Wednesday, 29 October 2014

WEDNESDAY, 29 OCTOBER 2014

WEDNESDAY, 29 OCTOBER 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Child Poverty—Government Policy and 2014 Unicef Report

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement “We’ll be coming back over the next weeks and months with concrete policy across a range of portfolios. If we don’t come up with any policy solutions, then I’ll live and die by that criticism.”, which was made in his state of the nation speech in January 2007, in light of the fact that Unicef has said today that the Government’s policies are “ … doing little to protect our most vulnerable citizens from poverty and failure …”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and I would note a number of things about the Unicef report. Probably the most important of them is that the report shows the importance of economic growth, because the countries that have actually been doing better in terms of improving child poverty are those that have a strong economy, and those that have been doing particularly poorly and have had big increases in child poverty are countries that have had a big recession—

Hon David Cunliffe: Tell us about Australia. Not so flash now.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, actually, interestingly enough, that is the point, is it not, with Australia—that it did not go into recession, and it did manage to provide more support. I think that is exactly the reason why New Zealanders so roundly rejected Labour’s proposition, because they knew it would be bad for the economy and bad for child poverty.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, then, does he realise that Australia, which did not go into recession, as the Prime Minister said, still prioritised children and low-income earners during the global financial crisis, while New Zealand, which did go into recession, instead favoured the wealthy with tax cuts?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What is clear is that the member has got amnesia. We were in recession before National even came—

Hon Annette King: That’s not the point.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —that is the point; you just said it—in to Government. Secondly, I remember going through an election campaign with one of the Labour leaders—I do not know which; they have had quite a few of them—and that particular Labour leader criticised this side of the House for borrowing money to support the most vulnerable children in New Zealand. That is another reason why Labour got hammered.

Hon Annette King: Why did the Government prioritise tax cuts at the height of the global financial crisis, which has given the Prime Minister himself an extra $385 a week, over helping those who were living in the greatest hardship?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, the member has amnesia, because she forgets that in 2009, despite, actually, the commitment on the campaign trail for tax cuts, the Government actually did not implement that programme. It did so in 2010. [Interruption] It did so in 2010. It did so in a way that was distributionally neutral, as Treasury—[Interruption] Well, interestingly enough, one of the very important parts of that programme was actually the changes made in relation to depreciation on rental properties. What that saw was the Crown’s revenue rising by the order of about $600 million to $700 million. The other thing that was remarkable about that was not only did we know that policy; we could explain it. That is quite different from the capital gains tax that Mr Cunliffe was proposing.

Hon Annette King: Can the Prime Minister please provide today three concrete policies that will reduce child poverty and put food on the tables of families that are in severe hardship, including working families, in the next 3 years of his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: More work and a stronger economy, and that will certainly be supported by the employment law changes that are going through at the moment, and changes to the Resource Management Act. I hope the members support those. Oh, that is right—you do not need good planning legislation! No. 2: the work we are doing around social housing and making sure that families will have housing to live in. I am more than happy to take an extension of time: if the member wants me to name 10, I am more than happy to do it. No. 3 would be free doctors visits for under-13s—again, the very reason why we are back in Government and Labour got hammered.

Hon Annette King: What is more important to the Government today: announcing $26 million to change the flag or setting some real measures to reduce child poverty that actually put money in their pockets so they can buy the food they need?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member is claiming, as she seems to be, that the setting of a target is what is going to change the position for young New Zealanders who are in poverty, then that is what is so terribly wrong with the Labour Party. It continues to think that just setting a target, setting up a new committee, having some new little way of looking at things—

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, no, no, you have had your chance. No, no, you have had your chance—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is that a point of order? [Interruption] Order! It is a point of order, and it will be heard in silence.

Hon Annette King: My question was what was more important to the Government—whether it was the $26 million to change the flag, or concrete measures. Then the Prime Minister talked about me talking about a target. I had not mentioned one in that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to reflect on her question. It was what is more important—the flag or developing some real measures. I think that the Prime Minister in his answer was concentrating on that part of the question.

Economy—Interest Rates and Inflation

2. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on recent trends in consumer price inflation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last week we had the most recent CPI release. This showed that the cost of living increased by 0.3 percent in the 3 months to 30 September and the cost of living increased by 1 percent in the year to September, down from 1.6 percent in the year to June. This 1 percent annual inflation is less than half of the 2.7 percent increase in average ordinary time weekly earnings in the year to June, so, on average, wages are rising more than twice as much as the cost of living. Inflation is now below the 2 percent mid-point of the Reserve Bank target range. This means there is generally less pressure on household and business budgets and less pressure on increases in interest rates.

Andrew Bayly: How does New Zealand’s inflation rate compare with other developed countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are in about the middle of the pack, bearing in mind that there are quite a lot of developed countries around the world facing the prospect of deflation. In the United Kingdom inflation in the year to September was 1.5 percent, in the US it was 1.8 percent, Canada was 2.1 percent, and Australia was 2.3 percent. They are all comparable with New Zealand’s rate of 1 percent. Price stability through sound fiscal and monetary policy is supporting investment and the growth outlook for New Zealand for real increases in incomes and more jobs. Since 2008 inflation has averaged 2.1 percent per year.

Andrew Bayly: What impact is the lower than expected inflation likely to have on the economy over the next year or 2?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There will be an update of at least Treasury’s view on that at the half-year fiscal update on 16 December. Economists in general are predicting lower inflation to continue and this could reduce the size of future interest rate increases. Low inflation will also help support continued good conditions for business investment in the creation of new jobs. It will also allow for ongoing real wage increases and help households keep on top of their debt. On balance, low inflation is good for New Zealand and good for the prospects of sustained, reasonable levels of growth.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If all that is correct, why has the Reserve Bank Governor been starting at shadows and hiking up interest rates all year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a matter for the governor and I am sure he will have more comments to make in the next week or so. As with most economic policies, it is always easy to see in hindsight where the judgments could have been made differently. In this case, the prospects for the New Zealand economy are reasonably good, and it may be that we avoid the excesses of the last cycle, which that member was party to, where first mortgage rates reached 10 percent and inflation reached 5 percent. We are certainly not going there again.

Andrew Bayly: How could the lower inflation outlook impact on the nominal economy and, by implication, on the Government’s own finances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, detailed forecasts will be set out in the half-year update. However, lower inflation could dampen consumer spending and the size of nominal wage increases, although wages are likely to continue rising faster than inflation. While real annual GDP growth has been strong at almost 4 percent, unusually, nominal GDP growth, which has the largest impact on Government revenue, has been increasing more slowly. It is a very unusual set of circumstances. These trends could have a further knock-on effect on the Government’s books by impacting on the amount of income tax and GST that the Government receives. There have been some signs of this already over the past year. There will be an update on it on 16 December.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is that answer shorthand for there is no surplus?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The impact of the smaller nominal economy on the Government’s books is yet to be seen.

Dr David Clark: Even if the Minister admits he has no new ideas himself, will he accept that monetary policy is broken and out of date, given that inflation is nearly falling below the 1 percent bottom end of the policy targets agreement band, and, yet, the Reserve Bank Governor has been forced to raise interest rates because of his Government’s failure on housing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have got one new idea: maybe Labour should try another leader. That seems to be a new idea that it has regularly—the only new idea that it has. In fact, Government policy has assisted the Reserve Bank in keeping interest rates lower, because we have stuck to pretty tight expenditure growth of around $1 billion a year. As the Reserve Bank has made pretty clear, one thing that would put pressure on higher interest rates would be Government spending running out of control, and it is not. So there is a prospect now that households that were concerned that interest rates would continue to increase consistently may find that interest rates do not increase quite as much. They will certainly avoid the excesses of the last cycle under the Labour Government, when first mortgage interest rates reached over 10 percent.

Dr David Clark: When the Governor of the Reserve Bank has had to raise interest rates due to his Government’s failure on housing, why is his Government content to see exporters punished with an overvalued exchange rate, which Treasury says will lead to exports to GDP in 2016 being at their lowest level since Robert Muldoon became Prime Minister—the worst result in 40 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think we can take a gauge from the fact that the Labour Party is saying there is an export crisis, which probably means exports are really taking off. In fact, there is some evidence that that is the case. The exchange rate has settled back a bit to under US80c. That will assist our exporters, who, by the way, have done a great job over the last 4 or 5 years, increasing their productivity and their resilience. And if it is likely that interest rates will not go as high as expected, that will also assist our exporters.

Bank Deposits—Government Guarantee

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Will he introduce a Government guarantee on bank deposits in New Zealand; if so, when?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Depositor protection is in place now through the Reserve Bank’s open bank resolution scheme, which has been thoroughly consulted on and is in place as we speak. This scheme includes a Government guarantee on all depositor funds that are not frozen as part of a bank resolution. Because of recent experience with Government guarantees—that is, the collapse of South Canterbury Finance—and because of the substantial contingent liability associated with any kind of prospect of failure of our large banks, there is continuing work by officials and ongoing discussion with the banking sector around the appropriate level of bank resolution and depositor protection. Managing the risk of bank failure is complex, with potentially large costs to the taxpayer. The Government has to balance the security offered by a Government guarantee to depositors alongside the need for banks to have good incentives to ensure that they are sound financial institutions and will not impose large costs on their depositors, shareholders, creditors, or the taxpayer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Government not following the example of many other developed economies and providing this type of Government guarantee of bank deposits to a reasonable level?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been ongoing discussion about the appropriateness of depositor insurance in our system. The Reserve Bank has implemented what it believes to be a more focused solution—that is, open bank resolution, which includes depositor protection. It really comes down to the matter of the right incentives on the banking system. On the one hand, the reality is that when banks have been threatened with collapse, Governments have provided a guarantee. On the other hand, we do not want to undermine the need felt by the owners and managers of banks to ensure that they cannot play fast and loose with financial risk simply because their depositors will not suffer any losses. The member is pointing, I think, to a pretty finely balanced equation, and because of the significance of this for the Government’s balance sheet, we do make sure there is ongoing testing of the current regime.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to this very finely balanced equation, when will the Government or the financiers come to a decision and consider all those countries with a Government guarantee for bank deposits such as Australia, Canada, and the UK to be actually right on this matter now?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can assure the member that there is ongoing discussion. For instance, the regime that applies in Australia to our banks is different from that that applies to New Zealand, and those matters are discussed regularly in the Trans-Tasman Council on Banking Supervision. All the issues that the member, I know, would want to be raised have been raised in that context. We hope to continue resolving the differences, bearing in mind that each Government has the interests of its own taxpayers and depositors at heart, and they do not always align completely with each other.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When can we hope that this Government will actually do something, rather than risk another South Canterbury Finance fiasco by not putting a Government guarantee scheme in place before the onset of another financial crisis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, the member is raising reasonable points. One of the arguments for depositor insurance is that it effectively means that depositors prepay any bailout funds. Of course, that is not costless. That imposes costs on the whole economy, because, effectively, interest rates would have to be a bit higher to achieve that. As I have indicated, the Government has been monitoring both the current regime that is in place—open bank resolution, which does include Government guarantees of depositor funds—and the differences between our regime and, for instance, the Australian one, which is a pretty real-time issue: to have two different regimes applied to the same banks.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Government continuing to mull over this issue when it can be seen to be encouraging New Zealanders to put their savings offshore into another country’s bank accounts and have those accounts covered by another Government guarantee, à la Australia?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Right now I do not think that is the case. As recently as yesterday, Standard and Poor’s, a credit rating agency on which both Governments and bank depositors would rely to assess the soundness of our banks, said that our banks are sound and that the open bank resolution process that is in place is a sound scheme. The member may be referring to events around the implementation of the sovereign guarantees back in 2008-09, and certainly there was a risk then that New Zealanders would remove bank deposits from here and put them in Australia if they believed they were going to be insured there. Again, it is not clear in the future that an Australian Government would tolerate that kind of behaviour either. I am not criticising the member for raising the issues; they are all legitimate issues.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister why this matter is so time consuming to conclude that he is averse to giving guarantees—

Hon Steven Joyce: We don’t guarantee.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —when, in fact, the Government does guarantee—for that member’s sake—the capital interest held in the Public Trust common fund, for example? Get your facts right, big ears—it does guarantee.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, he wants to chip in. I am telling him—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is another example, not different from yesterday, where interjections do not help the order of the House. I am going to invite the member to start his question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is very reasonable of you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. If the Minister and the Government are so averse to giving Government guarantees, why is there a Government guarantee for, for example, capital interest held in the Public Trust common fund?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: At least this member here uses his ears for listening. We could get into the detail of the Public Trust, but it is less than 0.5 percent of the value of banking assets. In fact, it is probably less than about 0.25 percent of the value of banking assets, so we have not paid quite so much attention to the Public Trust. But the member is, I think, rightly raising issues around the nature of the Crown guarantee. In the end, the important thing is that taxpayers are not left with the burden of badly run banks, and that we should have a regulatory regime and a set of incentives to ensure that banks that are large enough to wreck the Government’s books never actually fail.

Child Poverty—Government Policy and 2014 Unicef Report

4. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement that “he was proud of the Government’s record in tackling child poverty”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister proud of his tax policies in light of Unicef’s finding today that his tax cuts for high earners achieved nothing for New Zealand kids in poverty while cash payments to poor families in Australia during the global financial crisis helped to reduce child poverty by 30 percent while also stimulating the economy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that the member’s assessment of the report is actually incorrect. Looking at Australia, the reason that its child poverty rates have reduced by 6 percent is that it has actually had a strong economy. I think it is implausible, actually, to claim that a one-off $900 stimulus payment made in one particular year would have an impact on child poverty rates when it was paid after when some of those rates were being measured. So I think the member’s reading of the report is quite incorrect.

Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister cut taxes for the wealthy during the depths of the global financial crisis yet do nothing to improve the outcomes—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to ask the question so it can be heard. Would the member please start—[Interruption] Order! Would the member please start the question again.

Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister cut taxes for the wealthy during the depths of the global financial crisis, yet do nothing to improve the outcomes for New Zealand’s poorest children, something that 18 other OECD countries managed to do despite being hit harder by the crisis than New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Rather than the member actually criticising the Government’s tax programme, which I think has been at least one contributing factor to a stronger economy, she should, of course, be congratulating the Government, because it is that stronger economy that has seen child poverty rates reduce. It is that strong economy and a continuation of a strong economy that will lift more children out of poverty. And, actually, this Government has done a lot when it comes to making sure that the most needy children get support. That includes borrowing through the financial crisis for Working for Families, for accommodation supplements, and for interest rates relief. It includes expanding the Food in Schools programme—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: As Metiria Turei had a right to have her question heard in reasonable silence, so the Prime Minister has a right to answer the question without the uproar I was experiencing from my left.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It has included a wide range of things, like the insulation of homes. A strong economy is the No. 1 way to lift youngsters out of poverty. The Government is exploring a range of different measures it can also potentially implement to help those in the most severe form of material deprivation. But in the end, a strong economy is the thing that will help the most number of New Zealand children.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister disputing the findings from Unicef’s international report comparing OECD countries and how they managed with child poverty rates over the global financial crisis, which clearly describes New Zealand’s child poverty rates as stagnating under his watch as a direct result of his failure to invest in children, including serious criticisms of his tax cut regime to the very wealthy? Does he dispute Unicef’s findings?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I dispute is the member’s analysis. What the report quite clearly shows, actually, is that child poverty rates reduced under this Government—yes, at not as fast a rate as we would all like, but this country was much more—

Hon David Cunliffe: Stagnated.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, no one wanted to listen to you during the campaign; I cannot see why they would want to listen to you now.

Metiria Turei: Does it concern the Prime Minister that one of the three indicators in the report where New Zealand children are doing worse is food supply—that is, even more New Zealand families report not having enough money from payday to payday to provide enough food for them and their children?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, what I think you can take from the report is that, firstly, the number of children living in poverty in New Zealand is reducing under this Government. Secondly, if you go and look at the countries that had the biggest increases in child poverty, under the measurements in the report, they were countries like Iceland, Greece, Ireland, Spain, and Italy—countries that follow the kinds of economic plans proposed by the Greens, which is to spend a lot, to tax a lot, and to pretend, actually, that a strong economy is not the solution to helping youngsters out of poverty. This Government is working on a very extensive programme, and it has done so over time, and actually I think, overall, our record, given the circumstances we inherited from the poor economic management of the previous Labour Government, has been quite strong.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister adopt child poverty reduction targets, given that one of Unicef’s top three recommendations is for the New Zealand Government to implement better data on child poverty, because how can you possibly manage what you do not measure?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member’s logic is correct, then we should just ignore the Unicef report, because it says that it does not have good information to measure these things.

State and Social Housing Tenants—Support for Transition to Private Rentals

5. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social Housing: What support is the Government providing to help people move from social housing into private rentals?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): There are around 640 State house tenants who have been paying market rent for more than a year, who could afford to sustain a private rental, and there are people, as we know, who are desperate for those homes. Often the barriers to people moving are around their having to pay a bond, pay moving costs, and, of course, wanting to stay in their community and have their children stay in their schools. All of these can be overcome. Since July this year we have helped 60 tenants by spending a total of $82,000 to help them with the costs of moving and setting up a new home. This not only frees up a State house but stops tenants from getting into unnecessary debt. This is a small cost to the Government but a big help to those individuals.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How does this moving support package fit with the Government’s reviewable tenancies policy?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In July we also began reviewing the tenancies of State house tenants paying market rent, in order to free up houses for others more in need. Many of the people having their tenancies reviewed will get moving costs from the housing support package. More than 200 people are currently in the tenancy review process and there will be more to come. It is proving to be very successful.

State and Social Housing—Availability

6. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: What is the “exciting and sexy stuff” she has been considering for social housing?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): In my desire to liven up an interview on Radio New Zealand, I may have talked up the sexy stuff a little too much. I am not sure it is sexy, but I am sure it is exciting. My statement this morning was around community housing providers and how they can partner with the Government, with developers, with other NGOs, and with those in the private sector. That is exciting—how it can get to the stage of helping vulnerable New Zealanders, with more New Zealanders being housed in better quality homes that suit their needs far better.

Phil Twyford: Would it be exciting and sexy stuff to sell off a third of the social housing stock without building any replacement housing, and how exciting and sexy will that be for the 5,500 poor families on the waiting list and living in cars, garages, and caravans?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This is very much about vulnerable New Zealanders who need assistance to be in warm, safe houses. What we have seen to date is actually poor quality State houses that are the wrong size and in the wrong place. That ain’t working for those New Zealanders who most need assistance. We will house more people in social housing. We just may not necessarily own all of those homes. It will be better for the people, not necessarily better for Government.

Phil Twyford: When she said that every day it gets better, was she referring to the plight of families bringing up their kids in poverty and forced to live in caravans, or was she referring to the routine denigration of poor people on her 6-year watch, once she had pulled up the ladder?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No one was listening to you for the last 3 months, and they ain’t listening to you now, Phil. So the reality is—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not appropriate to attack the member who has asked the question, at the start of the answer. If the Minister would simply answer the question that has been asked.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I was talking about—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was worse than that. She was attacking, of all people, you. She referred to you twice.

Mr SPEAKER: If I could just take this opportunity to assist the member. When the word “you” is used it is inappropriate, but it is for the Speaker alone to decide, and that was reviewed in the Standing Orders in the previous Parliament. I would be grateful if all members would not use that as an excuse to interrupt debate or question time.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I was talking about the 127 people who were housed just last week, including 10 with a community housing provider. I was talking about those people who actually are getting access to better services through Work and Income, because that means that their assessments are more thorough, they have got better options than just a State house, and we are putting more money in to make sure more people get the assistance they need.

Phil Twyford: Has she spoken to the member of Parliament who formerly represented the area that includes the Rānui campground; if so, did she tell her that her department had been routinely referring people to live there in caravans, and that she has been a Minister for only 6 years and doing exciting and sexy stuff takes a lot longer than that?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: You are doing well. Actually, we are the first ones who took that Rānui caravan park seriously. We have been in there, and have been critical of the services and how they provide them. We have not been referring people to it. We actually have work that is under way now. We are serious about doing things differently. The same old stuff will not work, so we need to work with community housing providers. We need to put people first. While that member counts houses, we count people and care about them being in the right house with the right services and the right wraparound.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table Housing New Zealand’s emergency housing provider list, which contains dozens of campgrounds and caravan parks.

Mr SPEAKER: I just need the source of the document.

Phil Twyford: Housing New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: From what? A website?

Phil Twyford: I am not sure whether it is on the website. It is a hard-copy document. It is not readily available.

Mr SPEAKER: I will accept the member’s word that it is not readily available. On that basis I will put the leave to table that document. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Phil Twyford: How does she reconcile her comment that poor families living in caravans are not there by choice with earlier comments that some homeless people are making a lifestyle choice, or did she miss the advice that looking arrogant and conceited about poverty is not a good look for third-term Ministers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The angrier you get with me, the better my career seems to go, so that is fine. What I will say is that I visited that caravan park, and what I said was I do not think that it is the right place particularly for families to be in—for children to be growing up in. That is not where we want them to be. But what I will say is there are some people who choose to live there, and enjoy living there, and I see that as their choice. But I do not think that families, and children in particular, should be there.

Phil Twyford: Do homeless families in west Auckland need exciting and sexy stuff or do they simply need a Government that invests in enough emergency accommodation for homeless people, and why does she not use just some of the 520 empty State houses in Auckland?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, we are actually housing more people in State houses and have a faster turn-round than we have certainly just about ever done. We are down to 28 days between tenancies and it—

Phil Twyford: Talk, talk, talk for 6 years

Hon PAULA BENNETT: You have asked the question. I am just giving you your answer. We care about people. I know the member wants to count houses; we want to make sure that people have the quality housing that they can get, which will actually mean that we are addressing some of those children in hardship. That is our priority, and that is what we are working on.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise an issue—which I think occurred yesterday as well—with the Minister, who just gave a very rude hand gesture to me across the House. It has been reported to me that she did it on two occasions yesterday during question time, and I think it is going to really disrupt the order of the House if that continues from the Hon Paula Bennett.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Speaking to the point of order, I certainly did not do a rude gesture at all to that member, and if she takes offence at a wave, then there is something seriously wrong—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In regard to the point that has been raised by Sue Moroney, the member’s word has been given and it will be taken. But I have got to say that throughout the questions that were asked by Mr Twyford, he and the people sitting right next to him continued to give a barrage of interjection right through the answers, which made it very difficult for me to hear the answer and, I think, would have made it near-impossible for the members asking the question to hear the answer.

Schools—Internet Access

7. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made on ensuring schools have access to fast, reliable internet connections?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I am pleased to advise the House that last week the 1,000th school was connected to the Government’s managed network. I visited the 1,000th school, Stanley Avenue School in Te Aroha. I was delighted to see that the students were involved in Lego robotics and other new technologies, including 3-D printers. They even have their own television and radio station. Having schools connected to the managed network is part of our commitment to ensure that young people are equipped with the skills they need to be successful in employment and in life, no matter where they grow up in New Zealand.

Scott Simpson: What is the Government investment in fast internet connections and what are the benefits of that investment?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The Government is investing more than $700 million to ensure that young people have access to cutting-edge technology in schools. This includes more than $200 million invested in the managed network. This is about providing quick, reliable internet with uncapped data. I am very pleased that the Network for Learning roll-out is far exceeding expectations, with about 40 percent of New Zealand schools now connected. This means more than 280,000 students and 20,000 teachers are now connected. We are focused on delivering the Government’s vision, which will see young New Zealanders have the best modern learning environment and access to fast internet anytime, anywhere, within school grounds.

Energy Companies—Performance

8. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the performance of the share prices of the mixed-ownership energy companies since they listed on the sharemarket?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I have received reports confirming that the three mixed-ownership energy companies are performing better. By that, I mean they are keeping power prices in check because of the competitive market, they are paying higher dividends than they did in Government ownership, and their share prices have increased above their levels on listing. This is good news for consumers. In many cases the average residential electricity price they pay has fallen in the past year. It is also good news for taxpayers, who retain majority ownership in these companies, and for New Zealand investors who bought shares. They are also paying higher dividends. For example, despite selling just under half of its shareholding in Genesis, the Government is forecast to receive twice the dividends from the company this year compared with the best year between 2001 and 2012, when it was the 100 percent shareholder—that is, twice the dividends as a 50 percent shareholder than it received when it was the 100 percent shareholder.

David Seymour: Does the Minister agree that the change in market value post-election provides a good approximation of what taxpayers could reasonably have expected to receive in the initial share offers if not for the risks posed by proposed reform of the electricity sector, and is he aware that the joint market capitalisation of Mighty River Power, Genesis, and Meridian Energy has increased compared with the values in June last by around $1 billion?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it is a matter of public record that the values of the companies have gone up, but I think the member might be referring to the attempt by Labour and the Greens to sabotage the float. Of course, the irony of that is that the people who suffered most from it are the mums and dads who were scared off, who actually could have bought shares and substantially benefited from them. So we have ended up with the taxpayer having got a bit less and the investors having done a bit more. I do not think that Labour and the Greens were trying to help the investors, but they did.

