Thursday, 31 July 2014

THURSDAY, 31 JULY 2014

THURSDAY, 31 JULY 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

50th Parliament—Statistics

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Normally at this time there would be a business statement from the Government, but, given that Parliament is about to conclude its business for the session, I thought it might be useful to give the House one or two statistics, in an effort for the House to congratulate itself on the hard work it has done over the last 3 years. This Parliament has seen a total of 236 bills introduced, including 45 members’ bills, five local bills, and four private bills. As a tribute to the Opposition, there have been some 38,297 questions for written answer produced over this term. Although I said that that was a tribute, it does make me wonder what those members were doing in the afternoons. But there were also 2,813 questions for oral answer. Those questions were answered extremely well and competently by all Government Ministers, to the satisfaction of the Opposition.

Most important, though, there has, over a number of years, been quite a growing degree of dissatisfaction about the use of urgency. If this term has been typified, it is by the much-reduced use of urgency. Over the whole term there has been about 127 hours of urgency where, in fact, often the clock did not go past the normal rising time. But, importantly, the extended hours provision, which was part of the Standing Orders for the first time this time round—and I make this statement so that people understand it, it is when the whole House agrees that extra hours can be taken, largely for bills that are seeing agreement from all sides of the House in most cases—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not the whole House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, not the whole House. No, you cannot hope for everything. But what we have seen is 110 hours and 44 minutes of those extended hours sessions. I think that, quite frankly, the whole House should be quite proud of the way that has developed. It has been an interesting 3 years, and, as we head forward, I am sure that in about 2 or 3 months’ time there will be more business statements of legislative substance for the House of the day to consider. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to thank the Leader of the House for those statistics, and thank him for his leadership of the Business Committee with you, Mr Speaker, in terms of making sure that things run relatively smoothly in the House. I just wanted to ask one question. He mentioned a figure of 33,000 written questions. Could he give the figures for people other than Trevor Mallard’s questions as well, please, and also whether any of those questions have received an answer at all?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Well, the member sort of outs us a bit here, because the actual total number was 38,297. So he mentions 33,000. Perhaps that balance is what everyone else was doing.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank both members for their contribution and for giving me 3½ hours to further consider my remarks at the close of the adjournment debate.

Motions

Gaza—Shelling of UN School

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the Israeli bombing of a UN school in Gaza.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I move, That this House note the comment of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon regarding the latest shelling of a school in Gaza: “Nothing is more shameful than attacking sleeping children. … I want to make it clear that the precise location of this Jabalia Elementary Girls School had been communicated to the Israeli military authorities 17 times—as recently as last night, just a few hours before the attack. They were aware of the coordinates and exact locations where these people are being sheltered.”, and that this House condemn Israel’s action and call for an immediate ceasefire to prevent the loss of further innocent life.

Motion agreed to.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Economic Programme—Challenges Addressed

1. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Finance: What has been the Government’s main challenge in implementing its economic programme during this term of Parliament?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): It is my pleasure to answer my 389th primary question in this parliamentary session with one of my 10 answers. Without doubt, the Government’s biggest challenge over the past 3 years has been steering New Zealand through a series of crises that have been declared in our economy. We have apparently had a manufacturing crisis, a regional crisis, a jobs crisis, a migration crisis, a current account crisis, and, just this week, the declaration of an export crisis. The declaration of these crises has turned out to be instrumental in resolving every one of them because on all of those measures the economy has done very, very well, which, of course, has left the Labour Party with no crisis on which to fight the election.

Jami-Lee Ross: Following a crisis being declared in the manufacturing sector and another in the regions, what do the most recent indicators confirm about the performance of manufacturing companies and regional New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The performance index shows that the manufacturing sector has been in expansion mode for 21 consecutive months, from a low reading—a very low reading—when it actually was in crisis, in 2008. In terms of the regions, the regional GDP data shows that the Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Nelson-Tasman, Canterbury, Otago, and Southland all grew faster than the national average in the 5 years to 2013, and the most recent ANZ Regional Trends survey shows rural regions growing faster than urban areas. Just two more examples where the Labour Party has declared—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Jami-Lee Ross: Following a crisis being declared in the jobs market, what progress has been made over this term of Parliament in supporting new jobs, and what impact has this had on the so-called migration crisis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the past year alone an extra 84,000 jobs were created across New Zealand, and there is a credible forecast of 172,000 more jobs over the next 4 years. This has been recognised, if not by Opposition parties, then by ordinary Kiwi battlers. They have decided not to go to Australia. Three years ago there was a net outflow of 43,000 New Zealanders, mainly from the regions, to Australia; last month the net outflow was zero. Kiwis are voting with their feet and staying home.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does the Minister expect another crisis to be declared any time soon; if so, which sector of the New Zealand economy will be most affected?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are signs of a crisis emerging from one small and shrinking minority group in New Zealand. It surfaced late last year following an unpopular senior personnel change. It now runs a real risk of creating more unemployment in this increasingly marginalised and backward-looking—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Ross mentioned the word “business” with his question, and so to deviate to something that is not a business means he is having no regard to the question in the first place.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I think the member, on this occasion, makes a reasonable point. The question has been asked. It is a marginal question, and it is effectively commenting on Opposition political issues. The question has now been completed, and unless there are any further supplementary questions, we will move to question No. 2.

Prime Minister—Statements

2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and he particularly stands by his statement “I think Labour will be very worried about [this poll]. You’ve got a situation where David Cunliffe is now polling worse than David Shearer.”

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement that “National is not going to raise GST.”, despite the fact that he did?

Hon Steven Joyce: That’s current.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, this is not exactly a new attack line here. As the Prime Minister said, I think 5 years ago—which the Labour research unit has just discovered—and in the context in which he said it of course he was correct: “The Government is very proud of its 2010 tax reforms. They’re helping underpin the current high growth, high confidence, high jobs economy.”

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement “I’m not interested in selling assets—”, despite the fact that he did?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister stands by all the statements he made, starting at the beginning of 2011, when he told the country that a re-elected National Government would sell 49 percent of these companies to Kiwis at the front of the queue, the statements he made that the Opposition referendum would come to nothing, and the statements he made that we would have $4.7 billion in the Future Investment Fund to spend on schools, hospitals, and other public infrastructure.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by the Minister of Finance’s statement that they would get $5 billion to $7 billion for those assets and that Kiwis would be at the front of the queue, when they got less than $5 billion and only 2 percent of New Zealanders own the shares?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, he does stand by those statements. He also stands by his statement that the Opposition members do not seem to have anything new to say that they have not said in the 2008 election.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that there is no housing crisis in New Zealand, despite the fact that there is?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. He also stands by his Ministers who have done pretty much everything except take the housing decision-making role off our metropolitan councils. But the efforts we have made working with them have led to a record number of building consents in the last couple of months. And the good news is that New Zealanders can look forward to more affordable housing over the next 3 to 5 years.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement: “We need all New Zealanders to have jobs and security.”, despite the fact that the Government changed the law to fire people at will and despite the fact that he opposed Labour’s $2 increase to the minimum wage?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: With respect to employment, the Prime Minister restates his concern that that member’s job security and employment—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement that he expects high standards from his Ministers despite the fact that that list includes John Banks, Peter Dunne, Judith Collins, Maurice Williamson, Richard Worth, and Pansy Wong, not to mention others like Aaron Gilmore, Claudette Hauiti, and so on and so forth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and I would have thought that the member going through the list would be able to see that where standards were not met, there were significant consequences in almost all of those cases.

Superannuation—Overseas Pensions and Deductions

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Are the current policy arrangements for New Zealand Superannuation fair and equitable?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Yes. I would note that under the National-led Government the married rate of New Zealand superannuation has increased by 29 percent. This has boosted the fortnightly married rate payments by $249, to $1,129, since 2008. This significant increase reflects inflation adjustments, increases in the average wage, and tax and ACC reductions. That may well be the reason for this Government’s strong support from older New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can she justify the confiscation of contributory overseas pensions under section 70 of the Social Security Act for those who have spent part of their working lives in countries such as the UK, the Netherlands, Canada, and Germany?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because we believe that the direct deduction policy is to ensure that all superannuitants are treated equitably and receive the same income. It is for that reason that we do it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is there a double standard between those penalised by section 70 and the migrants from countries with no State-run pensions who are given full New Zealand superannuation after only 10 years’ residency, keeping their private savings intact?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The direct deduction policy is about those who have paid into a Government superannuation scheme overseas. For those who are in New Zealand and who have been here for 10 years as residents, we consider them New Zealanders and they are eligible for New Zealand superannuation, and I do think that is fair.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What justification is there for the unfair application of section 70 to a spouse’s entitlement to New Zealand superannuation, and how would the Minister respond to the human rights class action in regard to spousal entitlement in New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: For the very reason that it is a spousal entitlement, so it considers both people. It is about those people who have been in New Zealand for over 45 years, as the member knows, and have been paying their taxes towards a universal superannuation scheme. It is not fair that those who have been overseas for some time actually get more than they do. We think it is fair to New Zealanders, and that is why we have the policy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How is she expected to be believed in defending the right of people who have been here for 10 years only—no need to pay tax or make any contribution at all—and her vote against the review of section 70 in 2013, and will she commit to a mandatory review of section 70, to give 70,000 people affected adversely by her policy on overseas pensions a fair and equitable outcome?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I encourage that member to actually go and price out his policy, because, actually, it is hundreds of millions of dollars to look at section 70. We do not think that is fair to New Zealanders who have been working here and who have, in many respects, through their taxes paid towards a universal superannuation scheme. They should be on an equal footing with those who have been overseas for some time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question—

Mr SPEAKER: I—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, five.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is entitled to four supplementary questions today. He has had his allocation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, this is a dynamic question. Could I seek leave to ask this question on the last day of the House in the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member is absolutely entitled to seek leave. I will hear from Mr Brownlee before I put the leave.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Spirit—Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I want to make it quite clear that was no reference to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, but—

Mr SPEAKER: I was more concerned it was a reference to me.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No one would—surely, Mr Speaker. Can I suggest that you take one of our allocation and we will give it to Mr Peters. This is going so well.

Mr SPEAKER: That seems a very fair solution.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I knew those polls were shifting. Thank you to my colleague over there. Has the Minister considered New Zealand First’s enlightened and fair solution of proportional entitlement to New Zealand superannuation based on adult years of residence in New Zealand and leaving people’s overseas pensions alone, as considered by the retirement policy and research centre, to be a fair policy?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have looked at it, and I do not think it is fair. Firstly, some people would lose money, and I do not think that that is right. Equally, I think the difference is that we believe that those who have been eligible for New Zealand residency and have been here and present for 10 years are New Zealanders. Actually, unlike that member, who thinks that they should be treated differently and worse, we think they should be treated equally with other New Zealanders.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to check the rules with regard to flashes in the House. Mr Hayes appears to be flashing from a camera.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will deal—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet.

Hon Member: Don’t stand up.

Mr SPEAKER: —and I am standing up. There was an issue that I was going to raise later in the day. There are, frankly, no rules around the use of cell phones by members while they are in this House, but for the benefit of Mr Mallard and for all members, I think that is starting to create some difficulties where we impose very stringent rules on the way the press gallery is allowed to photograph members in this House. It is going to be very difficult for any Speaker to enforce those rules if we have a carte blanche arrangement here in the House when members are using phones to photograph others. But in simple answer to your question, this issue, Mr Mallard, has yet to be addressed.

Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table a letter I received from a 76-year-old pensioner who has been in New Zealand for 40 years and would lose—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. The document has been suitably described for the House to decide whether it wants it tabled. Leave is sought to table this particular letter. Is there any objection? There is.

Local Government Reforms—Impact of Legislative Reform

4. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Associate Minister of Local Government: How will the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3), passed on Tuesday, help local government reduce costs for ratepayers, families and communities?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Local Government): The bill encourages and facilitates improvements in how local government operates in New Zealand. It does this by supporting councils to operate more efficiently and effectively for our ratepayers. It will do this on issues such as improved shared services, more flexible community consultation, and better transparency in decision making. The bill also helps deliver more concise and easily understood long-term strategic plans that focus on the issues that matter to the community. Finally, the bill will also improve housing affordability for our families and communities by making development contributions fairer and more transparent.

Jacqui Dean: How does the change to development contributions support the Government’s programme to improve housing affordability?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Development contributions are a charge on developers that allow territorial authorities to recover some of the capital costs that they incur when building or expanding infrastructure required to serve new developments. The Productivity Commission report on the Inquiry into Housing Affordability in 2012 recognised that development contributions are a key factor in higher house prices. The bill improves housing affordability by, first, including a schedule of assets that provides greater transparency in development contributions policies, and, secondly, including a new objections process with independent decision makers. It also encourages councils to enter into development agreements with developers, to provide innovative solutions. [Interruption] It also—and members opposite know this—better targets what development contributions can be used for, by narrowing the definition of “community infrastructure”. All of this contributes to bringing down the costs of building a home, and improving housing affordability.

Jacqui Dean: How is the bill supporting communities to participate in the forward planning of community infrastructure?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Good question. Communities are at the heart of local government, and they should be assured that their community assets are managed carefully. The bill enables communities to participate more fully in decision making, with more flexible arrangements. It provides transparency around key asset-management issues, and principal options to address those issues. The bill also introduces mandatory long-term planning for 30 years, as opposed to the current 10 years. This is about having more informed and productive consultation, and making sure the community is heard on the issues that matter to them.

Inequality, Economic and Social—Income Gap and Child Poverty

5. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly the policies that are leading to a stronger economy, a better community, balanced Government books, the rebuilding of Christchurch, and building a platform for further sustained growth for higher incomes and more jobs in New Zealand.

Metiria Turei: When I asked the Prime Minister about the 205,000 New Zealand children who are now living in severe poverty—that is, in families living on less than half the median income after housing costs—he answered that he “questions my facts”; what facts was he questioning?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: He was questioning just the shift that we have seen from that member, where the number used to be 270,000. But I think from question time last week to this week it has dropped by 50,000, which simply shows that one can select any measure of income that demonstrates there are thousands of people below it. What the Prime Minister does stand by is the persistent and increasingly successful effort by this Government to address the worst aspects of long-term hardship and dependency. These are complex intergenerational problems, and this Government has done more than any previous Government to address them directly, in a way that may lead to sustained solutions.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister saying he disagrees with the finding in the household income survey at table F5 on page 135 that says that 205,000 New Zealand children are now living on less than 50 percent of the median wage after housing costs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the Prime Minister would accept that there are any number of official measures of what income level a household lives on and how many thousand people there are below it. What the Prime Minister finds difficult to understand is the member’s very strong focus on measuring the problem, with almost no suggestions about how to deal with long-term hardship, persistent deprivation, and long-term welfare dependency. This Government is producing an increasingly complex, assertive, and successful set of policies—for instance, the investment approach in welfare, which is mobilising more Government support for our beneficiary population than has ever occurred in the past. I invite the member to support those efforts rather than spend all her time measuring the problem yet again.

Metiria Turei: So does the Prime Minister agree with the findings in the household income survey, also on table F5 of page 135, that under his watch, in the 6 years he has been Prime Minister, there are now 35,000 more children living in severe poverty on less than 50 percent of the median wage after housing costs than before he took office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It simply shows the limitations of this endless re-measurement of the problem. The Prime Minister’s response would be, for instance, that there are 30,000 fewer children in benefit-dependent households now than there were 5 years ago. But whatever numbers you use, this Government’s interest is in which children, in which household, in which community, and what measures we are specifically taking to work with those children in that household in their community. We are increasingly able to do that.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister then also disagree with the findings of the household income survey on table H5 on page 159 that 37 percent of all New Zealand children in poverty have parents who are in full-time work, an increase from 28 percent on the previous year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat my previous answer. We can debate forth and back any number of measures. Overall, the measures show that there is no increase in inequality in New Zealand in the last 15 years or so. It is flat. In fact, the most recent statistics show it falling. But, in any case, the real question is: what are we doing about particular children in particular families with the particular challenges that they have? Increasingly, this Government is addressing those problems at an individualised level, backed up with smart policy and sometimes more funding where that is required. We invite the member to move on from 58 different ways of measuring it—the Government employs an army of people who can measure the problems—and join those, like this Government, who are trying to find sustainable solutions for people who need them.

Metiria Turei: Seeing as the Prime Minister will not engage with the facts from his own official data, will he commit to watching the Nigel Latta documentary—

Hon Member: “Lat-ta”.

