Thursday, 30 January 2014
Volume 696
Sitting date: 30 January 2014
Thursday, 30 January 2014
Thursday, 30 January 2014
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Next week, in order to facilitate most members of Parliament participating in Waitangi Day celebrations of various types, the House will be in a 1-week recess. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 11 February the Government will look to complete the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement and progress the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill, the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill, and other bills.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Can I ask the Leader of the House whether he intends for there to be a members’ day in the first week when we return from the recess.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): There is a schedule for that.
Motions
Winter Olympic Games 2014—Support for Athletes and Human Rights
JAN LOGIE (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on our athletes going to the Sochi Winter Olympics and on human rights issues.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that motion to be moved. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
JAN LOGIE: I move, That the House wish our athletes competing at the Winter Olympics well, note Russia’s recent passing of anti-homosexual legislation, and ask the New Zealand Government to urge other Governments and the Winter Olympics organising committee to protect the rights of all people in Russia, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Motion agreed to.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Economy—Economic Growth and Interest Rates
1. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for the economy this year—and particularly for monetary policy and interest rates?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): There are a number of reports indicating there is an improved outlook for jobs and incomes. For instance, Treasury forecasts last month show economic growth reaching 3.6 percent in 2015 and signalled that 125,000 more New Zealanders will be in jobs over the next 4 years. I have also seen reports predicting that interest rates will rise somewhat this year as growth picks up and inflation moves towards the mid-point of the Reserve Bank’s 1 to 3 percent target range. Annual inflation remains quite low at 1.6 percent—certainly well below the 5 percent that inflation reached in 2008. However, inflation is expected to pick up as the economy gains momentum, and that will require interest rates to rise somewhat over the course of the year.
John Hayes: What did the Reserve Bank Governor say this morning about his expected path for the economy and interest rates over the next year or so?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The governor this morning confirmed the official cash rate at 2.5 percent. It is a historic low. He noted that the economic expansion has considerable momentum, with commodity prices high, business confidence strong, and inward migration on the rise. There appeared to have been some moderation in the housing market in recent months, but other inflation indicators have been rising. In this environment the governor said that there is a need for interest rates to return to more normal levels, and the Reserve Bank expects to start this adjustment soon. I think he has indicated pretty clearly that New Zealanders should prepare for some increase in interest rates over the next few months.
John Hayes: How do current interest rate levels compare with the position inherited by this Government in 2008, and how has this benefited New Zealand families?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The position is considerably different from what it was in 2008. The Reserve Bank’s official cash rate is currently 2.5 percent, and floating home mortgage rates are at 50-year lows at less than 6 percent. In mid-2008 the cash rate peaked at 8.5 percent and floating mortgage rates were approaching 11 percent, rather than below 6 percent as they are now. For a family with a $200,000 mortgage, the significant fall over this time saves them about $200 a week in interest payments. New Zealanders can be assured that mortgage rates are not expected to return to the high levels seen in 2008.
John Hayes: What measures has the Government taken to help ensure interest rates have stayed lower for longer and to prevent a repeat of the credit cycle issue seen in New Zealand in the mid to late-2000s?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government can have some influence, through its own policies, on the interest rates track. It is important that we avoid repeating the mistakes of the mid-2000s, when a doubling in house prices and large increases in Government spending put pressure on interest rates, forcing them up and also forcing up exchange rates. So the Government has moved to get its spending under control, help businesses become more competitive, and, importantly, we have moved to increase the flexibility of the supply of land for housing in order to address the issue of fast rising house prices. These measures all help to reduce pressure on interest rates, keeping them lower for longer and helping to rebalance the economy.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Reduction Targets
2. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will the Government be announcing a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2030; if so, when?
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): For multiple good reasons, no.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the European Commission agreed last week to reduce emissions—40 percent off 1990 levels by 2030—and given that the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for fast following, why is the answer “No.”?
Hon TIM GROSER: We now come to the multiple good reasons: first, we have an aspirational target of a minus 50 percent reduction by 2050; and, second, picking these figures out of the air, without reference to a country’s national circumstances, is insane. The European Union is already projected to be around about 24 or 25 percent below 1990 emissions by 2020. So a minus 40 figure looks entirely different. You try to implement that on New Zealand and you will destroy the economy.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Is the reason the Minister is so reluctant for New Zealand to do its fair share that his Government’s policies mean that New Zealand is now on track to actually increase its emissions by 50 percent around 2030, which has to be insane?
Hon TIM GROSER: It is not insane, if I could say so; it is a consequence of the forestry cycle. Our forestry cycle, which works on a 27-year rotation cycle, peaks at its maximum in 2030. If you extend this beyond 2030 to, say, 2040, then our forests begin to act once again as a very significant sink and you reach a completely different conclusion.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that forestry is of only secondary relevance to the issue of reducing emissions, does he agree with the Ministry for Primary Industries’ recent report, Four Degrees of Global Warming, that if we continue to sit on our hands and allow the planet to keep warming, extreme weather will wreak havoc with our primary industries, including forestry?
Hon TIM GROSER: Well, I am not sure about the specific context of this report, but if indeed it said “sitting on our hands” in respect of just New Zealand, I do not agree with it at all, since we are not. Secondly, if it is talking about, as I think it should be, the broader international response, then I think I would agree with it. So what we need is a comprehensive, internationally legally binding agreement that actually deals with the problem, not the 0.14 percent of emissions New Zealand contributes.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he received a congratulatory message from the Green Party with the announcement by Genesis Energy of the closing its coal-fired turbine in Huntly, one of the biggest contributors to New Zealand’s greenhouse gases, also noting that in the previous decade the Government was subsidising the construction of new thermal generators?
Hon TIM GROSER: Long ago in life I learnt never to wait for letters that I hope might arrive but do not ever arrive. So the answer is no. But what I would say to the Minister is that, of course, the thing that the member asking the primary question left out was the failure of the commission to get agreement on its renewables targets—it was trying to achieve, I think from memory, a 27 percent increase in electricity from renewables. Well, hang on, once again that is a difficult ask of the European Union because of its actual national circumstances. For us, we have a 75 or 77 percent return already from renewables, and we set a target for 90 percent. You need to look at the national circumstances of all countries, not just pull figures out of the sky.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Looking at the national circumstances of 27 countries in Europe and others, and having regard to all of them, and recognising that all of them are reducing their emissions collectively by 40 percent, national circumstances notwithstanding, does he then think it is right for other countries to do all this heavy lifting while New Zealand reduces its ambition and sits on its hands, and by “following” does he actually mean freeloading?
Hon TIM GROSER: Absolutely this Government is not freeloading on this. The fact of the matter is that we set last year a minus 5 commitment unilaterally—no matter what happens internationally, we are going to do minus 5 by 2020. That is the same as Australia, effectively—minus 4. It is roughly the same as the United States—minus 3. And it is somewhat better than Japan—plus 3—and Canada, which is plus 4. I think we are absolutely consistent with what we said to the New Zealand public. We will do our fair share.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Given how 5 percent for 2020 compares with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recommendation of 20 percent to 40 percent by that year—5 percent falling way short—is this Minister confident that he will be able to look his children’s children in the eye and say he did all he could to leave them a safer world, as President Obama said he was determined to do during his State of the Union address yesterday?
Hon TIM GROSER: Well, this is not an entirely theoretical question, since I have four mokopuna. I usually talk to them about The Princess and the Pea, not climate change, but I am confident that later on I will be able to look them in the eye. But the underlying point here about minus 5 is that we have left on the table an offer to do a darn sight more—minus 10 to minus 20—but only in the context of a meaningful international agreement and some other very sensible conditions we put around it.
Inequality—Assets and Income
3. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that asset and income inequality have increased over the past 30 years; if not, why not?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No, I do not agree with that description of events in New Zealand. Income equality increased in the 1980s and early 1990s, it peaked in 2004-05, and since then it has been relatively flat. I think a more accurate description has been that New Zealand has become more unequal in the last 30 years, but that is not true for the last 15 years, where income inequality has been pretty much flat.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two parts to that question. The Minister has addressed only income inequality, not asset inequality.
Mr SPEAKER: Does the Minister want to add anything further to the answer to address the question of asset inequality?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: And there are no reliable measures of asset inequality over the last 30 years.
Hon David Parker: Does he agree with John Key that New Zealand has a growing underclass, and why has John Key stopped talking about it?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do agree that New Zealand has an underclass. The good news is that despite the recession, it is not growing. John Key talks about it all the time in Government because much of the Government’s activity has been focused on lifting immunisation rates, fixing our social housing mess, lifting persistent educational underachievement, and reducing welfare dependency, all of which define our underclass.
Andrew Little: Why did the Minister tell Parliament yesterday that over the last 2 years “This means that families and households have, on average, had real increases in their weekly wages”, and then outside the House, say: “I think a lot of households will be looking for benefits, through pay rises, which households haven’t had much of through the last 3 or 4 years.”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because some of them have not. As I was careful to say in the House, on average real wages have increased, despite the fact that on “Planet Labour” they have been cut or have gone down, or no one has had any pay rises. But you cannot know the circumstances of every individual family, and there will be some who will be looking for pay rises, if only for the reason that they have not had any in the last few years.
Andrew Little: Does he accept that the bottom 50 percent of wage and salary earners have seen no increase in pay rates, in real terms, over the last 2 years, and that his Government’s employment law changes over the last 6 years are the cause of low or non-existent real wage growth for most working families in recent years?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have to check the figures on the member’s first assertion, but I would not agree with his second one. I think it is well known around the Western World that particularly for people with lower skills, there has been a lot of competition through global supply chains, which has meant downward pressure on pay in some industries, and some industries themselves have gone through extensive restructuring and reductions. I do not agree with his assertion that it is to do with the changes in employment relations legislation.
Hon David Parker: Does he agree that existing income inequality leads to ever-increasing asset inequality; if not, why not?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply cannot answer the member’s question, because there is no particular evidence. What I can say is that for the largest single-asset class of housing, that member’s party should be supporting the Government’s measures to improve the supply of housing, because where it is restricted, as it has been in our metropolitan areas, insiders who already own houses benefit from price increases, and low and middle income New Zealanders who cannot access the housing market miss out on that increase in wealth. So if the member believes anything that he is saying, he would support the Government on these measures, instead of attacking us on them.
Hon David Parker: Why did he claim yesterday at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that there is no link between rising asset inequality and declining homeownership rates?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have said that there is no obvious link between the two, and the member has not produced any. But this red herring is another distraction from the problem that Labour claims income inequality is growing, when the facts show that it is not.
Hon David Parker: Does he still say there is no link between rising asset inequality and declining homeownership rates?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen no evidence of a connection between the two, and the member has not produced any. What he does need to produce is evidence that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. He will not be able to because it is not true. All the data shows that New Zealand’s income inequality has been roughly flat for the last 10 years.
Hon David Parker: Do the income inequality figures that he refers to include all capital income?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: They do include a broad definition of income, and one that has been used consistently. It does not matter how the member tries to reconstruct the official data on—
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not whether—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to please just repeat his question.
Hon David Parker: Thank you. Does the measure of income inequality that he relies upon include all capital income?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The figures, which are not figures that I rely on, are the official calculations done by the Ministry of Social Development every year for the last 7 or 8 years. They include all income. This does not help the member get round the fact that on “Planet Labour”, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but in the real world, they are not. Income inequality in New Zealand is not getting worse. If anything, it is getting slightly better.
Welfare Reforms—Progress and Beneficiary Numbers
4. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent reports has she received on the progress of the Government’s welfare reforms?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): This Government’s welfare reforms are continuing to deliver strong results, and I have received a report recently showing that more than 1,500 people are moving off welfare and into work every week. As a result there are more than 17,000 fewer people on a benefit in December 2013 than in December 2012. This is the lowest number of people receiving a benefit in the December quarter since December 2009.
Melissa Lee: What specific initiatives have led to more people moving off the benefit and into work?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are many. I could certainly cite the intensive case management that is going on, with more than 260,000 meetings between case managers and those on benefits just in the last few months. I would like to cite the work bonus, which allows people to keep some of their benefit in their first few weeks in a new job. So far more than 2,500 people have received this work bonus, the vast majority of them being sole parents. In addition the new requirement for people on job seeker support to reapply for their benefits once a year has meant that more than 4,500 people are no longer on jobseeker support, and that is just since July last year.
Melissa Lee: How are the welfare reforms supporting young people to ensure they do not become long-term welfare dependants?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Ensuring that young people get the support they need is the vital part of these welfare reforms. What we are seeing is that those who want to go on a benefit are now working their way through a youth service that wraps that support around them. But we are also working with those who are not on benefits but who have been a major concern not just to this House but the public in general. These are those who are not in education, employment, or training. We now have more than 9,000 of them and 63 percent are no longer “neets”, because they are now engaged in education. That means their outlook is looking very favourable in terms of their not becoming long-term beneficiaries.
New Zealand Air Force—Tender Process for Training Aircraft
5. Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Defence: Why did he decide to source new training aircraft for the Royal New Zealand Air Force from Wichita Kansas rather than Hamilton New Zealand despite a 40-year relationship with the New Zealand company, Pacific Aerospace?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): After a detailed and lengthy assessment of the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s training needs, a robust tender process was entered into, reviewed by the defence management board, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials, and central agencies. The process was also externally audited by the McHale Group and Government procurement guidelines were followed. Beechcraft’s tender matched all the RNZAF’s training requirements while representing good value for money. The T6C has a proven track record and over 850 of these aircraft are in service training pilots around the world, including for the US and NATO nations. The Auditor-General’s advice has previously been to go for proven off-the-shelf capability purchases, and this is what we have done. The Pacific Aerospace option did not fulfil the RNZAF’s training needs and requirements and did not include either a simulator or a training package. The Pacific Aerospace proposal was for an aircraft that is yet to be built and, furthermore, it did not provide any detailed costings. For all these reasons we just could not go with the Pacific Aerospace proposal.
Hon Phil Goff: Would the $100 million extra on top of what he would have paid for New Zealand - based aircraft not have been better spent on repairing the damage that he has done by slashing New Zealand Defence Force personnel by more than 1,000 or 12 percent? That really is not value for money.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, that $100 million he is talking about is not a saving, quite frankly. There were no detailed costings. They could not have put forward the package that fulfilled the New Zealand Defence Force’s requirements at the price that we ended up paying for these aircraft. It is a bit like Labour saying that there was a saving by refusing to take GST off fruit and vegetables and not having that first $5,000 tax-free. It is money that just does not exist in terms of a saving.
Hon Phil Goff: Is it not correct that the industry that he is now disparaging, Pacific Aerospace, has performed brilliantly for the New Zealand Air Force for 40 years; and is it not also correct that he will be paying $2,000 an hour to train pilots on the American aircraft, which is six times as much as it would cost for the equivalent New Zealand aircraft, and those are the figures from the New Zealand aerospace industry?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes and no.
Hon Phil Goff: What consideration did he give to the damage that his decision will do to the New Zealand aircraft industry’s capacity to develop an innovative high-value export sector in line with what his colleague Mr Joyce is saying the public sector should be doing by creating effective partnerships with the private sector here in New Zealand?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, the facts of the case are that the New Zealand Defence Force had some very specific requirements laid out in the request for proposal, and Pacific Aerospace just could not meet them. It did not have a simulator, it did not have a training package, and it had not built an aircraft. We have gone for a proven, off-the-shelf solution and I challenge you, Phil Goff, to get up and say that you would have made a different decision, because I do not believe you would have.
Hon Phil Goff: I am not sure I should be answering questions—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I reminded members yesterday that when I rise to my feet, it is important that members then resume their seat. Does the member have a further supplementary question?
Hon Phil Goff: How many jobs—[Interruption] Are you ready to listen to the question?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given the member a supplementary question. [Interruption] Order!
Hon Phil Goff: How many jobs will be lost at Aeromotive Ltd in Ōhākea and how many jobs and export earnings will be lost from Pacific Aerospace in Hamilton because of his decision; or has he not bothered to ask?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I have explained very clearly, we cannot waste public money on an aircraft that has not been built, and they could not fulfil the requirements of the tender. So it is a really stupid, clown question, Phil Goff.
Primary Sector Development—Sheep and Beef Genetics Research
6. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How is the Government supporting genetics research in the sheep and beef sector?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Yesterday I announced funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Biological Industries Research Fund of $15 million over 5 years for genetics research to improve the profitability of New Zealand’s sheep and beef sector. The funding will allow research expansion into beef genetics, and will allow both the beef and sheep industries—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Same handful. They’ve had millions already.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —pipe down, Mr Peters—to further improve genetic gain in the development of new trade to satisfy the increasing trend of farming in hill country environments.
Colin King: How is the Government working with industry to achieve productivity gains?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A new partnership, Beef and Lamb New Zealand Genetics, will bring together New Zealand’s existing sheep and beef genetics research into one strategic programme, consolidating Sheep Improvement Ltd, the Beef and Lamb New Zealand Central Progeny Test, and Ovita. The total funding for the new project from Government and industry sources will be up to $8.8 million per year. The total investment—up to $44 million over 5 years—is predicted to generate nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars over 20 years of additional behind-the-farm-gate productivity, equating to an extra $5.90 profit per lamb for farmers.
Colin King: Why is the Government investing more in innovation in the primary sector?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Innovation in all sectors is very important. The Opposition will never be quiet long enough to learn about it, but investing in genetics will help improve meat quality, contribute directly to improving on-farm profitability, and ensure we are meeting the needs of consumers internationally. As a nation, we are already leading the world in pastoral animal and plant genetics. This partnership will help us maintain and extend this critical position and to continue to build on it through future research and development in sheep and beef genetics.
