website at 4 o’clock this afternoon showed just under 15,000 jobs being available. Over 12,000 were full time, 1,000 were part time, and there were 1,700 contract jobs on the table. These are just the jobs that are publicly notified. We know that there are many more jobs that are either advertised in-house within companies or by word of mouth. So the issue is not about jobs. It is about matching the skills of those who need work with the jobs that are available in our country.

So the question arises as to what the Government is doing about this situation. Well, we have outlined our five new vocational pathways that clearly signpost the subjects young people should take to prepare for vocational careers in construction, manufacturing, the primary sector, and the service sector, as well as social services. There will be over 4,000 places in trades and services academies. There will be 8,700 Youth Guarantee places. You see, these kids who are not able to go down the academic path have a future nevertheless.

I know that locally in Maungakiekie we have got services and trades academies at Onehunga High School and Tāmaki College, which are providing great pathways for my local youth. We are also training more engineering and science students in preparation for industries more suited to the high-tech, value-added export jobs of the future. As I talk to my local companies—Rakon, Sistema, Tru-Test, and Masport—I see that these are the types of jobs of the future that our graduates and our young people will be graduating to.

We are also revitalising industry training, to ensure that people have the right skills and training and to ensure that our system is responsive to trainees and employers. We are particularly focused on increasing opportunities for in-work training for all Kiwis. We are doing this by expanding and improving our apprenticeship training system. The Prime Minister outlined in his speech on the weekend that there will be an additional 14,000 new apprentices starting training over the next 5 years, and this is over and above the 7,000 who enrol each year. Those are the sorts of jobs and training schemes that local people want to aspire to. This will cost $106 million over the next 4 years.

As chair of the Social Services Committee, I also want to emphasise the importance of the welfare reforms on this Government’s agenda this year. May I commend the great work that Minister Bennett is doing for our most vulnerable children, and for the work that went into the green paper and the white paper in terms of the work programme we have set for the next 2 years, which will help vulnerable children, their families, and our communities. It is fair to say that the hands-off approach of the last Government left the social development portfolio in a right mess, so I am proud of the work that we have done in focusing on what people can do, not on what people cannot do.

Hon David Cunliffe: Don’t just read your notes.

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Mr Cunliffe asks how we are doing that. We are giving people the tools and the resources to be able to support themselves and transition off welfare and into paid work. This has meant greater obligations and incentives for teen beneficiaries, requiring them to get into education, training, and work-based learning. We have also got payment cards to help manage benefit payments and support better financial choices, one-on-one mentoring, and wraparound support, as well as budgeting and parenting courses.

We are implementing these through an investment approach. By putting more money up front we are moving people long term out of welfare and into jobs. Remember, we know that those jobs exist. In the last year alone there were 29,648 18 to 24-year-olds who left the benefit to go into paid work. That compares with 14,800 under the Labour Government in 2008. Yes, that is right—twice as many are going off a benefit and into paid work.

In the last 4 years alone 305,000 people left the benefit to start paid work. So, clearly, we are getting people working again. Our welfare reforms are working, and the second round of these reforms is on the way. Part of those reforms is that benefit categories are being streamlined, we are implementing more effective work-testing and drug-testing of beneficiaries, and we are putting in place social obligations for those who receive assistance from the State.

So while Labour unleashes its underwhelming policies from last year, this Government continues to make a real difference to those who need, deserve, and receive help. More than 19,500 young people have benefited from our Job Opportunity Scheme and Community Max scheme, and 9,000 young people have started Job Streams. Rather than spreading employment support thinly across different groups, our approach has been to target those most at risk of remaining on welfare long term. The other thing about which I am really proud of our Government is that we have had a one-off boost of $589,000 to 155 budgeting services across New Zealand. That is $9.5 million spread across our communities to help families control their finances.

Again, in my electorate office in Onehunga and in the clinics that I hold across my electorate, that is one of the most critical issues we are dealing with—how working families and beneficiaries manage their finances. Finally, I just want to say that we are going to help vulnerable families, as Minister Bridges has said, with reforms, to be released later this year, around loan sharks, by introducing the concept of responsible lending and enabling consumers to make informed decisions. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Mr Assistant Speaker, it is nice to see you back in the Chair, and through you may I compliment the outgoing Speaker, Dr Lockwood Smith, for his service to this House.

It is good to see colleagues and members on all sides of this House looking refreshed, suntanned, and back from their holiday breaks. We are here in this debate to open Parliament and take the long view, the broad view, on the challenges facing the Government and facing the country. To do that, let me quote you National’s formula for economic success. Here it goes. We must get the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less enterprising people. Most of that quote was from the American Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, whose economic policies led directly to the Great Depression of the 1930s, but it could equally have come from John Key.

If there is one thing that history has shown us, it is that National’s slash-and-burn economics never works. History has shown us that rewarding big business while penalising ordinary people, deregulating the economy in a way that encourages recklessness, and making laws that ensure that wealth flows from those at the bottom up to those at the top are a certain recipe for disaster. It did not work in the 1930s, it did not work when National last tried it, and it has not worked this time around.

Just this week New Zealand’s manufacturers warned that they may be forced to leave New Zealand. Why? Because National’s hands-off policies have left the New Zealand dollar so high that our manufacturers cannot make a living. Is that good economic management? No, it is madness. It is madness and a repeat of the madness that led to the formation of the first Labour Government.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What’s Labour going to do?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Remember, please, it was the first Labour Government that set in place just about all that we remember as being good about New Zealand. It was a Government that ensured that people had jobs—

Dr Paul Hutchison: Modesty’s always been over-rated.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —a Government that ensured that people had houses, just like the one John Key grew up in, Dr Hutchison. It was a Government that ensured that there were hospitals and health care for all when they needed them, and a Government that planted the seeds of economic growth through prudent investment in projects like massive forestry schemes that generate wealth to this day.

So let us not make any mistake about this. What National really wants is to turn the country back to a time before the first Labour Government. Where is the proof? National is back to its old tricks: sell our assets, rob workers of their rights, savage public services, chase the Budget down its own fiscal plughole, and become an environmental laughing stock to the world.

National is certainly slashing public services. The result is there for all to see. Unemployment is back up to 7.3 percent. There are 175,000 New Zealanders unemployed—that is up 12 percent in just the last year. There are over 100,000 families without pride, decent incomes, or hope for their future; and another 100,000 on part-time work or insufficient hours. And the most vulnerable, those truly in need of better public services, have been thrown to the cold winds of recession and division. National said it would take the rough edges off the recession—remember that? And what did it do? Rather than helping people through the recession, National left them to it. There are tens of thousands of families forced to drift between rental homes they cannot afford, while their kids get shunted from school to school. Their parents watch and their hearts break. I want to congratulate Annette King and David Shearer on Labour’s plans to put 100,000 families back into affordable homes while National does nothing.

Real incomes are lower now than when National took office. The gap between rich and poor has widened—almost never been worse—and the rush to the departure gates has become a stampede. Economic growth forecasts have been downsized more regularly than a new year’s diet resolution. New Zealanders widely understand now that the Government’s recipe is not working. Where John Key once looked relaxed, he now looks resigned. Where once Kiwis might have had hope, they are now just disappointed. They have been hanging out and they have hanging on for the brighter future that never came.

Labour’s message is that a new era is needed—an era of hands-on Government, of real change, and of big change—not an era of tinkering. We need change that listens to people in their communities, that gives them a stake in their own future—change they have helped build together and share responsibility for.

Kris Faafoi: Change the Government.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Change the Government. Get change that recognises that the strength of our ideas has always come from the grassroots—change that sees unions, for example, as a core part of building better workplaces, not as a cost to be saved. The way that we will deliver this change, the way that we will organise, will be robust, but it will not be top-down—like Christchurch, where people have felt the heavy weight of the Government through its Ministers. We will work with communities; we will do politics with them, not to them. When we stand back and look at it, we all know that the change we need is remarkably simple and obvious. We need to change from a low-value, extractive economy to a high-value, high-skill one, from an economy that sees workers not as commodities but as part of better business, from seeing innovation not as a luxury but as the lifeblood of our future, from a tax system that does not reward property speculators but rewards hard work and enterprise, and from a monetary policy that leaves our exporters withering on the vine in the harsh winds of an overvalued exchange rate to one that delivers real economic growth.

Labour has tried, tested, and proven policies in all of these areas, and I have been proud to work on some of them—capital gains tax, universal KiwiSaver, sustainable superannuation, and using those savings to grow and deepen our domestic banking and capital markets—but we need to go further. As the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union said to the manufacturing inquiry on Monday, we need a higher commitment to skills development, a more stable exchange rate, procurement policies that work for New Zealand, and a new commitment to developing our provinces and regions.

There is so much to do in social policy. We have to recognise that hungry kids do not learn, that homeless, unsettled kids cannot succeed, that stressed parents, with the best will in the world, cannot provide, and that a forgotten, beaten generation will not pay for the superannuation of tomorrow.