Metiria Turei: —Latta, thank you—where Talasia and Sio explain how, as parents working two jobs under his Government’s watch, they still cannot afford to feed their kids lunch every day?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister is much more likely to engage with those parents than he is with the statisticians, whom the Greens seem to be mostly engaged with. The fact is that the official data shows that in most of the dimensions that enable people to get out of poverty we are now making progress, person by person. The number in long-term welfare dependency is dropping. The number of young people going through our courts is down 25 percent in the last 3 years. The rate of prison reoffending is dropping. The rate of educational achievement is rising. The rate of immunisation is rising. On any number of measure, New Zealand is making progress because we are addressing particular families, particular children in their communities, and supporting them to get out of the cycle of dependency perpetuated by the kinds of ideas that that party pedals.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific: will he commit to watching the documentary where these families describe their circumstances as the working poor?

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to go back and have a look at her question. Her question started with the words “Seeing as the Prime Minister will not engage with the facts”, etc., and the Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister immediately said that the Prime Minister would rather engage with the people who have the problem than engage with statisticians. He addressed that part of the question. As I have frequently said to the member, if you have a specific question, ask it, and I can help.

Metiria Turei: So is the Prime Minister continuing to deny the poverty statistics produced by his own Government agencies and also ignoring the families who are suffering from that poverty, because he would rather play golf on “Planet Key” where poverty does not exist, let alone require #TeamKey’s efforts to solve the serious national crisis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think that the member realises just how mean her personal attacks on the Prime Minister sound, actually. It does not help demonstrate the warm-heartedness of the Greens. The Prime Minister is absolutely well aware of it, and, in fact, his initiative to bring in the Fresh Start programme for our youth in 2008-09 will lead directly to closing a youth prison, probably in the next few months. That is just one small measure of the focus that he brings to these issues, but I have to say he is a bit more practical and a bit less statistical than the member.

Export Sector—Performance

6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No 6 on 30 July 2014?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, particularly that part of my statement where I said the member was wrong.

Hon David Parker: Why in question time yesterday did he deny that exports have fallen to 29 percent of GDP since he took office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually, I did not deny it. What I said was I could not tell the member the number. I remember that because he laughed.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the transcript of yesterday’s Hansard, where the Minister denied—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The transcripts are available to all members.

Hon David Parker: What remedy, then, do I have? I authenticated this question when it was submitted to the Clerk, and the Deputy Prime Minister did, on the advice of Mr Joyce, deny that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The remedy available now, if the member thinks he has been misrepresented by the Minister, is to apply to me under Standing Order 355.

Hon David Parker: Is the reason he chose to misrepresent export figures in question time yesterday because the drop in exports from 33 percent to 29 percent of GDP shows he is failing in his promise to lift exports to 40 percent of GDP?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I could have a discussion with the member about the way the economy is progressing but, for instance, one factor in GDP, which the member often mentions, is the rebuild after the Christchurch earthquakes. It is sucking in an enormous amount of resources that cannot be available for exporting, so it is not surprising if, in this phase, GDP is not being driven entirely by exports. But I would repeat what I said yesterday. Our exporters have done incredibly well in the face of a high exchange rate. They have become more innovative, more resilient, and they are in great shape to do well under a re-elected National Government.

Hon David Parker: How many jobs does he expect will be lost as a consequence of the significant drop in export prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think there would be any credible estimates of that, but the drop in export prices is not unexpected. When we had a record high dairy price—the highest ever—it was always going to come down. I do not know why the member is so surprised about that. Does he not understand how the world works?

Hon David Parker: Is he now aware that in his Budget his own department forecast that over the next 2 years exports will drop in dollar terms, and, as a percentage of GDP, to 26 percent of GDP—less than the 33 percent of GDP it was when he took office, and in the opposite direction of his 40 percent target?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware of the content of the Treasury forecasts, and, as with its other export-orientated forecast, the current account deficit, it has been consistently wrong for the last 4 years. I will not be at all surprised if our export sector shows that it is more resilient than Treasury expects, more profitable and more successful. Certainly, that has been our view, and so far Treasury has been not quite on its game and our exporters have been ahead of the game.

Conservation Land—Recovery of Wind-blown Timber

7. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to the Minister of Conservation: How many expressions of interest have been received for the recovery of wind-blown timber on the West Coast when they closed on Friday 25 July, and how many of these are from West Coast companies?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): Fourteen applications have been received and I can confirm that 12 of those are West Coast companies. These are for thousands of tonnes of valuable rimu and beech that were felled in the windstorm, albeit it is a small fraction of the total wind-blown timber. The recovery of this wood will provide many jobs on the West Coast over the coming years, providing there is not a change of Government. It will provide the opportunity for New Zealanders to access the beautiful sorts of woods we see in this Chamber, rather than having to import millions of dollars of decorative timbers from overseas.

Chris Auchinvole: What assurances is he able to give that the funding derived from selling the timber will go back to the Department of Conservation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Cabinet ticked off a paper this very week that says that every net dollar that is achieved through this programme will be reinvested back into the Department of Conservation for important work like pest control and improving visitor facilities. All of those things I think New Zealanders will see as a win-win: more jobs, New Zealanders getting access to our beautiful timbers for wood that would otherwise have gone to rot, and more funding for the Department of Conservation to do its crucial work.

Chris Auchinvole: How does this policy fit with National’s approach to regional development and New Zealand creating more jobs in the forestry sector?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think this policy really is quite telling about the differing policies on this side of the House as compared with the opposite. This will provide regional development benefits for the community of the West Coast, not by the Government providing subsidies or grants, but actually just by the Government passing sensible law that will let regions take those economic opportunities. In terms of creating more jobs in the forestry sector, yes, of course it will. It will enable the wood to be processed, and actually there have been expressions of interest from over 20 different furniture manufacturers from all over New Zealand that are wanting to get access to this wind-blown timber.

Teachers and Support Staff, Payroll—Status of Novopay System

8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister responsible for Novopay: Does he stand by his statement from over 16 months ago with regard to Novopay “I want to see within three months a situation where, as much as possible, workloads from administrators are back to where they were before this thing started”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister responsible for Novopay): Yes, I do. I appreciate the member might have missed it, given that he has asked me only two or three questions during that time of the 2,821 questions—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: But I am pleased to advise him that within 3 months of making that statement the error rate—or the incidence of people overpaid, underpaid, or not paid—had fallen to less than 0.5 percent, as recommended by the ministerial inquiry. It has remained that way for all but three start-of-year pay periods this year. That is a total of 30 of the last 33 pay periods. For example, in relation to the most recent pay period, pay period 8, a total of 14 staff were notified as not paid, 15 underpaid, and 11 overpaid. For the benefit of the member, that is 40 out of 90,953 staff.

Chris Hipkins: Is he satisfied that the workload for school administrators is now back to where it was before Novopay was implemented; if so, what evidence does he have to demonstrate that that is actually the case?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: For the majority of administrators the workload is back, as I said, as much as possible to where it was before this thing started. There are some administrators who are still finding challenges. The ministry has provided payroll advisers to those people to assist them with the issues they have.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to you and to the Minister, because I know the noise was coming from my side of the House. I could not hear the Minister’s answer, and I cannot ask a supplementary question if I could not hear what he was actually saying.

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the Minister if he would repeat his answer, because I was having trouble hearing it as well.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said, most administrators will find their workload back to approximately where it was when this thing started. There are some who are still having challenges, I agree. They are being assisted by dedicated payroll advisers employed by the Ministry of Education.

Chris Hipkins: Has he started working on alternatives to Novopay in the event that the ongoing problems with Novopay cannot be resolved; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that the member should recommend that, as the member who actually recommended to the previous Minister to start the Novopay process in the first place. He will forgive me if I do not take his advice on this occasion, because I am sure the former Labour Minister wished he had not taken his advice on the earlier occasion.

Chris Hipkins: Did the Ministers responsible receive advice prior to signing off Novopay’s implementation that there were 147 known software defects with the system and that “the risk of failure is high and the consequences of failure serious”; if so, why, after 2 years of this debacle, is he refusing to explore alternatives to sticking with a payroll system he himself has described as “a dog with fleas”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry the member does not understand this, but when 90,913 staff are being paid correctly and 40 are not, in a pay period—

Andrew Little: Answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —I am answering the question; hold your fire—the simple reality of it is that it would make no sense to put the staff through what Mr Hipkins now proposes they be put through. But, then, his advice does not surprise me because it was he who was advising the previous Minister to throw out the previous pay system and put Novopay in, in the first place.

Chris Hipkins: Why should the taxpayer have confidence that his decision to take complete control of Novopay will produce better outcomes and provide better value for money, given that buried within the agreement, he has committed to making ongoing payments to Talent2 of over $9 million for a system that does not work?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Dear, oh dear! This is another example of why it would have been a good idea to have a better ministerial adviser back in 2008 than this one. The member seems to be suggesting that the solution to Novopay now is to say that we should not pay for any maintenance or any services over the next 6 years of its use to try to prove that that would be a good idea, and that Talent2 would still look after the programme on that basis. This member was out of his depth in 2008 and he is out of his depth now.

Climate Change Policy—Government Position and Impact

9. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Can he point to anything to show New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions are reducing, in light of a call from Pacific Island leaders for a clear demonstration of this?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes, I can point to the one internationally legally binding commitment New Zealand has in respect of its net emissions, which is under the Kyoto Protocol, and I am pleased to report that we are reducing our net emissions at least to the level, and quite probably below, of a quarter of a century ago, in 1990.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that his own Government’s figures show that our net emissions will rise 50 percent over the next 10 years, on what basis can he tell New Zealanders with family members in the Pacific that he is doing all he can for their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends, and children when it comes to climate change?

Hon TIM GROSER: Well, since the member did not particularly like the statistics from the official Kyoto repertoire, let me just remind him that in 5 years of this Government, between 2008 and 2012, we reduced the level of net emission by 11 percent, compared with 5 years between 2003 and 2007 under the previous Government.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister support statements made by the Minister of Finance that climate change is a non-issue; if so, does he believe it is a non-issue for our Pacific neighbours?

Hon TIM GROSER: Again, that is a classic example of taking something out of context. The Government is pursuing more than one policy objective. Climate change is absolutely one of them, but we are trying to produce answers that meet demands of New Zealanders across a broad range of concerns, and I am very confident we have got a winning formula.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Has his Government been too busy wooing oil company executives and spending $850,000 to help host the last petroleum conference at Skycity to notice the plight of our Pacific neighbours; or is it that it has noticed and does not care?

Hon TIM GROSER: Putting aside the preceding remarks around our efforts to produce our own petroleum resources and create jobs and employment in regions that will vastly benefit from that, let me just point out in respect of the Pacific that this Government has spent $90 million on fast-start climate change finance, the vast bulk of which is in the Pacific, and that this Government supported, with the cooperation of the European Union, the renewable energy conference in Auckland in 2013, which produced $635 million worth of bids for projects for the Pacific. An example of this, in respect of the Cook Islands, will be the creation of eight new solar generation systems and upgrades of their distribution system in six islands of the Cook Islands.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave of the House to table a United Nations document dated 2012, which shows that New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions have increased 22 percent—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has now been described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table a United Nations document for 2012. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he agree with the submission from iwi leaders to the expert review panel that New Zealand’s biennial report is inaccurate and misleading, and that New Zealand’s strategy to meet its medium and long-term emissions reduction obligations were fundamentally flawed; if not, why not?

Hon TIM GROSER: Absolutely not. New Zealand’s biennial report is compiled by New Zealand experts consistent with the methodologies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is then reviewed by international experts. The criticism is completely misguided.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What will he do in response to concerns from hapū and iwi Māori that there has been negligible investment in low-emissions technologies, resulting in foresters leaving the climate change scheme?

Hon TIM GROSER: What we will do is explain once again the very extensive research and investments that this Government has, in fact, done in low-emissions technologies and renewable energies, starting with the $45 million we have allocated to the Global Research Alliance—which is addressing 49.4 percent of New Zealand emissions—the additional substantial moneys going to the Primary Growth Partnership agreements, the additional substantial millions going to the consortium of companies doing pastoral greenhouse gas research, the $42 million we have committed over the last 5-year period towards research to advance biofuels, and I could go on.

Minimum Wage—Policy

10. ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: What measures, if any, will he take to lift pay rates so that workers on the minimum wage get their fair share of the economy?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): The Government is committed to growing the economy through the recent Budget and the Business Growth Agenda, and ensuring that everyone gets a fair and growing share of the pie. This includes our year-on-year increases to the minimum wage, which now sits at $14.25 and is one of the most generous in the OECD. The April increase of 50c was higher than the CPI increase, which helps ensure the lowest-paid really do get a fair share of economic growth.

Andrew Little: In light of his public comments yesterday that increasing the minimum wage according to Labour’s policy will cost jobs, why does he continue to make that claim when the last Labour Government increased the minimum wage by 70 percent and saw unemployment fall to as low as 3.5 percent—then the lowest in the OECD—towards the end of its term?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Because all of the advice that I have had shows that raising the minimum wage quickly and unsustainably, like the member wants to do, would result in 6,000 New Zealanders who are in jobs right now losing their jobs. So I think that the policies announced by the Labour Party yesterday should properly be seen as unemployment policies.

Andrew Little: Why does he continue to claim that raising the minimum wage causes job losses when the last Labour Government more than doubled the training rate, from $4.20 an hour to $9.60, and saw the unemployment rate for 15 to 19-year-olds drop from 16.5 percent to a low of 11.8 percent in 2005—a rate that has been consistently above 22 percent since 2009—after this Government introduced youth rates and the hated 90-day, no-rights law?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is, of course, a question of where the minimum wage starts. We start right now with a minimum wage that has gone up by, I think, 19 percent since we have been in office. At $14.25, it is the highest minimum wage in the world, relative to average wages, and is the fifth-highest in real terms in the world—past three European countries and Australia. Taking it to $16.25 at the start of the next year would result in thousands of New Zealanders losing their jobs.

Andrew Little: Why does he continue to claim that raising the minimum wage causes job losses when the United States Department of Labor recently advised that after reviewing 64 studies on minimum wage increases, it found no discernible effect on employment, and when the United Kingdom Low Pay Commission commissioned over 130 pieces of research from economists—

Hon Steven Joyce: What happened to 30 bucks an hour? Why not 30 bucks? Why not $35?

Andrew Little: —Mr Joyce, you might want to listen to this and learn a few facts, for a change—and found that minimum wages—

Hon Steven Joyce: No, you could learn a few facts. Why not $35, Andrew?

Andrew Little: —sensitive, Mr Joyce, sensitive—boost workers’ pay but do not harm employment?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Without being an expert on the United States, what is very clear is that it is starting from a much lower base in terms of its minimum wage than we are. Where we start, as highest in the world relative to average wage, makes it very clear that we put people out of jobs if we do otherwise. It is also clear that in New Zealand we are talking about a country made up of small and medium sized businesses that actually need increases in productivity and growth to take on more people. That is why the 90-day trial, the starting-out wage, and all of these policies that National has been promoting are creating real jobs for real people, not like the unemployment policies that Labour announced yesterday.

Andrew Little: When will he and his Government come into the 21st century and accept that a fair minimum wage that allows workers to earn a decent income and live in dignity lifts productivity, is good for business, and is good for all New Zealanders?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are already, of course, in the 21st century and we know that the policies we have got are creating jobs. I would like to know when the Greens will start supporting the 7,000 people in oil and gas in Taranaki and the Labour Party will do something about an appalling policy that would see something like 16,000 New Zealanders in the film industry put out of jobs.

Road Safety—Initiatives

11. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister of Transport: What has the Government done to make roads safer for New Zealanders?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): Last night Parliament passed the Land Transport Amendment Bill. This bill comes into force on 1 December, and it will lead to a saving of lives. The Government has also, under my associate Michael Woodhouse, continued to press ahead with the Safer Journeys strategy. We have introduced electronic stability control for new cars, we have increased the driving age to 16, and we have fixed the give-way rule. We have named the 100 riskiest intersections in New Zealand and begun planning their upgrades, and we have instituted a zero blood-alcohol limit for under-20s. Most important, in terms of results, we have seen the last 3 years’ road tolls coming down to 50-year lows. But there is still, with that large number of people who die on the roads each year, a lot to be done.

Broadband, Ultra-fast and Rural—Uptake and Performance

12. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What percentage of the 1,592,000 target households for both the Government-subsidised rural and urban broadband programmes have actually connected and why are the figures so low?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: I am surprised that the member has gone on to judge them as being low before hearing the answer, but, nevertheless, of the estimated 747,000 end-users who can now receive either package, the answer is 13 percent. Of the remaining end-users who have not had it built out to them yet, the answer is, weirdly enough, zero.

Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was a simple question. It was a question on notice. It asked for two percentage figures for the target households—these are the households able to connect. It asked what the number of households actually connected is, and it asked for two percentage figures.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has given two percentages. He gave 13 percent for those who are able to connect at this stage and zero for those who are not, so he has given two percentage figures. I think the best way forward is I will allow the member an additional supplementary question.

Clare Curran: Why are there no figures for the actual number of people living in rural New Zealand who are connected to the taxpayer-funded rural broadband programme, which she has touted as being the envy of other countries but which is clearly failing to deliver?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are numbers. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I did not—[Interruption] Order! I actually did not hear the answer. Could the Minister repeat the answer.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member asked why there were not any figures, and I said there are figures.

Clare Curran: What is the percentage figure for the number of people connected to rural broadband?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I thank the member for her question. The rate of uptake for the rural broadband package fixed line is 22.6 percent, which is about 57,000 rural homes and businesses, while the wireless Rural Broadband Initiative has approximately 6,000 end-users. We cannot give exact percentages for each component as there are some that have a crossover of both fixed line and wireless coverage areas, but that gives the member a reasonable estimation.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to do this on the last day, but we have had the Minister deliberately fudge the answer to a primary question, making a member use three supplementary questions to then get information that he actually should have given out in the primary question or in either of the first two supplementary questions. Unfortunately, this has been the pattern of Mr Joyce throughout this sitting time. It is not fair for members to have to use supplementary questions in that way.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The first question was about percentages. She asked for two percentages; two percentages were given. The second was about whether numbers were available; the answer was yes, they are available. The third question got to the point, and there was a very clear answer once the member got to the point. It is not the Minister’s job to pre-empt what it is that people might particularly want if their question does not indicate that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need further assistance. I have listened very carefully to the questions and to the answers, and my job is to address whether the questions have been addressed. I do not have to judge the quality of the answers; it is for the members in this House and the public to judge the quality. In one case I thought there was a question about whether it had been satisfactorily addressed. I did what I often do and gave an additional supplementary question. I think that that was the way forward. So the member Clare Curran still has, I think, two supplementary questions to use.

Clare Curran: How can she claim that, when after 6 years—and where her Government’s investment in broadband infrastructure was touted as the big flagship programme in 2008—only 2 percent of New Zealanders in the target households have connected to ultra-fast broadband, and a report out last week from the Commerce Commission showed that the speed of rural broadband has significantly declined in the last 2 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is simply wrong. She is simply wrong. The reality of it is that the rate of uptake for the ultra-fast broadband—

Grant Robertson: Patronising. Arrogant.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Be quiet, Mr Robertson, and just listen for a minute. The rate of uptake for the ultra-fast broadband as at the end of June for end-users who are able to connect—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We could be here for a long time to finish question time unless we get a bit of cooperation.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, the rate of uptake for the ultra-fast broadband as at the end of June for end-users who are able to connect is 7.6 percent, which is 39,510 end-users. That is a 44 percent increase on the number of connections on the previous quarter, which is an excellent result.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member, the member has two further supplementary questions.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table two documents, including the last quarterly figures for ultra-fast broadband uptake, where it shows that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need to know any further information than that. I just need to know the source of the document.

Clare Curran: It is a quarterly update document from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is easily resolved on the basis that they may be difficult for members to obtain. I will put the leave and the House can decide. Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection?

Clare Curran: That is only one document.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, I apologise. Leave is sought to table one document. Is there any objection? There is.

Clare Curran: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: A further point of order.

Clare Curran: Can I table another document? I seek leave to table another document.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member briefly describes it and includes the source, I will put the leave.

Clare Curran: It is a report on rural broadband speeds going backwards, produced last week by TrueNet for the Commerce Commission.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular report. Is there any objection? There is.

Clare Curran: What does she say to the hundreds of communities in New Zealand who experience substandard, slow broadband, are treated like second-class citizens to their urban cousins, and cannot either afford or get access to anything better—communities such as Outram and Karitane, near Dunedin; Ōtaki, north of Wellington; Waverley, near Wanganui; and Haast, Hokitika, and Westport on the West Coast, to name just a few—has not her Government just abandoned these communities?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I did not know we were doing speeches. The point of this is that the member is simply wrong again. The member is simply wrong again. Again, I tell her that the rate of uptake for improved rural broadband is 22.6 percent—about 57,000 rural homes and businesses—and the roll-out continues. If I could be helpful to the member, and I genuinely mean this, the answers I was giving her earlier are actually more up-to-date information than is publicly available, but she does not seem to want to get the answer to the question at question time.

Clare Curran: Why is it that after 6 years in Government more than one in five New Zealanders do not have regular access to the internet, and 62,000 households with school-aged children do not have access to the internet at home; why is the digital divide increasing under her Government and becoming a new measure of poverty?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I sense another crisis coming on. It is late in the term, but I suspect a crisis. This Government has done a very good job of lifting connectivity for New Zealanders on the internet and with broadband. This Government has achieved something that has not been achieved anywhere else in the world, which is the progressive roll-out of ultra-fast broadband to a population density that is fairly small. We have achieved a connection rate already of 7.6 percent, which is exactly on target. We are rolling out a rural broadband initiative, which both that member and her party have opposed all the way through.

David Shearer: I would like to seek leave to table a document that is the credit card statement of Murray McCully from 22 May, including a charge for internet connection to receive a note he should have been able to receive on the Malaysian diplomat case.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It doesn’t actually say that.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the member was misleading the House, that is a very serious offence—[Interruption]. Order! I am putting the leave. It is over to the House as to whether it wants to see that document tabled. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Adjournment

Adjournment

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House do now adjourn until Tuesday, 19 August 2014. I am proud to move this motion on behalf of a Government that is working for New Zealand. It is a cohesive Government leading a confident country with aspirations for a better future and a brighter future. The election campaign is going to show how different the Opposition is from that. The great thing about this period of this Parliament is that the achievements of this Government have actually been New Zealand’s achievements. It is not so much what the Cabinet or the caucus or the coalition parties have done; it is what the households and workplaces of New Zealand have done to pull this country through some of the tougher times it has seen in decades, to the point where New Zealanders can look forward with confidence. The Government has supported them in their resilience and we will continue to do so. We did what we said we would do. We worked alongside people. We protected the most vulnerable. We focused on the issues that matter: a competitive and productive economy. We sorted out the Government’s books and we rebuilt Christchurch.

I want to thank all of those people who have helped with the business of government. Mr Speaker, I want to thank you. I can read your writing and you are an excellent Speaker, although we often disagree. Can I thank the staff here in Parliament. Their respectful support is not always deserved by every MP, but I must say that your professionalism helps us to lift our standards. Can I thank the cleaners, the security and catering staff, library staff, Hansard staff, the Cabinet Office, our research units, and particularly our office staff across the parties, who have to keep an eye on every parliamentary question—all 30,000 of them—every letter, every Official Information Act request, and make sure that every email is opened, and account for every single expense. I want to—[Interruption] Actually, some members could have benefited from parliamentary staff who could open their secret trust. Do you not think that that would have helped? Do you not think so? Because then we would know whether Kim Dotcom had donated to the Labour Party. I suspect he probably has, because he wants to be influential if the Government changes, and what better way than to do what he does with everybody else—put money in their bank account?

I want to thank my colleagues. This is a group of people who have arrived at the election in 2014 with the ideas and the energy to get even more progress in the next 3 years than in the last 3 years—even more progress. I want to acknowledge in passing just a couple of my colleagues: my good friend of 24 years in Parliament, Tony Ryall, and my neighbour from the south, Eric Roy. I also want to acknowledge all those other MPs who have given their valedictories. What they demonstrate to this Parliament is that the strength of this party is people who are deeply connected to their communities, whose instincts about how New Zealanders think are finely tuned and well asserted in our political process. I want to thank all those members, particularly the ones who came into provincial seats that used to be marginal or Labour seats and are now safe National seats and will remain so after this next election. The reason they are going to win is pretty simple: there are more new jobs, their economies are growing, crime is going down, educational achievement is going up, and the communities are getting better as the economy gets stronger.

I want to thank our Prime Minister. I know it is a luxury in this House, but we have a leader we support.

Hon Members: Yay!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know. But I have to admit that he makes it easy. It is the only little bit of sympathy I have ever had for the Labour Party. You are meant to support your leader, but you need him to just give you the skerrick of hope that the thing you voted for is what it is going to be. Ah! They did not. [Interruption] That is right; I am coming back to that. But this Prime Minister believes in New Zealand and New Zealanders and their aspirations. That is the difference. He does not want them where you have to feel sorry for them; he wants them looking upward and forward, just as he does with his relentless optimism for this country, which we have enjoyed the benefit of as the team who works with him. He has appealed to the best in every New Zealander. For every high-profile event with the Queen, the President of the US, and the Chinese leadership, and every interview in the media, there are hundreds of small, warm encounters with New Zealanders who admire the Prime Minister. That is why he rates 70 percent and the other one rates 7 percent. That is why.

I want to thank our coalition partners, United Future and ACT, who have committed themselves to stable and credible Government, and we appreciate that. I want to also acknowledge the Māori Party, and, in doing so, remind the House where it all started with my old friend Tau Henare, who in 1993 was the first non-Labour member to hold a Māori seat for 70 years. He won the seat that 70 years previously had been held by his great-grandfather. That started a process—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which party?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the New Zealand First party. That was when it was good. He started a process so necessary for New Zealand, which was the unravelling of Māori from being patronised by the Labour Party. I want to credit Winston Peters for helping with it. Our relationship with the Māori Party is one of respect, not agreement. It voted against us over 90 times in this term of office—over 90 times, and it probably wishes it was a hundred sometimes. It has added significantly to the quality and the breadth of Government thinking. Actually, in getting around a few people after the Budget—Te Ururoa Flavell may remember this—an old man in an iwi discussion we were doing about the Budget said: “You know, Labour want us where they feel sorry for us.” That is absolutely right, and we are going to change it.

I want to thank the Labour Party for dumping David Shearer. By now he would have been really good. I want to thank Labour for then also going and selecting David Cunliffe. That is even better. Ah, sorry, no, I got that wrong. It was not the Labour caucus that selected David Cunliffe; it was all the other ones. As he said himself: “People will make up their minds as they get to know me.” They have got to know him and they are making up their minds. It is getting so bad that Trevor Mallard used the allegory of the moa. As he said himself, scientists have advanced their work in being able to use DNA techniques from extinct animals to reconstruct new life. That is what the Labour Party is going to need; it is. Actually, it is a warning from Trevor, because when he loses Hutt South they will have to use DNA from him to renew the Labour Party later.

Can I thank Kim Dotcom. For a man who set out to rid this country of John Key, he is doing more than anyone else, except David Cunliffe, to make sure John Key stays. I hope that he is on the TV every night. I had hoped that David Cunliffe would be on every Labour billboard, but guess what? He is on hardly any of them. I think that is the smartest thing the Labour Party has come up with this term, because there has not been anything else.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): Now that Paula Bennett has got her seat sorted out, she probably could have afforded to stand with the rest of them. I think I have not seen Bill English so excited since he got 21 percent in the time he ran. I do want to acknowledge something that he has said, which I think is right. It is to New Zealanders that we owe the credit for surviving the Canterbury earthquakes and the global financial crisis. We all know that milk and disaster are not an economic strategy. What New Zealanders are waking up to is the sad realisation that actually there is nothing there—there is no plan. This is a Government that goes from day to day, muddling through in the name of political pragmatism what is actually just reinforcing privilege. If New Zealanders want a fairer, better, more decent society, that is going to require change. It is going to require the MPs on this side of the House to move to that side of the House so that we can implement the changes that New Zealanders want.

This is the final debate of the year, the adjournment debate, and it is a time to extend the hand of collegiality, if not friendship, across the House. I believe that we have a set of policies that will help MPs on all sides. The Māori Party—our retirement policy will help all three of them. Peter Dunne—Labour believes in more transparency for our spying operations, and nobody has done more for that than Peter Dunne. And the ACT Party—our apprenticeships policy has been widely applauded. I understand a certain John Key wants an apprenticeship for some young fulla in Epsom. We will see how he goes. I want to extend the hand of friendship to Steven Joyce, because he and I have something in common: neither of us wants to see Judith Collins as Prime Minister.

More seriously, I do want to thank the people who keep this place ticking. I would like to start with the cleaning staff, and in particular Service and Food Workers Union member Jaine Ikurere, whom I met yesterday when we announced our $2 an hour rise in the minimum wage policy launch, and site manager Arran Milne. You guys, you do a thankless task but it is greatly appreciated by all of us. Good Lord! There is enough mud thrown around this place. Thank God somebody is cleaning it up.

Thank you to the messengers, to Heather Daly and her team, and to Philippa Henwood from Visitor and Support Services and her team; to the ever-helpful travel office—Roz Parry and her team—to Alan Mumford and his team from Buildings and Services; to Peter Andrews and the team at VIP Transport Services; to Janette Smidt and her team at Security; and, of course, the Bellamy’s and Copperfield’s staff, including staff at 3.2, and the General Manager of Parliamentary Service, David Stevenson. I would like to thank my Chief of Staff, Matt McCarten, and our Whip’s Office manager, Emma Williams, and the dedicated and talented team of Labour staff, executive assistants, out-of-Parliament staff, and issues assistants. I am sure all parties would want to join together and thank our hard-working staff for allowing us to do the job that we do.

The adjournment debate is also a chance to thank those who make Parliament work. It is an opportunity to sum up the issues that have really focused the minds of this House over the last 3 years. You might say: growing inequality, a failing economy, and the antidote—Labour’s strategy for a high-value economy that puts people first and delivers for homes, jobs, and families.

But before we get into that, I do think we need to pause for a brief moment to note the tragic state of affairs in Gaza. This is a humanitarian disaster. The Labour Party stands with the international community in its call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. I would note that we have supported the Government in its statements, but I want to register our growing concern that the strength of those statements has not kept up with the deterioration of the situation in Gaza. We want to see more resolve and more strength now from New Zealand in pushing hard for an immediate ceasefire.

As I said yesterday when I announced our minimum wage policy, raising it by $2 to $16.25 in our first year of Government will put $4,000 a year in the hands of minimum-wage workers in this country. That will make a huge difference to the 40 percent of our children who are growing up in poverty, even though their parents are working—the working poor. It is high time that we stopped saying that poverty is only a matter of the unemployed. It is not. A quarter of a million New Zealanders will be affected by this wage rise. That is one of the most important things we can do to make this country whole again, and that is just the first round.

Make no mistake—work and wages are a major issue for New Zealand. They join other significant issues of the day: the transfer of our productive assets from all New Zealanders to just 2 percent of them; the fact that the Government’s major attack here on the economy was tax cuts that we could not afford, for people who did not need them; the fact that Government put up GST on everybody else, even though it said it would not; the Government’s erosion of New Zealanders’ privacy by extending the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau; and so many of the Government’s actions where it has shown a disregard for the majority of New Zealanders including, it might be said, the creeping politicisation of the Public Service and the broader institutions of Government—something that is worrying all New Zealanders.

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Minister may laugh, but New Zealanders expect a professional Public Service, not toadies and cronies for people who are acting on behalf of privilege.

Hardly a week seems to go by without one of the Government’s Ministers being mired in scandal. What does the Prime Minister do? He shrugs and walks away. If it is not the Minister of Conservation bullying environmental advocates doing their statutory duty, it is his Minister of Transport ignoring aviation security, or the Minister of Justice forgetting about conflicts of interest involving donations and her husband’s directorships, or it is cash for access, or it is interfering in a police investigation for another donor, or it is Mr Banks resigning over electoral fraud.

That is just the Cabinet. If we cast a little wider, the endless stories of looking after the top few at the expense of everybody else are widespread, like taking off workers to appease an international film company, or bailing out multinational corporations, or subsidising polluters, or throwing millions of dollars of public money at elite golf competitions, failed yacht races, or oil executives’ junkets—$250,000 on entertaining oil barons; mining, dining, and wining—while we have delivered a minimum wage rise to quarter of a million New Zealand workers. That is the difference between that side of the House and this. The choice could not be clearer.

Do you know what? All that looking after the Government’s mates would not be so bad if it was just a bit of excess in an economy where everyone was doing fine. But that is not what is happening. Instead, the Government is indulging the top few while leaving most New Zealanders behind, like the 46 percent who have not had a pay rise, the many more who have not had enough to meet the increased cost of living, and the 260,000 children living in poverty. They are just the Kiwis who are doing it really tough. What about all the others who are working hard, playing by the rules, and just cannot get ahead—the ones who are afraid to open their power bills each month because they do not know how they are going to pay for them, and the ones who go out and work a hard day’s work every day, who expect not too much but expect to be able to get ahead yet at the moment cannot? They cannot even afford to not go back to work once their paid parental leave runs out and they are worried about getting a decent education for their kids or worrying about their mortgage rates going up.