New Zealand Air Force—Tender Process for Training Aircraft
7. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: Is he satisfied with all aspects of the Air Force deal to buy 11 American T-6C aircraft; if so, why?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): Yes, although it is a shame that there was not a tender from a New Zealand company that fulfilled all the RNZAF’s training needs. Over 850 of these state-of-the-art training aircraft are already in service with several countries. It is a proven, off-the-shelf solution, with a track record for safety and reliability. The Beechcraft Corporation package incorporates flight simulators and a training curriculum that no other provider was able to match. We have negotiated a very good deal to buy and support these aircraft.
Hon Phil Goff: You don’t need a turboprop plane for initial pilot training.
Richard Prosser: Supplementary question?
Mr SPEAKER: I am just waiting for Mr Goff.
Richard Prosser: Why is the Royal New Zealand Air Force purchasing a lead-in trainer for fighter jets when it does not have any fighter jets?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I know this member is very militant and has previously expressed these views. The fact is this is not a lead-in trainer for fighter jets.
Hon Phil Goff: Of course it is.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Sorry, it is not.
Richard Prosser: Does he think it is fair for ordinary New Zealanders that this contract will generate 550 jobs in Wichita, Kansas, and none in New Zealand?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I said, it is a real shame that there was not a New Zealand tender or proposal that fulfilled the RNZAF’s requirements. It would have been great to have those jobs here, but look, we have got to go for value for money and a proven off-the-shelf solution, and that is what the Beechcraft proposal actually is.
Richard Prosser: Does he believe that purchasing training aircraft from Pacific Aerospace could save taxpayers between $75 million and $125 million over 2 years, as claimed by Pacific Aerospace manager, Damian Camp; if not, why not?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I do not believe it, because they did not have a simulator, they did not have a training package, and they did not have an aircraft, so we absolutely could not have gone with that proposal. They did not have detailed costings, so those figures are pie-in-the-sky figures.
Richard Prosser: Is he aware that Pacific Aerospace is able to produce a certified version of its existing CT-4 Airtrainer aircraft, complete with a turboprop engine and a glass cockpit; if not, why not?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Once again, their proposal did not meet the RNZAF’s needs. It is simple.
Richard Prosser: Does he believe that a “Buy New Zealand Made” procurement policy for Government agencies would benefit New Zealand businesses, and help to create jobs and generate wealth in the economy; if not, why not?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, I do not believe it would if it does not meet the requirements of Government agencies and it is not good value for money. It would be craziness.
Child Poverty—Expert Advisory Group Report and Support for Families
8. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he agree with the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that “The available evidence overwhelmingly supports greater investment in the early years of a child’s life”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I agree that the early years of life are crucial for a child’s development, but there is no evidence that overwhelmingly supports any investment of any sort in the early years of a child’s life. If a particular programme can improve outcomes for children and is cost-effective, then the Government looks very closely at that, and, indeed, has initiated a significant number of programmes that it believes fulfil that criteria, such as lifting child immunisation rates to a now record level, applying a great deal of time and resources to protecting our most vulnerable children from violence, and reaching out to those families who find it most difficult to access early childhood education. There is considerable other Government investment in the early years through maternity services, child health services, social housing, Family Start, and, of course, through extensive income support paid to parents.
Jacinda Ardern: Why does the Deputy Prime Minister oppose greater income support for parents in the first year of their baby’s life?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It depends on which parents, of course, because some of those who thought Labour meant they would get $60 a week have found out that they actually will not get $60 a week. Labour has not yet fronted up to be honest to parents about its programme—
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that you have the Minister address the question. He has begun by talking about what he believes to be the Labour Party’s policy. The question was a direct question to him about his view, and he has not actually even come to that at all.
Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask Jacinda Ardern to repeat the question, please.
Jacinda Ardern: Why does the Deputy Prime Minister oppose greater income support for parents in the first year of their baby’s life?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do not in principle oppose greater income support. What we support are cost-effective interventions, particularly for those children who are most vulnerable. For instance, too many of our children are subject to violence. Paying cash to their parents will not necessarily fix that. In fact, if that was the solution, then the Working for Families package would have fixed the problem. But, in fact, the Government, led by the Hon Paula Bennett, is putting significant effort and resources into reorganising the way the Government can protect our most vulnerable children from violence, and there are some early signs of success. But if more money for parents was the solution, there would be no violence against children in New Zealand.
Jacinda Ardern: Why does he support paid parental leave, but not the Best Start payment?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because I am still trying to work out what the Best Start payment is and who would get it. But I have come to the conclusion that I know the policy better than the leader of the Labour Party, David Cunliffe.
Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will find it was a very straight question to the Deputy Prime Minister—
Mr SPEAKER: And I thought the member got a very straight answer. Does the member have further supplementary questions?
Jacinda Ardern: Why does he agree with the principle of universalism for our New Zealand superannuation, but not for the first year of a baby’s life?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fact is that New Zealanders had debates about both of those things and, having found myself and my party on the wrong side of that debate, we know New Zealanders strongly support universal provision for superannuitants. That is the result of 20 or 30 years of vigorous political discussion. In the case of support for children, our opinion and that of the New Zealand public is, I think, the same. Parents who are raising children and who need more cash get extensive support from the taxpayer. But I repeat again that the biggest gains to be made are for our most vulnerable children, not for those who are in the households of parents earning $150,000.
Tim Macindoe: Has the Deputy Prime Minister received any reports of investment in the first year of a child’s life being taken away?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. I understand there is a proposal to scrap the parental tax credit, which pays up to $1,200 to families of newborn babies who are on a low or middle income, who are not on a benefit, and who do not receive paid parental leave. Around 15,000 families get the parental tax credit. That is about a quarter of all families with a newborn child. So under the proposal a quarter of all families would lose $1,200 in the first year of their child’s life. This is just one of a number of omissions from the speech of the Labour Party leader, David Cunliffe. He would not tell the parents the truth.
Grant Robertson: Stop lying.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not accept any member interjecting with that interjection across the House.
Jacinda Ardern: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House how much better off parents who currently receive the parental tax credit will be when they all receive the Best Start payment, as Labour has proposed?
Mr SPEAKER: Well, I struggle to see how the Minister has responsibility for that, but the Hon Bill English can—
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is hard for us to know, but I can say this. If the Labour Party leader had stated the case correctly, he would have said that about one-third of parents would get $60 a week for the first year of a child’s life, and around 15,000 would get about $23, not $60. I do not know why he did not tell them the truth in his speech.
Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straightforward question. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister what the difference was between the two—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It was doubtful whether the question was in order, where the member was effectively asking the Minister to then comment on a proposed party policy by the Labour Party.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The difficulty with your ruling is that the supplementary question asked by Tim Macindoe invited the Deputy Prime Minister to comment at some length on the Labour Party policy, which he did, without interruption. He got it wrong. He does not know what he is talking about—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member makes a reasonable point, but I did not rule the question out of order. I left the question there to be answered and, in my opinion, the Minister has addressed the question.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Does he agree with the children consulted by the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty about the importance of children being able to play with friends, even if they are poor; if so, what support can the Government provide to ensure free leisure and recreational activities are available, especially in disadvantaged neighbourhoods?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has helped fund around 30,000 places on holiday programmes for children who would fit that definition. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the persistent advocacy of the Māori Party through the Ministerial Committee on Poverty for exactly that group of children. A number of the initiatives the Government has taken up have been at the proposition of the Māori Party.
Jacinda Ardern: How positive exactly has the National Party polling on the Best Start package been to justify the ongoing attack against Labour and this policy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: As far as I am aware there is no polling on the “Bad Start” package. There is no point in asking people about the package, because they do not know what it is. That is because the leader of the Labour Party does not know what it is. I am sure that when he makes it clear, the public will then understand, and then it may be worth asking them. But the member may have noticed that in the Stuff poll, the comments were probably a good deal more negative than she had anticipated.
Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon—[Interruption] Order! The Hon Annette King has every right to ask a supplementary question, and I am waiting with anticipation.
Hon Annette King: Does the Government—
Hon Steven Joyce: Can we get you a spade?
Hon Annette King: Just wait a minute, Mr Joyce; I will get it out.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just have the question.
Hon Annette King: It is not about you, Steven. Does—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given the chance for the Hon Annette King to ask a supplementary question.
Hon Annette King: Does the Government support an antenatal policy—
Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On two occasions now, members of the Opposition have remained on their feet while you have stood. You were very clear in the House yesterday that when you stood, we all had to sit down. I called out across the House and was told to get stuffed, but you might have a better chance. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just checking whether the member picked up the point of order. The House will settle down. I have given a supplementary question to the Opposition.
Hon Annette King: Does the Government support an antenatal policy that would require district health boards to book the majority of pregnant women for an antenatal assessment by 10 weeks’ gestation, as recommended in a recent Health Committee report?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it is like a lot of propositions to do with supporting our families and children—there is merit in it. The question is does it balance up as the highest priority, particularly for the most vulnerable children? Often we find that these good ideas, like giving $60 a week to families on $150,000, have some merit, but the real problems are with those who are most vulnerable. So our priority for antenatal checks would be to ensure that those mothers who have the most difficulty accessing health care—because, for instance, they have a transitory lifestyle—would be the top priority, because that is where you get the return on a significant investment.
Native Birds—Protection and Pest Control
9. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Conservation: What advice has he received about the impacts of pests on our native birds, particularly Kiwi, and how will a beech mast this year affect these birds’ survival?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I am advised by the Department of Conservation and by Landcare Research ecologists that rats, stoats, and possums kill 25 million native birds a year. That is like having a Rena disaster, which killed 2,000, every hour. I am further advised that pests are reducing our kiwi numbers by 3 percent each year and that kiwis will not exist in the wild for our grandchildren without additional pest control. This year’s beechmast makes it even more urgent that we address this problem. It occurs about once every 15 years and will result, this autumn, in the dropping of about 1 million tonnes of seed, which will then spark a plague of 30 million rats and about a further 50,000 stoats. The problem will be in spring when the beech seeds germinate and the rats and stoats turn on our native birds. The last case when we had a widespread mast was in 2000, and that led to the mohua, which is on our $100 note, disappearing from the Marlborough Sounds.
Jacqui Dean: How many hectares of conservation land are covered by the Battle for Our Birds programme, and how does this compare with historic levels of pest control?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This programme provides for an additional 500,000 hectares of extra pest control this year, as well as ramping up our year-on-year pest control by 50,000 hectares per year for each of the next 5 years. Last year, the Department of Conservation did 150,000 hectares; that has been about the same for the last decade. This year the Department of Conservation will do 700,000 hectares. On top of this, TBfree New Zealand does about 300,000 hectares per year, meaning that this year we will do about 1 million hectares. Another way to put this is that we are moving from 5 percent of public conservation land having protection for native species from rats, stoats, and possums, and lifting that from 5 percent to 12 percent.
Jacqui Dean: What are the improvements in 1080 that have enabled the department to reduce poisoned bait application rates from 30 kilograms per hectare to 1 kilogram per hectare?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, there has been the technology around the pre-feeding of unpoisoned bait, which has meant that the amount of poison that is being used has been able to be very significantly reduced. Secondly, the use of helicopters with GPS rather than fixed-wing aircrafts means that we are able to be far more accurate with the distribution. There have also been big improvements in the quality of the bait, ensuring that there are no crumbs or fragments that could add to by-kill of birds, and in the use of different types of baits. So even though we are more than doubling the area of coverage for 1080 use, this programme does not involve record use of 1080.
Health and Safety, Workplace—Forestry Industry
10. DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Minister of Labour: Will he commit to regulating the hours of work in the forestry sector immediately, given there have been 11 worker deaths in the sector in the past 13 months; if not, why not?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): No, I will not immediately, but I am not ruling out regulation in the future. The reason for that is that I do not want to pre-empt the industry-led inquiry that was announced yesterday. I am very pleased that the industry is taking ownership, as the enduring safety solutions that are needed require the industry front and centre. Nothing is off limits to the inquiry, and I am sure that hours of work will form part of their investigation. I have encouraged a speedy process so that I can consider the recommendations as soon as possible. In the meantime, I have also instructed WorkSafe New Zealand to review the approved code of practice for forestry in light of the low level of compliance it has seen in its visits to operators, and it will also continue its strong, proactive approach.
Denise Roche: Does he think that all workers in the forestry industry are getting adequate rest breaks and that their fatigue levels and other factors that contribute to injuries and deaths are being well managed; if so, why?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Fatigue, of course, and its effect on workplace health and safety are complex issues. Responding, I think, to this issue goes far beyond simple regulation of hours of work. The current duties of the Health and Safety in Employment Act already require employers to manage this hazard. But, as I said, in the inquiry nothing is off limits. I have no doubt the inquiry will be looking at this and many other issues to do with forestry safety. I am eagerly awaiting its recommendations.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Accepting, as I am sure he does, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility for portfolios, can the Minister explain why it is that the forestry industry, rather than the Government, will lead the inquiry into its own malpractices, and does he acknowledge that this sort of approach may not get to the heart of the issues around malpractice?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think the best thing to do in that regard is to wait for the inquiry’s recommendations. I am sure we all hope—and I certainly believe—that the inquiry will get to the heart of it. But, as I said in the answer to the primary question, I think it is very important that the forestry industry for itself shows ownership here. That is how we will get an enduring solution. I think it is also worth appreciating that this Government is leading the most significant reform in health and safety generally in at least 20 years—$30 million more each year for inspectors, a complete legislation rewrite, and a much, much stronger enforcement approach than we have seen. All of this has far-reaching consequences for the forestry industry.
Denise Roche: Does he think that forest owners are playing their part to protect workers, given that half the logging operators visited last year by WorkSafe New Zealand were not complying with the industry code?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think what is clearly implicit in the question is the answer, and that is that some owners are not. That is why, within a year and a month into its use, the Approved Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Forest Operations is being reviewed with some urgency, so that we go from the forest floor and actually into owners’ boardrooms and they take their part of their responsibility in this. I repeat again what I have said. If you actually look at the legislation that I will be introducing very soon—on which there have been consultation drafts put out—we are, I think, for the first time making people in the boardroom front these issues and have responsibilities for these issues, as never before in this country.
Denise Roche: Does he think that the current Approved Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Forest Operations, which was written by the industry itself, with limited union or worker participation, is preventing injuries and deaths in the forestry sector; if so, why?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think the code of practice is a good resource for forest workers and, indeed, owners. But, again, we know that since it has been in place, there have been a number—far too many—of deaths in this industry. As I say, that is why the code is being reviewed. I think you will see significant detail, particularly around owners’ responsibilities and their obligations to their workers. The member also mentions worker participation. I think it is worthwhile again noting that the legislation that will be introduced to this House will have worker participation provisions and obligations for owners like never before in the history of this country.
Andrew Little: Why has it taken until only yesterday before he has started a review of the approved code of practice for forestry when as recently as 19 November last year, since which time there have been three more forestry deaths, he told this House that “the things that are the focus of that approved code of practice … are the big issues, and are what … [it] focuses squarely on.”, and he saw no need for change?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That, in fact, is the true position, in that it is tree-felling and breaking out, which are in a primary area that the code of practice deals with, where we do see the majority of deaths in the forests. But, as I say, what we also know, and what we did not know until the end of last year, almost exactly a year after the code of practice came into being, is that some 50 percent of owners are not complying with their obligations at law in this country.
Andrew Little: But we knew that last year.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We did not know it until the end of last year actually, Mr Little. And that is why there is a review going on and the code will have much added to it.
Denise Roche: Does he think that WorkSafe New Zealand providing a secretariat and a submission to the industry-led inquiry into forestry safety is the most his Government can do to stop injuries and deaths in the forestry sector?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, of course it is not the most that we are doing. In the meantime, while the inquiry proceeds—and, I hope, with as much haste as it reasonably can while also wanting to do an excellent job—we have got inspectors out there testing compliance with the code of practice every day. We have visited more than 2,000 players, and more are being seen. There are prosecutions ongoing, and I think more are coming. The chief executive and the chair of WorkSafe New Zealand and their workers are meeting in boardrooms of foresters around this country to make it very clear what their obligations are. There are many other things, indeed, that are going on in this industry. This is a Government that is waiting for an inquiry to produce its findings but in the meantime is taking urgent action.
Denise Roche: Why is he refusing to use his powers right now to make changes that will save lives and stop people being hurt in our forests?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not think that is a correct characterisation of what is happening. As I say, this Government is taking urgent actions now, and we should also, I think, understand that this is the Government that is implementing the biggest, most significant health and safety reforms, as I have said in earlier answers, in a generation—probably, actually, in several generations. So I think this Government is doing a lot in this area, but it is also important that the industry stands up and takes ownership, and it is good to see that happening with this inquiry.
Internal Affairs, Minister—Information Security
11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he stand by all his statements?
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes—in fact, I am more than happy to stand by the only statement I have made since being appointed Minister of Internal Affairs 2 days ago, which is that the New Zealand Fire Service has today deployed the first of two firefighting contingents to help fight bushfires in Victoria. This actually follows four similar deployments to Australia last year and underscores the close relationship and cooperation our two countries have when dealing with times of national adversity. I am sure that the House will want to join with me in wishing our firefighters well and that they will have a safe return home.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he stand by the comment he made as he welcomed his new role that he has, with his chief executive officer, responsibility for, amongst other things, proper protection of the security of information?
Hon PETER DUNNE: Yes.
Hon Trevor Mallard: How does he reconcile that comment last week with his action in leaking a confidential report to a member of the parliamentary press gallery?
Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the Minister to respond to that question.