We need to remember that our environment is more than a brand to be milked as long as the contaminants do not show up. Our environment is not only what sustains us now; it is what has got to sustain our kids and their kids into the future. Dirty rivers, overfished seas, and urban jungles are not what we need. Clean, green technologies will get us part of the way, but let us make no mistake—there is so much to do. Finally, it is time we restored pride in being a Kiwi.

So Labour’s new direction will be built on a strong, high-value economy and the values of social inclusion, tolerance, and diversity that are the hallmark of any great society. Labour, under David Shearer, is called on again to take up its historic mission of hands-on government, of big change, of a new era, and of a better way that does politics with our people, not to them, empowers New Zealanders from the bottom up, does not slash them from the top down, builds a high-value economy, delivers an inclusive society, champions a sustainable environment, and celebrates our unique identity. With Labour, New Zealand will have a future worth believing in.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): It is my pleasure to speak to the Prime Minister’s statement and to add my support to our Government’s financial plan to strengthen the economy, encourage investment in New Zealand, and grow jobs for New Zealanders. Like most New Zealanders, I love our beautiful, unique country, and I understand how important it is to manage our natural resources intelligently and well so that we can preserve and enjoy the unspoilt qualities of our countryside and our environment.

I believe in the blue-green philosophy that our economy and our quality of life are predicated on a clean, green environment, and that the economy and growth and improving the environment can and must go hand in hand. It is the cleanliness, the freshness, and the beauty of our country—the rivers, the lakes, the mountains, and the forests—that define us all as a nation and that make us so attractive to tourists, to investors, and to immigrants from around the world. In fact, everywhere I go in the world I am told how fortunate New Zealand is. Immigrants are attracted to our country by our wonderful open spaces and because we are politically stable and have a safe country and a low crime rate. Furthermore, people know that in New Zealand we have opportunities to create a great lifestyle and a quality of life.

New Zealand is a lucky country. We have huge water resources. We have a temperate climate that allows us to grow high-quality food, which is in demand internationally, and over the years we have developed renewable energy resources that are increasingly valuable. We are innovative, well educated, and know how to work together collaboratively. We have all the ingredients for a bright future, but we need to manage these ingredients efficiently and well.

In the face of the worst global recession since the 1930s, this Government has managed our finances carefully and effectively, and we are now on a path to get back into surplus and start reducing debt. John Key’s National Government is working hard to create a more productive and competitive economy that will attract investment, support exporting, provide new jobs, and help New Zealanders earn and save, and we are succeeding. Our economy is growing and is expected to continue to grow by at least 2.5 percent a year for the next 3 years, which is a stronger growth rate than Europe, stronger than the UK, and stronger than Japan and Canada, and that is a real achievement that New Zealanders can be proud of.

The National Government is ambitious for New Zealand and New Zealanders. We are building on our strengths as a nation, we are investing in the education and training of our young people, we are developing our infrastructure, and we are delivering the public services New Zealanders want and need in the most efficient and effective way. The country is in good hands. But, for me, the focus is on the city of Christchurch and the commitment that this Government has made to the rebuild of our city after the earthquakes. It is an enormous commitment of time, of energy, and of money to ensure that Christchurch, the country’s second-largest city and the gateway to the South Island, will thrive once again. The funding commitment has been huge, with $5.5 billion going to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Fund and $2.2 billion going to SCIRT—that is, the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team—and its repair works, so that is all about roads, sewers, and water pipes. Over half a billion dollars has already been paid out, with a further $40 million of work being completed and paid for every month.

One of the best things that the Government did was that immediately after 22 February the Government supported 63,000 workers who were working for earthquake-devastated businesses. It provided a $200 million wage support package, which saved hundreds of small businesses and the jobs that those businesses provided. There was also funding of $6.8 million to actually help those businesses get back on their feet, and $4 million to exporters so that they could reassure their partners overseas that they were still in business and were keen to keep trading. There was also special funding made available for Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism, and $10 million to back social support service agencies. All of this funding has been appreciated and well used.

The question still on everyone’s lips when you meet them in Christchurch is: “What happened to your house?”. But more and more we are hearing people telling us that their houses are being repaired or rebuilt or replaced, and that their families are resettled. In fact, many I talk to now are very happy in their new homes. The Government supported families in the worst-hit residential red zones with the Crown offer for purchase. Although many people originally were very disappointed and maybe even outraged to be red zoned, now many people are disappointed and even outraged not to be red zoned, because there has been widespread acceptance and grateful acceptance of the Crown offer, with over 6,500 homeowners who have signed sale and purchase agreements and are now ready to move on to new locations.

Repairs to homes are also well under way. More than 47,000 emergency repairs were completed, and 18,000 heating units were installed to replace damaged chimneys. The latest information tells us that almost 31,000 homes have been fully repaired—totally completed—by the Earthquake Commission. And there is an expectation that that will rise to over 50,000 by the end of this year. The Earthquake Commission has paid out $4.1 billion to Canterbury people for earthquake claims.

In 2011 the Christchurch City Council asked the public to share their ideas about what they would like to see in the rebuild of Christchurch. There were over 30,000 suggestions made, and those ideas came to form the blueprint for the central business district for Christchurch. The blueprint reflects the people’s desire for a sustainable, people-friendly, safe, beautiful, 21st century city. It includes 12 key sites for major facilities, a convention centre, new public library, and metro sports facilities. It is an exciting vision, and people from all over the world are keen to be involved in its creation.

The growth and the pace of the rebuild means that Christchurch is now leading the country in economic growth and in the creation of jobs. It is a city of opportunity, and we want as many New Zealanders as possible to have a chance to be part of it. We have created a Working InZone programme to get unemployed Cantabrians working in the region’s red zones. We have new training and employment programmes to attract workers into trades needed for the rebuild, and that scheme will recruit over a thousand new workers over the next year. We are also making it quicker and easier to link up employers and workers through the new Canterbury Skills and Employment Hub.

But there is still a huge job ahead of us. The Canterbury rebuild is the biggest economic undertaking in the history of New Zealand, but we are making real progress. I would like to thank Gerry Brownlee, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, and everybody at the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, the Earthquake Commission, and the Christchurch City Council, who are working so hard for the city. Homes are getting repaired and rebuilt, the economy is growing, jobs are available, and we have an intelligent and popular plan for the rebuild of the city.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament in 2013.

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Why?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Because I have great news for you—great news for you. I was—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: For the member—for the member.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Apologies, Mr Speaker. I was reading the report of the Bay of Plenty District Health Board, and it pointed out to us at the Health Committee a little town, Te Kaha, on the East Coast. That lovely town, which is fairly isolated and unable to attract medical people very easily—it has got one general practitioner but some terrific nurse practitioners—reported that almost 100 percent of the population had had their cervical-screening coverage and their breast-screening coverage, and 100 percent of the 2-year-olds had had their immunisation coverage. That is outstanding. And 6 years ago, under a Labour Government, it would have been less than 50 percent—6 years ago, under a Labour Government, it would have been less than 50 percent. It is an outstanding result in that small town.

One of the reasons for this is that the Bay of Plenty District Health Board has gone to great trouble to ensure that there is flexibility in the way it employs its nurse practitioners. It has given them a great deal of opportunity to be able to not only do their routine work within the general practitioner’s surgery but also go out into the community to educate, to train, and to carry out preventive medicine. That is the sort of renaissance that has happened right throughout New Zealand under this National Government, and it did not happen under the Labour Government, which only talked about it.

I want to reiterate the point that Simon Bridges and the Prime Minister made. There are 35,000 new operations every year—35,000 more operations than there were 4 years ago under a Labour Government.

One of the things that has very much impressed me is that 5 years ago we heard time and time again of New Zealanders with cancer having to seek radiotherapy in Australia and elsewhere. Today those patients are treated within 4 weeks in New Zealand. They do not have to undergo the huge wait, the emotional torture, that they had under Labour. They are treated under gold standard, best-practice guidelines—best world practice guidelines—here in New Zealand, under a National Government.

There is much more that I can say that we could celebrate about our national health system, but I want to mention something somewhat sobering, and it is this. Since 1950, general expenditure has gone up by 150 percent, but in health it has gone up by 442 percent—absolutely unsustainable. Labour’s contribution to that between 1999 and 2008 was 100 percent, doubling from $6 billion to $12 billion, with almost no increase in productivity, with huge waiting lists that it had to cull, and with perpetual workforce problems. Under the National Government we have seen a curbing of the increase in spending, which is absolutely vital to the sustainability of one of the most expensive areas of Government spending, but we have continued to show magnificent results across a whole variety of areas in health.

We see the 2014 general election looming and we are going to have all sorts of promises from the Labour Opposition. It will spend more and it will say that it will do more, and, for that matter, the Greens are going to double what Labour is going to do.

