Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Volume 701

Sitting date: 21 October 2014

TUESDAY, 21 OCTOBER 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 10.30 a.m.

Prayers.

Election of Speaker

Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that, accompanied by members, I waited upon His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House yesterday when I addressed His Excellency as follows:

May it please Your Excellency—

In obedience to Your Excellency’s request, the House of Representatives, in the exercise of its undoubted rights and privileges, has proceeded to the election of a Speaker, and, as the subject of its choice, I now present myself to you and submit myself for Your Excellency’s confirmation.

To which His Excellency replied as follows:

Mr Speaker, it is with much pleasure that I approve the choice by the House of Representatives of you as its Speaker.

I congratulate you on your election to this distinguished office, marking as it does the appreciation of the House of Representatives of your impartiality and ability.

The Speaker reported further that he also addressed His Excellency as follows:

I humbly thank Your Excellency for your confirmation of the choice by the House of Representatives of me to be its Speaker.

I have now, on behalf of the House, to lay claim to all its privileges, and especially to freedom of speech in debate, to free access to Your Excellency whenever occasion may require it, and to the most favourable construction being put on all its proceedings.

To which His Excellency replied as follows:

Mr Speaker, I confirm all the rights and privileges of the House of Representatives which have ever been granted. I assure you that the House of Representatives shall always have ready access to me, and that I will at all times place the most favourable construction upon its proceedings.

I desire to repeat my respectful acknowledgment to the House of the high honour that has been done me in electing me to be its Speaker.

Authority to Administer Oath

Mr SPEAKER: I have received the following authorisation from His Excellency the Governor-General to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of this House:

Mr Speaker, I present you with an authorisation for you to administer the oath or affirmation of allegiance to members of the House of Representatives.

Signed Jerry Mateparae

Governor-General

20 October 2014

Members Sworn

Julie Anne Genter was presented to the Speaker, made the affirmation required by law, and took her seat in the House.

Obituaries

David Murray Hereora

Mr SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 5 August 2014 of David Murray Hereora, a Labour Party list member of Parliament from 2002 to 2008 and chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee from 2005 to 2008. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of loss that we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Mihi

Mr SPEAKER: I now call on a long-serving Māori member to give a mihi.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): E Te Pika, e te Minita Te Ururoa, e ngā mema Māori mai i ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou mō tēnei wāhanga māku ki te tuku mihi. E tika ana me tāpiri atu tēnei mihi maioha ki tērā o tō tātau nei hoa a Dave Hereora. Ahakoa kua ngaro i te tirohanga kanohi, e kore e warewaretia. Nō reirā e Te Whare, kua riro tēnei hōnore ki a au kia tuku mihi mō tēnei Pāremata e 51.

E tika ana me tīmata mā te whakanui i tō ekenga ki te tūranga teitei o Te Whare, e Te Kaihautū o Te Whare. E Te Pika, nāu te mahi nunui ki te whakawā i ngā taupatupatu ahakoa he ringa kaha mā te mahi a Horomona e whakapai ai te wairua o tēnei Whare. Nō reira tēnā koe.

Ka huri te whakaaro ki a koe Te Pirimia, John Key. Kua whakaae te motu mōu te mahi nunui hei kaiārahi mō tēnei whenua o Aotearoa/Niu Tīreni, kia tuia ō tātau kāinga, te whenua motuhake kei waenganui i te hāpori o te ao whānui, arā, kia piri tata ki ngā motu o Te Moana Nui-a-Kiwa i ēnei wā toimaha. Nō reira, nei te mihi, nei te mihi atu ki a koe.

Huri noa ki ngā pāti tōrangapū, ngā kaihautū katoa, ko te tūmanako kia ū ki ngā kaupapa matua mai i te rangi ki te whenua.

Ki ā tātau tamariki me ngā tāngata katoa, kia piri tata, kia ratarata i raro i te mana o Te Tiriti o Waitangi hei painga, hei oranga mō tātau katoa. Nō reira, e Te Whare tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[My thanks to you, Mr Speaker, Minister Te Ururoa, and Māori members from the four winds for this part you have given me in regard to delivering the opening address. It is fitting that I add this affectionate tribute to that colleague of ours, Dave Hereora. Even though he is no longer before us he will never be forgotten. And so to you the House, this honour to acknowledge the 51st Parliament has been bestowed upon me.

It is fitting that I begin by magnifying your elevation to the highest position of the House, Mr Speaker. Yours is a huge role, in terms of adjudicating debates, ruling with a firm hand, and being wise like Solomon in ensuring that the tranquillity of this House prevails.

I cast a thought in your direction, Prime Minister John Key. The nation has acceded that your most important role is to be the leader for this country of Aotearoa New Zealand in terms of intertwining our homes and the special ground between communities of the world at large so that they are closer to the islands of the Pacific Ocean in these times that weigh heavily upon us. I therefore salute and congratulate you.

I turn now to all the political parties and leaders. The hope is that primary proposals from the sky above to the ground below are firmly fixed.

And now to our children and everyone, remain close and friendly to each other under the mandate of the Treaty of Waitangi as a source of sustenance and well-being for us all.]

Waiata

State Opening

A message from His Excellency the Governor-General desiring the immediate attendance of honourable members in the Legislative Council Chamber was delivered by Mr David Baguley, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

Accordingly, Mr Speaker and honourable members, preceded by the Serjeant-at-Arms, proceeded to the Legislative Council Chamber, and, after a short absence, returned.

Governor-General’s Speech

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I desire to report that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor-General this day in the Legislative Council Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to make a speech, the text of which was handed to me by His Excellency, and I now lay such text on the Table of the House. The text of the speech is:

Honourable Members of the House of Representatives.

E nga Mema Honore o te Whare Paremata o Aotearoa, tenei aku mihi mahana ki a koutou, tena koutou katoa.

Following the General Election, a National-led Government has been formed with a majority in the House on confidence and supply.

Confidence and supply agreements have been signed between the National Party and, respectively, the ACT Party and the United Future Party. A Relationship Accord and confidence and supply agreement has been signed with the Māori Party. These agreements will enable the Government to operate in an effective, stable and inclusive manner.

Honourable Members, the Government has a comprehensive policy agenda and a substantial legislative programme that it will put before the House in the forthcoming session.

The Government is focused on returning to surplus and its long-term fiscal objective remains to reduce net core Crown debt to 20 per cent of GDP by 2020. Around $1 billion of the operating allowance in each Budget will be used to increase spending, with the remainder set aside for tax reductions and further debt repayment, depending on economic and fiscal conditions at the time.

ACC levies will be reduced in 2015, and more reductions are expected from 2016, as the three levy accounts are now fully funded.

The Government’s plan to build a more productive and competitive economy, supporting more jobs and higher incomes, is set out in the Business Growth Agenda. This contains around 350 individual initiatives. These initiatives will be progressed, and more will be added, in this term of Parliament.

The Government will continue to pursue high-quality trade agreements, including negotiations with Korea and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, while ensuring that New Zealand’s best interests are always served. More investment will be made in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, to expand the number of businesses it works with and increase its international footprint.

The Government will continue to provide the environment and incentives to increase business-led research and development, with a goal of raising this to 1 per cent of GDP by 2018. More funding will be provided for the R&D grant programme. The Government will also establish a Food Safety Science and Research Centre, as well as four additional Centres of Research Excellence, with one of the Centres focused on Maori research.

The Government will progress legislation to increase flexibility and fairness in the labour market, extend flexible working arrangements and improve collective bargaining. The enforcement of New Zealand’s minimum employment standards will be strengthened, and paid parental leave extended from 14 weeks to 18 weeks by 2016. Legislation to improve health and safety at work will be progressed.

The Government will complete the implementation of the Financial Markets Conduct Act, and will progress legislation to strengthen competition laws, and improve the accounting and audit industries.

The overhaul of Inland Revenue’s business systems and information technology will continue, which among other things will make tax compliance faster and easier for businesses.

Net migration to Australia has dropped considerably and the unemployment rate in New Zealand is lower than that across the Tasman. The Government will arrange job fairs for New Zealand employers in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, to recruit skilled expatriate New Zealanders to return home and work in areas where there are shortages.

Job fairs will complement the Government’s skills training programme here in New Zealand, which involves strengthening and improving foundation learning, vocational training and tertiary education. Additional investment will be made this term in training more engineers, creating 2,000 more places in Maori and Pasifika Trades Training, and launching three ICT Graduate Schools.

The Government will continue its programme of investment in modern infrastructure.

In this term of Parliament, a number of projects in the Roads of National Significance programme will be completed, including the Waterview Tunnel, the Tauranga Eastern Link and the Mackays to Peka Peka route north of Wellington. The Government will progress the remainder of the Roads of National Significance programme, together with a package of state highway projects in Auckland and across the regions. New funding will be allocated for urban cycleways.

The Ultra-Fast Broadband programme will be extended to reach 80 per cent of New Zealanders. In addition, $150 million will be set aside to improve mobile coverage and broadband connectivity in rural and remote areas.

Honourable Members, the Government believes that balanced and sensible management of our natural resources can meet environmental responsibilities while creating economic opportunities.

The Government will continue to encourage petroleum and mineral exploration while adhering to strong environmental and safety provisions. This approach includes investment in new data acquisition projects such as aeromagnetic surveys and petroleum basin analysis.

Investment in regional water infrastructure will continue, to help these projects get underway. New water storage and irrigation projects can make land more productive and boost exports, while at the same time providing positive environmental outcomes.

The Government is committed to improving water quality and the way fresh water is managed. Water reform will continue through advancing the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum. The Government will also introduce a requirement for dairy cattle to be excluded from waterways by 1 July 2017. Coupled with this, the Government has set aside $100 million to voluntarily buy and retire areas of selected farmland next to important waterways to create an environmental buffer.

Legislation will be introduced to amend the Resource Management Act to provide more certainty, timeliness and cost-effectiveness around resource allocation decisions. The Environmental Reporting Bill will also be progressed.

The Government will introduce legislation to improve the responsible use, management and conservation of New Zealand’s ocean environment. This legislation will allow for a wider range of marine protected areas, including recreational fishing parks in the Hauraki Gulf and Marlborough Sounds.

The Government will work with international partners to put in place a comprehensive new global agreement on climate change by the end of 2015. It will also continue to participate in international research programmes, with particular emphasis on the Global Research Alliance on agricultural greenhouse gases. The Government will invest additional funding to encourage and support new forest planting, and will continue to focus on managing New Zealand’s emissions.

Honourable Members, the Government will continue to deliver high-quality public services. It will remain focused on getting results, seeking new and better ways to deliver public services, and continuing to contain and reduce costs.

The Government has 10 priority goals and targets in the areas of long-term welfare dependency, supporting vulnerable children, boosting skills and employment, reducing crime and improving interaction with government. Good progress is being made on these targets, and two of them – in the areas of crime reduction and educational achievement – will be made more challenging.

The Government is committed to helping more people get off a benefit and into work. It will work to reduce the number of people receiving a benefit and reduce the lifetime costs of the welfare system. Legislation will be introduced to extend the Youth Service approach to 19-year-old sole parents, and to many other 18- and 19-year-old beneficiaries who need more support, or who are at risk of long-term welfare dependence.

As agreed with the Māori Party, ongoing investment will be made in Whānau Ora. The Government will continue to have a focus on poverty, especially child poverty, and will coordinate cross-government activity in this area through the Ministerial Committee on Poverty.

The Government will also have a focus on housing in this Parliamentary term.

More special housing areas will be created – and therefore more new housing developed – as a result of Housing Accords signed between the Government and local councils. Changes to the Resource Management Act will assist housing supply in the longer term.

The new KiwiSaver HomeStart Grant will be introduced next year to double the support a first home buyer can get if they are buying or building a new home, which will encourage the supply of more affordable new housing. House price limits around the country will be increased. Legislation will also be introduced to allow first home buyers to withdraw their KiwiSaver member tax credit to put towards a deposit. The Government’s extended home insulation scheme will make another 46,000 low-income households warmer and healthier.

The Government will continue working to ensure that vulnerable New Zealanders have access to good quality housing, whether those houses are owned by Housing New Zealand or by community housing providers. The Government sees community housing providers playing a greater role in the provision of social housing over this term of Parliament.

The Government will extend free doctor’s visits and prescriptions to children under 13. More will be invested in lifting the number of elective surgical procedures, particularly hip and knee operations, and in creating new, primary care multi-disciplinary teams to help people in pain from bone, muscle and joint conditions.

A new cancer treatment target will be introduced, for 90 per cent of patients to receive their first cancer treatment within 62 days of being referred by their GP. And the Government will invest extra funding to allow hospices to expand their care and services across the wider health system.

As agreed with the United Future Party, the implementation of the National Medicines Strategy will continue, including the enhanced role of pharmacists in medicines management and primary care.

The Government will extend the Enabling Good Lives approach so that disabled people have more choices, controls and flexibility over support and funding in their everyday lives.

The Government will this term implement its initiative to raise teaching quality and school leadership to deliver a better education to every student. This will keep the best teachers in the classroom, and establish new teaching and leadership roles to spread best practice across communities of schools.

The Government will also provide more in-class support to special needs students, by funding up to 800,000 more teacher aide hours each year. More funding will be supplied to support deaf and hearing-impaired children, and a contestable fund will be established for schools to establish or enhance Asian language programmes.

The Government will continue its work to lift participation rates in early childhood education, with a target of 98 per cent of new entrants in school having previously attended an early childhood centre. The Government also has a target of 85 per cent of 18-year-olds achieving a minimum of NCEA Level 2. Significant investment will be made in new schools and classrooms, including major projects in Auckland and Christchurch.

As agreed with the ACT Party, the Government will further develop the model, and expand the trial, of Partnership Schools to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students.

The Government will continue to focus on crime prevention. The crime rate is at a 35-year low, and violent crime, youth crime and re-offending are all declining. Across law and order agencies, a stronger response will be developed to prevent family violence, including a focus on gangs and gang lifestyles. The Government will progress legislation to address cyber-bullying, organised crime and online child abuse. It will progress the Parole Amendment Bill, introduce a Public Protection Order Bill, and intends to progress reform of the Privacy Act.

Every publicly managed prison will be made a working prison by 2017, so prisoners can take part in a 40-hour week of rehabilitation and reintegration activities. Specialist after-care will be delivered for those released or paroled prisoners who have undertaken a drug treatment programme while in prison.

Honourable Members, the Government recognises that Māori face unique opportunities and challenges in maximising their economic potential. This is reflected in the creation of a new ministerial portfolio of Maori Development. Reforms to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act will be progressed, so Maori land can be governed effectively and profitably for all its owners. The Government will also continue to resolve outstanding Treaty of Waitangi settlements, and intends for all willing iwi to have deeds of settlement by 2017.

Starting next year, New Zealand will take its place on the United Nations Security Council for a two-year term. This will be a challenging time for the Security Council and New Zealand is determined to make a positive contribution and in particular to represent the perspective of small states.

The Government is committed to a strong security and intelligence community which operates within a clear legal framework and with the security of New Zealanders at its heart. Under legislation passed last year, a review of the intelligence and security agencies, their legislation, and their oversight, will commence by 30 June 2015.

The Government has already commenced work on a review of settings in relation to foreign terrorist fighters taking part in, or returning from, conflict zones. The rapid rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant poses international, regional and local risks which the Government will respond to in a responsible way.

As has been well-signalled, the Government will put a possible change of New Zealand’s flag to a public vote this term. There will be no presumption of change, but there will be a very open process which will welcome and encourage full public input and debate.

Honourable Members, the Government is continuing to stand beside the people of Canterbury as good progress is made on the earthquake rebuild. The rebuild will continue to occupy a great deal of Government attention in this term of Parliament. Big strides will be made this term on anchor projects and horizontal infrastructure. Next year, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority will be brought into the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and a transition plan developed to hand over CERA’s responsibilities and powers in an orderly way.

Honourable Members, over the course of the forthcoming Parliamentary session, other measures will be laid before you.

The Government is privileged to have won the trust and goodwill of New Zealanders for a third Parliamentary term, and will seek to re-earn that trust and goodwill every day over the next three years.

Appointments

Deputy Speaker

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That Chester Borrows be appointed Deputy Speaker. Mr Borrows is a well-regarded member of this House, having been a member since 2005. Prior to that, he had a very long political apprenticeship as he came to understand the ways of this Parliament well before being elected to it. As a former police officer and a former lawyer, he has a fine understanding of the justice system in New Zealand and the principles of justice. He has the ministerial experience of having been an Associate Minister for Social Development as well.

I think his strong associations across the House, and the recognition of him as the affable gentleman that he is, will afford him considerable scope for his administration of the House in your stead, Mr Speaker, and I am sure that his general appreciation of parliamentary matters will ensure that he does fill the role of Deputy Speaker according to the wishes of this wider Parliament.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): On behalf of the Opposition can I endorse the resolution and congratulate Chester Borrows on his elevation to the role of Deputy Speaker. I know that many of us will have worked with him in the select committees. He has previously chaired a number of select committees for Parliament, and we have found him to be a fair and balanced chair, and I look forward to him bringing those skills to the debating chamber.

Motion agreed to.

Assistant Speakers

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That Lindsay Tisch be appointed Assistant Speaker. Mr Tisch has been a member of this House since 1999. He has very considerable political experience that goes well beyond the years he has spent in this House. He has also been part of the Speaker’s team since 2008. During that time I think he has developed a level of credibility and acceptance among his colleagues that will fit him very well to serve in this role in the coming Parliament. He is highly regarded by his own caucus, and I know that many others sitting in this Parliament who have been in this House while he has been presiding have attested to his competence and fairness in the exercise of the Assistant Speaker’s role.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Can I also endorse this resolution and congratulate Lindsay Tisch on his re-election as Assistant Speaker. I would also like to note that following the departure of H V Ross Robertson, he is now the longest-serving presiding officer of the House in the current Parliament, and of course holds the record as being the only presiding officer to withdraw and apologise during the last term of Parliament. We welcome his re-election.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The last thing that New Zealand First wants to do is to introduce a discordant note so early in proceedings, but we are talking about parliamentary appointments and it would have been courteous, surely, or polite, or properly parliamentary to approach other parties on this matter of appointments. The least we could have expected was to be consulted, because we are being asked, as members of Parliament, to abide by the rulings of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the Assistant Speakers, and other people. Surely, in a parliamentary sense, therefore every parliamentary group in this House should have been consulted. I am not certain about the Greens. I am not certain about the Greens. All I can say is that we were not. It is all very fine to regard the matter as of no importance because obviously certain members over there do not understand the importance or the paramountcy of Parliament. But just to assume that you are going to get the support on an appointment because you have got what you suppose is the majority in the House is not good enough. We in New Zealand First believe—

Denis O’Rourke: So much for inclusiveness.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: So much for inclusiveness—exactly. So much for grand Westminster traditions. Yes, you could even go on further and say that it bespeaks of an awful arrogance. I do not want to go that far, surely, but let us please in the future have the decency to consult all of Parliament if you want every member of Parliament and every political party to abide by rulings coming from these officers in Parliament.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I realise that the procedure here is for there to not be a debate on these matters, but I think it does a huge disservice to the balance of Parliament if there is not some response to the rather ridiculous comments that have just been offered to this House by Mr Peters. For a start, for the last 6 years every effort has been made to make Parliament’s Business Committee far more relevant than it has been in any Parliament prior to that. Second, this morning the Business Committee convened for a second time this week, simply to accommodate New Zealand First’s organisational dysfunction, and was then told that New Zealand First members still had not managed to make up their minds. If anyone is to talk in this House about disrespect for Parliament, it would be every parliamentarian other than someone who sits in New Zealand First.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the question. The House can decide. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): As I move this next motion I hope the last discordant moment is not some sort of a portent of what is about to happen. I move, That the Hon Trevor Mallard be appointed Assistant Speaker. I did not think that I would ever be in this House moving a motion like this. If it were not for the fact that I have been reminded by the honourable gentleman over there that this is a parliamentary occasion, I may well have quipped that should he be successful, the Hon Trevor Mallard may be the first Speaker in the Chair to remove himself from the House.

But appreciating the comments Mr Peters has made to the House, I will simply say that I have worked with Mr Mallard on the Business Committee and in his role as shadow Leader of the House over a number of years, and I know that he is, at heart, a true parliamentarian.

Hon Members: Ha,ha!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, his colleagues, of course, may find it hard to believe that anyone on their side of the House has a heart, but the reality is that Mr Mallard is a gentleman who does appreciate the procedures of Parliament and does respect the procedures of Parliament. Certainly over his political career he has enjoyed the theatre of Parliament as well. I think his broad experience in that regard will equip him very well as an assistant to you in your role, Mr Speaker, and we look forward to supporting him.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Mr Speaker—

Grant Robertson: Where to start?

CHRIS HIPKINS: Where to start! Can I also endorse this resolution and congratulate Trevor Mallard on his elevation to this role. I think many would agree that there are few people in Parliament who know the Standing Orders inside out and back to front in the way that he does. As the Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, has just acknowledged, he has played a very constructive role in the proceedings of the Business Committee over the last couple of terms of Parliament, and we are confident that he will be a good, fair, and impartial referee of the House’s proceedings.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Although we have no particular objection to the nomination that has been made, and we look forward to, I guess, the joy of watching Trevor Mallard as Assistant Speaker—it will be an interesting Parliament with him in that role—I would note for the House and for the public that no women have been nominated for any of these positions. Yet again—yet again under this Government—no women have been nominated for the positions of Speaker, Deputy Speaker, or Assistant Speaker. At a time when the New Zealand population is increasingly supporting and promoting women into positions of authority, when yesterday this Parliament saw the Commission Opening of Parliament by three women justices, we now have a situation in this Parliament where Parliament itself is behind the country in making sure that women are in positions of authority in our own Chamber. I think that is a disappointment. I think it is a disappointment for all of us that we have not made sure that more women are promoted into positions of authority in this House so that we too represent the population of this country, which is increasing women’s representation in positions of authority. It is worth noting, and I hope it will improve in the future. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I also specifically welcome to the team of presiding officers the Hon Chester Borrows, Lindsay Tisch, and, particularly, the Hon Trevor Mallard. All the members selected for these jobs have, in the time I have been here, shown a very high regard for the dignity of this House, and I think that all three of them will bring a very special expertise to the running of this Parliament. Thank you.

Reinstatement of Business

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That the following business be reinstated:

Bills

Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill

Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill

Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill

Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Construction Contracts Amendment Bill

Coroners Amendment Bill

Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill

Defence Amendment Bill

Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill

Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill

Education (Food in Schools) Amendment Bill

Education Amendment Bill (No 2)

Electoral (Adjustment of Thresholds) Amendment Bill

Electronic Data Safety Bill

Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Amendment Bill

Environmental Reporting Bill

Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)

Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)

Harmful Digital Communications Bill

Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill

Health (Protection) Amendment Bill

Health and Safety Reform Bill

Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill

Housing Corporation Amendment Bill

Human Rights Amendment Bill

Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

Insolvency Practitioners Bill

Judicature Modernisation Bill

Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill

Legislation Amendment Bill

Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3)

Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill

Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill

Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill

Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill

Ngāti Hauā Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Koroki Kahukura Claims Settlement Bill

Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill

Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill

Overseas Investment (Owning our Own Rural Land) Amendment Bill

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill

Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill

Parole Amendment Bill

Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill

Public Health Bill

Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill

Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill

Regulatory Standards Bill

Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill

Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill

Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill

Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill

Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill

Social Security Amendment Bill (No 3)

Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill

Standards and Accreditation Bill

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)

Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3)

SuperGold Health Check Bill

Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill

Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill

Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill

Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill

Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill

Underground Coal Mining Safety Bill

Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill

Petitions

Commerce Committee

Petition 2011/95 of Carol Beaumont and 1,015 others

Petition 2011/96 of David Holm and 1,801 others

Petition 2011/114 of Peter Diver and 498 others

Petition 2011/119 of Sue O’Neill and 110 others

Petition 2011/120 of Steven Crighton and 88 others

Petition 2011/121 of Tim Gibson and 368 others

Education and Science Committee

Petition 2011/126 of Fono Tigafua-Finau

Finance and Expenditure Committee

Petition 2011/51 of Andrea Newman

Petition 2011/62 of Ross Gray on behalf of the Christchurch Civic Trust

Petition 2011/106 of Sir Alan Mark

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

Petition 2008/129 of Helen Kelly on behalf of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions

Petition 2011/125 of Peter McKenzie on behalf of the Barnabas Fund (NZ)

Government Administration Committee

Petition 2011/127 of Charlotte Purdy

Health Committee

Petition 2011/102 of Carmel Berry and Charlotte Korte

Petition 2011/104 of Jane Bruning and 29 others

Petition 2011/107 of Thomas Hamilton and 435 others

Petition 2011/109 of Jody Anderson on behalf of Tube Wean NZ and 4,161 others

Petition 2011/113 of Helen Richardson

Petition 2011/122 of Rachel Noble on behalf of Disabled Persons Assembly and 1,491 others

Justice and Electoral Committee

Petition 2011/60 of Elizabeth Subritzky on behalf of Freedom from Sexual Exploitation

Law and Order Committee

Petition 2011/90 of Jessie Hume

Petition 2011/117 of Grace Haden and 121 others

Petition 2011/124 of Ann Hodgetts and 744 others

Local Government and Environment Committee

Petition 2008/135 of Sue Kedgley

Petition 2011/17 of Mark Loyal Gibson on behalf of the Avon-Otakaro Network and 18,656 others

Petition 2011/67 of Margi Martin, Amanda Austrin and 31 others

Petition 2011/93 of Gary Williams MNZM

Petition 2011/94 of Felicity Emmett and 278 others

Petition 2011/100 of Deborah Cox and 6 others

Petition 2011/116 of Eugenie Sage

Primary Production Committee

Petition 2011/47 of Leona Plaisier on behalf of Save our Sounds

Petition 2011/54 of Stephanie Bowman

Petition 2011/68 of Jon Muller

Petition 2011/110 of David Ian Simpson and 17 others

Petition 2011/112 of Alison White and 4,276 others

Transport and Industrial Relations Committee

Petition 2011/80 of Jan Mossman and 15,000 others

Petition 2011/115 of Malcolm Eves and 1,808 others

Petition 2011/118 of Sean Roberts and Cody Roberts

2013/14 annual reviews referred to committee

Finance and Expenditure Committee

Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited

Inquiry referred to committee

Regulations Review Committee

Inquiry into Parliament’s legislative response to future national emergencies

Reports of Officers of Parliament referred to committees

Commerce Committee

Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Evaluating Solar Water Heating: Sun, Renewable Energy and Climate Change

Finance and Expenditure Committee

Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Annual Plan 2014/15

Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Discussion Paper: Insuring public assets, June 2013

Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Public entities’ progress in implementing the Auditor-General’s recommendations 2014

Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Setting up Central Agencies Shared Services

Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, State-owned enterprises: Results of the 2012/13 audits

Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, The Auditor-General’s strategic intentions 2014/15 to 2017/18

Local Government and Environment Committee

Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand: Environmental oversight and regulation

Other matters referred to committees

Government Administration Committee

Proposed national civil defence emergency management plan

Privileges Committee

Question of privilege regarding use of social media to report on parliamentary proceedings

Other business

Orders of the day for consideration of the following:

Government notice of motion No 1 (Appointments to Independent Police Conduct Authority)

Interim report of the Commerce Committee on the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Interim report of the Commerce Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill

Interim report of the Social Services Committee on the inquiry into the funding of specialist sexual violence social services

Report of the Education and Science Committee on the Inquiry into engaging parents in the education of their children

Report of the Education and Science Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Schools: Results of the 2012 audits

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Maintaining a future focus in governing Crown-owned companies, February 2014

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Reflections from our audits: Our future needs – is the public sector ready?

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Watercare Services Limited: Review of service performance

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Monetary Policy Statement, June 2014

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the Arms Trade Treaty

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the Instrument amending the Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union, Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Guadalajara, 2010)

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the International Telecommunication Union, Provisional Final Acts World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-12), Geneva, 23 January – 17 February 2012

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General on New Zealand Defence Force: Progress with the Defence Sustainability Initiative

Report of the Health Committee on the 2014 Parliamentary committee exchange with Australia

Report of the Health Committee on the Briefing on English language proficiency tests with reference to non-English speaking health professionals seeking registration in New Zealand

Report of the Health Committee on the Briefing on prostate cancer

Report of the Health Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Health sector: Results of the 2012/13 audits

Report of the Health Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Regional services planning in the health sector

Report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Inquiry into the 2013 local authority elections

Report of the Law and Order Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Department of Corrections: Managing offenders to reduce reoffending

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Inquiry into property investments by Delta Utility Services Limited at Luggate and Jacks Point

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Local government: Results of the 2012/13 audits

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Hydroelectricity or wild rivers: Climate change versus natural heritage, update report

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Making difficult decisions: Mining the conservation estate, update report

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Water quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing on fertiliser standards

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing on new import health standards for pork

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing on the future of Maori Agribusiness

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing on the health of bees

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing on the Policy, project management, and programmes of Forestry Grants offered by the Ministry for Primary Industries

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing on the regulation of the whitebait fishery on the West Coast

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Ministry for Primary Industries: Preparing for and responding to biosecurity incursions

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2013

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2014

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Briefing on regulation-making powers that authorise transitional regulations to override primary legislation

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Complaint regarding the Canterbury Earthquake (Building Act) Order 2011 (SR 2011/311)

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Inquiry into oversight of disallowable instruments that are not legislative instruments

Report of the Social Services Committee on the Inquiry into boarding houses in New Zealand, and Briefing into long-term caravan park and motor camp accommodation

Report of the Social Services Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Inquiry into the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board: Follow-up report, and Information request to the Minister for Building and Construction

Report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders 2014

Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Immigration New Zealand: Supporting new migrants to settle and work

As Parliaments transition, all the legislation before the previous Parliament, in theory, ceases to exist, and a Government gets to choose, when it is re-elected or elected, which should carry over. In this instance, we wish to reinstate all of the business that is on the Order Paper. I would note that there is one bill under members’ orders of the day in the name of a member who is no longer present. That bill is also being reinstated, but I wish to simply report to the House that in your role as Speaker you will determine how that bill is to be allocated or to which member it is to be allocated, as you are faced with a circumstance that has not been faced by any Speaker before. I am sure you will work through that in a very fair manner.

Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders

Sessional

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That the Abortion Supervisory Committee, Air New Zealand Limited, Genesis Energy Limited, Meridian Energy Limited, Mighty River Power Limited, and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand be public organisations for the purposes of the Standing Orders.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): The Labour Opposition will be supporting the motion, but for the record and in the interests of civility—and, again, for the record in the new life of the Government—it is worth noting that this motion is supported in order to enable adequate scrutiny of these entities, especially those assets that now form part of the mixed-ownership model, given that those assets are not subject to the Official Information Act and given that there is, because of their new status, less parliamentary scrutiny. So although the Opposition does support this motion, it supports it not in respect of any notion that those assets should have been sold or that it is supportive of the Government’s stance in regard to the scheme of arrangement that it embarked on before the election, when, as we noted repeatedly, the New Zealand people were in a position where they lost value. The $7 billion to $8 billion that was trumpeted as being a Government achievement fell well short, in the order $4.8 billion.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stick to the motion.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: So although we welcome this motion, we welcome it for the reason—and I am sure the Leader of the House would agree with me—that even though at least half of these assets fall outside collective community ownership, there should be adequate scrutiny on behalf of taxpayers by members of this House and members of this Opposition. I give notice to the Government that we will be embarking on strenuous and detailed scrutiny, especially as the Government continues to use those proceeds in rather dubious ways that fall outside the future investment model.

Finally, I note in supporting this motion that the Government has said in the previous Parliament that it would not be selling any other assets, but, sadly, we note that there is now some notion of selling billions of dollars’ worth of State houses.

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 11.42 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Motions

United Nations Security Council—Election to Non-permanent Seat

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice in relation to New Zealand’s election to the United Nations Security Council.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I move, That this House recognise New Zealand’s election to the United Nations Security Council for the term of 2015-16. Obtaining 145 votes against two highly respected and much larger nations is a major achievement. The overwhelming support in the vote on 16 October in New York is a testament to New Zealand’s reputation as an independent principal foreign policy contributor and an acknowledgment of our record at the United Nations over the past 69 years. It is also a strong affirmation of the important role that a small State like New Zealand can play on the Security Council.

We ran a very strong campaign over close to a decade. I would like to acknowledge the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who launched our Security Council campaign, and the commitment of successive Governments to it. There are several other people I wish to acknowledge as well. They include the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, for his leadership and dedication to the campaign; His Excellency Hon Jim McLay and his team for their work at the coalface of the campaign in New York; the special envoys Rt Hon Sir Don McKinnon, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, Colin Keating, Amanda Ellis, Sarah Dennis, and Lucy Duncan; and the Opposition foreign affairs spokesperson, David Shearer, for his assistance with the campaign. We were able to run a bipartisan campaign, and this was well received by the international community, and I think it counted significantly in our success. I would also like to commend the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including our missions around the world, which worked tirelessly on the campaign.

We thank all those countries that supported us. We had strong friends and advocates in every region in the world—in Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern and Western Europe. I would also like to pay particular tribute to our friends in the Pacific and Asia, who stood solidly behind our campaign.

Throughout this campaign New Zealand has gained a new level of profile on the international stage and strengthened our reputation as active global citizens. We look forward to serving alongside Spain on the council, and I would like to acknowledge Turkey’s commitment to its campaign and the United Nations system. We also made new connections with a diverse range of countries, and Security Council membership will allow us to increase our international engagement even further.

This is a once-in-20-years opportunity for New Zealand to sit at the world’s top table. We look forward to again making a meaningful contribution to the important work of the Security Council. I remember when I went to speak to the United Nations and the permanent representatives, I had an opportunity to go and speak to the African congress and the African Union members. At the time, the indication from the chair was that there would be no questions; I would simply make an intervention and leave. After I made my intervention, the permanent representative from Rwanda put up her hand and asked the chair whether she could make a statement. The chair obliged, and the permanent member got to her feet and said to the members of the African Union that they should look around, that they should be all voting for New Zealand, that it was the representation of New Zealand that saved literally millions of people from Rwanda, and that this was a small country that showed significant influence on the other members of the council. She put it to the members of the African Union that if it was not for New Zealand’s contribution, the situation would have been very different.

A small country can make a big difference on the world stage. I think the bipartisanship shown over the last 10 years and the efforts of our ministry and a great many other people have contributed to New Zealand once again being given an opportunity to represent those who are in the greatest of need. Over the next few years it will be a challenging time for the world. New Zealand’s contribution will be valued.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): The Labour Party supports the Government’s motion to recognise our election on to the United Nations Security Council. More than any other place, it is where New Zealand can contribute to peace and security in the world, and we are living in very turbulent times.

The emphatic victory of 145 votes out of 193, against pretty formidable competition in the form of Turkey and Spain and without spending that sort of money, is a testament to a number of things. First of all, it is a testament to our standing in the world. We are perceived as fair-minded, a country with a principled foreign policy, and an independent country, one that is a firm supporter of the UN principles.

The quality of our campaign was very important. As the Prime Minister said, it started 10 years ago under a Labour Government. I acknowledge too the team that existed within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, those various envoys who travelled the world, and the formidable team in New York headed by Jim McLay. Having seen Jim’s work on the ground, I believe he has the respect, the standing, and the moral compass to be an excellent representative on the council in the years ahead. I want also to acknowledge the work of this Government and the Prime Minister, but particularly the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, for spearheading that effort as well. As the Prime Minister said, it very much is and was a bipartisan effort.