These are the people whom this election campaign will be about. These are the people who will decide who gets to govern for the next 3 years. The Government offers them nothing. In fact, it takes it away. It took away their assets, it took away their rights at work, it took away 2.5 percent through GST, it has run down health funding and it has run down social housing. Now the Prime Minister is saying that giving the lowest-paid Kiwis a modest pay rise is “really frightening”. Like fairness and decency, it is something to be scared of! Labour rejects that view.

We have a plan to build up New Zealand businesses and grow the economy—to be a Government that works alongside our businesses and communities to grow wealth and create jobs. There is no point in economic growth if it does not lead to a fair and decent society. The plan is all costed. New Zealand can do better, will do better, and we know that we can deliver. The next Labour-led Government will not just work for New Zealanders; it will work with them and alongside them. It will have the aim of making New Zealand the fairest, most decent society in the world—a place where everyone has a good job, a good roof over their head, and opportunities for their family to get ahead with them.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I love Aotearoa. I love our country. I want it to become the country where every child in New Zealand has enough to thrive—what a future for our children. Just 34 days until early voting opens for the election, until we can genuinely change this Government so that every child has enough to thrive, and I know that New Zealanders will give their party vote to the Greens to make sure that that happens.

It has been a long, hard 3 years, but we have got there. I want to take this moment to thank the Green team, who have worked so hard to make this country a cleaner, fairer, and smarter one, and who live the Green values and make it so obvious in the quality of their work. I thank the cleaners, who work so hard for too little money to keep our offices clean; the messengers, who, though they are not paid to deal with rubbish, put up with so much more of it than they deserve; and the Chamber officers here, who make question time livable for us.

This place is so much more than the sum of its parts. Thanks to the librarians, who work tirelessly on the Green Party’s endless requests for more information; thanks to the ministerial staff, who deal with our questions and Official Information Act requests; and thanks to the press gallery, which spreads its love around with promiscuous inconsistency, but which we continue to love in our own special way, too.

Thank you to the Labour Party, our partner in the fight for a fairer future. And thank you, Mr Speaker, for keeping us on our toes, while barely restraining yourself from throwing us out of the Chamber when we leap to them.

The Green Party has had a great term. We have led the Opposition—you know that is true—we have set the agenda, and we have outlined our vision for a cleaner, fairer, smarter New Zealand. We are stronger now than we have ever been this close to an election. We are ready, our leadership is proven, and we are prepared for real change—much-needed change—which is coming this September. “Party Vote Green”.

Over this term of Parliament we have put poverty, the environment, and smart economics on the political agenda, and I am very proud of that. But I do confess that we have spent a bit of time being confused about National’s resistance to our cleaner, fairer, smarter plan. With more kids in poverty, house price rises increasing 10 times as fast as incomes, and rivers too polluted to swim in, how can it keep saying that things are getting better?

As the term progressed we kept wondering what planet the Government was on. Of course, the answer was provided in part by John Key himself last year, when he started to paint the picture of life on “Planet Key”—the manicured golf courses, the endless holidays, and the mysterious lack of toilets. You might remember this. Things at that point started to make a little more sense, but, nevertheless, our party strategists continued to wonder how National could keep ploughing ahead in denial of the reality on planet Earth.

Well, I have found out how. Apparently, on the very first day of caucus, every National MP is issued with special white-out goggles. These white-out goggles filter from their sight all the poor people, all the brown people, and all the poverty. They make invisible pollution and pretty much all those other nasties and misfits that they do not like. They leave the world of National members as white as the purest toilet paper—a world made of holidays, long lunches, endless green golf courses, and a disproportionate number of middle-aged, white men with Bachelor of Commerce degrees. It is a world populated with people just like themselves.

It is in this white-out on “Planet Key” that the Skycity convention centre, for example, becomes a marvel of ministerial influence, rather than a monument to ministerial interference. Auckland streets become paved with golden tokens. You do not need to constrain gambling when it causes no harm. One can look through these white-out goggles, and maybe even I would have been sold on the deal, because National has found gold.

And poverty? Poverty is gone. Poor children do not exist on “Planet Key”, so why would you bother working for them? What use is there in having payments for the poorest newborn babies if no one is born into poverty in the first place? So those members say: “Let’s just give the money to everybody else.”—to people just like themselves.

The environment is so beautiful with these white-out goggles on, it is no wonder the National people cannot even think about rivers needing standards to ensure that they are clean enough to swim in. When they go down to the river, it looks like a music video from some kind of angelic gospel song, except, of course, all the folks who are wading in the water are white. What an amazing place “Planet Key” is with these fabulous goggles on. I cannot see a thing most of the time when I wear them, but what I do see does look awfully white. Hell, I cannot even see myself. It is no wonder Anne Tolley did not like my jackets—they must have looked very odd as they wandered through the Chamber all by themselves.

Of course, National Ministers must wine and dine the oil companies and hope that they will drill our shores because, with these goggles on, there is no chance of an oil spill. They can drill all the way to China. And, of course, there is no reason to stop intensifying the dairying industry. The rivers are safe from pollution because, just like the people on “Planet Key”, the cows on “Planet Key” do not shimmy, either.

But, seriously, I am going to take the goggles off for a moment—just the goggles, mind—and for a moment reflect on the reality that is planet Earth. This beautiful place, Aotearoa New Zealand, is a great country, which has risen above the fray in the past and whose time to shine has come again.

Over the past years the Green Party has challenged the dim and privileged view of the future that National has for us. We have challenged John Key’s lack of aspiration for our environment, for our economy, and for our people, and his unwillingness to spread the benefits around. We have exposed his denial of the families who are living in the greatest need in this country. We in the Greens have been described as the real Opposition as we have mapped out our vision for a cleaner, fairer, and smarter future, and our vision is grounded in the possible.

John Key governs as if there are three things that are inevitable: child poverty, dirty rivers, and a third term. No—no. The Green Party says that none is inevitable at all. Poverty, as Nelson Mandela once said, is not an accident. Like racism and apartheid, it is man-made and can be removed. Every child can have enough to thrive. It is the duty of those of us who have the power to ensure that they do. Poverty is not the cost of prosperity, just as dirty rivers are not the cost of progress.

In the same way that New Zealand led the world by making a stand against nuclear power, we too can make a stand against child poverty and for our environment. We can have a smarter, cleaner, fairer economy that innovates and that measures its success in the well-being of the people whom it serves. We can have a society where every child has enough to thrive because the benefits of the wealth of our society are more fairly shared. We can have, as a birthright for our children, an environment that is clean and that continues to provide for our economic well-being well into the future.

We have an opportunity this 20 September to challenge the old, fossil thinking and to steer a course for a cleaner, a fairer, and a smarter future—one where every child can thrive. This will be the country that I love the best. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First): I want to pass on our regards to all retiring colleagues and wish them the very best. To those soon to retire, bad luck, but that is what politics is like—and there are going to be a few, I can assure you. I want to say also, to get rid of the debris of organisation, that those who want to see a change in this country, and a real change, will be at the Kelston Community Centre at 1.30 on 10 August for our launch. It is just common sense.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s the address? What’s the street number?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, Mr Brownlee. If you want to come you will have to get there early, because it is going to be wall-to-wall. It will not be like those telephone-booth meetings you have been having, where you say something or cough and they report it. No, no; we respond to market demand.

First of all, let us be very clear that New Zealand First wants to thank all the many people whose commitment, integrity, and professionalism here ensures that Parliament runs in a smooth and seamless way. Thanks to everyone in the Speaker’s office. Thanks to everyone in the Clerk’s Office, the Hansard reporters, all the library staff, and the telephonists. We acknowledge especially all the messengers and their helpful, cheerful manner around these parliamentary precincts. We thank also the security guard team for keeping us safe here, and, above all, we give a special thanks to the cleaners, who deserve a pay rise. We will deliver them a pay rise as soon as this election is over. Our apologies if we have forgotten anybody.

We appreciate all of those who are part of the parliamentary community and enable us to operate as an effective political party and keep these people honest—it is not the easiest job there is. It is not an easy job at all. We support the dedication of our staff in our own office, who have made this year for New Zealand First, yet again, a successful one, and, as you know, we will be celebrating our 21st birthday tonight.

Hon Member: That’ll be untidy.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Unlike the National Party, we do not get drunk on a wine biscuit. In this Parliament we have been a firm and outspoken Opposition party whilst always being constructive. We have been unafraid to tackle contentious issues; areas such as, for example, what others regard as taboo: Whānau Ora, wholesale immigration, scandal after scandal in the Immigration Service, and the Treaty industry. This has been the party with the resounding message. It is the party that people in this country can rely upon, the one that has the record—not just a dog whistle when it gets worried, but a consistent record through these last 21 years.

We have spoken for the ordinary people of this country, the people whom the National Government has consistently chosen to ignore and overlook, and I know personally that the National Party’s political support is soft. It is seriously soft. It is below where it was at this time for the last election, and on the present basis it is seriously in trouble, as some of the inside body language shows. Mr Key called an early election. He called an election and he said it was to calibrate it with the APEC agenda. That was false—Steven Joyce let it out of the bag. He said “Oh, our supporters were going to the beach.”, so he fixed that one. You see how deceitful they are? They called a snap election on the basis of their political advantage. They have had 6 years at the helm, and there is an old saying “Pride cometh before a fall”.

David Bennett: You should know about it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There is Mr Bennett laughing now, but I know his knees are shaking—I know his knees are shaking. The question is: do their policies deserve another term? The answer is “What policies?”. The answer is a resounding no. Why give their policies more time to do more damage? We are on a slide. There is $150 billion of debt and they are smiling. National debt—that is the Government debt—is up six times to $60 billion and they call themselves proficient managers. They are unbelievable. They are bereft of ideas and intent only on helping their well-connected mates and cronies. That is what is going to lose them the election—they have looked after their own. But this time is for those that have been abandoned and forgotten, or, as the famous Australian Prime Minister Menzies called them, “those forgotten New Zealanders.” They are going to go out on election day, they are going to express their anger, and they are most definitely not voting for the National Party.

Our correspondence, our emails, and our contacts say that they know to hang on for just 7 more weeks, because help is on its way in the form of New Zealand First. This is what National’s record is: massive debt—massive Government debt—and homeownership rates that are the worst since 1951 when Holland was the new Prime Minister. Then there is all that incompetence—the bread and butter of this administration is total incompetence. “Mr Fix-it” was going to fix up Novopay. He is an ace. Of course, every morning he gets up and he points towards Pakuranga and bows to a man called Maurice Williamson, who made him the multimillionaire he is. That is another story, but when I hear these stories about how competent they are and how much business experience they have, I do my investigations and we know how he got his money.

Novopay—what a fiasco. The $800-million South Canterbury Finance blowout—$800 million and they would not have an inquiry. They refused to have an inquiry as to the incompetence of Ministers or Treasury. In short, they made an underwriting arrangement with South Canterbury Finance and did not cap the underwriting document.

David Bennett: And who gave it?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Bennett says “Who gave it?”. Look at your colleagues. What have you been doing in caucus? I mean, do you go to caucus to eat your lunch? Go and ask the Ministers: “Why did you incompetent bozos lose my people—the taxpayers of Hamilton East and West—$800 million?”. That is called “accountability”. No, of course, this is a National Party that has this feature: it asks a nice guy like Goldsmith to stand in a seat and pull down his hoardings. How politically cuckolded could you get? To use an old English expression, how politically cuckolded could you get?

Mike Sabin: Tell us about Ron Mark.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I want to tell Mr Sabin that he is in trouble in his electorate as well. He wanted to move to Whangarei because he is not popular. He has not got John Carter’s skills. No, he is not popular in Dargaville, Kaihu, and all those places. I know, because they keep on saying: “Winston, when are you going to put up a candidate? We don’t like this guy.” When the Mangawhai Heads people got into trouble, what did he do? He just deserted them. He just deserted them. Those Mangawhai people in their thousands are most definitely not voting for any party that did not help them. But one party did: New Zealand First.

This country’s sovereignty has been so compromised by National. We have so many people who are non-citizens and are allowed to buy into this country, buy property, and cause a massive housing bubble in Auckland. From Kaitāia to Invercargill they are paying high interest rates—four rises in the CPI already. From Kaitāia to Invercargill they are paying high interest rates—because of what? Because of National’s open-door policy for immigration and offshore buying of Auckland homes. What a farce.

Soon the people of this country are going to get one of those glorious things that, in the canvas of history, has been most rare: a democratic vote. If you look down the ages of history, having a vote at an election is a rare privilege. But they are going to get it, and they coming out with a vengeance. I want to tell the media one thing. If any reports are out there that New Zealand First is in discussions with any other political party, any such report will be, to use Geoffrey Palmer’s famous words, spreading rumour with malice. It will be false. It will be an intentional lie on the part of that journalist. It will have no basis whatsoever.

Only one party is independent in this Parliament, and its name is New Zealand First—its name is New Zealand First. That is why hundreds of thousands of New Zealand are going to show up some of the people in the press gallery on 20 September—because they are coming out and they are going to make sure that this time their voices are heard. Our commitment to them is that we will not let them down.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): Every one of those members applauding there was simply slapping his or her face to try to wake up. I want to begin my contribution this afternoon by acknowledging you, Mr Speaker, for your work over the last 2½ years in the Chair. I think it has been a very, very good time for Parliament, in no small way due to the way in which you have allowed the proceedings here to be conducted. I want to add to that thanks to the Clerk’s Office: Mary Harris, Debbie Angus, and the rest of the team who do that work. For the sake of time, can I simply say that I agree with the long list that has previously been mentioned by all speakers here today and thank those in this complex who try their very best to make our lives a little easier, including my own ministerial staff, who work very long hours—as do they all—to make sure we are in a good space all the time.

I was very alarmed when I heard that comment from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, when he said he had personal knowledge that people were going to vote away from National. Well, I need to inform him that we have not counted on his vote for quite some years. His personal knowledge may be useful for him but comes as no news to us. Further, on the suggestion that there is anybody out there putting rumours about that there are discussions between parties about future coalition arrangements that engage New Zealand First, I want to confirm that I have heard no such rumour, I have started no such rumour, and I want no such result.

I think that the point I would like to make as we go into this election, and what this afternoon has shown very clearly so far, is that the message our opponents are taking out to voters is incredibly negative—incredibly negative. When you think about what it is like for people to go about their daily lives and to do all the things they have to do to make their own lives good for them, their families, and everybody they are associated with, there are things that create struggle every now and then. There are things that get on top of people occasionally. But most people know that that is part of run-of-the-mill life. What they want to see is a Government that actually pictures a horizon for them that has a positive effect on their lives.

You have only got to look at the way in which wages in this country have risen over the last 6 years, the way in which bureaucracy in this country has refocused itself on doing things that make life easier for people, and so many other areas of Government activity. Health care is now more accessible to many New Zealanders than it has been in the past. Education is seeing more young people in training than we have ever seen in this country before. These are positive things that voters look to and know about.

The great Norman Kirk once said there are four things people look to. One of them is personal security. In this country, crime statistics being down and the presence of our police in our communities in such a positive way are also part of that positive message that people get about the way they can live their lives under a Government that wants to support them to do that.

When you get the sort of message we got from the Green Party today—that sad, dismal, horrible sort of view of life that says that only a Green influence in Government can be used to change it—people are not going to listen to that. I want to say this to the Green Party: I have been in this House for quite a time. The attitude of New Zealanders towards all things environmental, towards all things related to conservation has changed immensely—it has changed immensely. All of the initiatives around recycling, the way in which we deal with the atmosphere, our air quality, our water quality—you keep naming it, and I will keep telling you that the Greens have never been part of any of that because they always sit on the outside criticising and telling everyone how bad it all is.

We got that again today. Every river, apparently, is so damn filthy you cannot get near them, and all farmers are huge polluters. They talk about the pollution economy. They forget that it will be the income that comes out of this economy that will allow some of the changes that need to be made to make the environmental improvements they seek.

Voters do not really connect to that negative message. They have no interest in that negative message. I cannot imagine what it would be like to go down to one of the hall meetings that will be held over the next 7 weeks and to see the Green members, the Mana members, and the Labour members all sitting there saying “We’re it—the great triumvirate, the trinity of Government in New Zealand in the next 3 years. How bad is it, and how bad does it have to get for our message to finally sink in?”. People are just going to say they are not interested.