I was just quite fascinated to listen to the rhetoric of none other than Metiria Turei, the Greens co-leader, the other day. She is going to “greenwash” New Zealand. In fact, she is living on a planet. In her address—what was it called, her state of the planet address—last Sunday she contradicted herself all over the place, and from time to time she was just blatantly wrong. But, oddly, there was one area that I was quite intrigued with, because she said this, regarding the past: “Together they have given us a great school system, fine tertiary [education] institutions, hospitals and community health care, hydropower, roads and trains, communications: the platform for individual achievements, innovation and entrepreneurship.” Mrs Turia, you have—oh, I am sorry, Mrs Tiria. The member—

Hon Members: Turei.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: —Turei—has the National Government to thank for all of that. At least she has one insight into the achievements of the National Government.

But I am afraid to say that she then reverted to her time-honoured, non - evidence-based, traditional Green shroud-waving. She claimed, along with Labour, along with New Zealand First, and along with the Mana Party, the assertion that over the last 4 years, 40,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing. Well, this is absolutely diametrically opposed to what we learn from the National Business Review. What it said was that “Data shows manufacturing ‘crisis’ claims are [utterly] wrong”. To hear some of the reports seeping under the door of the Opposition parties’ manufacturing inquiry, you would think the sector is at death’s door. In fact, it is not doing so badly.

The author went on to say: “The trouble is that although the 15 quarters since the beginning of 2009 showed a 25,800 drop in jobs, the previous 15 quarters shows a non-dissimilar drop—22,500 jobs lost.” That was well before the global economy went into a nosedive. It went on to say that it was the same story in all developed countries, and it is not just about exporting jobs to Asian countries. Greater mechanisation and then computerisation is replacing jobs in traditional industries, and newer services and related industries are employing more people.

I think it is really important to point out that here the National Government has responded, and, right as we speak, is responding, in the creation of the Callaghan Innovation centre, which is doing exactly what Labour talked about for years but failed to do—that is, ensuring that the stream of ideas that we get from our universities, our Crown research institutes, and our private research institutes will, indeed, connect with business and be appropriately commercialised for the good of the New Zealand economy.

Hon Chris Tremain: And the Greens voted against it.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: And the Greens voted against it. Intriguingly, the Greens voted against it.

As I speak here tonight, as a rural electorate MP, I see the grass and hectares around New Zealand—hundreds of thousands of hectares—turning to brown. National has just announced its irrigation policy, $400 million worth, and, once again, the Greens are voting against it. It is absolutely vital for the future economy of New Zealand, absolutely vital for growth and jobs, and absolutely vital so that we can afford First World health, First World education, and First World social services.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a great pleasure this evening to stand in the House in support of a very good speech yesterday by the Prime Minister, the Hon John Key. It was a wonderful speech. It was a speech of aspiration, of positiveness, and of ambition for our country in troubled, difficult times, the most difficult financial and economic situation since the Great Depression. What it is is a wonderful example of the clear, focused, and aspirational approach of this Government in so many areas that we have seen over the last several years, but last year in particular.

I would like to just commence my comments this evening by extending happy New Year wishes to members of the House and, of course, to all presiding officers of the House. It was poignant to hear Speaker Smith in his last question time today leave question time to applause from across the House, because I think he has done a particularly outstanding job. It does not seem like 30 years ago that as a very, very, very young National member I attended his selection meeting in Dargaville. It was interesting that there are three people who now sit in this Chamber who were at that meeting. Obviously, there was Lockwood Smith himself, me as a very junior backbench MP, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters was there. Of course, Winston was a contender for that selection—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You must use the member’s full name or his title.

SCOTT SIMPSON: The Rt Hon Winston Peters was a contender for that selection. That is the sort of history that goes back a long way. Dr The Hon Lockwood Smith has, I think—

Hon Simon Bridges: Right honourable.

SCOTT SIMPSON: —right honourable, I am being told by the member for Tauranga—done a particularly good job and a job that we can be proud of. It has been a pleasure to watch his progress over those 30 years, and it will be a distinct pleasure to continue watching his progress as he represents New Zealand in London.

I want to congratulate my colleagues Michael Woodhouse, Nikki Kaye, and Nick Smith on their Cabinet promotions. Nick Smith, of course, is returning to Cabinet after a respite on the backbenches. Of course, to our new whips, Louise Upston, Tim Macindoe, and Jami-Lee Ross—there is some debate in the backbenches of the National Party as to what to call the third whip. Do we call him the “junior junior whip”? Or do we call him “Whip-it”? Or do we call him “Little Flick”?

Hon Chester Borrows: “Cracker”.

SCOTT SIMPSON: Or “Cracker”? These are weighty issues that occupy the minds of some of us sitting on the backbenches. I think that we will talk to him in terms of “junior junior whip”—something along those lines. I would like to record my thanks to Kate Wilkinson and Phil Heatley for their contributions around the Cabinet table. They have made great contributions to our country and to this Parliament.

The speech that the Prime Minister gave yesterday in his statement to Parliament represented, absolutely, all the best aspects of strong, stable Government—aspirational, visionary, leadership well defined and focused on a brighter future for our nation, for our children, and for our grandchildren. I am very proud to be a part of that team. It is going to be very clear—in fact, it is clear from the speech—that the economy remains front and centre for our ambitious plans in 2013. It is going to be a busy year ahead. There is going to be a lot of action; a big, full legislative agenda, and lots of positive things to come out of this Parliament on behalf of New Zealand and also for the good people of Coromandel.

Of course, I have the very great privilege and pleasure of representing that very beautiful electorate, and last night my colleague Simon O’Connor from Tāmaki was kind enough to say that it was Coromandel that was the electorate where most New Zealanders want to go on holiday. Indeed, we have seen record numbers of New Zealanders coming to holiday this summer in Coromandel. Official figures released today by the Thames-Coromandel District Council indicate that in just the Whangamata, Tairua, and Pāuanui areas, somewhere between 65,000 and 75,000 people have visited and holidayed in just that small part of the Coromandel electorate this year. That is the equivalent of a small city. It is enormously good for our local economy, and it has been a good summer for the electorate.

This year we will be seeing some of the real benefits of this Government’s forward thinking in terms of positive impacts for the people of Coromandel. Aquaculture is a very big part of the plan for Coromandel. New Zealand’s next billion-dollar primary business will be aquaculture. A recent economic impact report quantified, actually, what we already knew, and that is that aquaculture is a major employer and provides very important economic benefits to the Coromandel region. New Zealand aquaculture exports alone generated over $300 million worth of earnings in the year ended September 2011. That is approximately 20 percent of the total seafood export revenues. The industry has a target goal of reaching that $1 billion level by 2025. I am very confident that in Coromandel we will be able to add to that, because it is well known and well researched that, in fact, global consumer demand for seafood will almost double from 45 million tonnes to 85 million tonnes by the year 2015. That will reap for our country more than $60 million in GDP and provide in Coromandel an extra 350 regional jobs—jobs that are important to the future of the electorate.

The Hauraki Rail Trail has been an outstanding and stunning success in my area this summer. Literally tens of thousands of people have taken the opportunity to use the trail, which runs between Thames and Paeroa, and then from Paeroa to Te Aroha, and then back to Paeroa and on to Waihī. That has been a stunning success. It is a scenic attraction, it is on Auckland’s doorstep, and it is going to provide great opportunities for my electorate.

The debate on local government reform will occupy much time in Coromandel this year as the regional councils—the Thames-Coromandel District Council, Matamata-Piako District Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, and Hauraki District Council—all decide what their futures are going to be. And, of course, our hard-working farmers will continue to provide the economic backbone for the entire region. As my colleague Paul Hutchison said, many of them are struggling now with temperatures and conditions that are far too dry for them.

In conclusion, I want to spend just a minute or two talking about the justice portfolio, so ably led by the Hon Judith Collins, because she is doing an outstanding job on behalf of New Zealanders. New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities. Under Judith Collins’ careful tutelage, she will make sure that they are safe in their homes. National, under John Key and Judith Collins, is building a safer New Zealand. We have embarked on a comprehensive programme of reform to protect communities, prevent crime, and put victims first. There are 600 extra police, and they are doing a good job.

This year the Government’s plan is to continue making progress with a number of pieces of legislation to, amongst other things, make it harder for those accused of the most serious offences to get bail. We will be reducing the number of parole hearings for prisoners who are actually unlikely to be released. We have got a full legislative agenda for the year ahead, under the very capable leadership of Prime Minister John Key, and I am very proud to stand in support of his premiership and this National Party’s activity for the year.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Prime Minister’s annual statement to Parliament presumably reflects his Government’s view of the state of the nation, and its political priorities. So what is to be found in yesterday’s speech? He began by claiming he was re-elected with a plan for a faster-growing economy, supporting jobs, income, and better public services, thereby getting it wrong in the first sentence. His Government was not elected simply for that. Its supreme political responsibility is to ensure that New Zealand achieves sustainability, combining social stability with cultural harmony and economic resilience in a world of unprecedented challenge.