Lastly, our message to those countries that we met—it resonated—was we would on the council stand up for small States and give them a voice that they often did not have, to listen and to judge each issue on its merits when it comes to us making a decision, and that we would be persuaded by the case in front of us, not just by other pressures. We have an obligation now to make sure we see that through. That might mean taking a stance against some of our bigger trading partners or perhaps our traditional allies as well. That is the duty we are given, and that is the undertaking we now have to see through.

The Prime Minister talked about Rwanda. I remember our last stint on the United National Security Council. I was a much younger and more “haired” aid worker in Rwanda back in those days, and I remember Colin Keating giving one of his speeches in the Security Council where he talked about people around the Security Council having blood on their hands. I was living and working amongst many of those Rwandans, and as a person doing that I felt very proud to be a Kiwi who was recognised by those people around me as standing up for them.

That is the legacy we have, for which we are remembered and on which our reputation is also based, and it flows through to so many other aspects of how New Zealand is perceived. The challenge before us in the next 2 years is to make a real contribution to making this world a more peaceful and safer place, and, in doing so, further enhance our standing as a country.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party also supports the Government motion around New Zealand attaining the United Nations Security Council seat. It is a major achievement for a small State. Congratulations to all of those who were involved in achieving it. On behalf of the Greens, I would also like to thank all of those countries that voted for New Zealand to hold that seat.

The question now is what we do with the position that we now have, and what we should do looking forward. It seems to us in the Greens that we need to show leadership as a country on some of the big global issues, and, in particular, on climate change. When we ran our campaign we said we would be a voice for the small States on the Security Council and at the United Nations. There are many, many small States across the Pacific whose very existence is under threat as a result of sea-level rise as a result of climate change. If we are to be true to our campaign slogan—that we would be a voice on the United Nations Security Council for those small States—then we need to show leadership on climate change.

Climate change should be recognised by the United Nations Security Council as an international security threat, and New Zealand should support that position. The Pentagon, just on Monday, released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risk from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty, and food shortages. This should be recognised by the United Nations Security Council. Moreover, if New Zealand is to provide leadership on climate change, as it should, and if it is to stand up for small island States, then we must also take action to cut our own greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand plans to increase our net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent in the next decade. That is a grossly irresponsible position. Other States and small States, which we say we are representing on the Security Council, will not thank us for it and it will undermine our credibility on the UN Security Council if we take that position. We should provide leadership on climate change on the UN Security Council.

Secondly, and this is to reflect partly also David Shearer’s contribution, we need to have an independent foreign policy. The Prime Minister’s more recent statement, that we should get into a new war simply because our traditional allies are doing so, is the antithesis of an independent foreign policy. If we are to have an independent voice on the UN Security Council we need to be independently minded and have an independent foreign policy. That is what we promised to do in our campaign to be on the Security Council, and it is very important that we do that.

We asked to be on the world stage, and now we are there. We were not thrust on to it. We sought it, which is fair enough. Our small country will be judged on how we exercise our responsibilities to the rest of the world, both those alive today and those who are yet to come, and how we exercise our responsibilities to the environment of planet Earth. I look forward to New Zealand exercising those responsibilities in a way that makes us all proud.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First wishes to acknowledge the very significant achievement of New Zealand winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2015 and 2016. This is a result we welcome, as it enhances New Zealand’s international standing and reputation. Winning a Security Council seat was the result of a sustained and effective campaign involving the current and former Governments. New Zealand First recognises and salutes all who have contributed to this result. Ministers and many of our foreign affairs staff have played their part in securing this notable victory. So to all who played a part for New Zealand, New Zealand First says: “Well done. You have served the country well.” New Zealand faced some serious challenges in its bid, as you know, from countries with much greater resources at their disposal. New Zealand had to be smarter, not a bigger spender, than its competition.

Having said all that, there is a widespread and deep concern at how effective the United Nations actually is in confronting the issues facing the international community. The task is now for New Zealand to use its opportunity of a Security Council seat to bring about some real reform. As a small country with very modest defence capability, New Zealand has much to gain from a stable and secure international order. It is very much in our national interests that the UN is an effective organisation. For 2 years New Zealand will be sitting on the Security Council, at the summit of world affairs. This is a great opportunity to make real improvements in the UN—an institution that serves all peoples around the world. New Zealand has done exceptionally well to gain a seat on the Security Council, and if it is not too grandiose to say, we must now use this special opportunity to make the world a better place.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker, kia ora tātou katoa e Te Whare. Ko tāku ko te whaiwhai haere i ngā kōrero a Te Pirimia, ki te mihi ki ngā ringa raupā i kawe nei i tēnei o ngā kaupapa ki mua i te aroaro o te United Nations, ka mutu, tēnei o ngā kaupapa ki tōna taumata. Ka mihi rā ki ngā tāngata pēnei i a Murray McCully, ki a Jim McClay, ki a David Shearer ka nui te mihi ki a koe, ka mutu, ki ngā Pirimia o ngā tau kua hipa, ki a Helen Clark, ki a Jim Bolger, ko rātou katoa, ngā ringaringa rāweke i te pepa kia eke tēnei o ngā kaupapa ki tōna taumata, otirā, ngā mea i āwhina nei i ngā kaikōrero ki te kawe i ēnei moemoā o Aotearoa, ā, ki tāwāhi.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all in the House. My address follows the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister. I congratulate the team that worked to put forward this of the bids before the United Nations, which ultimately was a successful one. I acknowledge those involved, particularly Murray McCully, Jim McClay, and David Shearer. A big thank you to you, and, furthermore, to former Prime Ministers Helen Clark and Jim Bolger, all of them—all the people who played a part in preparing the document that enabled this of the bids to be successful, those indeed who assisted the presenters to convey these dreams of New Zealand abroad.]

I also just acknowledge the other gentlemen and ladies who have been mentioned earlier and the contribution that they made in terms of presenting New Zealand’s case to the United Nations.

When the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, spoke at the University of Auckland just recently, I am told that he talked about the powers of connectivity in creating enduring peace. In his speech he referred to the lack of mutual understanding and respect for the traditions, beliefs, and faiths of others, and the initiative of creating the Alliance of Civilizations to promote genuine understanding. New Zealand, as others have said, can be proud today of our success in winning a Security Council seat, but there is also the courage and the foresight of this Government in overturning the previous Labour Government’s bizarre decision in 2007 to oppose the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So I count myself pretty lucky and privileged to have been at the United Nations when Dr Pita Sharples presented the case and righted the wrong. That was indeed a great privilege of my political career.

Although we congratulate all of those involved in supporting the bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council, as others have said, we must also recognise the challenges ahead. New Zealand must use our strength and our moral courage to now focus on those goals of connectivity, particularly in light of the rights of indigenous peoples. We must take advantage of our efforts to address the most pressing security concerns for humanity: issues such as the negative impact of climate change and the degradation of our environment, the desperate need to disarm nuclear weapons, and the elimination of poverty. We in Aotearoa are clearly respected throughout the world and have a solid reputation. We need to ensure that we continue to build on that. Ka nui te mihi.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to join with others in paying tribute and congratulating the successive generations of politicians, diplomats, and officials who over the last 10 years have mounted this wonderful campaign that has seen New Zealand succeed in winning election on to the Security Council for the 2-year term 2015 to 2016.

Last week I reviewed the speech that Peter Fraser made in San Francisco in 1945, when he described New Zealand as being a small country. He said that it was, indeed, one of the smallest of the small but that that did not remove our right to be represented on the international stage and to have a voice. As we take up this role on the Security Council, those words are as appropriate today as they were then.

Reference has already been made to the role that New Zealand played in the Rwanda situation, and that was a combination of our independence, our insight, and our moral courage to be able to take a stand that was ultimately right and that stopped the absolute slaughter that was occurring. There will be challenges of a similar type that will face us during the 2-year term that lies ahead.

We were elected to the Security Council because of the virtues that we bring as a small nation. During that term and as we approach those challenges, the expectation will be upon us to act as the voice of small nations, to bring that balance, that distance, and that perspective that people admire in us, and not to simply be a surrogate for the major players round the Security Council table. If we can perform that role with dignity and with élan, then, in fact, we will not only achieve the aspiration that Peter Fraser set out way back in 1945 but also make a material contribution to improving the circumstances of so many people around the world in addressing the major issues that have been raised even in this House this afternoon that people expect New Zealand to take a stand on during its term on the Security Council.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would like to add my congratulations to all of the people who have worked over many years to secure New Zealand’s representation on the Security Council for the 2015-16 term. That this effort has been ongoing for almost a decade is a tribute to the perseverance of all involved and to New Zealand’s reputation in the world as an honest broker.

Like all representative institutions, the United Nations is not perfect. It brings those free and democratic countries that share a profound respect for liberty and property rights together with many countries that for now have few, if any, of those attributes, and it gives relatively equal standing to all—except, of course, for the permanent members of the Security Council. One important rationale for securing this position is that it offers some chance to improve the institutions of the United Nations.

We are indisputably a free and democratic country with an independent foreign policy and an outward-looking view on trading relationships. We have much to offer. Another reason for participation is that we, like everybody else, should make a contribution. New Zealand’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Ambassador in Washington through 1944 to 1952, Sir Carl Berendsen, expressed this well when he said: “We in New Zealand are not of those who ask what we are not prepared to give, we are not of those who demand help which we are not prepared to accord, and we are not of those who are content to leave to others burdens which we ourselves should assume.” In short, he was arguing that we should play our part. I commend this motion to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Obituaries

Hon (Edward) Gough Whitlam AC, QC

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to acknowledge the death of Gough Whitlam, the former Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I move, That this House express its sadness at the passing today of former Australian Prime Minister the Hon Gough Whitlam AC, QC, aged 98. Mr Whitlam was Australia’s 21st Prime Minister, in 1972, and served as Australian political leader for 3 years until 1975. I acknowledge that leadership and on behalf of New Zealanders I would like to express our condolences to his family and the people of Australia.

People around the world will remember Mr Whitlam for leading Australia during a dramatic period in Australian politics, but, equally, he should be remembered for his leadership and his achievements. Although he was Prime Minister for a short period of time, Mr Whitlam maintained a lifelong interest in public policy, including, I might add, an abiding interest in Australia’s identity, its place in the world, and, I would note, he was a very strong advocate for changing his nation’s flag. He understood the importance of national identity and having a flag that was instantly recognisable and meaningful to the people it sought to represent.

New Zealand and Australia have historically maintained a close relationship, and Prime Ministers of all political hues have continued to work together for the betterment of New Zealanders and Australians. Australia is a country whose fortunes, values, and people are deeply entwined with our own. We share a similar path in history and our shared aspirations for prosperity and opportunity for our people, bound by common values, lead us to a shared future. The trans-Tasman relationship has continued to strengthen and today is in very good health, but it is important that we continue to work on this relationship, and this Government does so as a priority.

I would like to acknowledge the efforts of former Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and the part he had to play in the history of the friendship of our two countries.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Deputy Leader—Labour): Labour joins the Prime Minister in expressing our sympathy to the family of Gough Whitlam, former Labor Prime Minister of Australia from 1972 to 1975, who died at the grand old age of 98 years. As we say here in New Zealand, “a mighty tōtara has fallen” across the Tasman.

He was born in 1916 in Kew, a suburb of Melbourne, and his real name was Edward Gough Whitlam. He was called by his middle name Gough because his maternal grandfather was called Edward. He married Margaret in 1942 and they had four children. Although he was Prime Minister for only 3 years he became a defining political figure in modern Australia. He came into Government following long periods of Conservative Governments, and there were a lot of similarities between Gough Whitlam’s time coming into Government and our own time led by “Big Norm” Kirk.

He was a Prime Minister who did institute sweeping changes, and the Prime Minister has talked about one of them—changing the flag. But he actually transformed Australian society in many ways. He brought in the national health insurance scheme, Medibank. He abolished university fees. He returned traditional lands in the Northern Territory to the Gurindji people. He formed relationships with China, he withdrew troops from Viet Nam, he passed the Racial Discrimination Act, and so much more. His commitment to Labor values aligned very much with the values of our own great tōtara, Norman Kirk.

He was a towering figure, and I remember meeting him in the 1990s when I went to a meeting in Sydney. He walked into the room; he was 1.94 metres tall, he had a flowing mop of silver hair and a big booming voice, and his oratory was spellbinding. He was accompanied by Margaret, who was only slightly shorter than him, who was also a very strong personality and who had very forthright views indeed. Wherever they went, people stopped and looked at them. There was a real warmth towards them, particularly from the Labor Party in Australia, because he became an inspiration for generations of progressive politicians. Like our own “Big Norm”, he was referred to in Australia by his first name, Gough. He was also a man with a great sense of humour and many famous quotes. After the famous—or infamous—dismissal of his Government by Sir John Kerr on 11 November 1975, he stood on the steps of the old Parliament House and said: “Well may we say ‘God save the Queen’, because nothing will save the Governor-General!”. On his 80th birthday, he said: “I do admit I seem eternal. Dying will happen sometime. As you know, I plan for the ages, not just for this life.” When he was asked about what his plans were for the next age, his afterlife, he replied, of a possible meeting with his maker: “You can be sure of one thing—I shall treat Him as an equal.” I am told that Norm Kirk and Gough Whitlam had quite a testy relationship, but the similarities between the two are very apparent. When Margaret died in 2012 he said that the love of his life had died. He was a man of superb intellect, knowledge, and literacy.

We mourn his passing, for the people of Australia but also, as the Prime Minister said, because of the bonds and relationships that have been formed between our two countries over many, many decades. We pass on our sympathy to his family today.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party joins the Government in remembering Gough Whitlam. Gough Whitlam was a hero to generations of progressive political activists in Australia like me. In fact, this is my signed copy of the The Whitlam Government 1972-1975, which I got Gough to sign many, many years ago. He bequeathed a progressive legacy to Australia. Gough Whitlam—and also I think we should remember Lionel Murphy, in particular, the Attorney-General, then High Court judge—stood up for something. They stood up for something real.

Gough had a passion for social justice, and he had a passion for education and for the arts. In his short Government—only 3 years long—he achieved free university education, universal health care, legal aid, he passed the Racial Discrimination Act, and he changed the national anthem from God Save the Queen to Advance Australia Fair, which is also something of a dirge, it has got to be said, but it is better than God Save the Queen. He introduced land rights—in particular, in the Northern Territory, where the Gurindji people received their land rights. He ended conscription. He ended the death penalty. He ratified the human rights convention, the World Heritage Convention, he established the national parks and wildlife service, he protected the Great Barrier Reef, and he set up the department of urban development. He introduced no-fault divorce to Australia. He gave independence to Papua New Guinea and he recognised China, and so much more, in just 3 short years.

He was, in a word, Australia’s equivalent to “Big Norm” Kirk, although he did have an Australian-sized ego. To repeat Annette King’s joke, and it was quite a great joke, he said of an afterlife: “You can be sure of one thing”—referring to when he might meet God—“I shall treat Him as an equal.”, which was Gough’s approach to many things.

Gough showed that what matters in politics is not how long you are here; it is what you can achieve. His great many achievements were a victory for the optimists in history, and he will be remembered for that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First joins with other parties in marking the death of Gough Whitlam, a former Australian Prime Minister, and in acknowledging his contribution to Australian political life. He will always have a special place in Australian history because of the constitutional crisis that saw his dismissal from office whilst Prime Minister. That event still reverberates in Australian political life today.

It cannot be denied, though, that he was a gifted and charismatic and courageous politician, and he had real character. When visiting the Queen he was required to go to the outfitter first and dress up in tails. He was asked by the outfitter: “What side do you dress on?”, to which he said: “Both sides, comrade; both sides.” On another occasion he was asked to kick the ball off at the former Queensland versus New South Wales annual state rugby league match, before it became what it is today, the State of Origin. He was up there, and, of course, at that time Bjelke-Petersen was the premier, and Gough was extremely, extremely hostilely received. There was booing from the time he walked out on to the middle of the paddock and kicked the ball off, all the way back to the stand, whereupon he turned round to the chairman of the rugby league union in Queensland and said: “Don’t you ever ask me back again. You are so unpopular!”.

It also cannot be denied that he was seriously let down by a number of his colleagues. People can remember the Khemlani Affair and the illegal loan offshore, and he was also let down by one of his Ministers, whom I will not name because he went AWOL and virtually went bush. But as other colleagues have said, he was extremely far-sighted and made many progressive changes that still benefit the Australian people. He was active in political life well into his 90s, so for some of you there is hope into the future. [Interruption] You are only jealous. But it cannot be denied that Gough Whitlam was truly a great Australian.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Leader—Māori Party: Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I te ata nei i kōrerohia te āhuatanga o te hunga mate e taku tuahine e te Hōnore Nanaia Māhuta. Nāna tonu i whakapā mai ngā mate katoa o te motu, ka mutu, nō nā tata nei tātau i rongo ai mō te matenga o tēnei o ngā Pirimia o Ahitereiria. Nō reira, me pēnei rawa te kōrero hai whaiwhai haere i tāna i whakatakoto ai ki mua i te aroaro o Te Whare Pāremata. Koutou te kāhui mate haere koutou, haere koutou, haere koutou, e moe, e moe, e moe.

[Thank you Mr Speaker. This morning my sister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta made references to those who had passed away throughout the nation, and, furthermore, we have just heard about the death of one of the Prime Ministers of Australia. Therefore, to follow on to those she brought before the House of Parliament, I say to you the dead, depart, journey on, farewell, sleep, rest and slumber.]

The Māori Party stands, along with our colleagues in the House, to acknowledge the passing of Gough Whitlam. In particular, I refer to one of the elements that has already been raised by colleagues, and that is around the reaching out to the indigenous people of Australia. There is a particular photograph from 1975 of Gough Whitlam passing soil to the traditional landowner from the Northern Territory, a Gurindji man named Vincent Lingiari. I have a photo here of him—a fine man—and it was seen as a defining image of the Whitlam era. Mr Lingiari was one of four signatories to the petition to the Governor-General in 1967. That petition argued that “morally the land is ours and should be returned to us.”

Mr Whitlam, in a time when it was considered controversial, paved the way for later reform through his early recognition of Aboriginal land rights, and in that symbolic action of passing the soil he sent a message to the world that indigenous Australians share the same nation and the same hopes of those who arrived earlier from other lands.

In 1974 the Australian Cabinet accepted in principle the Woodward royal commission on Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory, which later led to the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of 1976. We think of the bold actions of Gough Whitlam today, and that symbolic land hand-back ceremony is part of his legacy and also a challenge for future administrations. Such a legacy can inspire hope around the world that politicians can be open to working with indigenous peoples to help set an agenda for change. We recognise his passing and express our sympathies to his family and to the peoples of Australia. E ai ki te kōrero, ko koe te tōtara o te wao o Ahitereiria. E koro, e moe, haere. [According to the aphorism, you are the podocarpus of the forest of Australia. Rest old one, farewell.]

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to join with other members in expressing sympathy to the people of Australia and to the family of the late Gough Whitlam at his passing at the grand old age of 98 this morning. He was the most outstanding Prime Minister, in terms of flair, in terms of dynamism, and in terms of achievement, of the last couple of generations in the lucky country. He had the advantage of coming at the end of the very staid Menzies period, when Australia was ready to come into the latter half of the 20th century and to take some positive and bold steps.

We have heard the range of reforms that he unleashed over a 3-year period referred to by so many speakers in the House this afternoon. But if you look at Australia during that time, it was also the time of a remarkable cultural renaissance. Australian literature, film, and the good things in life—food, wine—all flourished, and there seemed to be an air that the confidence and the style that the Whitlams unleashed had let these things out of the bottle in Australia, and Australia had truly come of age as a country.

Like all grand men, he was not without fault. He was imperious, he dominated his Cabinet both physically and intellectually, and on one famous occasion during a very frustrating debate he was heard to proclaim: “God protect me from short people!”, which was a reference to the Ministers around him. During the 1974 campaign, his second campaign, he insisted on the electoral slogan: “Gough’s going great.”, only until such time as the Liberals rephrased it as: “Gough’s going. Great!”.

He will always be remembered, as others have mentioned, for the circumstances of his dismissal. But the fact that nearly 40 years after that event we still talk about it and we still recall it vividly—we remember the scenes on the steps of Parliament House, we remember the intricate movements around it—shows what a remarkable man Gough Whitlam was. He continued to be active right until the middle of his 90s. I recall speaking recently, in the last couple of years, to a publisher who was saying that she was publishing some work for him and she could not keep up with the pace of sending him drafts one evening and having the corrected drafts back the following morning from this nonagenarian gentleman—a man of remarkable intellect and skill.

It is a huge loss to the people of Australia. He was a man who, I think, did a lot in his time to bridge the gap in the relationship with New Zealand. The Canberra pact signed in 1944 had long since ceased to be operative between our two countries. Whitlam and Kirk renewed it. People have referred to “Big Norm”. I sat behind the two of them, by about two rows, at the opening of the Christchurch Commonwealth Games, and I have to say to the House that when they stood up, Gough Whitlam was bigger, taller, and larger, and that was a considerable achievement. A great Australian, a great man—he will be missed. His country, deservedly, is proud of his achievement.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I come to this debate with somewhat less primary experience than earlier speakers. However, let me say that amongst almost 200 nations in this world, there is no better friend of New Zealand than Australia, and we are bound together as nations by our common classical, liberal heritage. So it is with great sorrow that I pay tribute to an Australian leader who was instrumental in expanding that heritage across the ditch. His removal of the death penalty and military conscription were important liberal achievements for any leader, and he was the one who made them for Australia. That is how I will remember him. I commend this motion to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General in reply to His Excellency’s speech. Mr Speaker, can I first congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker. I am sure you will continue to discharge the responsibilities of this office with skill and care. Can I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the Hon Chester Borrows, and the Assistant Speakers Lindsay Tisch and my opponent in the Hutt, my friend the Hon Trevor Mallard. I will look forward to him chairing the debates.

It is an honour and a privilege to have been elected a member of Parliament. I am here because the National Party has placed its faith in me to be an effective list MP, and I am here ultimately, of course, because over 1 million New Zealanders voted for National in the recent election. I thank the party and I thank New Zealand for honouring me with this important job.

I also thank the people of Hutt South. Lower Hutt was where I was born and raised, and I am happy to be living there again. I am proud to say that I am from the Hutt, an area with which I have a long family connection. On my mother’s side of the family I am descended from seven Dixon siblings who arrived on ships at Pētone beach between 1838 and 1856. Edward Dixon is one of them, and every summer when I go to the Basin Reserve I sit beneath his memorial clock in the old grandstand. My great-great-grandfather Joe Dixon walked the Hutt Road before it even existed, and, as a lay preacher, held services on Pētone beach, a stone’s throw from where I now live.

From the days of Oswald Mazengarb QC’s famous report into delinquent youths at milk bars in the 1950s, Lower Hutt has had a somewhat, I think it is fair to say, mixed reputation. Stereotypes are hard to break, but let me say this to the House: the Hutt is a wonderful place. We have fantastic high-tech businesses at the forefront of the new economy. We have excellent community facilities and a wonderful natural environment right on our doorstep. Most of all, we have innovative and spirited people. I believe that the Hutt Valley’s best days are ahead of it, and I am looking forward to serving the people of the Hutt, from Wainuiōmata to the Western Hills, as a list MP based in the area.

While I am saying thanks, I would like to put on the record my thanks to everyone who has helped me get to where I am today: my family, who have loved and supported me in ways too numerous to detail; my friends; my Hutt South campaign committee, which ran such a high-energy campaign; the National Party leadership, in particular Malcolm Plimmer, Glenda Hughes, and Roger Bridge; and the Young Nats, who make it so much easier to stand by the side of the road at 6.30 a.m. doing human hoardings in the cold because of their infectious enthusiasm. Most important, I want to thank my partner and campaign manager, Jenna, who has been the rock of my life for the past 6 years.

As some members know, I have been lucky enough to work in roles behind the scenes for this Government. I have worked directly for two very different but exceptional Ministers—the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Steven Joyce. It is a privilege—although, I have to say, a little bit surreal—to be joining them in a caucus led by a man I also greatly admire, the Rt Hon John Key. Thank you, Gerry and Steven, for your friendship, guidance, and wisdom. If I achieve half as much in politics as you have, I will be doing pretty well.

I come to this House as someone who has always, for as long as I can recall, been interested in politics, history, public policy, and the law. My parents, John Bishop and Rosemary Dixon, are to blame. From dad I got my love of politics. Dad was in the press gallery from 1982 to 1987. He was chief parliamentary reporter for TVNZ during that momentous year of 1984. The political bug was transferred to me, or so the family joke goes, when he was told to talk to his new baby. Most people would choose to talk about the weather, what is on TV, or something like that. His topic of choice was none other than this man called Sir Robert Muldoon. I have had an enduring fascination with him and his politics ever since.

Growing up I would pepper dad for stories about his time as a journalist—about the night of the 1984 snap election, about the night of the Mount Erebus crash, about travelling with Geoffrey Palmer to try to save the ANZUS alliance. I drank it all in, and those stories and those lessons have shaped who I am today. From mum I got my love of the law, particularly public law. From both my parents I gained an interest in ideas, in current affairs, and in the world around me. Growing up, our household was one where everyone was expected to have a view and not to be shy about expressing it. Indeed, both my parents were champion debaters, and mum was instrumental in establishing the New Zealand Schools’ Debating Council, which I was president of for 4 years much later in life. Almost every year since 1988, the grand final of the Russell McVeagh national championships have been held where we were this morning, the Legislative Council Chamber. There are now four alumni of the championships who have become MPs: Jacinda Ardern, Megan Woods, Holly Walker, and myself. I am pleased that our side of the House is now represented on that list, and I am sure that there will be many more in the years to come.

My dad’s side of the family—although, I should say, not necessarily my dad, whose politics I do not know—is true blue. The Bishops were farmers at Hillend, outside Balclutha in South Otago. My Poppa Stuart joined Wright Stephenson in 1928 and worked for it until he retired, interrupted only by World War II, where he fought at Monte Cassino. Stewart and Cora Bishop almost certainly voted National their entire lives. They referred to national superannuation as “Rob’s lolly”.

My mother’s side of the family could not be more different. They were Methodists in the great reforming progressive tradition, and Labour voters to their toes. One great-grandfather was a wharfie who won the honoured 151-day loyalty card during the 1951 strike. My grandfather Haddon Dixon was a Methodist minister, a social activist, a director of CORSO Aotearoa New Zealand, and an inveterate follower of politics. He was the sort of man for whom Parliament TV was made. My nana was a progressive socialist. In 1981, as a 61-year-old, sickened by apartheid in South Africa, she joined the “Stop the Tour” movement, helped organise a sit-down protest on the Hutt motorway during the Wellington test, refused to move, and was duly arrested. She happily did her 200 hours’ community service painting the Barnardos centre in Waterloo Road in the Hutt, so I think I get my social liberalism and my reforming zeal from my grandparents, although, it is fair to say, not my Labour Party politics.

I come to this House as a 31-year-old, a representative of Generation Y. Our generation does not remember needing a doctor’s prescription to buy margarine or needing permission from the Reserve Bank to subscribe to a foreign magazine or any of the other absurdities of life in the Fortress New Zealand economy. It seems scarcely believable to us that from 1982 to 1984 all wages and prices in New Zealand were frozen by prime ministerial fiat. For our generation, inflation has always been low, we have always been nuclear-free, homosexuality has always been legal, and the Treaty settlement process has always been under way.

New Zealand is a completely different country from what it was when I was born, and I have always been profoundly fascinated by that transformation and what its effects have been. It intrigues me, for example, that although Bob Hawke and Paul Keating are regarded by the Labor movement in Australia as heroes and receive standing ovations at Labor conferences to this day, New Zealand’s own Labour reformers are essentially pariahs from their party. I think a significant portion of the left in New Zealand has never made its peace with the economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, and in some ways the debate inside the Labour Party today is the most visible manifestation of that lack of reconciliation. The battles of the 1980s continue to echo today and are still being fought. I think that is a shame.

A maiden speech is traditionally the time to put on the record your principles, philosophy, and beliefs. I will do so with the caveat that I am not so arrogant as to think that my current views are immutable. Some of my political heroes said things in their maiden speeches they almost certainly would not have agreed with later in their careers. Roger Douglas’ maiden speech in 1969, for example, is extremely sceptical of the benefits of foreign investment in New Zealand. In 1970 Paul Keating told the Australian Parliament that the Commonwealth Government should set up a statutory authority to fix the prices of all goods and services in the Australian economy, and he bemoaned the number of young mothers who were entering the workforce. I think good politicians listen, reflect, read, and think deeply about the world, and, if necessary, change their minds. I hope to always be open to that in my time in this House.

I am an unashamed economic and social liberal. The classical enunciation of liberalism within the National Party remains John Marshall’s maiden speech as the member for Mount Victoria in 1947. I believe, as he did, that the conditions of a good society are liberty, property, and security, and the greatest of these is liberty. I think individuals make better decisions about their own lives than Governments do. A fundamental belief in the primacy of the individual over the collective should be the lodestar that guides all good Governments. I think we should trust individuals more than we do, and be more sceptical about the ability of Governments to solve social problems.

I believe that the best way to deliver the prosperity New Zealanders deserve is through a globally competitive market-based economy that rewards enterprise and innovation. The reforms of the 1980s and 1990s were vitally important in transforming New Zealand from a sclerotic economic basket case to a modern, functioning, competitive economy, but there is more to be done.

I support a tolerant multicultural New Zealand that is confident, proud, and open to the world. Our society is enriched greatly by migration. The periodic desire by some to scapegoat migrants I find deeply distasteful. I am proud of how far New Zealand has come in only one generation—from an inward-looking, insular economy and society to one that is increasingly internationally connected and confident on the world stage.

I believe we can responsibly develop our natural resources and improve our environment at the same time. We are blessed with abundant natural resources in New Zealand, both renewable and non-renewable, and we are not wealthy enough as a nation to not take advantage of them. What we know from history is that the wealthier a country is, the more able it is to take practical steps to improve the environment. Some of the most polluted places on Earth were in the communist Soviet Union. Growing our economy through the responsible development of our resources gives us the ability to preserve things precious to New Zealand like our rivers, lakes, and national parks.

I come to this House with a long history in debating, at school and university. I have a profound belief in free speech, the power of ideas, and the importance of persuasion by those in public office. Fundamental sustainable change in public policy is only ever achieved when the argument is won. That is how marriage equality was achieved. It is how Treaty settlements were started and how they have continued. It is how we tore down the walls of the Fortress New Zealand economy. Leaders in this Parliament made the case for those things and won the argument. One of the proudest moments of my life was to debate in the Oxford Union, standing at the same dispatch box that Lange stood at when he delivered his famous speech on the moral indefensibility of nuclear weapons. Lange was at his best when he was arguing. I believe Bill English had it right in his maiden speech as the member for Wallace in 1991: “what I do bring to this job is a willingness to get into the argument rather than to avoid it. I owe it to my voters to present in Parliament what is best in them—a credible, constructive, and committed argument. Power without persuasion has no lasting place in a democracy,”. As long as I am an MP I will always try to present credible and constructive arguments, and I will always be willing to have one.

I am proud to be joining a Government that is demonstrably making a difference to New Zealanders. I agree with the Prime Minister. We are on the cusp of something special as a nation. This National Government has a historic opportunity to be the kind of long-term Government that does not just administer the status quo but one that can, through incremental constant reform, deliver ever-growing living standards for New Zealanders. We have the economic opportunities right in front of us: globalisation, a rapidly growing Asian middle class, and technology ending the tyranny of distance. We have the right leadership through John Key, Bill English, and the Cabinet team, and we have the right policy framework in place: smaller Government through better Government, openness to foreign capital and labour, a tax system that rewards hard work and enterprise, a growing culture of innovation, and, most important, we have a fundamental belief in the power of the New Zealand individual and civil society.

This is a Government that is governing with a hard head and a soft heart. We are the first Government in a long time that has a resolute focus on tackling some of the intractable social problems that have bedevilled New Zealand for too long, such as a persistent underclass, welfare dependency, Māori and Pasifika educational underachievement, and poor-quality social housing. We are not doing this simply by throwing more money at problems. Care for those most vulnerable in our community is not, or should not be, measured by the amount of money spent, the number of bureaucratic agencies set up, or the number of people employed to deal with the problem. We should judge policy by results. Milton Friedman was right: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results.”

This is a results-driven Government. Across the fields of welfare, housing, and education we are driving through quite remarkable and transformative change that is delivering results for the most needy in our society. There is still more important work to do. One thing that I am personally passionate about is our plan to reward excellent teachers and keep them in the classroom, doing what they do best—changing kids’ lives. Everyone remembers their amazing teachers, growing up. It is simply wrong that the classic career pathway for teachers at the moment involves leaving the classroom to move into administration. I am proud to be part of a Government that is changing that.

When people look back on this passage in New Zealand’s history, it is my fervent hope that they will recognise that it was the fifth National Government that put in place the reforms to raise the quality of teaching in our schools, that challenged the soft bigotry of low expectations, that made progress on tackling child abuse and family violence, that made social housing actually work for people, and that invested in people to support their aspirations for independence from the State. This Government’s signal economic achievements are important, but I think and hope this Government will be known for much more than that.

In closing, let me just say finally that I come to this House with the desire to serve, to represent the people of the Hutt Valley, to apply my mind to the challenges facing New Zealand now and in the future, and to work hard each and every day for and on behalf of New Zealanders. Much faith has been placed in me by many people. I intend to work hard to repay that faith.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I second the motion that a respectful address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General in reply to His Excellency’s speech. Tēnā tātou katoa Te Pāremata hou. E Te Kaikōrero tēnā koe. E Te Pirimia tēnā koe. Ko ngā mea nui ko ngā wai, ko te whenua me ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa. Nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Salutations to us all in the new Parliament; to you, Mr Speaker; and to you, Prime Minister. The things of immense importance are water, land and all the people of New Zealand. Therefore, acknowledgments to you, and you, and to us all collectively.]

Mr Speaker, Prime Minister, Ministers, members of Parliament and party president Mr Peter Goodfellow, welcome, and welcome to my guests in the gallery. My husband, Louis, you have been a fantastic support and friend to me. We will be celebrating our 35th wedding anniversary 12 days from now at an electorate event in Ōtorohanga, which in itself indicates the level of support you have given me during the campaign. My family—Craig, Rachel, and Tony—Dad and I are both very proud of you, and we appreciate that you are all in support for this special occasion. Tony, I know you are watching. To your partners Kenneth and Zoe at home, to our four special grandchildren Zak, Max, Aislinn, and Theo, and to mum and dad—Leo and Leonie—thank you for coming. I would also like to acknowledge my grandmother Joan Jeffries in Ōpunake who recently turned 98. To Peter Goodfellow, Peter Osborne, Leveson Gower, National headquarters staffers, Young Nats, and party members, from selection to election you have all welcomed me and supported me in my quest to become a member of Parliament. Together we asked lots of questions and took good advice, and here we are.

I was brought up on a Taranaki dairy farm and I had one goal: never to marry a dairy farmer. Louis, I am very pleased I did because I learnt the ropes, developed a passion, and enjoyed my time on the farm raising our family and developing an award-winning business that continues today. This led to my many industry roles, the longest of which I completed last week at DairyNZ. I would like to especially acknowledge DairyNZ chair, friend, and colleague John Luxton, who is in the House. John, you and I were elected to the board on the same day in 2003. Over the past 11 years I have learnt a lot from you, and I respect the wisdom and knowledge that you impart.