David Seymour: Does the Minister agree that if the pre-election discount on the energy utilities was of the order of $1 billion, the increased tax burden on New Zealand workers could be characterised in the following way: namely, that it will require the taxpayer by 117,000 New Zealand workers earning the average New Zealand income, working for a full year, before the Government will have recouped in tax what it lost in the discount for risk due to the Labour-Green proposed pricing policy?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—the Minister is certainly not responsible for the policy of another political party.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is an interesting calculation. I have not seen that one before. There is no doubt that the Labour-Greens policy had the effect of transferring wealth from taxpayers to investors who took the risk of buying shares before the result of the 2014 election was known.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does this Government still believe, as he has said in the past, that Kiwis are still not paying too much for their power usage?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, anyone who has paid a power bill is likely to think they have paid too much. What I can tell the member is that the combination of one of the most competitive markets in the developed world, along with the partial sales of the companies, is leading to a situation where the energy prices—that is, not including the lines charges, which are the local monopolies—are falling. That started happening about when Labour said: “We’ve got a crisis in electricity prices.”

Accident Compensation Corporation—Public Confidence and Sensitive Claims

9. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for ACC: Is she satisfied that just 54 percent of the public expressed trust and confidence in ACC according to the corporation’s 2014 Annual Report?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): No, I believe that ACC needs to do more to rebuild trust and confidence with New Zealanders. I am confident that ACC has a significant programme of work under way to achieve this. I am also pleased that the annual report shows trust and confidence has been trending upwards for the past few years.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Did former Minister Judith Collins damage public trust and confidence in ACC when she admitted that every New Zealander is paying too much for ACC because the Government is using excessive levies to create the perception that it will achieve a fiscal surplus in the current financial year?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Well, firstly, I disagree with the statement made in that question. But what I can say in terms of levies is that under our Government we have announced $480 million in levy reductions. That is incredibly significant, and it is a bit rich to get a lecture after the previous Labour Government left us with a huge deficit in 2008-09 of $4.8 billion.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I am going to seek leave to table a media statement, but that is because the Minister refuted the premise of my question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members need to understand that the purpose of tabling a document is not to make a political point.

Iain Lees-Galloway: The purpose is not to make a political point.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I think that in the way it has been described to me, it is very much about making a political point. The reason people seek leave to table documents is that it is information that is not readily available to members, may be difficult to source for members, and may be informative to members. If it is something that has been in the media, particularly media that is freely available to members, I do not intend to start putting the leave.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a ruling that you made—it was either earlier this week or last week—you referred us to a Speaker’s ruling that requires any statements made in a question to be authenticated, so if there is any factual material in a question, it needs to be authenticated. If a member is not able to table a document to authenticate that claim, what is the appropriate way for them to authenticate any claim that they might be making in a question?

Mr SPEAKER: The member, I think, is confused between a primary question and a supplementary question. The authentication is required for a primary question, and that is required in the process when it is lodged to the Clerk’s Office, and they will be accepted with authentication. With regard to supplementary questions, I have to judge relatively immediately whether it is a reasonable question, and I do that, but it is not as if there is an ability to then table information that substantiates the authentication of a supplementary question. So in this case, the primary question was authenticated, it was immediately answered in the very first word by the Minister, and we have now moved to a supplementary question. The way forward, as I continue to advise the House, is further incisive supplementary questions.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does the Minister accept—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: World weary—he’s not happy. That’s a big sigh.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Are you all right? Does the Minister accept that over the 6 years that National has been in Government, New Zealanders have overwhelmingly come to perceive ACC as difficult to deal with, likely to breach their privacy, likely to litigate against claimants, and overcharging them for the privilege; if not, why not?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: No, I do not accept all of the statements made by that member. What I can say is what I have said in answer to the primary question: there is more work to do. Obviously, by a percentage that shows 54 percent public confidence, we have to do better. Let me outline some of the progress that we have made. Firstly, you can see at an investment level that ACC is now essentially fully funded. That is an extraordinary achievement for this Government, given that we were left in a situation of a debt of $4.8 billion in terms of deficit. Secondly, at an organisational level it is very clear—and I am meeting with the board tomorrow—that it has a huge programme around both updating information and communications technology systems to ensure that we have better progress around issues like privacy but also that a huge amount is being done in terms of claims management. I am confident that ACC is on the right track.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Will this morning’s article in the New Zealand Herald damage public trust and confidence in ACC, given that it detailed an attempt to cover up information about fraudulent activity, that the cover-up itself was bungled, that when pressed about the extent of fraud, ACC could only say that the information it used was not robust, and that an accurate figure for the level of fraud has not been provided?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: In terms of the article in the New Zealand Herald, I do not believe that it will actually damage public trust, because you need to understand that the data is—and I want to outline why, for a number of reasons—11-year-old data. The data was from 2,000 clients, and that is out of a total of about a billion claims. So, firstly, it was a very small sample. I also understand that the figure that was quoted of 8 percent to 10 percent was not the proportion that was fraudulent; it was the proportion that needed another look. So it is old data, it is a small sample, and it is ropey.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Given that the Minister is not satisfied with the level of public trust and confidence in ACC, does she believe that the two initiatives to address public trust and confidence listed in the service agreements between ACC and former Minister Collins, which are “refresh our communications strategy” and “social media”, will be enough to improve confidence in ACC, or does she think it might take something a little bit less superficial than that?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: In terms of the corporation’s programme to improve public confidence, there is a range of initiatives. There is a range of initiatives. The member is referring to a different document. He is not referring to the annual report. If he reads the annual report, he will see that not only is there a significant investment plan in terms of dealing with the privacy issues, and not only is the ACC doing a huge amount around sensitive claims, which is very important, but, thirdly, the Government is looking at the long-term funding policy. When he drills down, when he does the work and reads the annual report, he will see that one of the areas where we do need to improve public confidence is around businesses’ interaction with the ACC. There is a huge amount to do in terms of that administration side because that is where the public confidence is partly very low.

Marama Fox: Ā, e Te Mana Whakawā tēnā koe. E Te Minita, he aha ngā whakaritenga kia tutuki ai te tekau ōrau o runga mō ngā tono pānga ia tau, ia tau, ā, he aha ō mahere kia pai haere ai ngā tāngata i roto i te pūnaha whakaora?

[What arrangements have you in mind for the projected 10 percent increase in new claims each year, and what are your plans to improve the involvement of people in the recovery process?]

Hon NIKKI KAYE: Just in terms of the translation of that question, I got only half of it, I think—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite Marama Fox to either repeat it in Te Reo, or, if she wants to, she can now repeat the question in English—whichever she would rather do.

Marama Fox: Perhaps I will repeat it in English. How is the Minister planning to address the projected 10 percent increase in new sensitive claims each year, and what plans does she have in place to involve whānau in the recovery process?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: That is a very good question. Firstly, one area where the Government is very focused, and also the corporation is very focused, is the prevention of sexual violence. We have a strategy and an action plan around that, and they involve a number of Government agencies. The second thing I would say is I am advised that ACC is currently in the final stages of tendering for new suppliers and providers around some of those sensitive claims. That is very important so that we have more providers. Thirdly, with regard to family and whānau support, I am pleased to confirm that family and whānau of sensitive claims clients will receive support through the introduction of up to 20 hours of family and whanau support, depending on family need. I can confirm that this will be available by the end of the year.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Can I just ask the Minister with regard to the question, because I was not listening to the translation, for further information, just in case other members, Māori members, use Te Reo and we have to switch into English, which defeats the purpose. Was the issue that the Minister did not get a good translation, that the Minister did not get a translation, or that the translation was unclear—just for the purposes of—

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure I can answer that on behalf of the Minister. The Minister did not manage to realise it was going to be in Māori. She did not grab the headpiece in time to listen to the translation, so she picked up the latter part of the—[Interruption] I will let the Minister explain her own reasoning.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am going to hear from the Hon Nikki Kaye first so we will get an explanation.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I was listening, and I heard only half, I think, of what the translation was, and other members may be able to confirm that.

Chris Hipkins: I am happy to speak to this, because I also was listening to the translation, and the translation bore very little correlation to the question that was then asked in English. This is quite a serious issue for the House, because we previously had a situation where questions were asked first in Te Reo Māori and then in English, and we moved to a system where we had simultaneous translation. If that translation is not going to actually translate what is asked, then we are going to have to reassess that. I listened very carefully to the translation. I can fully understand why the Minister did not understand what the question was. I did not understand what the question was either.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. I appreciate that. When I finally got my headpiece on, again, I found much the same as the member Chris Hipkins has said. We need to now investigate whether it was an issue to do with the translation, because it is critical, if we are going to rely on the translator, that we have an accurate interpretation of the question that is asked. Otherwise, it could lead to all sorts of difficulties for a Minister. I will look into the matter.

Drink-driving—Booze Bus Biometrics System

10. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister of Police: What recent developments is he aware of to help identify drink-drive offenders?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): Last week I launched the national roll-out of the Booze Bus Biometrics system. The Booze Bus Biometrics system will enable police to confirm within minutes the identities of people in the system whom they intend to charge with drink-driving offences by electronically scanning fingerprints, taking digital photographs, and comparing the data with existing police records. The Booze Bus Biometrics system will be installed in all 21 police booze buses by the end of November.

Mike Sabin: What are the benefits of the Booze Bus Biometrics system?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Identifying high-risk drivers and recidivist drink-drivers at the roadside means that police will be able to respond quickly and appropriately to circumstances and ensure that alleged offenders are charged appropriately from the outset. We have made very good progress in reducing death and injury on our roads, but alcohol-related death and injury remain stubbornly high. The Government has introduced tougher penalties for serious and repeat drink-drivers. These tools will assist police to continue to do their jobs more effectively.

Government—Transparency

11. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Did Jason Ede report to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Wayne Eagleson while employed as a Senior Ministerial Advisor in the office of the Prime Minister; if not, to whom did he report?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Dr Russel Norman: Did he or his chief of staff give approval to his employee Jason Ede to access the Labour Party’s private database without permission, an action that Mr Ede took in May 2011 while on the staff of the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I would point out to the House that Jason Ede accessed parts of the Labour Party website that were publicly available.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister saying that if he left the door open to his Parnell home and someone walked in, wandered around, and took some stuff without his permission that would not be stealing?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member wants to talk about stealing, let us talk about Nicky Hager and where he got his emails from.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A point of order has been raised.

Dr Russel Norman: The Prime Minister has not attempted to address the question, which was directly relevant to his previous answer, by making an analogy between the breaking into of the Labour Party website and going into the Prime Minister’s house. He has not addressed the question at all.

Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion, in my opinion, the member has not helped his own point of order by talking of an analogy. The Prime Minister then, in his answer, used yet another analogy, which was that it was similar, in some ways, according to the Prime Minister, to entering into a house uninvited. I will allow the member an additional supplementary question.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: This is why James should be the leader.

Dr Russel Norman: Chris is such a lovely man, is he not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could we just have some silence from my right to get through question time.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that his office upheld the highest ethical standards when his employee Jason Ede accessed the Labour Party’s private database without permission?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Dr Russel Norman: When did he or his chief of staff become aware that Jason Ede, while employed on the Prime Minister’s staff, in his office, had accessed the Labour Party’s private database without permission from the Labour Party?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My chief of staff became aware of the fact that Mr Ede had gone into the part of the Labour website that it had failed to properly secure, that its members apologised to their supporters for this, and that the database was publicly available some time after that event occurred.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You were slightly distracted at the end of the Prime Minister’s answer, and the date was not very clear from the end of his answer. I wonder whether you can tell us on what date he had found out, because I could not hear from over here.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister did not give a specific date and you would hardly expect him to have that information in the House.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister now saying that it is acceptable behaviour for ministerial staff to go into private databases—which they have no right to go into; they have not gained permission to go into them—take the data from those databases, and share it with attack bloggers like Slater? Is that now acceptable, ethical behaviour for ministerial staff?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I am saying is that that part of the website was publicly available for people to go into. What I am also saying to the House is that, no, I do not agree with Nicky Hager being part of an action to steal emails. I do not agree with people coming to the National Party cocktail party and secretly taping our people. No, I do not agree with people secretly taping other activities undertaken by us. I think the member, actually, should pick up a mirror and have a bit of a look.

Prime Minister—Communications with Blogger

12. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Prime Minister: Was he acting in his capacity as Prime Minster during the 14 February 2014 press conference when he confirmed to journalists that he speaks to Cameron Slater “every so often” including that same week when they discussed Mr Kim Dotcom “briefly”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No, I spoke to Cameron Slater in my capacity as the leader of the National Party, and therefore questions from the media about the conversation were answered in that same capacity. By way of clarification, earlier this year I was frequently asked at my press conferences whether the National Party would reach an electoral accommodation with other political parties. As would be obvious to the member, I responded to the questions as the leader of the National Party. There have also been other examples: when I was asked to comment about Max’s selfies, or Stephie’s penchant for photos covered mostly in sushi, or the health of Moonbeam the cat. I do that in my capacity as a father.

Dr Megan Woods: How can he say that he was not acting as Prime Minister at that press conference when he directly referred to “myself as Prime Minister”, had a ministerial staffer standing behind him recording the proceedings, and was answering questions from journalists that related to his prime ministerial responsibilities?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because, as the member should well and truly know, I wear several hats, and I answer questions in press conferences for several reasons. As I just pointed out to the member, quite often I answer questions for which I have no ministerial responsibility because I am acting as the leader of the National Party.

Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table a screenshot of the prime ministerial stand-up—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. The member is now just abusing the privilege of seeking leave to table a document.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As an evidentiary matter, frequently a photograph has been used as compelling proof of some event. It has happened in many court cases and many events. Much of it has been televised. I want to know what the distinction is between a photograph like that, which could be so important in some cases as proof—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat straight away. [Interruption] Straight away. Within only the last 10 or 15 minutes I have given an explanation as to why people seek the ability to table a document. It is to inform the House. It is not to make a political point. A shot of the Prime Minister at a press conference does nothing to give further, useful information to this House. I will not put the leave, and I will not see this system further abused by a member. I was very tempted to cease the question there and then. On this occasion, I will give the member the benefit of the doubt and allow her to complete her questions.

Dr Megan Woods: How was the information that he said he had confirmed by a member of the public regarding Kim Dotcom transferred from himself as the party leader to himself as the Prime Minister when he referred to it in Parliament as the Prime Minister on 12 February 2014?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Someone told me. I actually do have some sympathy for Megan Woods. She is holding up a picture of a leader of a party, but that is because she is desperate for her—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not help the order of the House.

Dr Megan Woods: When he told journalists on 14 February 2014 in his capacity as the Prime Minister that “A member of the public, for want of a better term, rang me up and said what was the case.”, was Cameron Slater that member of the public?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That information was in my capacity as the leader of the National Party.

Dr Megan Woods: If he is the Prime Minister and confirms information using taxpayer resources that he then refers to in the House as Prime Minister, how is that not in his ministerial capacity?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member should email Helen Clark at undp.com.

Dr Megan Woods: When he has received information from Cameron Slater has he ever asked any of his taxpayer-funded staff to follow up on information passed to him by Cameron Slater?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Urgent Debates Declined

Child Poverty—2014 Unicef Report

Sexual Assault Allegations—Roast Busters Case

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Annette King seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the release of the Unicef report Children of Recession: The impact of economic crisis on child well-being in rich countries, released today. In order for an urgent debate to be held there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. There is no ministerial responsibility for a Unicef report. The Minister for Social Development may have commented on the report, but she has made no decision that reveals a new development of sufficient importance in itself to warrant a debate being held today.

Hon Annette King: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for confirming what we know—

Mr SPEAKER: It is a pleasure. I have also—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I have also received a letter from Kelvin Davis seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s decision not to prosecute those involved in the Roast Busters incident. In order for an urgent debate to be held there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The member’s authentication shows that an announcement is to be made by the police later this afternoon. If something occurs after the House has sat, it should be lodged for the next sitting day. In any event, under our system of government the decision to prosecute, or not, is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. That application is therefore also declined.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 28 October.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Firstly, as this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak, can I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your reappointment as Speaker of the House. Can I congratulate your new Deputy Speaker, Chester Borrows, and can I also congratulate the two Assistant Speakers, Trevor Mallard and Lindsay Tisch.

It is fair to say that since the Speakers have been installed in the last week, I have had a number of New Zealanders approach me and raise the issue of the Hon Trevor Mallard’s appointment as Assistant Speaker. I have been giving some thought as to how I could explain such a venerable member of the House having the opportunity to become an Assistant Speaker and a presiding officer, and I decided the best way to explain it is that Trevor is the yin to Lindsay Tisch’s yang. I think that is probably the best way that we can raise it. He is the slightly different chalk to Lindsay’s cheese.

Since I last had the opportunity to speak here, we have had an election. In that election campaign it is fair to say that the Opposition was resolutely focused. The Opposition was resolutely focused on the issues that do not matter to New Zealanders. In a carefully spaced-out campaign—and sometimes it did feel a little spaced out—we had a Matt McCarten special. First, we had the “Vote Positive” slogan, which was the last time we saw anything positive from the Labour Party until election day. The rest of the election campaign was brought to us by the letter “b”—that is, by the books, by the blogger, and by a big Bavarian. That big Bavarian did rather loom large over the election campaign. Then, of course, we had the moment of truth—the moment of truth. Remember the moment of truth? It quickly became, unfortunately, the moment of ’struth, when it was discovered by the Opposition too late in the day that bringing in four or five foreign “dignitaries” to tell New Zealanders how to vote 5 days later was perhaps a slight exercise in futility. We have seen again today that the Opposition is still going at it, and can I say, on behalf of the Government benches, long may its approach last. Long may its approach last. May it bang on about bloggers right through until 2017.

Actually, I do not want to say this, but perhaps a reference to Albert Einstein’s quote—a semi-paraphrase, if you would—that the definition of futility is repeating the same approach time and time again and expecting to get a different result. But never mind, because the cavalry is coming! The cavalry is indeed coming! The four horse people of the apocalypse—Robertson, Parker, Little, and Mahuta—are riding to the rescue as we speak. It is a reasonably tortuous course, to be fair. They started off heading in the direction of Wellington, but they sort of took a dip to Nelson, then down to Dunedin, and I think they are going back north after that. According to the Labour Party grandee Brian Edwards, whom I must admit I have never quoted before, they are cavorting around the country conducting a pillow fight. He went on to say that, actually, it is hard to be a Labour Party supporter, let alone a Labour Party advocate, when your team behaves like a flock of drunken sheep, which is slightly unfair, of course, but only slightly.

The election campaign was a referendum, more than anything else, on how New Zealand was going in the world. I think the result from New Zealanders was reasonably clear. The reason for that is that they have seen New Zealand performing relatively well compared with the rest of the world over the last few years. We have seen a big expansion in our economy relative to most OECD countries. We have seen tens and tens of thousands of jobs created in the last 12 months—in fact, the fastest labour market growth since 2004. Despite the manufacturing crisis we have seen manufacturing in expansion now for some 25 months. Business confidence and consumer confidence have been very strong. In fact, this month business confidence has doubled again after the pre-election period.

Probably most telling, Kiwis are voting with their feet and staying in this country. Our cost of living increase is pretty low. The latest figures have come out and actually said that the cost of living increased just 1 percent in the last year. That means after-tax wages are definitely rising faster than inflation, when prior to the global financial crisis that was the other way round. Our mortgage interest rates are just off 50-year lows. House building is up, and we have got our balance of payments deficit down. So it is actually now about what is going to happen over the next few years. I, for one, am very strongly positive about New Zealand’s future.

I would like to take a moment to talk about a couple of sectors of the New Zealand economy that are actually doing very well despite the story of a high New Zealand dollar, and those are the information and communications technology and the high-tech manufacturing sectors. There is a lot of talk in New Zealand about the “need for diversification”. From time to time there is a lot of talk from various Opposition politicians that somehow it is as if all we do all day is ship low-quality products offshore, which, I have to say, is a little insulting to companies all around the country, but actually the truth of the matter is that whether you are talking about the primary sector or the high-tech sector, the level of innovation in New Zealand is actually quite stunning.

We saw last week that New Zealand’s top 100 companies in the technology sector reached for the first time $7.6 billion in turnover, which has been a $1 billion increase in the last 5 years. So during the global financial crisis, during the struggles of Christchurch—a number of these companies are located in Christchurch, and some of them had to change premises, and so on—and during all that period with a high New Zealand dollar, their turnover in New Zealand dollar terms has gone up by a further $1 billion. They now export nearly three-quarters of their entire annual revenues. So we are seeing very big growth and very encouraging growth, and we are seeing the diversification that New Zealanders often talk about. The thing that is really driving all of this is research and development and innovation, and this is what we are seeing more of. This is what this Government is very much truly supporting. So that is encouraging, but actually the story of innovation is much, much wider than that.

I recall, again, prior to the election campaign, I think it was, one of the Greens’ co-leaders saying New Zealand’s primary sector needs to innovate. He actually said it just before the Fieldays occurred, in the Waikato. As I was travelling around Fieldays, there were a number of highly offended farmers who wandered up and said: “This guy needs to come just once to Fieldays and have a look at what is going on in this country.” These days farming is, by definition, actually a data-driven industry. That is what is going on, and I think one of the challenges for the Opposition has been that its members failed to get out much in the last 3 years, and, as a result, have not seen what is actually happening.

So as we look forward we have to ask ourselves at this time, as we look at the Address in Reply, what New Zealand’s future is all about and how we make ourselves successful. This Government believes that New Zealand’s future is all about boosting our connectivity internationally, about taking advantage of our opportunities on the world stage, and about backing our businesses to get out there and succeed in a globalised world. One of the things we are very passionate about is opening up markets for our exporters, and giving our companies—which we rate and which we back—the opportunity to sell in markets all over the world. We know that if they get that opportunity on an equal footing they will succeed. That is why we are in favour of such things as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is why we are in favour of doing a deal with Korea. That is why we are in favour of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement. It gives our companies the opportunity to show that we can foot it in much bigger markets in the world.

We are also going to continue to increase our investment in support of innovation, and continue it. There has been some criticism of the idea of backing businesses with research and development support, but let us remember that New Zealand companies have to go offshore before they are out of nappies. They do need some assistance to get themselves started on the world stage, and once they get started they get out there and really kick along.

We also need to keep focused on skills and capital, and we need to remember that in this day and age both of those are portable, and a responsible Government will look to provide the settings that encourage people to locate themselves in this country and to invest in this country. That is what New Zealanders saw during the election campaign and that is why they voted in support of this Government. Right across the board, including in our infrastructure space, the involvement we are taking with natural resources is very important. This country’s business sector—from small businesses to big business—saw a very important thing during the election campaign and a very big contrast between the two sides. This Government was all about what we could do to encourage business, and the Opposition was, unfortunately, all about what it could do to business.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Can I congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker, on your elevation to your new role, and can I congratulate the National Party on its re-election as the Government. It is not the election result that I was out there campaigning for, but I do want to acknowledge that it was a clear election result, and I congratulate National on that. I would also like to thank the people of Rimutaka for once again investing their trust and confidence in me to be their elected representative in Parliament. It is a tremendous privilege and an honour to represent the people of my home town, and I look forward to doing so again over the next 3 years.

As I mentioned, it was a disappointing election result for the Labour Party, and I want to acknowledge that, and I say to the New Zealand public: “message received”. Clearly, the Labour Party in recent times has not been speaking to the hopes and aspirations of a wide enough section of New Zealand society, and that is a challenge that we need to take on board as we head through the rest of this parliamentary term.

New Zealanders want to hear us talking about the issues that matter to them, but New Zealanders also want to know that if they work hard, they will be able to get ahead, and that there is a Government in place that rewards the hard work and effort of all New Zealanders, not just those at the top. New Zealanders want to see the Labour Party being a voice for the people who are struggling at the moment and who are working hard but are not able to get ahead to create a better life for themselves and their families. That is what the Labour Party has always stood for, and that is one of the challenges that we face in this Parliament—to return to some of those basic principles upon which the Labour Party was founded, and to speak to the hopes and aspirations of a much broader range of New Zealanders.

I said that we should be celebrating success and we should be ensuring that those who work hard are able to get ahead. I want to quote, rather unusually perhaps, or rather controversially, Frank Underwood, the chief whip in the American television series House of Cards.

Hon Maggie Barry: Now you’ve got our attention.