So what are those global challenges? Let us take stock in 2013. What changed over the first year of the 50th Parliament, not just in New Zealand but around the world? What has occurred in the world is that this world itself has changed. It has moved from a state of global concern to a state of global alarm. We have had extreme weather events—in fact, we are experiencing them now, as we speak. Hurricane Sandy in North America a few months ago was the largest ever recorded in the Atlantic. It cost $66 billion in damage and business interruption. Australia has become a tectonic hotplate. The Lucky Country now spawns annual heatwaves, forest fires, and devastating floods. The challenge of climate change is only one of the global problems we face in the early 21st century. Of the nine planetary boundaries we must live within, humanity is transgressing three already: climate change, biodiversity loss, and nitrogen depletion. Our global ecological footprint is at 50 percent overshoot.

These are the factors that will influence us, whether we like it or not. These are the true drivers of the global economy, and therefore the New Zealand economy, whether the Prime Minister understands it or not. Mr Key’s preoccupation with the financial dimension of life prevents him from embracing a broader view of society befitting a national political leader. The need for a broader view is especially acute today in light of the global challenges affecting us all. This even applies down here in New Zealand, with its temperate climate and oceanic moat that once protected us—but no more. The global atmosphere knows no regional oceanic boundaries.

The scientific findings of the past year make it clear that global climatic change is kicking in faster and more ominously than even the scientists had bargained for. The north polar ice melt, the Greenland ice melt, and the warming of west Antarctica are portents of great change, and the change is speeding up. Lord Nicholas Stern acknowledged just days ago that he had “got it wrong”. Climate change is already far worse than he thought it would be only 6 years ago when he released his report. We are no longer likely to achieve the 2 degrees Celsius limit that the international community set for itself only 2 years ago. We are now on target for 3.5 degrees to 6 degrees. That takes us beyond the dangerous dimension of climate change, which the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change sought to prevent, and into what the World Bank calls “cataclysmic” climate change. This, of course, omits the most ominous phenomenon of all: the methane release from the northern tundra and seabed that risks taking us past the tipping point and into abrupt climatic change.

Meanwhile, global emissions rose by a record amount in 2012, and our own national emissions soared as well. The Prime Minister speaks of exploiting this country’s oil and gas for the sake of keeping Kiwi workers away from Western Australia. He derides the Green Party for advocating a halt. In this he is egregiously wrong—morally, economically, politically wrong—and he cannot get past his superficial witticisms against Labour sufficiently to perceive the 21st century world for what it is.

What to say to a Government that in face of these developments guts its domestic climate legislation and refuses to enter a second binding international commitment period? What to say to a Prime Minister who, in his annual statement to Parliament, omits climate change on the grounds that he touched on it last year? What to say to a Minister for Climate Change Issues who says that New Zealand is ahead of the curve, that it is time to move beyond the Kyoto Protocol and join the largest polluters of the world, and who derides the global civil society when it criticises New Zealand for being one of the chief obstacles to progress at the UN conference in Doha? We say this to John Key and Tim Groser. We say this: you are on the wrong side of history, both of you, in your respective ways. This will be shown up for what it is before you leave office.

You know a Government has lost touch with the people when the New Zealand Herald runs an editorial criticising it for a lack of leadership on climate change. John Key acknowledges only a global financial crisis. He cannot see past the dollar sign, Mr Groser beyond the World Trade Organization. The global financial crisis of 2008 is part of the global economic crisis of the past decade, and that is part of the global ecological crisis of the past half-century. We are proving unable to handle all of this, because we actually have a crisis in global governance. Once we acknowledge the planetary boundaries we are violating, we shall realise we need cooperation to an unprecedented extent at the global level. Yet at the international level, which is where we still negotiate, we compete for national advantage, and the global commons suffer and then so do we all. At the national level we continue with adversarial politics, as if nothing has fundamentally changed in the past few decades, and we can continue as before. And so, because of our increasingly psychotic state—a mix of dread and fear—we remain unable to change as change breaks around us.

The Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament yesterday fixated on a forecast of growth, albeit modest and grumpy. His 20th century philosophy will be engulfed by a tsunami of extreme weather and a revolution in political thought before this decade is out. We say to the Prime Minister and to this House: New Zealand has an obligation to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 within the range prescribed by the United Nations 5 years ago, by at least 25 percent. That obligation is a moral, economic, and political imperative of our survival, irrespective of what the Prime Minister says about it this afternoon in the House. We need a 40-year carbon budget that sets a quantitative cap on our national emissions, composed of 5-yearly budgets that start from 2016 to 2020. We need either a stronger emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax, either one reflecting a cost of perhaps $50 a tonne to influence behaviour. We need strong complementary measures to that.

Nobody suggests this will be easy—meeting the climate change head on—yet we have no choice but to meet the challenge. We have to somehow acquire the wit to link the global future with this nation’s future—the economy, the ecology, the society; jobs, rivers, kids. National is into denial on climate change. It has given the climate portfolio to a 20th century trade negotiator, someone who lacks the nuanced understanding of 21st century politics, and who cannot see the difference between the two. Until we, and above all the Prime Minister, acknowledge psychologically and politically that humanity is truly in a crisis situation, we cannot possibly solve it. I call on John Key to make 2013 the year when National gets up to speed with climate change, admits its mistakes of the previous year, and finds common ground with the Green Party and all of us, and for all of us to work together, inspiring all New Zealanders to rise to this challenge.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement, and I would have to say that New Zealand has some tremendous opportunities going forward. Just reflecting on the last speaker, Dr Kennedy Graham, the Greens need to be very clear and articulate when they talk about their policies to the population, if they ask that New Zealanders be prepared to give away their competitive advantage in what we do in the most efficient way in the world, and that is turn sunlight and grass into protein. We cannot be so incredibly negative when we look at the clunky models within Kyoto that measure things in one-dimensional facts. When we look back on what those decisions were in the early 2000s, we see that there is a need for a far more dimensional view, because what comes first? Is it the solution to global warming or is it the issue confronting the world of feeding the 6 billion or 8 billion people that goes forward? Let us get some balance around that—food, clothing, shelter, and employment are so very, very important.

Talking about employment, was it not wonderful to hear the Prime Minister’s inspiring speech with its statements around boosting skills and supporting jobs. This Government is doing what no other Government has ever done, and that is running a super-efficient trade training system. It was a real thrill to go down to Christchurch at the end of last year and touch base with the building and construction industry training organisation, and the employment hub down there, and see just how far-reaching into the corners of the communities of New Zealand that situation is achieving. We will see 300 trainees coming down from Rotorua to work with Fletcher Construction, Hawkins Construction, and other construction firms. That is absolutely fantastic. So this Government is launching a five-pronged new vocational pathway within the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), and that is long overdue. We want to be able to become a nation of people who highly value those skills, trades, and similar.

So when you look at it in the context of how you actually get to a stage where you become a nation of people who are able to be a high-wage economy, it is not just about a miraculous silver bullet or a transformation, and this is what the Prime Minister spoke about. It is about putting the building blocks in place from an early situation, even in early childhood education—whether it is around what Minister Paula Bennett is working hard on around the white paper, making sure that children are brought up in families, they feel safe, wanted, and needed, and are warm, dry, well-fed, and fired up to get into education. From that point of view, it is looking at what we do as a society in the context of bringing through our generations and what values we have. This was echoed constantly in the Prime Minister’s statement. That is what gives us and other New Zealanders confidence in this Government. Effectively, there are a whole lot of pieces to the jigsaw puzzle that have been disconnected for many, many years. This Government, the Prime Minister, and those Ministers within Cabinet are working to bind those together so that we do definitely have a direction.

When you look at the training that vocational instruction will deliver, when you look at the manufacturing side of things, the primary industry, the service industry, and the social services, you will see that these are all essential parts of our community and they are good, reliable employment opportunities, and this Government is backing them. There are 4,000 places available in the trades and services academies. What a wonderful inspiration it must be to likeminded people like me. I did not necessarily find the whiteboard all that inspiring, but I loved to get my hands into the bottom of a gearbox of a motor and rip it apart and then put it back together. That sort of thing, what the Prime Minister was talking about during his speech, is what is making the transformation within the lives and in the classrooms and families of New Zealand.

We have 8,700 Youth Guarantee places. Those places are incredibly important, because up until recently there was that opportunity to apply for a leaving certificate and get a job. How enduring that job was, we were not too sure; it was just a matter that the schools cooperated to some degree. If these young ones were being a problem, they were moved on. But there are 8,700 Youth Guarantee places and those places are for 16 and 17-year-olds, who are at a very crucial stage in their lives. We are revisiting the Modern Apprenticeships scheme because it was a pretty blunt tool that actually had more money thrown at it than it delivered apprentices. We are working from January 2014 to combine all apprentices within that Modern Apprenticeships content, and that was something that was talked about way back in about 2005 when I first came into the House. There was policy development, and this Government has taken that on board and we are now going to implement it, because, previously, to be a Modern Apprentice you had to be between the ages of 16 and 21. If you were 22, you were too late—no good. It really did not send the right signals, but this Government is addressing that issue.