Hon PETER DUNNE: I stand by the comments that I made in the statement that the member referred to. I accept the responsibility that I have as Minister of Internal Affairs and I will honour that responsibility.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he leak the Kitteridge report or any draft thereof—
Mr SPEAKER: There is no ministerial responsibility for that question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 384(1). It does say it is at your discretion, but it says: “… a supplementary question may be asked by any member to elucidate or clarify a matter raised in a question for oral answer or in an answer given to a question.” The point that I do want to make very clearly and very simply is that this Minister has responsibility for the security of information. It is a matter of whether this Minister is a suitable Minister for having that responsibility. His history on matters that he has referred to in the House and in statements is something that goes right to whether this House should have confidence in him in his new role.
Mr SPEAKER: I still will not accept the supplementary question as asked, where the member has directly asked a question that is of a matter that occurred well before this Minister was made Minister of Internal Affairs. If the member has a further supplementary question, I am happy to listen to it.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Why should this House have confidence in him now when he has refused to deny leaking the Kitteridge report or a draft thereof, or allowing a Dominion Post reporter access to that report?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Firstly, Ministers are not required to express confidence in themselves in this House. That is a role for the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister’s confidence in Mr Dunne has been expressed by him by virtue of the appointment. But I would turn you to Standing Order 377, which is the content of questions, and particularly (1)(b) and (c) of that particular Standing Order. Although there may be an opportunity to make a case around any Standing Order, it has to be remembered that the Standing Orders are to provide order in the House, and the questioning process is about extracting information from Ministers about the portfolio responsibilities they hold.
Grant Robertson: Firstly, Mr Mallard sought to ask why the House should have confidence in Mr Dunne. I think that is a fully legitimate thing. It is true that the confidence the Prime Minister holds is an important matter, but Mr Mallard was asking why this Parliament should have confidence. The second point I would make is that in the first supplementary question that Mr Mallard asked, he made clear that part of what Mr Dunne had said were his responsibilities was the security of information. It is a legitimate thing for members on this side of the House to ask whether Parliament should have confidence in a Minister to perform a specific duty that they have as a Minister, and that is the oversight of the security of information of the Government. I think the question is in order. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need further assistance. I am going to assist the House by moving the matter forward. If the question had been asked strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders, the question would have simply been: “Why should the House have confidence in the Minister?”. I do not think that is an unreasonable question. If the Minister stands and answers that, we can move forward.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: This is a fresh point of order? I have ruled on this matter, Mr Brownlee. If the member wants to raise a new point order, I will hear it.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is a new point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled that the question is in order. If the member is now disputing my ruling—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: He is not standing, and I have called a point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: That is a different matter. Point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is it now a ruling from you that the House expresses confidence in Ministers, as opposed to the Prime Minister? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I do not need assistance. On this occasion a member of this House has asked a question of a Minister: “Why should the House have confidence in a Minister?”. I have declared that that question is in order. That question can be answered by the Minister. I am sure he will have no difficulty in doing so.
Hon PETER DUNNE: The House should have confidence in me as a Minister because I will carry out properly the responsibilities entrusted to me by the portfolio that I hold.
Hon Trevor Mallard: In order to ensure that the House has confidence in him, is he prepared to now deny that he leaked the Kitteridge report or any draft thereof, or allowed a Dominion Post reporter to access that report?
Hon PETER DUNNE: I have no responsibility for that report.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He was not asked about the report. He was asked about the leak, and he cannot just dodge it that way, by saying “I have no responsibility for that report.”
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has addressed that question with relevance.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you again to think about the prospect of the House being able to question that the confidence in a Minister is whole. The reality is that the Opposition parties in this House vote “no confidence” in the Government every opportunity that they get. It is a completely “ingenuine” question that is being asked by the Opposition.
Grant Robertson: Disingenuous.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, we will call it that.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I should be able to finish, I think.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I have heard quite enough. What the member is really doing is asking me to reflect on a decision that I have made in this House today, and I will certainly do that and come back to him.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I have ruled on that point of order. [Interruption] Order! I have ruled on that point of order. If the member wants to raise a further point of order—[Interruption] Order! If the member does want to raise a further point of order, I will hear from the Hon David Parker.
Hon David Parker: A further point of order. If the Speaker was going to further reflect on the Leader of the House’s additional point, then I would think that the Speaker should allow the Opposition to respond to the new point that the Leader of the House has made, and I would seek to do so.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The difficulty I have is that the member Mr Brownlee has not actually raised any new points at all. He has just asked me to reflect on the matter. I am happy to reflect on the matter and I will come back to not only Mr Brownlee but also to the House, if that is so required.
Hon David Parker: Speaking to that point, how could the Speaker be willing to reconsider the matter without being willing to consider the Opposition’s view on that? There are points to be made here, arising out of the Leader of the House’s submission to you, that I think are germane and I think I should have the opportunity to do that.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member can succinctly put his point of view, I am happy to hear it.
Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The problem with the Leader of the House’s position, set out in his submission to you, is that it is within the right of the Opposition not to have confidence in the Government and Ministers, as we do in respect of motions such as the motion on the Prime Minister’s statement. That same ruling applies to questions such as Mr Mallard’s question, and therefore your original ruling is correct and Mr Brownlee is incorrect.
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: In consideration of the request by Mr Brownlee, in your further consideration, as he has invited you to undergo, do you want to know the date, the time, and the room where the leak took place?
Mr SPEAKER: And the member should go back to his office and practise raising relevant points of order.
Prisoners, Employment Training—Working Prisons Programme and Canterbury Recovery
12. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Corrections: What recent updates has she received on the implementation of working prisons?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): This time last year I announced that Rolleston Prison, Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility, and Tongariro/Rangipō Prison would become full working prisons. This initiative will see every prisoner at these three prisons fully engaged in a structured 40-hour week that includes employment in areas like farming at Tongariro/Rangipō Prison, construction at Rolleston Prison, and manufacturing and stock management at the Auckland women’s prison, and meaningful education and rehabilitation programmes. I am pleased to advise that 90 percent of eligible prisoners at these three prisons are now engaged for 40 hours each week, and we expect all prisoners to be fully engaged by June this year.
Louise Upston: How is the working prison at Rolleston contributing to the Christchurch rebuild?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As part of the implementation of the working prison at Rolleston, the Department of Corrections has signed a partnership agreement with Housing New Zealand to refurbish 150 earthquake-damaged houses over the next 5 years. Once repaired, these houses will be relocated to Housing New Zealand properties in Canterbury. This partnership will see more than 400 prisoners gain training in construction skills such as carpentry, plastering, painting, roofing, and joinery. The construction industry is likely to face skill shortages in the coming year, and training prisoners in these skills will help them find work in this area once released, and reduce the chances of them reoffending.
Louise Upston: How do working prisons help reduce reoffending?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Most prisoners were unemployed before they came to prison and many of them have no qualifications or work history. That is why the Government is focused on giving the prisoners skills that they need in order to find work, as part of our strategy to reduce reoffending by 25 percent. The research shows that education, employment, and training reduces the risk of a prisoner reoffending on release, and those who have received trade and technical training are 8.3 percent less likely to be re-imprisoned within 12 months.
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement
Debate resumed from 29 January.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): Well, the 2014 election year has begun predictably. National led off and announced its education policy, which was focused on lifting educational achievement for all New Zealand children. It was well targeted and, as a result, parents, teachers, and school leaders love it. It was well-thought-through and it was well costed, and we know how we are going to fund it.
The Greens—well, the Greens held a picnic and I think what resulted from that was that they gave the kids a sandwich, actually—they gave four kids a sandwich. [Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I have some respect for the member trying to address the House. Courtesy is contagious, Mr Mallard.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. They insulted all the parents of kids in low-decile schools by saying, essentially, that those parents cannot feed their kids and that their kids are unhealthy. More important, the Greens reinforced their lack of ambition for these kids by confirming their belief that poor kids cannot learn. It is not that the poor kids are not bright or that they are not hard-working; they simply cannot learn because their parents do not earn enough dollars. I find that insulting.
While we are on insults, I am actually rather insulted as a constituent MP. I serve an electorate day after day, week after week, meeting and talking with people in my home communities. I have to say that they are not well off. In my electorate, I represent some of the poorest communities in New Zealand. I am actually insulted to be lectured on how out of touch I am with average New Zealanders by a list MP who has no constituents, lives in a castle, and comes to the House dressed in $2,000 designer jackets and tells me that I am out of touch. Well, actually, I say to the Green MPs: “Come into my patch and have a look. Come into my patch.” We have some fantastic schools—[Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There are people interjecting who are not even in their seats. It is not permitted.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I sat in the school prize-giving for the Ōpōtiki Primary School at the end of last year. They filled the local hall—actually, they filled the picture theatre—all those parents there, with huge ambitions for their kids. It is an enormously successful school, focused on increasing kids’ vocabulary and particularly on increasing their ability to read. It is a very successful school. I also went over to Ilminster Intermediate School in Kaiti. Again, it is right in the heart of a low socio-economic community in Gisborne. Again, there was a hall filled with parents, all with big ambitions—bright ambitions—for their kids succeeding at school, in a poor area. Their parents might not have a lot of money, but they have huge ambitions and huge aspirations for their kids—just as this John Key - led Government has.
We believe that those kids deserve the very best education that the State can provide, and we know that just because they are poor, it does not mean that with great teachers and great schools they cannot learn. So I say to the Greens: “Get out there and get in touch with real New Zealanders. Go out and win an electorate, and then you can deal with real people and with their real issues.”
That brings us to Labour. Well, how embarrassing—I mean, how embarrassing a start for the Labour Opposition this year. Its Best Start turns out to be its worst start—its absolute worst start. In fact, you might call it a stop start. Last night its leader had to admit that he had got it wrong in his baby bonus speech. And what did he do? He blamed the speech-writer. For heaven’s sake—he is delivering probably the most important speech of the year, which sets the agenda for the Labour Opposition, and he does not check his speech before he reads it—he does not check it and re-check it for facts. That tells us that he is either a lazy politician, relying on his speech-writer, or he is not prepared to be accountable. He is not prepared to take responsibility for his mistake. Either one of those does not make a good leader.
But he is still tricky, is he not—he is still tricky. He said that he got it wrong in his speech, but we know that the details were not in the glossy brochures. They were not in the explanations of the policy. They were not in the Q and As. We know that nobody picked up the phone to the media and said “Hey, listen, guys, when we said 59,000, actually, it isn’t 59,000—you’ve got it wrong.” Nobody did that. We know that his Labour colleagues over there did not know the details either, because we saw their faces as day after day we have pulled out the actual truth about their policies. They had no idea that their leader was taking them down this path. We have slowly found out that it is not 59,000. In fact, we are still not sure exactly how many people are going to get this baby bonus—probably only beneficiaries and single-income families earning $150,000. That is probably what it is going to come down to. I call it a “failed to start”, actually.
I just want to read out little bits of an article that appeared in the Gisborne Herald lately, written by a lady called Mere Pōhatu, a very good community worker. The article is headed “High on success”. It highlights for me the sensible approach that this Government has taken to focus on targeted, wraparound support for our most vulnerable families and parents, and why spraying hundreds of millions of dollars around, hoping to fix a problem, has never worked in the bad old days of Labour Governments and will not work now, despite—
Maggie Barry: They don’t learn, though.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, they do not learn. So Mere said: “High on success—I just spotted the guy selling legal drugs, counting all your mokopuna’s money in his shop. Indeed, he hardly had a chance to count it all up, because your mokopuna kept interrupting him to buy more of the stuff. Readers, I have also spotted your kids with their little kids sitting in their double-parked cars, while mum is in the shop buying the chemical, standing in her pyjamas with her $50 note in her hand and the car running. But she’s not coming out of that shop with much change, but, man, are those kids going to have a great time. Mum, if she’s buying it for herself, will be off her face, high as a kite, and maybe she’ll come down slow, or maybe she’ll come down with a big fat whack, and maybe your mokopuna have had no kai and are hungry and they get the whack. The next $20 or so and the next day it starts all over again. And the guy in the shop is hardly having time to count your mokopuna’s money, and your mokos all have got loyalty cards to that shop. They are platinum plus members. 2014 and I am absolutely flabbergasted to see so many people giving this guy money to get off their faces. I wish they would spend the money on education and learning and good kai for their whānau.”
This is not me saying it; this is a sad, sad article written by a lady who works in these communities, who has worked there for years, who sees this happening, and it is breaking her heart. The question is whether more dollars will help those families.
I am proud to be part of John Key’s team, which has, through the toughest economic times, focused on addressing the real drivers of poverty and despair in our communities by working alongside people to help them into jobs or into training; by ensuring that there is extra help with budgeting and managing their incomes; by prioritising insulation for their homes to keep them warm and dry and healthy; by inoculating their children against preventable diseases and setting out to eliminate rheumatic fever; by supporting community initiatives like community gardens and mural projects; by setting up neighbourhood policing teams to help people keep themselves safe and secure in their homes and neighbourhoods; by the outstanding work that Paula Bennett and—to a lesser extent—I, and now Hekia Parata, have done to support teenage mums and dads with home support places and programmes, education, early childhood education, parenting and budgeting help and advice, and ongoing mentoring and support; and, again, by the outstanding work protecting vulnerable babies and children from violence that Paula Bennett is leading.
Some families need special care and assistance. Some kids need more than just a cash payment; they need someone to look out for them—their families, their community, and their Government—so that they get, as Mere says, education and learning and good kai for their whānau.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next member I wish to advise the House that this is a split call.
HOLLY WALKER (Green): Well, it is great to see that children are at the heart of politics at the start of election year. It is about time, even if it means we have to listen to speeches like that one from the Hon Anne Tolley. It is good to hear her conclude that what we need for our kids is good kai, healthy homes, and good learning, or something to that effect. She is right; that is exactly what we need. But the vitriolic attack that she launched on the Green Party’s policy would do exactly the opposite. At a time when 270,000 children are living in poverty and one in five suffer from the kind of severe material deprivation that the Hon Anne Tolley has just outlined, when they cannot learn, when their health is compromised, and when they have no chance of a good life and a fair future, that is the time to ask the question of how we can best take care of those children, and there is a stark difference in the prescriptions we have heard from the three major political parties so far this year. National wants to introduce performance pay for teachers in all but name and do nothing at all about the immediate material needs of those children, preferring to rely simply on the idea that quality teaching is all that is required to pull them out of the adverse effects of inequality and poverty. That is what the Prime Minister said yesterday in his answer to Metiria Turei’s question.
Well, we actually are out there in the community, no matter what Anne Tolley would have you believe, and do you know what? Kids are going hungry out there in the community. They are going to school without food, without shoes, and without raincoats, and you can do very little learning when that is the condition that you arrive at school in. So, by contrast, the Green Party’s vision focuses on investing in our children’s health and well-being directly, not indirectly. We agree that schools are an essential tool in eliminating some of the effects of poverty and inequality, but we take a much more hands-on approach to doing that than this National Government. Our plan to turn decile 1 to 4 schools into community hubs by providing lunches, nurses on site, and employing community hub coordinators to tailor the community hub services at the school to the specific needs of that school and those children would have a far more beneficial effect on the direct material deprivation that many children are suffering than simply putting a bunch of executive principals in suits with $60,000 pay rises in charge of those schools.
I think that what you have heard this week is a vision of what an alternative Government could do for children, because, combined with the Labour Party’s policy of investing in the preschool years with more paid parental leave, with greater family support payments, and with greater investment in early childhood education, you start to get a picture of what a progressive, Green-influenced Government could do for our children. It is a very exciting vision, in my view, but it could not be more different from the kind of top-down, bureaucratic, divisive policies promoted by this National Government.
The dismissive, casual attitude of our Government towards children has never been more evident than in the comments of the Prime Minister in the House earlier this week when he said: “Give the odd kid a lunch—that is not actually going to solve the problem.” Well, I will tell you what—it is a lot more than the odd kid; it is tens of thousands of children in schools around the country and it actually will go a really long way towards solving the problem of the impact of poverty and inequality on our kids’ education. I think it will do a lot more than a bunch of executive principals earning an extra $60,000 a year. You can feed a lot of kids for that money.
The Greens do support investing in teachers and we do support that undervalued workforce to get better recognition for the vital work that they do, but we would not do it in the way that the Government has described, and we would never claim that good teaching alone could solve the problems in educational attainment that are linked to poverty and inequality. When kids are going to school without food, shoes, and raincoats, and with skin infections and respiratory diseases, they have no chance of learning. They have no chance of a good life and a fair future. Our Schools at the Heart proposal to make schools the community hubs that they can be and should be would do a much better job.
I want to conclude with the words of the New Zealand Principals’ Federation President, Philip Harding, whom I trust a lot more than the Prime Minister. He said: “This is a superb initiative and will make a huge difference for those kids that currently arrive at school unfed and unhealthy.” That is good enough for me.
EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It was interesting that we had the previous National speaker, Minister Anne Tolley, dismissing the whole MMP system, failing to recognise that list MPs have a constituency that extends over all of Aotearoa New Zealand and we are out there in the community. I invite the Minister the Hon Anne Tolley to get out there and lose an election, because, as Russel Norman said earlier in this debate, the Green Party is ready to govern. We have the ideas, the experience, and the credentials. Our focus in Government would be on rebuilding a fairer New Zealand, building a sustainable economy, and changing our laws and taxation system to better protect the environment that sustains us and our economy.
We know, as my colleague Holly Walker has outlined, that the single most important way to address some of our major social problems such as crime, imprisonment, and violence is to reduce the gap between the rich and poor. That is why we have got solutions that will make a real difference, like our schools as hearts and hubs of the community. That is why we have policies in housing like a warrant of fitness for rental housing, to reduce the number of cold, damp homes, which will make children and families sick in winter. We want rental housing to meet a minimum standard.