CHRIS HIPKINS: That is right—he is a great role model. Frank Underwood said that those of us who have done well in life have a responsibility to send the elevator back down. I think that that summarises a lot about what the Labour Party does stand for and what we should stand for. Yes, we should be celebrating the success of those who have done well in life, but having done well in life, we then have responsibilities to others around us to ensure that they have those same opportunities that we have enjoyed. I have little time for people who boast about being born in a State house and then seek to sell off State houses and remove those vital social services from future generations. I have little time for people who talk about how they dragged themselves up by their bootstraps, raised themselves, and relied on the State support that was available to them, and then seek to limit those same State supports to future generations of New Zealanders. That is pulling up the ladder behind them and it is blatantly unfair. There is nothing wrong with their being proud of their success, and they have every right to be. My challenge to them and my challenge to everybody else is to ask what they are doing to share opportunity around so that other people have that same opportunity. That is the challenge for this Government.

I similarly congratulate people who have done well in business. I think that creating a business, building a business, and being successful in business is a fantastic thing, and it is something we should encourage and reward New Zealanders for doing. But we should also recognise that businesses exist within communities. Yes, it is great that somebody has built a business and has made themselves into a successful business person, but we should never forget the fact that they are using a workforce that was educated by the rest of us. The education of their workforce was paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer. They transport their goods on roads paid for by everybody. They have their property rights protected by law enforcement agencies paid for by all of us. So, yes, it is great that we celebrate the success of businesses, but businesses exist within communities, and businesses and those who create them and those who run them have responsibilities back to those communities as well. We should be looking at both sides of that equation. It is great to celebrate success and we should do that more often—and I have no hesitation in saying so—but we should also talk about the reciprocal responsibilities that come with that. We should do that as well.

There is no doubt that New Zealand faces some big challenges, and we are going to have to address some of those over the life of this Parliament and beyond. We have a significant change in the demographics of our population, as our population gets older. Our older New Zealanders have the right to security and dignity in retirement but we also have a responsibility to ensure that our settings around that are sustainable into the future. As we have more and more New Zealanders leaving the workforce and moving into retirement, and as we have more and more New Zealanders living longer—with the pressure that brings on the health system—we need to make sure we can continue to pay for that, so that it is not a hollow promise. And yes, it might be politically convenient to push those debates aside in the short term, but in the long term we are going to have to address those, and it is better to have an honest and open discussion about that now rather than pushing that away for future generations to have to confront.

We do need to talk about how we lift New Zealand’s economy up the value chain so that we are creating higher-value jobs. I have lost count of the number of people whom I have spoken to in my electorate who say: “We are willing to do the heavy lifting. We do not mind getting out there and working hard, because we want a better life for ourselves and our families, but no matter how hard we work at the moment we cannot get ahead. We cannot get a foot on the property ladder. We cannot provide all of the things that we want to be able to provide for our kids.” Those are ordinary, everyday New Zealanders who are happy to do the hard work, they are happy to get out there; they just want a Government that makes sure they have the opportunities. And that is what the Labour Party stands for. We want to say to those New Zealanders: “We stand beside you.” In the Labour Party we want to make sure that the opportunities are there so that those who work hard can be rewarded and can get ahead.

In the Public Service we have a challenge here with a Government that is overly focused on measurement, and is focusing only on the things that can be easily measured, rather than on many of the things that are important. In education, for example, it is easy to focus on what can be measured. So we can have a measurement that says that every child has to achieve national standards and get National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. What happens if they leave school and still end up going on the unemployment benefit at the end of it? Surely the thing that we should be focused on is the outcomes, and the outcomes are more difficult to measure, and therefore manage, than the outputs, if you like, in the form of qualifications. These are the honest and real debates that we should be having. We in the Labour Party will be holding the Government to account in this term of Parliament. We recognise the election result that has delivered the National Party a clear mandate to be the Government, but we have a responsibility to hold the Government to account, and we will do that. We will hold it to account when it sells off State housing, as National has done in the past. We will hold the Government to account when it tries to inflict employment law changes on the vast bulk of the working population that benefit the few and penalise the many. We will certainly hold them to account on issues around foreign policy, and stay fast and true to the principle of New Zealand’s being a proud, independent country that makes its decisions on foreign policy independently. We will hold the Government to account on issues around child poverty, because in a country that is as rich as New Zealand—and although we might not always feel it, we are a rich country—there is simply no excuse for children to be growing up in this country living in poverty.

I want to acknowledge that over the last few years the Labour Party has not always put its best foot forward. We have sometimes struggled with the challenges of balancing Opposition with proposition. We have two roles here: one is to point out where the Government is going wrong and to hold it to account, but the other is to be proposing alternatives, and we need to make sure that we do that in a positive way. I also want to acknowledge that it has been difficult to provide space for robust internal democracy whilst also presenting a unified and coherent vision to New Zealanders, and I think we will need to redouble our efforts there.

We need to make sure we look outwards to the half a million New Zealanders who used to vote for the Labour Party and now vote for someone else. My message to all of them is: the Labour Party is back, we want to talk to you, we want to engage with you, and we want to know, quite frankly, what it is going to take to get you to reinvest your vote in the Labour Party. I think that is the discussion that we will have over the next 3 years.

To conclude, it is a fantastic honour and a privilege to be back in the House representing the people of the Rimutaka electorate. I thank them once again for the opportunity to serve and represent them. I would be dishonest if I said I was not disappointed with the election outcome. I would far rather be sitting on the Government side of the House than on this side of the House, but I have received, like all of my colleagues, the message that the voters of New Zealand have sent to us, and I can tell this Government that it is in for a tough 3 years. We will be rigorous in holding it to account, and we are absolutely resolved and determined that in 3 years’ time we will be over there on the Government side, and they will be over here. That is the challenge that is ahead of all of us. We will certainly be focused on that because I believe that New Zealanders deserve better. John Key has failed to deliver them the brighter future that he promised, and the Labour Party will be holding him to account for that.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government): It is an honour to be standing here today as an MP and as a Minister in the 51st Parliament of New Zealand. Can I congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker, on your role. I must say it is slightly freaking me out, your sitting there. It is the first time I have seen it—I was away last week—so it is kind of odd, but a good kind of odd. I must say—and it might be reflective of my own personality—that I am kind of tempted to be a bit naughty just to see what you would do, but of course I will not, because that is not the way to start a parliamentary term. I respect that, and I certainly respect your being there. So good on you. You wanted it, you got it, and you look like you are enjoying it. [Interruption] Well, he did. He really wanted to be the Assistant Speaker, so I think that is pretty cool.

I was just finding it quite interesting to sort of think about where we are at now, and there is no doubt about it that we have just been given a mandate to be in Government. But with that mandate comes a huge responsibility, and it is a huge responsibility to serve the people of New Zealand. The Prime Minister stated categorically that we would govern for all New Zealanders, and I have to say that when I woke up on the Sunday morning after the election, there was obviously that relief and that joy of winning, but equally there was the weight of responsibility that comes with that. And the weight of responsibility was in acknowledging the faith that many New Zealanders have put in us and what we have to do to actually live up to that. I think that all Ministers in this House, all members of Parliament in this House—certainly National and our coalition partners—take that incredibly seriously. The Prime Minister has made it quite categorical what his expectations are of us, and he has been quite clear what his expectations are of me. He has mentioned some of them in his Address in Reply speech, and I would like to go into them a little bit further.

But I do get to have a quick moment to say that I am kind of thrilled to be the first member of Parliament for Upper Harbour. It is a new electorate formed, of course, because of the boundary changes, with 50 percent in west Auckland and 50 percent on the North Shore and in Greenhithe. It was exciting to run there. I am absolutely thrilled to be the member of Parliament for Upper Harbour. I cannot find an electorate office, which is always a challenge, but I am really looking forward to serving the community and being the best member of Parliament that I can be. I feel like a new MP, in many respects, because I have got to prove to the voters that I was worthy of their vote, and that is certainly my intention.

I want to talk a bit about our most vulnerable New Zealanders in the context of social housing and the new role, and I know there are many questions about what that new role of Minister for Social Housing means. I also thought I would talk a little bit about the role the Prime Minister has given me in regard to State services and the cross-agency work, what that kind of means, and how we can do that.

Social housing ultimately, for me, has got kind of three parts in the role that I am playing in it. One is operational. We passed legislation that means that now within the Ministry of Social Development we have the housing assessments being done. We are managing that social housing wait list. We are calculating and reviewing income-related rents, or “IRR”, as I will refer to them. We are paying them to the housing providers. We are doing tenancy reviews, which I mentioned today in question time. We are offering those additional housing support products, which are taking off and proving to be quite interesting. We are purchasing that sort of social housing.

We did this for a number of reasons. One is that it made no sense that, more often than not, it was the same people having to go to Housing New Zealand and having to go to Work and Income to sort out the money, and then having to try to find a house. The two agencies did not always talk well to each other, even though I think they are fantastic people doing the best they can on the front line. It made sense logistically to move that in, but, more important, to be client-focused and people-focused, and for the person to have one door to go through. So that is kind of where it lay to start with.

Then, if we want to open up social housing, which means extending income-related rents to more than just State houses, you could not have Housing New Zealand being in charge of that because ultimately it is the biggest player. I think Housing New Zealand will always be the biggest player, no matter what happens in the next 3 years. Even if we sold off some of that stock, you are still going to see it being far, far more dominant in the market, which I think is a good thing, and that is where it should be. But you could not have Housing New Zealand deciding who the community housing providers were—effectively who its competition was. Housing New Zealand needs a bit of competition, quite frankly. It can up its game. It can do better, which I am really proud to say that it is. But we could see it all being quite different if we have a tenant and we are thinking about that person not just in respect of their housing, as many of them need wraparound services. They need the support longer term, and we invest a lot of money through community organisations, but we can do better. I think there have been marked improvements in the role that Housing New Zealand plays. I want to say I am really proud of the work it does.

Ultimately, what Housing New Zealand did was house someone and then pop in occasionally to make sure the asset was OK. Well, these people need more help than that, and community housing providers or our community groups can often do that better than, certainly, the Government can. So that is one of the reasons why you would open it up to community housing providers. We see many models of it overseas—many of them in Australia, where the Government plays a part but, ultimately, it is the community housing providers. Then the challenge gets to: how do you build their asset base to a level where they can then get further houses and further asset-building from it? So that is their problem. They just do not have the scale right now, and that is a challenge in New Zealand.

So we can sit back and say that it is too hard, and see them get maybe five or 10 houses over a 2 or 3-year period, or we can start thinking quite laterally. That is where I know I was made a bit of fun of. You know, I love the language, but it is exciting, and how they can partner with developers can be kind of sexy—how they can partner with people who know property well. Actually, it is our community housing providers that know people well. If you put those together with the interests of our vulnerable New Zealanders, right smack in the middle, there can be designs and things better than what we currently have now.

Let me give you an example. There are around 15,000 people over the age of 65 living in State houses right now. Most of those are houses with more than one bedroom, and as we constantly hear—and it is the truth—there is a wait list of people who are desperate to get into those homes. Actually, those homes are not fit for purpose for some of our elderly. They could live in better circumstances. They could live in village atmospheres. They could live in places where they have better support. It can actually be quite isolating and damn lonely. We can do better by them. These houses are not always fit for purpose for someone older and on their own. We have seen many great examples of community organisations and developers designing and building places that would fit them better. There is no way we are moving those people on unless there is somewhere better and more satisfactory for them to go. I have faith that community housing providers and others can do that, and that is what we are backing them to do. That change may not happen overnight, but there will be change and it will be in the interests of the person at the centre of it.

Putting people into a State house and leaving them there for decades—decades—without the right support, without the right kinds of aspirations for what else could suit them, in many ways is negligent. That is the role of the new Minister for Social Housing, alongside the Minister of Finance—who is now responsible for Housing New Zealand—and, equally, Nick Smith in the building area. If you think about it, it needed a role of someone in the middle who has not bought in completely to the Housing New Zealand State house, someone who can see it from the perspective of the New Zealander, of the person, and how we can address their needs through different housing options. I look forward to debating and discussing that further in the upcoming months.

Lastly, I want to talk about cross-agency work. This is our next step forward. We do data analytics better than we have ever done, and we are becoming world leaders in it—in that and in the investment approach. It means that we can prove whom we should spend more on earlier, and over a long period of time. It has been very successful, if I might say so myself, in Work and Income and in our work in that area. I congratulate Anne Tolley. You have got the best portfolio in the Government, of course. We have seen the successes there. We can broaden that out much better across justice, across education, and across health. You can see who those people are who are most likely to rely on State support unless we change what we are currently doing, and we can. That is why I was given the role of State services, because we have to look at reform in the area of how we actually set up services around people and their families—not around what suits the Government. That is just the nature of being in the Westminster system. It is the nature of how the Government has been created. But I do not think it has been created in the interests of New Zealanders, and that is what this Government will be about.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Mr Assistant Speaker, I join with previous speakers in congratulating you on your appointment as Assistant Speaker. It is the first time I have spoken in the House while you have been in the Speaker’s Chair, although last week I was pleased to see you in that novel role of being in the Chair for the Committee of the whole House. It is a novelty for me.

The Government has stated that its priorities this term are going to be around child poverty. Although in their address it was useful for Government members to determine child poverty as one of their priorities, it lacked any detail. I have not heard, as yet, any solutions. So far, apart from a determination to reduce the number of those families who are receiving welfare support, that is the only kind of comment I have heard from the Government about how it wants to address child poverty.

Today we had the latest report from Unicef called Children of the Recession: The impact of the economic crisis on child well-being in rich countries. It shows that in the period during the global financial crisis the welfare of New Zealand children went backwards in three out of the four indicators that were used. Here in New Zealand our kids were not as well protected from the impacts of the recession as children in other countries—countries like Australia, for example.

Why is this? One reason is that when the global financial recession started to bite, the Australian Government introduced poverty-busting relief, such as cash payments to low-income families. What happened here was that the Government gave tax cuts to the well-off. In case anyone has not noticed yet, the tax cuts did not alleviate poverty. They did not alleviate the problems of our poorest families because the trickle-down theory is actually a myth and it has certainly not worked here. The Unicef report highlights the fact that the National Government’s tax cuts did nothing to improve the lives of our poorest children, while the smarter Australian move helped to stimulate the economy as well as significantly reduce the impacts of child poverty.

We know what needs to happen to improve our woeful child poverty statistics. The simple answer is that we need to increase the incomes of our families, which, as we have seen in Australia, helps to stimulate the economy. I agree with the Government that the most constructive way to do this is to get more people into jobs and off State support. But I have to say that although we absolutely oppose the move by this Government to vilify those who access the safety net of our social welfare system, we must remember that one of the biggest beneficiaries of State support is employers. I am referring here to Working for Families. We maintain that as it applies currently, it is unfair, because those who need it the most are families with children who are accessing State support already. It is currently used to differentiate between the working and the non-working poor—the worthy and the unworthy poor. It invites judgment on those families that are not in work as a result.

However, at the moment Working for Families is actually an employer subsidy. There are around 380,000 families accessing Working for Families at the moment. They get their pay from their jobs, but then they are reliant on the tax credit to top up their wages so that they can survive, and many cannot. We have got around 265,000 children living in poverty in New Zealand—that is about a fifth of all the kids in New Zealand who do not have enough of what they need. About two out of five of those children come from families where there is at least one parent in the paid workforce.

So what does that say about the pay rates in our country, where a worker can work all hours of the day and the week and still not be able to provide enough for their family to live on? A couple of weeks ago I met Tusi, a lovely man, a family man in his 30s. He works as a maintenance contractor for the council. When I was talking to him, I realised that he was on a break, and it was something like 8 o’clock at night on a Thursday. He works 60 hours a week. He only ever has Sunday off, and he uses that day to spend time with his family and to go to church.

We have just celebrated Labour Day. That is the day when we commemorate the 8-hour working day, but, sadly, that is not a reality for many, many New Zealanders, and I think Samuel Duncan Parnell, who is credited as being the father of the 8-hour working day, would be turning in his grave. He is the one who is quoted as saying: “There are twenty-four hours in the day given us; eight of these should be for work, eight for sleep, and the remaining eight for recreation and in which for men to do what little things they want for themselves.” One day a week is what Tusi has as a man to do the little things that he wants for himself and his family, and it is not good enough. What happens to a family that has one or both of its parents working such long hours that they cannot make ends meet? What kind of stress are they under? What happens to their kids? What happens to the kids who are actually working alongside their parents on evening shifts cleaning the schools to help with their family’s income?

We must lift wages and create well-paid jobs if we want to address child poverty. I am alarmed that this Government pays lip service to this issue, and yet its first piece of legislation in the House will simply force wages down and make matters worse. I am referring, of course, to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which will be read for its final time tomorrow, I believe. That bill will force wages down, and that was actually the advice that the Government received in its Cabinet briefing paper before the bill was introduced—that it would force wages down.

The bill signals a return to individual-based bargaining and the ability for employers to just simply walk away from collective employment agreement negotiations. It enables employers to opt out of multi-employer bargaining, so there goes any kind of industry standards, which we have fought so hard to achieve in the last few years. It removes the right for new workers to have the same terms and conditions as other staff when there is a collective employment agreement in place, and, in doing so, it means that new workers can be used to undercut the wages of the longer-term employees. Worryingly, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill also removes the small protections for a whole section of vulnerable employees who are employed by contractors when their contracts change hands. This bill even removes the right for workers to have a meal break or a rest break during their shift, and, in so doing, it cuts right across the health and safety legislation that this Government is keen to enact.

This bill tips the balance of power in the employer-employee relationship sharply towards the employer, and works hand in hand with some of the Government’s previous legislation—most notably, the 90-day trial, fire-at-will legislation—to create a situation of less and less job security for working families and an environment that deliberately enables employers to push the pay down. We must oppose this kind of industrial relations environment, which allows bullies to flourish.

We cannot continue to rely on poverty wages as the method for increasing the profits of New Zealand’s economy because, in the long run, we are all poorer for it. We believe in investment, and I was pleased to hear the Minister for Economic Development say that the investment method is what works. So investing in our workforce, investing in our employees, and investing in a situation that ensures that workers can negotiate collectively is what will increase wages, and that will be the mechanism by which we can entice our young people back to New Zealand, because they are not going to leave Australia when the only jobs they can get here are paid at $14.65 an hour.

We want to see child poverty seriously tackled by this Government. We would like to see a cross-party approach to that, and the first step is to introduce targets. We look forward to a time when this Government and this Parliament can do that. Thank you.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, can I start by congratulating you on your elevation to the role of Assistant Speaker. Unlike many in the House, I am not surprised to see you sitting there, and I have high expectations of you in the role because of your great knowledge of the Standing Orders and, perhaps, your experiences in the past. What is it—the poacher turned gamekeeper knows all the tricks and turns. So I wish you the very best over the next 3 years. Can I at the same time congratulate my colleagues the Rt Hon David Carter, the Hon Chester Borrows, and my good friend Lindsay Tisch on their election to their roles in the Speaker’s Chair.

It is a privilege and an honour to govern for the next 3 years in a Government that New Zealanders have given such a strong mandate to. It is nice to be in the House and, I guess, take part in a democracy in a country where even the Opposition does acknowledge such a strong mandate for a Government to take its place. Can I at the same time thank other people of the East Coast electorate for having the confidence to re-elect me again, with an increased majority. It is a wonderful electorate and I am very proud and honoured to represent it.

This Government is under the leadership of whom I am positive will go down in history as one of New Zealand’s greatest Prime Ministers, the Rt Hon John Key, who has made it very clear that he intends this Government to work in the interests of all New Zealanders. And as our economy grows following some of the darkest, most difficult economic times that this country has faced, he wants to make sure that we work to share those benefits right across New Zealand. It is indeed a privilege to serve with such a great man.

This Government does have a very good track record with New Zealanders. It was something we talked about a lot during the election campaign. We have a record of being very open and transparent. We have a record of saying what we are going to do and then getting on and doing it. New Zealanders responded to that. I know through my experiences on the campaign that people appreciated knowing exactly what the Government was going to do and had a great expectation that that would be carried out.

I also want to take the opportunity to welcome the Government’s partners. It is great to be working again with partners like ACT, United Future, and, in particular, the Māori Party, and it is great for me to have the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell as a colleague in the Cabinet structure. Our electorates cross over and I know that he is highly respected in his home electorate. He is a hard worker, and I look forward to an ongoing relationship with him.

Can I also extend my congratulations to my Cabinet colleagues. We have got some new and exciting talent in our Cabinet, and those Ministers are eager and full of energy. Also in our caucus we welcome 14 new caucus members, who are also extremely talented, keen, willing, and eager to get on with the job.

The role of this Government, of course, is to lock in the gains that we have worked so hard to achieve for New Zealanders over the past 6 years. Some of the facts that New Zealanders came to understand during the election campaign were that New Zealand has an economy that is one of the fastest growing in the developed world, that our average wage has increased by $2,500 in the past 2 years, and that the average wage is forecast to be around $62,000 by the year 2018. We made it very clear that an extra 83,000 new jobs were created over the last 12 months and Treasury forecasts that around another 150,000 new jobs will be created in our economy. Cost of living increases are low. Inflation was just 1.6 percent in the year to June—well below average weekly wage increases of 2.7 percent—and food prices dipped by 0.8 percent in the year to September. So it is a pretty bright future that we are facing in this term of Government and, as I say, the Prime Minister is determined that all New Zealanders will benefit from that.

Getting parents into work is what this Government has decided is the best way to increase their incomes and to improve the lives of their children. New Zealand’s welfare system is extremely generous. We all acknowledge that we do need that safety net to help people through when times get tough, but we always have to be vigilant that we do not trap people into a life of dependency. That way lies limited choices and options for people, and anyone who has had to manage on a benefit for any period of time knows that it is extremely difficult and that your life can be extremely narrow and focused. We want New Zealanders to have plenty of choices and plenty of opportunities to live full and successful lives.

So over the last 6 years we have seen major reforms of our welfare system, and I pay tribute to my colleague the Hon Paula Bennett, who has done a fantastic job of reforming our welfare system so that it is focused sharply on getting people into work. And we are having success: 1,600 people a week are leaving welfare dependency for work—every single week, 1,600 people. We know that we have 30,000 fewer children in benefit-dependent households than we had 2 years ago, so we are making some progress. Benefit numbers are continuing to reduce and the number of people on welfare for the September quarter is the lowest since 2008—that is when New Zealand entered the economic recession—and sole parents are leading the drop. There are over 10,000 fewer people on welfare now compared with September last year, and more than 70 percent of that drop are sole parents. So we are focused as a Government on providing better public services for New Zealanders, and our welfare reforms are having a significant effect on the lives of many New Zealanders.

I want now to turn to the Unicef report that was released today. I think no one has mentioned that the title of it is, in fact, Children of the Recession, which actually acknowledges that this is a study that looks at the effect on children during the great economic recession, which was a time when Governments all over the world grappled with a dropping economy and falling employment numbers and had to make some very difficult decisions. The report actually shows that New Zealand has not done too badly. The number of children living in hardship from 2008 to 2012 is much the same, so the focus that this Government has put on protecting those most vulnerable in our communities during those tough economic times has paid off. We have not seen a significant drop in equality throughout that time and we have not seen a significant increase in the number of children who are living in hardened circumstances.

I think we can take some heart from that but the Prime Minister has made it very clear that that is simply not good enough. As the economy grows, he expects that everyone will start to benefit, so he himself is leading the big piece of work that this Government is doing on how we lift more children out of that hardship and how we improve their lives and make sure they have all the opportunities that we want for them to live full and successful lives.

The other thing that is quite interesting when people have talked about this report today is that they have not talked about the youth, and the report actually spends a lot of time looking at young adults in New Zealand. We on this side of the House will know that this was a great big focus for us when we first came into Government. We introduced a range of measures for youth who were at most risk of falling employment with unemployment rising. We put in place a lot of measures: the Youth Guarantee, the trades academies, the youth rate, and the 90-day trial period, etc. And when you look at the league table in here we have done better than even our neighbour Australia, which is quoted as being better than us with the child hardship figures.

So this Government has focused on protecting the vulnerable. The report today shows that we have been reasonably successful with that through the recession and we can now look forward to a big piece of work that makes the lives of all New Zealand children better.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): Congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to the post of Deputy Speaker. I want to address an issue that John Key mentioned in his address earlier on, and that was that before the election he was emphatic that New Zealand would not become involved militarily in Iraq against IS, or the Islamic State. Immediately after the election, however, he changed his mind.

Going to war is one of the most important decisions that any leader can take, and it seems to me that with the coming G20 next month, Mr Key wants to be part of that club of nations that has signed up to war in Iraq. When it comes to Kiwi lives, the security of New Zealanders, a sizable amount of money, not to mention the limits that we place on ourselves of things we cannot do because we are involved in that particular theatre, we need to think very, very carefully. A sound rationale for New Zealand’s involvement, in my opinion, has not yet been made and it should not be—it should not be—triggered by a desire to foot it on the world stage.