This Government will spend another $12 million in the first year, and that money will rise over time. It will be aimed at creating a culture change within New Zealand of really valuing apprentices. When you look at countries around the world, you see that it is very important that we do that, because it is Germany that has the lowest level of unemployed youth between the ages of 18 and 25, and it is all about their structure and the way Germany values skills training. So at the moment we have got some work going on, and this Government is going to keep pushing on with it because the credits and the value of apprenticeships need to have a greater content of education.

That takes us back to the reason why we have that goal of getting 85 percent of our children up to level 2 of NCEA. A lot of people might say “Well, what’s so magical about level 2?”. The magical thing is that at level 2 a person is able to be an independent learner. They can do the extramural distance learning courses, and that is just so very important. This Government is incredibly focused, it is being innovative, and it is elevating the aspirations of those people who want to reach out and become apprentices. The first 10,000 apprentices from April of this year will receive $1,000 towards their tools and their off-job course training costs, or, if they are in a priority construction trade, this Government will give them $2,000. I believe that this is really inspirational, and we have just got to keep pushing on with it.

When I heard all the wonderful speeches coming from this side of the House and actually looked at the Prime Minister’s statement, I took it as an indication that this Government has an agenda. It is working solidly in a very difficult situation. It is putting this country at the forefront of economic prosperity, and that is what other countries aspire to. I just want to say in conclusion that the Prime Minister and this Government have got it entirely right in getting the apprenticeship structure elevated to a stage where those young people who are looking at options as far back as when entering year 9 at high school can follow those vocational pathways and really prosper. I have great pleasure in supporting the comments by the Prime Minister and his statement.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Mr Deputy Speaker, happy New Year. And happy New Year to everybody across the House. It is my view that we should be relentlessly positive and creative about our economy, but the hands-off, leave-it-to-the-market approach of this Government has failed all over the world, and it is clearly failing in New Zealand. We are on the cusp of a new era, and it is an era when new jobs and new wealth can be created in ways that we have not thought of, in ways that will not harm our environment, and in ways in which New Zealand—despite its size and its geographical isolation—can punch above its weight. That is because this is the era of digital ambition, when our ability to innovate and to use technology to drive new business growth to create the new manufacturers of the future should be in place. Our intellectual property, our intellectual know-how, and our ability to be innovative are some of the great strengths of our nation, but you would not know it given the pedestrian nature of this Government’s attitude to an environment in which innovation can flourish and new intellectual property can be born.

We are falling short, and let me tell you how. Late last year, in December, at the Commerce Committee I asked the chief executive of the “Ministry for Everything”, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, two questions, which I thought were pretty important. I asked what work the ministry, which is responsible for economic development, was doing on reviewing its sectors to identify the number of jobs that can be created, and in particular the 170,000 jobs that this Government said 2 years ago it would create by 2015. Is that right?

Sue Moroney: Yes.

CLARE CURRAN: None, was the answer. There is no work being done on where these jobs might come from. This was from the chief executive officer of the ministry that advises the Government on economic development. He said: “We don’t do forecasts on job creation on a sector by sector basis.” So what does its staff do? Do they cross their fingers and hope that these jobs will miraculously appear somewhere in the economy? This was despite the fact that John Key and Bill English both said that this would happen.

The other extraordinary revelation in that select committee was that our ministry for economic development does not have a clue as to the worth to New Zealand of our intellectual property. The committee was told that we are indeed supposed to be fostering an innovation economy. That meant an economy that has a strong knowledge base to it. But then he went on to say that the ministry’s job was to focus more on the legal regime, because we are an “importer” of knowledge. In other words, the focus is to provide an environment that protects the legal rights of those companies that export their knowledge to us, not the companies in New Zealand that are creating knowledge that would then be exported and provide a return back home.

Here is how the US values its intellectual property. It has done a lot of work to quantify and describe intellectual property as a sector. There are 75 industries associated with intellectual property, $5 trillion in value-added products and services, etc., and 40 million jobs, 27.1 million of which are direct jobs equating to 35 percent of GDP. And that is a recent report. The US is fiercely protecting, as we know, its knowledge-based economy, and I ask why we are not.

In Australia, in a report released just a few weeks ago, it has been identified that the education and research institutions, libraries and cultural institutions, digital, internet, and web-hosting providers contribute 14 percent to Australia’s GDP, or an amount of $182 billion. They employ 21 percent of the paid workforce, or almost 2.4 million people, and pay wages and salaries of $116 billion. These figures have all grown significantly faster than the rest of the economy between 2007 and 2010. It is estimated that a more flexible and technology-neutral copyright regime that meets the digital reality of the 21st century and the evolving needs of society would add additional value to the Australian economy of $600 million a year.

And that is not all. Boston Consulting Group released a report in October last year, which stated that the internet economy in the developed markets of the G20 is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 8 percent over the next 5 years, and that in developing markets annual growth is expected to be 18 percent. These rates far outpace just about every traditional economic sector. So not only is growth delivering new jobs across the employment spectrum, from app developers to smartphone manufacturers, from internet marketers to what they call big data analysts, but the jobs this growth creates are more valuable than others. Estimates show that in the US the multiplier effect for high-tech positions is three times that of jobs in traditional manufacturing.

Where is the analysis in our country? Where is the analysis? In New Zealand we have none, and our ministry is not doing any. Why is that? I think it is a pretty important question. We are not interested in pursuing it. We are not driving economic growth based on digital ambition. Instead, as Steven Joyce said in an extraordinary interview on 7 January, our future lies in wood processing.

Today I attended lunch in Parliament with Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, along with a number of my colleagues across the House. After he had spoken to that cross-parliamentary group of politicians, he said to me and to others that one of the most important things that our country could do is abolish patents for software, and that our country would then become a place where innovators want to be. More than 2 years ago the Commerce Committee unanimously decided to exclude software patents, as part of its review of the Patents Act of 1953. That decision was supported by our local IT industry.

Mid last year, after fierce lobbying from multinationals, the new Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss, in his wisdom—that is sarcasm—bowed to pressure and inserted an amendment to the bill that will completely change the intent. That amendment is opposed utterly by New Zealand’s IT industry, including the Institute of IT Professionals, NZRise, New Zealand’s Open Source Society, and over 1,200 signatories to an industry petition. But it is supported by the multinational IT companies. It introduces unnecessary ambiguity into the legislation, and it undermines its stated purpose, the intentions of the select committee, and his own stated objective. It is complete madness, and it is anti Kiwi innovation and digital ambition. Kowtowing to the multinationals may be National’s way, but it is not Labour’s way. We have got to have digital ambition, and our future prosperity will be carved out by backing the talent of businesses working in high-tech Kiwi businesses.

A thriving manufacturing sector is at the heart of Labour’s vision. A weightless economy is integral to that. Where is the analysis? Where is the plan around that? I do not see it. I do not hear it. It is not there from this Government. The manufacturing inquiry that is occurring at the moment as a result of a cross-party initiative between Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, and Mana is integral. So is getting our patent laws right. Quantifying the strength of our intellectual property sector might kick-start us to realise our own worth.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a great pleasure to stand up and speak in strong support of the Prime Minister’s motion and statement of yesterday. I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all members of this House a very happy and challenging New Year.

I am very proud to be a member of a party that has the courage to do what is right for New Zealand. This week I have heard a number of speeches from across the House that clearly demonstrated a lack of vision, of ideas, and of even a skerrick of new policy. In fact, most of these members spent their entire speeches talking about the Government’s policies, which is a sure sign that the Government is on the right track. What an impetuosity to have to listen to Gareth Hughes talking about the National Government scaremongering. He clearly does not recognise the symptoms, or he would not practise it so frequently himself. He talks of a smart Green economy. Well, I can assure you he will create a small desert-like economy if he has his way.

For me, the first year here has been one of settling in and observing with interest how effective members of this House make a difference. There are some snippets one picks up in life, in business, and in relationships that set standards by which success is achieved—whatever success may be. The ability to observe others in action and learn from that observation is also important on the pathway to success. For some reason, in this House success is making a noise—criticising for the sake of it in the hope it may grab a headline, and it sometimes does. For others, just talking for the sake of it seems to give them a buzz. I grew up in the days of party lines, and not the party lines that are practised in this House. I can assure you that those people are nothing but a nuisance. They hinder progress, inhibit growth, and stop those wanting to do business from doing so.

For those of us in the back row of the Government benches, success is being part of a process of making good law; critiquing, not criticising, policy; and adding value to the aspirations of those who support the Government’s vision for New Zealand. We are not headline-grabbers. We do not seek attention. We merely play our part in the betterment of our electorates and their matters of concern. To borrow a phrase from the doyen of New Zealand retailing, L V Martin: “It’s the putting right that counts.”, and that is what we do over here. And have we not had to spend some time in the last 3 years putting it right!