Everyone has a right to decent housing, just as everyone has a right to clean water. A progressive Green Government would work to do both of those things because we know that New Zealanders are worried about our rivers and lakes. They want them better managed and they want less farm runoff. Lincoln University late last year published the results of its longstanding survey Perceptions of the State of New Zealand’s Environment. Respondents said that freshwater management was our most important domestic environmental issue, just as they did in the 2010 and 2008 surveys. That is the National Government’s legacy to Kiwis—an increasing number of dirty, polluted rivers, which are unfit for swimming. Two-thirds of the monitored sites on our rivers are too polluted to swim in.
No country in the world relies as heavily on a clean, green image for its exports and tourism as we do. Our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand identifies us as producing high-quality food and safe food, while we look after our land and our water. If we trash that brand, we trash the foundations of our economy, particularly our primary production sector and tourism. Kiwis know that under this Government, that brand is being flushed down the toilet. In that Lincoln University survey, only 35 percent of respondents described the state of our environment as good, and that was down from the 48 percent in 2000.
Of all of the natural resources that were considered in that survey, people said that fresh water was being managed the worst. We know why. It is agriculture intensification. So what has the Government’s response been to an unprecedented decline in Kiwis’ confidence in the state of our environment? Has it been to introduce strong rules for clean water so that farmers make every effort to fence their streams, to keep stock out of waterways, to look after their fertiliser inputs, or to not intensify insensitive catchments? No, of course not. National is in it for the short term. Its “dig it, drill it, mine it, irrigate it” excuse for an economic policy is about exploiting nature to maximise short-term profits, regardless of the environmental debt that that creates for present and future generations. Instead of using the Resource Management Act and the national policy statement to put in place a much stronger regulatory framework to give us rivers that are clean enough to swim in, what is National doing? It gives us hands-off, weak standards that people like Dr Mike Joy at Massey University say would lead us to rivers that have similar levels of nitrate to rivers like the Yangtze in China, which is not a model we want to emulate.
If it was a Green Government, we would focus much more on a stronger regulatory framework, incentives for landowners, and investing in biodiversity, and we would not expect the Department of Conservation to run a predator control programme on its existing funding. We would invest in a clean environment to support our economy.
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): It is with great pleasure that I stand up to support the Prime Minister’s statement. I did not expect so early in the year to see the return of the yeah, nah leader and the yeah, nah party. I do not know about anyone else. I thought maybe David Cunliffe had learnt something over Christmas. Maybe he would have sort of thought about it, but immediately we were back into: “Yeah, baby bonus—59,000 babies a year getting $60 a week for 52 weeks. Nah, nah, nah—not for those 26,000 that are getting parental leave. They will not get, actually, that $60 a week.” So yeah, but nah. It is not what he actually said they would get, so he backtracks immediately. And yeah, nah, those who are earning over $60,000 a year are probably not really going to get $60 a week in their hands. That one you might think about, but, actually, if he is going to up the top tax rates—let us think about this—he is going to tax people more, so take the money off them, but then yeah, nah, if you are one of those and have a baby, he will give a bit back to you, so you are actually not better off by $60 a week, because the top tax rate is going up. So Labour is going to tax you more and take more out of your pay packet, but then yeah, nah, some of you will get it back.
Then, by the way, the parental tax credit will not be there any more, so you were taking that off people. Yes, you are giving them the $60 a week, but they are not really getting $60 a week when you add it all up; they are getting more like $23 a week for 52 weeks, so yeah, nah, that does not quite add up. This is the great baby bonus.
Do you know what I think? I think that Labour had a totally different announcement to make on Monday. It actually had a bit of it with the paid parental leave, maybe, but David Cunliffe was going to give a completely different speech. Then when John Key trumped it with his excellent education policy, and when Labour members read what the commentators all said the week before—which was that they were expecting Labour to come out with a great social speech that is going to tackle this so-called growth of inequality that we are seeing and that they had made up—they all of sudden rethought it, and in big hurry had to bring forward an announcement that I think they had for a lot later in the year, and had to try to run this one out. That is why we have seen the mistakes, that is why we have seen the gaps, and that is why we have seen them not know the detail to the level that they should, and they have completely embarrassed themselves already in the first few weeks of this year.
I will tell you the main reason I am standing here supporting this Prime Minister and this Government: I have seen—through the toughest times—a Government that has supported those who have needed it most. I have seen an increase in hardship grants given to those who needed it when we saw that recession hit. I have seen extra payments for those in Christchurch, which went through employers, to keep those people attached to jobs. I have seen subsidies for wages like we have never seen before, and they are increasing rapidly.
There are many good reasons, and I am sure I could stand up here and try to take a bit of credit for that myself, but it has been because of the leadership of John Key. John Key and this Government believe in aspiration and hope for every child in this country. We believe that they are not necessarily predetermined to be a product of where and how they are born. We believe that no matter what your income is, who your parents are, or which State house you may or may not live in, there is hope, there is aspiration, and there is belief in you—that is, those children and their abilities. We may disagree in this House on what we have to do to back those kids, but no one—no one in this House, and no one outside of it—should deny that this Government cares deeply for them and will make decisions that we passionately believe are in their best interests.
I say to members in this House, and I say to anyone who may be listening, that there are far too many children in this country who are living daily lives of hell. We have more than 22,000 substantiated cases of abuse and neglect. Do you know what? In my world and for all that I know, my guess is—and it is a guess—that I reckon that is about a third of it as far as being at the level of where there should be State Child, Youth and Family intervention.
On top of that we have another 10 to 15 percent of truly vulnerable children, whom we hope we get with programmes like Family Start and Strengthening Families, but we have to say to our ourselves that with all of the investment and the money that we have been putting in for a long time—not just this Government but, quite frankly, Labour as well, right through the 2000s—we have not got the right resources to the right children early enough to see them actually have a safe, protected, and loving environment that means that they can thrive.
The Children’s Action Plan delivers that. It is not one magic bullet, not one magic thing that I will do. It is not a programme that we will address. It is a concerted way of working with more than 30 initiatives that all unapologetically put those children at the centre of all of the policy work we are doing and the community work on the ground. We are working with iwi, we are working with Whānau Ora, we are working with police and education, and we are working with health at such a level.
Two Children’s Teams already exist and we are seeing children going through them. There is one plan for that child—one plan that everyone agrees to. There is a solid relationship with an expert who can get in alongside of them and their parents. We are not just working with the child, because we know that to see the best outcomes for them you have to work with the adults around them as well. We are working on them, making sure that those children have access to the right services and the right time that they need.
There are the right staunch advocates. It is, quite frankly, being delivered by some outstanding NGOs around this country. The difference that the Children’s Team gives them is that it gives them accountability. It gives them direct access to the most senior members in their area and their region, who can break down the barriers that mean that these children cannot get access to the services that they need quickly.
Let us be honest, some of these parents do not have the capability that you or I might have to staunchly advocate for what they and their children should get by right of being in this country, by right of being New Zealanders, or by being here and having direct access to the sorts of health treatments, the kind of education, and everything else that they can. This puts that person right next to them. It then gives them a lead professional from health, education, justice, and the police.
How can a child progress when their court case—perhaps for custody or some sort of allegations that are around them—has been put off three times? How can we actually see that child make the right connections with the people they need to move forward from something horrendous—what we are seeing for far too many thousands of kids in our country? The Children’s Teams can break that down and actually give direct access to the lead experts in justice in that region, and make sure that because this child is particularly vulnerable they are fast-tracked and given priority.
When we do gateway assessments, which is when we do a full medical assessment on some of these children, what we see are far too many unmet health needs. Let us be honest, these are health needs that you and I might have identified in our own children. You know, they are not seeing right, or for some of them we are talking about club feet and not being able to walk properly—some pretty horrendous stuff. We are able to get them that sort of access.
If we want to have a debate about children and babies this year for election year, let us talk about our most vulnerable. Let us actually address the shame that we should have about how some of our children are treated by the very people who are supposed to love and protect them. Let us all carry that shame and turn it into action. Let us unashamedly say that we will put more resources into them. Let us put them at the front of the queue, ahead of our own children, because that is where they deserve to be because they actually need extra support and help.
If we, as this House, want to actually address what needs to be done for those babies and for those children, then we need to stand up together and actually recognise what it will take. It is going to take more than us. It is actually going to take the community and those NGOs. It is going to take each of those police officers out there. It is going to take our courts to actually address what needs to be done, and our health departments to recognise that, maybe, if they have got two kids with the same needs but one is vulnerable and one is not, they will prioritise that vulnerable child.
I will be the Minister who will stand up and advocate and fight for that with everything we have. If you want a fight on your hands this election about vulnerable children, let us do it, but let us stand together on it.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Between massages and golf games in Hawaii, John Key, our Prime Minister currently, watched a couple of movies. The first of those was a chance to check out his biopic, The Wolf of Wall Street. Having seen that and deciding that it was not a fair portrayal, he went on to see a movie that I watched over the summer called Now You See Me. This is a movie about a magic trick group. What the movie is about is the essence of magic, which is diversion. Distract the audience with one part of your trick while, with the other hand, setting up the illusion. Welcome to the National Party’s election year strategy: divert, divert, and distract.
Faced with the Labour Party’s popular Best Start policy, which David Farrar has told him is polling through the roof, John Key has conjured up the most pressing question of our time: should we have a new flag? My colleague David Parker calls it a flag of convenience. No need to worry about the 157,000 unemployed, no need to worry about the 260,000 kids in poverty, no need to worry about growing inequality, no need to worry about the huge number of people needing elective surgery—look here, we have got a new flag to show you!
Well, today I can exclusively reveal four of the designs that the National Party is considering for our new flag. The first of them has been proposed by John Key. However, it has been rejected because there are only four John Keys and he wants six. So we move to the second flag design. This one was come up with by Tony Ryall, worked hard on by the rest of the National Cabinet, and agreed to by John Key himself—“New Zealand for sale”. This is a popular one among the National caucus. It has gone a long way down this path and it intends to go further. But this Government does not stop when it comes to just selling things. It wants to do deals. It wants to do entrepreneurial deals, and it believes that there is money to be made in the third flag design, brought to you by Skycity and complete with poker chips. But John Key will go anywhere to get back into Government, and he has offered the fourth design to his likely coalition partner, Colin Craig. This one will go a long way. This is Colin Craig’s design for the new New Zealand flag—popular among many, we think, in the upper harbour area.
That is what the National Party is offering: a distraction, a diversion, on flag designs. Well, I say this to John Key: you cannot pay your higher mortgage with a flag. You cannot put food on the table for young kids with a flag. You cannot improve access to early childhood education with a flag. You do not create new jobs with a flag. Let us be clear. This is a Prime Minister who would not hold a referendum on asset sales alongside an election; this is a Prime Minister who would not put to the country the report of an independent group on changing our electoral system as a referendum at an election, but he will put up a flag question. This is a flag of convenience, and is it not ironic that the great monarchist himself, John Key, is the one trying to change the flag? Division, spin, denial—that is the National Party: out of touch, arrogant, and out for its mates.
Well, New Zealand deserves better than that, and it is getting that from the Labour Party. I am proud of our Best Start policy because what it says is that investing in our children is the very best and most important thing that we can do. From day one, through paid parental leave being extended to 26 weeks and through the $60 a week Best Start payment, we will be making sure that children get the best start in life. We will do it before birth, as well, through the provision of better antenatal checks. We will do it with Plunket and others getting more involved in helping vulnerable children. We will do it by extending early childhood education. This side of the House is proud of our record on early childhood education. I want to acknowledge Trevor Mallard, who was the Minister of Education when the early childhood education strategy was put in place.
This National Government has let down young children. It has taken its eye off the ball in early childhood education. Labour will expand access to 25 free hours a week, expanding access particularly in low-income areas, and improving the quality of early childhood education through returning to having fully 100 percent qualified teachers.
This has not come from nowhere. This comes from an evidence base. New Zealanders should be very grateful to all of the children born in 1972 in Dunedin, who have become part of the longitudinal study—the best longitudinal study in the world—that gives us the evidence that says that making these interventions in the early years is the best thing that we can do. The Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty, which was set up by that Government and ignored by that Government, said that we must invest in children in the early years. It quoted the OECD, which said to start with a universal payment and then move to more targeting as children get older. That is what Labour has done, and that is what that Government over there has ignored.
You can take all of the evidence in the world or you can just look at a practical example. My granddaughter has come back from Australia to live in New Zealand, and she has had the opportunity of early access to early childhood education for free in Australia. The difference it has made to her social skills, to her ability to communicate—she has got that good start in life. Every New Zealand child deserves that start in life, but this National Government would deny that to children in New Zealand. Here we have the criticism from National members that somehow or other a universal payment is wrong. Well, are they arguing against national superannuation? No, they are not. So they deny to children what they will give to our seniors in terms of universality.
I must be getting a little bit old because I am starting to look back at the 1970s with some kind of nostalgic glow. In the 1970s New Zealanders said: “Let’s include people. Let’s do things that all New Zealanders benefit from. Let’s say that the community that is getting the same benefits will share those and see them as important for each other.” Part of universality is having a shared, common experience. It is about saying that we are all in this together; we will all get the benefit of this. Raising kids is expensive. It puts pressure on the finances of all families. Why is this National Government so determined to exclude people? Why does it want to stop people from getting a benefit that will actually help bring up children? This Government has got principles that it wants to burn away—a sudden conversion to paid parental leave and a sudden conversion to teacher professional development, having cut the funding for that in two Budgets earlier in its term. The National Government is talking about principals, but they are the ones who give you detention rather than the ones that might actually come from any kind of value base.
The Best Start policy is just the beginning from this Labour Party. We know that along with providing for our children, we must develop a productive economy that delivers jobs, not a speculators’ economy or one that works for property investors. The National Government likes to call it a “rock star” economy. Well, it is a bit more Cliff Richard than it is Lorde. It needs to get a modern, innovative economy. Move from volume to value. Make sure those logs that sit there when I go down to the stadium do not go overseas unprocessed but actually get added value in New Zealand, where we can create jobs.
The Labour Party is a party built on the idea that everyone gets a fair go. We will make sure that there is opportunity for all people, and give hope to all people. That starts with investing in our children. I am proud of our Best Start policy. That National Government has let children down. When Labour is elected into Government later this year, we will be the party for the children of all New Zealanders.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Tim Groser.
Hon Annette King: Is that a $2,000 suit?
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): No, it is not. It is a great pleasure to get up in the first parliamentary debate to support the Prime Minister’s statement and to support this Government. I think we feel very excited about this year. We see new opportunities. We welcome some new faces into Parliament from different parties. And I think we feel that New Zealand is in a very good space.
I guess that starts with framing the debate at the opening of this year. So what we have is the Prime Minister’s statement—and I will come to that—and the response of Mr Cunliffe, the Leader of the Opposition. I want to start with the opening accusation of Mr Cunliffe, when he said that the Prime Minister is “out of touch”. Well, I think that is a very interesting charge, and I think it is the right question, but it does beg the question of who is out of touch.
So let us look at this through the framework—not the whole gamut of the Prime Minister’s statement; I am not going to go into the extraordinary progress we have made in, for example, reducing the crime rate, making New Zealanders feel safe in their homes. I will stick to the broader economic framework. Contrary to what Mr Robertson has just said—the other Mr Robertson, of course, I say to Assistant Speaker Robertson—about a “rock star” economy, it is not our phrase. As the Minister of Finance has pointed out, it is somebody else’s phrase. It is a bit of an exaggeration except, perhaps, in relation to looking at other developed economies, some of which would indeed probably use that phrase if they were in a position to enjoy statistics like we are enjoying in this country. Let us use the rather more sober statement of the chief economist of the New Zealand Treasury to the Finance and Expenditure Committee just 2 or 3 days ago, where he said: “It’s no secret that New Zealand is in an enviable position.”
Then we got the Moody’s annual update about New Zealand to its investors—an incredibly positive statement based on what it said were four factors. They were New Zealand’s economic strength—it gave that a high-plus. Institutional strength of this country—it graded that very high-plus. Fiscal strength—very high. The last of the four is interesting—susceptibility to event risk is low. Well, I am not quite sure that I would quite agree with that last point, because there is a general election coming up at the end of this year. New Zealanders are going to either pick a Government that is going to carry on in the direction underlying Moody’s and other commentators’ assessments of New Zealand or choose a Labour-Green Government that fundamentally thinks New Zealand is in a shocking space, is moving in the wrong direction, and that will go into a completely different space. So I would not actually agree with Moody’s that our susceptibility to event risk is quite correctly described as low. I think we need to wait and see the verdict of the New Zealand people before we can make a realistic assessment of that.
Then we also have this week the ANZ bank’s interesting report under the title Key Themes for 2014—Beyond the Economic Cycle. How did the ANZ bank put it? It said: “The economic upswing is one thing, but the New Zealand economy is also going through a material transition. We’re moving from legacy to opportunity,”. Well, I think that is exactly right, and that is actually framing extremely well the whole strategy of this Government for dealing with a legacy of issues that were extremely taxing: the projection of deficits moving forward for ever, massive debt if we did not move, and then, on the top of that, out of left field, the global financial crisis and the disastrous Canterbury earthquake. So we have had to deal with that legacy. I think that the Ministers who have had the front-line responsibility for that have done an absolutely outstanding job.
It is exactly as the ANZ bank put it: “We’re are now moving from legacy to opportunity”. The whole of the Prime Minister’s statement to the nation is about moving now to opportunity. It is about consolidating the progress that we have made over the course of the last 5½ years. It is about growing from it. It is about developing new ideas—and we have got lots of new ideas. We are so far removed from the caricature of a tired Government as to make it a ludicrous proposition. We are ready to do that, but we will maintain the direction that New Zealand is on because we are convinced that this is a good direction for our country.