We have to ask ourselves a number of questions. We have to ask ourselves what a deployment of our forces would achieve and what success would look like. On that we have absolutely no clue. Air strikes are the main tactic, the chief tactic, yet every military analyst around the world agrees that air strikes actually will not defeat the Islamic State. That will require boots on the ground. So the war that we might send our forces to, even the experts agree actually has no chance of being won. It is a half-war. It is the imperative to do something—to do something even if it is stupid, as somebody said—just because it appears on our TV screens.

As air strikes continue, naturally what we will see is IS becoming more skilled at hiding within civilian populations, bombs will inevitably hit civilians, and support for any action that we are involved with along with our allies will turn against us. And what will our forces do there? Well, if it involves the SAS, it is likely to advise and train on air strikes and how to direct them. But we all know from our experience in Afghanistan what that means—that it will not stop there, that our troops, our forces, are likely to be there on the ground, working directly alongside Iraqis.

Another question: what is the exit strategy and when should we leave? Well, if we do not know what we want to actually achieve, then it is impossible to know when the job is done and when it is time to go. So, frankly, any deployment is unlikely to have an exit strategy.

Another question: do we need to help our allies? After all, everybody else seems to be there, according to Mr Key, so why not us? Well, what the Government does seem to be saying is that we are not somehow facing up to our responsibilities and we are somehow deserting our allies. Let us remember that the Iraq War began within the Bush administration for ideological reasons. Our traditional allies joined in—the US, the UK, Australia. They all played an active role. But we were different. We did not join in. We chose not to.

I want to say that there is a rule that has often been used, and it was used by Colin Powell during the Gulf War, called the Pottery Barn rule. The Pottery Barn rule simply says “You break it, you own it”. With Iraq, Powell said to President Bush: “You will own the Iraqis’ hopes, their aspirations, and their problems. You will own it all.” He said privately: “But if you break it, you will own it.” The US is, right now, owning what has not worked by its support of the Iraqi Government and its military. But that does not logically flow through to us in New Zealand.

Another question: should we be involved because IS is, after all, a threat to New Zealand? John Key said yesterday that IS will rain carnage on the world. Really—I mean, really? Is IS about to bring terror and mayhem into our neighbourhoods? No. No, IS is sophisticated. It reaches out to local people and asks them to take up arms. We need to take care about the radicalisation of fringe members of our peaceful and productive Muslim community here in New Zealand. A study by the Royal United Services Institute in the UK showed that “… there is no longer any serious disagreement that the UK’s role in the Iraq war increased the radicalisation of Muslims. … Far from reducing international terrorism … the 2003 invasion [of Iraq] had the effect of promoting it.”

If the cause is right, then we in New Zealand accept the risk. But we should understand that a deployment of forces in Iraq could create greater insecurity in New Zealand. Mr Key also argues that this is an international, a regional, and a local problem. No, this is a conflict that is and should be regional. It is we who are making it international and trying to internationalise it. So let us not use the politics of fear to justify a deployment that simply does not stack up. IS is not threatening the world; it is brutish, nasty, and it uses terror and atrocities as weapons to dominate parts—parts—of two countries.

Let us remember what Tony Blair said in 2002. He and his Cabinet declared that Iraq posed an imminent threat to Britain. That is laughable today. That is laughable today, but it was rhetoric that was designed to justify a war and we should take care not to exaggerate what IS may threaten in order to justify military action ourselves.

The Middle East does have one law that we should adhere to, and that is the law of unintended consequence. The region, as I know, is hugely complex, the situation is immensely fluid, and the agendas are multiple. We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we are going to make a measurable difference by putting our people on the ground. Western interventions, historically, have commonly ended in disaster. If the US knew how Iraq would end when the conflict began when the US went in there 10 years ago, you wonder whether it would have actually invaded, had it known that. My answer is almost certainly no.

We have no idea of how this will end or what consequences might occur. Neutralising Islamic State, for example, is likely to strengthen Syrian President al-Assad, a man who thinks little of gassing his own people. Thanks to him, nearly 200,000 people—Syrians—have died in the last 3 years in the war that he began. Already, many Muslims are hostile to more Western interference, as they see it, against them.

What should we do then, instead? We should all detest IS, its tactics, and its agendas. We feel minorities should be protected. The US air strikes did, in Iraq, enable the minority Yazidis to reach safety because the US-trained Iraqi army was so hopeless to protect them itself. The strategy to deal with IS needs to be broad. For example, there is much less focus on cutting oil shipments from IS areas through Turkey than there is on air strikes, and on shutting off the arms supplies that are coming in and feeding it.

We need to identify clearly when our job is done and when it is time to go, something that we have no measure of at the moment. We should stop speaking of a global threat when it is clearly not. We should accept that our involvement might bring—might bring—greater risk to New Zealand. And we should make up our minds, not feel an obligation to blindly follow along behind others.

Instead, what we need to be doing is using our place on the United Nations Security Council to organise a UN resolution to achieve a truly international response against the abuses by IS. We should continue to increase our humanitarian assistance. We have an obligation to do that. We should look carefully at whether there are actually more deserving areas in which to spend the very limited forces and logistics that we have. Boko Haram in Nigeria commits equally atrocious abuses as those that are committed by IS.

Can we, for example, or should we, contribute to the stopping of the spread of Ebola? Kiwis, as ever, are always willing to do the right thing—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

DAVID SHEARER: Could I finish the sentence? We have put ourselves in harm’s way. We should not move and desist from doing that again, but it should not be a decision that is rushed because of a meeting of the G20. Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): May I start by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election as Deputy Speaker. Can I say that it is a great pleasure to have worked with you and I very much look forward to the way that you will conduct this House as we go forward. I think you are more than able and up to the job. Can I also recognise the Speaker for his re-election or reappointment, and Mr Tisch as Assistant Speaker. I also want to pay tribute and compliments to the Hon Trevor Mallard, who has also become an Assistant Speaker. I think that, contrary to what the chattering classes might be saying, he will do an exceptional job. His knowledge of procedures in this House is almost second to none and I think that we will look forward to many days, weeks, years, and debates ahead of us where his input will be of assistance to the House.

Can I say also that during the election campaign the highlight for me was probably Mr Mallard’s announcement of a policy around bringing back the moa to the Hutt. I think it was an exceptional policy. Indeed, I had conversations with people in my electorate of Rotorua who thought it was a little bit mad. I was in the Hutt and I looked around and said to one of them: “I’ve just been there. They don’t need mowers. They are very good with their lawns.” He said: “No, no—giving everybody in the Hutt a free mower would be silly, but bringing back the moa to the Hutt is a good idea.” I think that it is something that his colleagues were disingenuous with him about, but he may have been predicting or foreseeing what would happen in the election. He may also have foreseen what would happen to the Labour Party and that what it might be doing in the selection of a leader was bringing back the moa.

Can I also pay compliments to and recognise the Prime Minister for his work during the election campaign and for the way he has directed New Zealand over the last 6 years. Can I say that he went out on the campaign trails, he allowed New Zealanders to have their say, and they did have their say, and the Government was returned. I can say that we are going to work extremely hard over the next 3 years to prove to New Zealanders, as we did 3 years previously and the 3 years before that, that we deserve their support, we deserve their vote, and that they can continue to have confidence in the Government.

I want to thank the people of Rotorua for re-electing me for my third term. It is a great honour and one responsibility that I take extremely seriously. In particular, I say thanks to the new areas of my electorate of Rotorua, which came about as a result of boundary changes—the Te Puke township, Ōhauiti, Ōropi, and also parts of rural Bay of Plenty. It is an honour to now represent them. I follow in the footsteps of Tony Ryall, who was their representative for so many years. I very much look forward to working hard on their behalf, as the Government too will work hard on their behalf, to make their lives better, to make their lives fairer, and to offer opportunity to them and to their children.

I also give compliments to colleagues. You see, the thing about my central North Island seat in my electorate of Rotorua is that I am ring-fenced by a circle of blue—every single seat. If I stand on Mount Ngongotahā and look in any direction, I see only National MPs and National seats. That cannot be said for very many Labour MPs who hold electorate seats in this country.

Carmel Sepuloni: All I see is red from where I am out west.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, to be fair, you often see red when you are here, and that is rage, and I can understand that. I would be pretty angry if I was sitting over in your seat, as well.

What I did want to say is that around me I have some very capable members of Parliament—the Hon Simon Bridges, who continues to represent the seat of Tauranga; the Hon Anne Tolley, who not only continues to represent the East Coast electorate but now represents the very able, the very capable, and the very friendly and genuine people of Kawerau; and also Todd Muller, who I would like to say gave an exceptional speech last night as his maiden speech. I very much look forward to working closely with all of these MPs on behalf of the bay. That is very much the reason for the resounding success of the National Party not only in the Bay of Plenty but in all other parts of New Zealand. We are a team. We join together, we work hard, and we are focused on the issues that matter. I have a little bit of advice. There are other parties in this House that, if they had thought a bit more about the public than themselves, may have found the result of the election to be a little bit different—although, when one considers the policies, probably not a lot different.

What I want to say is that I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for giving me an opportunity to serve in Cabinet and for returning the revenue portfolio to me. It is a portfolio I have held for almost 18 months. It is one that I enjoy and it is one that I very much look forward to working hard on over the coming period of time. You see, the thing about revenue is that we must collect it so that future Governments can spend it. We have to make sure that the tax system is fit for purpose, that it is fair, that it is balanced, that it is efficient, and that everybody pays their fair share of tax.

Dr David Clark: A worse revenue Minister than Peter Dunne—worse than Peter Dunne.

Hon TODD McCLAY: What we have found over the last 18 months is that issuing small press releases or squawking from the other side of the House does nothing but squawk and does not collect any tax. Largely, all it will do is create great confusion around the country.

Business transformation is something the Government has had on its agenda for a period of time, and we now start to move forward on this. Business transformation is about the modernisation and simplification of the tax system. It is very important that we work hard to get this right. There will be many opportunities both here in this House and in committee to focus on the issues that matter when it comes to taxation through business transformation. It is very important that the planning is got right, that we look at all of the opportunities that will be available, because, first and foremost, this is about the New Zealand public—about simplifying the tax system and modernising the tax system so that the New Zealand public, mums and dads sitting at home or the businesses that make New Zealand work, can rely upon the tax system and it is not overly arduous for them. I very much look forward to working with the dedicated professionals in the Inland Revenue Department as we work through this process.

I am also grateful to the Prime Minister for offering me the State-owned enterprises portfolio, a very important portfolio. We own a number of companies that are of extreme importance to New Zealanders. It is also important for New Zealand in the area of State-owned enterprises that the companies themselves deliver for New Zealanders. There will be a job of work to do to make sure that they are as efficient as they need to be and also to make sure that the taxpayer can rely upon the services they provide, where they do provide services, and that they actually are run effectively and efficiently. I very much look forward to working closely with the chairs, the boards, and the employees of many of these companies, and also Treasury as an adviser, to look at how we can ensure this on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayer.

I have also been offered the opportunity to be Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs. Can I recognise the very significant body of work that the Hon Murray McCully has done over the last 6 years, as have other Ministers before him and members of this House. Every day, almost singlehandedly, he has focused on what is important for New Zealand and helped, with others, to deliver a great victory for New Zealand in our election to the United Nations Security Council. I said I think it says a lot about Mr McCully and a lot about the way the world views New Zealand when one looks at the result of that vote. To have more than two-thirds of the countries casting a vote to select New Zealand as their preference on a first vote tells you a lot about the reputation we have.

To the previous speaker in this debate, David Shearer, I want to say that I believe he does have a lot of wisdom. In fact, he should have put his hand up to be another candidate as part of the Labour Party leadership election because I think he probably has more to offer that party than it realised when it got rid of him a short period of time ago. In the area of foreign affairs he has a lot of wisdom, but we must be very, very careful not to politicise some of these issues because we would do a great disservice to the reputation that he and Mr McCully and others have built around the world for New Zealand.

Finally, as Associate Minister of Trade I very much look forward to working closely with Minister Groser and also working closely with New Zealand companies. Trade agreements are very important. Without them we cannot get the important access we need, reduce red tape, and get down the cost and the tariffs when we want our companies to export to other parts of the world. But the negotiation is only part of it. We have experts who will negotiate agreements. We then need to make sure that these agreements are working and that our companies are taking advantage of them. Our Business Growth Agenda is very much focused on that, with more than 350 initiatives that allow New Zealand companies to grow, to build, and also to take advantage of these free-trade agreements. Every time we trade efficiently as a country with another country, it is about jobs—it is about protecting jobs in New Zealand.

So there is a great body of work for the Government. We are focused on the opportunity New Zealanders have given us. We are focused on the responsibility they have given us. We will work hard on their behalf, just as I will work hard on behalf of the people of Rotorua to show that they were right to have confidence in us to lead this country for another 3 years. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to welcome the new members to the House. I would like to congratulate the returning members. I congratulate and acknowledge the Speaker, the Assistant Speakers, and the Deputy Speaker. Most of all, I want to thank the voters, the public—everyone who put up a billboard for a party, no matter what colour; everyone who scrutineered or acted as an official; everyone who played a role in our democracy. That is what makes our country strong, and I would like to acknowledge all those people.

In this speech I want to pick up where Metiria Turei left off in her response to the Prime Minister’s reply to the Speech from the Throne. Metiria left off on the issue of climate change, one of the defining issues of our generation. I am glad to be back in Parliament working on energy, IT, and innovation issues again this term. What we saw in the Prime Minister’s speech—he was sort of the comedian-in-chief. That is the approach John Key took. A nugget of information we got in that speech was that there are going to be more taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels. What he said was there is going to be more seismic survey information for the oil industry.

This is an industry already favoured by the current Government. We see $46 million in annual tax breaks and $25 million in free information handed out to the sector on a platter. We see laws for hire, the navy pulled out when protesters get in the way, laws being passed under urgency over Easter trading, and the crackdown on what New Zealander of the Year Dame Anne Salmond said was a breach of our right to be able to protest.

What we need in this country is a separation of oil and State. What we need to do is break the bonds that see our Government, in the Speech from the Throne setting out its legislative agenda for the next 3 years, announcing that it is going to publicly subsidise fossil fuels. Right now we have the International Energy Agency, the OECD, and numerous international bodies calling for an end to fossil fuel subsidies for the very reason that we are using taxpayers’ money to burn the planet, leading to climate change.

Climate change is happening. I know that some people dispute the fact with their sort of folksy, homespun science that keeps their heads in the sand, but the fact is that when you look at the science, the peer-reviewed articles, it is happening. It is real. It is happening faster and more severely than scientists predicted only 5 years ago. If you have read some of the international scientific documents, you will know that it is pretty bad, because their reports from 5 years ago were pretty dire. What we are seeing is droughts intensifying. Storms are becoming stronger. Our ice sheets are melting decades ahead of projections. Our oceans are becoming more acidic. Great holes are even appearing in the Siberian tundra, where methane is literally exploding out of the ground.

I have got two young kids aged 3 and 7. I know that not everyone in this Chamber is here to listen to me bang on about climate change; they are here to listen to some maiden speeches. But, on hearing some great contributions from various members, I reflected on my maiden speech. I had talked about why I entered Parliament. It was for my two young kids, Arlo and Zoe. My background is in working on climate change, because I want them to grow up with a safe, stable climate future. I want them to be able to play in the sun and enjoy the beach without ocean acidification. I do not want to see hundreds of millions of climate refugees, which is what the world’s bodies like the United Nations are warning us of.

What we have seen under the current Government, despite the great challenge of this threat to which New Zealand is exposed, is our emissions—our contribution to pollution in the atmosphere, which is warming the planet—at 20 percent above where we promised it to be. Under the Government’s own projections it is going to be 50 percent above. Just this week we saw the 28 European Union nations commit to reducing their emissions by 40 percent. Similar nations have managed collectively to work out how to do it.

I believe we are a can-do nation. That is something we pride ourselves on. We should be able to rise to one of the biggest challenges of our generation. I know that when you turn on the telly it is pretty concerning, what with Ebola and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and inequality around the world. Some of these issues do feel far away and remote from New Zealand when they are on the television, but the fact is that they are real and present challenges, just like climate change.

Being at the bottom of the South Pacific does not insulate us from the threat of climate change. No nation can escape the challenge of climate change—no matter how rich or poor, big or small, remote or near. The fact is that New Zealand is vulnerable. We are an agricultural nation that depends on a stable climate to be able to run our economy. We are a nation that is exposed to extreme weather events.

One of the most harrowing experiences I have seen in my life was when I travelled to Kiribati, a low-lying Pacific atoll nation less than a metre above sea level. It is on the front line of climate change. It is actively preparing. But, sadly, the response of the people in that developing, very poor nation is that they are literally building sea walls out of rubbish next to the coast in their towns to try to stop the rising waters reaching in. That image will always be burnt in my mind. We need to play our part in the world to support our Pacific neighbours and all people in the world.

New Zealand was elected to the United Nations Security Council because of our tradition and our background as a country that plays its part in the world, which has been picked up on this debate. We have a very real and genuine role to play on the Security Council—for good in the world, be it for peace, be it for sustainability. When it comes to climate change, it is a challenge, but New Zealand can play a role at the globe’s top table. Climate change is a real challenge, a hard one, but it is not intractable. The answers are obvious, available now, and they will benefit our economy.

One of the great experiences of election campaigning, and why I love election campaigning, is that you kind of get out of this place and you get to talk about your vision for the future—your values, your solutions. We actually get to talk about policy. I know we did not talk a great deal about policy in a personality election, but there was some talk about policy. What we launched in the election campaign were ideas for a carbon tax cut, something that business commentator Rod Oram said would fix the emissions trading scheme scam. We saw people like John Armstrong in the New Zealand Herald say: “In one deft stroke, the policy has the Greens saving the planet, helping the poor, giving big carbon users an incentive to be more efficient,”.

What we wanted to do was send a reliable, economic signal to businesses, use and harness the power of the markets so that people can make efficient investment decisions—to send them an economic signal—but also not to just have a tax grab, as many taxpayers are sceptical of. We wanted to recycle the revenue to Kiwi consumers so they were better off. We wanted to establish a Green Investment Bank, as the UK under David Cameron has done. We wanted to see solar panels on our schools so that schools could spend more money on their kids. What we identified with an investment of $20 million to put solar panels on 500 schools is that schools could save money.

We heard from principals and boards of trustees up and down the country, and one of the most pleasing moments was when they announced what they would love to spend their savings on. Some of our schools are spending more than $70,000 a year just to keep the lights on. These schools said they would rather spend the money on things like literacy programmes, playground equipment, or music classes. This is what our schools could be spending their money on—on the kids—if they were saving money by producing their own power and doing it cleanly.

We wanted to help Kiwi families go into solar homes with a low-interest loan. We wanted to set a bold, ambitious target that was achievable, feasible, and affordable—to get to 100 percent renewables. We wanted to continue the successful home insulation programme that we have worked on with previous National Governments, and we wanted to help Kiwis get into electric cars.

In Metiria Turei’s speech, she offered a challenge and an opportunity for National to work together with us. We have worked together in the past on issues where we can agree. When you look at the big issues facing our country, why can we not put some of the partisanship aside for a minute? Why can we not work together, as the voters intended with a mixed-member proportional system—with MMP? That door should be opened because no matter where the idea comes from, Kiwis should be able to see our politicians work together for good ideas, in the public interest.

I want to wrap up on this point. When it comes to climate change, this challenge is not just about the penguins or the polar bears; it is about the people. It is not just a political or an economic issue; it is a moral issue. We as New Zealanders pride ourselves on doing what is right. Let us do what is right and let us employ people to install solar panels on people’s roofs and insulation under them, and embrace the smart Green innovative economy that we know is going to produce more jobs and more prosperity. That is something that should be able to unite this Parliament, and we will still work with anyone in this Parliament on issues where we can agree. Thank you. Kia ora koutou.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Tuatahi, he mihi ki Te Atua, nāna nei ngā mea katoa. Tuarua, he mihi ki Te Āti Awa e te iwi, tēnā koutou. He mihi ki a Rangitāne o Manawatū, tēnā koutou. E ngā mana, e ngā reo kua tae mai nei i tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[First of all an acknowledgment to God, who owns everything. Secondly, a greeting to you Te Āti Awa, salutations. A greeting to you Rangitāne of Manawatū, salutations. To the powers and languages who have arrived here today, salutations, greetings and acknowledgments to you all.]

It is with great pride and a sense of privilege that I rise to take my first call in this House. May I join others in congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on being elected to the post of Deputy Speaker. I want to start with some thanks and acknowledgments, for it is upon the shoulders of others that I find myself here today. First and foremost, I want to acknowledge my wife, my best friend, and my campaign manager, Karen. She has stood beside me for 25 years and given me encouragement and inspiration, and backed me 100 percent in everything I have done. Your belief in me when self-doubt has at times crept in has ensured that I have stayed on track. Your energy at times has appeared endless, and you have always ensured that our household has hung together through the craziness of six election campaigns and everything else we have faced in life.

Together we have raised three great kids, and it is due to your great skill and commitment that they have turned out to be amazing people. To Chloe, Luke, and George, you have spent most of your lives sharing me with the public, and this has meant great sacrifice to you at times. I do not believe that I have heard you complain once—maybe you did it while I was not listening! This journey in public life continues in a different realm now and your support and encouragement are appreciated and not taken for granted. I want to thank my parents. I think you have done a great job. Thank you for the values you have placed within me, for raising your children to be others-focused, and for ensuring that we each experienced a great life filled with opportunities. I want to thank the rest of my family, including those related by marriage, for your encouragement and for being a significant part of my life.

I want to acknowledge those others who have been instrumental in getting me here—to National Party president, Peter Goodfellow, I thank you for the great advice and encouragement; to Malcolm Plimmer for encouraging me along this path; and to the local electorate teams of volunteers who put in a huge effort to help get me here. In particular I want to acknowledge Trevor Day and Wendy Schultze for your unwavering support and herculean effort on the campaign trail. Finally, I want to thank and acknowledge the people of Palmerston North and the voters of New Zealand who have seen fit to place their trust in me to act in their best interests. I take this responsibility seriously and hope to repay that trust with good decision-making.

I have lived a privileged life, not because we grew up rich; we did not. A Presbyterian minister’s stipend and part-time radiography work did not offer a great life of luxury. I am privileged, though, because I grew up with a family who loved me and ensured that I could follow whatever I chose to do. I also grew up in a period of New Zealand’s history when my parents had confidence that as a 5-year-old I was safe wandering around in the firebreaks and the bush behind Silverstream in the Hutt Valley with my friends. It was also a time when as 10-year-olds we could sleep in tents or huts in the backyard in West Auckland and our parents could sleep soundly with the knowledge that we would be safe from harm. Though, to be fair, I am not sure they knew that we would then run up and down the middle of Great North Road in the early hours of the morning, pretending to be motorcycles. It was a different world to the one my children have grown up in. Although I do not want to become one of those people who hankers for the good old days, I do not want to give up hope of New Zealand once again being a place where our children can grow up safely and with confidence that they have a future here.

I have to confess that I did not always make the most of the opportunities that were on offer to me. My first foray into tertiary study at Massey University was somewhat less than spectacular. In the 2 years I was there, I learnt three things: how to play the guitar, where the Fitz was, and where everybody else who was not studying would be hanging out. If there was ever an argument against returning to free tertiary education with universal student allowances, my life in 1985 and 1986 exemplifies it. However, following a number of years of community-based youth work I later returned and completed my Bachelor of Social Work with honours, where I learnt that well-directed effort can pay huge dividends. It was during this period of my life that I learnt some other important lessons. I learnt that raising a family on a limited income is incredibly challenging. I learnt that having one child and one on the way, a mortgage to pay, and 47c in the bank is not a nice place to be. I am grateful for having the support of family and friends and for having the skills required to negotiate that time and come out the other side. I also learnt that having an education creates greater choices and offers more opportunities for work and for success.

Since attaining my degree I have worked as a care and protection social worker, in child and adolescent mental health as a school guidance counsellor, and as a church worker. I have had the privilege and challenge of making heartbreaking calls to remove children from their parents’ care the week before Christmas, and of sitting on the end of an accident and emergency bed assessing the likelihood of a young person making a further attempt on their own life. I have sat with the families who are struggling to know what to try next to get themselves out of the pit of despair that they have found themselves in. All of these experiences have shaped me and moulded my world view. I am continually amazed by the strength of the human spirit, and I am challenged that whatever I may achieve in Parliament, together we must ensure that we build a society that improves outcomes for the people who live here, one that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams. Most of my working life has been about assisting others to fulfil their potential.

In 2001 I shifted my focus from individuals and families to serving the community of Palmerston North through local government. For the last 7 of those 13 years I was privileged to serve as mayor of that great city. Although I am currently serving as a list MP, I still consider my role is to represent that city and the region of Manawatū here in Parliament. My colleague from Southland Todd Barclay made reference in his maiden speech to his electorate being of a similar size to the nation of Switzerland. The closest European example I could find for Palmerston North was Monaco. Palmerston North is quite possibly the most significant city for New Zealand’s future, and I do not say that lightly. One of the greatest challenges facing the world in years to come is that of food supply. The growing middle classes in Asia and Africa will demand more and more protein. As we all know, New Zealand is exceptionally good at producing protein. However, to meet these emerging markets our traditional products will need to be developed for changing tastes and expectations. Palmerston North houses most of our country’s food research capability and has many world-leading researchers in the area of food science. In short, although in the 1960s Burt Bacharach argued that what the world needs now is love, I would argue that what the world needs now is Palmerston North.