Sue Moroney: Do you reckon?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: They are over there and they are laughing—they are laughing. Sue Moroney is laughing because, frankly, she has never had a meeting of more than 20 people, and even then they had been asking to come along and deselect her. I think that the clear and stark difference in the campaign that is coming is that the National Party has a positive message about the future of New Zealand, and the Labour Party and all of its cohorts have a very, very negative message about what is wrong with the country. In the end, people know that if there is a criticism of this country, it is a criticism that is levelled at its people. That is a political message that people will not listen or connect to.

Then, of course, there is the fact that you can back it up with some of the great statistics that are out there at the present time. We keep on hearing “Let’s raise the minimum wage.” Well, this Government has raised the minimum wage consistently, regularly, and frequently to get it to the level it is now, $14.25. None of us over here would say that that is as good as it can get, but our record shows that it is continually increasing. Labour goes out and says “Right, we’re going to make it $16.80 and then we’re going to take it up over time to $18.”—or whatever figure it likes.

We have a very low level of unemployment in this country. We have that low level of unemployment because there are jobs, people are able to get into the job market, and they are able to make a start. When they become valuable workers in their workplaces, they do get wage rises. They do get moved up the ladder. It does not matter how much the Labour Party, the Green Party, and Mana want to say that that is not true; it is. “Jobs first” has to be the call. I want to suggest to those New Zealand First members over there that that is just common sense. A quick look at the number of new jobs that have come into our economy starts to tell the story—172,000 new jobs inside the last 6 years.

The projections for an economy that is growing the way this is at the moment give a huge amount of hope that all people in this country will be doing better as we move forward. That is the essence of what a Government is supposed to do. It is telling that our emigration statistics now are starting to look in a positive direction. Every criticism that was out there around that at the time of the last election has been dissipated by the reality of what has actually happened.

As many will know, I have a great deal to do with the Government’s involvement in Christchurch. It has been extensive, it has been unstinting, and it has been generous, not because we want to get any result for the Government but because we know that it is what New Zealanders expect us to do as a Government. I think that the situation in Christchurch is turning for the better. It has been tough on people. It has not been easy, and there is still a long way to go, but there are a couple of things I would point to.

Firstly, we had this week the Labour Party spokesman going out and saying we were way behind the housing target for New Zealand. I explained to him that if he looked fully at the statistics that were in the Land Use Recovery Plan, he would realise that he was talking about a figure out to 2021. Well, he did not seem to want to take that on board, so I put information out to him saying we had a target for the current 3 years and are running well ahead of that. He did not want to take that on board. He said it was just me making it up. Then today we had Statistics New Zealand coming out and saying that since 2010 there have been over 6,000 new houses built in the Christchurch area. That is running massively ahead of what could be expected at this point. Then there is all of the central business district, where we are seeing a lot of activity.

What is interesting in Christchurch are the high levels of employment and the fantastic engagement of people. We are living in a stressed environment—no question about that—but people are doing it, they are doing it for themselves, and they are following the lead from the Government. All we have got from our opponents is the idea that we create some sort of super-committee that might be able to do things, in their view, a little better. It will not, because people make better choices for themselves. This Government is about choice. We have delivered on everything we said we would do, and we are very confident in going to tell that story to the people of New Zealand over the next 7 weeks.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): Can I begin, from this side, by remembering Parekura Horomia. It is a great sadness for us, these 3 years, that his long and valued contribution came to an end with his death. Mr Speaker, can I also acknowledge you. Can I add my good wishes to those other MPs who are retiring. Can I add my thanks to all of the staff around Parliament, and can I make special mention of our own staff, including our out-of-Parliament staff, who I know work so hard for us.

Bill English said, at a time when his MPs’ heads were down, over his faux pas in respect of unopened emails, as they madly checked their BlackBerries for their latest polls, that we had no prospect for our country of a change of Government—a very depressing thought for a lot of New Zealanders if he was right. Unfortunately, as he said that, we had a new poll out—we had a new poll out. That poll showed National down 5 percent, the Labour Party up 6.5 percent, and an 11.5 percent closing of the two-party gap. But, unfortunately, whilst all of his colleagues were actually on their mobile devices checking that, Bill English missed it. We should not be surprised that “Mr 21 Percent” did that. If it was as Mr English would have the New Zealand public believe, why is it that National is doing all these shonky deals, trying to resurrect the ACT Party yet again?

After David Garrett’s passport fraud; after Rodney Hide, the man who was busted for his perks after having been the self-proclaimed perk-buster; after the disasters with Don Brash; and now after the disasters with John Banks and that conviction for fraud, National still thinks it should tell the people of Epsom to elect an ACT Party candidate. Is that because National is confident that the election is already in the bag? No, it is not. Similarly, National is trying to shoehorn Mr Dunne, who has never denied that he leaked the Kitteridge report, back into the Ōhariu seat. It ain’t all over.

We on this side are pleased that this is going to be an election that will be a contest of ideas of how to improve our country. We know that this is going to be a close contest, because there is already recognition that the Labour Party has a positive, comprehensive set of policies to upgrade our economy and to make other improvements. All our positive policies are costed. Our alternative Budget is already out there, and we are already past this inane assertion of the National Party that we are tax-and-spend irresponsible people, because we have shown that we reduce net debt as fast as—in fact, a little bit faster than—the National Party alternative. Our fiscal plan is out there and no one has shot a hole in it. It is credible. The commentators accept that. We can get on and have a debate about policy.

A couple of elections ago, the National Party campaigned on a brighter future for all New Zealanders. That was its catchphrase. It has given up on that because that slogan has become so patently untrue in respect of the way in which it governs for the few. Its slogan this year is “Working for New Zealanders”. Well, we on this side will be highlighting what New Zealanders know, which is that, actually, it is not working for all New Zealanders; it is working for some New Zealanders.

So who is it that National is really working for? Well, it is pretty obvious—it is pretty obvious. In tax terms, 40 percent of its income tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of income earners. It is pretty clear that it is not governing for the vast majority of New Zealanders when it comes to tax policy. Who is it that those members are working for in housing? Well, they are certainly not working for first-home buyers, because thousands of first-home buyers are being shut out. They are working for the speculators. They refuse to close the tax loopholes, they refuse to stop overseas speculators, they will not build any more houses, and, as a consequence, we have got the lowest homeownership rates in over 50 years, and they are still dropping. So National is not working for first-home buyers; it is working for the speculators—for the people who own multiple homes.

What about children—what about children? We all know that we have got rising child poverty in New Zealand. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government’s Budget package in respect of lifting the incomes of children excludes the poorest children. It excludes the poorest children in New Zealand—it does. It excludes them because those members do not care about them. Government members are not governing in the interests of the majority of New Zealanders. We all know that when the gaps get as wide as they are getting in New Zealand, we all suffer, but those especially at the bottom suffer. I think it says a lot in respect of this Government that its income support package for families in this year’s Budget did nothing—did nothing—for the poorest children in New Zealand and it further widened the gaps.

What is National doing in respect of power companies? Who is it working for there? Who is getting the brighter future? Well—

Hone Harawira: Nationalise!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Actually, no, we are not going to nationalise, but we are certainly not going to sell the power companies to the 2 percent of New Zealanders who bought shares under this Government. Two percent of New Zealanders bought shares in its asset sales. The other 98 percent—well, National was not working for them. It is not working for the people who pay ever-higher power prices, and members on this side of the House are certainly going to do something about that when we stop the privatisation of the value of our rivers by giving people a decrease in their power bills.

The Labour Party is promoting positive policies. “Vote Positive” is our campaign slogan, and if people vote positive, they will vote Labour. You know, we have had a doubling of our membership—we have had a doubling of our membership. We have got a better on-ground presence than we have had for decades—decades—and our membership continues to grow. Why? Because people like the Labour alternative. It is positive. Our economic policies are designed to break this low-value, low-wage economy that we have now got in New Zealand under National. We have policies that will increase the amount of capital that we save in society. Like what the Australians have done for ever—and one of the reasons why they have got higher wages—we are going to have a universal KiwiSaver scheme. Everyone will have a nest egg in retirement and the economy will be stronger.

Then our pro-growth tax reform policies, they tax capital gains. That pushes investment away from speculation, which pumps up residential rental house prices, and it pushes that money into the productive economy and jobs. In addition to that, the capital gains tax, of course, makes it fairer. Sixty percent of the capital gains tax in America is paid by the top 1 percent. It is the same in Canada—it is the same in Canada. Sixty percent of the capital gains tax in Australia is paid by people on incomes over $180,000 a year. It will be the same in New Zealand. It is a very fair tax, because at the moment those people pay lower rates of tax than middle-income New Zealanders.

We then have research and development tax credits, encouraging our economy to become more innovative. We have accelerated depreciation to encourage investment in forestry jobs, instead of exporting those raw logs. Our policies, in addition, go further than industry development and improving the economy and balancing the Budget. We are going to make life easier for families. Our Best Start package reaches all families with children who are on an income of under $150,000 per annum. We do not exclude the poorest families, like National does. Our NZ Power policy will reduce electricity bills. We are going to build 100,000 new, affordable homes.

That is the positive alternative that is available under Labour at this election. We are pleased to be through this ridiculous tax and spend narrative that National tries to put on us. We ran the last nine Budget surpluses that this country has seen, and we will run one next year. “Vote Positive”—party vote Labour.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I am pleased to stand and take a call here as this 50th Parliament comes to its end. Before I go any further, can I acknowledge here in the House a great achievement today by our New Zealand athletes at the Commonwealth Games and our world champion who is dear to the hearts of all New Zealanders, Valerie Adams. She gained a gold medal, which then achieved for New Zealand our 600th medal at the Commonwealth Games.

Can I start by paying tribute to all the valedictorians in the House, who are leaving us and going on to lives outside Parliament. It has been amazing to sit and listen to the valedictory speeches from all around the House, and I want to acknowledge all the work that MPs do. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the Speaker’s team and thank them for their guidance and their assistance. Can I pay tribute to the retiring members, Deputy Speaker Roy and Assistant Speaker Robertson, and thank them for their help over the years. I want to acknowledge my colleague Tony Ryall, who was the previous member of Parliament for parts of my electorate at various times. It has changed. I think that when he was first elected into Parliament, Te Puia Springs formed part of his electorate. He has been a great mentor, a great colleague, and a great Minister of Health for this country. He will be sadly missed. I also want to acknowledge my two millennium-class colleagues who are leaving, Dr Hutchison and Phil Heatley. We are now down to two out of eight. Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, you and I are left. I have to say that the whisky will last a bit longer. I wish my colleagues all the best.

Can I thank the staff here at Parliament, from the messengers to the cleaners to the security people to the people who look after our offices. We have a great staff here at Parliament who make this place work. Also, can I thank Ministerial Services. I particularly want to thank the people who work in my offices both here in Parliament—who do a great job; it is a thankless job at times, but they do a fantastic job—and also in my two offices in Gisborne and in Whakatāne. Where would we be without our office staff, who maintain our presence in our electorates when we have to spend so much time here in Wellington?

I also want to pay tribute to the Leader of the House, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. He has done a fantastic job of guiding this House through the legislative programme over the last 3 years. He has an amazing way of combining humour with absolute efficiency. I think we would all agree that he has done an outstanding job, and we thank you, Gerry Brownlee, for that.

This term has been a term of considerable contrast. I want to touch on just a couple of issues. If we look first at leadership, the leadership here on this side of the House from John Key is strong, it is consistent, it is transparent, and it is open. Any of us who have been with him as he has travelled around the country know that he is genuinely interested in people. It shows, and people respond to that and they want to be with him. They want to have their photos taken with him, they want to talk to him, and they respond to him because, as the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, he actually believes in them. He believes they can do whatever it is they want to do. He genuinely wants to help them do that, and it shows. So on this side we have that sort of leadership.

You compare it with what we see around the House and, actually, “shambolic” is the word I would use to describe that—it is shambolic. We have seen a number of leaders. We have seen some shifty behaviour.

Hon Member: Tricky.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We have seen “Tricky”, yes. You have to read the bottom lines. You have to read the small print. We have seen no clear leadership from the Opposition—no clear leadership to match anything that John Key has produced. So I think that that is a sharp contrast for New Zealanders. When they think about whom it is that they would like to have lead this country, then without a doubt it has to be John Key from the National Party.

The second issue that I think is a clear contrast is that this side of the House has a very clear direction. We know exactly where this country is going, and we are helping it get there. We have four priorities. First of all, getting the finances back into some sort of shape and getting back into surplus has been incredibly difficult. As we know, there was a whole string of surpluses from the other side of the House under the Labour Government, and it spent like a drunken sailor at the very best of times. They were the very best of times, and what did this country have to show for it? Not a lot—not a lot.

Andrew Williams: No debt.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, we did have no debt, and that was one thing it did really well, but it left a whole lot of unfunded promises to people. Anyone who asked for it, it sprayed money around. This Government, at the height of a recession, had to come in and clean up that mess.

We have also had to grow the economy, because we knew that this country was going backwards. We were spending more than we were earning, so we have had to reshape the economy, and New Zealanders have risen to the challenge. Again, we have heard in this House today how New Zealanders have turned our economy round. We have focused on better public services, because the taxpayers have a right to expect that their Public Service performs for them. We are achieving that with our Better Public Services targets, which show that very clearly. We are very focused on that.

Finally, we have been focused on rebuilding our second-largest city, which was so dramatically demolished by those tragic earthquakes. We have seen enormous progress made, and this Government has been determined to be alongside Cantabrians as they rebuild their large city.

What have we seen from the Opposition? Well, actually, it has been all over the place. Again, you would describe it as pretty shambolic. It has manufactured a whole series of crises, all of which have turned out to be false—all of which have turned out to be false. In fact, on this side we are actually asking for another crisis so that we can get another boost in the economy. It has consistently put down the enormous work that has been done.

I want to mention a couple of particular areas. First of all, I think of the outstanding increase in educational achievement that we have seen under this Government.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Dropping standards.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: All we have heard from the Labour Opposition, which sat back for 9 years and watched as kids’ achievement levels dropped—and it did nothing because it was too scared of the unions. Under this Government we have got good achievement data and we have seen an enormous change in what is happening in our schools. All the Opposition can do is say that we have lowered the standards. All it wants to do is undermine the hard work that thousands of teachers around our country have done.

Then we come to the reduction in crime. We have backed the police. They have turned themselves inside out. They are one of the most modern, effective police services in the world, and we have seen crime reduced to a 29-year low. What did the Opposition do? It undermined all that good work that the police have done by focusing on five staff members who miscoded 697 recorded crimes out of 1.25 million crimes recorded in a year. So all they have done is use less than the margin of error to try to undermine our hard-working police force, who are out there every day protecting our citizens.

That is the difference. That is the stark difference that is presented to the country this year. This is a Government that knows that New Zealanders can achieve and that we just need to get in behind them and clear the way for them, against Opposition members who nit-pick, who fight amongst themselves, and who have shown no strong leadership. There is a very, very clear choice for people as we go into this election in September. They can choose a Government that knows where this country is going and that is united. Government members like one another, they have fun together, and they are refreshing. They are able to bring in new members and salute those who leave us.

I have just turned and seen my colleague Chris Tremain. As an old Napier girl, I think Napier is going to be poorer for not having you as its local MP. I know you have got a great candidate there who is going to fight and win a magnificent battle there in Napier, but I want to pay tribute to Chris Tremain, because he has done a great job for that city of Napier. We know that the Opposition is focused on inputs; it always has been. It is time for another National Government.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Mr Assistant Speaker, it was indeed time for that member Anne Tolley to resume her seat, as you quite clearly indicated. I want to add my thanks to all of the staff who make this facility operate, who support members of Parliament to do their jobs. They do it in the most gracious way, I might say—that is that the staff do their jobs in the most gracious way to help us to do our jobs. From the messengers to the cleaners to the Office of the Clerk staff, and to everyone in between—the library staff, the people who provide us with food in the facility—

Paul Foster-Bell: What about the Treasury advisers?

SUE MORONEY: —and even the Treasury advisers—thank you. I think that Treasury often gives very good advice that the Government chooses to ignore, but never mind—never mind. Government members do choose to ignore that when it does not suit them.

But really I want to thank, from the Labour Party caucus, those staff members who go about doing their job diligently. They are not in the limelight but they make this place function, and they do it in such a pleasant way. They do it without fear or favour, actually, and I think that is very, very important. Mr Speaker, I want to thank you and your office for their work throughout the course of the last 3 years. I do also want to thank the departing members. I congratulate them as they go towards the next part of the adventure in their lives. We all look forward to seeing what happens with the rest of their lives and participating with them. I think that the thing about New Zealand is that there are genuinely two degrees of separation, so we do fully expect to come across each other, to see the departing members, and to see where they land next. That will be very interesting.