Let us look at the alternative Labour interpretation of where New Zealand sits. This is a dramatically different view, and the danger here is that it provides the basis for dramatically different policy directions in the event that the New Zealand people do support its alternative view. We understand Opposition politics—of course we understand that. We understand that a little bit of poetic licence is possible. But utter hogwash is likely to be swept down the political toilet. This is a policy structure that is based on a delusory view of where New Zealand stands. It is trying to create an impression—let me put this in general terms—that New Zealand is going nowhere, that New Zealanders are losing hope, that New Zealand is going backwards, and that this is “a speculator’s paradise”, which is the phrase that the Leader of the Opposition used. It is trying to foment dissatisfaction, completely ignoring all of the lessons, particularly from the last 3 years of Labour’s Government. It is painting a picture of hopelessness. Is this even remotely close to the reality exemplified by those quotations that I used from independent commentators? I do not think it is even remotely in touch with where we are as a country.
First of all, this proposition that you have got to be a dairy farmer or a homeowner in Christchurch receiving an insurance cheque to have any glimmer of hope is complete and utter nonsense. In the last assessment of regional growth, as recently as November last year, every single one of the 14 regions of our country is moving forward, and 12 out of 14 are experiencing the strongest growth in over a decade. What, just a few dairy farmers and people who are receiving insurance cheques? Get real. My advice would be: get in touch with where New Zealand is.
Then, and I will not go into it yet again—we have had yet another debate on this in question time—there is income equality. The Leader of the Opposition said that “New Zealand has become more and more divided, because those in the middle are struggling, and because the poor are going backwards.” Well, that is just hogwash. Everybody would love to have some more money in their pockets, and we are trying to find policies—and I think that we are—to deliver that result. But this idea of hopelessness and people losing confidence is complete nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever of growing inequality in this country.
We have created 53,000 new jobs. There was the accusation that wages will need to rise in line with prices. Wages are rising faster than prices. And when we got on to structural economic policy, we again got a completely delusory view of where New Zealand sits. The statement was made that we are cutting research and development for our most innovative industries. Examples were given about how we need to stop exporting carcasses and process them here. As Mr Joyce pointed out, read the figures. Look at the facts. You are out of touch with where New Zealand is. Only 2 percent of New Zealand carcasses are exported. The rest are all processed in New Zealand. Get in touch with where New Zealand is—not some half-forgotten memory of where we were 40 years ago. Get in touch is my advice to Labour. Get in touch. Cutting research and development? Get in touch with the facts.
Hon Annette King: Who cut R and D in their first Budget?
Hon TIM GROSER: The Minister of Economic Development has just announced that we spent $1.36 billion on innovation-related expenditure. This is the highest total. The member questions where the private sector is. I would recommend to her that she get hold of one of the Government’s business growth strategy publications on research and development and what she will find very early on—from memory it is on about page 4 or 5—is a very intriguing graph that shows the share of private business expenditure on research and development in a range of OECD countries. And, actually, in the last few years the growth rate of New Zealand private sector research and development did not need some dodgy tax haven for tax accountants to try to milk their company reports; it needed sound policies. And, actually, we are doing very, very well.
We understand the politics of this—we understand the politics of this. The Green Party has eaten its lunch, so it is lurching to the left. I think one of our leaders in this House is out of touch, and it is not the Prime Minister; it is Mr Cunliffe.
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): The previous speaker, Tim Groser, told us that the Opposition is preaching a message of hopelessness to New Zealanders as we go into election year. I think the previous speaker and other members opposite should actually stop and listen to the narrative of hope that we are giving to New Zealanders. Labour will build a future. It will build an economy for all New Zealanders. Unlike the present New Zealand we are living in, it will be a fair and just society where everybody can live with some dignity, it will have an environment that we are proud to protect, and it will be a nation that we can be proud of.
We are not ashamed to have big visions for New Zealand. When we come to be the Government at the end of this year, this will be the New Zealand that we strive to create. Labour will restore a country based on values that work. It will be that a full day’s work will cover the basics. A family that works hard for 40 hours a week but still struggles to put food on the table and lives in poverty is not good enough. There will be more jobs available, and wages will catch up with prices.
New Zealanders will pay what is fair, whether it is for their power bill, their tax bill, or their grocery bill. This is the kind of New Zealand that we believe in. We believe that every child in this country will have what they need to start a healthy life and to start learning early, to fulfil every bit of their potential. That is not what is happening now. Instead, what we have is a Government that is arrogant, out of touch, and out for its mates, and no other speech in this House during this debate than the one we have just heard exemplifies that more.
We do have a lot of competition for this arrogance and out-of-touch nature. Only hours ago one of the National Ministers delivered a speech to the UN where she told assembled international delegates that 8,000 red-zoned homeowners in Christchurch were put out of their land because their land presented unacceptable levels of life risk. Well, this is news to many people. It is news to anybody who lives in Christchurch, actually, that this is the case. She told the assembled delegates that the land had liquefied and now it was swamp and water. Well, maybe the Minister should get out of her ivory tower and take a drive through Christchurch, take a drive through the residential red zone. That is right. She can drive. She does not need to take a boat, because the land is not still liquefied in water and swamp.
But I suspect that the Minister who made these comments is adding to the woes that the National caucus seem to have, and that is around occupational health and safety. We have seen the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee, in this House sporting a bandaged middle finger. We have to believe that actually there is some kind of repetitive strain disorder from continually giving Cantabrians the middle finger, which is creeping into the National caucus.
This is a Government that is arrogant and out of touch. We were told by the previous speaker that it was hogwash—the growing inequality in this country. Well, I will go back and tell the constituents in Wigram that it is hogwash that they cannot make ends meet. I am sure they will be convinced about that. We were told that there was no evidence that the poor, as he called them, and the middle class were struggling. Well, the Minister should tell that to the 265,000 children in this country who are living in poverty. That is 25 percent of our children. He should tell that to the more than 40,000 children who have been hospitalised for poverty-related diseases since 2008. What more evidence does that Minister need that inequality and poverty are real in this country?
That Minister exemplified exactly what this Government has come to represent: a Government that is out of touch and that does not understand what it is like for ordinary New Zealanders. It does not understand the struggles that are happening in homes all over this country every day. It is not hogwash; it is the lived reality for too many New Zealanders’ families and their children.
That is why Labour is proud of the measures it is taking to give every child in New Zealand the best start in life. We will offer financial support. We will offer that to 95 percent of New Zealand families. Obviously, this has rattled National Government members. It is not polling well for them, obviously. Obviously, they are getting rattled by it because, despite all their claims, there is absolutely no criticism of the fact that we pay a universal superannuation. They are not quibbling over that. But why are they refusing to accept that all our children deserve some kind of help?
The commitment that we are making to further the access to early childhood education is something we can be proud of as a party, and something we will be proud of as a Government, when we implement it. We do believe in paid parental leave. We believe that this is important, and we believe that it is important to back the parents of our children at this important time in their lives, when their children are born.
But our belief in our children and our commitment to our children does not just begin when they are born. As my colleagues have talked about, we believe that this support for families needs to start even before birth. That is why we are making a commitment around antenatal initiatives. My colleague the Hon Annette King has spoken about that at length in this House. These are things that we can be proud of.
We had the previous speaker who got up and, like his colleagues the Prime Minister and the Minister of Science and Innovation, Steven Joyce, spoke a lot of rhetoric about the commitment to research and development and innovation that this Government is putting in. He told us that research and development tax credits had to go because they were being rorted by people. Well, people should stop and consider that these research and development credits did not even get through a full filing period before they were scrapped. Labour believes, in its commitment to New Zealand businesses, that we will actually let them make some decisions around what is needed in their businesses to be truly innovative, and that we will back them and trust them because we know that the success of our country lies in their ability to innovate. We will facilitate that. Unfortunately, this Government’s high rhetoric on innovation has not been matched by activity.
Let us have a look at some of the initiatives that the Government likes to speak the big game about. There is the much-vaunted Callaghan Innovation. Actually, the Advanced Technology Institute was an idea that Labour did back in its conceptual form because it did offer an opportunity to really get behind our high-value manufacturing sector—for us to really do something about moving to a 21st century economy, to a productive economy where a manufacturing base could exist. But we have not seen the kind of action out of Callaghan Innovation that either we need as a nation or the name is worthy of.
Sir Paul Callaghan was a New Zealander who believed that we need to concentrate very carefully on several things to make our country and our economy better, and, unfortunately, we are not seeing these come out of Callaghan Innovation. What we have seen are delays. We had a business plan for Callaghan Innovation that gathered dust for goodness knows how long on the Minister’s desk before it was quietly released into the ether just before Christmas. This was overdue. But what is worse is that we were having Callaghan Innovation come into being and Industrial Research Ltd being scrapped even before there was a plan in place. This is an instance of putting the cart before the horse.
We have Callaghan Innovation, without a business plan, hocking off New Zealand intellectual property to international buyers and not keeping jobs in New Zealand. The kind of New Zealand we believe in is one that looks after its children. It wants to give them the best start in life, and it wants to have a New Zealand where jobs can be created. But we know that in order for us to create jobs we need a productive economy. We need one where businesses can be innovative, where we do have the infrastructure in place in order to achieve that, and we are not seeing that. We want to give our children the best start, and to do that we need to address the fundamentals in our economy.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe i te tīmatanga mai o tēnei o ngā tau, ngā mihi o te Tau Hou ki a koe, otirā, ki ngā mema o te Pāremata. Ā, ki ngā mema Māori, e Poto tēnā koe, haere mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata.
[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Huge greetings to you at the commencement of this of the many years. New Year salutations to you and indeed to members of Parliament. In regard to Māori members, greetings to you Poto, welcome into the House of Parliament.]
I had to rough it over the holidays and go for a week’s break in Rarotonga. It was hard work! The sweat dripped off my brow as I lay out there and dozed in the nice warm water, but somebody had to do it, and I chose myself and my wife. But I am one of those people who, when you go away, after about 7 days I have got to come home. I am the sort of fella who can go away, sure, and enjoy a little bit of a rest, but 7 days is about it—2 weeks at a stretch, but 7 days is about it. I have got to get home. It was really brought home to me, I suppose, after that, when I did get back—for the rest of the holidays I pretty much stuck around home base—the old adage “Home is where the heart is.” Over that time, it was good to reflect. I had the opportunity to think about my paradise—not just about home, Aotearoa, because, as I say, I reflected on how we are pretty lucky here, and people say it time and time again.
But everyone’s paradise is different. In Māori situations, many Māori talk about the centre of the universe, whether that be Waipiro Bay—nobody knows where Waipiro Bay is—or it might be Ruātoki, or it might be Ruatāhuna, or it might be Horohoro. Who knows? But they are small communities because people feel comfortable. I felt comfortable when I went back to my paradise in Rotorua, looking out across the lake, going out and getting 20—oh no, sorry, that is over the limit. It was about five or six fish that I was able to get, and I am a law-abiding citizen. So that was home base.
The one thing about home base for me is that I also had the opportunity to be a speaker on our marae as we farewelled some of our dead. We had three tangi that I had to take care of for our people at home. As I say, you feel comfortable at home. It is sort of like falling into a beanbag—everything fits around you—or going back to your own bed to sleep, which I am sure all of us members of Parliament will understand, living in motels for a lot of the time. So this is home. It is important to us. It is an important part of who we are as a country—Māori, Pākehā, immigrants, whoever you are, home is where the heart is. That is pretty much where we are going to be spending a lot of our focus. If it is so important to us, then we have to give it attention and look after not only its resources but its people. We are unique. This place is special. We must look after it.
I tended to take for granted that whole notion until, as I say, I had to be involved in these activities of tangi. But I know that sometimes it is not all that rosy, because when you are at home you get your own people who either love you to death or kill you off for not doing enough. That is one of the stumbling blocks, but it is beautiful because you know at least when people give you attention, they love you. That, I suppose, in a sense—[Interruption] Tēnā koe, Minister Borrows—is what Whānau Ora is all about. It is about being able to live as whānau, live in well-being, and live in control of your life, and being able to take care of yourself and also of others, and for others to also take care of you in times of difficulty. It would be no surprise in this House that Whānau Ora is the Māori Party’s cornerstone policy. It is about supporting each other and every whānau to build that resilience that is needed, starting with the most basic block, which is the whānau, the family. Strong families shape and nurture strong individuals and communities, and, ultimately, a stronger, more connected, and resilient nation.
When I tried to put this to an audience yesterday when I was opening—or rededicating—the wharenui at Te Puke High School, just over the hill from your electorate, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, it was funny, because I looked at all the staff, and they were all welcomed with me, which seemed strange at the time. But I tried to tell the audience, when asked to say a few words, that the idea of having wharenui on school premises dates back to probably about the 1970s and 1980s, when there was an opportunity to bring Māori kids in and to give them some sense of pride, some sense of ownership of the school, and to have a place where they felt comfortable. Yet here we were, 20 or 30 years down the line, and we had an audience over there who were mostly teachers, and none of them were Māori—from memory—coming on with me as a visitor.
I thought to myself that we have got to get away from thinking that things Māori are only for Māori. There are so many things in the Māori culture and Māori society that are wonderful for this nation, and yet sometimes they are so close to us that we do not recognise them. I hope that as part of where we are taking this nation into the future, people do take that line. It is probably significant even now, as we talk about the possibilities of a new flag, that that debate continues. But let us think back 10, 20 years ago, when Hinewehi Mohi first sung the national anthem in Māori. She was condemned, she was knocked over, she was put down. Now every day when we stand up in front of an All Black test, or whatever it might be, people stand proud by that simple move that has changed this nation. Whānau Ora is all about that—changing this nation and changing how we do things. I hope that as we talk about it into the future, we maintain that whole focus on whānau.
I have got to say and make it absolutely clear for those who might be a bit slow on the uptake that Whānau Ora is for all whānau—for all whānau who live here in Aotearoa, whether they be Māori, Pasifika, Pākehā, Asian, or otherwise. Whānau Ora is for everyone. Let us make that clear. I want to also make it perfectly clear that Whānau Ora is not just a programme to be delivered by NGOs or a community group. It is not to be a rapid response service to just fix up whānau quickly and say that we have done our job, where the paternalistic hand of the State comes in over the top and sorts things out. No way. That is not what Whānau Ora is all about. We are about seeking to shift the power back from providers, agencies, politicians, and others to the core unit of our existence, which is whānau, families. Our ultimate mission is to enable families to take back the control over their lives. We believe in giving citizens the means, the knowledge, and the power to take back control over their lives, so they can access the services and also understand how to utilise them. Whānau Ora is the Māori Party flagship policy, and we will be following that up, right through to the election. It is a policy that is like no other, and perhaps that is why some of the members of this House have struggled to really grasp it, because we are so used to that paternalistic attitude of the State coming in over the top.
So what does Whānau Ora look like in practice? I suppose I cannot talk for anybody else, but I like to hope that, as a member of Parliament who espouses Whānau Ora, I live that notion. My family of five children—all of them are speakers of Māori. Some might say, oh well, that is nice to have, but in fact it has not disadvantaged them in any way, because the eldest is a doctor, the other two are teachers, and two are in the film industry. One of them this afternoon took off to Mexico, as part of kura kaupapa Māori, because Spanish is their second language, and English is their third language. That is Whānau Ora in practice.
Make no mistake—a part of that is obviously the importance of the Māori language into the future. We must be very careful to believe that, and not fall into complacency about the state of the Māori language. It is in a precarious state. Of course, the Minister of Māori Affairs will be taking a draft Māori language strategy out for consultation very soon. The foundation of that strategy is that whānau, hapū, and iwi will have rangatiratanga over Te Reo Māori, and we are encouraging people to take a part of that discussion and report back. Of course, it does involve a new model. There is an electoral college that will basically oversee things. But, anyway, that is up for debate and discussion as we head into the future. When we have cultural strength and pride, then that will lead to social and economic outcomes for all New Zealanders. So we would encourage that discussion.
Finally, I just want to talk very briefly around the leap of faith that is going to be needed for this country into the future. I talked to the audience at Te Puke and told them not to box things into just Māori things over there. We do not have to be a part of it—we cannot be a part of it. I have talked to them about the opportunities that are available for them to be a part of the Māori world, and for us to move together as a country. I think they got the message. I also told them about the constitutional review, which was at the bigger end of the scale around the discussion as a country. I think that they will take that message up because they believe also that we can move forward together in this country. We must move forward together, where we learn off each other—take the good things of each other’s culture and move ourselves forward as a nation. I look forward to taking the rest of the Māori Party candidates into the next election, when we will be highlighting Whānau Ora for the betterment of this country as a whole.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to take the opportunity in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement to range over a few areas. The first one I would like to deal with is the increasing desperation of the Prime Minister, to the point where he has returned Peter Dunne to his ministry, and the error that he has made in giving Peter Dunne the responsibility for information security and the oversight of the Government Chief Information Officer. In the House today the Hon Peter Dunne refused to deny being the leak or the person who made the draft Kitteridge report available to the Dominion Post. I think 99 percent of New Zealanders who have considered this issue agree with the Prime Minister that Mr Dunne was the source of that leak, or at least the Prime Minister in 2013. He thinks that these things might change over time.
New Zealanders have to have confidence that the information that they are giving to the Government is going to be held properly secure, and to do that the person who has political responsibility and oversight of the Government Chief Information Officer has to be seen to be above reproach, beyond reproach. Peter Dunne cannot be in that category. So what we have now—I mean, occasionally poachers turn gamekeepers. The example of Trevor de Cleene in the taxation area is one that I know well. He was a lawyer who used every tax rort that was around, and then became, in those days, an under-secretary in a Government and closed them all up again. That was good. But the difference with Trevor de Cleene was that he fronted up. He was honest. He was straightforward. He admitted what he had been doing in rorting. What we have in the House today is Peter Dunne not being prepared to stand up and take responsibility for his actions in leaking, or to deny it.