The city is not a one-trick pony, however. Its central location is providing a great foundation for a growing logistics industry, our tertiary education is strong, and our city is arguably the best place in New Zealand to raise a family with its balance of opportunity, accessibility, and affordability. We are poised to capitalise further on our natural strengths with a regional growth study currently being undertaken jointly by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for Primary Industries. As you can tell, I am proud of my city and my region. It has been a great honour to serve Palmerston North as mayor, and I am proud of many of the things we have achieved during my tenure. I now want to take what I have learnt in that sphere and apply it in this realm for the betterment of New Zealand. I entered my mayoralty with a simple vision that Palmerston North would be the kind of place where my children would want to raise my grandchildren. I carry the same vision for New Zealand with me into Parliament.

The decision to make the transition from local to central politics is not one that I have taken lightly, as I loved what I was doing and knew there was still more that could be achieved in that sphere. I do not have a history in party politics and would describe myself as a pragmatist, rather than being wed to any particular ideology. Before taking a leap of faith into the unknown, I asked myself three questions that I knew others would be asking me in the ensuing months. The first was what Parliament offers that local government does not. I have come to realise that much of what affects local communities is a result of decisions made here, and one of the best ways I could help my community was to try to influence those decisions. I also had a growing desire to help New Zealand develop and progress, not just Palmerston North.

The second question was: why now? Although I had always considered that running for Parliament might be a part of my future, I did not give it serious consideration, as I had decided I would prefer to wait until my family was older. However, when I was presented with this opportunity earlier this year I realised that they had grown up and that now was as good a time as any. I also recognise the need for our community to have a strong voice in Parliament.

The third question was: why join the National Party? The pragmatist in me answers this question easily, as I firmly believe that the National Party is the only party with the leadership and the ability to get the job done. But there is more to it than that. My various professional and personal experiences have taught me that what an unemployed person needs more than a benefit is a job, that what vulnerable kids need are strong and stable communities that are backed by a sustainable economy, that suicidal teenagers need hope, and that families who are struggling the most deserve to get services that are targeted to their needs. I believe that this National Government has shown that it is prepared to make difficult calls and take on serious issues to ensure that we all prosper and that we are building a great nation. This is a party with a wide base of support that reflects all sectors of New Zealand society. It is truly committed to all New Zealanders. This aligns with my own personal mantra, which is that we will all do better when we are all doing better.

I am reminded of and would like to echo the words of the Hon Hekia Parata, as she said in her own maiden speech, that I come with high hopes of what is possible. New Zealand is an incredible place and can offer even more if we work collaboratively across the country—not by trying to be something that we are not but by striving to be excellent at what we are already good at. I am passionate to see our nation fulfil its potential and for it to be a place that offers opportunities for people to achieve their aspirations.

I want to conclude with a challenge to all of the members of this House, in which I include myself. May we never lose sight of the fact that we serve at the pleasure of New Zealanders, who have trusted us to make the very best decisions we can to ensure that they prosper. May we be big enough to put aside our own agendas for the sake of the common good. May we recognise that any power of influence we have is not ours to hold on to but is given to us temporarily by the people of New Zealand. We have been given a great deal, and so I believe much is expected. It is my aim to try to live up to that expectation.

Finally, I will end with a quote from the late Sir James Hēnare. I am not sure exactly what he was referring to when he made this statement, but I believe it captures the essence of how I feel today and provides a great challenge for us all as we move into this, the 51st term of Parliament. He said: “Kua tawhiti kē tō haerenga mai, kia kore e haere tonu; kua tino nui rawa ō mahi, kia kore e mahi tonu.”—you have come too far not to go further; you have done too much not to do more. May those words echo in our hearts and challenge us as together we serve our nation. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker of the House. I also acknowledge and congratulate the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, and his team of talented and dedicated Ministers and caucus members. I acknowledge members of the other political parties in this House and congratulate them, too, on their success.

I am honoured to be here giving my maiden speech, humbled by the support given to me and demonstrated by the people of the Wairarapa electorate, and I am thankful for their vote of confidence. Seventeen years ago, after living overseas, I chose the Wairarapa as the region to set up my business in and to get involved in the business community. I was already familiar with the region as a child and a teenager, visiting my late grandmother more than 40 years ago and enjoying the hot summers and the ripe plums at the bottom of her garden. Her stewed fruit and very overcooked, grey cabbage I will always remember. And, of course, the carrots and peas always had a teaspoon or two of sugar.

I am extremely grateful to the Wairarapa electorate and campaign committee members, who have worked tirelessly to ensure my selection as their member of Parliament. To the many volunteers dropping leaflets, making phone calls, and maintaining hoardings throughout the campaign period—thank you all. The Wairarapa electorate is large, stretching from Cape Palliser at the southern tip of the North Island to Waipawa in Central Hawke’s Bay to the north. Our boundary to the west is the Ruahine and Tararua ranges, and to the east is the Pacific Ocean. Our livelihoods rely on primary production, the backbone of the New Zealand economy. We produce honey, wood, apples, wine, meat, wool, and milk. We host world-class events and have a fabulous climate. We have superb fishing, miles—miles—of sparsely populated coastline, big open spaces, blue skies, and affordable housing. We welcome all those who are willing to contribute to our communities.

I was fortunate to be born into a family of love and support, a family of doers, a family who encourages independence and self-determination, and a family who believes that anything is possible. In fact, believe it or not, I could read before I was 5, but it was not because I liked books or was especially bright; it was my mother’s love and attention. It was her positive expectation that made the difference. Janice Watson has dedicated herself to supporting dad and the family, always with an infectious smile. Thanks, mum and dad. You both continue to support our family with your kindness, wisdom, and love.

My father, Bruce, and his father, Fergus, were both assistant commissioners of police, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker. My uncle and one of my three sisters also belonged to the police family. I come from a family of service. Rotary, church, and the Scouts were always part of our childhood. My extended family of aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins have also strongly influenced who I am, and I thank them all, living and passed, for their input and influence.

I especially thank the lovely and beautiful Robyn Noble-Campbell, who has given me the love and support that is so vital. To my kids, Ben, Joe, and Holly, and Robyn’s kids, Sam, Liam, and Ruby, who are a fantastic bunch of individuals whom we are all very proud of—thank you for your love and support. It has been a privilege, and continues to be a privilege, and great pleasure watching you grow up, watching your sport, cooking with you, fishing, and just generally hanging out with you all.

My first dabble into politics was at college where I was voted in by the students as the president of the Wellington College school council. The position was up for grabs, the opportunity was there, and I took it. It was a simple decision, I gave it a go, and I won. I repetitively repeat and then say again and again to my kids: “Make your opportunities and take them. Say yes before no and then pedal hard.” I believe everyone has an obligation to have a go, to take opportunity, and to use their skills and experience to the best of their ability.

For me, this sense of obligation is reflected in a parable from the New Testament, the parable of the talents, where three sons are given varied amounts of their father’s assets to look after while he is away. On the father’s return, two of the sons deliver the assets plus some solid gains while the third son simply returns the asset as he had received it, thinking that that is good enough. The father comes down hard on that third son, admonishing him for being lazy and conservative, complacent and indifferent. The son has done nothing with the assets and nothing with his talents or resources available to him. For me, the parable compels us all to use the gifts and abilities we have for the betterment of our families and our communities, to take risks and to give it a go for the sake of progress and improvement.

I am here today because I wish to contribute my bit to the well-being of New Zealanders. I want to assist this Parliament in raising the standard of living for all. To do this, my goal is to encourage our young people to be winners, to take on the world, to believe that anything is possible, and to take opportunities. When they fall off the bike that they are pedalling, they will know that they must get back on that bike, keep pedalling, and get the job done. When they take a risk to give things a go, they realise that they too can win, and winning is what we must do. We must grow and develop a nation of winners.

The tall poppy syndrome still sits amongst us in our communities. Mediocrity is too often accepted, even demanded. There is a sense that success is not cool. There are some who say we need to all be the same, and that academic excellence or financial success is for the geeks and the greedy. That attitude is a handbrake to the success of this country. We celebrate our sporting successes. We love to watch and admire Richie McCaw, Valerie Adams, and Irene van Dyk. We do not ask Richie to slow down or miss a few tackles so the bench player can get on the field. We do not ask Valerie to throw a shorter distance because we feel sorry for her competitors. No, we do not, because we want them to use all their resource, all their talents, and all their skills. We want them to win.

The celebration and expectation of sporting success must be transferred to business and academia. We need to bring that sense of pride into the classroom, into the community, and into our culture. We need to promote a culture of accepting and celebrating success in whatever form, and encourage a culture of winning by taking risks, pedalling hard, and crossing the finish line. We are not all equal, but we can all do our best and we can all win our race to achieve our dream. My view is that the Government’s role is to provide a framework that allows people to get on with their own lives—to be creative and entrepreneurial, to innovate and invent, to build businesses and employ others, and to be prosperous. The Government must let business get on with business. Only then will we have choices in the way we invest in our future, whether it is in our children’s education or our parents’ medical care.

I believe in the collective wisdom of our communities and that, given the opportunities, our communities and individuals are able to build industry and add value where a Government agency cannot. Individuals know how to spend, invest, and save. They know how to look after their family and how to create wealth. I believe that private enterprise, innovation, resourcefulness, and adaptability within the community far outweigh anything a bureaucracy can achieve. The result of all this will be a larger economic pie, and we must grow the pie so that we can all have a decent feed. Free-trade agreements, promoting the New Zealand brand, and pitching our primary products to the increasing number of consumers who demand high-quality, safe food will contribute to growing that economic pie. The larger pie enables the Government to help those who cannot help themselves, to support those who need a hand up. For me the welfare system, the safety net, must be a bouncy one, like a trampoline, designed to bounce people back into the workforce and into the community—not a hammock that becomes comfortable so that once you are on it, it is difficult to get off.

I am an advocate for the taxpayer. The Government is here to fund health and education programmes, welfare and security needs, and we must be accountable and always remember where that money comes from. Taxes are collected from those who get up each day and go to work. They are collected from people who every day put on their gumboots or their safety boots, their kitchen apron or their nurses’ uniform. These funds are earned by people who work 8, 10, or 15 hours a day to put food on their family’s table. We must account to the taxpayer for the funds we spend on their behalf. We must be prudent and responsible and demand value for every dollar as if it were our own.

Another prerequisite to success is teamwork. I believe that by working together we are more likely to succeed as a nation. Teaming up with like-minded businesses, collaborating across the social services, and working with like-minded people creates a power that is not able to be achieved individually. Richie McCaw would not be the great player he is without his team and coaches working together. MMP compels us to collaborate across the political spectrum. Working together is the key to successful business, a successful Government, and a successful nation. I commend the aspirational collaborative supporters and partners in this Government: the Māori Party, the ACT Party, and United Future.

This country has huge opportunity. The world is becoming a smaller place as we become more connected. The growing markets in Asia and the wealth of the Americas and Europe are all available to us. The opportunities are right on our doorstep. It is up to us to take those opportunities and use them for the betterment of all Kiwis. I look forward to working with all the members in this House; to collaborating for the betterment of our fellow New Zealanders, to allow them to achieve great success in whatever field they choose; to encouraging an attitude of taking risks so New Zealanders can achieve their dreams; and to creating a nation of fearless winners. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me begin by congratulating you and the other presiding officers on your election. I look forward to working with you all over the term of this Parliament. Akoranga, whakatipuranga ngātahi. [Learning and growing in unison.] That is the motto of Johnsonville School, one of many fine schools in the Ōhāriu electorate. Those words mean: “To learn, grow, and flourish together as one”. They symbolise a very positive constructive environment for our children’s learning. I believe they are equally relevant across wider New Zealand. They speak to me of a country that acknowledges its past while embracing the future, one that values the diversity of the new and different while honouring the unique heritage of our land and people, one that encourages aspiration and believes in the equality of access to the essential foundations needed to forge a happy and successful life.

That is why I am honoured to take my seat as a list member of Parliament in this National Party caucus under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key. Our Prime Minister leads a Government that is governing for all New Zealanders. Under his leadership and the Hon Bill English’s financial stewardship New Zealand was lifted out of the global recession sooner and stronger than our traditional trading partners. Our health care results have improved dramatically and our communities are safer than they have been in decades. We are investing more than ever in improving educational success for our children. At a time when others around the world are cutting social support to save costs, John Key is leading a Government that is investing in breaking welfare dependency, giving people and their families real opportunity and brighter prospects.

I am proud to provide another forceful voice for the communities of Ōhāriu. I would like to thank the 18,810 voters of Ōhāriu who placed their trust in National and helped see me elected to Parliament. The electorate is a compact one, stretching 15 kilometres from north to south. It is a mixed urban/rural electorate. To the west of the main roads lies Ōhāriu Valley, a rural community with a rich history in dairy and sheep farming. I am proud to live within an electorate where we have a farming industry that has been the backbone of New Zealand’s success and will continue to help shape our economy into the future. I am proud of the ingenuity and the innovation that underpinned that success, remains strong, and is being applied to changing circumstances. Faced with challenges to their economic returns, a group of farmers in Ōhāriu Valley joined together and developed a commercial proposition that they tendered to electricity generators. As a result we now have wind farmers in Ōhāriu.

Ōhāriu is largely an urban electorate and one that is broadly representative of New Zealand. The demographics show that we have a high proportion of 30 to 49-year-olds, many with children and mortgages, compared with the rest of New Zealand. This speaks of families with aspirations to build successful careers and with concerns for their families’ education, welfare, and safety—people looking to National’s plan to enable the security and prosperity they seek. I am honoured to serve as a voice for them, and I commit to working in their interests along with those of our city, our region, and our country.

This Chamber is surrounded by plaques that provide sobering reminders that the freedoms we enjoy now were hard won. It is poignant that my allocated seat is directly beneath the plaque commemorating the battles at Hébuterne, a small village on the Western Front for most of the First World War. The village is where the 1st and 2nd Battalions’ Wellington Regiment fought in the spring of 1918, and is home to the graves of 53 New Zealand servicemen. It is a village in the district of Arras, where the New Zealand Tunnelling Company worked so diligently and courageously from 1916 to 1918. Their sacrifice was commemorated here just 1 week after the 2014 election, with the opening of the Arras Tunnel under the new National War Memorial. This was the first event I was privileged to attend in an official capacity after the election.

My position directly beneath this plaque also has personal poignancy. Hébuterne is in the northernmost region of France. Within this region also sits the town of Cassel, a town I have ancestral links to through the De Ridder family on my mother’s side. It is not far from Cassel to Hébuterne, fewer than 90 kilometres as the crow flies and only a little more by road—perhaps a mere 40 minutes away if one was fortunate enough to be sitting in a Crown car with my father behind the wheel.

I am very proud of my heritage. It includes not only French but also Danish, South African, and English. They have been blended over generations in this great country. I am a New Zealander through and through and although not born here, I consider myself a Wellingtonian to the core. I was born in Te Atatū. That makes me a Westie. In 1972 the family moved to Porirua, which is pretty much the same thing. I was schooled there, attending Porirua East School, Tītahi Bay Intermediate School, and Mana College. I acknowledge Bob Aldred and Tony Timms from Mana College. If not for their teaching capability, I may have experienced a very different life, perhaps one far less likely to have led here. I must confess, though, that it does feel somewhat odd to be acknowledging even indirectly a Labour Party general secretary in my later election as a National Party MP.

The path to this Chamber is one not travelled alone. I would like to acknowledge our party president, Peter Goodfellow, and board members, along with our general manager, Greg Hamilton, and his team, all of whom do an outstanding job in managing our organisation and supporting us across the country. I would particularly like to thank board members Malcolm Plimmer and Roger Bridge for their support and friendship. I acknowledge my good friend and colleague Paul Foster-Bell. It was a pleasure to lead his campaign in 2011 and an even greater pleasure to join him here now. I would like to acknowledge and thank my campaign chair, Carsten Schousboe, and electorate chair, Sam Ratten. Their efforts, and those of their teams, were instrumental in our success. I salute the Young Nats. They are a force multiplier. We simply could not achieve what we do without their boundless energy and commitment. There are a number of National Party members across this region to whom I owe a debt of gratitude for their support and advice. To them I offer a deeply heartfelt thankyou.

I acknowledge my friends and extended family for all we have shared over the years, and for how they have helped to shape my life. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my dear friends John and Elva Jamieson. Their friendship helped to craft a young lad into a man. I have three lovely daughters: Antonia, Georgia, and Micaela. I do not think anything can give a parent quite as much joy as seeing their children grow into strong, independent people. My love for them remains as unconditional as I still recall theirs was as young children. I am incredibly fortunate to have Lindsay Renwick as my partner. She is an incredibly giving person and adds so much to my life. She is a pillar of support, keeping me grounded and focused on what really matters. I am all the better a person for having Lindsay to share my life with.

I wish to pay tribute to my parents. I have them to thank for so much of what has brought me to where I am today. From them I learnt the importance of determination and resilience. I learnt that your own hard work and commitment will determine success, that life will be what you choose to make of it, that opportunities are there to be grasped, and that how you go about your life is as important as what you do with it. They taught me and many others by example.

I learnt most by growing up in a household of hard-working people. For most of my school days my mother, Carol, worked with the Jantzen swimwear company in Tawa. From her work there I learnt that income is determined by performance. My mother was paid on a bonus system that rewarded both the quality and quantity of her output. In the late 1980s she came to work in this precinct as an administrative assistant in the office of the Hon Stan Rodger. It was a junior role, but one of the many that are so important to ensure the smooth running of Parliament and the Government.

My father, Alfred “Rocky” Hudson, had a longer association with this House. In fact, this place is very much the reason that our family moved from Auckland to Wellington in 1972, when he transferred here to take up a role as a ministerial chauffeur. My father demonstrated not only the virtue of working hard to get ahead—18-hour days were the norm—but also the importance of professional behaviour and discretion. His discretion meant that we did not get to hear much of what went on around his job, but there was the odd story or two.

Although he never sat in this House, my father recounted that he was mentioned in it. He told of a retiring Minister who mentioned in their valedictory that there are two ways to travel domestically: Air New Zealand and Air Hudson, both equally safe and reliable. I would note an equal emphasis on safety in that comment, but reliability is important. During the rarest of occasions when Wellington Airport was closed due to inclement weather, a Minister had an important event to attend in Auckland and only scant minutes before a plane was to depart from Paraparaumu. In a case of a ministerial driver doubling as an experimental physicist, my father showed that with precise application of the right foot, time can indeed be made to fold back upon itself. I would note that that Minister also made it to their event on time.

Reflecting on my parents’ lessons and their work in service of this House gave me cause to consider the obligations upon those of us fortunate to be elected. That we should be expected to act in the public good and to improve prosperity and conditions for our people is self-evident. I found a cautionary note in the words of Edmund Burke, the eminent 18th century politician: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”. That is a salutary reminder that we would do greater disservice by doing nothing than by taking incremental steps in response to real world circumstances and limitations. Our people need pragmatism ahead of perfection.

I come to this Parliament from a career in the information and communications technology industry. It is an industry that contributes to the diversification and growth in our economy, which is a key part of our plans for boosting innovation into the future. Information and communications technology represents an additional string to our economic bow, not a replacement. Although some seem to believe that the New Zealand economy can be only a zero-sum game where doing more of one thing must come at the expense of production elsewhere, we in the National Party welcome investment, the opening-up of more markets for our goods, and exploring new innovations and means to sustainably increase production. Clearview Innovations and ReGen Ltd are two good examples of this. They are companies using technological innovation in fertiliser products and deployment to yield better results while minimising run-off risk. They are turning and facing our problems, tackling real issues using ingenuity and technology, and allowing us to continue to grow our economy and create jobs without destroying the environment. That is the New Zealand way.

I join the National caucus and take my seat in the House to make a difference. I want to see the communities of Ōhāriu, the Wellington region, and the country as a whole thrive. I want to see us taking advantage of improvements through the Business Growth Agenda to deliver more and higher paying jobs. I want a country where our people are living healthy, safe lives in communities and more of our children are succeeding in education.

The Government has a very real role to play in this. Its greatest role and greatest challenge, however, is to extend its influence only as much as is necessary and to protect the basic right of people to the freedom of their own choices. Individuals are best placed to choose their careers, their investments, and their priorities. They are best placed to care for their families. To impose upon people beyond what is necessary is to erode their freedom. As a great philosopher of the 19th century, John Stuart Mill, noted on society: “if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression,”. I am committed to freedom, to limited Government, to individual choice and responsibility, to rewards for achievement, and to equal opportunity. Those are our party values. Those are the values this great country was built upon.

There will come a time as yet undetermined when I will leave this place. As I set my shoulder to the wheel at the beginning of my parliamentary career, I do so with a commitment that when that time comes, I want to be able to look back and see New Zealand in an even better state than what it was when I entered. I want to be able to truthfully say that I made a difference, that I took action even when perhaps I alone could do only little, that I heeded the warning of Edmund Burke and in doing so gave some honour to his memory—honour to his memory and to that of a certain former ministerial chauffeur. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koe. Ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ahau, tihei mauri ora! Te Whare e tū nei, te marae e takoto nei, tēnā kōrua. Tō tātou mate, haere e ngā mate. Haere ki te kāinga tūturu o tō tātou Matua i Te Rangi, haere, haere, haere. Ko te kaupapa mō tēnei rā, tēnā koe. Ko te wairua o tēnei Whare, tēnā koe. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Greetings. The sooty shearwater cry, the parrot cry, and I lament as well. Behold the breath of life! To the House that stands before me and the courtyard that lies there, acknowledgments to you two. To our death, depart the deaths. Go to the eternal home of our Father in Heaven, depart, go forth, farewell. Greetings to you, the matter for today, and to the spirituality of the House, greetings. Therefore acknowledgments, accolades, greetings to you collectively and to us all.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I first acknowledge you with greetings from the north and from my electorate team, led by Murray Broadbelt, and mentors Shirley Faber, Stephanie MacMillan, and my campaign and executive teams. We congratulate you on your role as Deputy Speaker. To my esteemed colleagues I greet you with the proverb: he waka eke noa. [A canoe that simply achieves.]

Together we are in this one canoe, without exception. To gathered guests and family, I acknowledge and thank you. Thank you for the service you do me today, that I may make you proud, that we may make you proud—ngā mihi ki a koutou.

I stand today as a humble servant from humble beginnings. The Whangarei electorate has never had a Māori MP. From Murray Smith, to John Elliott, to John Banks, to Phil Heatley, the baton has been passed and now rests in my care and protection. To this end and on behalf of the electorate I would like to thank the Hon Phil Heatley for many years of dedication, not just to this electorate but to other ministerial portfolios also. It has been commented to me that from the north, to this House, one Shane leaves and another Shane arrives. This is, of course, a reference to Shane Jones, my whanaunga and fine member of New Zealand First—ah, Labour. We do have some similarities. It is true that Shane was a New Zealand Harkness Fellow to Harvard, just as I was several years later. I believe his academic appointment was to the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and mine was to Harvard Medical School. I will talk more on this later.

I speak today as the last of the newbies in this National Government—the beginner, the learner, the minnow. And here in this moment, right now, I claim no honorifics, no title, just Shane, a Māori boy from Northland. When my time and season concludes, from the dust I come and to the dust I will return.

My background is simple. I was born into a State house, the eldest of five children in a working-class Māori family. My parents believed that further education and hard work were the way to success, and yet what further education meant was not exactly clear to them, because they had never experienced it themselves. Mum left in the fifth form and went to work as a clerk at State Advances. Her people landed in Hōreke in the Hokianga in the early 1800s and are now resting in the cemetery opposite Rāwene hospital. Dad left in the fourth form, to return to the family farm in Kāwhia. Dad is from a family of 14 brothers and sisters, to the same mother and the same father: Grandma Irina Whawhakia Paki, descendant of Puoaka Paki, Tainui, Ngāti Maniapoto, and grandad Tom Reti, son of Hemi and Tete Paoro, from Waikare in the Bay of Islands, Ngāti Wai.

Times were tough for my grandparents. Every time grandma was in labour she would hop on the horse, no saddle, bareback, ride down the hill, across the beach, and up the valley, to the other side, to Auntie Polly, who was the midwife. It was a journey of significant time and distance, with all 14 children. But if the tide was in, it was down the hill, swim the horse, and up the valley to the other side. As soon as he got in from the farm, grandad Tom would follow on the horse, down the hill, across the beach, up the valley. When he got close to Auntie Polly’s house, Auntie Polly would come out and say: “Tom, this is women’s work. Go home.”