Listening to the debate from the other side, I wonder what country the National members actually think they are in. According to them there are plenty of jobs, there are high wages, no one has a problem with housing, and Christchurch has been rebuilt—Christchurch has been rebuilt. I think that is a bit of a surprise to the people in Canterbury, but they heard it first from Bill English today, who got up on his feet and said “We have rebuilt Christchurch.” Then there was this pause, because I think that even members of his own caucus drew in a big breath because they could not quite believe it themselves, and neither should they.

It just goes to show how out of touch the National Government has become. I do not know which New Zealand those Government members are operating in, but I invite them to come to the Waikato region, which should be humming. Coming out of recession, coming off the back of the best dairy payouts ever, you would expect the Waikato region to be absolutely humming. There should be plenty of jobs, there should be high wages, there should be plenty of support for children, but there is not, and that is the reality. In the Waikato region, unemployment is going up. At the height of the recession, unemployment was 5.6 percent in the Waikato region. Now, as we come out of the recession, it is at 7 percent—7 percent unemployment in the Waikato region. It is going in the wrong direction.

This is from a region that ought to be humming, but hardly a week goes by now when we do not hear of major job losses in our region—last week 110 jobs were under threat at Canpac. Canpac is part of the dairy industry. It was once, not that long ago—only about 3 years ago—the largest private sector employer in Hamilton. It was the largest private sector employer in Hamilton, and now it is down to about 300 staff, and of those 300-odd staff, 110 have their jobs on the line. And this is in a region where it ought to be humming.

But that is only the beginning. Since the end of April 120 jobs from Hutton’s, a meat processing plant, have gone. What we know is that since the end of April only 40 of those 120 staff have got permanent sustainable work—permanent sustainable work. What their union reported was that the jobs on offer, if there were any to be had, were mostly insecure contracted jobs, jobs with 90-day hire and fire at will provisions to them. They were jobs that no family could actually pay their mortgage on, that no family could actually make sure they could feed their children on, that no family could make sure they could pay their increasing power bills with.

That is the New Zealand that we see when we get out in the real world. I invite the members opposite to get out in the real world, because their speeches show how out of touch they are. Their speeches are painting a picture of a rosy New Zealand. Maybe that is the part of New Zealand that they are seeing, but I invite them to actually come to the regions—actually, anywhere in New Zealand—because what the statistics do tell us is that the only place that really is getting ahead is Canterbury. So let us all have an earthquake, because that is the only plan under this Government. It had a natural disaster and milk prices—the only two things that were working for it. Now that the milk prices are starting to collapse, we have got only natural disasters left, and that is not a plan.

Labour, on the other hand, does have a plan. Labour has a plan to actually get that better future for New Zealand, because it is a better New Zealand that we want. We want families to be in a positive environment, not one where they are having to work out what they are going to go without from week to week so that they can make ends meet or where they are having to work out whether it is the power bill that gets paid or whether it is the doctor’s visit for the child that happens. Those are the very real things that New Zealanders face on a day-to-day basis.

In a region like the Waikato a smart plan is not a Government that is prepared to cut 180 agricultural research jobs from Hamilton. If that Government actually had a regional economic development plan, it would not think that the best thing to do is cut 180 jobs from AgResearch in Hamilton. It is one of the best dairy-producing regions in the world—in the world—and that Government thinks that the best thing it can do for our region is cut innovation, research, and science in the field of agriculture. That is what it thinks.

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, you just want to put SMEs out of business.

SUE MORONEY: Simon Bridges thinks that. He believes it, but that is the road to nowhere for our region.

We need a Government that is actually going to start making some smart plans, like giving children the best start in life. We in the Labour Party know that, actually, if we invest early, that will reap rewards not only for that child and their family but for their community and all of those who live beside those children—for all of those who want to live beside well-rounded, productive members of our society contributing to the best of their ability. That is what Labour’s plan is about, because under our Best Start policy we will lift children out of poverty. We will lift children out of poverty. There will be $60 a week extra going into families with infants, and for the lowest-income families that $60 a week payment will continue until that child’s 3rd birthday. On that child’s 3rd birthday, that child will then get access to 25 hours of free early childhood education. So we will be able to actually see that child progress right through to the time that that child starts school, and when that child starts school, their parents will not have the bailiffs coming around to get them to pay the school fees, because under Labour’s policy we will be ensuring that families do not have to pay those so-called voluntary donations to schools. We will ensure that that child is in a class where they can get quality teaching because they have lower class sizes.

That is the future under Labour. It is a really positive future. It is one dealing with the day-to-day issues that everyday New Zealanders face. It is not the fairy cuckoo-land that the National members have been describing. It is not the out-of-touch New Zealand that the National Government believes is there. A place where there are plenty of jobs, a place where no one has any housing problems, a place where there are high wages—that is the Labour Party vision. It is, sadly, what the National Government thinks is already in place. But listen up, New Zealand: if New Zealanders believe and are experiencing the New Zealand that National members are describing, then you know what to do with your vote. But most New Zealanders know that that is fairy cuckoo-land, and they know that they need a better future for their country. That means voting Labour, voting positive, and voting early on 20 September. I look forward to our return to Parliament after the election and look forward to seeing a better future for this country.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare tēnei rā. Earlier this week we celebrated 10 years since Tariana Turia was elected as the first Māori Party MP, and her ability to speak in the House—not so much her ability but certainly what she said in the House at that time certainly shaped where we have come from. In her first address on 27 July 2004, she said this: “We are here today to say loud and clear that being Māori is everything to do with how well we do in life. We will restore to ourselves our rightful place as tangata whenua and we will need no one else’s permission than ourselves. We can do this and we can do it now.”

It is appropriate in this last speech of the 50th Parliament for the Māori Party to acknowledge the legendary impact and influence of two of the finest Māori leaders whom I have had the privilege to know. It has been a huge honour for me to work with them and be with them on our journey, and I will miss them both. Tariana and Pita have transformed the priorities of policy agencies, the agenda of Government, and the attitude of New Zealanders by their unstinting belief in the potential of whānau to do for themselves. Their legacy is written into the hearts and minds of our people through their historic signing of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the substantial investment allocated to Māori economic and social development across subsequent Budgets, and, of course, the unique and life-changing approach that most of us know as Whānau Ora.

We have seen the influence of Whānau Ora spreading into the housing sector with Te Pou Matakana Commission, the agency now responsible for management and distribution of Māori housing funding—and here she is. Hey! We have seen its impact on the disabilities sector with Enabling Good Lives representing the aspirations of disabled persons and their families to determine their own destiny. We have experienced the power of Whānau Ora recognised in Waka Hourua, the national suicide prevention approach for Māori and Pasifika communities, in E Tū Whānau, and in Ngā Vaka o Kāiga Tapu Pasifika—family violence prevention solutions grown by, delivered to, and from local communities themselves, who are best able to create their own answers.

When we signed up to the relationship accord with the Government in December 2011, our first priority was to support the evolving focus and ongoing implementation of Whānau Ora. I pledge my absolute commitment to you, Tariana Turia, that I will continue to hold subsequent Governments to account to protect that kaupapa that our people know and love. Ē, ko koia, e āra e! [Well done, arise!] We have been fascinated by the interest of some of the parties in this House who suddenly want to review it, amend it, and shut it down. Well, I will be doing absolutely everything in my power and I will be trying to encourage as best I can those parties to get over themselves and to put faith in our families. Those families know what is right for them.

The second and third milestones of our relationship accord were focused on eliminating poverty, through a Ministerial Committee on Poverty. We are really proud that this Government agreed to bring together a coordinated ministerial focus to poverty. During the 2005 Parliament, when, of course, Labour was at the helm, there was a massive 335 pages of Hansard-recorded questions, debates, and speeches in which the Māori Party MPs asked the Government to prioritise families experiencing severe or significant poverty and hardship. The 335 pages got us nowhere, with Labour failing to even agree to a benchmark definition of poverty from which to measure progress.

In contrast, we have been really pleased at the scope of influence that that committee had. Through our negotiations with the Government, over $65 million has been invested in addressing rheumatic fever, over $100 million in home insulation, targeting low-income families, a warrant of fitness for rental housing has been initiated, and $90 million was invested in primary school - aged children now being able to go to the doctor for free, any time of the day or night, and get a prescription as well—all for free. There is still work to do. But the important thing is that because we do have a relationship with the Government, we are able to raise those issues directly rather than being from behind the megaphone or, in question time, from the cross benches.

I did want to acknowledge the willingness of the Prime Minister and his deputy, the Hon Bill English, for always making space available for us to raise issues, to review policies and priorities, and to face up whenever we had brought challenges to the table—ka nui te mihi ki a kōrua. It has been a relationship based on mutual respect, which the Hon Bill English mentioned earlier, and it is something that I can tell the House we definitely value highly. It has meant that we can oppose the Government’s key policies without flinching, such as the asset sales or the Resource Management Act. Our vote on the latter has been crucial in stopping the legislation in its tracks. He mentioned 90 bills; we might go for 100 next time.

But be that as it may, I want to just point out the obvious irony recently, in the last 24 hours in fact. ACT, New Zealand First, and Mana even, all issued statements speaking out against race-based policies, or the missed opportunity of the local government legislation, which passed into law on Tuesday, despite the contribution of two Māori MPs from Labour and the Greens. We voted against the local government legislation because of the way in which it undermines the statutory significance of Māori representation. We met with the Associate Minister of Local Government and subsequently wrote to him, making two recommendations. One was a first-principles review on Māori representation, including the impact of the Māori Statutory Board in Auckland, which is a key initiative established as a result of Pita’s negotiation in Cabinet. The other was to initiate a joint work programme with the Ministry of Māori Affairs and the Department of Internal Affairs to increase and improve Māori participation in local government processes.

My point is that although mainstream parties inevitably complain loudly or do nothing, we have always been about getting around the table and making a difference. Māori MPs in mainstream parties will always be under the influence of their respective leaders and party policies, and we all know how Māori feature under that. We just have to remember the foreshore and seabed legislation. I remember a phrase that the late Eva Rickard used when she decided to leave Mana Motuhake, when it chose to come under the umbrella of the Alliance Party. Her summing up of the situation for Māori-based parties in alliance with another brings a sound message for us today. She said: “Dead fish flow with the current.” Well, we have seen the fate of dead fish before in this Parliament, and we in the Māori Party are obviously determined to maintain our uniqueness—our precious earned reputation as the strong, independent Māori voice in Parliament with influence. This is about survival, as Professor Whatarangi Winiata used to tell us. It is about tino rangatiratanga. It is about maintaining the integrity of the Māori seats.

I do want to make a brief mention of our other parties with dollars in their eyes or parties that like to party. There is nothing wrong with a bit of stunt politics to generate interest in the electoral process, but my only hope is that the Electoral Commission can put to use the resources of such a benefactor to the vital job ahead, and that is lifting the Māori vote. In a democracy every vote counts, and we have been bitterly disappointed in the failure of the electoral system to get the vote out amongst Māori communities in particular.

The Māori Party will continue to speak truths about the issues that confront us. We have had bills passed to prevent gambling, and multiple interventions in tobacco reform. We have called, and will continue to call, for a review of the justice sector to eliminate institutional racism that stymies the lives of our people. Although others may talk on and on about pipeline dreams, the Māori Party has got on with the job. We have extended KickStart Breakfast, to bring food into the schools—into every school in the country. We have introduced Māori history into schools. We have advocated for the recognition of cultural significance, and on and on. I think that we have done the nation proud by the efforts that we have been able to introduce into this country, and we look forward to a further term.

In the time that I have I just want to say, in terms of the Māori Party, that our energy has never been higher to support the challenges our people entrust us with. I do want to say in closing that I pay a huge tribute to the cast of hundreds who provide us with amazing support in this Parliament: the messengers, the cleaners, the caterers, the translators in particular, who have not been mentioned today—ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, e hoa—the Office of the Clerk, security, IT, the librarians, Hansard, the reception team, the building staff, all of our own staff in our offices, our electorate teams, and our membership, and, in particular, the parliamentary teams, because they always show us huge respect. We appreciate that. We do not always perhaps give that, but we do appreciate it and we thank them so much. We wish everybody well in the next election.

HONE HARAWIRA (Mana—Te Tai Tokerau): Hoi nō hei kōrero tuatahi e Te Kaiwhakawā, māku ki a Tariana rāua ko Pita e heke mai ana i ō rāua ake tūranga i tēnei wā i te mea, ko rāua ngā tokorua e ārahi i a māua ko Te Ururoa i roto i Te Whare i te tīmatanga o Te Pāti Māori. Nā rāua i awhi i a māua kia tae mai ki tēnei wā. Kua tumuaki a Te Ururoa ki tōna Pāti, ko hau anōki. Nō reira, mihi atu ki a koe e Tariana, kōrua ko Pita. Tua atu, ki a Tau e puta atu ana i Te Whare, ka mihi atu, ā, ki a koe nōki e te tuahine e Tōrete ‘hakoa, hanga tūkino ana koe i taku pire. Hoi anō he tuahine tonu ki a mātou o te ao Māori, nō reira, e tika ana kia mihi atu ki a koe. Huri tū ki a tātou anō rā e Te Whare, wā tātou kaimahi ‘hakoa ko tēhea pāti, ko wai te tangata, me mihi atu ki a rātou katoa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri atu, huri noa, kia ora tātou katoa.

[And so the first comment for me, Mr Speaker, at this point time is to Tariana and Pita, who are about to relinquish their leadership roles, because they are the two who led Te Ururoa and I into the House when the Māori Party came into existence. Those two nurtured us right up to this stage of our existence. Te Ururoa is now leader of his party, and I am leader of mine as well. Therefore, I salute you and Pita, Tariana. Furthermore, I acknowledge you as well Tau, who are about to leave this House, and you too sister colleague, Claudette, and regardless of your disparaging remarks about my bill, you continue to remain a sister of Māoridom to us, so it is right that you are recognised. So I stand to thank us all once again: the House, all our staff regardless of which party they are working for, who that staff member may be, I extend my gratitude to them all. Acknowledgments and good wishes to you all collectively, around and throughout, and thanks to us all.]

It would be nice to be able to say that all the differences between Mana and this National coalition Government in the last 3 years had seen our country come out of the global financial crisis with a positive attitude and an increased capacity to rock and roll, but that would be a lie. There have been increases, of course, but not across the board and not in ways that signal a rebuilding of society and an improvement in opportunity for everyone.

Sure, there have been increases at the highest echelons of our society; spectacular increases in the levels of wealth accumulated by the richest 1 percent of people in the country. There has been an increase in the salaries earned by chief executives and corporate directors, an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor, and an increase in funding for National’s holiday highway, but there has been a cut in funding for the maintenance of local roads every year for the past 6 years in regional areas like Northland. There has been an increase in extractive and environmentally destructive industries like deep-sea oil and toxic land mining, and a lowering of safety standards in primary industries like mining and forestry.

But when we look at the wider population, Māori, Pasifika, and more and more often tauiwi as well, we are seeing increases in all the wrong places: an increase in unemployment, an increase in the number of people earning less than the average wage, an increase in the number of people leaving for jobs overseas, an increase in inequality, an increase in child poverty, an increase in homelessness, an increase in the numbers of children hospitalised with poverty-related illnesses and diseases, an increase in the educational achievement gap between kids in low and high decile schools, an increase in the numbers of people in prison—I could go on, but you know the story.

Such is the carnage for those at the bottom of society, and such will be the legacy of this Government and its coalition partners. The truly sad part is that life does not need to be like that, not for anyone in this country. We live in the greatest country in the world. We have the talent, the resources, the time, and the space to be world leaders in whatever it is we choose to do. When I say—and I often say it—“Happy are those who dream dreams and are prepared to pay the price to make those dreams come true.”, it is because I truly believe that we actually have the capacity to make those dreams come true.

The question is: why should feeding the kids be something we dream about? Why should anyone think that living in a warm and decent home is nothing but a dream? Why do people think that full employment is the impossible dream? Mana sees all of those not only as possibilities but as distinct realities. We now have the support of our colleagues in Internet-Mana to ensure that people understand how real those ideals can be. Feeding the kids through a comprehensive food-in-schools programme already has the support of Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, and the Māori Party. Ten-thousand State houses a year for those on low incomes is our policy, but that has already been taken up, in part at least, by Labour, and it dovetails comfortably with some of the more innovative housing ideas from the Greens.

There is no reason why we cannot backstop a strong, Government-driven home building programme with community jobs for the unemployed all around the country—in hospitals, in schools, on marae, around old people’s homes, and anywhere else where we can help rebuild people’s self-esteem while preparing them for jobs in the private sector.