I have served on a range of boards over the past few years. The Primary Industry Training Organisation, the Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre, and Dairy Training have provided me with the skills needed for the training industry. I was a New Zealand Young Farmers board member, where I suspect I own the honour of being the only granny who has ever been a board member. As an industry partner to this group, I was able to enjoy working with young people having their first board experience, who I know will feature in many areas of leadership in New Zealand over the next 30 years. In 2006 I was fortunate to travel as an Agricultural and Marketing Research and Development Trust scholar on a food and agribusiness market experience to China, Japan, the US, and Europe, looking at supply chains and customers. This experience really highlighted the fact that New Zealand is favoured for its exports, indicating New Zealand’s stand-out place in the international trading arena.

In 2012 the Dairy Women’s Network awarded me the inaugural Dairy Woman of the Year, which was one of my proudest moments to date. It was not a one-person accolade, as it was the result of all of the experiences I have had to this point in my life and of all the people I have met. The information learnt on the course and the friendships formed emphasise the rural and regional woman that I am, always looking for future ways for the primary industry sector to grow. I was also a board member of the Venture Taranaki trust, and in recognition of my governance roles I was recently awarded a fellowship of the Institute of Directors.

Taranaki - King Country is a large electorate that extends from Waingaro right down to Tuakau on the border of Stratford, thus including Waipā and parts of the Waikato. Upon selection, one of my new constituents offered to buy this “Naki” girl a Waikato rugby jersey. I told him I would wear it with pride. The respective mascots for the local teams—Mooloo the Cow and Ferdinand the Bull—always managed to create a great herd, and best of all, when Taranaki play Waikato I can only win as the Taranaki - King Country MP. Minister Smith, we are looking forward to the Taranaki versus Tasman final this weekend.

Although I have an interest in rugby, it is not necessarily my favourite sport. The excitement of V8 supercar racing is another passion that I have to thank Louis for sharing with me. I have been a passenger at 260 kilometres per hour on a racetrack with a professional driver, and I can categorically say that my own driving skills are not quite up to that standard. I will be honest and say that I am happy to be a spectator, supporting Louis as he drives his star car, much like he supports me in my campaigning.

In the large electorate that is Taranaki - King Country we have eight district councils, about 17 towns, and many villages. Our largest town is Te Awamutu, and Whangamomona is one of the smallest. I am the MP who will not forget about the Forgotten World Highway. I encourage all of you to take the tour. It is an excellent tourism business, set up on an old railway. I am the MP who will not forget the natural beauty of our electorate, which can be seen in the Waitomo Caves and the huge number of visitors who visit annually to experience the beauty of the glow worms and the history hidden in these caves. I am the MP who probably does not have the willpower to drive past our famous whitebait fritters in our towns, including Mōkau and Raglan, without stopping for that quintessential Kiwi lunch. Ultimately I am the MP who is here to serve every one of our towns to ensure that the future of Taranaki - King Country is bright.

Economic development in the regions is a key interest of mine. Getting the right incentives in place for businesses to thrive in rural locations is a must. Housing is not expensive, and the community atmosphere is supportive and embracing. The call for more skilled young people is coming from every community. Coming from Taranaki I have been witness to the growth that comes from a region that has worked together over many years to create a vibrant region. That comes from having an open mind, a willingness to trust new ideas, and a will to work together. From this we can see that when communities actively work together, success can be achieved. Trade and exports lead our region’s income. The dairy and beef and lamb industries are predominant throughout our electorate. Energy in itself is one of the integral parts of the Taranaki export economy. In Taranaki - King Country we also have dairy goats, mānuka honey, and a popcorn factory—something for everyone. But the young are not forgotten either, with the long-established Fun Ho! Toys factory in Inglewood. Each of my grandchildren, the boys and the girl, all received a Fun Ho! Toys tractor and trailer for their first birthday.

Ultra-fast broadband will provide a huge boost to our region. The productivity that comes with connectivity will help us attract people who want the benefits of working regionally. I look forward to working with Minister Amy Adams to ensure this rolls out across Taranaki - King Country.

Roading and infrastructure will continue to be a focus in Taranaki - King Country. I particularly look forward to the new roundabout at the intersection of State Highway 3 and State Highway 37, and the business case for the Mount Messenger - Awakino Gorge corridor. I also look forward to the development of various bridges across the electorate, which will further strengthen relationships between communities, with improved accessibility and safety.

Mr Speaker, you recently came to visit Waitomo and Piopio. Louis in particular was extremely honoured by your visit, namely because it was his birthday. This day we saw some great examples of fledgling regional businesses. The new King Country brewery and a small business in Piopio fitting out dinghies are indicative of the success that ensures when our regions work together, we thrive. We must be sure that red tape does not get in the way of new and emerging businesses that will provide employment for our people. I have already seen some exciting technology businesses in Raglan, and the encouragement of more will be welcome.

Access to health, education, and community services is vitally important to remote and rural areas of New Zealand. Under a National-led Government over 17,000 more elective surgeries have been administered across our electorates to district health boards and this shows that somewhat remote areas of New Zealand are still gaining access to those vital services and that location is not a barrier.

Across our region more children will attend early childhood education before starting primary school, which is impressive for rural communities, considering the distance, which is often regarded as a barrier. In time we hope to improve these rates even more, with a target of 98 percent by 2016.

Volunteers connect our communities, from the Fire Service to the Coastguard to those working in the prevention of family violence. I would like to thank all the volunteers who do a wonderful job. Those who give up their time to take a neighbour to a doctor’s appointment or those busy mums and dads who arrange playdates for the entire street—your support and continual commitment to the groups and individuals in our regions is to be commended. These actions take away the vulnerability of people, knowing there is a volunteer support base to care for them.

Water will be a prominent topic, not just through the time that I spend in Parliament but for years into the future. This is reflective of the fact that we have an abundance of water in our beautiful country, and it is amongst my aspirations to ensure that we utilise our water wisely for our people, for our tourism, and for our industries. As a dairy industry leader I appreciate how much work has been done on fencing, nutrient budgeting, and finding ways to improve water quality. It will be a pleasure to join my first Bluegreens caucus meeting. National’s blue-green approach has shown that successful economic and environmental policy can and must go hand in hand. The abundant forests, rivers, and marine reserves are of real value and importance to the National Government, which is committed to the long-term sustainability of these areas that New Zealand holds dear.

On completion of my time as Dairy Woman of the Year I set myself a target that by the year 2020 in New Zealand we will no longer be talking about the disconnect between rural and urban. We have the collective knowledge, talent, and ability to work together to find answers. It is a big call, but one that I am up for. I ask each and every one of you to join me in this project. We have only 4.5 million people. We have to work collaboratively to take on the world.

Thank you to my colleagues for the support that you have shown over the past few months, and particularly over the past 4 weeks. Maureen Pugh, the class of 2014 enjoyed the 2 weeks we spent with you and we were sorry to see you go. Samantha, Claire, Sharon, and Tracey—welcome to my team. With your help I know that Taranaki - King Country will be well served. Penn and Doug, thanks for your help and preparation. I am excited about joining the Primary Production Committee and Health Committee, where I can bring some of my existing knowledge with me and embark on a new learning curve where new knowledge is required. I commit to be a hard-working and loyal member of Parliament. Tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Deputy Leader—Labour): I move, That the following words be added to the Address: “and expects over the next 3 years, to see every child grow up in a warm, dry home; the number of affordable homes built increased; every New Zealander have access to affordable health care; wages for all rising faster than the cost of living; jobs created and unemployment back under 4 percent; exports increased as a percentage of GDP; the economy diversified towards value-added goods and services; economic and social inequality reduced; targets to measure and reduce child poverty; a cross-party approach to addressing domestic and sexual violence; real measures to target climate change and improve our sustainability; a plan for the recovery of Canterbury; and the Government to be guided in their work by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; because without these commitments and goals New Zealand will not grow or move forward to the future New Zealanders deserve.”

Mr Speaker, can I begin by congratulating you on your re-election as Speaker. It seems to me that you took on the role somewhat reluctantly initially, but you have grown to enjoy the job, and perhaps it is the liberation from the interminable National Party caucus meetings that has seen a spring in your step—

Mr SPEAKER: I could not possibly comment.

Hon ANNETTE KING: —and a twinkle in your eye. But the Opposition over the next 3 years has one expectation from you: relentless fairness. As Victor Hugo wrote: “Being good is easy, what is difficult is being just.” We want both—good and just. I will be on hand to offer you unsolicited advice, whether you need it or not, and I am sure I will receive your standard response. Congratulations to Chester Borrows, Deputy Speaker, and to his two assistants, Lindsay Tisch and Trevor Mallard. Trevor, I have no doubt you will be just, but the challenge is to be good.

Congratulations to all the newly elected members of Parliament. It is a terrific honour to represent New Zealanders in this House and a great responsibility as well. And welcome back to all the returning members of Parliament from all sides of the House. It was a long, hard-fought campaign, but the reward is the privilege of serving our country as its elected representatives.

I would like to particularly recognise the new and returning Māori members of Parliament. The silver lining for the Labour election was the return of six of the seven Māori seats to Labour. There has been a significant vote of trust in Labour by Māoridom, and we will ensure that that trust is not misplaced by doing all we can to advance its aspirations. This is a good opportunity to acknowledge the National Party’s change of heart on the retention of the Māori seats. In the end National usually comes round to Labour’s policies. Nuclear-free New Zealand, Working for Families, interest-free student loans, KiwiSaver, the Cullen fund—I could go on.

I would also like to congratulate the members of Parliament elected in Canterbury. There is a lot of work ahead for you and for the people of the region, and I wish you the very best for your endeavours on their behalf. Be assured of Labour’s support over the years ahead.

Finally, congratulations to the Prime Minister on your party’s fine victory at the election. Securing a third term is not an easy feat but you have achieved it. Of course, with it comes huge responsibility. In your seventh year in Government no longer when things go wrong can it be blamed on Helen Clark’s Government or even on poor old Mickey Joseph Savage. It is time for the Government to step up, it is time to own its decisions, and it is time to take responsibility.

The result of the election from a Labour perspective was not what we had hoped for. Voters on board have given us a message, and the measure of our party will be how we pick ourselves up, take the advice of New Zealanders, and return to represent them in a manner that reflects their aspiration and needs.

We are pleased that we have won a seat on the United Nations Security Council. It is a significant result and builds on the great reputation we have in international relations. It reflects a decade of hard work started by Helen Clark and Phil Goff and concluded by John Key and Murray McCully. International relations have always been an area of policy that Labour strongly believes in. When the United Nations was first formed the then New Zealand Labour Prime Minister, Peter Fraser, said in San Francisco in 1945 that members of the organisation should undertake “to preserve, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in particular the rights of freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of speech”, and I commend those words to this Government because they are just as relevant today as they were in 1945. It is significant to secure a seat on the Security Council, but at the end of the day that was about numbers. Now it is about how we use that position, and we must stand firmly on the commitment we gave when seeking that privilege, and that is to be the voice of small nations.

Like many New Zealanders, we are concerned at the haste in which we are being led into conflict where we do not know what our involvement will be, what the outcome will be, and what the exit strategy is. Like many New Zealanders, we do not feel that the case has yet been made to us to be involved in the conflict with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The Prime Minister’s response to serious questions from the public, from the media, and from the Opposition is too casual, it is too evasive, and it feels like we are being fitted out for a decision that is already made. Any decision must be considered and debated thoroughly, not rushed through glibly in a climate of claims about domestic beheadings or security titbits dropped by the Prime Minister at media stand-ups. It is reprehensible to use fear as a weapon to persuade the public. It can lead to seeds of doubt in the trust that is placed in the Prime Minister, unless that trust is backed up. And trust is lacking at this point, and it is self-inflicted by the Prime Minister.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Rubbish!

Hon ANNETTE KING: His comment, Mr Brownlee, on the meeting in Washington last week that it was just a regular, routine meeting was demonstrably untrue. It was at odds with international reports. It was at odds with defence personnel. It was at odds even with President Obama. In fact, the meeting has been described as a gathering of coalition members to plan a strategy against ISIS in Iraq. And some of us do remember the gung-ho approach of John Key in 2003 and his insistence that we send troops to Iraq. That was something the Labour Government refused to do without a UN mandate, which never came. The Prime Minister keeps hinting of action, including troops on the ground, which is something he said before the election would not happen.

He has also stated that a decision on New Zealand’s involvement is weeks away. If a decision is weeks away, Prime Minister, it gives us plenty of time for that decision to be made by this Parliament and not by the executive. This House must be provided with the same briefings that Cabinet receives. Any decision that involves New Zealanders and puts them or this country in harm’s way must be done in an open and transparent way, and Labour is determined to take the debate to the Government on this and all other fronts. We have to do that because we believe that this Government has already shown that it needs to be held to account.

Since being re-elected, John Key has made some big promises, and he made them again today. He said that he will tackle child poverty, that he will address the housing crisis, and that he will improve wages, create more jobs, and create more health services and access to education. These are all laudable goals, they are admirable sentiments, and they need to be backed up by a real plan of action.

Let us take housing. For almost 6 years the National Government ignored the growing housing crisis—particularly in Auckland and somewhat in Christchurch—denigrating those who raised the issue in this House and outside. A year out from the election the Government’s polling told it that housing was a real issue for New Zealanders, and a series of sticking plaster solutions were slapped in place. To date the result, Dr Smith, has been five new houses built in Auckland in the so-called Auckland Housing Accord zones. We have heard plenty from the Government on addressing this issue—plenty of talk and no action. And splitting responsibility for housing between three portfolios and three Ministers is not doing something; it is spreading the blame for doing nothing. It is a housing policy by committee.

The Kiwi dream of homeownership is fast disappearing under this Government. And while the crisis creeps further and further into the housing market, driving up rents and mortgages, what does this Government decide to do? It decides to sell off billions of dollars of State houses with no guarantee that the resources will go back into social housing. In many cases they will end up simply as expensive private rentals or be sold to agencies that will struggle to meet the cost of managing them. The Salvation Army is held up as an example of such an agency but it has already said that it is not ready to take on a large number of State houses, so Bill English changed tack. He said they will sell houses to anybody, not just to social agencies. They can sell them to banks, they can sell them to investors, they can sell them to speculators. He said: “We can sell to anybody.” That is the mantra of this Government. It is a recipe for doing more harm to those who are at the bottom of the housing market. I have to tell the Government that its latest announcement on housing to privatise tens of thousands of State homes has no mandate. The Government members have no mandate. They never campaigned on it. They never gave a hint they were going to do this.

But some things, like the well-being of our kids and the ability to afford a roof over their heads, are not “nice-to-haves”; they are part of a decent and a compassionate society. We will reach across this House and back policies that actually deal with these issues properly, because it is time for real solutions. At the next election New Zealanders will judge this Government on the result of these policies.

The hallmark of this Government’s response has been to shift the blame on everyone else, the doozy of them all being Bill English claiming that local housing planning laws are responsible for poverty. With a claim as stupid as this it is hard to take the Prime Minister seriously when he says he wishes to address child poverty—something that he and his Government denied existed for the last 6 years. Call it anything else; just do not call it child poverty. But he knows that New Zealanders care about child poverty. In July MMResearch found 80 percent of people agreed child poverty is a problem in New Zealand and just 19 percent thought the Government was doing enough to address it.

None the less, I am an optimist on the well-being of our most vulnerable children—I just have to be—so I am going to offer the Prime Minister some advice and I hope that he takes it. If he is really serious about tackling child poverty, if he really believes that making sure all of our children have the food they need to grow and learn, if he really understands that it is not acceptable for families trying to raise three children on $5 a week after their rent, if he truly wants to make sure that every single child growing up in New Zealand has a chance to succeed like chances that he himself had—if he really believes all that, he will walk the walk and he will talk the talk. He will take his aspirational statements and he will commit them to a firm target and a firm measure, and that means making reducing child poverty a public service target. Right now there are 10 such targets. They are admirable targets like increasing participation in early childhood education, increasing immunisation, and so on, but there is no target for reducing child poverty. That needs to change because that is what a Government that actually cares about our kids would do. It would set targets and it would take responsibility for meeting them. Make no mistake: child poverty is a shame on this Government and on this nation and Labour will hold John Key’s Government to account for it.

We will vigorously oppose policies that make things worse for New Zealanders. We will oppose the removal of New Zealanders’ rights at work. This legislation is a tragedy for every single worker who is treated unjustly and who has no legal recourse. It is a pathway to making employment even more precarious for thousands of men and women, especially our young people in our communities. It is a tragedy for the tens of thousands who will find their incomes dropping further and further behind the cost of living and society becoming less and less fair.

New Zealanders have been told that wage increases need to come from productivity gains. I have heard Mr Joyce say this many times. I have got a question for him today that I would like him to answer: how do we get more productivity out of 45,000 home-care workers who earn close to the minimum wage? Do they hang out only half the washing of the old people when they call in? Do they clean only the toilet bowl and not the seat when they go to clean their houses? How do you get more productivity out of them? Why does the Government not face the fact that pay increases are needed now for people carrying out work that most of us would not want to do?

We will oppose the weakening of environmental protections in New Zealand. Last term we offered to come to an agreement on the more benign parts of the proposed Resource Management Act changes, but the Government made it clear that it wants wholesale change. We will not support wholesale change. The Resource Management Act is the way in which New Zealanders have a say in what happens where they live, how their environment is treated—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about some houses?

Hon ANNETTE KING: —and what the future of their communities will look like, Dr Smith. I am told that the Prime Minister has instructed his Ministers to put a green tinge over their portfolios. I have to say that that has to be seen as a cynical political ploy rather than a genuine commitment to our environment.

“Undemocratic” is a word that I think we are going to hear a lot about over the next 3 years. Certainly we will hear that word as the Government continues to pervert the use of the Official Information Act. I have to say that I was astounded to hear the Prime Minister admit just last week to gaming the system. I was not astounded that it happened—you have only to look at how many complaints are now being made to the Ombudsman—but by how many are as a result of Ministers and departments not complying with the law. I am astounded that Mr Key—the Houdini when it comes to avoiding taking blame—should admit to it. Compare that with his claim when he first came into Government. Maybe he has forgotten it, so I will remind him. He said: “My style is to be open and transparent and take people with me.” I have to say that open and transparent is not how I would describe his Government’s response to Official Information Act requests.

A good example was a report on child poverty, Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister know that that report was held back for 17 months—17 months? It took multiple complaints to the Ombudsman, and it got released—finally got released—after the election. It was withheld not because there were top secrets in it but because it was politically embarrassing. When the Chief Ombudsman herself says that she is very concerned then this abuse of the Official Information Act has to stop and this House has to censure such behaviour.

I think we will hear the word “undemocratic” again and again as more dirty politics are unravelled over the coming months and the attacks of institutions and individuals who act in the public good are revealed.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, stop talking about your leadership campaign.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I look forward, Gerry, to seeing what comes out in the dirty washing. I am sure there are going to be some rather large items there. I think political motives are going to be laid bare. The worst of it is not about politicians being attacked—after all, we are a pretty tough breed in here—but, as Rod Oram noted in the Sunday Star-Times recently—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Oh!

Hon ANNETTE KING: I hear the old grunter up the back there, Maurice Williamson, laughing at the name of Rod Oram. Can I say that he said something that so many New Zealanders believe, and maybe—just maybe—if you listen, you might actually agree.

Hon Todd McClay: Who cares what he said?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Well, I believe it, and I care. He said that many people—scientists, academics, health professionals, concerned citizens—have been smeared and abused by people working on behalf of the National Party. That is reprehensible. It is reprehensible, and some of it has come out of Ministers’ offices and, unbelievably, some of it even out of the Prime Minister’s own office. As Rod Oram says, they are destroying some good people and good society. They are harming our good name as New Zealanders and our reputation and undermining our values and our principles.

In this term of Parliament the consequences of this Government’s past actions will come home to roost, and that includes the young Minister now sitting in the front row, Simon Bridges. Some of his decisions will come home to roost, particularly the decisions about the much-heralded economic boom, because that economic boom is turning into an endless stream of bad news about dairy prices and manufacturing lay-offs. You know, the National Party members always laugh when we talk about manufacturing lay-offs and job losses. You see, they do not believe it.

I have to say that the years of health cuts are starting to show through. When you have senior doctors and senior members of the medical community upping and leaving because there is not enough money in health, you have got a problem. I have to say to the new Minister of Health—and congratulations, new Minister—you have got to smarten up your attire. It is really not up to scratch. You need some brighter ties and so on. But can I say to the new Minister of Health that I want an assurance from him that this country is ready for Ebola. I want this Minister to assure New Zealanders that we are ready for Ebola. We have made huge cuts in public health funding, Minister. You will find that is correct. We have made cuts in hospital funding. As the Minister will know better than most, disease does not honour country borders, and just saying that we can hide behind the fact that Africa is many miles away will not protect New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Ring up. I’ll give you a briefing on it.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Minister, do not interject—take a call and assure New Zealanders of the readiness to deal with this potentially deadly disease. It is not a laughing issue. I was the Minister of Health who had to deal with bird flu and with severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars), and I know we have a ministry that is capable of putting together extremely good processes. So I am saying, Minister, that you should inform this country of exactly what is in place. The Prime Minister said this week: “Ebola is hard to contract. You have to get it.” Well, I am not sure exactly what that means. But I have to say that it is an issue that is going to face the world. As the Secretary-General of the World Health Organization has said, it is a problem across the world, not just in Africa.

Hon Hekia Parata: Open up nominations again.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Well, now I will get on to you, Hekia—do not worry. We are told that the expansion of charter schools is about to proceed at a pace. National has given a party that got fewer than 17,000 votes the role of driving through its charter school programme. This programme is costing five times as much per student as public schooling, and it is not delivering to our children. So here is the challenge, Minister: fund every other school child to that level. Instead of cutting funding in real terms, see how our fine public education system will run when it gets equal treatment. So, Minister, that is the challenge to you. That is what we want to see over the next 3 years.

I have said that this Government will have to account for its actions. It has got a mandate from the public to carry out some of its policies—as we know, some of them they did not know about—but it will be held accountable for its actions. We will lead an Opposition that will not allow this Government to slide out from under the problems that it creates, we will hold the Government accountable, and we will fight for the right of New Zealanders to have a fair go. We ran our election campaign on three themes: on work, on home, and on family.

Hon Member: How did it go?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Well, of course, that is very interesting, because we have just heard from the Government that it sneers and scoffs at issues of work, home, and family. Are we surprised? Are we surprised? We will now review our policies. That is the only sensible thing to do. But I can assure this House that we will not lose sight of our values or our vision, because that is why we are Labour. This country needs a strong Opposition, and we are determined to rebuild this party and to provide opposition to this Government. I am sure, as Bill English sits there today with his head buried in his hands, that he will recall so well 2002. In 2002—

Hon Bill English: And you’re doing it all wrong.

Hon ANNETTE KING: —the National Party got 20 percent of the vote. And look where Bill English is now—he has got the limo, he has got the big salary, he has got the allowance for the house—

Hon Member: Jealous.

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, not at all—I have had it before. What I am saying is that this party on this side of the House can look across at the 2002 election result and say that ours is 25 percent and we can build on that because that is a good base for this party to build on. We remain committed to working alongside all New Zealanders to ensure that everyone who wants a job can have one and that work is secure, safe, and pays fairly, and we will continue to champion the living wage, which this Government scorns. We will take seriously the concerns of New Zealanders and be ready to lead an alternative Government in 2017. Thank you.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Annette King deserves some congratulations, because I tell you what—that speech lasted longer than the average tenure of a Labour leader these days. “No fish” was my favourite part of the speech. Can I take this moment to congratulate all members of the House on their election and, in some cases, re-election. For those who are here for the first time, can I wish them the best for the next 3 years. I hope that they enjoy it. I hope they enjoy the excitement of making a difference. Can I offer them the same advice that I offer members of my own caucus who are new: avoid making the mistake of walking over broken glass to come to this Parliament, moaning and complaining the whole time you are here, and then, when you leave, doing everything you can to come back. Enjoy your time, make a difference, and make sure you look after your families.

It is my pleasure to lead the Government of the 51st Parliament. It has, I have got to say, a certain déjà vu about it. We seem to be returning where we left off, although the composition of the National caucus is slightly different, and it is slightly larger. But once again it is full of unity, passion, determination, and a commitment to continue to work for New Zealand. We return to the 51st Parliament with very much the same partners we had in the 49th and the 50th Parliaments. One partner is the ACT Party, and we thank it and David Seymour for the relationship I am sure we will have together. One is United Future and Peter Dunne, and we thank Mr Dunne for the strong working relationship. We look forward to that in the years ahead. We wish the Māori Party and its newly elected leader Te Ururoa Flavell the very best. Together we will work hard to provide a strong and stable Government. Together we will work hard to deliver even better results when it comes to economic growth in terms of lifting more children out of poverty and ensuring that more families move into work, in terms of continuing to improve the quality of our critical services of health and education, and in terms of continuing to see the crime rate fall. That is the National caucus and the members who support it.

That is not the sorry state of the Labour Party. Labour members started the election with a leader whom—let us be blunt—none of them liked, and they ended the election with a leader whom none of them can name, and that is because they do not have one. They do have wannabe leaders. Yep, there is some risk, actually, that they will have more wannabe leaders than people who actually voted for them in 2014. It is, I have got to say, and, has been over the last 3 weeks or so, the gift that keeps on giving. It is a sort of soap opera playing out on TV every night—a cross between The Blacklist and House of Cards set in Wellington.

Of those wannabe leaders, first out of the blocks, of course, was Grant Robertson, freshly minted, may I say, in the pages of Woman’s Weekly with his loyal—a word not often used in the Labour Party—deputy leader, Jacinda Ardern. The next contestant, of course, is Andrew Little, a man who singlehandedly managed to turn the marginal seat of New Plymouth into a National stronghold that is now brilliantly represented by Jonathan Young. Then, of course, there is David Parker, who apparently has worked out in some sort of epiphany that no one likes Labour’s policies. Well, hello! I could have told Labour that 6 years ago. But he has come up with a brilliant idea. He is going to copy Colin Craig. I kid you not. He is going to have a referendum. It will go like this: do you want to pay more taxes? I do not think so. Do you want pay more for your electricity? I do not think so. Do you want to lose your job? I do not think so. Do you want to lose your inheritance? I definitely do not think so. Or do you want all of the above? And the final contestant they have, of course, is Nanaia Mahuta. Let us be blunt: the affiliates will not vote for her, the party will not vote for her, and the caucus will not vote for her.

So, sadly, the batch of wannabe leaders is not the future leader of the Labour Party, and we know that. It is the next batch because—do not fret—there is another batch sitting behind them. There is David Shearer, who was white-anted by David Cunliffe—OK. There was Phil Goff, who was also white-anted by David Cunliffe. There was David Cunliffe, who was white-anted by everyone other than David Cunliffe. But my favourite, the dark horse of all of them—and let us be honest, it is spoken of quietly in circles around the Labour Party—is Stuart Nash. It is Stuart Nash, and you will know when the leadership bid is on—I thought it was actually on for David Clark yesterday with that jacket, very nice—for Stuart Nash when you go on to TradeMe and you see one thing, and that is when he stops riding around in his fire engine and replaces it with an ambulance, which he knows he needs to take to the Labour Party caucus because it is a train wreck going on over there.

This is a Government that is very, very firmly focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders. That is why this Government was re-elected for a third time. It was a Government that brought to the people of New Zealand credible, sound policies that are working and delivering for the people of New Zealand. The policies start with the economy. This is a Government that will return the books to surplus and this is a Government that will continue to work hard to meet the Crown objective of getting debt down to 20 percent of GDP by 2020. This is a Government that will ensure that we spend taxpayers’ money wisely, because we know how hard they work for those taxpayer dollars. This is a Government that in 2015 and 2016 will reduce ACC levies for New Zealanders so that they can have their money returned to them.

This is an economy that is growing strongly at 3.9 percent to June and has created 83,000 jobs in the last 12 months. It is an economy where wages are rising faster than inflation, an economy that is the envy of so many countries around the world, and one that is underpinned by good, solid economic policy. It has a Business Growth Agenda with 350-odd initiatives, which are transforming our economy into a modern, outward-facing, competitive economy that is not only competing but succeeding on the world stage. Part of that integration with the world comes with our free-trade agreements, and this is a Government that is working hard to finalise a free-trade agreement with Korea and one that will work hard to see a conclusion to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is also a Government that will work hard to get the Gulf States agreement over the line. As part of working hard with New Zealand businesses we will continue to expand the activities of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise so that our companies—large and small—can have access to the international markets and the huge consumer base that is supporting them.

If you want to have an economy that delivers results and opportunities for all New Zealanders, you need flexibility in the labour markets. This is a Government that will pass the employment relations legislation to increase flexibility and fairness in the labour market, and it is long overdue.

Andrew Little: It’ll drive down the wages.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, that is exactly right. Andrew Little is the man who wants to lead the Labour Party and who wants to rob young New Zealanders of opportunities by taking away the 90-day probation period, by having national awards, by jacking up the minimum wage to a rate that is unaffordable—it is a step backward not forward for the young people of New Zealand. We will continue, as a Government, to work hard in the areas of health and safety and the environment, and we will make sure that parents have more time to spend with their youngsters by extending paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks and by increasing the parental tax credit for families that do not get paid parental leave.

Across the country we see businesses doing better. We see businesses strongly investing, and we will continue to fund more in the way of science and innovation, and research and development grants. We will be establishing a food and safety science and research centre as well as four additional centres of research excellence. One of the saddest things that I had to confront on the election campaign was the rhetoric from David Cunliffe trying to tell New Zealanders that this was a country that only sold milk powder and logs. It was a complete disservice to those companies right across New Zealand that are innovating in so many different facets, are proud to be New Zealanders, and are taking their great businesses to the world, and we will continue to grow more of them.

Speaking of taking New Zealand to the world, what we are going to take to the world, or at least to Australia, is job fairs in Sydney, in Melbourne, and in Brisbane just in case there are a few New Zealanders who deserted ship under the previous Labour Government and have not recognised how strong New Zealand is under a National-led Government and want to come back. I say to them with open arms: “Come home. Come home to New Zealand. Come home to New Zealand.” There is a shortage of skills in so many areas and we would like to have those New Zealanders return.

I am the Minister of Tourism and I am proud to see tourism continuing to grow here in New Zealand. There were 2.8 million international visitors who came to our shores for the year ending 2014—an increase of 4.9 percent. We are seeing an increase in a range of different areas from business to high end to those who come for sporting interests and those who come for cultural experiences. We are seeing a significant increase—30-odd percent—year on year from China. By the end of the third term of this National-led Government, I am pretty confident that we will see those international business tourists going off to the Skycity convention centre, paid for not by the taxpayer, creating thousands of jobs and millions of opportunities for New Zealanders. And just like the Christchurch Convention Centre, that will also be a piece of infrastructure that is taking place.

This is a Government that one day will be remembered for building infrastructure in so many different forms, and one of them is certainly roading. Unlike so many political parties that do not seem to understand that you need to move both cars and public transport on roads, we do. This will be a Government, under the leadership of Simon Bridges as the Minister of Transport, that will continue to see important roads built in this country, including the Pūhoi to Wellsford road. We will start to see the construction on Pūhoi to Warkworth. I did not see a single Labour member during the election campaign get up and say that they were going to be the ones to stop Transmission Gully. They did not want to say that.

Hon Nathan Guy: They were silent.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: They were silent like little lamb chops on that particular issue, but do not worry. The people of Wellington and the Hutt understood that and they voted National, and yes, Transmission Gully will be beginning, as will be the completion of MacKays to Peka Peka. The Waikato Expressway—we will see a completion of the Cambridge bypass and we will start to see the construction on the Huntly and Hamilton bypass. When I first kicked off in 2008 the ambitious plans we had for the Waikato Expressway, I could only dream that I would be there when it finished, but the way things are going, I may well be, and it may well be extended all the way through to Whangarei and maybe even Cape Reinga. I do not really know, but it will be four lanes each way, I am absolutely sure, by that point. And, of course there are those regional roading projects that I announced. So many of them will be happening. There is $100 million for urban cycleways. We will be working hard with the transport authority to make sure there is more money spent on urban cycleways and we are doing well there.

Connectivity is important to a small and growing economy, whether you are bringing educational services, health services, or business to the world. I am proud to be leading a Government that had the courage to stand up and roll out ultra-fast broadband. I was proud to be the leader of the National Party as we campaigned across the country to extend ultra-fast broadband to 80 percent of New Zealanders and to extend the rural broadband initiative. That extension of ultra-fast broadband will see towns like Te Puke, Motueka, Morrinsville, Kaitāia, Ōtaki, Dannevirke, Alexandra, Stratford, Carterton, Westport, Te Kūiti, and Wairoa all getting ultra-fast broadband. We will see more money spent on black spots for phones.

When it comes to the environment, this Government has a good record, but, yes, we will be introducing legislation to amend the Resource Management Act. I just heard, I think, Annette King, the “Acting Acting Leader of the Labour Party”, saying that—

Hon Annette King: Yes, but it’s the “Acting Acting Deputy Deputy Leader”.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, the “Acting Acting Deputy Leader”, I am sorry—I stand corrected. The “Acting Acting Deputy Leader” of the Labour Party said in her extended tenure address that she would stand opposed to reform of the Resource Management Act. That is the reason why house prices doubled under Labour. So Labour members can scream from their lungs when they go out there, as they did during the campaign trail, but not a single New Zealander watching TV really believed that they were going to produce 100,000 homes built by the Government on mythical bits of land for unbelievable amounts of money. No one believed it. If you want houses to be built faster, as we all do, reform of the Resource Management Act is critically important. We need to balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities.

This is a Government with a good record when it comes to the environment. There is $350 million committed to cleaning up iconic waterways. We have seen 23,000 kilometres of waterways fenced to exclude stock so far, and we will see all of that completed by 2017. Again, on the campaign trail, I was proud to announce the $100 million that we are going to invest to buy and retire areas of selected farmland next to important waterways. My particular favourite, actually, in this area came one Sunday afternoon when I had the privilege of going down to the harbour in Auckland to announce that we would be establishing recreational fishing parks in the Hauraki Gulf. I heard Winston Peters cheering all the way from Herne Bay when I announced that. He is a man who loves to catch a snapper. He loves to catch a snapper. He said to himself: “That John Key, I tell you—I don’t agree with everything, but Johnny boy’s on to it there. I’m going to catch a few snapper.” In fairness, he did not know he was going to have quite so much time on his hands between 2014 and 2017 to catch his snapper, but he will, and if he wants to go down south, he can go to the Marlborough Sounds because there will be a recreational fishing park there as well.

When it comes to health, this is a Government spending more money on health than ever in the history of this country. But it is not just about spending money; it is about getting a good result, and we have got great results. Again, one of the things we announced on the campaign trail was what we are doing for New Zealanders who are diagnosed with cancer. I think there is not a New Zealand family that has not been touched by someone who has passed away from cancer. At the moment the average time from the doctor’s diagnosis to the first treatment is 62 days. Under this Government, we are going to work hard to make sure that 90 percent of patients receive their first cancer treatment within 62 days. That is something that New Zealand families will welcome. We are going to extend free GP visits and prescriptions for children under the age of 13. We are also going to continue to expand the number of elective surgical operations that are undertaken. The last point I would make is that we are going to continue to increase funding for hospices by $20 million a year.

We hear a lot of nonsense spoken in this House by Opposition parties. One of the things that I am sure we will hear a lot of over the course of the next few months is when they stand up and say that they do not support professional development of our teachers. They will not say for one moment that a good teacher should actually get paid more to stay in the classroom than to go through the only career path they can, which is to leave the classroom to get more money. They will not support more money going to those principals who will leave high-performing schools and take their skills to low-performing schools. If those members of Parliament believe that they want New Zealand to be a true egalitarian society, then they have got to stop the nonsense of stopping the current situation of great principals not transferring to those schools. We have to deliver change in our education system and we will.