Like many in this House today my grandparents created endeavour through endurance, and success through sacrifice. This also is the story that I will tell. It is actually not so much about me. I am but the instrument in this mortal existence. But it is a story that, at its conclusion, talks to hard work, education, and the unbridled privilege of serving your fellow man. This also is my purpose.

It is my belief that there are several sentinel events in a lifetime—some have a few; some have many. Sentinel events are events that shape our lives and, but for a different path, a different outcome ensues. Two diametric sentinel events happened in my teenage years and shaped my life. The first was institutional racism. In my student years I would usually study during the day and at night commercial clean with dad, vacuuming floors, cleaning toilets, and dusting blinds. One year I asked the administrator whether I could sit not five subjects but six subjects, like all my friends were. I remember the reply: “No, Shane. You’re a Māori boy. You’ll do five.” My internal response was a call to arms: “Right. I will show you.” My external response was to win the English prize that year. No, not for me six subjects. I was still allowed to sit only five. But many years later, when I was promoted to assistant professor at Harvard, I think I made my point.

I won, but many Māori do not. The educational aspirations of Māori must never ever be bound by the preconceptions of others. Their dreams too must be allowed to soar to the heavens, on shards of resolve, to the heights resounding, e tangi e, e tangi e, e tangi e. [Lament, wail, mourn.] This also is my purpose.

I was blessed with a second sentinel event in my teens. In my sixth form year the Rotary Club of Hamilton, district 993, broadcast across the Hamilton high schools that it would support one student to America the following year. Many applied, and yet for some reason they chose me. You have to imagine that in those times working-class Māori were not the normal Rotary mix, and yet they chose me. No one in my family had ever had a passport, few had been on a plane, and none had been overseas, and yet they chose me.

I went to Idaho in the Intermountain West of America. My five host families were a retail manager, two multimillionaires, and two bankers. Can you imagine the contrast? From working-class Māori, to a host father who flew me in his private plane on the weekends to his condo in Sun Valley. These people were well educated, they worked hard, and success had come their way. There it was, right there—education and hard work. My parents had already planted the seed of belief, and now I saw it in action. I was living it. I got it, and I went on to apply it.

This is a story of opportunities—windows of opportunities that in a lifetime may open for just the briefest of moments, and then close again, sometimes for ever. Our task is to create opportunities for those who follow, that as we pass the baton to them we have created a world better than how we found it—a footprint that the next tide will gently wash over and shape to its new resolve. This also is my purpose.

I have had three careers. My first career is as a doctor, serving the people of Whangarei for 20 years. During this time, in my clinical hands, I was truly privileged to care for many good people and I thank them for enriching my life. At the same time I was appointed to the Northland District Health Board for three consecutive terms, and I would like to acknowledge district health board chair, Lynette Stewart, who is here today and whose wisdom and counsel has always been sound.

National literary awards also followed, for research published in the national and international scientific community. I guess somewhere in there I also found time to qualify with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, receive the Queen’s Service Medal, and have three children under three. To our grown-up children, Justin, Melissa, and Angela, thank you for permitting me to undertake this body of work, and to Christine, whose warm, embracing support of family also brings me to this point.

But what I learnt most from this, my first career, was to be a good listener. When you partner with people and guide them through the peaks and troughs of their life, you get to be a good listener. You know, there is a parallel with serving constituents, and it is this: what people want is to hear and be heard, to see and be seen—to hear and be heard, to see and be seen. This also is my purpose.

My second career was in America, where I worked for 7 years until recently. I was selected as New Zealand Harkness Fellow to Harvard. My academic appointment was to Harvard Medical School. My operational appointment was to Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. It was in the Harvard environment that I cut my international credentials and developed foreign affairs and trade expertise. In the scientific space of Harvard I found a fertile environment where any innovation, any new thinking that I wanted to dream, I could actually bring to life.

As an informatician, I worked with data, ciphers, and encryption, and became a Beachheads Middle East adviser out of the Dubai consulate. For sharing their knowledge so generously, I wish to give particular thanks to my operational team at Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. You took up the “Kiwiness”, took up the Māori, and in return opened up new personal experiences to me, such as the Jewish Seder. I carry the best of you all with me, and with deep gratitude I acknowledge Harvard professors Professor Tom Delbanco, Professor Warner Slack, Associate Professor Charles Safran, Associate Professor Tony Kaldany, and Assistant Professor Henry Feldman.

It was always my intention to bring the best of the Harvard environment home to New Zealand. I was always on loan from my people, I was always coming home, and I bring these learnings with me into the science, technology, and research and development space and I proudly attest it is cool to be a geek. This also is my purpose.

My third career is here and now. As the MP for Whangarei, I will advocate strongly for the needs of the electorate, and I thank and honour the mandate it has given me and a National Government. Our needs are best met by economic development, which includes attention to transport, local government reform, and Treaty settlements. Economic development that creates sustainable disposable income also creates options, and these options, I believe, will improve the metrics by which we define a good life. This also is my purpose.

I feel responsibilities to my electorate of Whangarei, to my regional neighbours in Northland, and to every single citizen of this nation. At a national level then, I embrace working with my colleagues here in the House as we advance a New Zealand in prosperity, equity, and freedom. I would like to extend one dimension of freedom to a discussion on data ownership, a conversation that is heard in the international community and one that we may have here also. In the complex balance between freedom of expression and privacy, who owns the data? What data? Well, as we seek to share medical records online through electronic tools such as personal health records, who owns the data? The doctor, the patient, the funder? When a loved one—say, a child—chronicles their life story on Facebook, and that child unexpectedly and tragically passes away, who owns that precious story? Without passwords, the parents will struggle to reclaim the digital expression of that child. Who owns the data?

This discussion may be better framed not around ownership but around stewardship, and New Zealand is already strong in this domain. We are already stewards of the land through the Department of Conservation, stewards of our coastal treasures through kaitiaki stewardship, and stewards of the next generations through love. It is but a small step to be stewards of our data also. This also is my purpose.

Ka mutu, I have been blessed to be mentored and guided by many strong people in my life. To those at governance tables, trade delegations, embassies, and consulates, I watched, I learnt, and I am an amalgam of the best of what you all brought to the table and shared, and for these gifts I thank you. To Yvonne, who guides and lights the way forward, I thank you.

In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge my parents, Ray and Robyn, who are here today, and thank them. My parents, who, when faced with a child with endless energy, still decided to keep me alive! And so, Mr Deputy Speaker, may your tenure be blessed. May this House be great. And may we be one people. Thank you.

Waiata

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am calling Ian McKelvie—5 minutes, with a warning bell at 4 minutes.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I have, Prime Minister, done my maiden speech and, actually, I have had only a couple of turns in the House, though, I must say. But having to follow that lot really is a little bit like, I guess, playing Sevens after an All Black test at Athletic Park. For those of you who can remember Athletic Park, it was pretty cold—a very breezy place and, I must say, were they not spectacular?

I must get on with the serious business of the House, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, and I wish to, firstly, congratulate you on your re-election as an Assistant Speaker. I also want to particularly mention my friend and neighbour Chester Borrows and commend him for his election as Deputy Speaker of the House. I think it is pretty special for him, and it is certainly special for us in the Rangitīkei to have a Deputy Speaker next door to us.

I want to also congratulate all the new members of the House—wherever you sit. At the end of the day we all come here for the same reason. We might have different opinions, but we do come here for the same reason, and I think that is the special thing about this place—we do not agree but we do definitely come here for similar reasons.

I want to particularly make mention of Jono Naylor. He, of course, has just made his maiden speech. He lives in Palmerston North. He will, I guess, put a little bit of blue on the Labour seat of Palmerston North, and I look forward to having him as a local ally. I think he will be a great asset to our region, and certainly to the people of Palmerston North.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of the Rangitīkei electorate for returning me with a much increased majority despite a very hard-working Labour candidate. I also want to put on record my thanks to my campaign team led by Jamie “Diesel” Cunningham and Kath Johnson—two out of thousands of people throughout New Zealand who worked so hard to ensure the return of a John Key - led Government.

Out on the election campaign we heard so much about what Labour and New Zealand First, with its 96-page manifesto, were going to do for us all in rural New Zealand. We heard nothing from the Greens, interestingly, as they were missing in action in my electorate. I noticed that back here it is back to the same old thing: blame the Government and come up with nothing new.

I want to tell the House today that parts of the Rangitīkei electorate are as challenged economically as anywhere in New Zealand, but the outlook is improving. It is improving on the back of activities of the National Government over the past 6 years, and will continue to do so. The reasons for this are simple. In tourism we have an industry that is safe, secure, and green. The cycleways initiative, our opportunity to walk, ski, climb, canoe, and generally use our beautiful rivers and mountains—the central North Island is an environmental tourism Mecca. A good deal of that central North Island is in the Rangitīkei electorate. In the last quarter the accommodation industry’s overnight-stay figures were 25 percent ahead of the same quarter last year in the north of my electorate. This will continue to create more work opportunities and put buoyancy into our region that has not been seen for many years.

In agriculture, sheep and beef farmers play a huge part in the fortunes of the Rangitīkei electorate and are doing comparatively well. Beef and lamb prices are both at very good levels. Wool is poking its head up and forestry is on the move once again. Anyone who has looked at the local port just down the road here will have noticed that.

The dairy sector is important for the fortunes of the Rangitīkei and I am confident there is light at the end of the tunnel here as a set of unique circumstances work their way through the trade chain. This sector is providing more job opportunities and added value, and the servicing industry will also pick up strongly in the future. The roads of national significance are going to have a significant effect on the Rangitīkei electorate with the completion of the Kapiti Expressway and the subsequent completion of Transmission Gully and the Whirokino Trestle Bridge. As Minister Guy said yesterday in his speech to the House, areas to the north of Wellington will benefit significantly from these projects and my electorate is no exception to this.

In the Rangitīkei we have families challenged by circumstances, we have people looking for work, and we have challenges around health and education, but we know that this Government is putting in place policy and law that advances our cause through better services and economic growth.

I am very proud to represent the people of the Rangitīkei. It is a privilege to be in this House and I thank you for the opportunity to address the House today.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I really enjoy the maiden speeches and sometimes I wish I could have another opportunity to make my own maiden speech. I could do it even better.

Congratulations to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, on your re-election as Assistant Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my team for the campaign. Particularly, I would like to thank my friends Carissa Meng and Frank Zhang, and I also thank the National team for their help.

In this election there were about five Chinese candidates. Of course, in the end only I came back to Parliament. In a sense it is a pity that we do not have more Chinese MPs here. On the other hand it does reflect Chinese support for National, and I often say “support National with or without me”. It is more important to have a ruling party, a very good ruling party, than just a few Chinese MPs. So I feel very privileged to be able to represent National in the Chinese community.

It is no wonder, basically, that the Chinese voters supported National so strongly—I would say overwhelmingly supported National. We did some polls and also the media did some polls that demonstrated that Chinese voters supported National really overwhelmingly. There are reasons, of course.

First of all, I would say the Chinese community really shares the values of the National Party. We believe that we should pay attention to education, we believe that we should reward those who work very hard, and we believe that we should have equal opportunity but respect different outcomes. So we share the values of the National Party. For that reason I feel very fortunate to be able to represent the National Party in the Chinese community.

Also, if you look at National achievements in the past 6 years, we experienced the global financial crisis, we experienced the Christchurch earthquakes, but we overcame all these difficulties and we came out very strongly. Now our economy has been growing very strongly, our unemployment rate has been dropping, and our crime rate has also been dropping and is now the lowest in over 30 years. And look at our surplus. We have been able to return to surplus this financial year, despite all the difficulties we have experienced in the past 6 years. And there are public services.

We often say that we value education. We have invested continuously in education and, of course, our health sector has been doing extremely well. As deputy chair of the Health Committee in the last term I understand well that we have done a lot and invested a lot. We have kept investing, and increasing our investment, in the health sector in the past 6 years.

But at the same time the Chinese also value our National Party’s support for immigrants. We have a consistent policy on immigration, unlike Labour Party members who did not really know what they were doing in terms of immigration. They sometimes said we should cut immigration numbers but then in the end could not explain why. We were consistent, and also we support new immigrants. We started Language Line, and in the past financial year there were about 55,000 requests for interpretation. It is very important for us to welcome new immigrants because a quarter of New Zealanders were born overseas and immigrants are particularly important to our economy. I am going to chair the Education and Science Committee. I will be very pleased to work with other members and do well. Thank you.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Could I begin by congratulating the four National speakers who gave their maiden speeches in the House this afternoon. I thought they were very good speeches. I think the really important thing about a maiden speech is that a member of Parliament shows their human side far more when they deliver their maiden speech than they do in any subsequent speech. That is maybe a pity because I think it would be a good thing if members in this House showed their human side more often. While I am congratulating people, can I congratulate my colleagues Peeni Henare, Adrian Rurawhe, and Jenny Salesa for very fine maiden speeches. I think that the nature of their contribution shows that they are going to be members of Parliament who will contribute a lot to this country and I congratulate them.

Looking to my right I have got to congratulate the retreads: Carmel Sepuloni, Stuart Nash, and Kelvin Davis. I say that as a retread myself. Trevor Mallard, Annette King, and I all lost our seats and then regained them. I lost my seat to a man called Gilbert Myles, who subsequently progressed through three other political parties and I thrashed him the second time. But I have to say that losing your seat and regaining a seat gives you a true appreciation of the privilege it is to represent your community in this House, and it is character-building. But, you know, after you have lost it once that is enough character. Losing it twice is careless, so I have tried not to do that and I really want to thank the people of Mt Roskill for electing me to represent them for an 11th term. Though it seems like a very long time ago, it was not that long ago, I feel, that I was here giving my maiden speech and I hope that I have lost none of the values that I came into the House with.

The third set of congratulations, Mr Assistant Speaker, goes to you; to the Speaker, David Carter; to the Deputy Speaker, Chester Borrows; and to Trevor Mallard. You, Mr Assistant Speaker, and Chester are very fine gentlemen, I have to say. I am not greasing up to you. I am genuinely reflecting my admiration for your integrity, notwithstanding the fact that you are on the other side of the House. We have done a lot of work together and it has been very good. Trevor Mallard is really interesting. Trevor reminded me of my teenage kids well into his 50s—always testing the limits. Now we have the man who tested the limits of the Speaker going from being the poacher to the gamekeeper. I always thought Trevor Mallard craved respectability and I think this is proof of it, but I think that Trevor will also be an excellent Speaker. He knows the Standing Orders of this House, he has a lot to contribute, and I look forward to that.

It is a privilege to represent in this House the most multicultural electorate in New Zealand. I want to thank the communities right across my electorate for their loyalty and support. Before the election the Electoral Commission was unkind enough to move my seat from the western Labour areas to the eastern blue areas, and notwithstanding that, they continued to support me with a greater majority. I want to say that it is a real privilege to be a member in this House. If I have any advice for new members, it is the advice that I heard our former Prime Minister Helen Clark give to Cabinet on many occasions: every day in this place is a privilege and every day it has to be earned. Always remember, being a member of Parliament, that it is not you who are important; the position is important. Never ever ask anybody: “Don’t you know who I am?”.

At the last election, Labour MPs did somewhat better than their party; I, myself, by more than 6,000 votes. On this side of the House we have to ask some questions about why that was the case. People supported, endorsed, and voted back their local Labour candidates, but they did not support the party in the same numbers. I think that whether you win or whether you lose, humility is a real virtue in this place. I think Labour has to show humility. I want to pick up on what Shane Reti told the House about listening. As a general practitioner, one of the most important things he learned was not simply to talk to people but to listen to them. That is good advice coming from a new member to us on this side of the House—to listen to the electorate and to learn what its people have to tell us.

Labour has a proud history. In 2 years’ time we are 100 years old. I am really proud that the biggest changes—the most progressive social changes that have been made in the history of this country—have come under successive Labour Governments. But I also think that Labour has not only a proud history but a proud future, provided that we rise to the challenge of showing unity, cohesiveness, and focus, and being relevant to our electorates. So, even after the time that I have spent in this House, it is time for me to learn and it is time for our side of the House to learn. I believe that when the electorate looks at a Government that has been in place for 9 years, and is perhaps showing too great a sense of entitlement and arrogance, which even the Prime Minister warned happens in the third term, Labour will be there and show itself ready to take up that challenge and be relevant to the needs of our electorate.

I want, in the time I have left, to talk about some of the issues that are really important, and these are issues that people raised with me on the doorsteps during the campaign. The first one is that of housing. When you think about it, a stable roof over the heads of your family is one of the most basic and important foundations for a good society. I have got to say that in my electorate, which I grew up in, I was astounded at the number of places I doorknocked that I knew used to be owner-occupied and are now rented. The people who are buying up the homes that were once owned by those who lived in them are the investors. The dream for many of our people, including our own kids, of owning your own home is becoming more remote.

You know, I listened with interest to what maiden speakers said about the importance of family. Most of us in this House were really wise—we chose our families well, and we chose our parents well. Our parents gave us assistance, and we give our kids assistance. I think of the huge number of people in my electorate who would love to own their home, but they do not come from families who are able to provide a deposit of $50,000 or $100,000 to give their kids a start in life. I think it is really a sad indictment on what has been happening in New Zealand that more and more people do not think that they will achieve that goal. We have the lowest level of homeownership, I think, in 60 years. I have always believed in that dream of owning your own home and the stability that it gives to you.

If you cannot own your own home—and again, I refer to Shane Reti; because he said he was brought up in a State house. That is great. That is why the Labour Government brought in State housing—for people like Shane and for people like the Prime Minister, whose family needed a hand up. My electorate is built on State housing, and the great thing about that housing is that it is warm, it is dry, it is stable, and it is affordable. I cannot see that the solution to a housing crisis is to sell off your State houses, particularly when so many of them, as we heard from Trevor Mallard, are going to property developers and the private rental market. I cannot see that that helps. What our kids need are stable homes and stable schooling so they can realise their potential. Ask the principals at my decile 1 schools and they will tell you that they have got kids who are going through their school who have been to five or six different schools.

Paula Bennett and Bill English were criticising Housing New Zealand. I read a report this morning from—

Hon Paula Bennett: I did not.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, you did. Yes, you did. Listen to what I have got to say, Ms Bennett, because I think you will learn from it. There was a study carried out over 10 years on the provision of State housing to families with children who were on one-third of the national average incomes. What did that show? It showed that the rate of admittance to hospital of tenants who move from private rental into State housing dropped dramatically. It dropped dramatically because of that big difference in the quality of a home life that you can build when you have got decent housing and good conditions. The kids are stable in their schools, they have better health, they do better, they realise their potential, and they can achieve opportunity. I have heard a lot of speeches about opportunity but let us create the conditions at the basic level where that opportunity is for all of us, and where we are an inclusive society. Yes, we want people to achieve excellence; yes, we want them to do as well as they can, but let us give them that opportunity. Let us give all of our kids that opportunity, not just some of them. That is what Labour is about.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is an absolute pleasure to rise to take a call in this inaugural session of the 51st Parliament of our great country of New Zealand. May I congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, on your re-election to the position of Assistant Speaker, and also the Hon Chester Borrows, the Rt Hon David Carter, and the Hon Trevor Mallard for their election to roles as presiding officers in this House. It is a privilege to be a member of the third-term, John Key - led National Government. I am absolutely delighted to be joined in the National caucus by some outstanding colleagues, who gave their maiden speeches last week and this week, from Chris Bishop, who moved the Address in Reply debate, through to Dr Shane Reti, whom we have just heard a few moments ago. I am astounded by the diversity, the talents, and the merit of those candidates and what they bring to our team. Truly, National is a team that represents the very best of New Zealand, and you can see this personified in some of our new members.

I would also like to offer my warmest congratulations to the new members who have been elected across the House and, in particular, my Green Party opponent in Wellington Central, James Shaw, who gave a very good maiden speech. It was one that must have horrified his colleagues, given his quotation of Margaret Thatcher and his support for the free market, but one that is welcomed here on this side of the House. I look forward to working with James, and, actually, with all colleagues who share the view that we can have economic progress as well as development of our environment.

This last election was a fascinating one in Wellington. We had excellent support for the National Party, and I want to personally thank the nearly 15,000 electors of the Wellington Central electorate who gave their party vote to National. That is the reason that I and other National list MPs have been returned to the House. I also want to personally thank the nearly 12,000 voters who gave their personal vote to me. I am appreciative of the efforts of my campaign team and of my electorate chair, Richard Westlake; campaign chair, Rainer McAlister; and all those many, many volunteers, including the Young Nats, who assisted on a very strong campaign locally. Wellington Central is in good shape. There are exciting and—to paraphrase the Minister for Social Housing—sexy things happening in Wellington. We have a convention centre on the way, which was confirmed in the newspaper today and is up for confirmation by the council next week. We are the heart of science and technological research in New Zealand. During the campaign period, I had the pleasure of visiting the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research at Victoria University.

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

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying before the dinner break, I congratulate you on your appointment to the deputy speakership of this House. You are a very fair-minded and learned gentleman, and a distinguished member of the National caucus, but I know that you will apply your fairness, judgment, balance, and even-handedness to a superb degree when managing the affairs of this very important House.

Before the dinner break I was talking about the Wellington Central electorate and the excellent party vote result achieved by National but also about some of the interesting things that are going on here. During the campaign I was up at the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research and saw some of the fascinating research that it is doing into, among other things, resolving asthma—actually, effectively, a cure for asthma sufferers—and also the very important issue of melanoma, which is something suffered by many New Zealanders due to the environmental conditions we live in in this country.

There is an old Chinese curse that says we live in interesting times, and, sadly, around the world we can see this played out including in some of the regions I served in as a New Zealand diplomat. In the Middle East we have the scourge of sectarianism and we have the threat of terrorism, and some of that even threatens to spill over into our relatively quiet corner of the world. I am proud to be part of a Government that takes the security of this realm incredibly seriously and proud to be working for a Prime Minister who has outlined a number of measures that he would wish to take.

In terms of international affairs may I thank all members of this House who have this evening endorsed me as the Pacific regional delegate to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Just this week we had a visit from our Fijian counterparts, and I think we would all join together in welcoming them back into the fold of the Commonwealth. It is fantastic to have such an important regional partner back inside the tent, as it were. I am looking forward to engaging with all members and furthering the cause of poverty eradication, corruption reduction, and also those other important capacity-building activities, particularly governance capacity building, which New Zealand and this House can contribute to in Parliament.

One last thing: this is the Address in Reply to the speech delivered by Her Majesty’s representative. I think it would be remiss of this House not to have on the record somewhere congratulations to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge on conceiving the second in line to be heir to the heir to the throne of New Zealand. It is a wonderful thing—as we debate the flag and other issues. It is a wonderful thing. It is part of the tradition of this country that we are free of corruption, and part of that, I think, is thanks to the fact we have a politically neutral, incorruptible, and dutiful head of State in Her Majesty the Queen. So I take great pleasure in adding my voice of support to others who have moved the motion in support of that speech. Thank you.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I extend to you, because it is Tokelau Language Week, a very warm malo ni. The Tokelauan community has got a very exciting but not sexy week this week. Right up and down the country the people of Tokelau—some just over 7,000 in New Zealand and only about 1,500 on the atolls themselves—will be celebrating their culture and language. So a big malo ni to the rest of the House as well.

Can I also extend to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I know that you will be fair. Also congratulations to Lindsay Tisch, who has been very fair in the two parliaments that I have served in, and to the Hon Trevor Mallard, who I hope will be fair in this 51st Parliament. It is interesting to see someone who has massaged the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings over his time in this Parliament now be so inflexible with them. Also, of course, to our Speaker, David Carter, congratulations on being appointed Speaker again. He is someone with good red and black pedigree.

Can I also extend to new members a warm welcome to the House. Phil Goff actually stole quite a lot of my speech when he made his Address in Reply speech.

Hon Phil Goff: I saw the notes on your desk so I thought they were mine.

KRIS FAAFOI: He did. I have been listening to a lot of the maiden speeches and they are an opportunity where we get to find out what is behind the rosette with some of the people who come into this House, and where we get the chance to be human beings. It has been very interesting to learn some of the backgrounds of people from all around the House. To the three new colleagues here on the Labour side of the House: to Adrian Rurawhe and Peeni Henare, tēnā kōrua to you; and to Jenny Salesa, another Pacific Islander on our side of the House, a big malo e lelei to you as well.

It is an absolute privilege to stand here and to be once again elected for the third time in 4 years as the member of Parliament for Mana. Can I extend my best wishes and thanks to the two other MPs who fought the battle in Mana for the third time. They are the Hon Hekia Parata from the National Party and Jan Logie from the Greens. It always is a fair battle. As the Hon Christopher Finlayson said of Rongotai, there are no dirty tricks in Mana, and it was very humbling to be returned to Parliament with an increased majority.