We know we have the support of most New Zealanders to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, to repeal the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation, and to take back the power by nationalising the electricity companies and making them core assets, never to be sold again. We also know that unless we provide a free tertiary education for our kids we will continue to get what we have already got—the loss of all that intellectual capital as our kids head off overseas in pursuit of jobs to pay off their loans, meet somebody, start a family, build a new group of friends, and then never come home again.

I know you are asking yourselves how we are going to pay for all of those things, and I can tell you that somebody in the standing room only audience at our public meeting in Rotorua on Tuesday night also asked that question. It was the richest guy in the room who took the microphone and asked the questions that other seriously rich people are also asking, like: why is it that people can make millions on the stock market and pay no tax on it at all? Why are banks not paying a financial transaction tax on the billions of dollars that they transfer from place to place in search of profit? Why do we allow uber-rich people to buy very expensive homes, cars, helicopters, and yachts and not pay a luxury tax for the privilege? Why is the Government spending so much on roads and yacht races and so little on ordinary people?

You see, our policies are based on the belief that we should be backing ourselves to lift everyone in Aotearoa to a place where we could all be positive contributors to our society, where healthy families are the norm, where every child can learn because they are all well-fed, where free education is normal, where warm homes are a standard, where jobs are plentiful, where everybody pays their share to achieve those goals, and where Parliament accepts that the only legislation worth passing is that which passes the test of first being good to our tamariki and our mokopuna. Then, and only then, will we be able to make those dreams come true.

Of course, realising those dreams will require more than just Internet-Mana believing we can achieve them. It will mean us working with others as well, which we are more than happy to do. But as to whom we would work with after the election? Well, as a matter of principle we will not be working with National for the very simple reason that no Government since World War II has created so much inequality, so much hardship, and so much poverty for so many people in such a short time as this National Government and its coalition partners.

Although David Cunliffe says a Cabinet position for the Internet-Mana in a Labour-led Government is unlikely, if, as John Armstrong of the New Zealand Herald said, “With Labour’s woes intensifying and that party’s support bleeding away, there is a good chance that Internet Mana could be hovering around the 5 percent level by the time the official campaign gets under way.”, believe you me, Internet-Mana will be getting a call.

While I am talking about other parties, here is a short comment for those who have already pulled the race card on Mana: grow up. It is the oldest trick in the book, bashing Māori at election time to boost your voter appeal, but it is also the ugliest. You do yourselves a disservice by stooping to such levels, and you insult the intelligence of the voting public by inviting them to sup from your well of poisonous racism.

The fact that Mana actually has more non-Māori candidates than Māori ones has obviously slipped your minds, but you know what they say—do not ever let the facts get in the way of a good story, especially a good racist story. Mind you, the fact that Internet-Mana is playing to packed houses and community halls all around the country while nobody else has the courage to put themselves up there for the public to see and to hear and to challenge, is probably the real threat to other parties in the run-up to the election, especially those who cannot get enough members even to fill a hall for their annual conferences. I will quote again from last week’s New Zealand Herald which stated: “If any spies from the Labour, Green or Māori parties infiltrated yesterday’s Internet Mana rally in West Auckland, they would have come away with very worried looks on their faces.”

Hon PETER DUNNE (United Future—Ōhariu): Mr Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on the way you have served this House as Speaker since assuming the role at the beginning of last year. As someone who has known you probably longer than anyone else in this Chamber, I have been very impressed with how you have settled in to what is a challenging, difficult, and very important role within this Parliament. I think that members who obviously spent the first few months of your tenure testing you out, in the way that all new Speakers are tested, would recognise your integrity, your commitment, and your dedication to this Chamber and to the traditions and the privileges of this House. Can I also say, in that context, that I want to acknowledge your two assistants who are retiring, Eric Roy and Ross Robertson: both long servants of this House, characters in their own right, and people who will be remembered as fair and decent New Zealanders who have made a very solid contribution to the conduct of affairs in this country and to the electorates that they have represented.

To all the other members who are retiring and whose valedictory speeches we have been privileged to hear, thank you for your service to your communities and to your constituents. What these speeches show, in a way that perhaps only a maiden speech shows, is a little of the vision and the personalities behind the individuals, and a little bit of the aspirations that they bring to the role, and a little bit of the integrity and the reflection that they have on the role as they come to a conclusion. We can be well satisfied with the calibre of parliamentarians in this country. I am sorry to see those people move on, but this is a bit like school at the end of term. Most people come back, some move on, there are mixed feelings, and life, by and large, carries on unchallenged.

I think that is the same for a Parliament at the end of its term. This is the 50th New Zealand Parliament coming to a conclusion. It is the end of 162 years of consecutive parliamentary government. The election of the 51st Parliament in a few weeks will put us into that rare league of a very few number of countries that have had continuous democratic parliamentary government for that length of time. I think that as all the debate takes place on the hustings, all the catcalling, the name-calling, the abuse, and as the substance of debate flows around, we should remember that we are one of a very select band of countries to have retained the thread of democracy for that length of time. That is a very important privilege for all of us.

I have been very pleased during the term of this Parliament to see all of the provisions of the United Future - National confidence and supply agreement honoured, and I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister in that respect. I say that it has been a pleasure working with him and his team throughout the term, as it has been with my colleagues the Hon Tariana Turia, the Hon Pita Sharples, and Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party. We do not actually have a bilateral agreement with the Māori Party, but we do work closely with it on a number of issues, and I have been struck by the level of accord that we have on those issues, in terms of a particular view, and where we have been able to work very constructively and positively together. I will not go through all of the provisions of our confidence and supply agreement that have been implemented, but I do want to highlight two that I think are critically important.

The first, and by far the most significant, was the announcement just a couple of days ago that Wellington’s almost mythical—certainly long-awaited—Transmission Gully highway has finally been agreed to proceed, as per our agreement, as a public-private partnership, and that work will begin next year. I saw a piece in the newspaper that made a reference to a Mr Field, who had been the member of Parliament for Ōtaki, and who back in 1919 had suggested that Transmission Gully ought to be developed as a World War I memorial highway for the burgeoning motor vehicle fleet in New Zealand. My records show that the first such reference to Transmission Gully being developed as some sort of a highway—although in those days it was seen as a railway—was in 1906. But it was another 20 years after Mr Field’s claims in 1919 that serious consideration began to be given to Transmission Gully, a mere 74 years ago in 1939.

We are patient people in this city, but I think waiting 75 years to get a highway development agreed tests even the most patient of disposition. Wellingtonians will be absolutely delighted to see work commence on this highway very shortly and to see its completion by 2020, so that we do have that second access and egress from our city, we do have a modern flow that will speed up the traffic movement, between here and the Kāpiti Coast in particular, by around 10 to 15 minutes, and it will make it much easier for commerce and trade coming into this city using our port and our airport. I am very pleased, after a personal campaign of well over 20 years—which has seen me introduce at least two member’s bills to this Parliament, bring petitions to this Parliament, and work with successive Governments—to see that agreement in place and that highway being now on the point of construction commencing.

The second thing that I wanted to comment on was the passage late last year of the Game Animal Council Act. This has had quite a similar period of gestation, although it has not quite been 75 years. It has been a hope by those in the recreational hunting sector for many, many years that some form of national representative statutory body could be established to give account of, and recognition to, their interests and to ensure that their role in contributing to the management of the game estate in New Zealand was recognised and able to be taken account of. The establishment of that council by legislation late last year and by appointment earlier this year—and the fact that it is now meeting and up and running—is a very important achievement in that regard.

It sends a couple of important signals. The first signal is that the large number of New Zealanders who enjoy outdoor recreation in this country is recognised and has a place and a voice. The second signal that it sends is that a small party that is committed to some pretty key ideals and is working in collaboration with a major party of Government can achieve things that might not normally be on the scale of activity of that Government party, simply because it has so many other things to worry about. Voting for small parties giving particular focus to certain key areas of policy is a worthwhile outcome, because they can be achieved. That gives a level of confidence, as we move into elections such as the one that is forthcoming, about the worth of voting for those organisations.

The House will be dissolved shortly to contest the general election. There will be the challenges that are implicit in that about policy and the direction of the country. We stand at a very critical phase. We have come through the biggest, most massive economic depression since the 1930s. We have come through relatively unscathed in comparison with a number of other countries. The challenge now is to not fritter away the strength that we have established but use the gains of that strength constructively and positively, to lay foundations for the future that will see sustained economic growth, a boost in incomes, and confidence levels return, so that the population is retained here and new migrants feel confident coming to this place and welcome within it.

One of the nasty undercurrents that I believe is already seeping into this election campaign is the issue of race. We have seen this card played many ways and many times over the years, where a particular segment of the population is isolated, and therefore by implicit insinuation blamed as the cause of a range of other issues: migrants coming to Auckland create a housing crisis—you can read the code. That is a very nasty development in our society, not just for the political implications of the game, but because, more important, it starts to divide our population and it starts to set people against each other. At a time when this country needs to move ahead positively in a broad, multi-ethnic, multicultural way, to start to play these narrow, sinister games for political advantage is, I think, despicable. The only solution that I would proffer for people who feel concerned about that is the very simple one of making sure they do not vote for those parties preaching that sort of anathema as policy.

Beyond that, I wish every member who is seeking re-election good fortune, good luck, and a good, positive campaign. I say to those who are leaving us that I have valued your service and company, and I know that your contribution to the country is not yet at an end. To all members of Parliament, as the 50th Parliament comes to a conclusion I congratulate you on the contribution that you have all made in some way or another to the progress of this country over the last 3 years.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): As the last speaker for the Green Party in this Parliament, I begin by again placing on record the gratitude of the entire Green Party caucus to all of those many workers around Parliament who enable us to do our work, and also to the Green parliamentary and party team of both staff and volunteers. We appreciate you all very, very much.

I extend our best wishes to those in the House who will be leaving Parliament at this election. There are those who do so willingly, at the end of their service—and I especially acknowledge my fantastic colleague Holly Walker—and I also acknowledge that there are others around the House who will not be back to join us, despite their intentions and hopes.

Phil Twyford: For whom the bell tolls.

KEVIN HAGUE: Indeed.

I do my best to find common ground with others across the House and across party lines. I think that doing so is an essential part of politics. In fact, it is the art of the possible. It is also a fundamental Green value. At this point I want to particularly highlight one of the achievements of this Parliament, and that was in marriage equality. We were proud to be part of a coalition of members across the House, from parties both within the House and outside the House, and with communities. That was, I believe, a great model of how we can go about making a positive change that will make a big difference for many people’s lives. But having a vigorous contest between beliefs and values where they impact in important ways on people’s lives is also another part of politics.

I have just recently wrapped up a national speaking tour on the big issues in health. The last slide in the presentation that I put on for audiences had five points, which were that health care should be a fundamental right for all New Zealanders; there should be no barriers to access, especially not financial ones; services should be universally available; services should be preventive in focus; and services should be integrated. I asked the audiences whether they could guess where that list came from because, although it sounds like a summary of Green Party policy, it was not something that I had written. In fact, just two people out of literally thousands on this speaking tour have guessed it right. They are the objectives of the New Zealand public health system that was established by the Savage Government in the 1930s.

When I tell audiences that, there is usually a visible reaction of shock, and, indeed, I experience it myself. I feel a chill in my cheeks, the hairs on the back of my neck—if there are any—stand on end, and I think it is just so amazing that something from the 1930s should actually still feel so fresh and relevant almost 100 years later. That is because we have had a succession of Governments since at least 1984 that have seen the role of the State in a very different way. They have seen the role of State as being to maximise GDP growth, and in that model, people count either as the labour input to the firm or as consumers, and the natural world counts as either raw materials for the firm or waste disposal. That idea of government has driven this country in entirely the wrong direction.

I believe it also stands at the heart of why so many people feel alienated from the very process of government and have not been participating in voting. What we stand for, and what Savage stood for, is an entirely different idea of what the Government should be about. We believe that the State should be the embodiment of our collective responsibility to care for each other and to care for the natural world and to prepare the ground for those future generations. We believe that the point of the economy is to help us deliver our social and environmental goals, not the other way round.

We have tried to work with this Government where we could. We are proud of our formal relationships with it to insulate and heat cold, damp, unhealthy homes, to build a national network of great cycle trails, to document and clean up toxic sites, and to improve pest control through resetting traps. We put forward many other ideas on how we could work together on areas of common policy, and we were disappointed that they were all rejected by National.

We have also been proud of our resolute performance in leading the opposition on the insidious and corrosive effects of child poverty and increasing inequality, the shocking deterioration of the quality of fresh water, the privatisation of public assets, the imbalances in the New Zealand economy, freedom for West Papua, calling out the atrocities of Israel against the people of Gaza in recent days, irrational transport planning and funding decisions, ongoing cuts to health and education services, the cynical attacks on citizens’ basic privacy rights through the Government Communications Security Bureau bill and other legislation, the egregious money-for-policy Skycity deal, the sick culture of disentitlement at ACC, the erosion of services for women who experience sexual violence, and attacks on workers’ rights. Sometimes we have won.

Back in the early days of the Green Party our political opponents used to accuse us of being too idealistic. We do not hear that any more. The public has noticed that we have successful co-leaders and a stable, united caucus. Our contributions are consistently principled, and we have proven ourselves to be ready for Government, with transformational ideas that are grounded in practicality, properly costed and affordable, and supported by the key opinion leaders amongst those who would be affected by them.

National’s weapon of choice now is the false dichotomy—along the lines of Fox News’ stance of saying either you support the war in Iraq or you oppose freedom—along with National’s disdain for evidence and science. We have shown consistently that it is possible to create great jobs by creating a smarter, greener economy that works for everyone while also restoring our environment, like cleaning up our rivers and protecting our beaches from oil spills, and delivering a fairer society where every child has enough to thrive. We do not have to sell off the family silver and accelerate the stupid economy based on extracting non-renewable resources. We can instead invest substantially in innovation, research, and development, capitalise on new flexible technologies like 3-D printing, ensure we have the internet access and speed necessary for weightless industry, provide capital for the smart transition of our economy through having a green bank, and restructure the electricity industry to deliver cheaper, greener energy and incentives to increase solar power.

We do not have to further erode the law or the rights and incomes of workers and beneficiaries to increase big business profitability, based on the religious belief that this will somehow trickle down. We can instead provide affordable, secure, and healthy housing for everyone who needs it through our Home for Life programme, ensure that income support provides the most benefit to those with the greatest needs, shift minimum incomes towards a living wage, properly fund the services that people need, provide free primary health care up to the age of 18, and recognise and resource the role of schools at the heart of communities.

We do not have to accept that environmental damage and extinctions are inevitable and that the pollution economy is the only way. We can instead ensure that every river and lake is safe to swim in and that our beaches are protected from dangerous deep-sea oil drilling. We can save the Māui’s dolphin from extinction and enable it to thrive again. We can implement a climate action plan that will actually reduce emissions, delivering significant net tax savings for the average household or business.

Yes, we are still a party of ideals, but we are also a party of ideas that will take our country forward, rather than into the Dickensian stagnation that National offers. Smarter, fairer, cleaner—party vote Green.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to begin as my colleague David Parker did, by remembering today our departed colleague Parekura Horomia. I miss Parekura. I miss him from this House. I miss his influence on our caucus. I miss being told to shut up by him when I talk too long in our caucus meetings. He was a person who told us in the Labour Party to hold the line, which we are doing and we will. If I remember one thing from this term of Parliament, it was the scene at the Hauiti Marae where he was farewelled. He was farewelled as a loved member of his community, of his whānau, of his iwi, but also by his people. Parekura was the model of an electorate MP who knew his people. They knew him. They could talk to him. He could talk to them. We miss his presence in this House today.

Can I also acknowledge all of the departing members from the House. I have certainly appreciated all of the valedictory statements that I have heard—a wide variety of them. I want to make a couple of specific acknowledgments. I want to acknowledge Tariana Turia for the words that she said in her valedictory speech about a number of Labour Party colleagues. Everybody knows the history of Tariana’s departure from the Labour Party and the grief that was around that, but I took her words in a spirit of generosity when she spoke. I particularly want to acknowledge her comments about our former colleague, the Hon Darren Hughes, and note that they were very much appreciated on this side of the House. Mr Speaker, can I acknowledge the two members of your team who are departing us, HV Ross Robertson—brackets “no relation” close brackets; I will say that for the last time—and Eric Roy. They have both been excellent and loyal servants of this House. They are people whom we on this Opposition side of the House deal with a lot during the Committee of the whole House stage, along with Lindsay Tisch, and we want to acknowledge all of their work for running this place in a fair and firm manner.

To you, Mr Speaker, thank you for your role. It has been a pleasure working with you. I am secretly disappointed you have never followed through on your threat to throw me out of the House. I need to get my bad boy image up.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Still time!