This is a Government that will stand up for those families who have a child with special needs by funding up to 800,000 more teacher aide hours at $18 million a year. There will be more funding to support deaf and hearing-impaired children. There will be more money spent on Māori and Pacific trades training. There will be more money spent on training our engineers. There will be more money spent on new schools and classrooms right across our country, particularly in Christchurch and Auckland.

When it comes to welfare reform, I want to acknowledge the achievements of the previous Minister for Social Development, the Hon Paula Bennett, and say that we have now got to a situation where I think the settings in our welfare system are set in broadly the right place. We are seeing tremendous results. Benefit numbers are falling. We now have the lowest number of sole parents on a benefit in this country since 1988—the lowest number since 1988. We have 30,000 fewer children living in benefit-dependent households compared with 2 years ago. One of the things that worked tremendously over the last 3 years was when we extended the Youth Service approach to 16, 17, and 18-year-old mothers. We put in a wraparound service for those young mums. We made sure there was someone to walk that journey with them. We made sure that they were enrolled in education, that they had support for budgeting, and that they had advice about parenting. There were incentive payments made to those young mums. Do you know what happened as a result of that? We have seen a 40 percent reduction of young mums who are now on that extended Youth Service approach—a 40 percent reduction. This was the single approach that came out of that—a plea by those young mums for us to extend that programme to 19-year-olds, and that is exactly what we are doing.

I remember when we got up and talked about the 3K to Christchurch—giving people $3,000 to move to Christchurch if they came off a welfare benefit. That has been an overwhelming success and it may well be something that we try to do in other parts. When it comes to children who live in poverty, I say this: we are deadly serious about continuing our work there, but the fastest way out of poverty is into work. Make no mistakes—the fastest way out of poverty is into work. Yes, we will spend some time defining the group that we are talking about, but that has been the problem of the Labour Party of the past. Far too much time was spent on definitions; not enough time was spent on actually doing something. This Government is going to get out there and continue to work hard for those who are the most vulnerable and most at risk in our community.

When it comes to housing, that is an issue that worries New Zealanders, and I accept that issue, but that has been a very longstanding issue in our major cities for quite some time, particularly in Auckland, but it is this Government that has had the courage to actually stand up and have the special housing areas. There are eighty of those special housing areas. There will be thousands and thousands and thousands of homes established within those special housing areas. Young New Zealanders will get the chance to get into those homes through the Homestart loans programme, where a couple who put their money into their KiwiSaver account will be able to withdraw their employer contribution, their own contribution, and the Government’s contribution. They will have up to $50,000-odd as a deposit, which will be wrapped around a Welcome Home Loan. It will present more than enough for them to buy a house in many locations around the country, including Auckland, I believe. We will see builders starting to build for that demand that is there.

We will be looking to extend the social housing area and there will be some changes in the mix of ownership between Housing New Zealand homes and social housing that is provided by other providers like Presbyterian Support and others. That is a very credible policy that is working extremely well in a place like Australia. I say this to those who will oppose it—like those in the Labour Party, because we have already heard it in the “Deputy Deputy Leader’s” speech—what do those people want? Do they actually want a house or do they want to know whether it is owned by Presbyterian Support or the Government? It is pretty simple—they want a home. This will be a Government that will be working hard through the work we have already done around income-related rents to ensure that more at-risk families do get the opportunity to live in a home. We will be working hard to make sure that interest rates remain low and that we challenge all the areas of the building and construction sector. But one of those important parts of ensuring the housing affordability is under control is to reform the Resource Management Act and make sure we deliver those houses.

Law and order is an issue that matters to a great many New Zealanders, and with very good reason. I am proud to lead a Government that has got a crime rate at a 35-year low. That has been a lot of hard work from a huge number of Ministers, our caucus, and those who work in the sector. Again, this has been a Government that has recognised what those drivers of crime are, whether it has been drug or alcohol abuse. This has been a Government that has made sure that those prisoners who go into a corrections facility do get access to a drug and alcohol programme. This is a Government that has turned three of our prisons into working prisons. Again, during the campaign trail I had the opportunity to go out to the Wiri Prison to see that public-private partnership in action and see the magnificent facilities they are building out there—a huge big trade training facility is being built out there. We will make sure that every prison is a working prison because we know that when a prisoner gets the drug and alcohol treatment and when they get the skills, then there is a much lower chance that they will be recidivist and go back to prison. We know that there is a great chance that they will turn their lives around and make something of their lives by ensuring that they stay in the workforce and not in prison. So that is going to be part of what we will do around law and order.

When it comes to Māori development, I look to my left and see Mr Finlayson, who, as I have said on numerous occasions, will go down as the greatest Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in the history of New Zealand. He has undertaken more claims. He has signed 46 deeds of settlement. The Labour Government managed 25 in its entire 9 years. If the Labour Government had still carried on at that rate, it would have taken until 2060 to see those claims completed. The other great work that Chris Finlayson is undertaking is in relation to the Ture Whenua Maori Act, where we will see an opportunity to unlock some of that land that can be used for the development of the iwi, for job development, and for the enrichment of the communities. Eighty percent of the 1.5 million hectares is in that position. We will see more young Māori getting opportunities. We are already seeing more achieving with National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 and bachelor’s degrees and above. We will see a continued commitment to Whānau Ora.

I just want to finish briefly, if I may, on a couple of issues. The first is in relation to the United Nations Security Council and the obligations that New Zealand has in 2015-16 to discharge its responsibilities wisely. We will be doing that. I congratulate, as I already have, the team that made that possible. But the second big issue that is worthy of some discussion is what is happening in Iraq and Syria at the moment in relation to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). We can turn our eyes away from that situation if we want to, but I tell New Zealanders with great honesty that we face international risks, we face regional risks, and there is a very real risk that we may one day face a domestic risk. We have to play our part in some form. We have not made a decision what that part might be like. There is a very wide range. We will continue to engage with the other political parties, including the Labour Party. We are more than happy to share as much information as we practically can when we have it. There is a wide range of options available to New Zealand. But I really believe that when the Opposition parties have the benefit of understanding all of the information that the Government understands, I will be absolutely amazed if they actually stand back and say that we are going to leave all of that not just to our traditional friends like Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada but to so many other countries, whether they be countries like the Netherlands or others like France or Germany. New Zealand has to play its part, but it needs to think through that very wisely.

Finally, over the course of the next few years there will be an opportunity for the New Zealand public to decide on whether they want to change the flag. I personally believe that the flag should be a visual representation of modern New Zealand. I believe that if New Zealanders choose wisely and decide to change their flag, it will be like Canada the week after it changed its flag from what was a flag that used to look a lot like the New Zealand flag, except it was red. Canada changed it to the maple leaf. I think you will struggle to find a Canadian who seriously wants to go back to the old flag. Young New Zealanders with pride—like all New Zealanders, actually—want to have overt signs of patriotism for this great country. We do that when we put on a piece of clothing that has a silver fern on it. I am pretty indifferent about the background that that silver fern might have, but I do think New Zealanders should think wisely and carefully about it. If that debate is not won over the next few years, then it will be a good 50 years or so before it is decided again. This debate has been going around for 25 years. I want to achieve something that the Hon Gough Whitlam could not, and that is to change our flag. I hope New Zealanders will support that view.

We are a National Government working very hard for New Zealand. There is a very big agenda over the next 3 years, but we are a Government that is working for New Zealand while we face an Opposition that is in disarray.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The other day I had a moment of genuine inspiration while watching The Paul Henry Show, actually—I know, it was a unique moment. Paul and I get along, but I have to say that the most inspiring thing about his show is usually the urge I get to turn it off. At the time Paul was interviewing Dr Kirk Smith, an expert on climate change from Berkeley. Waxing lyrical about his humungous salary, his gas-guzzling boat, and his enormous carbon footprint, Paul posed a question: what could one man like him do that would actually make a difference? Paul plaintively suggested: “I could sell my massive boat, but no one else is going to, so what difference could it make?”. To this the ever-patient scientist replied: “Well, Paul, you’ve got your own television show. You are a leader. If you say that you drive an electric car, people will take notice, and, who knows, they might even buy one too.” So yes, Paul, even a little guy on the telly can do his bit to help save the world, because that is what leading is. That is what the role of the Green Party is in this place. We will continue in the 51st Parliament to lead—to lead through our ideas, lead through our campaigns, and lead through our commitment to addressing the big issues of our time.

An emboldened National will now be able to pass any laws it wants with the help of the sole ACT marionette, to whom it gifted the seat of Epsom. Look, all of the puppet-masters are here today in the Chamber. First on the Government’s hit list will be our workers’ rights, followed by our world-leading environmental protection law, the Resource Management Act, and further asset sales in the form of our State homes. National has nothing but destruction on its mind.

For 6 years the Green Party has filled the National Government’s vision vacuum with our ideas—with new thinking like school hubs, nurses in schools, the climate tax cut, the urban cycleways, and the Green Investment Bank. In the process we have shifted the debate and we have set a new political agenda. Just 2 years ago National denied child poverty even existed, and now apparently it is on the top of the Prime Minister’s to-do list—not that you could tell from his speech today. The Greens have been a key part of a network that has relentlessly worked to expose New Zealand’s child poverty crisis and that stirred the nation to care so much about child poverty that it has now become politically untenable for National not to listen. That is victory, that is leading, and that is what we do.

And yet there are those—even those who did not vote for us—who say that that is not enough and who would like us to have more influence at the table. Since the election I have received a number of letters, even from some National Party members, pleading with us to form some other kind of arrangement with National because they feel guilty about voting for a party with such a poor record on the environment. The idea apparently is that the Greens could act as some kind of foil to National’s anti-environment agenda, if only we just focused on environmental issues. So let me respond to that directly.

The Green Party is now established as the third-largest party in New Zealand and one of the most successful Green parties in the world. We are part of an internationally established movement that is on the ascendancy around the globe. Ours is a movement based not just on environmental principles but on the principles of social justice and democracy, and, of course, here in Aotearoa, that is enabled through Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This is who we are. We could not stop caring about the environment or the people—or our economic direction, for that matter—just because it might be politically expedient to do so. It is not our job to move to the centre; it is our job to move the centre.

We have often led the agenda and achieved practical change by working across issues and across the political divides. We remain open to working with National on select projects during this term of Parliament. In 2008 we drew up a successful memorandum of understanding with National that saw 320,000 homes insulated across our country. This was a massive success—a win for New Zealanders. We kept that going as long as we could until National radically cut the programme. More Government funding—over $400 million—was committed to the Green Party’s memorandum of understanding with National than was provided to projects with its coalition partners. That is leadership from Opposition.

Prior to the election we drew the line at propping up a conservative Government at the expense of a progressive one, but in the event that National won, we always said that we would work with it to create good, Green change. It is John Key, however, who has indicated that he is not so keen to work with us. Since then, we have heard it said that our social policies stand in the way of us working with National on the environment. No. In reality, it is on environmental policy where we are the furthest apart. National’s policies include its plans to gut our environmental protection law, the Resource Management Act, to remove the principle of sustainability from the Act, and this will accelerate environmental destruction. We, the Greens, are about increasing environmental protection.

Crucially, National has completely failed to grasp the challenge and the opportunities presented by climate change. Such a failure could not be more evident than in the fact that the most significant global environmental issue of our time and of our generation went barely without a mention in the Speech from the Throne this morning, other than some oblique reference to managing our emissions, but this is no surprise. Under National’s management New Zealand’s net emissions have increased 20 percent and are set to rise by another 50 percent in the next decade. New Zealanders have the fifth-highest per-person emissions in the developed world. For a country that prides itself on “100% Pure New Zealand”, that is 100 percent failure. National has rejected the Green Party’s idea for a meaningful price on carbon and has instead chosen to stick with the failed and discredited emissions trading scheme, which has driven up emissions and accelerated deforestation.

If we were to believe the Minister for Climate Change Issues, Tim Groser, it is because National Party voters apparently do not care. He told hundreds of New Zealanders at a pre-election climate voter event that to many National Party supporters, climate change is nothing more than a United Nations conspiracy—a non-issue. “Those are the people we are carrying.”, he said. Well, I refuse to believe his generalisation about New Zealanders. I think Groser wildly underestimates how important our environment is to us all, and in doing so abdicates responsibility for actually doing something about the single most important challenge facing humanity. I know that lots of New Zealanders care about the environment. I know that a love for our rivers and our mountains and a desire to protect our clean and pure brand is not the domain solely of the Greens or those on the left. If anything, the clamour for the Greens to go blue should be a wake-up call for National. People want real political action on climate change.

Here is the thing about the 21st century, a century into which the National Party has completely failed to transport itself: a shift to a smarter, cleaner economy is the single biggest opportunity of our time. Being Green is not about doing the right thing anymore; it is about doing the bright thing. It is about leadership. We will continue the push for New Zealand to make the transition to a smarter, low-carbon economy. We relish the opportunity to work across Parliament to make this happen. Like we have done with child poverty and inequality, we will now move National on climate change.

For this reason, we have decided to elevate the climate change portfolio to my co-leader, Russel Norman. This will mean that both Green co-leaders, Russel and myself, will have responsibility and lead campaigns for change on the two key crises facing our nation and our world: inequality and climate change. How we respond to these distinct yet often intertwined challenges will define us as a nation and will define the shape of our children’s lives. Russel will lead a team of MPs focused on setting the environmental agenda and driving the bold, innovative, smart Green policy ideas that can have New Zealand leading the world while playing our part in helping to save it.

Already these talented MPs have produced a comprehensive set of solutions that will address the immediate climate and environmental challenges that we face. Gareth Hughes will retain the energy portfolio and also take on innovation. Gareth is an ideas factory, seeking out the exciting innovations of New Zealand’s business and bringing them to public attention, and driving an energy policy that will see New Zealand 100 percent renewable by 2030. Kennedy Graham will continue his global affairs work with a particular focus on international climate negotiations. It is our view that New Zealand can be a key player and a leader in achieving a global climate accord. Eugenie Sage will continue in conservation and Steffan Browning in primary production. They will continue to fight to protect our environment, our previous species, our fragile ecosystems, and the primary industries that rely on them all and depend on the environment from National’s 20th century pollution economy that places it all at risk. Julie Anne Genter will continue to make the case for smarter investment in transport while also picking up the environment portfolio, leading the campaign against the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms, which will cause so much environmental and community damage. James Shaw, the Greens’ newest MP, will put his many years of experience supporting New Zealand’s small and medium sized businesses and leading on sustainable business to good effect in the economic development portfolio, so that even where the Government drags its heels on a smart Green future, New Zealand business will know that they have an ally and an advocate in the Greens. Climate change and environmental protection must occupy an essential place at the top of the political agenda. It is not an optional luxury but essential to the New Zealand way of life and our national identity. The Green Party will lead on the environment.

Although we know that the climate change trajectory is frightening in its enormity, we do have a very clear picture of inequality. We can see the damage here and now. We can calculate its fall-out in the future. The Prime Minister’s address on this issue was startling in its lack of compassion for the 265,000 children he is actually talking about. We know, for example, how much poverty costs—around $8 billion a year. We know how many kids will stay below the bread line if we maintain the same 30-year economic plan that has left 265,000 kids in poverty—about a quarter of all New Zealand children. We know what those poor kids look like. They are mostly Māori or Pasifika and they often come from single-parent homes. We know where they live. We can estimate how many of them will get sick and how many babies will die of preventable illnesses. Around one baby a week in this country dies from an illness that is related to poverty. How many will drop out of education—we know that. How many will grow up poor and go on to have babies who will repeat the cycle—we have got some idea of that as well. As brutal and cruel as it sounds and as brutal and cruel as it is, New Zealanders over the past 30 years have been slowly encouraged into accepting that sick, poor, hungry, and undereducated kids simply go with the territory. They are the price of the rock-star economy. Child poverty rates are double what they were 30 years ago, and yet National claims as a success the fact that it has maintained that 30-year high. Success to me is a radical reduction in child poverty.

We have at least had in the speech this morning recognition of the importance of child poverty if not its urgency, but there was, however, absolutely no mention of the fact that poverty is largely a question of inadequate income. The question for National remains: does it care enough about these children—the children in poverty—to change the economic drivers that have perpetuated that poverty? The Green Party says it is unacceptable to have kids who are hungry because their parents have to survive on a benefit. National’s excuse that it needs to maintain a gap between work and benefits does not pan out when 40 percent of the kids in poverty live in working homes. Their parents—beneficiaries and workers—need to be paid more. That is blindingly obvious, and yet this Government is pathologically allergic to taking the action that it can to fix this problem.

Over the next 3 years I will make it my business to generate an even bigger appetite for change in New Zealand in order to end child poverty, and I am joined by an incredible team of Green MPs who believe the same. Call us “Team Kids”, if you will. Kevin Hague, while holding the health portfolio, will also now take on the crucial housing portfolio. The Greens have made incredible progress in improving New Zealand’s housing stock through the home insulation programme, working with National to insulate more than 300,000 homes and significantly improving the health of the children and families who live in those houses. But that is not enough. We need more affordable housing and improved quality. National offers none of that; the Greens do. Catherine Delahunty will continue in education, promoting our school hubs’ unique plan to alleviate poverty and build stronger communities in schools. School is so much more than just achievement in the three Rs. Imagine if schools were great places not just for kids to learn but where parents could upskill as well, and the whole place is run on solar power, like so many schools already do. These are the connected solutions in education that the Greens will lead on. Jan Logie will take on the whole of the social development portfolio and employment, and Denise Roche will tackle industrial relations and immigration. Between them, they will lead the charge to raise incomes for the families who call New Zealand home—beneficiaries and workers alike—incomes that National now directly threatens with the reforms in industrial relations and welfare. Mojo Mathers will continue her incredible advocacy for those hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders with disabilities, and will protect the rights of all New Zealanders to decent, affordable food through the food portfolio. Dave Clendon will continue to build a safer community by improving our criminal justice system and reducing offending, and will stand up for civil rights within the criminal justice system, including the rights of the children and families of prisoners.

For a little country, New Zealand has a proud history of leading on the solutions. We were once the global leaders in women’s rights. We gave women the vote 52 years before France, which is celebrating its 69th anniversary of suffrage today, incidentally. We stood up to the mighty US in the 1980s and said no to nuclear power. Other nations noticed, in part because of how small we were and how brave we were to take that stand. We are the little country that can.

So there is all the more reason to think twice before leaping in when the US says: “Let us go to war.” John Key says it is odd not to follow the US into military conflict against Sunni militants in Iraq and Syria. What we say is what is odder for our brave little nation than to follow the US into yet another military incursion when all the evidence points to it being the wrong move. The overwhelming outcome of half a century of US military intervention in the Middle East is that life is worse for the people in that region and for those of us in the rest of the world. There is no doubt that the Islamic State threat is a very real one, but there is too much doubt that the way to respond is by committing New Zealand to war. Military incursions so far have radicalised many of the most radical groups. The endless bombing of the Middle East will not solve the problems there.

The Green Party does not have all the answers on this issue—none of us in this House do—but we do think that New Zealand should examine its non-military options. We are prepared to be the lone voice in this Parliament against the notion of involving our country in another war. New Zealand should and could take a more constructive approach. There is an urgent need for humanitarian assistance in the region. We have the skills and the experience as a nation to respond to that. There is far more good to be done by providing shelter to those displaced by conflict than by going to war. War is by nature self-destructive.

So are the economic strategies that perpetuate climate inaction and inequality. New Zealand can and must lead with smart, modern responses to all these challenges, and the world will notice. By meeting the challenge of climate change and inequality, we can transform our economy and our society for the better, and in doing so lead the world, because New Zealand is uniquely placed to seize the opportunities arising from the global shift to clean energy. We have the best cards in the pack—the natural resources, the people, the intellect, and the know-how. We just need the leadership. Our competitive edge is not cheap labour, more cows, and dirty oil; it is environmental stewardship, a fair and tolerant society, and smarter, cleaner economics.

Over the next 3 years the Greens will honour the one in 10 New Zealanders who gave us our seats in this House. Last Parliament we led the Opposition, and we return with the same number of MPs to set the political agenda again. We will hold the Government to account and be a voice in this place for those who are too little or disenfranchised to have a voice of their own. I note with some dismay that I am the only woman political party leader in this House. I am proud though to be helping to lead the most diverse and the most representative of parties in Parliament, because, like New Zealand, the Green Party caucus is half women and a quarter Māori. We are a collection of passionate people who have spent our lives fighting the good fight, leading in pursuit of not money or prestige but the values that we stand here to represent—a fairer, cleaner, smarter New Zealand playing its responsible role in the world.

I genuinely wish my colleagues across the House well, especially those new entrants who arrived after the last election. My enduring hope is that we can reach across our political barriers and make real progress for our people and our country over the next 3 years, and that in doing that this nation of journeyers and pioneers will lead the world yet again. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Could I, first of all, congratulate David Carter on resuming his office as Speaker of this House, also the new Deputy Speaker, the returning Assistant Speaker, and the new Assistant Speaker in the person of yourself, Mr Mallard, and say what a surprise it is that this event has happened. I want to congratulate all the MPs who have been elected to this House—new and old—especially those from New Zealand First.

We are deeply appreciative of the support we received from the electorate in 2014. In an early election campaign that was deliberately held over the stark, inclement winter months, our campaign clearly connected with the New Zealand public. That is because we argued for a comprehensive set of common-sense policies to improve life for all New Zealanders. The National Party, with all its money and untold resources, managed to grow its vote by only 72,000. In contrast, New Zealand First, starved of all the privileges of Government incumbency and the millions being thrown behind National and the “Moon Party”, increased its vote by about 61,000. Had the election been held in November, when it should have been held—and not around the bogus APEC agenda—then we would have done far better.

In this Parliament, as always, we will demand of the Government clear and forthright answers to matters of public concern. We will do our duty and hold the Government to account. We are not going to tolerate the kind of obfuscation and straight-out deceit that the Government mounted, for example, over the Oravida scandal.

Surely every parliamentarian understands now how Parliament was short-changed in endeavours to get to the truth in this matter. It was in the heat of the campaign that the Prime Minister was forced to act against one of his Ministers, and not in the heat of Parliament seeking full disclosure. In short, that is a shame on this Parliament and it goes to the heart of—or lack of substance in—our democracy. We are going to hold the Government to account because this is not a Government that truly represents the New Zealand people. Remember that over 800,000 people did not vote. Although a million voted for the Government, another million voted for other parties.

This Government is deeply compromised by some very sordid political arrangements—for example, propping up the ACT Party in Epsom; an unbelievable arrangement. Why, we even got more votes in Epsom, on the party vote, than ACT did. Then National propped up United Future here in Wellington and brought back someone who was caught leaking State secrets. Remember what the Prime Minister said? He said: “I’d like to believe them, but I can’t.” Well, what has changed now? The Government propped him up, put him back in as a Minister—in other words, having absolute contempt for accountability in this Parliament, including ministerial responsibility. Then, to compound that, National organised a fund-raiser for the Māori Party at an Auckland men’s club, at $5,000 a plate, and said they were just trying to spread democracy—just trying to spread democracy. I can tell you that the Māori Party will not survive the next election. It showed in this last campaign how damaged they were by this association.

Although the new swag of National MPs might pretend to be relaxed across there, we wager that many of them will be having the jitters already. It is not because they are new but because they know how many exited the “blue” benches for a multitude of reasons in the last 3 years. MPs have been dropping like flies whilst John Key has been at the helm. In the last 3 years there were 17 alone—17 MPs alone. Some jumped, others were nudged, and some were given a big shove with tea party - like tactics within their electorate organisations like, for example, the seat of Kaikōura, and like our poor friend Dr Hutchison, one of the finest doctors to ever visit this House, who was tea party - taped all the way out of Parliament. Why? Because there is a certain outcome that is expected of them.

Hon Nicky Wagner: What happened to Andrew?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What did we do to Andrew? We fired him. When you step out of line, in New Zealand First, and you make statements against the organisation that are totally untrue, we do something about it. That is why we are back, with a huge increase. I just want to say again that 17 MPs alone—the clean-out at the end of the 50th Parliament was delivered by the Prime Minister as “refreshing the team”. The media duly reported that he was doing the right thing—that one-third of the National caucus had gone. Noticeably absent from the commentary, however, was that the Prime Minister was shoring up his power base. Think of it. All the newbies nodding and agreeing—music to the Prime Minister’s ears. He makes a pretty ordinary speech and they all jump up and clap. Not one person thought it was an ordinary speech, but they all got up and clapped. Amongst those falling on their swords—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s going to happen at the end of this speech?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Now, now, Mr Brownlee. What is going to happen at the end of this speech is that you are going to hear a series of very good speeches, 10 of them—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Running out of time.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I am not running out of time; that member is. And he is running out of credibility. He is running out of credibility. He ran out of credibility a long time ago. Bluster will not cut it any longer. Bluster and bumpf will not cut it, Mr Brownlee. What we want here is substance. What we want here is analysis. Among those falling on their swords or retiring gracefully were King, Wilkinson, Hayes, Auchinvole, Calder, Heatley, Henare, Roy, Ryall, Tremain, and Hutchison. Those who tripped up along the way and just had to go included the man who wanted to know: “Don’t you know who I am?”.

Tracey Martin: No one remembers who he is.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Aaron Gilmore. And there was the one, Claudette Hauiti, who went out of here because she allowed the National Party to use another member over here to attack New Zealand First, and we turned the attack back on them. Within a matter of weeks she was gone. So my advice to Mr Brownlee and his colleagues is: do not try it again in this term of Parliament, 2014 to 2016. It might have some very damaging effects.

We have 14 novices in the Government ranks, and today we get told that they are going to be made deputy chairpeople of select committees. Got any experience? No. Got any ability? Not known about yet. But straight away—

Mike Sabin: Got buckets of it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, buckets, have they? Well, when are we going to see some of it? Because I have never seen it in the past. In fact, when I was campaigning in Whangarei, that member was not there. Oh, he knew I was coming, and they could not see him for dust and small pebbles. He was gone.

Mike Sabin: Just a set-up.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He was gone. No, it was not a set-up.

Mike Sabin: It was.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, it was a set-up? Well, I went all the way from Auckland to go to the Whangarei meeting. The people of Northland were coming out in their droves. The place was packed. Where was the local National Party candidate? He was not there. Unbelievable. For goodness’ sake. If you are going to have deputy chairpeople like that, then we have got a recipe for a circus at the select committees.

Now to the Speech from the Throne that we heard today: “As has been well signalled, the Government will put a possible change of New Zealand’s flag to a public vote this term.” A public vote? What happened to the two referenda? The first was for an option, and the second for the option of going against the existing flag. Well, what happened to the two referenda, if you are going to have a vote?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, that’s what’s going to happen.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you see, a referendum is a vote. A referendum is people speaking. A referendum is a public expression of what people think. [Interruption] I know Gerry is going to find it very difficult to get his head around this concept of expanded democracy. I know Gerry is going to find that very difficult, but it is two referenda that the Prime Minister promised.

Compounding this confusion is the fact that this Government, in its needless compromise with the Māori Party, has already admitted a second flag, Hone’s flag. Has everybody forgotten that? Well, Hone might have gone but the flag is not—the so-called Māori flag that flies on the Auckland Harbour Bridge and Government buildings on Waitangi Day and national days. This flag was the result of Hone, at the taxpayers’ expense, holding 21 hui around the country at which the total attendance of Māori, those are the indigenous people, was fewer than 1,000—

Hon Member: Your people.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —no, not my people—fewer than 1,000. Māori supporters of New Zealand First are legion. In fact, we got far more votes than the Māori Party. We got far more votes than the Māori Party, and we are still the only party that ever took all the seats off the Labour Party. It will be 20 years before they can rectify that. So be very careful—that new member. I am pleased to see her here. Congratulations. But do not be led up the garden path. The smartest thing she did the other day was to vote for the New Zealand First member. That was a very smart move—a very smart move.

How many flags do we need? Well, apparently it is about branding for what National likes to call “New Zealand Inc.” There is no spark firing out there amongst the public for a new flag. Talking of Spark, branding soaks up money. Telecom doled out $20 million to try to change its brand. How much will it cost for all the Government paraphernalia, every soldier’s uniform, every police uniform, everything we have got, to be changed because the Prime Minister wants to have—what? A legacy—of economic improvement? No. Of social change? No. Just a new flag. How barren is that? He even finished his speech on that today. He wants a new flag. Mind you, it is not looking too flash because his original idea looks a bit like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. He is not too keen on that any more.

Then, of course, in the Speech from the Throne I read this: “… will complete the implementation of the Financial Markets Conduct Act, and will progress legislation to strengthen competition laws”. Really? What happened to South Canterbury Finance? What happened in the trial just concluded last week? What happened when South Canterbury Finance went bust, with $1.58 billion of payouts, $800 million of which was never recovered, from the taxpayer? Today the Government is talking about financial markets conduct, and right under its nose, in the last 3 years and in a trial that finished last week, was this rip-off of the taxpayer.

Mr Brownlee can perhaps explain what he was doing, when he was asleep on the job, behind the wheel. This is the man with all the financial knowledge of how markets work. But then again, of course, Gerry was a former director, for a brief time, of the Christchurch casino alternative. [Interruption] Oh yes, he was. He did not last very long. The guy who set it up, of course, is in prison at Pāremoremo at the moment. Gerry was associating with crooks, and they even put him on the job.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s not true.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes, it is true. I have got the prospectus with your name all over it, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, it is true, all right. And then today we had this extraordinary circumstance of your announcing that you are going to fix up financial markets conduct. Right under our noses people are screaming out: what happened to the Secretary to the Treasury, who should have been in front of the court at the time—the man to whom the proposal was put? And, whilst we are at it, what was Bill English doing? Or that genius from Merrill Lynch, the Prime Minister? How did we get ripped off for $800 million? And worse still, of course, when we sought an inquiry on that, the Government stopped it because it knew, like the old saying, that all roads led back to the Government.

It is going to be a long 3 years unless the Government can be persuaded to lead in the interests of all our people. We waited throughout the election—and, indeed, today—to hear of a vision, a plan, or an idea to restore our country’s former economic and social greatness, and we recall just what happened back in July of 1984 with the change of Government.

The new, wet-behind-the-ears member for Epsom might think it is funny, but he is there only because somebody else pulled down his own hoardings to give him a chance. Where is the man’s integrity? How can you be possibly talking about negotiating with the Government when you are a puppet, when you are in its pocket, and when it is actually finding the money to finance your operation here in this Parliament? Most of us could not stand such a consequence, when it is—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no, Gerry could—Gerry could. Oh, I know that Gerry could, but not one of my colleagues could stand such a fraudulent set-up. None of my colleagues could stand such hypocrisy and cant, but I know that that member can, because he went on TV and the only thing he made sense about when he went on his advertisements was to say the word “Hi”, and after that, everything was drivel. After that everything was drivel. In fact, it was most amusing. I almost felt like going along to some of the Epsom meetings myself. They said it was the biggest joke you have ever seen. Unbelievable that someone could be in Parliament that way, but it is no worse than, say for example, the member for Ōhariu. It is just a disgrace that MMP, which is a very expanded form of democracy, has been allowed to be abused and misused in this way. It is going to be a long 3 years.

There is always a lot of talk from the Prime Minister. He reminds me of that fellow in that moss ad. You know, the guy who comes on and says: “I just spray and walk away.”—“I just spray and walk away.” The Prime Minister was on about the Kiwi dollar. Do you remember what he said? “It should be US65c.”, he said. That is a pretty serious thing to say when you believe in the independence of the Reserve Bank, is it not? He said that it should be US65c. Where is it? Well, it is close to US80c. Is he going to do anything about it? No. And out there in provincial New Zealand there are dairy farmers in their hundreds who are going to be heading off to their banks for some mercy. And the milk price is not going to stop where it has got to now; it is going to fall a whole lot further.

Now then, Mr Brownlee, what does the Government intend to do?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Devalue, and you get less for it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, then, why would you say that the dollar should be at US65c? Why would you agree with the World Bank, the IMF, and everybody else that it is massively overvalued? And why would you say that it should be at US65c and then do nothing about it? It is “Mr Spray and Walk Away”. And what happened to the Budget surplus? Remember what we were told? At the last Budget in May we had a Budget surplus. What do you reckon it is now, with the billions that are being lost in the dairy price? And the beef farmers should not get too cocky, because it will not last long. It is cyclical.

Ron Mark: Never does.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It never does, and they will be back pleading for mercy very, very shortly.

There is never any real action to make a difference, and all we have now is the stuttering start-up of the National Government’s third term propaganda machine. After a glimpse of the agenda released today for public consumption, our first reaction is: “Well, what is on their secret agenda?”, because there was nothing there today—nothing for scrutiny, for us to look at. What is really happening on the ninth floor? Who is plotting what with whom? Something is certainly happening out of sight because that, today, could not have been what the plan is for the next 3 years, and we need to know what and why and how and when.

Let us be clear about what leadership now means in our country. More than any other person in public life, a Prime Minister should set the ethical climate of our politics. Rather than follow the dirty tricks of the wreckers who lurk on the dark fringes of politics, he needs to lead through personal example a Government that protects the rights of all New Zealanders. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has already revealed that he dealt regularly with a blogger called “Whale Blubber”, or some phrase like that. This blogger ran a dirty tricks campaign with like-minded National Party members, National Party staff, and a certain Minister he no longer calls “Hon”. What sort of inspirational leadership mixes with people who specialise in character assassination, deception, defamation, and spreading malicious propaganda? Obviously the current leadership does and, as someone once said, you can judge people by the company they keep.

With this in mind, looking at this 3-year term fills us with foreboding. Why? Because what does this Government actually intend to do? In June, before the election, we were not going into a Middle East war. Within days after the election, we now are. Foreign policy is becoming increasingly murky. Sure, there is a safe seat on the UN Security Council, but how can New Zealand help solve world problems with a Prime Minister who makes up foreign policy as he goes along? He claimed that the last meeting at which Tim Keating was at was not official—it was not official. The only person who thought that was the Prime Minister. Every international correspondent and everybody in Washington did, but the Prime Minister did not. How can there be substance in our democracy if Parliament is used to rubber-stamp a decision to go to war?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Rubbish!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, I know it is rubbish—I know what the member’s specialty is. I know that rubbish is his speciality, but let me say this. If it is good enough for the British and it is good enough for the Canadians to trust their parliaments, why will this Government not trust this Parliament?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Government said it will.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What insightful things does Gerry Brownlee know that the rest of us do not? I mean, you have to spend more time on a woodwork lathe to gain more of an understanding of international affairs than he has currently got. Why will the member not trust Parliament? The British did, with a conservative administration. The Canadians did, with a conservative administration. Why can this National Government not? We are off to war.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, we’re not.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, we are. How can there be any substance when Parliament is not trusted? How can there be any depth in our democracy if Parliament is asked to give a blank cheque to law changes on the Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau?

Even before the special votes were counted post the election, the Prime Minister started raising the spectre of people being beheaded—straight after the election, before the special votes were even counted. These are the tactics of fear. They are used by dictators all over the world. And if people think that that is a harsh comment, then why was this not urgent before the last Parliament ended? What did we not know in June that we know now? Well, the answer is nothing new, Mr Brownlee, so why was the assurance given pre-election by the Prime Minister that we were not going to the Middle East? New Zealanders do not want a State run by the secret service. New Zealanders do not want the lousy excuse that if you are not doing anything wrong, you have got nothing to worry about. What sort of democracy and system of laws puts that sort of argument up?

Denis O’Rourke: The National Party does.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The National Party. You would never have heard of Holyoake or, I dare say, even Muldoon trying that trick on, but that is the new National Party—no principles, power at any price, power for power’s sake. But when it comes to the substance of the quality of the democracy those members live in, they do not give a damn.