I will say to Peter Dunne that I am 99 percent certain that he leaked it, but I have worked with him for a long time and my experience with him is that he tells the truth in the House. If he came into the House and denied it, I am sure the House would accept his word. But my challenge to him—and it is a challenge that we will be putting on a regular basis to him, because the good thing about question time is the ability to hold Ministers responsible for their current responsibilities—is that we will be asking him why New Zealanders should trust him to keep their information secure, when he leaked the draft Kitteridge report into the Government Communications Security Bureau. It is a relatively simple area. What is a more important area, and it sits in behind it, is how it is possible that the Prime Minister gives information security to Peter Dunne.
Sitting opposite is Maurice Williamson. Maurice has almost certainly forgotten more about information security than most people in the House have ever known. He is someone who has had a lot of experience in the area. I think he had one little lapse with information security himself. It must have been back in about 1990, when he left some floppy disks down the back of his couch.
Hon Maurice Williamson: 1988.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh no, was it change of Government time—time of change of Government? The floppy disks had the National Party canvassing system on them and a letter that he wrote asking to be let off a speeding fine because of alleged urgent public business when he was in Opposition. The problem was that soon after that he became Minister of Transport and it was slightly embarrassing at the time. I think the member knows now to be very careful with what he does on couches to ensure that things do not get lost down the back of the couch. So that is one area.
The one other area that has to do with Peter Dunne that I want to express some concerns about is his apparent reincarnation in the area of Associate Minister of Health and his responsibility for psychoactive substances. I think that if there was an area that the House got badly wrong last year, it was that psychoactive substances area, and it was to, effectively, decriminalise that. I voted for it, so I got it wrong, but so did Peter Dunne as the Minister responsible for the legislation. Over the break I did a half-page ad in the Hutt News, and included in it was a question about whether people thought that legal highs should be totally banned. The view was unanimous. There was not a person in the Hutt who returned that survey form who thought that the current law with legal highs was right. [Interruption] Sorry?
Mike Sabin: The whole world says that.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What I am saying is that we have got it wrong. I think that Mike Sabin’s endorsement of legal highs, which we are hearing across the House now, is something that is disgraceful—something that is disgraceful. I think that area has to be reviewed. The law cannot last and I hope that we will get National Party support on that.
I will now move to the question of the flag. As internal affairs spokesperson, I have quite a lot of interest in this from a Labour Party perspective. I think the flag should be changed. I agree with my colleagues who know that John Key has brought it up as a diversion, but the thing about diversions is that they work only when people do not work out it is a diversion. This diversion is so transparent—everyone can see through it—that it will not fool anyone. So we might as well get on with the debate. My view is that we should change. My view is that we can do it like we did with the national anthem. I do not know whether there is anyone else in the House who can remember standing up for “God Save the Queen” in the theatres. That is what we used to do. Most people will be surprised to know that “God Save the Queen” is still the national anthem for New Zealand. “God Save the Queen” is still one of the two national anthems for New Zealand. What we decided to do many years ago was to have two. Over a period of time one of them fell into disuse—“God Save the Queen”. I think they bring it out every now and again, when a royal arrives or when one of our ships goes into a UK port, but that is about the limit of it.
I think we should do the same with the flag. My view is that if we talk about the Olympics, and we talk about national sporting teams, of course they want a flag that does not look like Australia’s. I have been to enough Commonwealth and Olympic Games to know that we have got to have something that is distinctive and different. If the Returned Services Association in Lower Hutt wants to fly the current ensign—the current New Zealand flag—when it parades, who should stop it?
Grant Robertson: Still a diversion.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I agree it is still a diversion. Everyone knows it is a diversion, but let us just get on with the change.
The last point I will make is that we are now seeing the effects in our economy and in our society of the education cuts presided over by Anne Tolley when she was Minister of Education and she cut early childhood education, and when she was Minister for Tertiary Education and she cut at that time industry training. We are suffering as a result of that. Michael Woodhouse is having to work a little harder than he is used to, approving all the immigration permits for people to come to New Zealand, because 5 years ago the National Party cut the training that would have meant that Kiwis could do the jobs that Michael Woodhouse is now importing people from around the world to do.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. Five minutes—Jan Logie.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. In the words of Russel Norman, the 2014 election offers New Zealanders the opportunity to make history by electing the first strong, green, genuinely progressive Government in more than a generation. In my words, the next wave of progressive change that is sweeping the world is one promoting protection of the environment and challenging violence against women and children. The next wave of green, progressive Government will value us all and work creatively and in a committed way to ensure all of us are safe and our mana is kept intact, so that we can all contribute and truly enjoy this wonderful place in which we live.
We do have a terrible problem in New Zealand. All too many of our women and children, and occasionally men, are hurt or killed through domestic violence and sexual violence. Last year, in 2 weeks, over 110,000 New Zealanders signed a petition demanding that the Government take action in the wake of the rapes in Auckland that left victims exposed and unable to access justice.
Last year and again this year there has been a public outpouring of grief and bewilderment at the deaths of women and children who should have been protected by our systems.
So what has this Government done to bring that justice, to deliver for New Zealand women and children? Well, not much that has been helpful and, sadly, it has done all too much to make things a lot worse. Admittedly, this Government has supported our inquiry into funding for specialist sexual violence services, which has recently received 996 submissions—a phenomenal effort when so many New Zealanders really care, because this issue is vitally important. We cannot afford not to increase funding. I expect—and I know the sector and all of our communities definitely expect—to see a significant increase in funding this year. It has been encouraging to work with the Government on this—even although they call us fringe Taliban monsters—and we thank them for that cooperation.
But, to be honest, this initiative is at odds with the rest of this Government’s actions, and I would like to focus on the portfolio of just one Minister to give an example of how bad things have become—to focus on justice. Judith Collins stopped the Law Commission’s work to create a justice system where more than one in 100 victims of sexual abuse might be able to get justice. She just took this work, mid-process, off the agenda because she did not like a few of the recommendations.
She changed the Evidence Act to make it more difficult to take cases to court that rely on “he said” or “she said” evidence”—i.e., mostly domestic violence and sexual violence cases. She restructured the Family Court to save money for the Crown, rather than fixing the very well-documented problems for victims of domestic violence and their children. She even removed the clause in the Act that required judges to do a risk assessment if there were allegations of violence. She made New Zealand one of the only countries in the world to ban lawyers from parts of the process in the Family Court. Consider that in the context of domestic violence and what that will mean for those women and their children.
Although she added economic abuse to this Act, that was done knowing that the provision against psychological abuse is failing miserably and, in that context, this provision has very little chance of making a difference. She made cuts to access to legal aid, which means that some women are now paying thousands of dollars putting liens on their houses to be able to get protection orders. She introduced fees of around $900 to even access the courts.
This is what this Government’s commitment is to the safety of women and children. This year the country will have a choice of how to vote. Vote to protect us, or vote to undermine our safety.
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): This year we are looking forward to a change in Government, but there are things this Government can do ahead of that, and one of those is to actually meet its obligations in terms of GE food labelling.
For 10 years Governments have either not monitored or not enforced the rules around the labelling of genetically engineered foods and because of that consumers have not had choice. We want that choice. We want GE foods labelled. It is actually on the Ministry of Primary Industry’s website—the actual requirements, when it is required, when there is discretion, and the range of coverage is in there. But what have these Governments done? What has this Government done? It has missed it. It has been brought to its attention and it has still missed it. The reason why it is so critical that people should have choice is that there are toxins in genetically engineered food. Just by the sheer nature of the genetic engineering, there are toxins in there. The two main—
Simon O’Connor: What a load of rubbish. Go and read a science book. Go and do Science 101.
STEFFAN BROWNING: Can you please just quieten down for a while there?
Hon Member: Come back to Mother Earth.
STEFFAN BROWNING: I was waiting for the Assistant Speaker to intervene, maybe. Toxins in GE food—there are two main types. They are resistant to insects in one case. If that is the case, you have got Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in there. The Cry gene is inserted in there, and by the very nature of that genetic engineering, the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin is throughout that plant. It goes right through into the food that is harvested and consumed by people and we now know that it goes right through into foetal blood. It does not just go through the digestive system and get spat out. No, it does not; it is getting absorbed, and that is a toxin that we do not want in that form.
The other one in particular that is well-known is glyphosate. Glyphosate has been used heavily on genetically engineered soy and other crops because they are herbicide-resistant, to make it easier for farmers to dodge some cultivation and other forms of weed control. But since when do we want our food doused with a herbicide when we know that that food is going to have far more of that herbicide in it right through to harvest, right through processing, right into the kitchen, and into the food of our children and ourselves? We need to be able to choose whether we have that food or not. There is a 2½ times greater use of these herbicides on genetically engineered crops. I want to choose and most New Zealanders do.
Out of something like 60 applications for genetically engineered lines that Food Standards Australia New Zealand considers on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, there are more than 85 lines that have been approved. That is for soybean, canola, lucerne, corn, sugar beet, rice, potato, and cotton—over 80. There are some fresh ones in the pipeline, sitting there waiting at the moment. Another one is canola—again, herbicide-resistant to glyphosate. There are more. There is another one for the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin to go right through soybeans. We are using a huge amount more of soy in New Zealand than we ever, ever did before and it is totally pervasive through the food supply. We deserve to have that food labelled if it has got GE in it.
The real concern, of course, is even the new ones that have resistance to three different herbicides, such as 2,4-D. I do not want food sprayed with 2,4-D, glyphosate, or glufosinate-ammonium, but that is what is being ticked through and rubber-stamped. This Government has not done anything about monitoring and enforcing the labelling that its own Ministry for Primary Industries is meant to do. The Greens will ensure this happens. Thank you.
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): It is a pleasure to take a call. At the beginning of this election year, it is good for people to have a look a little bit below what is immediately in front of them. In other words, do not always judge a book by its cover. I guess that is a fair enough comment, after listening to the last speech. It is also interesting to remember that there is a sales pitch that goes on. The National Party has started off the year with a bit of a hiss and a roar. It has talked about education. It has been interesting to watch the Dave and Norm smoke-and-mirrors show. They have responded to that.
John Key was talking about education and he has put up a number of ideas, four of which—what do you know—the education sector, surprisingly, loves. He talked about rewarding outstanding teachers by paying them more and giving them more responsibility. He talked about keeping good teachers in the classroom and allowing schools to work together in clusters so that those who are good principals, good at administration, and good at getting the best out of their staff and their students are able to help other schools within that near vicinity. We know a lot about education in South Taranaki because we remember the legacy. If the member for Hutt South does the round the mountain cycle tour next year, he will be pleased to note that on a certain farm around Auroa there is still a billboard that says “It is still open season on Mallards.”, so many years after the event.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is it Auroa School?
Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Yes, Auroa School. Yes, you managed to leave that one open, former Minister Mallard. And I tell you what: the headmaster at Auroa School, Heath Chittenden, is bound to be an expert headmaster—maybe that is politically incorrect; an expert principal—because that guy is the gun. At about 35 years of age, he is getting incredible results out of those country kids.
National has come up with a policy that talks about rewarding outstanding teachers. It talks about making schools better. It talks about keeping good teachers in the classroom and helping kids learn, at a cost of $359 million. What did Labour and the Greens say? What did the Dave and Norm smoke-and-mirrors mantra say? They said: “Don’t go looking there. Don’t go looking at education, because we haven’t thought about education just yet, but you have to go and look at poverty. Don’t look at education; look at poverty. Look at all the free money we will give you if ever we have the privilege of being on the Treasury benches!”.
What they did not talk about in respect of poverty, for instance, was insulating 250,000 homes, mainly affecting people who are living below the minimum wage or on the minimum wage. The policy is working to put young people in a place so that when they do get to school, they can learn, they can listen, and they can achieve in the same way as, for instance, the extension of the breakfast in schools programme is working. But they did not want to look at that. They would not even recite that. They do not want to address education.
They have not said what they will do in my own area of work around welfare fraud. The National Party says we will stop welfare fraud. We will hold fraudsters to account. The tens of millions of dollars that people are getting away with, ripping off the system, we are going to claw back for this Government so we can take that money and we can put it into areas, principally, around health, education, and welfare.
But what does Dave and Norm’s smoke-and-mirrors show say? “Don’t go looking there. Don’t go looking there. Don’t look for welfare fraud.” They say people offend only because they are poor, forgetting the fact that hundreds of thousands of people who are receiving welfare benefits in this country do not rip anybody off. They are struggling just as hard as they can to make ends meet, and they can do it without committing crime. But Labour and the Greens say: “Don’t go over there. Don’t go over there. National is doing it only to distract us from the fact that its rich mates are ripping off the tax system.” And yet what did Labour do around taxes and around clawing back tax rip-offs when it was in Government? Nothing. What has National done in the last 3 years? An increase of $200 million of new spend to get that tax back.
What we know is this: most beneficiaries do not offend. We have spent $200 million of new money from this Government on a zero budget to get that money back in, so that we can spend it for the good of our people—for the good of the very people whom those people on the other side say they represent.
But what that would-be Government is also saying is this: you cannot fight two types of fraud at the same time. Well, I reckon that is rubbish. This Government is proving it is rubbish. We can think about things and do things at the same time. We can catch people ripping off welfare and we can catch people ripping off taxes at the same time, and we are prepared to put our money right there where it counts.
Then we have got two views on the economy. We have got the National Party saying: “Let’s grow the economy. Let’s do business. Let’s help businesses create new jobs. Let’s back Kiwis to do more in their own country.”. There are several examples of that around farming and around movie production and those sorts of things. But Labour and the Greens—here we go again. The Dave and Norm smoke-and-mirrors show says: “Don’t look at all those good ideas. We’re not interested in helping anyone do business because we know that in spite of the fact that 95 percent of everyone in this country is employed by a business rather than being self-employed, in any event”—this is Labour’s mantra—“every one of those employers gets there just by standing on the necks of the people whom they employ.”
It is a doomsday scenario. They keep talking about a manufacturing crisis in this country, forgetting that we actually have an economy that is doing incredibly well by international and independent assessment. We know it, and unfortunately the Opposition knows it, and the problem for those members is they now have to get off this horse. They have to change horses, because they are on a horse that has been saying the economy is stuffed, we are going nowhere, it is all wrong, it is doom and gloom, there is nothing we can do about it, and it has had it.
Yet those international commentators are independently looking at our economy and saying that we are rock stars. They are saying that this is damned good. By international standards, this is great and we need to get there too. At some stage over the next 5 or 6 months we are going to have to see Labour and the Greens get off the horse that says we are going to hell in a handcart in this economy, and get on a horse that says that actually this is pretty good and they would do all of that stuff and more. But no one is going to believe them. No one is going to believe them because they have actually countered every step that this Government has taken in order to create a better country for New Zealanders in respect of business, welfare, health, and education.
We are going to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar in this country, we are going to get the country back into surplus, and we are going to pay off debt rather than leaving it for our kids. But Labour is saying: “No, no, no. We are going spend more, we are going to deal more, somehow we are going to try to balance the books despite the fact that we are going to spend more, and we have cancelled our really crazy promises in order to pay for our not so crazy ones.”
The analogy was made this week that if you go down to Kirkcaldie and Stains and do not buy a suit, which is in the window, for 1,500 bucks, it does not mean that you now have 1,500 bucks more to spend, because you never had it in the first place. Somehow, dreaming that because you are not spending $1.5 billion on dumb ideas does not mean that you now have $1.5 billion to spend. Just a few days into our first term of this year—in an election year—Labour and the Greens have already decided that they have three-quarters of a billion dollars to spend that is not there.
Here is where the Dave and Norm smoke-and-mirrors show falls down: it depends on Kiwis being too stupid to see through those smoke and mirrors in any detail. You know what? They are not. Unlike Dave and Norm and their fellow travellers, I have faith in the Kiwi voters seeing through these kinds of tricks. When they do have a good, hard look, here is what they will see. Under National they will see a strong and stable National-led Government backing teachers, growing the economy, being responsible with the money that the public give us, reducing crime and making our streets safer, and being up front, transparent, and clear with the New Zealand public about our policies.
When they look at the other side, they will see that a Labour and Green Government—the Dave and Norm smoke-and-mirrors show—is against anything that might create a job. They will cripple the economy with red tape and bureaucracy, they will make excuses for criminal offending, and they are not up front with the real details of the policies that they are making, as we have seen just in the last few days with the “baby bonus”. They depend on smoke and mirrors to obscure the fact that they have no answer for the positive, effective policies of this Government, and they will depend on Kiwis being too foolish to see past their bribes, half-truths, and hyperbole. Kiwis are not that dumb.
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Chester Borrows said that National had started the year with a hiss and a roar; but, of course, it was really only because that was the air coming out of the Government’s tyres. The Prime Minister is still proud to say that it has a proud record in Government. However, most Kiwis do not agree, especially those people looking for a good job or an affordable home, or people trying to run a small business. The Government’s lax immigration policy is one particular area it should be ashamed of. It drives up the cost of housing, especially in Auckland. It drives down wages by allowing the importation of cheap foreign labour. It places strains on superannuation, health, and other social services by allowing too much unskilled labour into the country. What all this shows is that this Government is really only interested in the interests of big business, and it is not interested in the needs of ordinary Kiwis at all.
There are several areas of disgraceful performance by a weak Government with slack immigration and ineffective housing policies, and Auckland residential property prices are clear evidence of that. There is no doubt that foreign investors are using Auckland as a land bank. They have access to plenty of cash from foreign banks, they pay very low interest rates—as low as 0.5 percent in China and elsewhere—and they have no concerns about the increasing interest rates that we in New Zealand are about to see. They can pay cash and they can easily outbid Kiwis seeking a home. There are no restrictions here on foreign buyers buying homes, land banking them, letting them at high rents, and then reselling at a profit, so of course they buy as many as they can.