GRANT ROBERTSON: I have got about 7 and a half minutes, so you never know. Mr Speaker, we thank you for your work in the House.

I also want to add my acknowledgment, as colleagues have, to all of the staff who support us here in the building. I want to particularly thank Mary Harris, the Clerk of the House, and her team, who do just such an amazing and professional job when we all behave in an incredibly difficult manner. Mary always smiles when Gerry Brownlee comes up with a new idea at the Business Committee, and she manages to make it work within the Standing Orders, and I thank you for that, Mary. I also thank all of the security staff, the messengers, the Bellamy’s staff, and the Parliamentary Library. I particularly want to acknowledge two groups: firstly, our staff who work in our out-of-Parliament offices. If anyone needs a reminder of this, I got it yesterday when I got a phone call from my out-of-office staff to say that they had had to call the police because someone had tried to rip off the door in a rage, actually, about an election poster that had been pasted up somewhere near their house, which seemed an unusual thing to be that upset about. In all seriousness, every single day our staff are out there on the front line dealing with some of the most difficult problems in our community, and I thank all of them—Labour Party staff and other staff as well.

The last group of people whom I want to particularly acknowledge are the spouses and partners of MPs. Every single departing member has mentioned at length the support that they have had from their partners and spouses, and said that they would not have been able to do their jobs as parliamentarians without them. That is so true. Those who are the people who look after us, have their own lives, and look after the families, are people about whom, I think, New Zealanders need to understand just the pressure that they are under, and the amazing support that we are provided with by all our spouses and partners. I thank them all on behalf of the Labour team.

It has been an interesting Parliament. I will not dwell too much on it, but there is one day that sticks in my memory, and it is the day that we passed the marriage equality law, which Kevin Hague mentioned before. It came straight off the back of another Labour member’s bill, which also passed that day. It was like the Commonwealth Games; it was our golden hour, or our golden evening. We also passed the bill that will mean that Anzac Day and Waitangi Day, when they fall on the weekend, will now be a public holiday.

Hon David Parker: The Clark bill.

GRANT ROBERTSON: The bill in the name of Dr David Clark, and possibly drafted by somebody else, but we will leave that for the Hansard of previous days. That was a day when, on this side of the House, we felt we were really achieving something very important. In terms of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, I know that for a lot of people this was raised as an issue that somehow was not one of the things that matter. Well, I think everybody in the House will know from the amount of correspondence we received and from the amount of interest that there was in this legislation, that it did matter. This was an important social advance, and it made Maurice Williamson an international TV star, which may or may not be a good thing.

The other acknowledgment that I would like to make to the Government, before I get stuck into it as per normal, is actually around the question of the passing of Treaty legislation. I do believe that in this Parliament, using the extended hours provisions, we have, as a Parliament, been able to make a very important and special difference in the way in which that legislation passes. Every single settlement that passes goes through this House with a huge level of emotion and a huge sense of opportunity for the iwi involved, and I think it is a very important part of what we are doing at the moment.

We get the chance to spend the next 50 days in our 3-yearly job interview, and what an opportunity it is for us to travel around this great country of ours. When I think about New Zealand, I think about a country with amazing natural advantages, to which we, as a country, have added considerable advantages through our own effort. We have done that in terms of having one of the longest unbroken democracies in the world, as my colleague David Parker often tells us. We do that by standing up for ourselves on the world stage. All of those things that are important about New Zealand and about being an egalitarian country are what this election should be about. My Labour Party colleagues will be familiar with Norman Kirk’s great saying.

Kris Faafoi: Tell us!

GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, well, we could do it in unison, if you like. What New Zealanders want is somewhere to live, somewhere to work, someone to love, and something to hope for. That is what this election will be about.

Jacinda Ardern: Will you deliver all four?

GRANT ROBERTSON: I will. I will deliver someone to love for you, Jacinda Ardern. It will happen. On the question of jobs, of homes, and of families, that is what this election will be fought upon. It will be fought upon whether or not New Zealanders get a fair share from the economic growth that the Government promises us. It will be about whether we reduce child poverty, whether we create decent jobs, and whether or not all New Zealanders can live in warm, dry, safe homes. Those are the issues that we will be campaigning on in the Labour Party, and I relish the opportunity to get out there and be a part of that.

The positive vision that Labour has for this country stands in contrast to a Government that has now become known for its arrogance, for its rorts, for its conflicts of interest, and for its dodgy deals—

Dr Rajen Prasad: That’s right.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. There is not time enough today to go through all of those issues, but it is time to ensure that we have a look at “Team Key”, the first XV. Here it is. I will run through very briefly a couple of the player profiles from “Team Key”, the first XV. John Banks: “John Banks’ season came to a premature end after his cabbage boat became marooned on an island of arrogance and wilful blindness. Likely to shift next season to a new club, the Pāremoremo Pirates.” Playing in the hooker position, Peter Dunne: “In and out of the team all season. Confuses his team-mates with his record of playing for both sides. Lost the trust of his team-mates when he leaked details of the game plan.” Playing at prop, Judith Collins: “Tried to ingratiate her team-mates with her provision of half-time milk, but her strategy of getting her retaliation in first backfired when she kneecapped herself. Still much loved for leading the team in the rendition of its team song, ‘Don’t Cry for Me Oravida’ ”. Murray McCully, playing at lock: “The team’s virtual member. No longer a physical presence in the team. Also failed to show up to any trainings this year due to a failure to open any emails.”

Then there is Gerry Brownlee: “A late-season fitness drive has seen a positional shift, and he is getting legendary status around the country, where security staff everywhere encourage people not to do a Brownlee.” Then there is the open-side flanker, Maurice Williamson: “Often found roaming the field and out of position. After a promising start at his guest appearance for the Rainbow Warriors, he was escorted from the field during the game against the Police.” And then there is the team captain, John Key: “He led by example from halfback, hiding behind the forwards, evading, dodging, and then”—his low point—“giving his mate the job as the team head of security.” This is the National Party first XV. This is the high standard that John Key said he would bring to New Zealand.

At this election New Zealanders get a choice between a Government led by the Labour Party that will focus on families, on homes, and on jobs, and a tired, out-of-touch, arrogant National Government. This side will win.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): This is the final day of the 50th Parliament, and it is only 51 days until New Zealanders will decide who they want to take this country forward. The sorts of things that New Zealanders are considering are who they can trust, who can best manage the Government’s finances, who has the best plan to help families to get ahead, and who do they want as Prime Minister.

I want to reflect on the comments that the Hon Bill English made when referring to our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key. Much has been said of the company he has kept over the last few years in terms of world leaders, but the measure of the man—the measure of the leader—is the person he is each and every day, with each and every New Zealander whom he comes into contact with. Whether he is at a Fieldays meeting, whether he is opening a velodrome with the royals, and whether he is on a marae in Tokoroa, the response to our Prime Minister is overwhelming, and that is what New Zealanders are looking for in terms of leading this country forward.

I am enormously proud to be the senior whip of this stunning National caucus. This is a caucus that is working for New Zealand. We work hand in hand with our communities. We are positive, we are aspirational, and we know where we are going.

If you look at some of our priorities, we have been very clear all of the time that our focus has been on responsibly managing the Government’s finances, building a more competitive and productive economy, delivering better public services, and, for those in Christchurch and Canterbury, rebuilding their city and their region. And it is clear that our plan is working. The economy is growing, real jobs are being created, and wages are going up, but the most important thing is actually the amount of confidence. Consumer confidence is rising and business confidence is rising, and that is really the sort of thing you trust. When you are out listening to your constituents and visiting local businesses, they are talking about the fact that they are confident in the direction that this Government is taking them, and that is the real measure of our success.

If you look at the achievements under the Hon Steven Joyce, who is leading our economic development programme, the six areas in our Business Growth Agenda are detailed, they are specific, and we are reporting on progress. Whether it is in export markets, innovation, skilled and safe workplaces, natural resources, capital markets, or infrastructure, this is a Government that is progressing so many areas because we recognise that there is not one single thing that will fix some of the challenges that we inherited.

If I could take just one in terms of infrastructure, it is the Waikato Expressway. I know that my fellow Waikato MPs are also delighted when we see the progress every time we drive down that stretch of the Waikato. As a road of national significance, it was to be completed within 10 years, and if I look at the section in my electorate of Taupō alone—the Cambridge section—it has been planned for over 60 years. The community wanted that 60 years ago, and this is a Government that is delivering it. If you look at the industries that are important in my electorate and across New Zealand—forestry, farming, tourism—that single road, which will carve off 35 minutes from the journey from Bombay to Tīrau, will have such a significant and lasting economic impact that I cannot begin to do it credit in this short address.

But when you are in your community, and you are talking to mums on the side of the netball court or you bump into people in the supermarket in your ordinary life as a Kiwi, the things that people say that matter most, in addition to the economy, are education, health, and law and order. It is undeniable, and you cannot refute the record that this Government has achieved in its first 6 years in those areas. If you look at education, which is so ably led by the Hon Hekia Parata, more children are in early childhood education. We are lifting academic achievement in our schools, and not only are we doing it in our schools but we are actually tackling it, taking it on, and producing results in the very communities that need it most.

I am very proud when I read articles in the New Zealand Education Gazette that profile schools in my electorate, like Tokoroa High School. But that is only one of many—that is only one of many schools up and down this country that are absolutely transforming their students’ lives. That is coming from the dedication of their principals, of their boards of trustees, of their teachers, and of their parents. That is every single school, but it comes from the leadership; it comes from the direction that is offered by our Minister.

In health, every single family knows how important health is. If you have got a child, if you have got a parent, if you have got a grandparent who needs hospital attention, or if you do, you want it and you want it soon. It was a fine day in this House yesterday when we farewelled the Hon Tony Ryall, because his record in health is just unbelievable. It is absolutely outstanding. Whether it is more hip and knee replacements, more cancer treatment faster, a higher level of immunisation—my colleagues are listing them behind me because I just will not have time to mention them all. There are additional resources in hospitals. The Tokoroa family medical centre has been upgraded into a health centre. More money has gone into a significant upgrade of Taupō Hospital, and this is happening in regional hospitals up and down New Zealand. The one thing that has really stood out, which has probably had the most feedback of anything, was our decision to fund GPs and prescriptions for those under 13. That is what this Government is focusing on—the things that, actually, hard-working New Zealanders value.

So if I now look at the other thing that is significant, New Zealanders want to be safe in their homes and their communities. Again, this is a Government that has made collaborative efforts in justice, police, corrections, and courts. We have that very idea of actually asking what the results are that we need to produce, breaking down the barriers in departments, and saying we are going to set these targets, we are measuring them, and we are achieving them. If you look at, for example, the total crime rate since June 2011, it is down 16 percent—

Hon Members: How much?

LOUISE UPSTON: Sixteen—one-six. But, actually, the one that I think is more important is youth crime, and that is down 30 percent. These are figures, but, actually, I want those of us in the House to reflect on the number of people who are safer and, as a result of these results, are not victims.

I want to make some thank-yous before I finish. I thank my fellow whips, Tim Macindoe and Jami-Lee Ross. I have to say that managing a team of 59 stunning individuals has not been as challenging as people may think. They are highly committed, they are connected to their communities, and they are dedicated. So it has really been a fantastic term of Parliament. But, actually, one of the things that I want to mention is the valedictory statements that were made by members retiring from our caucus: Dr Cam Calder, John Hayes, Chris Auchinvole, Colin King, the Hon Chris Tremain, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, Dr Paul Hutchison, the Hon Phil Heatley, Eric Roy, Shane Ardern, the Hon Tony Ryall, and also, in his novel way via Twitter, the Hon Tau Henare. Each one of these people is a remarkable person in their own right, and their contribution and service to New Zealand has been stunning.

I want to thank all of the staff in this building and across the country, and I want to recognise Grant Robertson’s acknowledgment of what our electorate staff face on a day-to-day basis. Whether it is the team in the Parliamentary Service or in the Office of the Clerk, or our support staff—whether they are in cleaning, security, the gallery, the Chamber, or catering—I thank each and every one of them for the work they do to support this House.

We are now seeing the end of the 50th Parliament, and we look forward to the 51st Parliament, so it is quite appropriate that we are now 51 days to the election. Our top athletes are currently in Glasgow going for gold, and we have already brought home 34 medals, 11 of which are gold. It is 51 days until New Zealand decides who its Prime Minister will be. I can tell you that National is going for gold, and it is game on.

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, as we close the 50th New Zealand Parliament I want to thank you all for giving me the privilege of being its Speaker. Since I assumed the role 19 months ago, I have strived to referee the proceedings of this House in a way that has treated all members fairly, in a non-partisan way. Although some of my decisions have been questioned, I leave with an absolutely clear conscience. The 50th Parliament has sat for 227 days—a total of 1,058 hours—and what is pleasing to note is the limited use of urgency, at 79 hours, and the increased use of extended sittings, at 110 hours. This reflects the very successful changes made to the Standing Orders after the last Parliament.

I also want to note the extraordinary commitment of my team of presiding officers. To the two retiring referees, Eric Roy and H V Ross Robertson, you will be sorely missed, and I wish you both well in your lives after Parliament. To my other presiding officer, Lindsay Tisch, depending on the election and the will of the House, it is possible that we may have the opportunity to work together again, and I look forward to that.

Other members have noted, and I also want to acknowledge, all the staff who make this place work. The recent performance improvement framework reviews of both the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk highlighted the very unique nature of both organisations. It noted the special dedication of the staff to this complex and to the way democracy actually functions in New Zealand. So to all the security staff, building services staff, travel office staff, Bellamy’s staff, telephonists, receptionists, VIP drivers, and all the others, a huge thank you to you all. To my office staff of Lisa Kinloch, Oliver Whitehead, and Roland Todd, thank you for making my job possible. We handled our challenges smoothly. To the Serjeant-at-Arms, Brent Smith, thank you to your team for maintaining the traditions and the dignity of this House.

I particularly want to acknowledge our Clerk of the House, Mary Harris. My job would be near impossible without her wise counsel on a daily basis. The strategic intentions for the Office of the Clerk were tabled in the House yesterday. Those directions set four key core values for the organisation, which are impartiality, accuracy, integrity, and expertise in parliamentary matters. These are the values that are indeed the values of Mary Harris herself. She is an exceptional Clerk, recognised throughout the Commonwealth and honoured this year with a Queen’s Service Medal for services to Parliament. Mary has signalled her intention to retire in May next year. She will leave a huge gap. To her assistant, Andie Lindsay, your enthusiasm and hard work are second to none. You serve your office and this Parliament with distinction. I also note the retirement today of Fay Paterson after 25 years of service to the Clerk’s Office and her direct involvement with the Table of the House. Fay deserves to be recognised and we wish her well with her future.

The other person I have been privileged to work with over the last year is David Stevenson, General Manager of the Parliamentary Service. He has done a wonderful job of guiding Parliamentary Service through a challenging time following the release of personal information to the Henry inquiry. I value his work and that of all of his staff, both within this building and in our electorate offices. To my parliamentary colleagues on the Business Committee, the Officers of Parliament Committee, and the Standing Orders Committee, thank you. On all those committees we have worked together as we have progressed agendas, if somewhat hastily, due to the earlier than anticipated election date. The new Standing Orders are an acknowledgment of the way this Parliament continues to change and to adjust our democracy, which I can assure you is respected and, in fact, renowned throughout the world.

Although we now all wait nervously for voters to determine our fate, if I am fortunate enough to continue this role, I intend to progress three particular challenges. First is modernising the daily prayer in a manner that is acceptable to the vast majority of members of Parliament, but with strongly held views, this may not be as easy as it sounds. Second is to change the way Parliament interacts with Māori protocols. I was embarrassed that two of our women members of Parliament were offended at a traditional pōwhiri held at our last Youth Parliament. I hope to modernise Parliament’s Māori protocols so that all MPs are treated with respect regardless of gender. A third issue that I mentioned earlier today is members taking photographs within this Chamber. There are very strict rules for the press gallery, which they must abide by, and I think it will become increasingly difficult for me to enforce those rules if there are different rules set for members of Parliament. That will probably be a job for the Privileges Committee, as it makes further progress on some of those social media issues.

To all retiring members of Parliament, thank you for your services to New Zealand. Your valedictories have been varied and interesting, and I wish you well as you chart your new directions. To the rest of you, embarking on an election campaign that will determine your future direction, good luck. Finally, in the words of Speaker Sir Richard Harrison in closing the 39th Parliament in 1981: “I wish those of you who are standing for re-election the success they deserve. In that way I am being entirely impartial.”

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.42 p.m.