I would like to thank a number of people from the local electorate who have helped me over the last 4 years—[Interruption] Not skiting; I didn’t mention a number. I did want to thank Matthew Swann and James Baigent, who worked very hard during the campaign; Lynne Renouf, who coordinated the delivery of thousands of pieces of deliveries and mail; Jim McAloon, who made sure that we did not spend too much money; and Louise Fairbanks, Irene Sylvander, Sharon Elborn, Phil Major, and Andrew Frazer, who all helped in some way. I know I have missed people out, so to all the members, friends, and family who volunteered their time over the election campaign, thank you. Very warm thanks, as I am sure most members of Parliament are thanking their volunteer teams for all the effort that helped them get here to this Parliament.

I spent the last 3 years banging on about housing in my electorate to the point where I think people were getting sick of it. I am very thankful for that, because I think it is an issue—certainly locally, and nationally—that this Government has not got on top of. Housing New Zealand - related work would take up about a third of the time of the staff in my electorate office, and quite simply there is, not just in the Mana electorate but right around the country, a serious shortage of social housing. I commit to the people of Mana to continue that relentless local focus on housing and making sure that our local people are living in good houses. If people have a good, solid home, it is an anchor in that community. It means that the kids can stay at one school. It means that if it is safe and warm, those kids are staying healthy and going to school. That is the kind of New Zealand that the Labour Party wants to make sure our kids grow up in.

But there have been too many instances, as we have heard, certainly in this House today, of people being pushed to camping grounds and people living in their cars. Over the last 3 years the kinds of incremental changes that we are seeing the National Government make in social housing have made the lives of people who are very vulnerable much, much harder. It started with something small like changing to an 0800 number, which made it almost impossible to deal with Housing New Zealand—huge waiting times—and the shutting down of offices in communities like Porirua, where there are a huge number of Housing New Zealand tenants. When you put that together with what happened in April—when it was not just Housing New Zealand that was responsible for Housing New Zealand tenants, it also became the realm of the Ministry of Social Development to assess people in their housing needs—things got very confused. I do not think that those two departments were very ready for that big change.

There are a couple of examples that I wanted to pick up. They might seem small and they might have been small mistakes, but they are creating a sense of unease out there in the community. One of them was the experience of someone who came into my office, a lady called Losalina Sosaia. She went from having her rent reassessed at $272 per week to getting a letter in the mail saying that her rent had gone up to $9,857—a huge increase in her rent. As you can imagine, she did not speak English very well. She was very, very upset at what this letter may have meant for her. Look, from my perspective, it was obviously a mistake, but she did not know what was going on. So we spent an hour on the phone waiting for the phone call to be answered to try to help out Losalina. There were 320 other people in the same boat. They had very similar letters go out to them and they were shocked and fearful of what this meant. I know that this was an administrative error and it was a mistake that I am sure someone at the Ministry of Social Development was very sorry for, but when you have got two departments now working with these vulnerable families, sending out letters like these, you are going to create a sense of unease and fear in the community.

Another really sad example that came through my office was of a lady who had her income-related rent assessed again by the Ministry of Social Development and it was reassessed from $300 down to $90 a week. The unfortunate thing, though, is that the organisation that collects the rent is Housing New Zealand. Housing New Zealand staff were not told that her rent had gone from $300 a week to $90 a week. So she was paying $90 and accruing $210 of debt for weeks, to the point where she was on the verge of getting evicted from her home. That lady came to us just before she was about to go to the Tenancy Tribunal, which was about to kick her out of her house. The simple fact that someone at the Ministry of Social Development and someone at Housing New Zealand had not spoken to each other or sent a simple email meant that this lady was on the verge of getting kicked out of her home. These people are vulnerable enough already, and these simple clerical errors should not put people on the verge of being kicked out of their homes that they are entitled to be in.

I think those two examples speak to the kinds of things that can happen when you have a Government that is not committed to having any part in social housing in New Zealand. We have seen that in the last couple of weeks, as this Government has made it quite clear that it does not want to have to do anything in social housing because it wants to sell State houses and also remove itself from the environment of making sure it is offering that pastoral care. There are probably about 150 homes that are still boarded up in the Mana electorate and people are waiting to live in those homes. Those homes have been boarded up now for nearly 2 years. There are families waiting to get into those homes. My concern now, because I have heard a story from Trevor Mallard, is that those homes, which are desperately needed by people who cannot afford market rents, will now go on the block and be sold.

On this side of the House, we do believe that a Government has a role to play in social housing. We have seen over the last 5 or 6 years, incrementally, this Government take a backward step in helping New Zealanders with the most simple of things—having a decent home to live in, having somewhere that they can call home, and, if they cannot afford market rents quite at this stage, the Government can stand in and help them for some time to make sure they can have a decent house that their kids can call home, where they are stable and have that anchor in their community. This Government is removing that anchor for many of the families in my area. I give a commitment to my people in my area that I will make sure that there is good, affordable housing for everybody, because this Government is putting that at risk.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that the next call will be a split call.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your new role as Deputy Speaker. I just want to acknowledge also my electorate chair, Jennie Georgetti, and my campaign chair, Roger Burrill.

Hon Simon Bridges: Salt of the earth people.

MARK MITCHELL: They are. I want to acknowledge our people in Rodney who turned out and participated in our democracy this year, regardless of what candidate or party they supported. At least they turned out and they used their vote. I also want to acknowledge our outgoing police area commander, Scott Webb, who has just been promoted and has taken up the area commander’s role in west Auckland. I want to acknowledge him and the great work that he has done in building relationships amongst our community groups and iwi. The police now take a much greater role in this type of relationship-building in working through the community, and he has done a very good job of that. I want to acknowledge the incoming area commander Inspector Mark Fergus, who is a very good local surf lifesaver and I am sure that he is also going to make a very good police area commander.

I want to acknowledge our volunteer firefighters. I was at their awards ceremony last week. I especially want to mention two of our officers, Bevan Shaw and Keith Mackereth, who received their 25-year gold star for service. I speak especially in relation to Keith, because his father, Frank Mackereth, is our chief fire officer and his brother Vaughn is the assistant chief fire officer down in Takapuna for Waitematā. Between the three of them—Frank and his two sons—they have a combined service to our volunteer fire service of 112¾ years. That is a pretty incredible milestone.

I want to acknowledge our new colleagues who have joined us this year, all 14 of them. I think there are three of them in the House—Todd Barclay, Parmjeet Parmar, and Nuk Korako. Actually, just looking at Todd, Parmjeet, and Nuk, it just goes to show you the variety and the depth that the National caucus has. I think we are doing a very good job as a party in rejuvenating, without a doubt.

I want to acknowledge the important projects for me this year in my own electorate. The Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway project was a very important one. I notice I am sharing a split call today with my colleague Mike Sabin. I want to acknowledge him because I know that we have both worked very hard to make sure we remain focused on delivering the Pūhoi to Wellsford project, and I am very proud that our Government, the Prime Minister, and our executive have continued to have a focus and a commitment to that investment. It is going to be a significant investment for Rodney.

The next big infrastructure project for me is Penlink, which is further south in the electorate. It is no less important and we are experiencing some pretty significant growth. We are expected to absorb a lot of the growth in the future. In Auckland at the moment, I think that about 33 percent of the residential consents are lodged with council for the southern part of my electorate—Silverdale, Ōrewa, and Whangaparāoa.

I am very thankful to be a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee this year and I want to acknowledge David Shearer, Phil Goff, Fletcher Tabuteau, and Kennedy Graham, and my own colleagues who are going to be sitting on that committee. I anticipate that we are going to have some interesting work to do this term. I want to acknowledge some comments that Mr Shearer made, and I acknowledge his background, because we all know that he has got a lot of experience and he is very highly regarded and respected in terms of delivering humanitarian aid and assistance around the world, especially in hotspots like Iraq, Somalia, and others. He said in his speech tonight, in reference to the situation with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, that it is a very complicated situation. I entirely agree with him.

The point that I want to make—and I am conscious that I have got a split call; I have not got much time—is that as a country we watched Lucy Knight. Lucy Knight was the 43-year-old mother in Northcote who saw an elderly lady being attacked by an offender who was attempting to take her bag off her. Lucy did not just stand by and do nothing. She did not put her head down and walk away and say “That’s none of my business.” She intervened. She tried to help. As a result, she was injured, an injury that she is now recovering from. I think, as a nation, we are going to have to ask ourselves whether we want to be a country of people who put their heads down and ignore what is happening in the rest of the world. Our future is critically aligned with our being able to trade, and we do trade with the rest of the world. I think that when there are problems, as a country we should be focused on looking at what we can do and what contribution we can make. Thank you very much and I will hand over to my colleague. Thank you.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I will join with the many others in acknowledging your new position, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have to say that I will miss you as the Minister for Courts and as Associate Minister of Justice and Associate Minister for Social Development and the really good work that you have done there, but no doubt you have a lot to offer in this position, so I will be very pleased to see you grow and develop in this role.

I acknowledge everyone who has made it back into Parliament—those who have come new to the place and those who have come back. I acknowledge my colleague Kelvin Davis, who has worked very, very hard, previously as an MP but certainly between the time that he was voted out of here and in coming back. I acknowledge you, Kelvin, and the work that I know you will continue to do. I also join with Mark Mitchell in acknowledging those new National Party members and their maiden speeches and what have you. I also went to Harvard. I think there has been a bit of mention about Harvard. I went to Harvard; I was delivering newspapers. That is about as close as I got to a degree. I did get School Certificate, and I got university entrance accredited, so do not panic. That was a stretch.

I came to this place from a relatively mixed and varied background, but I guess everyone comes here wanting to make a difference. I guess the challenge is how you actually give effect to that. Saying it certainly does not do it. For me, coming from the area of Northland—and I guess I think of it as a region, even though it is two electorates—it is a place that is blessed with opportunity but has really been dogged by underperformance. I think there are a number of reasons for that. A lot of the problems that come as a result of that underperformance—the social dysfunction, the crime, the drug use, and so forth—can be hinged back to the fact that when an economy is not performing, then people occupy themselves in other ways, and some of those are not particularly constructive.

My goal was to set about trying to identify a whole-of-region economic business growth agenda, if you like—identify what the enablers and constrainers were across that economy and articulate that as clearly as possible into this place so that the policy resource and infrastructure that I believe will help grow that economy in Northland is better understood and is better advocated for. So I see that as my role. It is not good enough to just occupy one of these green seats; you have actually got to bring a constructive business case, I think, to the table and demonstrate why it is that the investment in policy is going to return the results. It is fair to say there is a wee way to go there.

I was very pleased during the campaign to have Steven Joyce, the Prime Minister, and Chris Finlayson in the Whangarei electorate in the Northland region to make an announcement about the Government’s commitment on some of the work that we have been doing over those first 3 years. I will just run through those very quickly. There are 10 Government priorities for Northland, and the first of them is the Pūhoi to Wellsford road and getting that project under way as soon as possible. It is now construction-ready. It is a case of getting the people to do the job. That will kick off. That is a significant investment for all of Northland because it says that Northland is open for business. It is not just about the cars and the trucks that travel up and down the road; it actually sends a very strong economic signal to business opportunity.

The further roll-out of the ultra-fast broadband Rural Broadband Initiative and fixing some of the cellphone blackspots in Northland—I know Kelvin will join with me in suggesting that there are more blackspots there than on the average leopard—will connect Northlanders to the rest of the world through the internet and, obviously, through cellphone devices, which are so important in the modern world. There is more Māori and Pacific trade training and we are encouraging support for mineral, gas, and oil exploration.

When you look at an economy like Northland’s, you have got to ask yourself whether, if you keep doing the same thing, you are going to get a different result, or do you have to create new opportunities to bring new people in and new jobs? Gas, oil, and minerals are one area that I believe offers that new opportunity.

We are working with Ngāpuhi to negotiate that trade settlement, and working with Minister Chris Finlayson, who is doing an outstanding job. That is so important to Northland. Let us hope that that really progresses. We are lifting productivity in the primary sector through our primary industries initiative that we have got under way up there and the Māori agribusiness programme. We are working to get the Waipoua Forest listed as a national park. It should be. The kauri is an iconic tree globally, and Northland deserves to have a national park. We are reforming Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. It is so important to get that productive land up and working, because a lot of it is so unproductive. It is sold in multiple titles. Let us hope that Chris Finlayson can complete that work. There is certainly some good work going on.

Our Primary Growth Partnership will quadruple avocados, and we are also completing the regional growth study to identify business growth, investment opportunities, and trade opportunities. Northland is the fastest-growing region in the country. It is a good place to be, and a good place to invest in.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about two issues that are really at the top of mind for those people living in Auckland, and they are transport and housing. I am sure most New Zealanders watching at home, whether or not they live in Auckland, are aware that both transport and housing affordability are critical issues in Auckland. Auckland desperately needs better buses and trains and safe walking and cycling. During the campaign, I was up in Auckland travelling around quite a bit. I travelled on off-peak buses that had 15 or 16 people standing on them, two mothers with prams in the middle of the day—completely chocker. The trains have been completely chocker. That has been reflected in the latest patronage statistics, which show that in September, for example, rail patronage in the year to date was up 16.8 percent. This is phenomenal growth, and it has actually been increasing month on month—the growth rate has been increasing. So this is happening very, very quickly.

On the Northern Express busway patronage was up 18.6 percent in the year to date. That is almost 20 percent growth, year on year. So Aucklanders are flocking to buses and trains, to the extent that they are actually over-full. I note that the new Minister of Transport, Simon Bridges, is in the Chamber. I would like to invite him to join me for a transport tour in Auckland some time to see just how desperately Aucklanders need capital investment in public transport. The reason that is important is that Britomart Transport Centre, our rail network, is actually at capacity already, in terms of the number of trains that can get through at peak hour. So we cannot increase the frequency of the trains not only to make it more convenient for people to take the train but also to ensure that fewer people are standing on the very full trains, as they are already full, until the City Rail Link has been built. So we need this critical investment. The Green Party campaigned hard on a positive transport vision that was fully costed for Auckland. I believe that National would be missing a huge opportunity if it did not invest in public transport, because that is essential to the future economic development of Auckland and of New Zealand.

Of course, the other side of this is housing affordability. I have heard the Prime Minister and other Government members make reference to both transport and housing affordability in their speeches at the commencement of this Parliament. Unfortunately, I do not think the National members have got it. I do not think they have got exactly what is going on here. We have got the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Building and Housing, Dr Nick Smith, stating that we are going to tackle the housing affordability problem by freeing up more greenfield lands on the fringe in Auckland. Interestingly, this is actually going to exacerbate our transport problem. So although land is cheaper on the fringe of urban areas because it is not where people want to be, transport costs are much higher on the fringe of urban areas.

We could free up more land for more houses, take up the very valuable and productive farmland that is currently used to produce food and cover it with houses, as they have done in Southern California and other places that I am quite familiar with. We could do that, and people would have mortgages that would be lower and their house prices would be lower, but their transport costs would actually outweigh the benefits of the more affordable housing.

There has been a good deal of research on that around the globe. Most notably, recently there was a research paper presented to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that analysed just this effect for Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. What it demonstrated was that people who lived in households further from the city centre spent less on their rents—rents decline as you move out—but they spent more on their commuting costs, to the extent where they were actually spending more overall. So if we achieve the goal of cheap houses by taking up our beautiful greenfield productive farmlands and allowing developers to make a quick buck by developing houses out there, those households are actually going to be at risk of significant transport costs to access jobs, services, education—all those things that they need to access in order to earn a living and to make their households work.

So here is the opportunity: if we get the connection between housing and transport affordability right, we could actually kill two birds with one stone. This is the challenge that I lay down to the National Government. Actually, there are huge opportunities to improve housing affordability by allowing intensification in those areas of the city where land is most valuable. I have to say that land values are highest in the inner suburbs and the central city of Auckland because that is where people want to be. It is true that at the moment the district plan rules do not allow an adequate number of dwellings and businesses to be put in place where those land values are high, but that has got nothing to do with the Resource Management Act. Do not be deceived. When National Government members talk about reforming the Resource Management Act in order to achieve the goal of housing affordability, what they are really talking about is gutting the fundamental world-leading law that protects our natural pristine environment.

I know that New Zealanders care a good deal about our natural environment. They want to protect it. They want to look after it. We can have development. We can have sustainable development. We can have jobs without forgetting the Resource Management Act. In fact, changing the purpose and the principles of the Resource Management Act is neither necessary nor sufficient to solve the problem of onerous rules and district plans. The onerous rules and district plans that people really dislike—you know, that make it a little more difficult for them to put a deck up or to develop, let us say, a multi-dwelling unit apartment—have nothing to do with the Resource Management Act. They are rules that have been rolled over from the old district plans that existed under the Town and Country Planning Act. Under the existing Resource Management Act, the Government has the ability, through a national policy statement or a national environmental standard, to change those rules and to free up the land that is the most valuable for the type of development that Aucklanders really want.

I would say that it is very clear through their choice at local body level that Aucklanders support the vision of a compact city with good public transport that works, safe walking and cycling, and a livable community. The amazing thing about this is it actually costs less than what we are currently doing. It costs less but, unfortunately, the National Government is doing the exact opposite. What it wants to do is free up greenfield lands well to the south and well to the north of Auckland. Rather than the Government investing in good public transport, which is what Aucklanders want, it is spending the vast majority of the money on a few extremely expensive motorways that will not do anything to reduce congestion.

It is interesting because I heard a member—Mike Sabin—mention earlier tonight that we needed to have evidence of a return on investment before we implement policy. Then, ironically, he was saying how deeply happy he was that the Pūhoi to Wellsford project was going to be implemented, when the evidence demonstrates that the Pūhoi to Wellsford project is not the best-value investment; in fact, it is one of the worst. It has got one of the worst business cases of any of the projects that this Government is pouring billions of dollars into.

Ironically, National Government members say that they care about economic development, they say that they care about affordable housing, and they say that they care about efficient transport, but when we look at the evidence of what they are actually doing, they are doing the exact opposite. What they are putting in place is going to condemn Aucklanders to decades of terrible traffic congestion, just like Los Angeles has with its many motorways. There is going to be decades of terrible traffic congestion and very high transport costs for households. Not only are households going to be forced to own multiple vehicles whether or not they like to, and to run those vehicles whether or not fuel prices are increasing, but this Government is also putting up fuel taxes to pay for these uneconomic motorways. Auckland is potentially going to have to put tolls on existing motorways to pay for essential transport investment that it should have had decades ago. We are finally getting electrification of Auckland’s rail network, now after 80 years—80 years after other overseas cities electrified their rail networks and 60 years after Wellington electrified its rail network.

Hon Simon Bridges: It took a National Government to do it.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: In fact, it was the previous Labour Government in 2007 that finally agreed to electrification once the Green Party’s campaign forced it to.

I would just like to say that we have so many opportunities for a smart Green economy, for a livable city in Auckland, and for affordable housing and transport. I hope that this National Government will actually listen to sense and start implementing sensible, evidence-based policy. Thank you.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): It is a great delight to take part in this, my 10th Address in Reply debate, and, boy, have I seen things change over the millennium that I have been here.

I want to pay tribute tonight to a very special group of New Zealanders. I have heard so many of the speakers pay tribute to their party or their leader, and, in fact, in many cases, they pay a lot of tribute to themselves. I want to pay tribute to a special group of New Zealanders, and that is the voters, because they once again have shown that they are actually quite a common-sense bloc of several million people who will make a determination about what is right and what is not. I have held a view for decades that voters vote really on only two things. It is a good lesson, if members would like to listen. I am actually doing this to be helpful. They actually vote on only two things: their hip pocket and their kids’ future. They take every one of the issues that are up for judgment and they actually even bring it down to one more simple little test, and the test goes like this—and if members from the Labour Party listen, I think this will be helpful. The test goes like this: is this lot heading in the right direction and delivering a reasonable set of outcomes, or are they tired, arrogant, and out of touch, and is it time for a change?

I have been around this place when I have seen the public make that judgment in both directions. I was here in 1990 when National really only just had to show up. Labour was so dishevelled and was in such in shambles. Phil Goff lost Mt Roskill, Trevor Mallard lost Hamilton West, and Annette King lost Horowhenua. Labour was absolutely stuffed and National only had to just be there on the day. But I have been there on the other side of the coin. In 1999, no matter what we tried to do to stem the haemorrhaging flow of voters who were rushing out of the body corporate called National, we could not stop it. Every day we used to sit there and say: “Right, we are going to launch the next policy, and this will make a change.” We would announce it, and 2 nights later the polling would come in and we had gone another two points down in the polls. I was around in 2002 when it was quite clear that the public thought that Labour was heading in the right direction, it was doing the right things, and National was not offering a time for a change. So that is the simple formula that the voting public uses.

Not every voter does that. I accept that. There is a bloc of around about 40 percent of voters who are hard-line left wing—pretty much either Labour or Green—and if you add them together, they will fluctuate around that 40 percent, and there is about 40 percent of the general voting public who sit to the right of centre, mainly National and a bit of ACT sometimes. It has only a bit of a fluctuation. Then there is a 15 to 20 percent middle group of New Zealanders who really do want to move according to where they think their best interests lie. Those voting categories are quite simple. At the last election, we picked up a 47 percent party vote for National. That is about 7 percent more than that core hard-line right wing. You take the Greens and Labour together; they got 36 percent, so they are down about 4 percent on their core. Then you can spread the rest across—what was it—8.6 percent for New Zealand First, about 4 percent for the Conservatives, and so on.

In the end, the voters were a little bit like the mythical reef fish, where millions of reef fish can be swimming in one direction and all of a sudden decide to turn and go in another direction. They make no sound. Scientists cannot work out how they did it, but the million reef fish communicate with each other by some unknown way and make the right decision. I am not making any claims for future elections. All I am telling the members of this House is that voters made the determination this time that the country was going in the right direction and that things were pretty good overall. There are often things they do not like. Voters do not get 457 votes. If they did, they would say: “National has been good on this, but Labour is better on that, and I like the Greens on this.” They get just the one vote. They get just the one vote—the party vote. So they have to actually amalgamate all of their views across the whole spectrum of things and make a decision.

With regards to that, I want to pay a huge tribute to Bill English, because he deserves the gold star for a Minister of Finance’s management of an economy over the last 6 years. Why do I say that? It is a little bit like why I argue that teachers’ pay should be based on performance. The teachers come back and say: “We don’t want performance pay. That’s not fair. It’s not right. If you’ve got a decile 1 school with kids who are being abused at home and not being fed, the teacher will never be able to have the same outcomes as a teacher who has got a decile 10 school with fantastic parents with lots of money.” And I agree with them. I absolutely agree with them, but what I would like the performance pay for teachers to be based on is the difference that they make and whether they take somebody who was really, really poor and lift them up to quite good as opposed to maybe a decile 10 teacher who took stunning kids and just kept them about there.

And you know what? The same thing applies with Bill English as the Minister of Finance. Anyone can be a good Minister of Finance when the world is booming, when there are economic surpluses, and when you have got money coming out of your pockets, as Michael Cullen did. He did not know what to spend it on. He had surpluses that he did not know what to do with.

Carmel Sepuloni: Lucky for that Government.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Do not let Labour take too much credit for this, because the world economy was booming. Then what happened? Suddenly, during the course of the year 2008, the election year, the world almost fell out of bed, and the whole global financial crisis swept across it. At the end of that year, after New Zealand was already in recession, poor old Bill English became the new Minister of Finance. I would have to say that that would be the worst timing that anyone has ever had in their appointment to a new job. You would have been able to almost excuse a Minister of Finance saying: “Well, look, under the circumstances it has been so hard. We’ve mucked up but we had very little option.” That is what happened in Greece, Turkey, Spain, and Ireland, and so on—and you can go through the list. But, no, Bill English sat down and mapped out with Ministers a definitive plan about how to manage the spending of this country without cutting it with a slasher, and about making sure that good public services—better public services—were delivered with the amount of money that was there. So the focus was how many operations we got in our hospitals, not what the funding level was.

If I could say to members of this House—in the last 3 minutes I have—please, when you are developing policy, focus on outcomes and drop the dogma about deliverables, and the old adage of who used to be doing what. This idea that Michael Joseph Savage walked down a pathway and opened the new State house—look, I am sorry; that was in the 1930s. We need to start looking at the outcomes. I do not think we have a difference of view about what the end outcome is. The end outcome is to deliver some quality housing for people who are in need. I do not think we have a disagreement on that. But does the State need to own that building, or does it need to facilitate access to its use? Does it need to fund by way of an accommodation supplement? Does it need to provide some incentive payments? I do not know what your view of a lot of Government agencies is, but in my view some are them are pretty fat, dumb, and lazy, and you could strip out some fat from Government agencies and that would allow for a much more efficient, much more productive, delivery of the same outcomes.