Take, for example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Why would we trust international corporates with this country’s sovereignty or, indeed, with the rights of Parliament? And why are congressmen in the United States entitled to know the terms but people in New Zealand are not? Why are members of Parliament in this country shut out? Indeed, why is most of Cabinet shut out, so that a little cabal within the Government is out there negotiating on behalf of this country, deeming that it has the power to tie up Governments for decades against the rights of New Zealand’s Parliament to examine whether it is right or wrong? The interests of New Zealand people should come before such agreements are signed. And to say that you are going to bring it back to Parliament after you have signed off the document and that Parliament will rubber-stamp it with people like “Mr See-less” from Epsom is hardly any assurance at all.

Is Peter Dunne going to make a stand for democracy? Of course not. Is the Māori Party going to step up and say: “This is not acceptable.” because the people who will be hammered worst are the Māori at the bottom of the economic and social heap? Are the Māori in the National Party themselves, like the new member for Whangarei—or those other ones who have recently discovered their heritage just the other day. They have recently discovered their heritage just the other day. [Interruption] Oh, yes, I have known that. I read about those fellow members in that Government who did that. They came here not even knowing who their iwi was and went on a long genealogical search to try to give themselves further value. I know he is the head of the Maōri Party now. I congratulated him on winning. I am glad he won. I am glad he won, because his opponent was even worse. His opponent was even more radical. I am glad he won, but my point is: when is somebody over there, put in there because of their genealogical background, going to stand up for it? The member for Whangarei? Or the one from Tauranga? He discovered his genealogy after he got here. Or the one from out in Howick way—you know, the friend with a double-barrelled name—

Tracey Martin: Jami-Lee Ross.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is right. You have got to commend people who do that, but surely if you are going to say we have got all these people in our Parliament and therefore we have got a multi-ethnic background, we would want to know when they are going to do something about it, because going along with this neo-liberal, far-right nonsense is not going to help the mass majority of New Zealanders, and not the Māori people in particular. You can be sure of that.

Go up to Whangarei and Moerewa—all around the North—and tell me how they are going on there, because at the moment, as an economist recently said, Whangarei is dead. That is what he said. I saw it in the Northern Advocate. I did not see any protest from the new member of Parliament—not a word, not a syllable, not a sound, not a murmur. When you get elected for a place like Whangarei, you are not going to last long unless you start standing up for the people up north. But that is what the economist said—a leading economist from one of the banks. He said that the north is zombie town. Those are his very words. If I was the local member would you not be barrelling up and saying: “If there’s some truth in that, I’m going to do something about it. I’m going to ensure that I go down and shake the place up. I’m going to put my rubber stamp away and I’m going to get out my microscope and start examining policy to see how Whangarei is going to be advantaged.” But no, not a syllable, not a sound.

But back to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Let me tell you that American corporations have gained tremendous control over the American political system and any assurances from that Government about our interests have to be taken with the greatest of suspicion. And my real question is how this will help heartland New Zealand, where the people are continually being hit by businesses cutting back or closing down. Go down Port Road, Whangarei, or Wanganui, or all around Hawke’s Bay, or Gisborne and see how many businesses are closing down and so how little prospects lie there now for provincial New Zealand. It used to be, and will be again, the powerhouse of this economy, but not with the policies this Government has been pursuing for the last 30 years.

And remember this. When the Government started these policies it said that there would be so many jobs we would not have enough people—so many jobs we would not have enough people. Well, just today we found out that we have hit new record levels of immigration: 45,000 over the last 12 months. Where are they going to? Auckland, and Auckland has got no chance now of solving its infrastructural problems or its housing crisis, or anything else. But meanwhile the good people of Whangarei and Invercargill are going to pay with higher deposits and higher interest rates—four increases this year.

So I want to hear from these new members over there what they are going to do in the next 3 years, because they are not here just to keep the seats warm. That is a very fateful future if that is what you prospect for yourselves, because in the last 3 years 17 went down that way. My advice to you, ladies and gentlemen, is not to waste your time here. When you go to caucus, keep your ears open. Ask a few questions—not “Where’s Bellamy’s?” but “Where’s it all taking us as a country?”.

We learn back home after the election that we have got a housing crisis. There was not one before the election, but the election is hardly over and the Government has got such a housing crisis that the Prime Minister appointed not one but three housing Ministers—not one but three housing Ministers. What did you see on morning TV? Their special project in Auckland has built the magnificent figure of five—not a thousand, or a hundred, but just five—homes. The Prime Minister’s defence on morning TV on TV3 was: “Well, it’s the Labour Party’s fault, because they wouldn’t let us change the Resource Management Act.” Sorry, the Government has had a majority for 6 years. Stop blaming everybody else for their fiscal incompetence.

As for the issue of selling State houses, did not Prime Minister Key say that after the Genesis Energy sale that was it? Did he not tell Bill English? And last week Mr English said that the money the Government had made from the selling of the housing stock was not going back into State houses. So there is $18.7 billion of housing potentially going to go into some other market.

And as for the question of productivity, what did the Productivity Commission say in 2012? Well, it questioned the transparency and accountability of the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars to community groups, charitable trusts, NGOs, and Māori social housing providers. So it cannot be for that reason, can it, and yet that is what the Prime Minister is saying today.

I think that the National Government is going to be in serious trouble on the question of housing, because it has got a tiger by the tail and, just to make sure it cannot win, it is bringing in massive numbers of people—45,000 alone in the last 12 months—most of whom are going to Auckland. Many have gone to Epsom already—many have gone to Epsom already.

Hon Member: They’ll learn.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They will learn all right, sooner or later. There is going to be a housing bubble that is going to burst and when that happens there will be an amazing change in how voters think.

Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, congratulations yourself, brother, on your position and I give our assurance that whenever we can be cooperative we will be, that we will be here to be proposing and opposing—opposing bad ideas and proposing and supporting good ideas.

New Zealand First is on the cusp of something great. We know after the last campaign that in 2017 we intend to be utterly ready in every respect—we know that if we had had greater resources and the election had not been in the wintertime we would have done so much better. In fact, the Government would look different from the way it looks now. So count yourself lucky. Congratulations, but it is not going to happen one more time. In fact, in 2017, with the work that we are going to do, New Zealanders will have a chance to have a better economy and a better social future. After 30 years of this experiment, it is surely time to fly the white flag and say: “It does not work.” We need a better economic and social strategy than that.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard. Firstly, can I say congratulations on your appointment. Even if you have not made too many decisions yet, I am threatening to recall the Speaker to give you something to think about and test out your facing the things that you used to put in front of the House. But I do join with others in congratulating you on your appointment and I think that you are going to do a fine job. I feel sorry for Mr Tau Henare, who is no longer with us, because actually I think you are a cut of the same cloth that brings a certain edge to the House. I wish you well. Ka nui te mihi.

Sixteen days ago the Māori Party signed a historic relationship accord called Te Tatau ki te Paerangi, implying a doorway to the horizons—a doorway that leads to development in cultural, economic, social, and environmental terms, to opportunities that every New Zealander should be entitled to but opportunities that, unfortunately, many do not actually see and are denied. The Māori Party has always been of the view that the most important goal for any public servant, any political party, is to kick in that door and to let the people come in. That is how we have always operated. Our single focus is the doorway to whānau well-being—the ultimate expression of tino rangatiratanga, which is to be self-determining for yourself and for your whānau, and that you can aspire to be all that you want to be.

We as politicians are often influenced by our childhood memories and the things that happened when we were young. I think about my upbringing in Ngongotahā—and shame on those people who do not know where Ngongotahā is—in Rotorua, watching my grandmother as a 90-year-old carrying her own firewood. She still cooked her own food. Life seemed so simple to her and, I am sure, to that generation. My job was to go and get her smokes and her milk and bread. What I learnt from her example was a number of things. It was to be feisty when the good of the whānau was at stake, to provide for my children no matter what, to be resourceful, to love our land, to love our language, and to love our identity.

So these are powerful drivers of motivation—motivation that the Māori Party has always located in the future prospects of whānau. It matters to us that one in seven people in Aotearoa is Māori. It matters to us that one-third of people of Māori descent are aged under 15 years. In sheer numbers, 669,000 New Zealanders—17.5 percent—whakapapa to a thriving, living culture, a culture infused with the value of kaupapa such as manaakitanga, generosity of spirit of one person towards another; kotahitanga, a sense of unity, of purpose, of togetherness; and kaitiakitanga, careful regard for our environment and to be guardians of our planet. Māori matter to the greater well-being and prosperity of this nation.

So when the Prime Minister invited the Māori Party into the relationship with the Government, we jumped at it. I take this moment to mihi to him for the opportunity that is afforded the Māori Party. It was with the greatest humility that I accepted the role as the new Minister for Māori Development, Minister for Whānau Ora, and Associate Minister for Economic Development. In doing so I am forever mindful of the legacy that is left behind by those who went ahead of me, the likes of whom I will always aspire to be—the likes of Sir Apirana Ngata, Matiu Rata, Iriaka Rātana, Pita Sharples, Tariana Turia, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—now and again—Parekura Horomia, and Tau Henare. They are honourable gentlemen and ladies who have graced this Parliament. I will endeavour to meet their standard, if not to go higher.

These are triple bottom lines that I have set myself in the future: Māori development running alongside a dedicated policy approach to supporting families through Whānau Ora, while at the same time focusing on an economic platform. These things provide a strong base for moving through that doorway to our horizons.

The Productivity Commission has just released an inquiry called Cut to the Chase, which focuses on the challenge of moving and achieving more effective and efficient social services. Currently, a large amount of public money—around $34 billion—goes into social services. So it is vital that we do well with it.

Whānau Ora is premised on the expectation that with the appropriate support in place whānau can be self-managing and take responsibility for their own development. They can be the all-powerful drivers towards their own destiny. It is an admirable ideal and one that I am determined to do the utmost to uphold, not just for better governance and for the most effective use of the taxpayer spend but, most important of all, for the security, stability, and success of all generations to come. As politicians we are the guardians of this time. We must take seriously our responsibility to build on the progress spearheaded by Tariana Turia in enabling whānau to achieve outcomes for themselves. We must work collaboratively to support those who are struggling, to create a meaningful living wage, and to enact the recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty. I am delighted to be joined by my colleague Marama Fox, who has enormous energy in making progress on poverty reduction and well-being. She is going to be a huge asset for the Māori Party and, indeed, to this Parliament. Nau mai e te tuahine. [Welcome sister, colleague.]

The formalities of the Commission Opening and the State Opening of Parliament have enforced the standing of tangata whenua and the status of the Treaty of Waitangi as central to New Zealand’s understanding of itself. The Māori Party is proud of two particular ceremonies that have been able to be added to the rich traditions that form the fabric of the modern Parliament. The karakia that we had yesterday morning, which established the Tiriti o Waitangi as our foundation document again, and supported that notion, was attended by representatives of all parties of the Parliament, and the formal mihi, of course, today, expressed by my tuahine Nanaia Mahuta. It is a welcome sign that culture is evolving, that the traditions made in this Parliament can truly be representative of our indigenous people, and that unity of vision is possible across the political realm. I believe that this Parliament can be proud that 18 members across the House delivered their oaths in Te Reo Māori. Later this week I will be attending the Minister for Women’s blessing in her office. All of these events are an indication of goodwill, which augurs well for this term.

I have a clear vision for a Māori development agenda, which is to cast the net wide in focusing on outcomes. The strategic imperative that we all face in investing in our long-term health and well-being is to actually ensure that we give robust consideration to families, to whānau, and in particular to our tamariki and mokopuna, by bringing together a much tighter pipeline through to the role of innovation and economic development. I am determined to build on the leadership of Pita Sharples in making sure that He Kai Kei Aku Ringa makes substantial differences to our communities. I have a particular regard for regional economic development and the role that community hubs can play in accelerating opportunities both in Māori business and global markets. We must boost the productivity of Māori families, of Māori assets and enterprises, and of New Zealand, through harnessing economic and employment opportunities in a way that will advance Māori development. While I will bring a strong focus on innovation to my ministerial work, I am equally determined that we must always balance any changes with responsibilities that come from kaitiakitanga.

A key priority for me will be determining our approach to the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill. I intend to reopen submissions on the legislation and to work constructively on consolidating our pathway forward. The capacity to be fluent in Te Reo Māori has a significant impact on a person’s mauri, on their well-being, and wairua. I am also very keen to develop greater priority for a cultural revitalisation strategy. As part of our new approach to Māori development we specifically negotiated a priority for a Māori engagement strategy as a part of our relationship accord. We look forward to working with the Prime Minister to achieve that.

I want to work with Māori members of the Māori electorate seats, the wider Parliament, Māori organisations, iwi leaders and chairs, and businesses and corporations to create a more useful dialogue, worthy of the Crown’s relationship with iwi, hapū, and whānau. I will be convening an annual ministerial summit on the Māori economy to advance the Māori economic strategy.

I am also determined that we uphold the momentum and the priority of some key strategic statements established by my predecessors, including a whole-of-Government approach towards addressing family violence—He Whare Āhuru He Ōranga Tāngata, the Māori housing strategy, and He Korowai Oranga, the Māori health strategy. This year is going to be positive, I am looking forward to working with you and other members of Parliament, and I look forward to the many times that we will have interaction in the best interests of Te Ao Māori. Tēnā koe.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Mr Assistant Speaker, may I at the outset congratulate you and your fellow presiding officers on your election to your respective roles for this Parliament. You are a rather unique breed. I think yours are the only positions in Parliament that are elected by the entire Parliament and that enjoy the support of the entire Parliament. As a consequence there are certain expectations that members have of you, which I am sure will not be disappointed over the next 3 years.

Can I also extend a welcome to all of the new members who have joined us for this 51st Parliament. I know that many of you will be still in that state of excitement about what lies ahead—and the more immediate panic of preparing for your maiden speech, and I can understand why, given the two fine examples we have already heard today—and also that broader sense of purpose and commitment to the people on whose behalf you were elected. I wish you all well. I look forward to hearing your contributions and to working with you during the term of this Parliament.

Earlier today we witnessed the formal State Opening conducted by His Excellency the Rt Hon Lieutenant General Sir Jerry Mateparae, our Governor-General. I think that he and Lady Mateparae serve us particularly well in the viceregal role. I am very proud to be able to refer to them as our de facto heads of State. I look forward to the day when we can have a genuinely New Zealand head of State and when the oath of allegiance that we take at the start of Parliament is one to New Zealand and its people, not the antiquated form that we have at the moment.

I think the process that the Prime Minister has initiated regarding a debate around the flag is perhaps the start of a wider discussion about the future structure and constitutional direction of this country. Frankly, I think that New Zealanders are ready for that discussion. It is long overdue. It is a mark of our reflection and our maturity and I believe that it is one that we are well capable of conducting in a measured, responsible, and ultimately successful way for our future. It will be a determinant of the type of nation that we want to become. Our diversity has grown dramatically in the last quarter of a century. The old norms are being challenged constantly, and to keep our country relevant to the generations now and in the future we need to be prepared to consider change, and that change will be significant.

United Future has entered into its third confidence and supply agreement with a National-led Government, following on from two earlier confidence and supply agreements with Labour when it was in office. During each of those processes there has been the opportunity to support some Government measures and to oppose those that are seen as inappropriate. That will be the pattern during the 3 years ahead. Although I would expect to vote for a significant part of the Government’s legislative programme, there will be matters that will draw some criticism from time to time and a contrary vote.

If I can refer to the speech delivered earlier today, there were a couple of matters raised there that I want to comment upon a little further this afternoon. The first relates to changes to the Resource Management Act. Ever since its introduction in 1990 the Resource Management Act has been a talisman for opposition from a range of quarters who do not understand its fundamental purpose. They do not recall that prior to the passage of that Act planning legislation in New Zealand was found in some 54 different pieces of often contradictory legislation. What the Resource Management Act sought to do was bring all of those provisions together in one place and set an environmental baseline upon which decisions could be made regarding development opportunities for the future.

I think that one of the grave tragedies with the Resource Management Act was that the great New Zealand tradition prevailed and it was launched in a vacuum. A change of Government had occurred and the new Government was not as committed to the legislation as the previous Government. As a consequence, a lot of the preparatory work in terms of the preparation of national policy statements, etc., did not take place. But that is not an excuse to now come and say that to make the Act more relevant to today’s situation we will gut its principles altogether. No one argues that there is not a case for streamlining the procedures of the legislation, and no one argues that there is not a need to address issues such as the provision of housing, but they can be accommodated without amending Part 2 of the legislation—clauses 6 and 7 in particular.

If the Government wants to proceed on the basis of making those necessary process changes, it will have my full and loyal support. But I will not support legislation that weakens or significantly changes the provisions of Part 2 because they fundamentally remove the whole basis on which the legislation has been founded and operated. They remove 20 years of case law. They set us back to the days prior to 1990 and 1991 when we had a convoluted, difficult, confusing planning environment that was driven largely out of the old Town and Country Planning Act 1928. Anyone who sits and rationally looks at the situation says one thing: we do not want to go back there.

We have the chance with this legislation to actually ensure that we address the issues that need to be addressed. After all, a quarter of a century later many of the processes will have changed simply because of the change in technological procedure, and it is appropriate to tidy those up. But it is not appropriate to throw out the principles on which the legislation, hailed as groundbreaking at the time, was founded. I hope that the Prime Minister’s announcement a couple of weeks ago that indicated a little bit of movement, perhaps, is carried through, and I am looking forward to discussions with the Minister for the Environment on those matters. I think there is a reasonable compromise available that will allow the Government to maintain its objectives but also keeps in place the principles under which the Resource Management Act operates.

The second issue that the Speech from the Throne referred to today was the international situation regarding terrorism and the need for a review of New Zealand’s privacy legislation. The two are not immediately related, although there is a tangential connection. Like everyone else in this House, I am not in any way impressed by, tolerant of, or supportive of the activities of the Islamic State. I cannot believe the barbarism, the cruelty, and the crudity of a lot of its actions. I think that the world does need to take positive steps to ensure that the spread of that virus, if you like, is contained. But we need to be careful as we do so that we do not compromise unreasonably the privacy of our own citizens and that we do not use the opportunity as one to strengthen other intelligence-sharing relationships that we might have amongst international partners. This is a very specific and very serious situation, but it occurs against a backdrop around the world where the whole issue of the protection of personal privacy and communication is becoming far more pronounced. When you see details emerging about the type of information that telecommunications companies have, for instance, and that large entities like major companies have and are sharing, often without protection, day by day, then the issue becomes more pressing.

This Parliament was elected to work our way steadily through those issues with a measure of good judgment and balance. I think, on reflection, that the speech we heard this morning delivers that in large measure, but the challenge for this Parliament as it starts to come to grips with the issues will be to ensure that we do not get carried away by the immediacy of a crisis and end up doing things or restraining people’s activities in ways that we will regret later on. That is a fundamental principle on which a liberal democracy is founded—the protection of the rights of the individual, the upholding of the prerogatives of the State, and ensuring the maintenance of balance between them. I look forward to working in this Parliament as we seek to achieve those goals.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in reply to His Excellency’s speech. I never knew I was smart until I came here. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not referring to meeting the Opposition but, rather, to quoting a student I met at the Vanguard Military School, a partnership school, a kura hourua, just last week. There could not have been a better entrée to my first speech in this House than meeting that student, and before I return to that quote, allow me to visit some of the journey to that meeting and to this House today.

I represent the communities of Epsom, Mt Eden, Parnell, and Remuera. A look at our electorate might explain why we collectively made this choice. Epsom is typecast as wealthy, and that may well be true in many cases but it is certainly not universal. The largest industry in our electorate is education. Our 30 schools include many of the largest in the country. We also host one large tertiary campus and are adjacent to three more. Education is aspiration. You can tell everything you need to know about a person’s politics by acquiring their sincere answer to a simple question: “Is wealth a zero-sum game or not?”. Unfortunately, the sincere answer of many in this House would be yes. They lay a litany of elaborate excuses and set about constructing an even more elaborate web of rules to reallocate finite wealth to the most deserving. In practice, the most deserving means those whose special pleadings resonate loudest in the theatre of politics. My answer to the question is no. My fellow Epsom voters elected me if not in full support of my philosophy then certainly with knowledge of it.

I will tell you something else about the Epsom electorate. Not only is it the most educated electorate in this country but it is also the one that had the lowest party vote for New Zealand First. Voters elected me because they understand the danger that the zero-sum brigade present to us. Our communities are leafy and our schools prestigious, so if people want more Epsom, then the answer is to create more Epsom, more good schools, and more good suburbs. But the Opposition would cram more people into smaller, denser dwellings, changing the character of our communities and putting intolerable pressure on burgeoning school zones.

When it comes to wealth, for too many the answer is higher tax rates and taxing the same dollars one more time with an envy-fuelled capital gains tax. When many of us voluntarily invest our time and talents in helping others, those who think there is only so much to go around want to crowd out even those efforts for their tax-funded coercive schemes. Small wonder, then, that we voted the way we did.

The people of Epsom did not vote for a mere abstraction or even a political strategy, though. Not many, if any, of those who say that I am here due to the latter can say that they came to this House by way of 13,000 doorsteps, and delivered personally 85,000 personally addressed direct mail letters, had nearly 1,000 attendees at private house meetings, and waved signs at traffic for 300 hours. Actually, most of that was done by my extraordinary team who accompanied me, delivered, hosted, and waved. I acknowledge many of you who are here on the floor of the House and in the gallery—the people who have filled the gallery today—and those of you who could not be in Wellington. I thank you all.

Those people supported me because their answer to that great political dividing question is: yes, wealth is a positive-sum game. Those of us who believe that are interested in a different question: under what conditions can individuals best create wealth? The answer lies in the use of knowledge in society. Since the total inventory of that knowledge is never given in its totality to any single mind or small group of them, it must be grown and applied through a widespread process of conjecture and refutation. That is the creative power of a free society; the power to try new things and find what works. This power is greatest when the role of Government is not whatever the Government defines it to be, as one former Prime Minister put it, but when it is clearly defined to maximise individual freedom. That definition relies heavily on an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of government as an institution.

Governments have extraordinary power to coerce legally. In some cases this power brings great goods, and chief among them is an environment where we can safely go about our business in our various communities. That, in turn, requires the rule of law rather than the arbitrary rule of man. We meet today at the pinnacle of several centuries of progress towards that goal. We have moved towards the light of liberty by removing distinctions in law that once treated people differently depending on their religious conviction, their gender, or their race, and most recently this House decided to remove gender from the marriage laws. Many countries have never achieved that, but it is extraordinary that as if engaged in some form of historical shuttle run, we who were first to touch the cone are now rushing back to create new distinctions in law. I refer to those who claim that the only way to achieve a material equality between the Māori side and the British side of my ancestry is to create more legal inequality. No doubt they have noble intentions, but public policy should be measured only by results.

Beyond the rule of law there are other public goods that a good Government might employ extraordinary powers to provide. Believe it or not, the outcome of private action is sometimes inefficient and Government regulation can improve matters. We see this in our fisheries and our atmosphere, where well-crafted regulations protect us from the ruin to which all men would otherwise rush. Insurance against genuine misfortune of birth or catastrophic events is another role that a good Government might cautiously assume. Funding but not providing education, regardless of parental wealth, is an example of such insurance.

When used beyond these limited roles as protector, regulator, and insurer, however, a Government’s extraordinary powers corrode the powers of a free society. The problem is one of knowledge and politics. It is a fatal conceit to believe that one mind or group of minds can know enough to plan the myriad activities of the very society that they themselves are a product of. To quote Bastiat, there is: “Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas”, but politics has a tendency to narrow human endeavour to what is visible to only a few actors. The alternative is spontaneous activity coordinated by only a few general rules and simple laws.

Perhaps the most literal examples of new wealth from finite means are found in the field of engineering. I am one of two engineers in this House and I come from a family of engineers, several of whom are here today. Although a generous person could barely call my own engineering achievements modest, what my profession has achieved is anything but modest. Suffice it to say that when the member seated to my right gave his maiden speech, phoning a person when they were not at home must have been rarer than a bow tie.

The challenge is to create the conditions wherein this kind of wealth creation is likely to flourish. Thankfully, nearly 200 nations have unwittingly carried out a vast natural experiment on this question. We now have several decades of data showing which public policies work and which do not. They are an adherence to low Government expenditure funded by low-rate broad-based taxes, monetary policy targeted at price stability, a liberal approach to trade and investment abroad, flexible labour markets, and secure predictable property rights. Countries that adopt these principles do not just achieve greater wealth; they also make for better environmental custodians. They also achieve greater civil liberties. Interestingly, when countries are ranked according to these five measures, New Zealand is consistently in the top five and often in the top three of nearly 200 countries on earth.

I returned to New Zealand because it is my home and it is easily among the most prosperous, pristine, diverse, and yet harmonious societies the world has ever seen. The desire to go back to the monocultural, isolationist, intolerant, and interventionist New Zealand of the 1970s is forgivable only to those who were not actually there. In any case, we ain’t going back.

When confronted with an Opposition promising to unpick years of consensus on monetary policy, tax, trade, and even electricity markets, the people of New Zealand have said a resounding no. New Zealand today is a country that has adopted since the mid-1980s more of ACT’s market liberal policies than all but a couple of other countries in the world. To paraphrase another former member: “We won, you lost.” But I am able to heartily say: enjoy this great country that has been created.

Much of the credit must go to Sir Roger Douglas, who is here on the floor of the House today. Roger’s reforms occurred at a unique time in our demographic history. Sir Robert Muldoon’s World War II generation gave way to the much larger generation they produced in what must have been a rather ravenous reunification after that war. In their entry to public life, the boomers created a society in their image, and symmetry demands that their exit will be similarly disruptive.

My generation, which I share with a growing number of recent entrants to this House—and I note that my speech echoes very closely the very fine speech made by Chris Bishop earlier—also faces a number of acute challenges in the wake of our parents’ reign. In the news this week and for the past decade has been housing affordability, an entirely supply side, entirely regulatory problem. For the first time in our egalitarian society, parental assistance—not in my case, I might add—has become a prominent factor in homeownership and there is a hereditary element to property. I look forward to supporting this Government’s efforts to increase the supply elasticity of housing.

Fiscal sustainability should interest our generation. Treasury predicts that on historical trends Government debt will reach double GDP by the time we might think of retiring circa 2060. We can only lament the advanced auctions in stolen goods that pass for elections every 3 years and wonder how the various promises would add to this burden. With the demographic headwinds we face, fiscal discipline must be a mantra of our generation.

The best thing about New Zealand is our pristine natural environment. Sadly, our history as environmental custodians is far from perfect, but again we must think carefully about the role of Government. It is no coincidence that the countries that have been farthest down the path of Government intervention also produced the worst environmental catastrophes. Modern environmentalists should practise the four Ps: pricing, property rights, prosperity, and private initiative. We pride ourselves on being an egalitarian society. However, we must be honest with ourselves about the success of the 80-year-old promise to look after our most vulnerable citizens from the cradle to the grave. Welfare and education reform are essential to maintaining an egalitarian New Zealand for my generation.

I began by quoting a student I met last week at a partnership school: “I didn’t know I was smart until I came here.”, she said. Her story matters because in a global and increasingly technologically sophisticated economy the value of skills is ever increasing. We cannot afford to have smart people wasting their potential. The school she now attends does things differently from the ones she previously attended. The principal leads the school differently from the one he used to teach at. It is not pedagogy for every student, but such universality does not and cannot exist in a country of nearly one million students. What matters is that it works for her. The school draws together all the strands I have spoken of today. Like all human endeavour it is imperfect, but by conjecture and reputation it grows and applies the store of knowledge about educating children. The Government plays a role, but a limited one. It brings the creative powers of a free society to bear upon one of our most urgent challenges as a nation.

I am honoured to represent my fellow Epsom electors and to lead the ACT Party in this House. It is my hope that I will contribute here to improving public policy for all New Zealanders so that prosperous and free individuals may flourish in this green and pleasant land. Thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): Can I begin my comments this afternoon by congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your return to the Speaker’s Chair with the overwhelming endorsement of members of this House. I want to congratulate your assistants: the Deputy Speaker, the Hon Chester Borrows; Lindsay Tisch, who has been a long-serving and very loyal member of this Parliament and who continues his work as your assistant; and also the new man in the team, the Hon Trevor Mallard, who I know will bring his own style to the work. I want to also congratulate the Clerk’s Office, the Governor-General’s office, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for the work that they have done to organise the ceremonies of the past 2 days, which remind us of the deep ties we have to longstanding democracy in this country.

I also need to acknowledge our mover and seconder of the Address in Reply debate today, Chris Bishop and Barbara Kuriger. My colleague Tim Groser was remarking before—and I think he was absolutely right—that it showed why the National Party is so strong. Firstly, the urban liberal Chris Bishop gave a great speech to reflect on his views about where this country might go in the time that he is in Parliament, and then Barbara came in to speak as the quintessential rural person who is very, very connected to the needs of those rural communities. I think that when you put those two together, you start to see some of the breadth of the National Party, and I know that other maiden speeches will expand that in the days ahead.

I also want to congratulate David Seymour on that last speech. I think that what you demonstrated to us all was the reason why the National Party sits so comfortably in a governance arrangement with the ACT Party. I am sure that your contribution to this House will be considerable over the years to come.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a jack-up.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I did not want to go on to discussing the New Zealand First contribution quite so quickly in my limited time today, but the member over there invites me to do it. He sits there saying: “It’s a jack-up. It’s a jack-up.” He is saying that only because he is saying: “I did so well but I’ve got nothing.” Then there was the issue of him saying: “Well, look what happened—the Prime Minister is shoring himself up by 14 new members and a whole lot of other people exiting.” This is a guy who has exited his entire caucus on three occasions during his time here in Parliament. It is so bad that one of his returning members, Mr Ron Mark, was not even known to the deputy leader, who yesterday described him as Don Clarke. Well, Don Clarke is not available for the All Blacks, and he is certainly not in this Parliament.

I want to turn now to the substance of what I want to say, which is support for the Prime Minister’s motion put before the House in this Address in Reply debate. I was disappointed by the contribution from the Labour Party but not surprised—not surprised—because if it is boiled down and analysed, it is more of what we have had for the last 6 years. If only the ungrateful voter had voted for Labour members, everything would be OK! If only the ungrateful voter had recognised that everything they said was good and everything we did was bad, then everything would be OK! If only the ungrateful voters would stop thinking about what is best for them in their lives and start thinking about what the Labour Party thinks is best for them in their lives, then everything would be OK! I have got to say that although this Government going into a third term is very, very conscious of showing any signs of arrogance whatsoever, there is a fundamental arrogance in that Labour Party position that will not change with a change of leader. It needs a deep change of the culture of that party. It would be easy to spend a lot of time today talking about the leadership challenge, but it does not matter. It does not matter at all. As long as that attitude prevails, Labour will not connect with New Zealanders.

What connects with New Zealanders are the sorts of things that the Government has set out in the Speech from the Throne today, like the idea that we should constantly strive to improve New Zealanders’ incomes. In that regard, we have heard a lot of comment from other parties about how, for example, you should perhaps devalue the dollar, because that might somehow make things easier for people. Well, the question there is: where on earth is there a place where the purchasing power of one economy is enhanced by another economy deciding to reduce its own purchasing power? That is the problem that we have got inside other parties here trying to comment on that.

The reality is that in the next couple of years, the average wage in New Zealand will climb to $62,000. It is climbing at a rate that is ahead of inflation in this country. There is a reason for that. It is because the Government has policies that do not of themselves create work, do not of themselves create export opportunities, but that facilitate the people out there who take risks on a daily basis to build businesses, to seek out markets, and to sell their products, and along the way they provide opportunities for other New Zealanders to enjoy that success through higher incomes. That is a pretty simple thing.

Then there is the issue of child poverty, which we have said we want to do a lot more about. I think it is only fair to look at some relativities in that regard. If you listen to the Green Party, then everything is all bad and there is no hope for anybody in this country in that regard. If you listen to the Labour Party members, they are going to hold us to account. Well, all they need to do is watch what is going to happen as we see more people exiting benefits and going into work. There can be no denying that life for a working family is a lot easier than for a family that lives on a benefit. If the only answer you have got is to say: “We’ll make it all easier for those people on a benefit by lifting them up.”, then you start to persecute the people who work. So there will be some very interesting debates in this House over that particular issue.

The other thing that has come up constantly over the last 6 months has been housing in New Zealand. It is staggering that we have had the Labour Party members come out today and say that they will not support change to the Resource Management Act. Green Party members came out today and said they will not support change to the Resource Management Act. Well, it is very simple. If there is not more land available for subdivision, if there is not better use of existing land, and if the artificial costs that are put into the cost of using that land are not removed by taking away laws that put those costs in place, then there is no attack on the issue of low-cost housing. So I challenge the Labour Party members to think for themselves, beyond the rhetoric that has been their mantra for the last 6 years, and to start to think seriously about the issue of housing costs.

This Government will do it, and no one should underestimate, either, the need for a Government to get its own finances in shape to be able to show a picture that says we do not have rampant runaway expenditure by the Government, we do not have expenditure plans that go beyond the means of the Government, because that reflects directly in interest rates. It is an easy calculation. Every time an interest rate goes up one whole point, then that is an extra $1,000 a year on whatever your mortgage amount is that has to be found. If we are looking at $300,000 and $400,000 mortgages or bigger—which are, in many cases, the norm—then that is a large amount of money that can be altered or taken out of a person’s income each week by virtue of bad Government policy. The Homestart loans programme will see a change in the way that developers put product into the market. Couple that with some Resource Management Act changes and a desire by the Government to see more of this housing built, and I think we will see some real movement in that regard.

I should speak a little bit about the other issue that has come up repeatedly this afternoon—that of what New Zealand might do in response to the Islamic State activities in the Middle East. I can repeat only what the Prime Minister has said over and over. There will be a discussion among the political parties. There will be a debate in the House. There will be a considered position that represents New Zealand’s position. I want to say that I watched the Q+A programme last week and those four Labour leader aspirants were all appalling on this subject because they were scaremongering where they need not scaremonger. The New Zealand defence forces are extremely capable, and they are capable across a range of activities that might be useful in the suppression of this appalling organisation that is so barbaric and repulsive to us. But it needs to be something that is well considered, and it will be. Thank you.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. E Te Kaiwhakahaere o tēnei Whare, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe me ngā kaiwhakahaere tuarua o tēnei Whare, a Lindsay Tisch, te Hōnore Trevor Mallard me te Hōnore Chester Borrows, ā, me koe tō tātau Kaiwhakahaere Matua, a te Hōnore David Carter. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou kua riro atu i wēnei tūranga ō koutou. E ngā mema huri rauna i tō tātou Whare, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou ahakoa he mema hou, he mema e hoki mai ana. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te tūmanako, ko tō koutou whāinga i roto i tēnei Whare, he hāpai i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki te oranga o ō tātou whānau, hapū, iwi, hapori puta noa i Aotearoa. Tēnā koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. My acknowledgments to you, the Speaker of this House and the Assistant Speakers, Lindsay Tisch, the Hon Trevor Mallard, the Hon Chester Borrows, and, of course, yourself, our principal Speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter. To you who have acquired these position of yours, congratulations. Also to you members throughout our House, whether new or returning, my salutations to you collectively. I greet you in the hope that your aim in this House is to lift up aspects pertaining to the welfare of our families, subtribes, tribes and communities throughout New Zealand. Thank you.]

Mr Assistant Speaker, first let me just congratulate you again on your return to the Assistant Speaker’s position, as well as the Hon Chester Borrows and the Hon Trevor Mallard, as well as the Rt Hon David Carter in the Speaker’s position.