New Zealand First will put a stop to it and not allow foreign people to buy land in this country at all; this Government does not care and does nothing. In the meantime, what we see is offshore real estate agents busy advertising and selling Auckland property, and overseas property publications recommending that overseas investors buy in New Zealand because they know they can make a killing here at the expense of young Kiwis, in particular, who are seeking a first home. We are getting absentee overseas landlords being created and seeking the highest rents possible. They are one important cause of the Auckland housing bubble. But this Government is in denial about this problem and does absolutely nothing about it.
Another thing is that parent reunion immigration is another problem that this Government is being particularly slack about. Firstly, there is already a backlog as at June 2013 of 7,000 applicants for entry under the parent reunion category, and 5,500 of these are Chinese. All these numbers are growing and growing fast, hence the backlog. It is now getting really out of hand, and the Government is sitting on its hands about it. Despite all of the caterwauling from those members opposite, people in New Zealand are concerned. They are concerned because what it means is that the average age of all immigrants is now too high, at 29 years, and it is getting older.
The proportion of unskilled immigrants is too high, too. New Zealand does need the skills of skilled immigrants where there is a genuine shortage of those skills, but this Government’s immigration policies are poorly targeted. Chinese immigrants are favoured at the expense of other nationalities, which is unfair. The average age of Chinese immigrants is 40 years, and that is much too old. The reason for this is the legacy of China’s one-child policy, which means that a much higher proportion of Chinese have only one child. These days a very large number of Chinese are wealthy enough to educate that child overseas, and New Zealand is, of course, a popular place to go for that purpose. So the child easily gets a student visa, then applies for residence, and then the parents apply for residence under the parent reunion category so that they can be with their only child. They have no problem with the requirement to have either $500,000 capital—with which, of course, they would buy a home in Auckland—or at least $40,000 of annual income.
Parents from other countries are usually not that lucky, so the practical effect is that Chinese are favoured, and the average age of Chinese immigrants is, as I have said, far too high. These people can get New Zealand superannuation after only 10 years’ residence and without ever having had to work here or pay tax in this country, and they get the benefit of our health system, ACC, and other benefits. New Zealand is a retirement paradise for elderly Chinese, and they know it, as the 5,500 backlogged applicants testify, but this witless Government does nothing about it. This is not a small issue. There are 20,000 applicants per year from all countries in this category. Expert commentators have said that the ratio between skilled and unskilled immigrants in New Zealand is far too heavily weighted in favour of unskilled immigrants, and we agree. The reasons I have given show why that is.
New Zealand First would restructure immigration policy to achieve a ratio of 25 percent unskilled and 75 percent skilled immigrants, and that is the way it should be. That would be fair to all applicants, but most of all it would be fair to New Zealanders, especially those looking for a job here or seeking their first home. At 6.2 percent unemployment, according to the household labour force survey, this is a pretty significant issue. Our policy would also reduce the potential for a blowout in costs for New Zealand superannuation and other social services that older immigrants would seek.
Another important issue for immigration is work visas. There were 158,542 work visas issued in 2013. At the same time there were 150,000 Kiwis out of work. As I have said, that is 6.2 percent of the whole workforce, which is too high. Kiwis should be at the front of the job queue and not competing with foreigners. The essential skills list is not properly reassessed. Employers are supposed to seek foreign labour only if they cannot get a Kiwi to do the job, but that is not well policed, so cheap foreign labour comes in, taking Kiwi jobs. Another area is international student visas, which needs to be changed—70,000 of these were issued in New Zealand in 2013. It is good to bring in overseas students for education, but they should not automatically have work visas because that is, potentially, another 70,000 jobs being taken from Kiwis, and New Zealand First says that that also has to stop.
The truth about this Government’s immigration policies is that they are a mess. Immigration plays a large part in the health of the New Zealand economy. This Government should be ashamed of, and not proud of, the chaotic state of immigration policy in New Zealand and the damage it is doing right now. It is high time for change, but this Government clearly does not know what to do about it. New Zealand First does, and will, when we get the chance to do so later this year.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Well, you know that it is election year, do you not? I think we could set our watches by the first speech from New Zealand First—the yellow peril is back. That was the most disgraceful intervention I have ever heard in this House, and that member, Denis O’Rourke, should be ashamed of himself. Every New Zealand First member should tell Denis O’Rourke to pipe down. It would be bad enough if it were true, and none of it was true. So let me disavow the member of some of that irrational rant. They are not taking our houses, they are not taking our land, and they are not taking our jobs. They are important contributors to our economy. They add $2.7 billion a year to our GDP and—[Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The barrage has gone on long enough. Let us hear the debate.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I want to touch on a couple of the things that Mr O’Rourke did say, especially in respect of the parents of Chinese immigrants coming here. He claims that the home-alone provisions, or the centre-of-gravity provisions, are allowing far more elderly Chinese in here and that they are having some kind of haven retirement experience. Well, that might have been the case under the previous Government, which was supported in confidence and supply by New Zealand First, but this Government has changed that. Our immigration policies are very clearly tailored towards need, so nothing could be further from the truth.
I want to also tell the member that of the 70,000 international students with work rights, who are making a huge contribution to this economy—export education is the second-largest service export earner behind tourism and it employs 26,000 New Zealand citizens and residents.
Hon Member: How many?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 26,000. But only one in five of the students who are here on work rights actually work. The opportunity to work is an important marketing strategy. Many of them are attracted by it, but only one in five of them take it up. So here we have it—a disgraceful yellow peril speech from a party that would sell its own mother to support the Government in confidence and supply if it meant there was a ministerial position for Winston Peters. Now we know what the rhetoric is going to be.
I was actually going to give Mr Mallard a bit of a hard time about talking in his intervention about the things that matter. Here we are with the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament and Mr Mallard thinks the issues of the day are who leaked the Kitteridge report, whether we should change our flag, the year we disposed of “God Save the Queen”, and a speeding ticket Maurice Williamson got in the 1980s. That, Mr Deputy Speaker and members of the public who are listening around the country, is what Labour thinks are the issues of the 2014 election. So I say to Mr Mallard that he should go back out to the Hutt Valley and campaign on those things. He should campaign on Maurice Williamson’s speeding ticket and bringing back “God Save the Queen” and see how far it gets him.
Hon Simon Bridges: The more campaigning he does, the less votes he gets them.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, that is right—that is right. He will be back in that box that Mr Cunliffe has built for him.
I want to focus on a particular section of the Prime Minister’s statement that has a resonance with the citizens of my home city of Dunedin—a very important debate that is going on around the opportunities for natural resources. At the end of February—
Denis O’Rourke: What about Hillside?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will come that. I will come to that, Mr O’Rourke. At the end of February Anadarko is going to be sending its new exploration ship, the Noble Bob Douglas, which I think is actually off the coast of Taranaki doing some exploration right now. Taranaki is the province with the highest GDP per capita of any province in this country.
Dr Cam Calder: “Taradise”.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It mixes three very important industries in this country. It mixes tourism—and it is a beautiful province, second only to Otago, I suggest, Dr Calder—it has lots of dairying, as does South Otago and Central Otago, and it has oil and gas exploration. It is for those three reasons, but in particular the natural resource opportunities that Taranaki has, that its GDP is somewhere around $90,000 per person per year.
Otago’s GDP is lower. It is a student city—I accept that—and it also has a high proportion of elderly people, so its GDP per capita will always be lower, but it is certainly significantly below the national average. It has fantastic tourism and it has excellent dairy; it could also have a significant field of gas. I say “gas” because there is a lobby in Dunedin and in Otago that refers only to oil. I think that needs to be disavowed. The likelihood of finding oil is about 1 percent. There is a 99 percent chance that if there is a viable field in the Canterbury Basin, the south end off the coast of Dunedin, it will be gas.
Gas is a transitional fuel. I think we all understand and commit to a world where we will be largely free of fossil fuels, but that time is not now, and it will be some time away. Gas is a transitional fuel. Its carbon emissions, its greenhouse gas emissions, are about half of liquid fuels like oil and petrol and probably almost a quarter of the emissions of solid fuels like coal. So exploring for gas as a transitional fuel for the next couple of generations is a very, very important contributor to greenhouse gas reductions and also a very important contributor to Otago’s and New Zealand’s GDP.
But there are some people who are blind to the opportunities and who are so blinded by ideology and not prepared to listen to the arguments in favour of it that they will fly down in their fossil-fuelled aircraft, drive out to Port Chalmers in their fossil-fuelled cars, get on their petrochemical-prepared kayaks and their wetsuits and their lifejackets, and protest against any possibility of gas exploration off the coast of Dunedin.
Hon Members: Who would do that?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, Gareth Hughes was there. I saw Gareth Hughes.
Dr Cam Calder: Surely not.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, he was part of the flotilla that floated out on a terrible day in Dunedin, actually, and I almost felt sorry for them. But I have to say there is another group in Dunedin, and it is very much the silent majority, and what a majority it is. What I am very pleased to report is that they are gathering their voice, and in response to that flotilla a simple Facebook page was set up. I note that it might not have been able to be set up had David Clark been a member of the Government, but there you go. That is a brainy strategy, is it not! The member of Parliament for Dunedin North—with 21,000 university students in Dunedin—comes out and says he would not rule out the possibility of shutting Facebook down. Well, thank you, David. I think that was worth a few hundred votes, just that one comment.
Hon Member: Did he really say that?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, he has backtracked. I must say he has backtracked. He is now not comparing Facebook to paedophile websites, but that was it. So, anyway, we have a Facebook page set up. It is called ProGas Otago, and it has over 3,000 people already signed up. That does not include, of course, any of the people who do not use Facebook. That is just the people in Dunedin who say: “Look, we have got to explore this opportunity and not look the gift-horse in the mouth. It could be a long time coming if, indeed, there is a viable field, but we couldn’t turn down that opportunity.” I am very pleased to say that that voice is growing, and it is growing larger every single day.
I made a speech in this House 18 months ago where I committed myself to the safe and viable exploration of gas off the coast of Dunedin, and I called on city leaders to do the same. At least we are having that discussion. There are, sadly, some people who are—I do not mind that people do not have the same view as me, but I do worry that people have an unwillingness to listen to another side and have a reinvention of facts. As the former National member of Parliament for Dunedin North, the late Richard Walls, said: “I’ll give you the chance to have your own opinion—that’s fine—but you can’t have your own facts.”, and I think that that is really where we are getting to. We are getting to a situation where both sides are talking past each other and not listening to the other.
I am listening very carefully to the other side, particularly in respect of the environmental risks, and I note that the Government has significantly increased the risk management and the legal framework to be able to control the risks of exploration. They are far, far stronger than they were under the previous Government. I call on every person in Dunedin to listen very carefully to both sides of the argument, to come to their conclusions, and to articulate their views to their city leaders. I am listening very carefully. I think it is an important discussion, and I really very much hope that the city, which I am confident is going to get very much behind gas exploration in the region, will let its views be heard.
As the Minister of Energy and Resources has said, I think we have got about 18 possible viable fields for exploration, and if any one or two or three of those get to the point where they can be safely mined, a significant contribution to our GDP will be able to occur. I do not often agree with many of the things that Labour’s finance spokesperson says, but I certainly agree with him that a long-term strategy to reduce our balance of payments deficit and our current account deficit is important. One of the ways we can do that is, of course, with import substitution, and I am very glad to see that Labour has come out and supported that exploration plan.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and may I take the opportunity to wish you and all of my colleagues in the House a very happy New Year. I also want to congratulate the Hon Michael Woodhouse on becoming a Minister inside Cabinet, as well. I have not had the chance to congratulate Sam Lotu-Iiga, but I will when I get a chance.
Labour has come to 2014 in great spirits, and I think that already we are seeing a huge contrast between the other parties in the House and the National Government. Nowhere was that contrast more evident than in the state of the nation speeches of the National Party and the Labour Party. When the National Party announced its education policy, did it announce it to a bunch of teachers or parents or anything? No, it was in a closed room full of suits, of business people. A small, exclusive audience—
Carol Beaumont: Businessmen, I bet.
DARIEN FENTON: —of businessmen lined up to give their necessary approval. National simply did not have the organisation or willingness of the community to come and listen to what it had to say about education. In contrast, Labour had nearly 700 people in a west Auckland school in an area that is going to be a Labour seat in the next election. Enthusiastic people received our policy in great spirits and with great enthusiasm and determination to make it happen. What we saw there was absolute unity around Labour’s project to rebuild a country that is based on values that work, and where a full day’s work will cover the basics, where there will be more jobs available, and where wages will catch up with prices. New Zealanders will pay what is fair, whether it is for their power bill, their tax bill, or their grocery bill. Every child in this country will have what they need to start life healthy, start learning early, and fulfil every bit of their potential.
Kiwis listening to the Prime Minister’s statement would have hoped to hear an inspirational speech from the Prime Minister of our country—something that would lift their spirits and give them hope for a better year ahead, in which the gap between the haves and the have-nots is addressed, the future generations of kids are invested in, and there is a commitment to return to the things that matter, such as a decent job, a home, a fair wage, and security. But National has stopped listening to Kiwis—if, in fact, it ever did. The Prime Minister’s speech and those that followed by Government speakers demonstrate what we on this side have been hearing ad nauseam—that National members seem to care only about themselves and their mates.
The list of rehashed promises, targets, objectives, 10-point plans, and task forces in the Prime Minister’s statement will have given no comfort to those looking to see some change after the years of hardship that they and their families have faced under this Government. It will be of no comfort to those who are still facing job losses, those who are still unable to find a job, those who cannot afford to study, and those who work two or three jobs to make ends meet. It will be of no comfort to those who get up early in the morning and travel across cities on several buses they cannot afford, to go to a job where they are paid the minimum wage. There was no hope in the Prime Minister’s speech for the growing contingent labour market, where all of the risks are being taken by the workers for short-term, dead-end contracts with no job security, no rights, and no fairness. There was nothing in the speech for our small businesses. There was nothing that they can look to, as the Government seems to concentrate all of its money and power on the big end of town. This is a Government that is simply derisive and contemptuous, I believe, of those who struggle.
The Government does not seem to believe that raising a child is valuable work and deserves the support of the Government and society. Labour’s plans to support Kiwi mums and dads with Best Start has sent the Government into a panic. That is why we are hearing the attacks, because it knows that Labour’s package is very popular and is being welcomed up and down the country. May I tell you that on the doorsteps of the North Shore, where Labour’s members have been doorknocking, everyone is talking about it—on the North Shore. Yes, on the North Shore, in the suburb of Glenfield—where Paula Bennett, that westie turned Upper Harbour advocate, will be campaigning this year—families are saying to Labour they love Best Start. That is where the Conservative Party and its members Colin Craig and Christine Rankin, those great stalwarts for families, are relying on National to give them a free ticket to Parliament—and so they can achieve what? The right to whack kids. That is what they are going to do. What kind of hope is that?
Best Start is a popular policy, so National has resorted to personal attacks. Paula Bennett did that again today. Good luck to her on the doorsteps of families in Massey and Upper Harbour, who support Labour’s policy. I do hope she shows them a little bit more respect than we heard in the House today with her crocodile tears. We are expecting more personal attacks from John Key this year because this is a Government that is propped up by one-man bands and has-been Ministers. They are getting more than their due because the truth is that without them this Government would fall. It is a Government that is out of ideas and has no ideas in the tank—nothing in the tank but dirty tricks, spin, and deceit, and we are going to hear a lot more of that.
What is our Prime Minister talking about today? There was criticism from the Hon Michael Woodhouse about Trevor Mallard talking about the flags. Well, guess who else is talking about flags today? The Prime Minister—the Prime Minister. Is he talking about inequality? No. Is he talking about job insecurity? No. Is he talking about people still losing their jobs or looking for work? No. Is he talking about children? No. Is he even talking about education? Of course he is not. He is talking about the flag. It is a sideshow issue from the Government at a time when it is feeling the pressure because it is doing nothing for struggling Kiwis. Frankly, I think Kiwis are more interested in changing the Government than changing the flag, and we will be helping them do that.
Yesterday Bill English generously decreed that workers should be getting pay increases. He hedged on that statement today in the House, and I think he has probably had a phone call from the Employers and Manufacturers Association. It put out a media release saying employers should not listen to Bill English when he tells them—
Grant Robertson: First sensible thing they’ve ever said.
DARIEN FENTON: Yes, that is right—that is right. I am a bit disappointed because for a little while I thought he had had a change of heart and really thought that workers should get a return on the contributions and sacrifices they have made during the economic downturn. If he were serious about this, of course, he would be telling John Key and Simon Bridges to strengthen the legal mechanisms to make that happen. In fact, what they are doing is wrecking them. Who can take him seriously when what he is doing is changing the law to make it harder for workers to negotiate their rights, and ignoring the advice of his own officials who said that the legislation will actually drive down pay, will cut pay? Who can possibly believe that?
However, Simon Bridges has an opportunity to follow Bill English’s lead, with the minimum wage coming up. The decision will be any time soon. It is time for a minimum wage, under this Government, of $15 an hour.
Hon Simon Bridges: Oh! How close to $15 will we get?
DARIEN FENTON: Come on, Simon. You can do it—you can do it. Under this Government the minimum wage has declined in real terms by 5c an hour. Under this Government it has declined in real terms since 2009. It has been cut for workers under 20 for the first time this century. The message to our struggling young people is that they are so hopeless they do not deserve to be paid what they are worth. So, Simon Bridges—up-and-coming Minister—show some leadership. Follow Bill English’s advice when over the next 2 weeks he sets the 2014 minimum wage for our poorest working New Zealanders.
I know that the Minister is very occupied with forestry at the moment. He has had to back down on his insistence that the pathetic Approved Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Forest Operations just had to be bedded in and that it would prove to have all the answers. He must have been gutted when Judith Collins undermined his endeavours in health and safety—when she went out and contemptuously attacked the only free health and safety training available to workplace health and safety systems, and announced the removal of the funding. So what I am asking the Minister to do is to stand up to Judith Collins, to follow Bill English’s lead, to give some hope to New Zealanders, and to bring in a $15 an hour minimum wage when he makes the decision in the next couple of weeks.
TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I am advised that the next Green call is a split call and that the first half will be taken by Dr Kennedy Graham, but the other member is not yet in the House. So I seek leave from the House for the Green call to resume, with the second speaker after the following Labour call. I know it is a little unusual, but I have spoken to all the Opposition parties that are affected by this. I thank them for their cooperation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. So we have a 5-minute Green call, a 10-minute Labour call, and a 5-minute Green call.
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Prime Minister opened this debate with the claim that the Government is continuing with its plan to build a faster growing economy, with more jobs and rising incomes. New Zealand, he says, will return to surplus, reduce debt, increase productivity, and then reform the Public Service. This is the same six-point mantra from his original speech from the throne back in 2008. As with then, Mr Key omitted any reference to the excessive reliance on, and active promotion of, a fossil fuel economy. More than anything else, Mr Key’s fossil-fuelled economy will mark National’s two-term tenure.
The Prime Minister’s statement is about the state of the nation. The nation, of course, is deeply influenced by the state of the planet, but not a word from the Prime Minister about the fragile global economy, its 50 percent ecological overshoot, its skewed inequality, its rotten financial system, or its deteriorating capacity to sustain a global population—not one word. It is as if we live in a cocoon down here, insulated from external vagaries by an earthquake rebuild, high milk prices, and Australasian banks.
Disregard for the real world marks the Government’s climate policy as well. Its senior Ministers display a breathtaking ignorance of the threat of climate change. Last September the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced the first section of its Fifth Assessment Report, showing that dangerous and perhaps catastrophic climate change was guaranteed on current global emission projections. The UN Secretary-General urged the world to pay heed to the report, saying: “The heat is on. We must act.” What was the response of this New Zealand Government? A target of 5 percent for 2020, one-sixth of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is required.
The US Secretary of State said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was “yet another wake-up call. Those who deny the science”—he said—“or choose excuses over action are playing with fire.” What was the response of the Minister of Transport? He found the hypothesis of anthropogenic emissions to be an “interesting prospect”. For his part, the Minister for Climate Change Issues found it necessary to inform the 19th UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw last month to “Make no mistake—climate change is a global problem.”, oblivious to the fact that this had been formally acknowledged by the international community a quarter of a century previous, when he was a trade diplomat.
But, of course, it was the Prime Minister himself who said as recently as 2005 that he was sceptical of global warming. Well, Prime Minister, the New Zealand scientists who lead the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change work are not sceptical. They were not sceptical back in 2005, and not even in 1990, when the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report came in. But this explains a lot about the Key Government. Last week the European Union demonstrated once again its leadership in climate policy, with an announcement by the European Commission of a 2030 target of 40 percent off its 1990 level. Everything is relative, of course, in the wonderland that is the 21st century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had 7 years ago identified that reduction as a minimum for 2020. But the target of 40 percent, even for 2030, is simply way ahead of the rest of the world.
So what are the chances of New Zealand doing its fair share in global emissions reductions for 2030? We learnt that during question time. The Government has no intention of announcing any figure for 2030. In fact, the Government’s own projections show a blowout in emissions over that period. Gross-to-net emissions will increase by 50 percent, from 61 to 90 million tonnes, in 2028; net-to-net emissions will increase 300 percent, from 32 to 98 million tonnes.
This, of course, is why the Prime Minister touches on the prosaic when he delivers his annual state of the nation speech. He says nothing about the big world picture out there, nothing about what is required to secure the next generation—nothing much at all, really.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Can I start, as it is the first time I have spoken in the House this year, by wishing everybody—parliamentary colleagues and all of the staff in this place—a very happy New Year. It is, of course, an election year, and we all have our responsibilities. I just wanted to touch on that, because our elections are a central part of our democracy. But, unfortunately, fewer and fewer New Zealanders have seen the relevance of those elections. I believe strongly that all of the people in this House have a responsibility to try to do something about that. I say quite genuinely, in a non-partisan way, that we all have a responsibility to look at issues like making sure that people are on the electoral roll and encouraging people to vote, to debate issues, and to have an opinion. This is vital for a strong democracy. So I just thought that that was an important start, at the start of election year, to remind ourselves of our shared responsibilities to our democracy.
Part of that is about focusing on what matters. Part of getting New Zealanders to vote is to focus on what matters. I want to pick up where Kennedy Graham left off, because the Prime Minister’s statement that we are now all discussing actually said very little about anything. So it is not about what matters to New Zealanders, because lots of issues are out there for New Zealanders at the moment. It is not easy for most middle and low income New Zealanders, and that is a direct result of this National Government’s focus on the big end of town, its mates, and those on high incomes, and everybody else just has to make do. Well, that is not good enough. In fact, interestingly, both the Prime Minister’s speech, which really did not say much about anything, and subsequent contributions from the other side of the House seemed to be about denying what Labour has actually said in our state of the nation speech. They spent more time attacking us than actually talking about what they believe and what they are going to do for this country. Again, that says a lot. It says a lot, because I think, across the House, that people realise that Labour’s Best Start policy is actually focusing on something that matters absolutely to New Zealanders—that is, our children and our grandchildren. Nothing could be more important than what happens to those young people. They are, as the saying goes, our future.
So in contrast to the feeble efforts of the Prime Minister and the nasty attacks and the jokes and all of those things, David Cunliffe, in his state of the nation speech, actually talked about what matters, which is our children—our children. In launching Best Start, he actually, I think, has got a lot of New Zealanders interested. For our election, I think that is very positive, because what that means is that people will be interested enough to vote. Best Start includes a number of elements: first of all, financial support. We know that when people have babies, they have extra costs. Often—and certainly, you know, for many families in Auckland, where I am based—it is hard to make ends meet. Both parents are in the paid workforce, struggling to pay excessive rents, and trying to get money to buy a house, which is a forlorn prospect for most of them, so having money to spend on that child is really important. As others have commented, this is not actually an untested kind of idea. Many of us in this House have parents who received the family benefit, and often, actually, that provided a really important source of income to the mothers in the household—to the women. Actually, as Labour’s women’s affairs spokesperson, I think that that is a very positive thing. It will give families more choices about how they juggle work and caring for their baby.
But there is also the focus on early childhood education and increasing free early childhood education to 25 hours per week. We are giving, again, parents more choices and investing in our children, and we all know—if we are honest—that that investment at the early childhood education level will make a massive difference to the start that young children have and their opportunities for the future. Their success in ongoing education will be improved by more early childhood education provided by qualified teachers. I am delighted that we are saying that we will restore funding so that teachers at that very important early phase of kids’ education will be qualified teachers.
Paid parental leave—we are expanding that to 26 weeks. Again, that is vital for family income and vital for women, predominantly, to spend time bonding with their new child. That will have positive health and social benefits for children. Also, we are giving parents the opportunity to go to free antenatal classes, because we assume that people know how to do this very important job of parenting almost by osmosis. Well, actually, we know that putting investment into people and into ensuring that they know what is available to them is important. So I just want to say that I am very, very proud of this policy, and I know that around New Zealand people are very interested. This has made election year look a whole lot more relevant for many, many New Zealand families.
What is interesting to me, though, is how sensitive the members opposite are on the issue of inequality—really sensitive. It is sort of a combination of heads in the sand—there is nothing here, do not look here, there is nothing to see—with some vitriolic attacks about how it does not exist, and that there is no poverty and inequality and it is not getting worse. Well, actually, I think that some of the members opposite need to get out in the community more and they need to talk to middle and low income New Zealanders. The census showed that the gap in income between those people who live in South Auckland, where my good colleague Su’a William Sio is from, and the other wealthier suburbs in Auckland has grown by 16 percent. What does that mean for our children? What does that mean for their start in life? Get out there and talk to the budget services, which tell you about the increasing indebtedness of households and families. Why is that? Because they cannot make ends meet. The income and expenditure do not line up. So I do not accept what that Government is trying to do. It is trying to say there is nothing to see here. Well, I think those Government members are so sensitive because they know absolutely that there is.
I want to go on to the issue of work. Probably, at a headline level, we could all agree that people being in work is a way out of poverty. The problem is that this Government is not focused on either the quantity or the quality of jobs. I just want to say, for the record, that work is an exchange. People provide their labour, and they get wages and salaries for doing their job and doing it well—a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Members opposite do not understand that. Wages are languishing, especially for lower-income people. Somehow, those members opposite are completely of the opinion that employers are benefactors and that workers who have jobs should think themselves damn lucky and they are beneficiaries. Well, that is wrong. Work is being undermined. The value of work in this country is being undermined by low wages and insecure work—increasing casualisation. We need decent work with decent wages in this country.
I want to talk about women in work, and women and their income. Supposedly, one of the areas that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is focused on is the economic independence of women. Actually, having said that, there is no interest at all in issues like pay equity. Next week, just so people know, a very historic court case will be continuing through the system—the Kristine Bartlett v Terranova Homes and Care Ltd pay equity case, which has been taken with her union, the Service and Food Workers Union. This is about valuing low-paid women, primarily, who work in the aged-care industry. These women cannot make ends meet, despite the fact that they work incredibly hard in a very important and valuable job, looking after some of our most vulnerable senior citizens. I think it is a disgrace that the Government is not indicating any interest in this area. I will be very interested to see what the Government’s intervention is in that case. Finally, I would just say that we are committed to delivering pay equity and increasing wages.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Denise Roche—5 minutes.
DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call in this debate, in my first speech in the House this year. I wish you all a happy New Year. Inequality is really the defining issue of this election, and, sadly, it was missing from the Prime Minister’s speech. He did wax lyrical about the improving economy, but his assertion that “On average, wages are growing faster than inflation.” is not actually correct. I checked this morning, and the data from Statistics New Zealand shows that since 2009 ordinary wage rates, and that is not including overtime, have gone up on average by 7.8 percent, while inflation has risen by 9.8 percent. Put simply, with the most up-to-date data we have, wages have not even kept up with inflation, and for ordinary New Zealanders the standard of living has dropped under this Government.
The Prime Minister talks about jobs, and I agree with my colleague Carol Beaumont that we must talk about jobs and we should talk about jobs. We agree that we need more jobs in this country. But this Government has fostered a low-wage economy, and today’s workers are not getting a decent pay rate that will enable them to live on what they earn. In fact, the Prime Minister, in his speech, talks about introducing further legislation around industrial relations that will make it harder for workers to negotiate for decent pay. Just in December the OECD results showed that although productivity overall in New Zealand has increased, the share that goes to workers, into their wages, has decreased. We are the third-worst out of all the OECD countries for sharing the wealth we are creating. This is inequality. We heard today from the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government is in denial about inequality. He would rather argue with Labour about whether the gap between those who have the most and those who have the least has remained the same or increased than actually address the fallout of that inequality. The fact is that there are 270,000 children living in poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand and that two out of five of those kids have at least one parent who is working.
We have hundreds of thousands of workers who cannot provide for their families on the wages that they earn because those wages are too low. The minimum wage is $13.75 an hour. For a 40-hour week that is $550 before tax. Housing costs alone eat up most of those wages, so it is no wonder there has been a significant increase in working families utilising charity and utilising food banks. What we see is mums and dads working several jobs to make enough money just to get by. A classic example is the parliamentary cleaners, the people who work here for Spotless, who are contracted to the Parliamentary Service to clean up after us. They earn $14.10 an hour, and they work from midnight until 6 o’clock in the morning. None of them work a full 40 hours. All of them work 30 hours a week, and it is not enough to live on. We worked alongside these women—mostly women—last year in order to see what their jobs were like, and I tell you that it was hard. They deserve a living wage, which would be $18.40 an hour. The cost of that would equate to the salary of one backbencher. Inequality exists here too.
I am proud to be a Green, and I believe that we will be part of a progressive Government that will work for good lives and fair futures for all the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill
Third Reading
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill be now read a third time. We have just adjourned the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. In that speech the Prime Minister noted this Government’s ambition to create a record number of marine reserves in New Zealand this year. This bill provides for three very large new marine reserves, in the Antipodes Islands, in the Bounty Islands, and in Campbell Island, covering a huge area of nearly 400,000 hectares. It shows the progress this Government is making in conserving those things that make New Zealand so special.
I want to say that this bill feels for me personally like finishing business that was started a long time ago. In 1998 I was involved in putting the case to Unesco for the recognition of those Subantarctic Islands with World Heritage status. New Zealand has only three areas for World Heritage: the Te Wāhipounamu—or Fiordland—South West New Zealand World Heritage Area, the World Heritage area around the Tongariro National Park, and this third area in the Subantarctic Islands. At the time of getting that registration for these special islands, mention was made that we needed to make progress on recognising the marine environment that surrounds those Subantarctic Islands. People may not be aware that in the immediate area of the Bounty Islands, the ocean very quickly steepens to go to a depth of 3,000 metres. That is sort of like a reverse of Mount Cook. The deepest ocean anywhere in New Zealand’s territorial sea is adjacent to the Bounty Islands. Nor do I think that people appreciate that in all the debate about protected species, 80 percent of the endemic protected species within New Zealand—meaning things that exist only in New Zealand—are actually out in the ocean environment rather than on land. Thus the importance this Government puts on marine reserves.
I am very proud of the fact that it was a National Government in 1971 that passed the Marine Reserves Act. It was the very first total protection zone provided anywhere in the world. It was a National Government that created New Zealand’s very first marine reserve, at Leigh in 1976. In the intervening period 34 marine reserves have been created around New Zealand, most of them by National Governments. It is truly ambitious when the Prime Minister has set out a schedule—34 marine reserves in over 40 years—and we are looking to create 10 more marine reserves in this very year, showing just the sort of progress that this Government is making in a balanced way around our marine environment.
I do want to acknowledge the hard yards that my colleagues Kate Wilkinson and Phil Heatley, as the previous Minister of Conservation and the previous Minister of Fisheries respectively, put into getting the agreement—a consensus, in fact—across all of the competing groups around these three new marine reserves. A really important part of National’s blue-green view is that we are going to make better progress around the environmental challenges that New Zealand faces not with divisive polarising arguments but actually collaboratively bringing different groups together to try to find agreement. We have done so very successfully with the Land and Water Forum in getting progress on those challenges our country faces around water. I have to say that in the marine reserves area you need only to look at Akaroa, where for 30 years there has been a very divisive argument around marine protection, and look at the approach that has been taken in the Subantarctic Islands of actually getting the commercial fishers, of getting iwi, and of getting conservation groups to work together on a conservation proposal is the right way forward. That is what has taken—
Hon Ruth Dyson: Who sorted Akaroa? You did—well done.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, in 2008 the process was set up for the collaborative forum that has been able to deliver these three very large marine reserves.
I also want to note that in the Subantarctic Islands we have over a dozen species that are endangered. Actually, they are one of the very last areas to have contact with humans. Whether it is species like the southern royal albatross—I could bore the House all evening with some of the things that exist only in those Subantarctic Islands—
Andrew Little: Do it anyway.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I am not going to make members of the House suffer. I simply say there are a whole lot of species down there that exist nowhere else, and this Parliament has a special responsibility to ensure that they are conserved and protected.
This 400,000 hectares of new marine reserve does involve a prohibition on the development of minerals and resources in that area, and that is sensible. You see, if you look back to the early days of this Parliament, there were big arguments around the use of our terrestrial environment: what areas should we conserve and what areas should we develop for providing an economic wealth for this country. Actually, the debate this century is going to be about the use of the ocean environment and how we should do so there. Again, this National Government takes a very balanced view. There are economic resources in that ocean environment. It would be economically foolhardy for us to say that we are going to lock up and have no development economically of that huge ocean area that New Zealand has. But, equally, we say that we do need to protect some areas, and that just as on land we have no-go areas, equally in the ocean environment we need to have no-go areas, and this Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill is about saying that about 400,000 hectares of ocean are no-go areas.
There is a special tweak in this bill in respect of enforcement. We all know that the Subantarctic Islands—you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, more than any—are a long way away and that there are not too many Department of Conservation officials down there to be able to enforce a marine reserve. So this bill provides for our naval officers to be able to have the powers of our Department of Conservation rangers to ensure that these provisions are enforced. I would also note in this bill that we are making provision for a review. I commend the Local Government and Environment Committee, so ably led by Nicky Wagner, for the changes that were made to the bill that said: “Hang on a sec. Let’s bring that review forward. Let’s make it a tighter review.” There is speculation about the potential for a crab fishery in one of the areas. There is provision in this bill for that reserve to be expanded but on a tighter time frame, and that too is to be commended.
This is a good bill. I want to acknowledge the support of all of the parties in the House for this legislation and for this additional marine protection. This is a very special, albeit very remote, part of New Zealand. It is entirely appropriate after the World Heritage status was acquired in 1998 for us now to be taking statutory steps to protect the marine environment around these three islands. I want to stress that it is part of our Government’s broader programme of expanding marine reserves. I have set the target that we might be able to achieve a record number of marine reserves this year, and these three will be a good first and big start.
I also want to note the challenges that members have given for reform of the Marine Reserves Act. That is an ambition of this Government. We have got work going there. We will have more to say in that space. Our ambition is that just as in the terrestrial environment, New Zealand is a world leader in the responsible way in which we use our ocean environment. That does involve setting aside areas as no-takes. These three new, large marine reserves are a conservation initiative that all New Zealanders can take pride in.
TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): The House has made excellent progress in this first week back. We have just a few minutes until the scheduled adjournment, so with the agreement of the Opposition parties, which I acknowledge with thanks, I seek leave for the House to now rise.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is no opposition. Leave is granted.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.