In education, the Government has taken a lead and I think we are doing a great job. In my electorate I have some 80-odd schools, most of which are performing extremely well. In health, we have seen a great performance by the three health boards that service my electorate, a significant increase in treatments, and much better performance than we saw from the health industry some 3 or 4 years ago. In the law and order area, which is an area of particular interest to me in that I am a member of the Law and Order Committee, we have made significant progress in reducing crime, and I think we have a police force that leads the world.

Then we were greeted by an economy suffering from a world recession unheard of since the 1930s. This Government has managed its way through that, and I think we are now in as good a position as any country in the Western World. Having just got through that, we move on to Christchurch, and the $30 billion cost to this country hits this Government just as it thinks it is getting things on their feet.

Last week I went to Rātana, which, interestingly, is about in the middle of the bottom of my electorate. While there we saw a new housing project that had been completed in partnership with the Māori Party and this Government.

Dr David Clark: They’re hoping for a Labour-Green Government, though.

IAN McKELVIE: Yes, all 150 of them. We also saw some great progress with Treaty settlements. Under this Government, in excess of 30 Treaty settlements have been completed, under Minister Finlayson, and I think that is an amazingly good achievement. I for one am certainly looking forward to the continuation of this Treaty settlement process, as I am sure it is going to strengthen rural New Zealand significantly. So it certainly has been a case of “It’s the putting right that counts.”

The people of the Rangitīkei electorate are looking forward to this year with optimism. There is a sense that the economy is on the move, that the tourism and food production sectors will have a good year, nature permitting—and it may not—and that this John Key - led Government will continue to give the people of the Rangitīkei the best opportunity to prosper. Items that are of particular interest in my electorate are stimulated by the target set by the Business Growth Agenda to lift the value of our exports to the economy from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP by 2024. Given that the primary production sector currently accounts for 72 percent of all merchandise exports, this target is significant.

We have seen ACC, which I think is one of the gems of our New Zealand economy, perform much better than it had done for some time. There has also been a dramatic improvement in its performance in the farming sector, of course—one of the critical sectors that ACC is concerned with. There is a significant amount of cost to that sector as a result of the ACC levies. None the less, ACC does a great job for our rural sector and I am looking forward to that continuing with strength.

I want to move on now to the Primary Growth Partnerships. The Government has, through the Ministry for Primary Industries, invested in excess of $650 million in Primary Growth Partnerships to help boost the export sector. In the past 2 days there has been an exciting new initiative announced by Beef and Lamb New Zealand whereby the ministry will partner with that company to invest over $30 million over 7 years in partnership with the bulk of the major players in the red meat industry. This has great potential to refocus this industry’s attention on the future. I am confident that these Primary Growth Partnerships will boost productivity significantly as the results of this work impact on the productive sector. I guess you could use a Clare Curran quote and say that we may well end up, at the end of this, with digital sheep.

The irrigation fund will also make a huge contribution to our increased productivity. A potential $400 million investment here will be seeded by $80 million in this year’s Budget. Ask anyone in the Hawke’s Bay right now what they think of the irrigation fund and they will say they are extremely pleased with it.

The Prime Minister has in the last few days re-emphasised the National Government’s determination to make haste with the reforms so badly needed to encourage the economic recovery we all want. He has confirmed our commitment to a better result for our education sector. He has made a very strong statement around our housing requirements and the need to continue to reform the Resource Management Act to enable developers and councils to provide the availability of land and, indeed, deal with section prices in a manner that can be afforded by this economy.

Job creation and training for our young people are foremost amongst the Government’s priorities for the next year. The new incentives around apprenticeships will be welcomed by all. Much has been said on this topic by previous Government speakers and I can only offer my full support to this. Welcomed also will be the clear signal given by the launching of the five new vocational pathways in construction, manufacturing, the primary sector, the service sector, and social services. This is a groundbreaking and decisive move by this Government to give our young a clear pointer as to where the future is in this country.

I want to spend a little time today speaking about the manufacturing sector, a sector the Government has prioritised in its planning and training for the future. In the Rangitīkei we have some outstanding performers in this sector, a number of them in the agricultural space. They are doing well, despite Winston Peters’ dollar, because they embraced the new era of technology and skills, cut their costs, and upped their efficiency. A number of the companies in my electorate are involved in manufacturing and designing, with the environment and sustainability very much to the fore. They are competing on the international market stage with great success. However, that stage has changed for ever, and manufacturing will never take place in this country again in the form we knew it historically. New methods will need to be employed. Technology will take over. I still believe firmly that the sector has great potential as an employer, but I suspect it will be in a very different form from what we historically knew. That change is already happening in my electorate.

That is why the Government has put an emphasis on a number of other sectors that will, as the economy gets moving, take up the employment slack. Roads of national significance are hugely important to my electorate. They get our product to the international market. We must remember, of course, that in the process of getting the roads of national significance done, we have to get our product to the roads of national significance. That will continue to challenge us in rural New Zealand and will challenge the councils around us.

This is an exciting and challenging time to be in Government, and it is a privilege to be able to serve under this wonderful Prime Minister and his very talented Cabinet, and in this united caucus. Thank you.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I am delighted to speak in today’s debate on the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament. I am proud to be able to stand here today along with some National colleagues to say that the National-led Government has been and will continue working hard for New Zealand. Unlike the Opposition, we have a strong and realistic plan to encourage investment, strengthen our economy, and boost jobs for New Zealanders. We are getting on with the job of responsibly managing the Government’s finances, which will reduce our debt. Plus, our wide-ranging programme of reforms will create a more productive and competitive economy that will benefit all New Zealanders and help us to compete better on the world stage.

As an immigrant and a proud New Zealander, I believe New Zealand is the best place to live and to raise my two girls. National is building on the momentum achieved over the past 4 years in making New Zealand an even better place. The Prime Minister said yesterday that our trade and investment links with Asia are increasing. In particular, our exports to China since 2008 have trebled. Our relationship with China—the second-largest economy in the world—is indeed continuing to grow, to the benefit of New Zealanders. China is now our second-largest trading partner and may well be our largest before too long. I would like to emphasise that this is despite the obvious differences between New Zealand and China such as land size, history, culture, language, and population size. China values and holds in high regard New Zealand’s products, and that is why it is continuing to invest in New Zealand.

As you may be aware, China’s largest dairy company, the Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group, plans to spend $214 million building an infant formula plant in South Canterbury. I had a meeting with a delegation from the group last week. I was told by the group that its investment would create about 80 new jobs in New Zealand. The group is not the very first Chinese dairy company to be interested in investing in New Zealand. A few years ago China’s Bright Dairy and Food injected about $82 million of new capital into the Synlait milk company after Synlait failed to raise the capital it needed in New Zealand. The investment has been working very well for both Bright Dairy and Food and Synlait. I paid a visit to Bright Dairy and Food in Shanghai last year, along with the Minister of Trade, the Hon Tim Groser. So we had a meeting with the leadership or management team of Bright Dairy and Food, and the chief executive officer of Bright Dairy and Food made it very clear to us that it was fully committed to its business in New Zealand.

These are the types of investment in New Zealand that the National-led Government is encouraging. Without more investment we cannot have the jobs and economic growth that our families and communities need and deserve. National wants to help businesses invest, grow, and create more jobs. Our Business Growth Agenda will reduce costs and uncertainties for business. It will provide Kiwis with the right skills through schemes such as New Zealand Apprenticeships, which was announced last week. We will continue our multibillion-dollar infrastructure investment and unlock the potential of our natural resources, but still maintain our environment. We will deliver more, higher, and quality trade agreements, boost our capital markets, and invest in innovation.

New Zealand is a strong exporting nation, and one of our focuses is Asia. We need to seize the huge opportunities that exist for New Zealand businesses in Asia. I mentioned earlier that our trade with China has trebled since we became the Government. China accounts for 18 percent of New Zealand’s dairy exports, and its appetite for New Zealand’s meat, in particular lamb, is increasing. We have been working very hard to expand our exports to China in many other areas, including the area of high technology.

As a member of the Health Committee, I would like to speak about National’s continued focus and success in health in delivering a better, sooner, and more convenient healthcare system for New Zealanders. Our Minister of Health has done a great job in turning round the health system after 9 years of a Labour Government. Elective surgery is now at record levels under National. As well, we have shorter waiting-times for cancer treatment, shorter stays in emergency departments, increased immunisation for children, better help for smokers to quit, and more heart and diabetes checks.

As the Prime Minister said, the Opposition parties have opposed everything that National has been trying to do to encourage growth and jobs and provide stable leadership in tough times. They have opposed tax changes, a free-trade agreement with the United States, 90-day trials, Resource Management Act changes, and oil and gas exploration. They have also opposed major roading projects. Infrastructure is particularly important to the development of our economy. We have all witnessed the extraordinary growth of the Chinese economy in the past 30 years. That growth started with a huge investment, both domestic and foreign, in numerous roading projects. A popular saying in China in those years was “Yao zhi fu, xian xiu lu.”, meaning “To become economically developed, build roads first.”