This is not my maiden speech but it is my first speech as the elected member for Te Tai Tokerau. I am extremely honoured at the faith that the people of Te Tai Tokerau have placed in me to work on their behalf. When I became the principal of Kaitāia Intermediate School I said to my chairperson and my board of trustees that they would never have to worry about a personal grievance from me to them because if the day ever came when I was not doing the work, the core business that I was employed to do—that is, raise achievement—then they just needed to tell me and I would resign and allow somebody else to come into the position to do the job that I could not do. My pledge to the people of Te Tai Tokerau here and now is exactly the same. If ever I am not doing the job that I was elected to do—give me a few years, I must admit—talk to my electorate people, who will tell me, and then I will resign. I am not a member of Parliament just to sit here and fill up space; I intend to make a difference for the people in the north.

I campaigned on four priorities: education, the economy of Te Tai Tokerau, to raise outcomes in Te Reo Māori, and also the elimination of sexual and domestic violence throughout New Zealand. I make no apologies for the elimination of sexual and domestic violence from New Zealand being my priority of priorities. When I listened to the Speech from the Throne today, I heard the Governor-General talk about eliminating poverty, reducing health disparity, and improving educational outcomes and housing. I say now that if we can eliminate sexual and domestic violence from New Zealand, we will go a very, very long way to improving outcomes in all of those social areas.

The No. 1 cause of youth suicide is sexual abuse. We do not need to sit here navel gazing and wonder why it is that our youth are killing themselves at an alarming rate. Sexual abuse is the No. 1 cause of youth suicide. The second most prevalent cause is domestic violence. Watching your mother get beaten up a couple of times a week is likely to lead you down that path. Mental health issues are often the result of unresolved sexual violence issues from a person’s past. As I am told by someone from the Mason Clinic, 75 percent of inmates are not the nasty, evil, horrible people that we are led to believe. Most of them have done things that have got them into prison, but those crimes are the manifestation of unresolved issues from sexual violence or domestic violence.

Domestic violence and sexual violence are both major drivers of poverty. We talk about poverty and eliminating poverty and reducing poverty. Domestic violence and sexual violence reduce a survivor’s—in most cases, a woman’s—sense of agency, which is a term used to describe her ability to lift herself above her circumstances. Survivors of sexual and domestic violence have difficulty concentrating at school and learning. They have difficulty getting a decent job. They therefore have difficulty providing financially to their whānau’s situation, so often kids go to school without shoes, without food. I say here and now that if we want to feed our kids, the first thing we should do is love their mothers.

The funding of services to help people who have suffered from sexual and domestic violence is woefully inadequate. This is something that I ask the Government to improve. Two weeks ago I was talking to an agency in Kaitāia that works with the survivors of domestic violence. It said that it is funded to work with 2½ whānau a week—2½ whānau a week is what the agency is funded in its contract to work with. It actually has 52 whānau on its books that it is working with. That is the extent of the issue that we are talking about in terms of sexual violence and domestic violence being rampant throughout all strata of society. We say now that it is not an ethnic issue. It goes across all ethnicities, it goes through all communities and through all socio-economic areas; it is just that wealthy people tend to have lawyers who can hide the problem a lot more.

Between 23,000 and 28,000 young people under the age of 24 in west Auckland, central Auckland, and on the North Shore alone—we are not talking about Te Tai Tokerau, we are not talking about the south of Auckland; we are talking about just those three areas within Auckland—have experienced sexual abuse. I ask how those young people can sit there and learn and concentrate on what the teacher is saying or what their lecturer in university is saying when their heads are filled up with the nonsense that went on and occurred to them, probably the night before, probably in the safety of their home, usually done by somebody they know, they love, and they should be able to trust.

I said in my maiden speech that it is one thing to be born a male; it is another thing to become a man. This is predominantly a male issue—90 percent of offenders are male. Obviously, 10 percent of offenders are female, but we as men need to step up and address this issue. The greatest enabler of sexual violence and domestic violence is silence. An example was last night on Television One news where a political party on election night had a man who is facing charges of the rape of a young girl, standing there at the election night function and mihi-ing.

Just to wind up, I implore the Government to address these issues of sexual and domestic violence so that we have improved outcomes for reducing poverty and improving health, education, and housing. I just would like to finish with this poem. I have been working with a group of women in the Hokianga to address domestic violence. This poem, I believe, sums up the whole situation. I am sorry, I do not know the author, but it starts:

We turn away, and she goes back,

We judge her life, and she goes back,

We deny her rights, and she goes back,

We fail to protect, and she goes back,

We offer scraps from our table, and she goes back,

We doubt her truth, and she goes back,

We look at her and thank God that we are strong,

We stand powerful in the love of a good relationship,

We are blessed because we did it right,

We would not go back.

She goes back to what she knows because she does not know anything else,

She goes back to what is safe because he will hurt them if she leaves,

She goes back to what is home because she worked so hard to make it a home,

She goes back to fix it because she believes she broke it,

She goes back for the kids because children need a father,

She goes back for the dream because she wants to be in love,

She goes back to heal him because she has seen the wounds,

She goes back to hide because he will keep it hidden,

But I wonder what would happen if we did not turn away,

If we did not judge her life,

If we did not deny her rights,

If we did not fail to protect,

If we offered her the best instead of scraps,

If we listened to the truth instead of doubting it, could we make a difference?

Could we make a difference for the wounded children, the broken hearts, and the shattered lives?

Could we make a difference if we did not turn away?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Can I begin my first contribution in this the 51st Parliament by just once more adding my congratulations to the speakers who have gone before me; to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, on your own reappointment, as well as to our presiding officers—obviously to Speaker David Carter, to Deputy Speaker Chester Borrows, and, of course, your new presiding officer colleague, the Hon Trevor Mallard. We welcome the group of you leading us in this Parliament and I have no doubt that you will do that to your usual high professional standard, Mr Assistant Speaker. I look forward to working with you.

Can I also just take a moment to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion we are now debating, Chris Bishop and Barbara Kuriger, who gave us their maiden speeches this afternoon and, I think, set a very high tone and standard for those who will follow. Can I pass my congratulations to all the members of National and all parties who have been elected to this Parliament for the first time. Being sworn in as a member of Parliament for the first time is a tremendous moment. It is a significant accomplishment that most New Zealanders will never get to experience. What the Prime Minister said this afternoon at the function is absolutely right. Getting here, of course, is a tremendous accomplishment but New Zealand will judge you and look to you in terms of what you do in your time here. I know that you will all be dedicated in that mission.

Just by way of introductory comments, I also want to acknowledge the incredible achievement of New Zealand being elected in the first-round ballot to the United Nations Security Council. It is something that we should all be incredibly proud of, because it is the international community recognising and reflecting the very high regard in which this country is held. That is a product of everyone in this House, everyone in New Zealand, and many people who have come before us, and I think it does deserve to be recognised just once more.

For me, it is a great privilege to be back, as it always is. I do not think any member of Parliament ever goes into an election—or should ever go into an election—with an assumption that they will be back. We put ourselves before the voters. We ask them for their support. Actually, it is probably the only time in 3 years that we really get a performance review from our employers. I like to think that I have about 65,000 employers in Selwyn and I am sure each of them has a view. Once every 3 years they get to turn up and express their view on how I have gone in supporting them. I am incredibly grateful to the people of Selwyn for once again being willing to support me to be here as their representative. I will certainly renew my pledge that I made on my first day to work very hard in their interests and in the interests of all New Zealand.

This afternoon, as the leaders kicked off the substantive part of this debate, I could not help but reflect on Annette King, the “Acting Acting Deputy Deputy Leader of Labour”, saying: “Oh, well, this is just our 2002.” Well, there is one significant difference, of course, that I just want to reflect on. National certainly went through a period of rebuilding in 2002, but that was 3 years after we had been removed from office. The next election, 6 years out, we were not only well on the way to coming back in but we ran a very, very close-run thing in the 2005 election. Here we are now, 6 years after Labour was removed from office, and not only are the members still rebuilding but it is getting worse. The dysfunction, the disharmony, the disjointedness, and the disconnection I think are stronger than they have ever been. There is certainly a much longer road ahead than I think they themselves are yet acknowledging.

In the meantime, the National-led Government is very clear that we are here, as the Prime Minister said on election night, to run a Government for all New Zealand. I know that my colleagues both in Cabinet and across our caucus are focused on exactly that: how we can work to improve the lives of all New Zealanders now and into the future. We have a team so ably led by the Prime Minister. We have 59 other members of our caucus who are dedicated to that very thing.

I have to say that when we come back into the House and we take up our new positions, there is always a sense of both regret in terms of what you have not got done and looking forward to getting done what you will get done in your new portfolios. For me, it marks the ends of my time as the Minister for the Environment. I can tell you that I look back on the 3 years that I served as the Minister for the Environment with an immense sense of pride. There are still some jobs unfinished and that is always the case, but I can look back and know that we have done more as a National-led Government to really improve environmental management in this country than I think any other party in this House. There is a lot of rhetoric in that space, but it is the National-led Government that for the first time put in place national standards for freshwater management, that set up and gave effect to the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum, and that had the courage to tackle setting up independent, arms-length environmental reporting after the disgrace of the Labour Government in 2007 simply removing chapters that it did not like. It is National that put in place the exclusive economic zone legislation to protect our oceans and to make sure that drilling permits offshore were not simply the rubber stamp that they had been. This is a Government that has delivered for the environment and I have no doubt whatsoever that under Minister Nick Smith he will not only continue that work but take it even further.

In that vein, one of the challenges, of course, that we still have to complete is our work to reform the Resource Management Act. This is an Act that has been tinkered with almost every 18 months during its 23-year history. It is not working for New Zealanders. Almost every New Zealander you speak to acknowledges that it needs to be fixed. The difference is that the National-led Government has the courage to say that if we want different results from the system, we have to be prepared to look quite differently at how the Act works. We are going to do that. We are not going to continue to see New Zealanders pushed out of the housing market and face higher costs in their food, fewer job opportunities, and worse transport infrastructure outcomes across all of our planning decisions because as a Government we do not have the courage and the drive to stand up and make the reforms that need to be made. I am very much looking forward to supporting my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith in achieving that.

As I say goodbye to the environment portfolio I am delighted to take on the role of the Minister of Justice. I want to reflect and acknowledge the very thoughtful, deeply held, and clearly passionately held comments of the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, who spoke very eloquently about the issues of family violence. I can tell the House that that is an issue that as the Minister of Justice I certainly want to focus on. I am not naive to think that these are easy problems to solve, but I do not think they will best be solved by a very partisan, divided, antagonistic approach within this House. The problems have to be solved through working together. None of us have all the answers, and I certainly want to extend a hand to Mr Davis and his colleagues to work with us on tackling what is an incredibly difficult issue and one of the most important issues, I think, facing us in the justice system today.

I think we can reflect, though, on the justice system and the work that is going on in it again with an incredibly good heart. We have, as you have heard this afternoon, the lowest crime rates in 35 years. We set ourselves a target of having crime reduce by 20 percent from 2011 levels. It is already down 16 percent. We wanted to see violent crime down 20 percent. We are on track. It is already down 11 percent. In terms of youth crime, we set ourselves a target of a 25 percent reduction. We have already surpassed that. We have seen a 30 percent reduction already and the reoffending rate that we want to drop by a quarter has already reduced by 12 percent. So there is lots to be proud of in the work that has happened, but we still do have much more to achieve.

A big part of that, I believe, is continuing to have all-of-Government agencies and those in the NGO sector working consistently across justice. The Ministry of Justice on its own cannot solve the problems, but we can work very closely with our colleagues in social development, in police, in corrections, in education, and in health, because, as we have heard, these issues are not only desperately interwoven in their causes but the effects of them and their ramifications are felt throughout society and throughout generations. They are very difficult challenges, but we are not going to shy away from at least trying to work better on them. We have to do better. We have to make a difference for those New Zealanders who suffer serious sexual and domestic violence. I believe we can do better.

Let me just finish with a word briefly on the communications and broadcasting portfolios. I am so excited to be now in a position where we will be taking ultra-fast broadband out to at least 80 percent of New Zealand. We will be extending the rural broadband programme by another $100 million and providing a $50 million fund to address mobile phone black spot coverage across New Zealand. Connectivity is not the only thing that matters in information and communications technology but without it, nothing else works. It underpins the exciting economic future for New Zealand using the digital economy and digital transformation. We had a poor communications infrastructure in 2008. We are turning that round. New Zealanders are clever, innovative people. They show us that day in and day out. This National-led Government will ensure that we are supporting them every step of the way.

Can I close by once more congratulating all of my colleagues on being back in the 51st Parliament and restating my commitment to work as we can across the House and with all New Zealand for a better New Zealand. Thank you.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I was hoping the Minister Amy Adams would take another 30 seconds. I seek leave for the next member to begin their contribution after the dinner break, which is going to begin in about 30 seconds’ time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I do not know what happened. I was rudely interrupted about 3 years ago, and I come back and there is a little bit of dust on the paper. I look across the other side of the House and the same faces are looking out, 5 years older, but not much has changed.

First and foremost I must congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the first time that you are in the Chair? Congratulations. Wonderful. Well done.

I congratulate all the new members and the returning members. It is great to be sitting beside Carmel Sepuloni and it is fantastic to have Kelvin Davis here as well. We know what it is like. We know what it like to lose—well, not lose your seat, but to miss out in 2011, and then work incredibly hard to get back here. The reason we worked so hard is that we know there is work to be done. We know that the Labour Party is the only party that can drive the sort of change that New Zealand needs.

It is good to be back—there is no doubt about that—and I must admit I am very, very proud to stand here as the elected representative for the wonderful electorate of Napier. My promise to the people of Napier is that I will work incredibly hard to repay the faith of those who voted for me and I will work even harder to earn the respect of those who did not. But if you will just allow me 2 seconds, what I must do is just thank a team that really went hard for 2½ years: Rob Johnson, my campaign manager, Pete Findlay, Sue Simone, Pauline Elliott, Keith, Raewyn, Mike, and many, many others who worked incredibly hard because they believed that change was necessary, and we did it.

I must also thank Paula Bennett as well. You may ask why I would thank Paula Bennett. I will tell you what Paula Bennett did. She came down to Napier and she called the deputy mayor naive, she called her petty, and she called her immature, and I reckon that was worth about 1,000 votes. I remember seeing Mr Tremain and Wayne Walford in the meeting and they heard Paula Bennett call the deputy mayor that. The deputy mayor stood up and said: “I am actually a National voter.” Paula Bennett said: “You’re immature, you’re naive. The people of Napier don’t know what they’re talking about.”—fantastic. We want Paula Bennett back more in the Napier electorate.

As mentioned, we ran a 2½ year campaign, with 125 street-corner meetings, over 10,000 telephone calls, hundreds of doors, and one red fire engine, which was everywhere. But I will tell you what else we did. More important, we came up with a plan for a strategy to win back the provinces. So what I would like to do is put every National Party MP who holds a provincial seat on notice. There are going to be a whole lot of very, very hungry—very hungry—Labour Party candidates, who are going to be running the same sort of campaign that I ran. They are going to be raising the money, they are going to be out there for 2½ years, and they are going to be concentrating on the issues that are important to their electorates and the people who determine elections.

One thing that really, really shone through for me was that at all the street-corner meetings, what the thousands of Napier people I met were really concerned about was the lack of opportunity and the lack of jobs. They wanted to know where the strategy was for the regions. In fact, Lawrence Yule, the Mayor of Hastings, who is also chair of Local Government New Zealand, is actually on record saying that this Government has no plan for the regions. You have left us behind. You cannot have an economy that is based on Auckland house prices and a Christchurch rebuild because that does not take New Zealanders along with it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you know how hard the Labour candidate worked in Whanganui. I expect the deputy mayor, Hamish McDouall, to be in this House in 2017. He is an incredibly good man.

Another thing that this Government did is it stripped away local democracy, and that was an absolute disgrace. It took away the ability for communities to determine their own future when it changed the Local Government Act 2002. I am going to put a member’s bill into the ballot and I challenge any one of those provincial MPs to vote against it if it is drawn out. They know that, in fact, if amalgamation proposals were put to their regions, then their constituents would want a say in the future of their local communities. So we need to take that back. We need to take it back—of that there is no doubt.

But the most important thing we need to do is we need to change the nature of this economy. We need to move away from a commodity economy, where all we do is send products offshore without a cent of value being added. Let me give you just one example, and that is the forestry industry. Last year there were 28 million tonnes of logs harvested, and 16 million tonnes of those logs were sent offshore, without 1 cent of value being added. Of those, 70 percent went to China. That is an absolute disgrace—not 1 cent of value being added. In fact, I will tell you what has happened in the local industry—

David Bennett: Outrageous!

STUART NASH: If that member spoke to his sister, he would know what is going on in the regions. Over 40 sawmills have closed—40 sawmills have closed. Over 4,000 men and women have lost their jobs in the regions because that Government has no strategy. In fact, this is an industry that is worth $5 billion, and the New Zealand Forest Owners Association actually came out and said in the media about a week ago: “What is wrong with the Government? It has no strategy for the forest industry.” It said how disappointed it was that this industry has the third-largest export earnings and the Government did not even give it to a Minister inside Cabinet. It gave it to a Minister who does not know even how to spell “strategy” let alone how to write one. That is how the Government is treating the regions. That is how the Government is treating good, hard-working Kiwis in the provinces, when all they want to do is work hard, go back to their families, and live a life.

The Prime Minister said that crime had fallen. In Hawke’s Bay, crime has risen. In the provinces it is a different story from the speech the Prime Minister gave. The provinces are being hollowed out. There are jobs going. People are leaving. This is not a rock star economy. Real change needs to happen, and this Government is not doing it.

There are massive issues. More voters are becoming disillusioned with the whole parliamentary system and they are not voting. Twenty percent of Kiwis could not even be bothered voting this time because they did not see a future and they did not feel engaged.

The other thing I would like to make a comment on is that Amy Adams stood up and made all these random statements about the Labour Party. I will tell you what I see in our caucus. I see a whole lot of really good MPs, who are now very, very hungry and who want to go out there and win. I see opportunities. I see one new guy here, Peeni Henare, who is going to make a real difference. We now hold six of the seven Māori seats and, I tell you what, in 3 years’ time these guys are going to be sitting on that side of the House because we have the caucus that is going to make a difference. We have the caucus that is going to go out there and create a real mood for change. Do you know what we are going to do? We are going to go out there and we are going to engage with the people of New Zealand like we know how to and like that Government has forgotten how to do—like that Government has forgotten how to do.

I see only opportunities—I really do. I see only opportunities in the Labour caucus at the moment. I see a lazy, arrogant Government on that side. You know exactly what I am talking about, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are from a provincial electorate. The people of Whanganui are really worried about the opportunities for their children.

Well, Labour has solutions. Labour will have the policies and Labour will create that mood for change where in 3 years’ time they will determine who and how our Government will drive the future of this country. There will be a vision for this country—

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s right—when you’re leader.

STUART NASH: —and I know that we are going to get out there and we are going show Kiwis that we have the policies to take us there. We have the people to lead New Zealand.

I tell you what, the future is not fracking—the future is not fracking. Imagine an industry that destroys the global competitive advantage that New Zealand has, the clean, green image that we have. The irony we have is that the Minister of Tourism is the Prime Minister, and his new Minister is the “Minister of Fracking”. I would love to see some of the arguments that are going to go on in the Prime Minister’s office when Minister Simon Bridges comes along and says: “Fracking is the way forward.” It is not—it is not. It is not the way forward.

The Government says this in Hawke’s Bay: “Fracking oil, and gas is the future.” Well, that is a future that I can tell you the vast majority of Kiwis are going to reject. Like Icarus, who flew too close to the sun, I suspect Mr Bridges is in for a big fall.

But I must say that it is good to be back. I cannot wait to get my teeth stuck into it, and I cannot wait to really get working hard and show the people of New Zealand that Labour is back, Stuart Nash is back, Carmel Sepuloni is back, Kelvin Davis is back, and we are here to take it to the National Government and present an alternative vision. Thank you very much.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating you on your elevation to the deputy speakership. You have been a great member of our caucus over many years, a good mate, and we know that you will preside over this House with fairness and applying your intricate knowledge of Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders.

I also want to congratulate all the new members. There are plenty of them here behind me, on the National side of the House tonight. You guys are in for a rewarding and interesting career. It is great to come in while the National Party is in Government because we have set out a very detailed and ambitious programme for New Zealand over the last 6 years, and there is plenty to build on. But I want to congratulate the new members from all parties. This is a great place to come and exercise your skills, but also, of course, to represent your electorates and the people of New Zealand.

It was interesting to listen to that speech by Napier retread Mr Nash. I do want to congratulate him on winning his seat, but if that is what we are in for over the next 3 years, it is going to be a very long 3 years. There was nothing in that speech that was any different from what we heard on the campaign trail from David Cunliffe. Of course, we all know what happened there. Mr Nash threatened us a bit. He said that there will be a vision. He said that stuff is coming, but he was very short on the detail. It was very threatening, of course, to anyone holding a seat in the regions. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are absolutely terrified by what you have just heard from Mr Nash. But we know the reality is that we have just had an election, the result was decisive, and the people of New Zealand have spoken.

When looking across to the other side of the House today, I just could not help but think that that is an Opposition that is really going through the five stages of loss and grief. I think we have seen that quite decisively over the past few weeks. The first stage happened on election night, and that was denial and isolation. You saw a Labour leader up there giving a speech that would make you think they had actually won the election. Of course, the isolation bit—well, we know what happened next. Then the anger followed—the angry recriminations. By Monday morning the Labour Party was telling us that the guy they had been backing for the past year as the putative, likely Prime Minister of New Zealand was actually no good after all. Someone had got something wrong. The guy they were trying to sell to the electorate on Friday, 19 September was the guy who was absolutely useless by Monday, 22 September. The anger had started.

Then you got into the bargaining phase. You got all the horse trading and people saying this candidate and that candidate. At one stage we had more chiefs than people to boss over. You are looking now at a line-up of about four people in that camp, looking for the leadership. So the bargaining has been on. Then I think they have been in the depressive phase. But finally, today, phase five hit. It was acceptance. You saw when they were sitting there how they had just rolled over completely. When the Labour Party members are nodding benignly, agreeing with the Prime Minister, wanting to be really friendly, you know that they know they have completely lost it. It is a long, long road back for Stuart Nash and Co.

It is going to be an interesting 3 years. We took a very detailed programme to the electorate. We have been very clear about our priorities, with balancing the books being No. 1. We are going to be back in surplus this year. Economic growth—Steven Joyce is an excellent Minister for Economic Development. He has led that Business Growth Agenda. There are 350 different initiatives there, which we have been ticking off, one by one. We have got a very good programme ahead. Our economic growth is now the envy of the Western World. Countries around the world are just longing to have the books that New Zealand has. We are in a very, very good position. The people of New Zealand fully understood that, going into the election. Of course, rebuilding Christchurch—Labour was telling us that that was going to be the graveyard for the National Party. Well, we even won the party vote out in Christchurch East. That is how much our party impacted in Christchurch. We decisively won that argument there. It was not on the basis of rhetoric; it was on the basis of solid progress over a long time, in many different areas.

Of course, Better Public Services is the fourth thing we have committed to. We have said: “Look, we are going to set very specific targets in hard-to-achieve areas.” We have got those five areas, those 10 targets. We have said it is not about the money, although more money has gone in under this Government to a whole range of difficult areas; it is actually about how the money is spent. It is about making Government relevant to the people in places like Glenfield, the area I represent within the Northcote electorate, and the people out in the suburbs all around New Zealand. We have made Government relevant to New Zealanders, because, in the end, people vote on the basis of how their family is doing. Is there enough money in the pocket at the end of the week to do something a bit extra? Does the local area feel safe? Can you get the kids to the accident and emergency department at the hospital when they need something there? Are they happy with the local school? Those are the sorts of things we have focused on, the things that really count for New Zealanders.

I can tell you that my electorate of Northcote is always a place that is a barometer for how the Government is doing. That was once a seat that Labour held. It had been a seat that moved back and forward over the years. It is an excellent seat, and it is where I live. I can tell you that it is now a seat where we hold both a party record and electorate majority. It has a bigger margin than any other party has ever held in that electorate. I want to thank the voters of Northcote for the faith they have shown in me, but, more specifically, the faith they have shown in the National Party. That seat reflects what has changed over time in Auckland and in New Zealand. Seats where once the Labour Party had a change, they have not got a hope in the proverbial now—absolutely no hope at all. So you can see that there has been a fundamental recalibration in the political climate. We have moved into the centre, to where people’s concerns are being addressed, and it is those basics such as education, health, law and order, and the economy.

I feel very honoured now to hold the health portfolio in this Government. It is a huge portfolio. There are many challenges ahead. But we have got a solid 6-year record, which we are going to build on over the next 3 years. My predecessor did an excellent job in that role. He has been the most successful Minister of Health in the history of New Zealand. He pulled off some stunning successes, when you look at what he inherited—a health system in disarray. What he did there was he focused very specifically on the things that matter to New Zealand. Look at the progress there—an extra 40,000 elective procedures over the last 6 years, and hundreds and hundreds more doctors and nurses in our district health boards. He focused very specifically on a set of six health targets, and he said to the district health boards: “These are the expectations. This is what I expect you to achieve.”, and he did that. There is more elective surgery, more cancer care for sufferers of one of the biggest diseases in New Zealand, a more effective cardiovascular disease and diabetes screening service, and he has done great work on preventative medicine.

But now with this new set of manifesto promises we have, we are going to take it even further. We are rolling out free GP visits for under-13s. That is going to have a massive effect on the health of young New Zealanders. It is very widely accepted as a great idea. We have got a new cancer care target. Every New Zealander who goes to their general practitioner and is thought to have a serious diagnosis needing investigation will start their first treatment within 62 days. That is the international gold standard, which is that 90 percent of Kiwis will be getting that level of care by June 2017. So that is going to be fantastic.

An extra $50 million is going into bone and joint pain, so we are actually looking at more elective surgery. We are looking at multidisciplinary pain teams to address that specific issue, and that is going to make a big difference. We are also putting an extra $20 million into hospice, so we are going to be funding multidisciplinary teams. There will be 60 new nurse educators across the system to actually help patients, their families, and those providing care out in the public system and the community.

My first task has been to get around the 20 district health boards, and we will have done that by Christmas. I can tell you that this is fundamentally a different health system than the one we inherited 6 years ago. We have got an enthused workforce. There are challenges, but we have got people who realise that despite the fact that we have got a record amount of money going into health, we have got to continue to rejig the system, to reconfigure the services, and to deliver the services that New Zealanders need.

So I have got to tell you that it is great to be back in Parliament. We have set a great pace during the election and over the last 6 years. New Zealanders have shown fantastic faith in, frankly, the best Prime Minister I think this country has ever seen. There is a great path ahead, but it is all bad for Labour. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this Parliament and speak in one of your first turns in your role as Deputy Speaker. May I say that you look so comfortable in that Chair. I also want to offer my congratulations to the Rt Hon David Carter on his reappointment as Speaker and to Lindsay Tisch as Assistant Speaker, and I welcome and look forward to my time in the House while the Hon Trevor Mallard occupies the Chair as well.

In the Speech from the Throne this morning there was a lot of pomp and ceremony that, quite rightly, goes with the House of Representatives, but the Rt Hon John Key had an important message. It was that this National-led Government will work in the interests of every New Zealander. It really is both a privilege and an honour to be in a Government that New Zealanders have so decisively given support to. Sixty National MPs. It was 61 for a couple of weeks, but we now have 60 National MPs. That is a resounding vote of support for the policies that we took into the election in 2014.

One of the things that is just so fantastic is that I am just thrilled at the 14 new MPs our caucus has brought in. You will see that I am surrounded by several of them this evening, and this afternoon we heard in the Address in Reply debate the mover and seconder, two incredibly impressive speakers who are new members of Parliament in this House. You will know that one of my roles as a former chief whip was to help get new members settled into this place, but I can tell by the calibre, the depth, and the breadth of our MPs that it will take no time at all.

I do also want to say that I have handed over the reins—or, should I say, the whip—to Tim Macindoe. I know he will do a wonderful job as the senior Government whip, ably supported by Jami-Lee Ross as the junior whip and Joanne Hayes as the third whip. I want to just echo the comment that the Hon Chris Tremain made about the whip’s role. It is a cross between being a sergeant major and a parish priest, and those in this Chamber who have been a whip will understand that role only too well.

I do also want to welcome new MPs—and returning MPs, for that matter—from across Parliament. I only wish that on days like today more people actually watched this House in action, because this is probably the day of the year when there is more generosity, more friendliness, and more cooperation. You know, actually, for new MPs, there would be one thing I would say: your reputation is in your hands, and your reputation as a member of Parliament is not just with your own caucus colleagues. It is with parliamentary colleagues across the Chamber, it is with the many hundreds of staff in the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service who support us in our role as parliamentarians, and it is with those who work incredibly hard in your electorate offices, who become the face of you in your electorate while you are here representing your constituents in Parliament. So I encourage you to think about the opportunity for you to form your reputation here.

It is also an honour to have been named as the Minister for Women and the Minister for Land Information, and to be given associate responsibilities in both tertiary education and local government. I did just want to touch briefly on those four areas. Firstly, in the portfolio of women, I am incredibly excited about working with a very able, dedicated, and committed team of professionals in the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I am a real firm believer that women should have every opportunity made available to them to realise their potential, and I am thrilled to work alongside some incredibly able and competent women in our caucus.

It is actually the responsibility of all of us—men and women—to support women to do better, and to encourage, to inspire, and to support women to take the next step forward. I, for one, am really incredibly committed to making sure that we have more women in leadership roles and on our boards, so part of that means actually getting them into the funnel early on. There are some women out there who do not see that there are opportunities, so as the Minister for Women I see that it will be my responsibility to make sure that we provide those opportunities and encourage more women to step into those opportunities and to realise their potential.

Sue Moroney: You could start with Parliament—the number of women you have in your caucus.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our economy is growing, our economy is thriving, and women have a critical role to play in that. You know, I was not going to go there, but I will. One of the Opposition members is piping up and chipping away to say that women in Parliament are not well represented. Well, I suggest you look at your own constitution. I understand that you are now in breach of your own constitution, so sort out your own side before criticising this side.

In the spirit of cooperation, I do want to acknowledge the comments that Kelvin Davis made in his speech earlier today and talk about his commitment as a local MP and his stand on reducing sexual and domestic violence. He is a great example of an MP who can stand up and say that no matter which political party he is part of, he can constructively and actively make a difference for his community, and I applaud him for that. I echo the comments of Minister Amy Adams, who is the Minister of Justice, and I am looking forward to working with Minister Anne Tolley, the Minister for Social Development, because this is a problem that exists for New Zealand, not just for the Government of the day. I challenge every member in this House to look at what you can do for your community to protect women and children from violence. As the Minister for Women, I promise you that my door will be open to hear your practical solutions on how we as a Parliament can serve our country by protecting women and children in their own homes.

Land information was a portfolio that was an interesting surprise, and it has been really interesting to get a better understanding of just how valuable our property information is. I think that what Land Information New Zealand has is an absolutely incredible piece of potential. If we can use its data and its information—it is location-based—in greater ways, then it will have a significant impact on the sorts of decisions that we make in central government, in local government, in businesses, and in all sorts of areas, whether it is emergency response, whether it is national defence, or whether it is businesses making decisions about where they go next, how they grow, and how they develop. So it is really exciting to see Land Information and how we can unlock the potential of the information it holds. And it is great to see the important work it is doing in the Canterbury recovery. I am looking forward to working with the Hon Paula Bennett in local government and the Minster for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, the Hon Steven Joyce.

Before I finish I want to come back to the comments that Stuart Nash made about National forgetting rural or provincial New Zealand. Mr Nash, I suggest you look at the electorate results up and down New Zealand and look at rural and provincial New Zealand election data, which will prove to you that in 99.9 percent of cases—yours being the 0.1 percent—rural and provincial New Zealand supports National. I want to take a moment to thank those of the Taupō electorate who supported me in this recent election, because MPs who are returning to this place know that every 3 years you have a performance review and your community decides how you are doing at your job of representing them in Parliament. I am clear that that is my priority first and foremost—to represent the constituents in Taupō.

I want to thank two of my team who have worked incredibly hard for me in my electorate office: Lisa Mackinnon and Vivian Rikona, who are finishing up with me in this term. I really acknowledge the incredible work they do serving constituents in need. It is an exciting time to be a New Zealander and I am incredibly proud to be a part of the John Key - National-led Government, because we are delivering results for New Zealanders and each and every day over the next 3 years we will continue to show New Zealanders how hard we are working for them.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I start by congratulating you on your new position. Having worked with you on the Justice and Electoral Committee, I know that you will be fair. I also congratulate the Rt Hon David Carter on his appointment, and Lindsay Tisch and Trevor Mallard on their appointments to the position of Assistant Speaker.

I, like Stuart Nash, have got some dust to blow off these papers, having taken a 3-year sabbatical, but on reflection, actually, some of the best MPs that we have have had a 3-year sabbatical, so I hope that I, Stuart Nash, and Kelvin Davis will go on to have as efficient and effective and productive careers as people like Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff, and Annette King. We are back. We have all been productive over the last 3 years—so productive, actually, that I went on to have a baby while I was gone, and Stuart was even more productive because he had two while he was away.

I listened closely this morning to the Speech from the Throne and the speech ticked all the boxes and told us many of the things New Zealand wanted to hear. But the reality is that the rhetoric does not match the reality. I was fortunate at this election to be elected by the people of Kelston—the new electorate of Kelston—as their MP. Over the past 3 years I have spent much time trying to be involved in the local community, to find out what is going on, to get involved at every level—as a representative on the board of trustees for my son’s high school and a member of the Thrive Teen Parent Support Trust board of trustees. I have seen firsthand that, actually, despite what the National Government says, a lot of people are actually struggling out there. I am speaking here tonight on behalf of the 25 percent who did vote for us, the 25 percent who do know that this National Government has not served the majority of New Zealand well.

The contradictions that we saw throughout the speech that was provided this morning were many, and I want to talk about some of those contradictions. The first contradiction I want to point out is the contradiction around one of the points that was raised by the Prime Minister. We heard: “in response to the Government delivering high-quality public services focused on getting results.” So the Government was saying that it wants to focus on getting results, seek new and better ways to deliver public services, and contain and reduce costs. It talked about continuing to deliver high-quality public services but, actually, over the last 3 years—in fact, over the last 6 years—we have seen anything but high-quality public services.

Let me just point out Novopay, which I know my colleague Chris Hipkins has done a lot of work on. I think that would be considered anything but a high-quality public service. We have seen ACC and the many instances of it leaking its own documents under Minister Judith Collins’ watch—e.g. in 2012 involving Bronwyn Pullar, who was sent nearly 7,000 files. That does not sound to me like a high-quality public service. We have seen privacy breaches at the Inland Revenue Department. In 2012 there were 32 separate privacy breaches at the Inland Revenue Department. That shot up to 151 incidences in 2013—again, anything but high-quality public service from this National Government. In 2012 blogger Keith Ng walked up to a kiosk in a Work and Income site and was able to access thousands of confidential files. So if John Key when talking about continuing to deliver high-quality public services is talking about examples like that, then I think as a country we should be very concerned.

We heard the Government talking about its commitment to tertiary education. We heard the Government saying that it wants to continue providing high-quality tertiary education, but when we think about the tertiary education system that we have at the moment, then again we have to be concerned. Just recently we heard Sharn Riggs on behalf of the Tertiary Education Union talking about the job cuts at the Manukau Institute of Technology, one of our polytechnics. So at a time when people are being pushed off benefits—pushed off benefits—into work and study and at a time when people need to upskill to get good paying jobs in the workforce, we see proposed redundancies at the place that they can go to do that, their local polytech, because those polytechnics are under the crunch by that National Government.

What we saw today, or I think it was in a media release that came out today, was that Manukau Institute of Technology staff in the faculties of engineering and trades—engineering, the very area that that Government said it would be investing in—and of education and social sciences found out this week that that they face a massive restructuring. The Manukau Institute of Technology has proposed 64 full-time equivalent job losses in two faculties. The polytechnic is also proposing 18 new positions, and union organisers are working to ensure existing staff can redeploy into those new positions. The impact on staff and students will still be devastating.

The Tertiary Education Union National Secretary, Sharn Riggs, says those impacts include halving the staff in early childhood education, English, and foundation studies as well as losses in sport, social services, manufacturing, automotive construction, engineering, and administrative positions across both faculties. So early childhood education, another area that that Government purports to be investing in, is going to see cuts. Engineering, an area that that Government purports to be investing in, is going to be cut. In a number of other areas that we would deem important moving forward as a country, we are seeing cuts at one of our major polytechnics in this country.

We heard today that the Government is committed to ensuring that we have quality housing in this country. We heard today that this Government is committed to ensuring that everyone has access to quality housing in this country. And yet I think all of us as members of Parliament have recently been contacted by our local Work and Income offices to let us know that there are some major changes coming up with regard to social housing. I got a phone call from Work and Income New Zealand telling me that it would brief me during that phone conversation. I said: “Actually, this is not the time to do it.” I said that I want to meet face to face, I want to meet with our social services, and I want to know what real impact this is going to have on our community.

When the Government says it will be investing in quality housing and making sure that everyone has access to it, we find it a little bit difficult to believe when we see then that it is planning on selling off a significant chunk of New Zealand State housing. This is something that I do not recall National actually campaigning on. Even now, having been elected only 3 or 4 weeks ago, whatever it was, the No. 1 thing we are already getting phone calls about in the Kelston electorate is housing, and I do not think that is too dissimilar to the rest of the country. Already we have people ringing us distraught because they do not know where they will be living. The other day I had someone—this is a good example—ringing me to say they are living with their mother-in-law in a State house. It has only two bedrooms. They are a couple with two children and they were given 2 weeks to go and find another place. He is on ACC. She is working part time. How on earth could they get a bond together and find a place in 2 weeks?

But, actually, those Government departments are only reflecting the lack of social conscience that this Government has. They are only following the direction that this Government has set. This Government, from the time that it was elected in 2008, always had every intention of privatising our State housing. That is exactly where we are heading now. It is not about devolving social housing to our community; it is about devolving responsibility. That Government does not want to be responsible for all the poor and vulnerable people who actually do need support from the State. The National Government members can tell us as many times as they want that individuals can make better choices for themselves. They can tell us as many times as they want that it is up to the community to decide how they are housed or where they are housed, but at the end of the day, what we know is that that Government does not want to take responsibility for looking after some of our most vulnerable people.

The rhetoric in the Speech from the Throne this morning was impressive. But as I said at the beginning of this speech, what we know as MPs on the ground—and I know that many of the people sitting across the House who are electorate MPs in particular know that this is the reality as well—is that that rhetoric does not match the reality. It does not match the reality of many New Zealanders. It does not match the reality of the New Zealanders whom we represent. Over the next 3 years our job here in Opposition will be to hold the Government to account, to ensure that more than 25 percent of New Zealanders know at the 2017 election that this Government is not there serving their best interests. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it is a great privilege to congratulate you as a fellow member of the class of 2005 on your recent election to that very valuable position of Deputy Speaker. We congratulate you on behalf of the class of 2005, and I am sure that the support that you will get around all the parties in this House is really a testament to the way that you are held in high regard by all the members of this Parliament. So a big congratulations to you, and you can be very proud of what you have achieved. David Carter, Lindsay Tisch, and Trevor Mallard, the other successful Speakers who have been elected for our Parliament, will in turn also have a very important job in conducting the affairs of this House in a manner that enables good debate and discussion of ideas.

I just want to take this opportunity, as it is the first debate since the election, to thank the voters of Hamilton East. Hamilton East is a very diverse electorate. The electors are smart people who work hard. They know when they are on to a good thing, and they know that the National Government is good for them and delivers for them. I just want to congratulate and thank them for making a good choice of me and Tim Macindoe as the two MPs for Hamilton. We are keeping Hamilton blue, when these seats had been fought over in the past. It is really, I think, a reflection—

Hon Steven Joyce: Thank Sue.

DAVID BENNETT: Oh, yes, and we thank Sue Moroney as well, as that was a big part of getting those majorities. The thing is that in the end the public of Hamilton saw the plan that the National Government had delivered for our city. They saw that it was working, they saw that they wanted to have more of it, and they voted for it, and that is the simple fact of the matter. The New Zealand public did the same. They saw that the plan that the National Government had put in place was a good plan. They saw that the National Government was extremely well led by the Prime Minister and our Cabinet and our members of Parliament. They wanted more of that, and they voted for it.

It was a huge election. It was one of the elections that I think was pivotal in New Zealand’s history going forward, because there was a clear choice. There was a choice between having a free and open country, where everybody can take advantage of the opportunities there are in this country, and having a limiting, dependent island at the bottom of the South Pacific that thinks it is some kind of utopia and does not need to compete in the world. The public understand the difference. They are smarter than the people in this room. They understand what actually works, and they voted for that because they know that what National offers is what this country needs going forward. To close our country, to isolate ourselves, and to think that we are an island State that does not need to be part of the world is something that will never succeed, and it is not the way of the future for New Zealand.

That is what Hamilton stands for. We stand as a city of the future, of course, but we also understand that there is that bright, bold new world out there, and we want to be part of that. We want Auckland and Hamilton and Tauranga—and the Coromandel, of course—to be part of that golden triangle that will take its place alongside Sydney, San Francisco, Santiago, and Shanghai as the cities of the future. We see that as the new world order. That is what we are getting and that is good.

Chris Hipkins: A new world order—a new world order? Oh, my goodness!

DAVID BENNETT: It is. Oh, the Labour members over there. Well, Stuart Nash is back. That tells you everything about the Labour Party. “Stuart Nash is back.”—he said it. Those were his very own words half an hour ago. It does not matter about what this country needs; it does not matter about what the people of Napier need. It is: “Stuart Nash is back.” Well, Labour has got four other people who are back and they are fighting over their leadership, so it will be interesting to see who wins that.

I just want to welcome the new members from all sides of this House who are here today. You will enjoy this place, and make sure you do. It is a great honour to be an MP, but Parliament is like the sea. You can never quite judge it, and it can be very unmerciful to you at some stages, but at the same time it can be quite calm and soothing and an important part of your life. So make sure that you become part of this institution, and it is good to see so many here tonight to take part in this first debate.

I just want to welcome especially those of our team who have made maiden speeches today. I think that Chris Bishop’s speech will go down as one of the best maiden speeches in this Parliament and that many people will be looking at it and reflecting on it. I think that Barbara Kuriger had her style as well, which showed the dimensions of the National Party. It is a party that is balanced, a party that is rural and urban, and a party that represents the new liberal and conservative way going forward. I think that is something that many new members would want to take note of and look at.

Tracey Martin: But her speech was really good. It’s memorable.

DAVID BENNETT: It is—it was a very good speech. It is interesting to see that we have in New Zealand First two members who will be contending for the party leadership over the next 3 years. So for all those new MPs, look at those two members. They will be fighting amongst themselves over the next 3 years—

Scott Simpson: Denis and Ron.

DAVID BENNETT: I do not know—do you reckon it will be Denis? No, I do not think so. This is the leadership battle you will see. While Winston is away, the cats will play, and that is what you have got in here tonight—the start of that leadership bid by those two individuals, Ron Mark and Tracey Martin, to take over the reins of New Zealand First. The problem is—and this is the thing they do not understand—that they actually think that they themselves are bigger than New Zealand First, and that is not the case. That party relies on one person and one person alone. So that is something that they will see.

I just want to say that the residents of Hamilton made a good choice. We had a choice in Hamilton at this election. National offered to build the Waikato Expressway, the road of national significance that will link us with Auckland and that will give us that connection with Tauranga, and there is $1.1 billion of that road that is contracted out in 2015. The Hamilton and Waikato voters had the most to lose from a change of Government. That road would not have happened under the parties now in Opposition.

Sue Moroney: Oh, yes, it would have.

DAVID BENNETT: It would not have. Sue Moroney was challenged many times to promise that. In the end we got this false, hollow promise from the Labour Party, we got the New Zealand First Party saying: “No, we’re not doing it. We’re not going to spend that money.”, and Julie Anne Genter, the leader of the Opposition’s transport policy, said no—no to the people of the Waikato. It was the one thing those parties could have done for our people to give them the economic vitality that they want going forward, and they could not even promise it. They could not even promise it to win an election. That is how much they care about the people of the Waikato and Hamilton, and the people there knew that. They knew that they wanted that road.

It is also a great day for New Zealand, because there is another thing that came out today. I have talked about having a free and open New Zealand. Today is a good day because today we had record immigration numbers. Today we know that over 100,000 people have made New Zealand their home in the last year. They have chosen to come to New Zealand. We want a free and open and diverse country. We welcome people from overseas who make New Zealand their home.

A net increase of 45,000 people in the last year is good for New Zealand. It is what we want to see as we become part of that new world order. It means we have the population in the north of the North Island and through the rest of the country that can take advantage of those opportunities. These are young, smart people who want New Zealand to be their home. They are the people who will build our country going forward, and their sons and daughters will be the duxes of our schools going forward. They are the people who will be in this House of Parliament in 20 years’ time. They are the people who represent the future of this country, and we welcome every one of them, unlike the Opposition. The Opposition parties do not welcome new migrants to New Zealand and that was very clear during the election campaign.

Just before I finish, I want to thank one person from the Opposition, and that is Kelvin Davis, because Kelvin Davis won his seat and knocked out Dotcom. I tell you that the public of New Zealand did not want to see that man in this Parliament. They did not want to see what he stood for—a country that was not open, that was not inclusive, and that was not free. Kelvin Davis did this country a favour by stopping that man from getting any political influence in this place. That means that we can go forward as a country. [Interruption] Do not worry about New Zealand First. Those members can all talk, but do not worry about it. The only reason they get where they get to is that people do not vote for Labour; it is not that they vote for them. So in the end Kelvin did us a favour, and we have that free and open country going forward. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): At the outset can I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your new appointment, and the entire team in the office of Speaker. I think that we will have a very well-run Parliament with the people who have been elected to those positions. So I congratulate each one of you. I also want to congratulate John Key and his National Government on their election as the returning Government. It is a third term.

Hon David Cunliffe: That’s generous.

SUE MORONEY: Yes, well, we are generous on this side of the House because that is a bit what we are like.

Hon David Cunliffe: That’s out of your system.

SUE MORONEY: Yes, I have got that out of my system now. So there we go. I also want to congratulate all new and returning members to this House. It is a great honour to be one of the 121 people who get the opportunity to be in this Chamber and debate all the issues, the very many serious issues, that we have in front of us. Can I also place on record my condolences to the Whitlam family and to the nation of Australia for the loss of Gough Whitlam. He had a pretty good innings. Not only did he make those most remarkable, amazing changes to the society in Australia but he lived to the grand age of 98. On both of those counts, if any of us are lucky to do either of those things I think we would be very pleased with our contribution.

I do want to place on record my concern that we have reduced the proportion of women in our Parliament after the result of the 2014 election. The 51st Parliament has 31 percent women, and that has come down from the height of female representation in our Parliament, the 49th Parliament—not that many parliaments ago—which comprised 34 percent women. The slide going backwards is something that I think should concern every single member. But it should particularly concern the Minister for Women, who was on her feet not that long ago talking about how important it is to have women in leadership positions but not actually wanting to mention what has happened in our very own Parliament. I think it is important, because if we are truly to be a House of Representatives, then it is incumbent on all the parties—all the parties—in this Parliament to take that seriously. I do find it distressing in terms of the incoming Government, the new Government, and the opportunity it had. I thought that National was actually creating for itself an opportunity when it had so many retiring from its caucus. I think that about 10 or 12 people retired from its caucus at the end of the last term. I felt certain that National would use that as an opportunity to bring more women into Parliament. But, sadly, it failed. National now has a lesser proportion of women in its caucus than it had before. Now it has only two women in its top 10 positions. That has gone backwards as well. As I recall, National during the 50th Parliament had three women in its top 10, but now only two. So I think that tells us a bit about where the National Party is heading.

Before the ink was dry on the ballot papers we learnt that the National Party had an agenda and some things to say, straight after the election, that we did not learn before the election—before the ink was dry on the ballot papers. Within the first couple of days of the election being held we learnt that the Prime Minister wants to go to war. He wants to take this country to war. There may be some valid reasons for that, but why was that not debated through the election campaign?

Hon Member: Why didn’t he campaign on it?

SUE MORONEY: Well, that is what I am asking. Why did the Prime Minister not campaign on it? It has come from his own benches. He should have campaigned on it. I know from my time in this House that if you mention that within a day or two of the election there is no way on earth that there were not a lot of official briefings leading up to that. But there was not a lot of preparatory work done, so the advice and the briefings would have taken place, but did the Prime Minister mention it on the election campaign trail? They are shaking their heads because they know that not once did he mention it.

We also learnt within days of the election that the Government has a plan to sell off State houses—another asset sale stripping of this country. Did National members mention that once on the election trail? Well, I certainly never heard it. I think they were at pains to make sure they did not mention it on the election campaign trail. Actually, as I said just before, in order for them to be making those noises now, they would have had to have the preparatory work done by officials months ago. They would have already had that information in front of them. Is that not right, Mr Joyce? He is pretending he is not listening. He is probably reading the papers, which were already in front of them well before Parliament rose for the election, about the sell-off of State houses.

What else have we learnt since the election? Well, we learnt, actually within the next couple of days, that dairy prices were bottoming out. The Fonterra forecast payout, I think, was announced within 2 days of the election. That was very interesting timing. We have learnt that $6 billion will be coming out of our economy as a result of that, and the Government has no plan to address it. I listened very carefully to the Speech from the Throne today. Not once was there an acknowledgment that there is even going to be a problem from the low dairy payout. Not once in that speech was an idea put forward about how that $6 billion hole in our economy is going to be addressed.

One thing that Government members did actually put out a lot of hype about, before the Speech from the Throne, was that they were going to make announcements about addressing child poverty. Again, I listened very carefully to that speech today, and although the words “child poverty” were uttered, there was not one proposal to address child poverty in that speech. So it was all hype. It was all hype and spin. What I want to say to John Key is this: children cannot fill their hungry tummies on your spin. They cannot fill their hungry tummies on your spin. If the Government is going to be serious about addressing child poverty, then I back up the call from Annette King earlier today that it will put targets in place, it will make it one of its public service targets, it will have a plan, and it will have targets and measurements along the way to see how it is doing in addressing child poverty. Today I read the document Our Children, Our Choice: Priorities for Policy. It is from the Child Poverty Action Group. If the Prime Minister had read this before his speech that was going to address child poverty, I am sure he could have come out with some great ideas, because in this document there are several recommendations that ought to be put in place.

I just want to return briefly to the issue about the wholesale sell-off of State housing. We have seen it before. In fact, the first time that I campaigned in an election campaign, back in 1996, I joined people in Waharoa, to form a human ring around State houses in that very, very poor community to stop those houses from being picked up in the middle of the night, shipped up to Auckland, and sold off at a profit by the National Government. We have seen this all before. We have seen the same old thing happening. National is reverting to type. We have seen it before. We have seen the situation where assets like rest homes have been sold to well-meaning organisations like Presbyterian Support and like the Salvation Army only to find that within the matter of a few short years they have been sold on to private corporate interests because those well-meaning organisations have found that they have not got the resources to actually do it properly. I predict that that is exactly what is going to happen with housing as well. If those non-governmental organisations want to be involved in providing social housing, they should be, but they should be adding to the social housing stock, not just simply replacing the Government’s responsibility for it. There are going to be many, many issues on which I look forward to holding that Government to account for the next 3 years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member David Clendon—this will be a split call.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): May I first begin, Mr Deputy Speaker, by saying that you look very at ease in the Chair and we wish you a very long and enjoyable tenure in it. Kia ora.

I was intrigued today, listening to the Speech from the Throne, that there was passing mention of this Government’s promise to focus in the forthcoming Parliament on crime prevention. There was mention of a 35-year low in the crime rate, with violent crime, youth crime, and reoffending rates all declining. There was a reference to a stronger response to preventing family violence, with a focus on gangs and gang lifestyles. These aspirations are all things that nobody could object to or complain about. These are all well-intentioned and positive policy directions. I will take just a moment to acknowledge the former police and corrections Minister Anne Tolley, who, I think, did a good job of effecting some change in the culture and language.

Police and corrections are two very large, complex, multi-faced institutions. There is a great deal of inertia within them. We need to put a great deal more effort and energy into effecting real and positive change in policing in this country and, in particular, within our prison system because we are failing in our prison system in ways that I will reference. The Prevention First strategy the police have been rolling out for a couple of years now is a good strategy. It is an appropriate strategy, but it requires funding and it requires resourcing. It is very intensive on staffing. We require a lot of officers who are well motivated with high morale, and, unfortunately, the police budget over recent years has been flat at a time when costs are expanding. We need to properly resource the strategy if it is to succeed, or otherwise it will not succeed, and that would be very unfortunate.

In terms of reoffending rates, which the Government has taken some credit for, I have seen some interesting alternative interpretations of the raw data, which suggest that perhaps the picture the Government is painting about recidivism, about reoffending rates, may be rather more aspirational than real, shall we say. I do think we need a little bit more honesty and a little bit more transparency in that, because we will not resolve problems if we are in denial or if we are trying to disguise the reality, the depth, and the breadth of those problems.

There is a reference to gangs, and, yes, gangs are a problem in this country. Gangs are a phenomenon not unique to New Zealand, but New Zealand gangs are different from gangs elsewhere. I hope this reference to a focus on gangs and gang lifestyles does not signal a return to the failed approach of being tough on crime, the antagonistic sorts of street battles that, unfortunately, we saw in the 1970s and 80s between police and gangs. The resolution of the gang problem is a very complex, multi-faced issue. It requires a multi-faceted and very sophisticated set of solutions. I am very aware of it, living in Northland. There is a serious gang problem. We desperately want and need to divert our youth away from the gang lifestyles that have been so destructive, but I do hope that we will take an intelligent, well-resourced, and sophisticated approach to dealing with that very complex issue.

We heard today that there is an aspiration also to make every prison a working prison, with every inmate doing 40 hours of rehabilitative, reintegrative activities, be it work, training, or whatever it might be. Again, that is something nobody could object to. That is an excellent project to pursue. We also heard that there would be more aftercare for released or paroled prisoners who have undertaken drug treatment while in prison. Again, there is no argument with any of that.

I do think that these rather hopeful propositions do very little to reference or to acknowledge that we have a very deep-seated problem sitting within our prisons. Our prisons are de facto mental institutions. They are full of people with serious and less serious mental health problems, with forms of disability, both visible and not so visible. We need to acknowledge that something like 7 percent or 8 percent of prison inmates are so damaged and dangerous that they can never be returned to the community but that we can do better with the balance—90-plus percent. We need to resolve the very dysfunctional complaint system within our prison system, which is not working for inmates or for staff or for the communities. We need to open the doors to enable and encourage the NGOs who have real solutions to work more freely in the prisons, to work with inmates to prevent them from going in there, and to deal with their issues at the time when they are released back into the community.

We cannot do any of this cheaply, but the greatest cost is if we continue to do nothing, if we pretend our prison system is working and is performing. We need to address the problem openly, and the Greens are committed to being part of that. Kia ora.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, like others, can I begin my contribution by congratulating you and the others in the Speaker’s team: the Rt Hon David Carter, Lindsay Tisch, and the Hon Trevor Mallard. I also want to congratulate all of the other members in the House, both those who are returning and all of the new members. I hope you will enjoy your time in this House and make the contribution that you came here to make. I look forward, whichever party you are associated with, to working with you to try to achieve good things.

Chris Bishop gave his maiden speech earlier this afternoon. Chris and I are, I think, friends and I appreciated his speech. It was good to hear a speech from a new National member that set out ideas because I look forward to debating ideas against the Government. There was not much in Chris’ speech that I agreed with. I think that the ideas that many of the Government’s policies are based on are the wrong ideas. There is, for example, the failed ideology of trickle-down—that is, by enriching the already wealthy, they will somehow lift all boats, and wealth will trickle down to those in the greatest need. Actually, the reverse has been shown comprehensively to be true.

There is also another idea that I think has characterised the past 6 years of National Governments, and again it appeared pretty prominent in the Speech from the Throne. It is the simple false dichotomy that says that whatever the private sector does is good; whatever the public sector does is bad. We have seen that again and again in different realms of Government action over the past 6 years. There was, for example, the privatisation of energy companies. There was the disastrous foray into charter schools, which National seems intent on pursuing. Within the conservation portfolio, even, we have seen conservation activities relying more and more on contributions from the private sector, despite that being a core function of the State.

In the health sector—an area that I know very well; it is one of my portfolios—in Westport, which is in the West Coast region where I live, there is to be a new hospital. There is to be a new hospital in Westport, but the Government is going to provide absolutely not one dollar for it to be built. There is a new hospital, provided that it is entirely privately funded. So in all of these areas of core Government activity, the Government has, in fact, been withdrawing and shrinking and leaving more and more to the private sector and to the community sector.

One of my new portfolios is housing, and this shrinking of the State is again apparent in housing. National’s strategy appears to be essentially twofold. On the one hand, the Government intends essentially a form of deregulation of the housing market, apparently having learnt nothing at all from leaky buildings and finance company collapses and the debacle of—

Hon David Cunliffe: Victories of the free market.

KEVIN HAGUE: Yes, exactly—the victories of the free market, as David Cunliffe says. The other aspect of the Government’s plan appears to be to actually withdraw from State housing and instead transfer responsibility on to the community sector. That is the very reverse of what needs to occur, but it is typical of the Dickensian thinking that says that the role of the Government is smaller and smaller and smaller, individual citizens are responsible for meeting their own needs, and, if they cannot, then they must rely on charities. It is a return to the 19th century.

What the Green Party stands for instead is a commitment to the ideas that Michael Joseph Savage espoused—that the State is the expression of our collective responsibility to care for each other. Housing, health, education, and conservation—these are core parts of what the New Zealand public seeks and demands from the State, and we will hold the Government to account on those fronts.

TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I please offer my congratulations on your ascension to the seat. I offer my congratulations to the Rt Hon David Carter, to Trevor Mallard, and to the returning Lindsay Tisch. I hope that nobody took it personally when New Zealand First nominated our very able colleague Ron Mark to that office. Those who know Ron and who knew him are thrilled to have him returning with us in this session and will know that he is very capable, should New Zealand First have been allowed to have some participation and discussion around those nominated. And that was the point that New Zealand First was trying to make.

Once again, it is funny coming back here; the more things change—they may be different faces over there—the more things stay the same. Mr Bennett still does not read anything before he speaks about it.

Mike Sabin: Don Clarke’s surname’s still the same.

TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Sabin still continues to shout out, no matter what anybody is saying, because Mr Sabin has one role. Now that Mr Henare has gone, now that Tau has gone, Mr Sabin’s role is to be the shouter. Righty-o. So we will just put that to one side, New Zealand. That is something we know. This is how it works. They must have at least two or three.

So the more things change, the more things stay the same. National, once again, has come into this House and rather than have discussion—let us talk about what the actual definition of the word “consultation” is, shall we? Please, the new National Party backbenchers, just absorb what that word actually means. The Oxford Dictionary says that to consult means “to have discussions with someone, typically before undertaking a course of action.” That is what “consultation” means. We have had Ministers who have not understood that word for the last 3 years. We have had a Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage who has not understood it. We have had a Minister of Education who has not understood it. The word “consultation” does not mean to just put out what we are going to do and then say that because we told you, we consulted. So the more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is a little piece of advice to the backbenchers of the National Party there: if you do not want to be just fodder, every now and then, stand up inside your caucus and challenge it. Every now and then at a select committee hearing, do not just shrug your shoulders and say: “Oh, why not? Because my whips told me to.” Actually challenge it. Think about what it is that you are voting on. Think about what it is and the direction that that piece of legislation you are voting on takes the country. Just once, give it a shot; give it a shot inside of 3 years.

When we had the Speech from the Throne this morning, we, again, had more of the same. What we got were really nice words, a lovely vision painted—almost, what is it, colour by dots or something, or colour by numbers—so that New Zealand would remain calm. That is what National members want you to do, New Zealand. They want you to think that they won the election with a landslide. Now, New Zealand First members are exceptionally pleased with our election result.

Jacqui Dean: No, you—

TRACEY MARTIN: Yes, I am, Ms Dean. In 2008 Ms Dean and her colleagues thought that New Zealand First was dead. They breathed a sigh of relief. They said: “Phew! Thank goodness those people who actually stand up for New Zealanders here are gone—gone.” They had 3 years without us and, boy, did they miss us. Boy, did they miss us. The first thing they said—the ushers and the security people and all the people who work here—when we came back in in 2011 was: “Oh, thank goodness, Winston’s back! It’s been so boring without him. Thank goodness, he’s back.” And look at the team. Look at the team behind me. Look at the team we brought with us. There are 11 of them—11 of them, Ms Dean. And I am sure that Ms Dean and her colleagues breathed a sigh of relief on election night, too, that they did not actually have to deal with New Zealand First after the election, because they know that unlike the puppets they finally signed up over there, it would have been a hard graft. We would have made sure that the voters for New Zealand First would have actually seen major results from our being in a position of responsibility.

We are fine with our result. We have brought with us some strong, strong members of our caucus, like young Darroch Ball. Darroch Ball is from Palmerston North, of Tongan and Kiribati descent. For a person such as myself, sitting in Warkworth with one of the largest Kiribati communities in New Zealand, I am thrilled to have a member of the Kiribati community in our caucus. He is a young man, a solo father, who will go on to the Social Services Committee and bring a perspective that has not, to my knowledge, been there before. I am thrilled that Darroch Ball is here. Mahesh Bindra—a New Zealander of Indian descent who has come through from Mount Roskill to represent his community. He has worked hard for the New Zealand First Party for the last 6 years. I am ecstatic that Mr Bindra is here. We have Clayton Mitchell from Tauranga coming forward with us. Clayton—the Energizer Bunny of New Zealand First. This man is go, go, go, and he will take on whatever project he has and he will push the New Zealand First perspective until there is no further to go.

We have Ron Mark returning—Ron Mark and the experience that he brings. And in the 6 years he has been away from this Parliament, he has gained even more experience around local government, around settlement issues, and around other issues. We are thrilled to have Ron back. Pita Paraone—what Pita Paraone does not know about Māoridom in this country is not worth knowing. So we are thrilled to have Pita with us again. Fletcher Tabuteau is from Rotorua, with his commerce understanding. His background is in commerce and finance and secondary education and tertiary education. We have never seen such a strong caucus since the early days of New Zealand First. Barbara Stewart—one of the rocks of the New Zealand First Party—is back again with the health portfolio, among other issues. I am very, very proud to have Barbara as a member of our team.

I am thrilled to be the spokesperson for education from the cradle to the grave once again. I note that it was mentioned just slightly in the Speech from the Throne. But the Government members do not want you to talk too much about education in New Zealand. They do not want you to realise that when they make comments such as that they are going to reinvest more money in this and put some more money aside for that—they do not want you to take a moment and think: “Hang on a minute—didn’t they make those cuts back in 2009? Wasn’t it the National Government that cut that funding in 2009? Wasn’t it the National Government that shifted all the resource teachers of learning and behaviour out of the schools? Wasn’t it the National Government that stopped the teachers of literacy coming into our schools?”. Why, yes, it was, and now they are going to put that funding back. Now they are going to say “Pat us on the back, New Zealand. Pat us on the back, New Zealand, and stay calm.”, because they do not want you to see the bigger picture, New Zealand.

But I will guarantee you one thing, New Zealand—I will guarantee you one thing. New Zealand First is here in larger numbers than it has been before, since 2008. New Zealand First will be back in 2017 in larger numbers again. The National Party cries out in fear. The National Party cries out in fear because it knows that should New Zealand First be in a position of holding the balance of responsibility in 2017—or, perhaps, even leading the Opposition—then it will get no free ride under New Zealand First. There will be no free ride under this group, under this caucus. This caucus will hold them to account for the next 3 years. Kia ora.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, and can I, like others, extend my congratulations to you on your appointment as Assistant Speaker with your depth and breadth of knowledge that you bring to this House, and, of course, congratulations to the Rt Hon David Carter on returning to his very important role. I want to also just congratulate my electoral neighbour, the Hon Chester Borrows, Deputy Speaker. He used to be known as DS Borrows—detective sergeant—but now he is Deputy Speaker. I think that one has prepared him well for the other as he keeps a firm hand on the misdemeanours of some who are likable rogues in this House. Speaking of one of those, congratulations to Trevor Mallard—poacher turned gamekeeper. I think that is one of the beautiful ironies this House has produced. I think the Hon Trevor Mallard must have been ejected more than any other member in the last Parliament. Our only hope is that his rulings will be at least as entertaining. Of course, we must give him credit for his experience and his knowledge of how this House works. So I think we have an excellent and well-equipped Speakers team.

I want to also congratulate all our new MPs who have been sworn in—in fact, from every party. Parliament is a place where you can make a difference, and certainly in your electorates you can work hard for the people whom you represent. I want to especially congratulate Chris Bishop and Barbara Kuriger, who this afternoon delivered their maiden addresses. It was great to hear of the experience and the depth and the quality that we have in our new National MPs who spoke this afternoon, and, no doubt, as the rest of our team give their maiden addresses, I think New Zealand will be very pleased and proud of the people whom they have elected to this place.

Parliament is a place where people from all ways of life and perspective can come together, and, through debate, we know that the best ideas will win. New Zealand still thinks the National Party has the best ideas on how to lead this country and resoundingly gave its vote of support to this effect on 20 September. We have policies that are not ethereal but apply to everyday life—policies that are pragmatic, that focus on people, that bring the concerns that people have to some solution, and that create aspiration for people who want to build their lives and go somewhere in this fantastic country of New Zealand. What National represents is not just sound, strategic, and safe policies but a team that is singly focused. Our goal is to make New Zealand a better, more successful, and prosperous place. Certainly, we are a progressive party. It is notable that in this Parliament we have two further women who have joined our ranks, and of the three new Ministers, two are women. It is great that we are seeing women take their place through their achievements and not just through allocation.

The Prime Minister continues relentlessly to bring strong leadership that people continue to be willing to follow. We are a caucus that is not fractious but is unified, and that supports, respects, and gets on with each other. I think that that is something New Zealanders have identified with and are pleased to support.

We are a Government with a track record. We have delivered for New Zealanders and we continue to do what we said we would do. We continue to take Kiwis with us in the way in which we lead. I think this is a significant difference. We take people with us. Our steps are not huge, silver-bullet leaps of faith in some ideas like a capital gains tax or a single-purchaser model for wholesale electricity or 100,000 houses that just are not achievable at the price point they claim. We take steps that New Zealanders can follow in. I believe that is the best model for leadership. The best model is someone who can see over the horizon, who sees what is coming and where we need to go, but sticks close enough to the people to carry them with them. John Key continues to offer that type of leadership for New Zealanders. He is a man who not only can walk with leaders of the world but will walk with everyday New Zealanders in our streets, in our workplaces, in our towns, and in our rural areas.

Politics is not just about policy; it is about policies that work, that resonate with people, that people will support, that people will recognise. We are totally focused on keeping people within our focus. We will continue to work for all New Zealanders. I would have to say that this is notable not just by what people may say but also by what is coming out from members on the other side of the House, where people are concerned that those members have not listened to them and that they are disconnected from them. We understand that political success is not, essentially, rocket science; it is listening to people, it is being connected to them, it is finding solutions that will enable their aspirations to be fulfilled. We have kept to some very fundamental core strategies and purposes. Essentially, New Zealanders support that. They see that our policies, the work we have done over the last 6 years, have made a difference in their lives, and they continue to put their trust in us, and well deservedly, I say.

But our intention, of course, is to remain completely focused on the aspirations and the ideals that New Zealanders have. We believe that as a country we have got a significant contribution to make in this world. We have acknowledged that in the fact that we have been voted on to the United Nations Security Council, and it is good to see that other nations of the world hold us in significant respect to be able to achieve that fantastic position. But we must always take these gains with, I think, a circumspect and humble view and attitude. Whatever we achieve, we achieve in partnership with one another and with the communities in which we lead. So we continue to work with our communities to enable them to have the tools necessary for their success. The tremendous gains that we have been making in education—not without opposition, not without people disagreeing—and the results that we are seeing are certainly proving to be recognisable not only here in New Zealand but internationally.

To see our young people coming through the education system with higher levels of attainment has got to be gratifying not only for us as politicians but for every teacher who puts the effort in to change and enable those young people to succeed, and even more so for every parent who has a hope and a dream for their son or daughter to see the sorts of achievements that we are gaining through an education system that has been going through some substantial reform. It is gratifying to see that it is going to have a great result for our young people. We want to have a world in which our young people can engage in successfully. We are not just here competing against ourselves but we are competing against other countries in this global world, and so we need to be fit, we need to be educated, we need to be men, women, families, and young people, young men and women, who are able to compete in the workplace and in the arena of ideas if we are to continue to succeed in this world. We are just a small country a long way away from every market that we seek to sell our goods in, and so we must be better than just about every other nation in the world to be able to achieve and keep that leading edge.

What I have learnt as a local MP is that if you listen to people, and if you hear their heartbeat and their aspirations and you work to fulfil those aspirations, they will support you. I want to just take a little bit of credit away from my opponent, Mr Little, for my win. It is not right or fair that all the credit goes to him. The local National MP has just a little bit to do with his own majority more than doubling and his opponent’s shrinking by over 10 percent. I want to thank the people of New Plymouth and the 21,500 people who supported me, and pledge my continual hard work to better their circumstances and to see our electorate and our region continue to prosper. Thank you.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): First, can I start by congratulating the Speaker on his reappointment and the appointment of the Deputy Speaker, Chester Borrows, and the Assistant Speaker Mr Tisch, whom I look forward to engaging with through the parliamentary term, and also acknowledging Mr Mallard’s appointment as Assistant Speaker. Also, like many have done before me through the course of this debate, I acknowledge those who are new to this House and welcome them here. It was just 3 short years ago that I arrived here myself and I enjoyed the respect that was paid to me and the space that was given to me to find my place here before the real robust debate began. I think that as soon as one steps over the breach and offers firm views, they come back firmly too from the other side, but until that point new members are generally welcomed and given the space to broaden out and make their initial contributions. I look forward to hearing those from new members, engaging in the debate of ideas, representing the constituents I come here to represent, and hearing the views that they represent also for their constituents.

Had I known when I woke up this morning that I would be delivering a speech in the Address in Reply debate today, I might have dressed in something a little bit more appropriate. I am afraid that today I am, like most MPs here, indulging the inner wallflower. It rests within each one of us as MPs—some a little more deeply than others. Yesterday I wore a jacket to the opening formalities that was described by some as lurid and by others as having panache. I took away from that a lesson about fashion: that one person’s smart best-dressed is another person’s disco tomato.