The Opposition parties also oppose a national convention centre. Just a few days ago I had a conversation with a group of Chinese business people who had come to New Zealand from Australia. They had been in Melbourne for a conference organised by their business group. Over 600 people from China attended the conference, and the conference was followed by another conference of over 1,000 people, also organised by a Chinese business group. We are seeing record numbers of Chinese tourists visiting New Zealand. They are eager to see our beautiful country. We would attract tens of thousands more visitors from China each year if there was a convention centre in Auckland.

I am proud to be a part of this National-led Government, which continues to work hard so that all New Zealanders can have a brighter future. Thank you.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): The Prime Minister’s opening statement was great, because it at least proved one thing: that on this planet we will all be judged by our actions and not our words. The problem with the Prime Minister’s speech is that it had too many high-sounding words and too few actions. In the Government’s second term, and in its fifth year, all we have got is one thousand people a week leaving for Australia, unemployment of 7.3 percent—the highest in 14 years—85,000 young people neither in work nor in training, and New Zealand having the worst economic growth of any Government in the past 51 years.

No wonder the Prime Minister has changed from “Mr Nice” to “Mr Grumpy” and “Mr Angry”. Instead of outlining his Government’s plans and policy priorities, the Prime Minister used his speech to attack. He attacked the Greens 11 times and Labour more than 23 times, and it is not hard to understand why. In its second term and fifth year, the National - ACT - Māori Party Government has failed to deliver. From the Prime Minister’s statement, it is all someone else’s fault. He has got an excuse for everything and a solution for nothing.

For example, take housing affordability. The New Zealand Herald reported last week that an International Housing Affordability Survey listed Auckland as one of the most unaffordable cities in the world. It found that housing in New Zealand has become more unaffordable in the last year, with median house prices now 5.3 times the median income. All eight of New Zealand’s property markets are seriously or severely unaffordable, and London, New York, and Los Angeles are all ranked as more affordable than Auckland. And the response from our Prime Minister? He accused Kiwis of crying wolf.

As Labour’s spokesperson on building and construction, I say that the flow-on issue would be how to get new houses built, and that brings us to the serious issue of the building law review. The Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Maurice Williamson, has so far presented two Bills. The Building Amendment Bill (No 3) has now become the Building Amendment Act 2012, and the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is likely to receive its second reading in the near future. The No 4 bill is the second of two bills to implement National’s building law review policy decisions. The Building Act review, initiated by the last Labour Government, has gained cross-party support. The review found weaknesses in consumer protection, and a need to better allocate responsibility and accountability amongst consumers, building consenting authorities and building professionals. Unfortunately, all we have got from Minister Williamson is nothing substantial, just public gimmicks.

For instance, under the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) Minister Williamson moved to get the code compliance certificate changed. Any property lawyer will advise his or her clients of the importance of obtaining a code compliance certificate. The first question they would normally ask is whether the property has a CCC—namely, a code compliance certificate. Minister Williamson changed that and replaced the code compliance certificate with a new one called a consent completion certificate. What is the difference? The difference is that the responsibility and accountability among the consumers, building consenting authorities, and building professionals have been reallocated, meaning that the protection that consumers would otherwise have is now further reduced.

I agree with submitters that it is a step too far until such time as the licensed building practitioner regime matures. According to the reports in the New Zealand Herald, at this stage the regime is more a system of “ticking boxes” than a means to upskill the industry. The new consent completion certificate is different from the old code compliance certificate, and this change will almost certainly have a detrimental effect on desperate homeowners seeking redress for severe losses. It is unacceptable and outrageous that it is now the consumers who will be left to pick up most of the bill for any claims arising from substandard building work.

It is equally unfair to building consenting authorities and building professionals. The measures in the bills do little to remove the risk that the building consenting authorities and building professionals would be left to pick up more than their fair share of the cost of defective building work.

One overarching concern from those submitters was that the bills sought to redistribute the responsibility and the liability from the building consenting authorities in the event of building failures. We agree that the fact that the liability has until now rested with the consenting authorities, as the last man standing, is unacceptable. This is because ratepayers have had to bear the cost of negligence claims brought against building consenting authorities. Ironically, submissions from some consenting authorities made it clear that the proposed changes would not improve their potential liability positions. They argued that in the absence of a more genuine reallocation of accountability—for instance, through mandatory home warranties, the introduction of proportionate liability, and mandatory insurance—all parties, including the consumers, building practitioners, and building consenting authorities, will continue to be financially exposed, even for defects not of their making.

In their submissions, two of the country’s biggest city councils, namely Wellington and Christchurch city councils, urged the Government to include measures such as warranties in the bills, to avoid a repeat of the leaky building saga. But such warranties must be backed by unbreakable long-term, mandatory warranties and insurance.

Both matters of a warranty and surety scheme and joint and several liability versus proportionate liability have been referred to the Law Commission for review. Fair enough. But, again, we are convinced that the Government is not ready to introduce a comprehensive reform package. The partial instalment will cause uncertainty and create false hopes for parties in the building and construction sector.

This indicates that the Government cannot or will not introduce the broad reform package needed to genuinely achieve its stated goals. Do Government members care? I do not know. At best, they were not ready to introduce the much-needed reform, and therefore took a piecemeal approach in both bills. At worst, they are still driven by the magical word “deregulation”, and have just let history repeat itself.

It is regrettable that Minister Williamson has not been nominated to be the next Speaker. He would be a fine and very experienced Speaker. Of course he is experienced. He was the Minister who passed the Building Act 1991, which is responsible for the leaky buildings. Thank you.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): Welcome back and a happy New Year to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all members of the House. It is a pleasure to take a call in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. Firstly, can I just acknowledge the Rt Hon John Key for the leadership that he has shown through some very, very difficult and challenging times, not only in this place but in New Zealand. His unflappable, positive, and aspirational approach—

Sue Moroney: Are you calling his stand-up comedy routines leadership? What a joke.

MIKE SABIN: That member will, of course, tune out entirely from this, because it does not make sense to members on the other side of the House, this sort of language, and I will come back to that.

Can I just acknowledge the Prime Minister for his leadership, and acknowledge the Cabinet of this Government—a very disciplined Cabinet. While I am at it, I would like to acknowledge the Hon Kate Wilkinson and the Hon Phil Heatley for the fantastic contributions they have made to this country over the past 4 years. I congratulate the new Ministers, Michael Woodhouse and Nikki Kaye, on their worthy promotions, and I look forward to the contributions they will make to this caucus and this country. I congratulate also the Hon Simon Bridges on his entry into Cabinet, and Tim Macindoe, a terrific gentleman, who will take up the role of junior whip, as Louise Upston has now taken on the role of senior whip, and, of course, “Mr Whip-it”, our junior whip, Jami-Lee Ross, who is a man who commands a lot of respect across our caucus. I welcome him to that role and wish him all the best in that.

I really want to focus on what I believe sets this caucus apart from other parties in this House, and that, to me, fundamentally—

Dr David Clark: Its economic record.

MIKE SABIN: No, it is not the same old material, Mr Clark—it is not the same old material. It is discipline and belief. It is discipline and belief that I believe fundamentally set this caucus apart. It is a disciplined caucus in great part because of the leadership of our Prime Minister and because of the personalities of the people on this side of the House, but in the main I believe that it is because we on this side of the House know just what sort of focus and what sort of discipline this country needs in these very challenging times.

Since the Labour Party was in Government we have seen some unprecedented economic challenges, both with the Canterbury earthquakes—which shaved more than 10 percent off GDP, devastated our second-biggest city, and brought many challenges for those involved in this entire nation—and with a global financial crisis unparalleled since the Great Depression. This requires nothing but absolute discipline to overcome, and that is the main focus within this caucus—the discipline to ride out these tough times. I believe that that sets us apart from an Opposition that does not want to acknowledge those two significant events unless they serve its political point-scoring efforts. That, to me, says a lot about the focus of that particular Labour Party and its friends across the Opposition benches.

I do not need to speak about the indiscipline that we have seen from the Labour caucus. I think the whole country has seen that played out at the recent conference, no less, and no doubt will see it over the next week or so. I do not want to dwell on that other than to say that whatever is going on there, its focus is inward, whereas on this side of the House our focus is outward—outward on Kiwis who need a Government to responsibly manage finances, and who need a Government—

Sue Moroney: But not affordable housing.

MIKE SABIN: —I will come to that; I will come to that—to deliver better public services after they had become bloated and ineffective in many ways. A big Government is not necessarily a better Government. Our focus is also on building a more productive and competitive economy, and rebuilding Christchurch. Our four priorities are nothing new to this House and we reiterate, we repeat, and we talk about them day in and day out. Why? Because that is our focus, that is our discipline, and New Zealanders expect and want that. We are absolutely focused on delivering those things for New Zealanders, and that takes discipline—that takes discipline. The other important difference, I believe, is belief—belief in New Zealanders, led again by this Prime Minister, who has an unflappable belief in the Kiwi spirit and in the fact that we will get on and do what is required in these tough times, as a nation.