I stood here in this House very proud to wear a garment designed by someone in my own constituency of Dunedin North, a local Dunedin designer Tamsin Cooper. Despite the considerable attention that it drew and the odd tongue-in-cheek request for a magazine subscription, I think that the fact that Dunedin has great designers is widely acknowledged and is a point of admiration across New Zealand. The truth is, though, that Dunedin designers, like many others in our town, are struggling. They are struggling because of the hollowing-out of the middle class in our country. They are doing OK, but they are doing OK—where they are doing OK—against the odds. It is not the great prosperous industry that many might think goes with the glamour of the fashion brand.

When I arrived here 3 years ago I was concerned about this growing inequality—the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us. It featured strongly in my maiden speech. I discussed the reason that inequalities are both socially bad from a social justice perspective when we consider the need for every human being to have what they need to survive, to live with dignity, and to make their best contribution to society, and also economically bad—the way in which we know that in less equal countries there are gaps where people could make opportunities but are not able to. We know that children who go to school hungry do not learn as well as they might otherwise, that kids who grow up in poverty are more likely to end up in the justice system, and that kids who grow up in poverty are more likely to end up focusing on earning big bikkies being hedge-fund managers rather than making a wider contribution through being neurosurgeons or philosophers.

We know too that investment in infrastructure is lacking in societies that grow big gaps between rich and poor because the wealthy come to own the political system and thereby dictate where money gets spent, and it tends not to get spent for the greater good in the way that it does in more equal societies. Finally, we also know that in less equal societies, people are less inclined to put their shoulder to the wheel because they have a sense that a special interest group, be it a corporate sector or another group of society, is getting a deal that they are not and everyone starts to get out for themselves.

Sadly, in the short time I have been in Parliament I have watched those inequalities grow. I think that inequalities, no matter how much you debate how fast they are growing, have been too high for too long. We see housing affordability running away. In the first 6 months of loan-to-value ratios being introduced we saw homeownership drop by 3 percent in my home town of Dunedin. Now we see a housing sell-off from this Government that will see people in need unable to get into safe and secure State housing. I raised the issue of a State housing sell-off in Dunedin in May of this year. The Minister of Housing Dr Smith described my description of the proposal to sell off one-third of the State housing in Dunedin as deliberate scaremongering by the Labour Party on the basis of outdated figures. Now we learn there is a plan to sell them all off, not just one-third. Then Dr Smith said there is a huge difference between a projection and a plan. Well, there clearly was a plan; it just was not one that was being spoken about before the election.

This Government will be held to account on these decisions it is making now. It is beyond the point where it can say that it is the fault of a previous Government for anything that is going on. This Government will now be held to account and it will wear the decisions that it is now making in the next election.

I also wanted to branch out and talk a little, in the realm of inequalities, about a YouTube video that I have seen recently that is by a fellow called CGP Grey. I would encourage those watching on television at home or listening on the wireless to get on the YouTube channel by CGP Grey and have a look for a video called “Humans Need Not Apply”. It has had nearly 3 million views in the 2 months that it has been online. This video makes the point that work as we know it today will not be around forever. This is not a new thesis, but the video itself makes a very compelling case in 15 short minutes for rapid change in the future of work in the Western World and, in fact, for 45 percent of the jobs in America being on the way out in the current period—that the technologies exist to replace the human workforce by up to 45 percent in the near future.

This dystopian view creates a very unsettling prospect for policy makers and politicians in the years ahead. We in this House have a responsibility to address these social changes and look to create the kind of society that is fair for everybody and that provides everybody with the opportunity to make a contribution. I do not believe that we are discussing in this House yet in the depth and detail that we ought to be how we are going to handle these changes that are not too far ahead. This short YouTube clip makes the point that horses not so long ago did a huge amount of manual labour for us human beings and that when the automobile came along, they were swiftly replaced. Peak horse was early in the 20th century and it has been downhill for them since then.

The changes in technology that are occurring are changes in intellectual muscle. The human brain has long thought that it could create new jobs for itself to do that would occupy a new and emerging workforce, but this video presents a dystopia where that is no longer the case to the same extent. Indeed, in a very short space of time we can expect many, many jobs to go by the by. How, then, do we share the fruits of a productive society—a more efficient society, no doubt—fairly to create the kind of society we would all wish to live in? I want to suggest that we in this House have a responsibility to tackle these problems. We do need to be thinking about redistribution. We need to be thinking about ideas like a basic income. We need to be considering changes in our tax system. We need to consider how it is that we can make sure that people can be rewarded for the types of labours that they might want to contribute so that we are encouraging everybody to make a contribution, not letting people lose hope as they see the kinds of jobs that they have trained for disappearing rapidly from the workforce.

Finally, I would like to just say a word about the local election result in my part of town. It was no doubt a very disappointing result across the country. In Dunedin North I want to thank the supporters who helped with my campaign and also those people who voted Labour. Dunedin North was National’s fifth-worst result. I can only think that that is thanks to the intelligence and insight of the voters of Dunedin North, and I look forward to seeing a brighter result overall for the Labour Party in the next election.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is such a privilege and an honour to stand in the House today as a member of this John Key - led Government. I would like to begin my contribution tonight by joining the many speakers before me by congratulating you, Mr Assistant Speaker. May you be blessed with the wisdom and patience to watch over the proceedings in this House and this Chamber, which at times can be very challenging. Over the last term of Parliament when I have been sitting here when you have been presiding over the House, you have been nothing but fair. So, congratulations once again on your return to the Assistant Speaker’s position, and hopefully you will be a good adviser to the new colleagues who join you in the Chair. I am particularly just a tad concerned about the Hon Trevor Mallard. I do not know how he is actually going to go as the new Assistant Speaker with his performance in the House, but no doubt he knows the procedures probably better than anybody else, and I hope that he will be very fair as well. His colleagues actually attest to that.

I know that many members have ended their speeches by thanking the people in their electorate. I would like to begin my speech by thanking the people of Mt Albert. Although I am actually not the elected member of the Mt Albert electorate, more than 14,359 voters gave their party vote to National, which meant that in the very, very strong Labour seat of the former Labour Prime Minister Rt Hon Helen Clark and the former Labour leader David Shearer, National actually won the party vote. As one of our National Party stalwarts, a former deputy mayor of Mt Albert Alice Wylie actually said: “Darling, we have never won anything in Mt Albert but we have this time round.” So I would like to thank the people of Mt Albert for giving us their party vote. The candidate vote also improved from 7,400 in the previous election to more than 10,000, so we did, I think, quite well. I would like to thank all of our volunteers who actually helped us get there, tirelessly delivering tens of thousands of pamphlets, making thousands upon thousands of phone calls, and door-knocking rain, hail, or shine. Thank you all for making it happen.

The last 2 days have been full of pomp and ceremony, and I feel very privileged to be sitting in this House of Representatives for the 51st Parliament. I welcome my new colleagues right across the House and I echo the Prime Minister’s advice to enjoy your time here. You have fought hard to get here, and 3 years actually flies by very, very quickly. Make it count. Make your stay here count, and may you be returned in the next term of Parliament as well. On that score I would like to acknowledge the return of Kelvin Davis and his colleagues who are actually returning to Parliament—particularly you, Kelvin Davis. Mate, I do not know of any other—

Hon Member: Just Kelvin?

MELISSA LEE: No, no, no—particularly Kelvin Davis because I do not know any other Labour MP who got such resounding applause on a National election campaign night apart from you, mate, for winning your seat and preventing the other people from coming into this Parliament, so well done. Carmel Sepuloni, I welcome you back. It is nice to see you back. Stuart Nash and Ron Mark—congratulations once again.

The general election in 2014 has given the National Party a very strong mandate to govern for the next 3 years. Together with our partners the ACT Party, United Future, and the Māori Party, we will continue to give New Zealanders a stable, effective, and inclusive Government. We are focused on returning to surplus, and a long-term fiscal objective remains to reduce core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020. We will keep Government spending under control. Around $1 billion of the operating allowance in each Budget will be used to increase spending, with the remainder set aside for tax reductions and further debt repayment, depending on economic and fiscal conditions. We plan to build a more productive and competitive economy, supporting more jobs and higher incomes. This is set out in the Business Growth Agenda, which contains about 350 individual initiatives that will be progressed and more added during this term of Parliament. This business agenda is doing a great job of giving companies the confidence to invest and grow jobs in New Zealand while carefully managing the environmental impacts.

This National-led Government will continue to pursue high-quality trade agreements, including negotiations with my birth country, Korea, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, while ensuring that New Zealand’s best interests are always served. We want our exporters to be able to compete on an equal footing with other economies and further lift our exports. We want to increase our international footprint so we will make more investments in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to expand the number of businesses that it works with. The kind of benefit that New Zealand will reap from a free-trade agreement such as the one that we are hoping to get from Korea is currently New Zealand exporters are paying in excess of 89 percent tariff for such things like butter. They are paying more than 45 percent in tariff for kiwifruit. They are paying more than 40 percent in tariff for beef exports to Korea. They are not competing with Korean products. They are competing with products from places like Chile, where Chile already has a free-trade agreement with Korea and their tariffs are coming down. Unless we secure a free-trade agreement with Korea our products will no longer be competitive in a market in Korea. So our exporters may not be able to export to Korea because our produce will be too expensive for Korean people to purchase.

It is imperative, therefore, that we secure these free-trade agreement deals so that our export markets are secured and also diversified, that we are not putting all of our eggs in one basket, and that our markets are all over the world, including Asia, where there is a growing middle class. Even in the previous term I have talked about the growth in population in countries like Indonesia. More than 150 million people live in Indonesia and its growth of population is the whole of New Zealand. Every year 4.5 million people are born in Indonesia.

A big focus over the next 3 years for this National-led Government is about rewarding New Zealanders for their hard work. We will be further reducing ACC levies, which will be the equivalent of a tax cut for households and businesses. I am very happy about that, because reducing income taxes for lower and middle income earners in 2017, if fiscal conditions actually allow, is, I am sure, welcome news for everybody. New Zealand’s economy grew by 3.9 percent in the year to 30 June. While some countries are struggling, we have had an economy that has been growing. Some people have called it a role model for the world economy. For me, it is the fact that our average wage has grown by $2,500 in the past 2 years and has been forecast to grow even more. An estimated 83,000 jobs were created in the past year and Treasury forecasts around 150,000 more jobs to be created by mid-2018. Unemployment is coming down. Treasury forecasts that it will fall to 4.5 percent by mid-2018, from 5.6 percent now and well over 6 percent a year ago. That is achievement. That is the result that this National-led Government has delivered to New Zealanders.

Mortgage interest rates are also interesting because they are to remain lower for longer than they did in 2008. Back in 2008 they were somewhere around the 11 percent mark, which is slightly lower, I guess, than when I first bought my own house. On my first home I think I paid an interest rate in excess of 18 percent. I know which one I would rather have—the rate that is currently offered now, which is around 5.2 percent, rather than the 18 percent that we paid back when I bought my first house, or back in 2008 when Labour was in Government and the rate was around 11 percent.

The new KiwiSaver Homestart grant will be introduced next year to double the support a first-home buyer can get if they are buying or building their new home. It has to be welcomed by first-home buyers. I never knew this until I owned my own home, but having a quarter-acre section, which people talk about, is the dream that all Kiwis have. It may not be the quarter-acre section now—it may be an apartment that they prefer because it is smaller and easier to maintain—but owning their own home is a possibility under this National Government. I commend this.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a pleasure to be back in the House, even if I was being interrupted by the senior Government whip at the time that you called me. Mr Assistant Speaker, can I join other colleagues in acknowledging your re-election to your role as Assistant Speaker and also your new colleague, Trevor Mallard. We are all very excited to see the poacher turned gamekeeper. We also acknowledge Chester Borrows as Deputy Speaker and the re-election of the Rt Hon David Carter as Speaker. We look forward to working alongside you. For those returning presiding officers, we look forward to your continued fair and firm presiding over this House.

It is a pleasure to be back in this House representing the fine city of Palmerston North. It was a mighty challenge at election time. The National Party threw everything it had at us. You could see the money swimming around our electorate. National chose the best candidate it could, and put an enormous effort into taking Palmerston North. This is not new for me. At every election my demise has been predicted by iPredict and various other pundits out there, and, yet, I keep coming back. It is very, very pleasing to be back here. I would like to thank the voters of Palmerston North for continuing their confidence in me to be their representative, to be their strong voice here in Parliament. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the hundreds of people who worked so very hard on our campaign in Palmerston North. We are very pleased with the party vote result we managed to get, in the circumstances. We are very pleased with the contribution we made to the party votes that Labour did get across the country, and we are also very pleased to be able to hold the seat.

Although the people of Palmerston North chose to elect a Labour member of Parliament to be their representative here, they have very, very high expectations of this Government. Now more than ever the people of Palmerston North desperately need a Government that is going to work in their interests and support them to play to their strengths. Today, just this very day, we had new data out that spells out some of the concerns that Palmerston North has to face. In the year to September 2014 there has been a 6.6 percent increase in the number of people receiving the job seeker benefit in Palmerston North. Although this Government may be pleased with its efforts to reduce the number of people on the job seeker benefit by 2.6 percent across the country—although those of us on this side of the House are dubious about whether or not those people are going from being on a benefit to actually being in work—the truth is that in my city there has been an increase over the last year in the number of people stuck on the unemployment benefit.

There was a 9 percent increase in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds on the unemployment benefit, and there was an 11 percent increase in the number of 25 to 39-year-olds on the unemployment benefit in my city. Overall, there was an increase of just 0.7 percent, but an increase, nevertheless, in the total number of people receiving a benefit in my region, and that compares with a 3.3 percent decline across the country.

My province of Manawatū, and my city of Palmerston North, like many provinces around the country, is being left behind by this Government. The economic growth that may or may not be occurring across the country is certainly not being felt in my electorate.

Ian McKelvie: That was before you were working hard for your city.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I hear Ian McKelvie interjecting. Mr McKelvie, the statistics do not lie. You should be standing up for your region as well, because the picture is not pretty in the Rangitīkei either. We are being left behind by this Government. Now more than ever we need a Government that really is working for the provinces. We need a Government that has a real plan. When you walk around my city right now, what you see is empty land where there used to be houses, empty land where there used to be businesses, and empty shops where there used to be a thriving retail sector. That is the truth. That is what is happening in my city right now. We need this Government to work much harder for the provinces than it is right now.

But what does this Government have planned for my city? Right at the top of its plan is to reduce the number of State houses we have by 500. Right now, this very day, more houses have been torn down in Palmerston North and there is no plan at all to replace those State houses. Seven years ago houses were removed from Botanical Road. They have never been replaced by this Government. Last year houses were removed from Rugby Street. There is no plan for that empty land. Now there are at least four different locations around the city where this Government plans to tear down houses, and it has absolutely no plan for what to do with that land. We all know what the Government is thinking—that land is going to be sold off and those houses will never be replaced. That is this Government’s plan for State and social housing in my city, and that is not what my constituents want.

I heard it loud and clear through the election campaign that we need social housing in our city. There is a need. Homelessness is real. There are people living in garages. There are people relying on their parents to look after them, their children, and their grandchildren. There are people who have no home, no place to call home. They rely on friends. They couch surf from one friend to another. That is what housing insecurity looks like. That is why we need a decent State house provision, to ensure that people who are in desperate need of accommodation can turn to the State, can turn to their community, in their time of need and know that they will have a roof put over their heads.

But what is this Government doing for my city? The Government’s plan is to reduce the amount of State and social housing that we have by 500. The Government has no plan for one of our biggest State assets, one of our most important assets. Regardless of what you think about the need to provide social housing, why on earth would you leave land sitting empty, year after year? Why would you leave houses sitting empty? Why would this Government leave houses sitting empty, for the windows to be broken, for the hot-water cylinders to be raided for the copper or to be stolen, and for that asset to be run down, when this Government is supposed to be the Government of sound economic management? It just does not make sense.

In some of the parts of my city that have been most affected by this removal and destruction of State houses we have another serious concern, and that is access to primary health care. It is as true in my electorate as it is in just about any other electorate around the country that those most impoverished areas, those most in need of access to primary health care, have the least provision. So it is my goal and my aim to see, in the suburb of Highbury and the suburb of Roslyn, integrated primary health care services located in those suburbs, because those are the places that need them most. Yet, we are seeing integrated primary health care being developed in the areas that already have the most health provision. Highbury continues to be overlooked. Roslyn continues to be overlooked. So it is my aim—and I am happy to work across the House to make this happen—to see integrated primary health services provided to those in my electorate who need them the most.

There is one other aim that I want to talk about tonight, and that is around the environment. We all know the stories about the Manawatū River. We all know that it desperately needs to be cleaned up. We need to set standards in this Parliament that actually ensure that our waterways will not be degraded further—

Jacqui Dean: That’s what we’ve done.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —and that they will be cleaned up over the next generation. Jacqui Dean says that they have already done that. No, Jacqui Dean, the standards have been set so that water that is perfectly clean right now could actually be degraded under the standards set by this Government. So this Government has actually said that it wants to set standards that will allow water to be degraded. I am sick and tired of hearing about this false dichotomy between the economy and the environment. Our economy is built on our environment. Saving our environment is not about saving the planet; it is about making sure that there are jobs and that there is a lifestyle and that we can grow food and that people can live well in the future. It is not about raping and pillaging our planet now so that future generations have not got the opportunity to live the life that we take for granted.

Those are the challenges ahead of us, that is what my constituents expect from this Government, and that is what I am going to be pressing it for over this term of Parliament.

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): The previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, obviously has a prophecy. He is concerned about Manawatū being left behind. The mighty Hawke’s Bay Magpies may well leave Manawatū very, very far behind in the game that they are going to play. It is actually the Ranfurly Shield - winning Hawke’s Bay Magpies team, ladies and gentlemen, and you will notice the badge that I wear, with honour, of the Ranfurly Shield.

Congratulations to returning members and welcome to new members, of course, across the House. Some returning members might have been away for a wee while. It is good to see you back and we will have some battles across the House, as we always do, but those members and colleagues whom I value the most are those whom I can go and have a beer with afterwards and talk tactics and talk rugby and things like that, and get on with the real job of governing the country. I do enjoy that kind of company.

I do note, though, particularly that there is a message for some of our new MPs here. It will probably happen only once, but I noticed that they were listening quite intently to Mr Peters earlier when he was giving his dissertation. Well, I can tell them that it is the only time that they need to listen to that because it is the same speech he will give, time and time and time again. I have heard that speech many, many times. It is quite interesting to watch, but I see Mr Mark over there. I know what you are thinking, Mr Mark. I know that you are thinking a year or two out. I know what you are doing, and it will be interesting to watch from this side of the House. I wish you well in your ambitions, be it for whip, for leadership, or for whatever. Let us just see what happens there. That will be interesting.

Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, I also acknowledge your appointment, as I do the election of Mr Speaker and, of course, the appointment as Deputy Speaker of the Hon Chester Borrows, the first from our glorious National Party class of 2005 to sit in the Speaker’s Chair. I am sure that the Hon Chester Borrows will always be well prepared for any emergencies as they may arise.

Can I also acknowledge particularly a very good and moving speech from Mr Kelvin Davis earlier, which spoke to the heart, I think, of why many of us are here and what drives us. There is a lot more beyond that than law, legislation, and regulation. There is love, there is passion, there is concern, and there is an outright focus on a better New Zealand for some of those who have no idea how good things could be and who are stuck in very unfortunate circumstances. So I salute you, actually, for what you were saying earlier.

Can I also thank my Tukituki team. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in the House, of course, since the election. We did very, very well in Tukituki, Hawke’s Bay—home of the Ranfurly Shield. My National Party campaign team did very, very well there. In fact, in Tukituki we achieved the highest National Party vote ever, and, in fact, across Hawke’s Bay we achieved the highest National Party vote ever. In Tukituki and Napier over 36,000 voters voted for the policies of the National Party and now the policies of the National Government. In fact, we increased the Tukituki party vote by about 1,000 this election, but I make the point that those policies that were laid out before Hawke’s Bay included water storage, irrigation, Ruataniwha, oil and gas exploration, the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband, and exploring some of the wonderful opportunities and potential we do have in Hawke’s Bay. I did note an earlier speech from one of the returning members, which I will come back to later on.

How did we increase that majority? We stayed relentlessly positive, absolutely positive, for the ambitions and potential for Hawke’s Bay and for New Zealand. We had a faith—an ongoing faith—in the positive nature of the silent majority of Hawke’s Bay and New Zealand, and they came out and voted for us in spades. We earned that. I am very, very humbled and proud of what we managed to achieve there because there are plenty of people out there trying to distract us with the negative, with attacks, with dirty politics, or whatever you might call it.

In fact, we had a very, very motivated team. One thing that motivated our team more than any other incident in the election—and, in fact, I would allege that it motivated many, many voters to actually make sure that they voted and that their vote counted—was, in fact, one night when we had a huge number of our billboards smashed, hammered away at, graffitied, and destroyed. There was no pattern to it. It was everywhere—absolutely everywhere. At the time it knocked our team around a fair bit because we raised a fair bit of money to put them up, but not only did that motivate our team to do more and to absolutely win and win well across Hawke’s Bay but also it motivated voters, who saw the danger of the anti-democratic, disgusting, disgraceful tactics that were brought into and arrived in Hawke’s Bay.

Carmel Sepuloni: Anti-democratic? That party knows all about anti-democratic.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: So the member over there may be interested in the purely coincidental nature, I think, of the fact that that was the night that the Internet Mana Party had a meeting in Hastings, which was an interesting coincidence I am sure.

I acknowledge and congratulate Mr Nash on his win in Napier. He is back now. I did note his speech earlier, so well done him and I wish him well in his tenure as an MP. Of course, I will be doing my thing on my side of the national political fence but I am sure we will have some common ground in some things.

But I do note one thing with Mr Nash. He did run a very good local campaign—a very good localised campaign for, as he said, a couple of years or so, and that is probably about right; a couple of years of a very local campaign. But I was quite interested that 5 minutes after he won the seat he was talking about being leader, and then not too long after that he was talking about not being leader. Then he was going on all the chat shows and the talk shows and then he was going to be in the mix again for being leader and then he was not going to be in the mix again for being leader, while at the same time being the local guy, 10 minutes or so after winning Napier. So that was an interesting observation, I would humbly say. But I do wish him well and we do seem to share many acquaintances or people I know, in fact, people from my electorate. People such as Mr Simon Lusk lives in the Tukituki electorate, as does Jordan Williams, who comes from Hastings, and I am quite interested that we seem to know certain people. I was quite interested.

Kris Faafoi: Did you get that from the book?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Well, I do not know. I have not looked up my own name in it, but I might look up his. But, anyway, I do find that interesting.

But we saw tonight, or earlier on, an interesting Labour speech, the speech from Annette King. Actually, I think that Annette King and Kelvin Davis should run as a team, because that was one of the better Labour speeches from the Acting Acting Deputy Deputy Leader, or whatever she is at the moment. But the way that was delivered and the support from her colleagues—I have not seen that in a long, long time. So quite why she is not in that mix, I do not know, but that was a very, very good speech.

I do note, and to be fair again, I would just like to acknowledge—and it might be surprising to some of my colleagues—David Cunliffe. Not many people, regardless of your politics, get to lead a political party and have a go to be Prime Minister. So, regardless of the result, I acknowledge anybody and I acknowledge him for what he went through to try to become the Prime Minister of the country. I think that is the right thing to do and I wish him well with whatever he chooses to do after this.

But we do have an interesting contest over there. We have Mr Parker, Mr Robertson, Mr Little, and Nanaia Mahuta. It is very interesting and we will watch with interest as we pull the popcorn out of the pot. We saw this when the Labour Party changed its voting procedure a year ago. I watched Mr Hipkins and I watched Mr Mallard, Assistant Speaker now actually, at the time on the TV running around their conference trying to stop this new process, because they could see how it was going to play out, and it is playing out right now. It is quite interesting and we are quite happy over on the National side to watch that play out in public—the contest between the contest; the contest of these four people who all choose to be, or think they could be, the leader and the Prime Minister of the country one day. We will watch with interest. I am sure it will be very, very interesting.

One thing again, about the speech from the previous member—I have heard that speech before. It was the Labour Party’s campaign speech around the hustings. I have heard that one in Hawke’s Bay. Well, a couple of points on Hawke’s Bay. There are opportunities—200 new jobs with Kiwibank in Hastings; 200 new jobs. Ultra-fast broadband across the country enables those jobs.

In our policy manifesto, in our profile, we talked about encouraging oil and gas exploration and, hopefully, a commercial find across Hawke’s Bay, endorsed by the people of Hawke’s Bay. It was refuted, voted down by the Labour Party, which used to be in favour of jobs and now its members are against oil and gas. I do not think they will be saying the same thing over in Taranaki, funnily enough though. But it will be interesting to see what Andrew Little says about some of the earlier speeches, actually.

Hon Simon Bridges: One thing here; another thing elsewhere.

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Another thing elsewhere—that is right. So, it depends what audience it is.

Also there is the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme. I was very interested to hear the Napier MP thank some of his team, which was fair enough, but actually some of his team are quite strong advocates against the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme and the incredible job opportunities that can create for the bay. Watch this space. There are many other opportunities quite soon, perhaps, for the Hawke’s Bay. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. I would like to take this opportunity to, firstly, congratulate you on your reselection as Assistant Speaker in this House of Parliament. I find that you have always been very fair and I look forward to working with you and your colleagues, the Rt Hon David Carter, the Hon Chester Borrows—and I want to acknowledge that this is a new role for him—and also my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard.

I would also like to congratulate all members across the House, but particularly new members. This is an opportunity that you cannot pay for. It is an opportunity that you earn through hard work and connection with your communities—those of you who are electorate MPs.

I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate all the political parties on what was a pretty intense campaign. National has worked hard and has secured a mandate. I respect that the people of New Zealand have spoken, and I wish you all very well in the role in terms of governing our country.

I also want to acknowledge all the new Ministers and all the new select committee chairs, because we want to be constructive in terms of the work that this House does. I would also like to specifically acknowledge the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell in his role as Minister for Māori Development and acknowledge a new tikanga that he established, which was to have a karakia on Monday morning with Te Ātiawa in Matangireia, and it was a privilege to actually be part of what is a new tikanga. And I also want to acknowledge and thank the House for its agreement to my colleague Su’a William Sio taking the Oath of Allegiance in his heritage language in addition to taking the Oath in English because, whether or not we realise it, we have changed and created a tikanga that I hope will enable in the future any New Zealander who has a heritage language to be able to take the Oath in either Māori or English and also in their heritage language. So I am really proud of what this House has managed to achieve already.

I want to focus on what the Government’s agenda is within the next 3 years and its relevance to my electorate of Manurewa. I want to thank the people of Manurewa for empowering me with the responsibility to be their spokesperson and, in doing so, I want to acknowledge all the other people who put their hands up to be the spokesperson for Manurewa. I am incredibly privileged to be in this position. So for me, when I look at the agenda that the Government has set out for the country, of course I am going to think about what it means for the people of my electorate.

One of the policies that the Government has signalled that it will prioritise is extending flexible working arrangements. I guess that as a member of the Service and Food Workers Union—a proud member of the Service and Food Workers Union, which represents the lowest-paid people in our country—I obviously want to understand what the implications for flexible working arrangements may mean. For me, a flexible working arrangement means decreasing the power of the unions, and obviously unions collaborate with workers to make sure that the conditions of workers enable them to get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. What does that pay do? It pays for their power. It pays for their rent. Hopefully, it pays for their mortgages, for some of them. But what it does is enable people to live independent lives. So when we look at equality of opportunity, obviously the equality of opportunity does not happen within a vacuum. It happens within a context. What I am hoping is that those flexible working arrangements are going to enable working New Zealanders to be able to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, and enable their children to have a good quality of life, whether it be in sports, or the arts, or whatever.

What I do not want to see in terms of the consequences of the legislation that this Government has prioritised is an erosion of the value of wages, because if we see an erosion of the value of wages, what does it mean in electorates like mine? Actually, it means people living in cars, people living in tents, people living on the streets, and people living in circumstances where 18 people in a two-bedroom home or a three-bedroom home has actually become normal. It means children living in garages. That context for the people of my electorate in Manurewa is something that I am incredibly focused on because I cannot do my job unless the Government does its job, and I am sure that the Government has not got a deliberate intention to put families and children on the streets, living in cars and living in garages.

The other thing that I do not want to see through the extension of flexible working arrangements is an expansion of the low-paid service sector. We want to see people being paid enough and not having to work 60-hour, 70-hour, 80-hour, or 90-hour weeks to be able to live the New Zealand dream, which is actually about working hard and then having a quality of life that means that you can then play sport and you can take your kids to the beach. You know, you should not have to work 6 or 7 days a week. The other thing I do not want to see is that it increases temporary and part-time employment. Again, what does that erode? It erodes the ability of families and parents to provide the basics for their children.

My focus on homelessness is timely because the Parliamentary Library research unit put out a paper in July, and it is entitled Homelessness in New Zealand—the reality of homelessness in New Zealand—and I am going to outline the people who are homeless in New Zealand. The University of Otago did some research and, basically, people who are homeless in New Zealand are new migrants, Pasifika or north Asian. More than half of them are people younger than 25 years old. Half of them are children under the age of 15 years, and most of them are Māori and Pasifika. The relevance of these statistics to my electorate is that there I have 32 percent Pasifika, I have 28 percent Māori, and I have 23.4 percent Indian. So for me, I live in an electorate where I have high concentrations of specific ethnic groups who do not own their own homes, and actually the State and the social housing providers and the landlords who are going to provide accommodation to my constituents are incredibly important.

Homeownership rates in New Zealand are now at less than 50 percent, but if you are Māori they are 28 percent, and if you are Pasifika they are 18.5 percent. So one of the concerns I have—and this is another priority for this Government—is that we are going to sell 22,000 State houses. We currently have 68,000 State houses. The mandate of Housing New Zealand is to provide rental housing for those who need it most. I guess that when I look at the definition of those who need it most, I would have thought that that included people living in cars, people living in tents, people living on the streets, and people living in two and three-bedroom houses where there are three, four, or five families living together in crowded conditions.

When I look at my electorate I see that we have houses sitting empty at the moment, so what Iain Lees-Galloway is experiencing in Palmerston North, what Carmel Sepuloni is experiencing in Kelston, what Megan Woods is experiencing in Wigram, and what I would contend quite a few other electorate MPs across this House are experiencing is that they are meeting people who are in need of what I would say is the basic necessity of life—that is, to be able go to work, for kids to be able to go to school, and for our children to have the aspirations and the dreams that we all want them to have. So when I look at a priority of selling 22,000 State houses within a context of underprovision, it makes no sense to me—it makes no sense to me.

So I want to call this Government to account. There will be some houses in some places where, actually, selling the house and using that money more effectively makes sense, but I call for a moratorium on the selling of State houses in areas like Manurewa, South Auckland, Christchurch, and west Auckland, where we have people who are living in cars and living on the streets. They have nowhere to live. So if the Government is true to what it said in terms of addressing child poverty, one of the things I would like it to do is to tell us—tell New Zealand—where these 22,000 houses are and to guarantee that in areas where we do not have the provision, the Government will not sell them. I think that if this Government wants to work constructively and meet the needs of New Zealanders, it would do that. Thank you.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): It is a great privilege—an unalloyed privilege—to be speaking in this the 51st Parliament in New Zealand’s history, to be returned as the MP for Tauranga, and to be part of this National Government, which comes back into this Parliament with a renewed sense of vigour, purpose, and determination, really, to govern for all New Zealanders to the best of our abilities.

Can I congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, on your return in your fine electorate, very close to mine, and also on the service you provide this Parliament along with the Rt Hon David Carter, who, of course, was returned. As everyone has done, but I think it is worth doing again, I also heartily congratulate Chester Borrows and Trevor Mallard, who are—and for one of them at least I use this phrase advisedly—great parliamentarians. Again, in one case, I would not say I enjoyed it, but I have had close interactions with both men. In Chester Borrows’ case it was on the Justice and Electoral Committee, where he showed what a bipartisan person he can be in the House, and in the case of Trevor Mallard my very clear recollection of first speaking in this House was of him putting me through my paces. That is something I suppose that all new MPs, whom I also congratulate, have to look forward to as they earn their stripes in this great House and serve this country very well.

I was really proud to listen to our Prime Minister this afternoon, firstly, as he talked about the United Nations Security Council, and the privilege, really, it is for us as a small country to be represented temporarily on it, and then as he talked about the flag and that important debate that we are going to have as a country. I think that both of those issues show that New Zealand, albeit a small country in the South Pacific, is very much an outward-looking one and an optimistic one. For all the talk of that big country near us being the lucky country, we are a lucky country that has a great future and that we should be proud of and actually very patriotic about. I am looking forward to that flag debate. I think it really speaks about what we can be as a country.

This party at least is a party that is outward looking, that believes in free trade, that knows that our prosperity is tied to the rest of the world and that we can face those issues, if you like, with confidence and optimism, not with fear, and knows that, actually, foreign investment is something that, if we manage it right, makes a real difference to this country and to our standard of living, and that we should really embrace the rest of the world.

I was also proud to be a member of the National Party on election night, not because of the great result that we got—if not historic then certainly the very strong result on election night—but because of the Prime Minister’s speech, and I think it was a fine speech, where he made clear that this party along with our supply and confidence partners is here to govern for all New Zealanders. I know that is something that this side of the House takes very seriously indeed. We are going to resist arrogance. It is not a “Stuart Nash is back” attitude on this side of the House. We take our role seriously and we are going to govern for all New Zealanders. We are going to stay in touch with our electorates, and I know that is something you have done with aplomb for some time, Mr Assistant Speaker. I know in Tauranga that it is very important that we stay close, that we listen, and that we continue to get out into various sectors of our communities in order to know what it is that they want from us, as we are now in our third term.

We have, yes, got a proud and a great track record as a party in Government that has achieved strong economic management, better public services, very strong public services, is bringing down the deficit into surplus, and is this term offering tax cuts at the end of it all. But we are not out of ideas. We have got fresh ideas and things that we will be putting to this country to ensure that our track record continues, but there is more and better to come: a strong economy, better public services, and a clean environment.

I am really excited about the portfolios that I have both been in as a Minister in John Key’s Government and that I take up as new portfolios. It is interesting to listen to Louisa Wall, and I think she is genuine in everything she said, but we have heard a lot of scaremongering in this House, actually over years, about employment reform in this country and the Employment Relations Amendment Bill in particular. I have been really privileged to be part of that, to have been the Minister of Labour for National. Now I think it is the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Michael Woodhouse, who is going to do a great job. Actually what we have done there has been about delivering more opportunities for more people—more opportunities for more people. We are pro-jobs and we are not going to see the kind of people that Louisa Wall talked about out of jobs.

I think it is really sad, actually, to see parties on the other side campaigning against the 90-day trial and campaigning against the youth start-out wage, because they are policies that employers have told us in the independent ministry surveys have created more jobs and have seen employers give young people a go whom they would not have otherwise given a go and kept them in a job. We recognise, unlike the Labour Party, that New Zealand predominantly is a country of small and medium sized enterprises, which do not take on employees just to fire them. They take them on to give them a go and to pay them the best that they can. I am really proud of the work we have done in that area.

I am really proud, actually, of the work that we are going to do in minimum employment standards—actually, that we have done with the minimum wage. We have lifted the minimum wage every single year we have been in office, so it is now the highest in the world relative to average wages, actually. That is not something to be sniffed at. As for paid parental leave, there is great work there and Michael Woodhouse is going to do a great job to ensure not only that we increase the entitlements to 18 weeks but also that we widen it to ensure that it goes to more people than ever.

In transport—roads of national significance, regional roads—we are making sure we have got efficient, safer roads for people to travel on while also ensuring better public services than ever before in this country. Actually, I am really proud of, in electorates like Louisa Wall’s, the $1.7 billion investment in rail in Auckland.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.