Some of the founding values of this National Party are rewarding hard work and enterprise, freedom of choice, and personal responsibility. These are the founding values of our party, and I think they resonate through the core of the policies and the priorities that we see in this Government, in our busy schedule, and in those four priorities I have mentioned. Our policies fundamentally demonstrate a belief in our fellow Kiwis and their abilities, their desire and motivation to succeed and overcome the challenges that they face individually and we face collectively, their willingness to work hard, and their belief that they should be rewarded for that work.

Sue Moroney: But they’re not.

MIKE SABIN: If we take a look at the work—again, from the other side of the House we hear exactly what I am speaking about, and that is a total lack of belief in Kiwis. Even in the interjections those members demonstrate their total lack of belief.

Dr David Clark: We let the facts get in the way.

MIKE SABIN: Worst line in 50 years, Mr Clark.

As for the work in welfare that is going on, as a member of the Social Services Committee, I am very proud of what the Minister for Social Development and what our chair, Sam Lotu-Iiga, and the members of that committee are achieving, and I think it epitomises what we are trying to do for Kiwis in very tough times. Our welfare bill is $22 million a day, and although that is a travesty in financial cost, the human capital—the human cost—is immense. It is something that has played out, I think, in so many ways in the last 20 or 30 years, and we are addressing that. We are taking an investment approach in solving that problem. We are getting around, in particular, young people who, without this support, are staring straight down the barrel of a long time on an adult benefit. We are getting around those people and providing them with skills, support, and incentives, and we are backing them and backing their belief that they have a dream that they can achieve. That takes a different approach other than throwing them a bit of money and keeping them beholden—something that the Labour Party had become so accustomed to doing over the years. That is about belief.

We also see it when we look at employment—what we see in the 90-day trial period, what we see in the youth start-up wage, and what we see in the tax reforms and the small businesses that are the heart and soul of this country. And we see it in the way in which we have tried to bring together small business in New Zealand and young people who want a chance, because that is about backing young people and it is about backing businesses to get on and do what they can do, and what only they can do. We have just got to make it happen, and put the conditions in place for them to do that. That is, fundamentally, about believing in them, and that is where wage growth comes from, not from members of the House who want to legislate minimum wages. If we could do that, why not make it $100 an hour? In fact, why stop there? That is not what it is about.

In every aspect of delivering our four priorities there is belief. There is belief in people, there is belief in the Kiwi spirit, and I think there is belief in the brighter future that this country is heading towards under this leadership.

It is a great time to be in Opposition and, deep in their hearts, those people on that side of the House know that, because they can sit there and throw all sorts of comments around that they like, knowing full well that we have just got to deal with those challenging times.

Sue Moroney: But you’re not. You’re not dealing with it—that’s the problem.

MIKE SABIN: The belief in New Zealanders and the discipline that we are showing is what is delivering for us on that score, and the noise that is coming from the other side demonstrates that, in my belief. What we do not see in the Opposition parties is the ability to turn that discipline and that focus into what is right for New Zealanders instead of what is right for them in their inward focus.

They talk about wanting to be a hands-on Government. Well, we know what that is. Remember the showerheads?

Hon Tony Ryall: Hands in our pockets.

MIKE SABIN: Yes, hands in our pockets—hands in our pockets. It is about more bureaucracy, more tax. It is about more cost. It is about less belief. This Government has adjusted to what Kiwis need in these tough times. That is what is making the difference. We believe in Kiwis, we are disciplined, and that is what Opposition members are not. That is why they are there, and long may that be the case.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): May I say happy New Year to everyone in this House tonight.

Todd McClay: Happy New Year to you, too.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Thank you. As we all know, housing plays a vital role in a healthy and happy life—a healthy and happy life. New Zealand First believes that every New Zealander deserves a decent place to live. We have a strong democratic tradition infused with our egalitarian ethos and desire to own our place to call home. It is a sad and grim reality that under this current Government, that dream is becoming increasingly unobtainable for young Kiwi families.

New Zealand First holds grave concerns about the housing situation that faces a generation of New Zealanders. The Government’s approach to the housing crisis can be summed up in one word. Do you want to hear that one word? It is deregulation. That is the word. Ours is not a party—[Interruption] Who wants to hear it? Do you not know how to spell the word “deregulation”? Go back to school! You should not be in here. Ours is not a party that wants to constrict businesses and developers with unnecessary obstacles and red tape, nor do we want these costs burdening young families and first-home buyers. However, we have seen firsthand what casual, ill-considered housing deregulation has done to hard-working New Zealanders up and down the country. Careless deregulation of the housing market in the early 1990s led to the emergence of leaky building syndrome.

Raymond Huo: Who was the Minister?

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: That is right. Unsuspecting, hard-working Kiwis bought up homes, eager to step up on to the property ladder. Many invested their life-savings to get their own house. What happened? They were failed by the system. That is what happened. Leaky building syndrome has cost and continues to cost the Government, local councils, and affected property owners millions upon millions of dollars. So although we support sensible, carefully considered measures to lower housing costs, we do not support a bonfire of regulations, because a few years down the track, when it all starts turning to custard, rest assured that the National Party will be keen to shift the blame.

Throughout the years we have been calling for consecutive Governments to take up our policies, which would have alleviated the housing crisis that we currently face. The truth is that there is no one silver bullet to solve the housing crisis. Rather, a number of forward-thinking changes need to be made.

Raymond Huo: “Mr Fix-it”.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: “Mr Spray and Walk Away”—that is true. As for foreign investment, we need to get the best results out of our current housing supply, as opposed to having foreign nationals who do not take up residency in New Zealand buying up houses at the expense of our own young Kiwi families. The second aspect is ensuring that foreign investment is doing what we want it to do—that is, helping to solve the housing crisis.

Other countries woke up to this reality years ago—they have. They knew they needed to use foreign investment in a way that bettered their own people and country. In Australia, for example, they stopped foreign nationals buying up housing stock for investment purposes. They knew that there was no gain for them in having foreigners just buying up houses, because it did not help the economy, did not create any jobs for Australians, and made it harder for Australian battlers to get on to the property ladder. Instead, they permitted foreign nationals to buy a property under strict conditions.

Why are we not doing something similar here? Why? We have a Prime Minister who has a background in investment and international markets. Surely he should know a thing or two about getting foreign investments to bring about desirable outcomes. We do not have the luxury of allowing unrestricted buying of our limited housing stock by foreigners. Many countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia impose strict rules on foreign buyers. That is right.

And what of regional development? Jobs and housing are intrinsically tied together. Is it any wonder that the housing crisis is concentrated in Auckland? Or that there are so few young people from the provinces staying in their home towns? People from provisional—provincial—New Zealand are flocking to Auckland in search of work.

Sue Moroney: It’s becoming provisional under this Government.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: That is right. They know that in Auckland and these main places, the main employers are there. That is where the money is. That is where the jobs are. So, yes, the Prime Minister might be correct when he talks about affordable housing in Lumsden in the far south; the truth is that the jobs are simply not there. This Government has a number of members from provincial New Zealand, yet what incentives are they creating to keep jobs in the provinces? Undeniably, the most understated factor contributing to the housing crisis is regional development.

And what of immigration? There seems to be a taboo about mentioning immigration in the context of housing. At the risk of stating the obvious, all migrants require housing. New Zealand is adding around 40,000 citizens a year, a figure that exceeds the rate of natural population increase. It is time that the number of migrants was adjusted to help the housing situation, particularly as the majority of migrants choose to live in Auckland.

Solving the housing crisis is not simply a case of throwing around figures about how many homes different parties claim they can build. It is about ensuring long-term solutions are found through sensible policies. For many young families, the aim of homeownership is no longer obtainable. Our proud tradition and culture of being a property-owning democracy is now under threat. Is this truly the path we want for our future young families? The answer is surely no. New Zealand First believes that every New Zealander is entitled to decent housing, and we must make that a reality.

And, last but not least—on the brighter side, that is—let me congratulate the Prime Minister on recognising New Zealand First’s Sentencing (Short-sharp Sentences) Amendment Bill, which has been plundered by his Government in its move to make prisoners work while behind bars. The initiative was clearly taken from New Zealand First’s member’s bill, which I referred to in my maiden speech last year and was submitted into the ballot last year. I believe that the Government would be wise to implement the whole bill in order to improve the prison work scheme. It is pleasing to see our policies being picked up by the Government, but it should come clean and give credit where it is due. Thank you.

ALFRED NGARO (National): Mr Speaker, I would like to wish you a happy New Year and to all my parliamentary colleagues, especially to Mr David Clark, who has had a young baby girl. It is a special Christmas blessing that you have had. I would like to let you know that we on this side and the Government wish your child a brighter future, and we are happy to bring that to you as well.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.