Labour members have to drop their dogma. They get stuck back in the old days: “Oh, we’re still in the trade union movement, and the boss class is trying to drive the workers into the ground.” Rubbish! Absolute rubbish! If you are an employer in this country your greatest asset is your workforce, and you know that if you treat them well, your outcome, your productivity, and your efficiency will go through the roof. Of course, there are a couple of ratbag employers out there, like there are a couple of ratbag MPs, but in general the vast bulk of employers know what they are on about.

So I say once again to these members: “Focus on the outcomes.” Take, for example, the asset sale issue. I was just gobsmacked by Labour opposing the sale of assets. Much of the asset class the Government currently owns is rooted in the 1920s—hydro-electricity dams that were built then. How about we start focusing on the new asset classes like fibre optics and things that will make the future work? Let me put it this way. Does any household keep all its old assets when it is wanting new ones? No, it says: “I don’t need this little house any more. I want to get a better one. I’m going to sell the old one and I am going to invest in a new one.” So the mixed-ownership model was a clear statement to the public of this country that a lot of the old assets do not need to be owned by the Government any more. But what we do need is a new class of assets, and fibre optics is certainly one of them. A better motorway system is certainly another one, as are roads of national significance. I just plead again to members on the other side of the House. Getting a new leader will not help you. What will help you is focusing on outcomes and dropping the dogma about how you deliver it.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): There has been a bit of a love fest in terms of all of the congratulations for the Speakers over the last few days and last week. I know I have already extended my warm congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have not had the chance yet to extend my warm congratulations to the Assistant Speakers, especially the Hon Trevor Mallard, and when I do it will be with some trepidation.

It has been great listening to the maiden speeches that I have managed to hear in the last couple of weeks. It is a time when you do get to go beneath the rhetoric and really learn about the new people who have come into this House. You see them looking starry-eyed in the Chamber, and you know that that is going to wear off quite soon. I really do want to congratulate my three new colleagues on the Labour side, and may that novelty not wear off too quickly.

I want to say thank you tonight to the people of Dunedin South, the people who are listening tonight, for electing me for the third time. I especially want to thank my campaign team and in particular Helen Lobb, who is a treasure and my right-hand woman. Dunedin pushed against the tide in this election. I want to acknowledge my Dunedin North colleague David Clark. Dunedin North and Dunedin South worked together. We ran a strong local campaign on local issues, such as keeping Invermay out near Mosgiel, our strong agricultural research facility, rebuilding Dunedin Hospital, and reopening part of the Hillside Workshops and giving Dunedin some hope.

What we did see, though, even though we did not win the election, were two popular MPs who constantly stick up for their communities and constituents get resoundingly re-elected. I also want to congratulate Michael Woodhouse on being re-elected as a list MP and being back in this House. But what we did not see was the local National list MP strengthen his position in Dunedin. While he is busy clambering his way up the greasy pole inside the National Party, his own city lies neglected and dismissed by his Government—his own city. And much of regional New Zealand lies neglected by this Government.

In Dunedin we have an old leaky hospital. We have a prime agricultural research facility that is being disbanded and shifted, and not for reasons that make sense, because much research and intellectual capital is actually going to be lost as a result of this decision. We have a railway workshop that could have been refitted. Part of it could have been refitted to build capacity for short-run production of rail wagons. We still need 3,000 rail wagons to be built in this country, and they should not be being built with second-rate steel. They should be being built for New Zealand conditions with New Zealand labour, which contributes to the New Zealand economy. These are the wagons that were manufactured in New Zealand 30, 40, and 50 years ago and have only just reached their end date.

That is quality, and that is what we need in this country. We needed something that was going to give hope back to our city. Unfortunately, we have not got that. We have got a city that continues to bleed manufacturing jobs. The latest are the 30 workers at Donaghys Industries, rope makers, which is a company that has adapted to the changing world. It provided a lot of the rope for the America’s Cup, and it has invested in research and development. That company has lost 30 jobs, but they were told not to say anything until after the election. In fact, they had to sign secrecy agreements, because it would have been bad news for the Government. Staff were told to keep their redundancies quiet until after the election, and that is just a damn shame and it is outrageous that it has happened.

We have a city where many reported crimes are not being responded to. Perhaps they are not even being recorded. There are people who have been made redundant who are faced with the humiliating experiences with Work and Income—spending hours on the phone just to get an appointment. This is the ongoing experience in our city.

Dunedin has such great strengths: its university, its medical school, its dental school, education, tourism, and an extraordinary natural environment and cultural environment. But no one, except perhaps Michael Woodhouse and Steven Joyce, believes that Dunedin’s economy is actually thriving. It is a battler of a city, but it has taken some hard knocks and there is no sign that this Government is going to turn this round.

One of our biggest challenges is urban renewal. The Harbourside area, which has a population of around 10,000, is facing a severe issue. It is being assessed as one of the most vulnerable areas in this country to sea-level rise in the medium to long term. The estimation is that there will be a 0.3 metre rise by 2040. That is not that far away. This is a huge challenge. We have got three housing Ministers in the House tonight. There is a lot of social housing; this is one of the poorest parts of the country. This issue is bigger than a local government issue, it is bigger than just a city issue, it is an issue where central government needs to get involved.

The Labour Party committed to urban renewal, and to urban renewal in this area, and said that it would make this a priority. Instead we have a new Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety whose first job has been to push through the draconian employment laws that are going to remove tea breaks, erode collective bargaining, and push thousands and thousands of working people towards more insecure work and precarious circumstances.

This is at a time when John Key tells us that he wants to make us more secure by likely committing New Zealand to an unwinnable, never-ending war in Syria and Iraq. What the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria stands for, and what it does, is appalling. We all agree with that. But let us not kid ourselves about John Key’s plan, which is, as Annette King said in her Address in Reply speech, to use fear as a weapon. Labour will play a responsible role in contributing to the debate on security measures, provided that there is a genuine consultation process and that the response to any threat is evidence-based and proportionate.

The themes of this Government have been to protect their corporate mates and to shift the blame for anything difficult on to someone else, whether it is low wages, no growth, child poverty, and, now, housing. The previous speaker touched on this issue: there is a crisis in our democracy in New Zealand, whether it is through dirty politics played out in this House and in the Prime Minister’s office, or in the deeply ugly co-dependency relationship between the Prime Minister and the gutter blogosphere. We see it in the draconian security laws passed last year, and in more of them to come, in order for John Key to look good when he hangs out with the bigger guys at APEC next month.

There is more security legislation coming that will erode New Zealanders’ privacy rights. Meanwhile, the state of our own cyber-security across Government is a shambles, leaving us highly vulnerable. I will certainly have more to say about that in the coming weeks—the lack of protection for whistle-blowers, the abuse of the Official Information Act, and the deliberate, across-Government strategy to delay and withhold public-interest information.

This time last year I requested information under the Official Information Act from every Minister and ministry, department, and agency on the adequacy of responses to the Official Information Act, and it was like extracting blood from a stone. Now we know why, as the Prime Minister himself does not think it is always in the Government’s best interests to release information until the last possible minute. If all of this does not indicate a sickness at the heart of our democratic system, I do not know what does.

I just want to finish on one thought. Like most Western democracies New Zealand faces increasing voter cynicism and apathy, and I am just going to finish by referring to a survey of 2,000 people that was done in the UK, who were asked whether politics was dominated by self-seeking politicians protecting the interests of the already rich and powerful in our society. There were 72 percent who agreed and 9 percent disagreed. The largest proportion strongly agreed at 42 percent. Half of Britain thinks that politics in their country does not serve their interests. This is our challenge. The Labour Party understands that. The Labour Party is taking this seriously. This is an issue for the whole of our country and the whole of our Parliament.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your elevation as the Deputy Speaker—this is my first opportunity. It has been my pleasure and honour to work with you. Your guidance during the select committee you chaired, the Justice and Electoral Committee, will always be remembered by me. Your guidance was really helpful, and I congratulate you once again on your elevation. I would also like to acknowledge the Rt Hon David Carter for his re-election, Lindsay Tisch, and the Hon Trevor Mallard. I would like to mention the Hon Trevor Mallard, because in the past 6 years I have always seen him on his feet and have admired him for his knowledge about the Standing Orders and other parliamentary procedures. I acknowledge him and hope that he will continue to show his excellence in the Chair.

What I would like to say is that the return of this Government for the third time under the strong leadership of the Rt Hon John Key shows that the people have a lot of common sense and they have seen what this Government has delivered in the past 6 years. It is very important that we understand that the policies that were promoted by the Labour Party were totally rejected. The 47 percent of the people who gave their party vote to National shows that they have got confidence in the National Party.

Victory is to be earned and it cannot be taken for granted or snatched. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, John Key, the Government has shown top-class skills and the characteristics of stability, certainty, and common sense in managing New Zealand. Each and every member of this National Government has looked after the country like it was their own baby. I am sure that most of us prefer to have stability and certainty in our daily lives and hope that most of the decisions we make here, big or small, are based on common sense.

I would also like to acknowledge all the new members who have joined us in this Parliament. I can see that the diversity in this Parliament is growing day by day. In particular, I would like to mention Dr Parmjeet Parmar and Mahesh Bindra, two members of Indian origin who have joined Parliament this term. I hope they will contribute during this term.

While we are talking about diversity, yesterday we celebrated Diwali in Parliament. I started attending Diwali functions in September of this year and yesterday’s was the last Diwali function. This shows that the 155,000 Indians who have made New Zealand their home are in the mainstream. They celebrate their festival not just within their own families and circle but among the mainstream of New Zealand. These are very important events. Diwali has become part of New Zealand’s cultural calendar and people look forward to it.

Here I would also like to acknowledge the voters of New Zealand and, in particular, those of Manukau East who have supported me for the last three elections. I would also like to acknowledge my electorate chair, Scott Martins, and my campaign chair, Greg Mulholland, who have helped me during the election campaign. Their work has shown the progress we have made in Manukau East. We are making slow progress, but we are going in the right direction. One day we will be there, where we have set our target.

While we are talking about diversity and stability, we have to talk about what we have achieved in the past 6 years. The previous speaker, Clare Curran, mentioned that New Zealand is not doing well. I do not agree with her, because we have continuously made progress in the economy. The growth rate of 3.6 percent is one of the highest in the OECD, and I think we have to acknowledge the strong leadership of the Rt Hon John Key and Bill English, who have managed this economy very well.

Our country produces some of the most high-quality dairy products and meat, and we are encouraging growth in high-end technologies. We have the advantage of being at the doorstep of Asia, and these Asian countries have a large middle class who want to buy high-quality products and services. It is for us to capitalise on the opportunities presented to us and ensure that we keep building our relationships domestically and internationally. Apart from dairy and its products, we must expand the technologies that we have been producing and using ingeniously. Recently I read an article that LanzaTech, a New Zealand - founded company, has developed low-carbon biofuel, which will be tested by Virgin Atlantic Airways next year. This will be the world’s first flight using low-carbon fuel and it has the support of one of the largest banking corporations. We need to capitalise on these types of products, so that we can have the high-end product market also captured by New Zealanders. With these words I conclude my speech—

Stuart Nash: Where’s LanzaTech based?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I will tell you later on. Come and see me outside. Thank you.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Kia ora Mr Speaker. E Te Kaiwhakahaere o Te Whare nei, tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare, ā tēnā koutou, ā tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to you, Mr Speaker of this House. To the members of the House, acknowledgments, accolades and salutations to you collectively and to us all.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise firstly to congratulate and acknowledge you as our Deputy Speaker of the House. I also want to acknowledge the return of our Speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter, and of course the appointment of one of our colleagues, the Hon Trevor Mallard, along with the member Lindsay Tisch, who has retained his position as Assistant Speaker. Let us hope that what I have seen in terms of your chairmanship and the chairmanship of the other Speakers, in terms of impartiality, remains for this term. I look forward to working with all four of you gentlemen.

I wish to congratulate the National Party on receiving from the people of Aotearoa New Zealand the mandate to govern. I respect that you have a job and you have set a pathway forward for these next 3 years. There will be times when I will disagree with you, no doubt, but as members of the Opposition it is our role to hold you accountable for the decisions that you make, in the interests of the people of New Zealand. I intend to do that to my utmost in my time in this House. I would like to also acknowledge all returning members to the House. I congratulate you all on coming back to represent your constituents and to be the advocate that they have entrusted you to be. I also want to welcome all the new members. Can I say that the quality of the maiden speeches given not only by my colleagues on this side of the House but from across the House was most impressive. If we can maintain the commitment and put politics aside, then I believe competency and common sense will prevail in this 51st Parliament.

I am honoured to be returned to the New Zealand House of Representatives as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, with an almost threefold increased margin, but I am also honoured particularly by the 9 percent increase in voter turnout that we achieved since the 2011 election. It was not an easy feat, given that it was my very first general election. I also acknowledge the former member, a mentor, and a friend of this House, the Hon Parekura Horomia. I think it was a great achievement. But my return was possible only through the commitment and dedicated efforts of not one campaign team, not two campaign teams, but three campaign teams—Tai Rāwhiti, Gisborne; Te Matau-a-Māui, Hawke’s Bay; and Te Awakairangi, the Hutt Valley.

I want to especially acknowledge and thank Lorraine, Joanne, Robyn, Nevada, Danielle, and Naomi. I especially want to thank and acknowledge all our supporters and the many, many volunteers who doorknocked, telephone-canvassed, delivered pamphlets, and attended the many candidate debates we held throughout the electorate. Why am I making a big deal about this? Because, like my colleagues who hold Māori seats, my electorate is one of the largest, covering 657 kilometres in distance and it is about a 9-hour drive from top to bottom. It is hopefully understood by members of this House that it was no mean feat to bring home that victory.

I guess I am standing here as a bit of two cities—how successful our campaign was, but also how disappointing the party effort was. But, you know, we are approaching that and we are dealing with that through our own review. With the exception of Waiariki, Māori voters have put their faith back in Labour. I am pleased to join Kelvin Davis, member for Te Tai Tokerau; Peeni Henare, member for Tāmaki Makaurau; the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, member for Hauraki-Waikato; Adrian Rurawhe, member for Te Tai Hauāuru; Rino Tirikatene, member for Te Tai Tonga; and, of course, our colleague Louisa Wall, member for Manurewa.

Whakapapa, genealogy, is an important principle in Te Ao Māori. Often your destiny is preordained by one’s whakapapa. Hēnare, Mahuta, Rātana, and Tirikatene are legacy names throughout Te Ao Māori, particularly in recognition of the unrelenting sacrifice and service of the rangatira to advance our Māori people. But I have no doubt that all Māori members across this House will set their own pathway, just as their tīpuna did. I wish them all the very best in those endeavours. We are accountable to our electorates. We are accountable to our whakapapa. Let us not forget that.

In the time remaining I do want to talk about the issues throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti that I confronted during the campaign. Clearly, the smallest word in the English language is the biggest issue facing the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and that is jobs—jobs on the East Coast, jobs in Gisborne, jobs in Wairoa, jobs in Hastings, jobs in the Wairarapa, and jobs in the Hutt Valley. I heard the Speech from the Throne and I heard the delivery of an economic contribution under this National Government, but can I go on record as saying that there are no jobs throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. These are the concerns that our people are sharing with me as I travel throughout the electorate—no jobs, poor housing. As we all know, one of the biggest drivers for poverty in the home is the lack of suitable and sustainable jobs.

I am not only going to hold the Government to account but, as you can see, I have no sleeves, because I am a person who rolls up my sleeves and I muck in. I am coming to this House to share a plan of how we can grow jobs throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I applaud the plan that is laid out, but I think the National Government needs to think a bit more innovatively around how we can grow jobs on the East Coast. I have a plan, and I am happy to share it with the Government.

There was a situation in Hastings recently around housing. I want to go on record to acknowledge some people who are fighting for our homeless people in the Hawke’s Bay. I want to mention Kerry Swindell, who has a soup kitchen every Friday at 6 p.m. in Clive Square in Napier. She has on average 15 to 20 homeless gentlemen whom she feeds every Friday night. This has been going on for years. There is not only a shortage of homes throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, but we have a shortage of emergency homes. People like Kerry and her family, off their own bat, are helping people in the Napier area. I want to also acknowledge Lou Hutchinson. I want to go on record and acknowledge Florence Karaitiana. These are people in Hawke’s Bay who are protesting and raising the issue of the lack of housing in the Hawke’s Bay area. As my colleagues on this side have shared, despite there being many boarded-up State homes, people are struggling to get decent homes in the Hawke’s Bay area. So again, I want to add my weight to the call that there is a housing issue in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and we need to hold this Government to account to make sure that it is addressing it.

There are two policy issues that I want to finish off on that were raised in the Speech from the Throne. One is the continued investment in Whānau Ora. I understand that until December 2013 over $113 million had been spent on Whānau Ora initiatives. The Hon Maurice Williamson talked about outcomes. He said that we should focus on outcomes. So I look forward to seeing what has been achieved through such a large investment in Whānau Ora, particularly when we get a poverty report out today that says that nothing has changed in 6 years.

Finally, I want to touch on He Kai Kei Aku Ringa, which is the Government’s economic plan strategy for Māori investment. Can I say that what I have seen to date in my short time in this House is that, apart from six trips to China, last year this Government announced a $2 million innovation fund to grow Māori exports, which I think is woefully undercooked. But, interestingly enough, we have got a $1 million cultural stage show being invested in, and I just hope that this is not politically tinged with who is going to provide that cultural show and how cultural shows are going to grow economic opportunities for Māori exporters. Again, I say it is a privilege to be in the House and I look forward to the next 3 years. Kia ora tātou.

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I would like to begin by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to the role—my fellow classmate of 2005. I am delighted to see you there and I just have every confidence in the way you will take on this position. I would also like to acknowledge, as I start my first address to this 51st Parliament, the Rt Hon David Speak—Speaker, not “Squeaker”—the Rt Hon David Carter, and also his Assistant Speakers, the Hon Trevor Mallard and Lindsay Tisch.

It is great to be starting again. It is great to be through what was a very challenging election campaign. The election campaign was not about the contest of policies or ideas, and not even about the contest of ideals for New Zealand. It was about the contest of distraction, the contest of sideshow, and the contest of theatre, and I have to say that I doubt very much that any members of this House enjoyed the fact that we were not debating our policies. I can certainly speak for myself and say that I am pleased that that is behind us. I am pleased that we can get on with the work now and get on with delivering on the policies here, on National’s side of the House, that we campaigned on.

Under the Rt Hon John Key we got a result that I believe we deserved because New Zealanders worked out that they could trust us to deliver on our promises. I believe that New Zealanders knew they could trust us to actually be about all New Zealanders—to deliver to them, to work for local communities, and to work to make a better life for all New Zealanders—and knew that we would continue to focus on high-quality State sector services, reduce costs for New Zealanders, grow the economy, and protect our environment, knowing that all of these are integrally linked to each other.

I want to acknowledge the new MPs who have risen in this House and made their maiden statements. I want to welcome them to this place, as someone who has been here for some 9 years. I recently reread my maiden statement to see whether I still felt it was valid, and discovered I quite liked it again. It is so relevant to the portfolio responsibilities that I find myself with. I will get on to those in a moment.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of Rangitata—the some 23,000 people who said they wanted me to be their MP again. I want to thank them for the honour and the privilege of that. I want to thank the 20,100 people who voted for the National Party—unprecedented support for the National Party in my electorate; never has it been so good—and I want to thank them for the confidence. In my electorate, with a long weekend—the election weekend—people voted early in their droves. Partly that was because they were thoroughly, heartily sick to death of the campaign. The 33 percent of those who voted in my electorate voted early, and many of them told me that they then went and turned off the TV and did not read the paper because they had had enough. I quite understand that. As I said, it was a difficult campaign for all candidates from all sides of the House.

My portfolios in this new Parliament—and I am absolutely privileged to again be a Minister in the National Government—include the portfolios that I had before of the community and voluntary sector, which is one I am enormously proud of. It is such an integral part of New Zealand, it is such a generous part of New Zealand, and it is such a part that knits together community resilience during the good times and also during the bad. I have also continued with my role as Associate Minister for Primary Industries and I will continue to be given the delegation of responsibility for forestry. It is a sector that I have come to respect and come to know much better than when I took on this role, and it is also a sector that has great promise for New Zealand, having its highest exports ever in this last year. But it is, indeed, a sector where New Zealand can see growth. It can see growth in engineered timber products, it can see growth in technology being put to greater effect, and we can also see that in that sector we could do so much better when we continue to invest in improving skills and training.

In terms of new portfolios, well, I have the food safety portfolio—something that is absolutely integral to our ability to feed so many millions of mouths. I understand that about 35 million mouths is our potential and, as a nation, we certainly are moving more and more towards that. So food safety is incredibly important. I will go on to some details about that in a moment.

Lastly, there is my role as Associate Minister for Social Development, which will bring into play many of the skills and the knowledge that I learnt and much of the experience that I had as Associate Minister of Health, given that we are often dealing with groups that are catering to the needs of New Zealanders, side by side. So I am certainly looking forward to that. What I can see is that with my primary industries role, community and voluntary sector role, food safety role, and social development role, and coming from a rural electorate, these are so important in my electorate, as they are in many other electorates in the country.

In terms of the primary industries sector, we are certainly reaching for the stars, but in reaching for the stars it is incredibly important that we do so in such a valid way and in such a careful way that we do not harm the environment at the same time. The National Government has a proud record of keeping in mind the environment, but doing more as well. So although we have provided $120 million towards irrigation and water storage, we are also setting rules that must be abided by in terms of protecting waterways and improving the quality of water across New Zealand. This is extremely important in my electorate of Rangitata, where Canterbury has such an incredible water resource, but it is a water resource that is in some cases stretched and a water resource that in many cases does need to be improved.

We are putting in place the right business environment so that the businesses of New Zealand can grow. Although the previous member, Meka Whaitiri, told us that in her electorate she does not see enough jobs, what I can say for my electorate is that we are starting to see skill shortages because there are so many jobs going that our businesses just want to grow, grow, grow. Right now we as a Government need to make our best efforts to make sure that the skills are in place so that IT, engineering, food sector, and primary industry sector roles are taken up with more demand through our tertiary institutions and that these are the people who are trained, for my electorate and other electorates, to continue to produce high-quality food, to export to the world, and to have our businesses continue to grow.

In terms of our focus on the community and voluntary sector, the new frontier for us is social enterprise. Social enterprise is not unknown to New Zealanders. There are many social enterprises that are well-known, like the Red Cross. But what we are trying to do is build capability across the country so that social enterprise becomes the way of—literally—doing business to assist with social sector challenges across New Zealand. So the Government is currently working with the Ākina Foundation to energise that sector and to provide more resources so that it can grow.

In terms of food safety, well, there is about 14 percent of New Zealand’s working population employed by food businesses. We need to make sure that we have in place the right regulatory environment, not an overly red-tape burdened regulatory environment but an environment that assures the rest of the world that we know what we are doing when it comes to food safety and that we know how to handle events when they happen. We do know that the whey protein concentrate event happened. We have the second of the reports coming out before the end of next month, and at that stage we will be able to make the rest of the changes that will be necessary so that the rest of the world can have confidence that not only are we world leader in this space but we learn from events that happen as well. It is absolutely vital that we show as a nation we have the courage to look at what happened, what went wrong, what can be improved, and to grow from that as a nation.

Food is a major export, accounting for just over 52 percent of our total value of New Zealand exports. So with the world population expecting to get to 9 billion, we need to grow and continue to grow our ability to add extra value to the world’s food sources. I just want to add, as well, that we announced today, alongside Minister Joyce, the establishment of the new Food Safety Science and Research Centre. This will improve traceability of our food products and it will build primary sector capability in emerging markets. Massey University will be the host of this and alongside industry interests this will lead our continuing growth when it comes to food safety.

We want to make sure that there is more confidence in New Zealand’s systems as well. As the Associate Minister for Social Development I am looking forward to working with the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Anne Tolley. This is a particularly important portfolio for New Zealand. I conclude my comments, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, and I look forward to working with you also.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I understand the next call is to be a split call. I call Eugenie Sage. It is a 5-minute call; the bell at 1 minute.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Mr Assistant Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as Assistant Speaker and look forward to your knowledge, your fairness, and your light touch in being a referee of proceedings in this House. I congratulate also the other Assistant Speaker, Lindsay Tisch; the Deputy Speaker, the Hon Chester Borrows; and the Speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter. I would also like to congratulate new members in this House on the very powerful and eloquent maiden speeches that we have heard from across the House. I look forward to working with you.

I am very pleased to be back here in Parliament, and I would like to thank everybody who voted in this election, particularly people who party voted Green. I would not be here without your votes. There were more than 10,000 extra people this election who party voted Green than did so in 2011. So, as a Green MP, I recommit to being a voice in this House for a long-term vision for this beautiful country of ours, for a smarter, fairer, and greener economy, and a much less rapacious approach to nature.

The National Government is an expert in double-speak. We had the Speech from the Throne referring to “balanced and sensible management of our natural resources”, and then in the next two paragraphs it talked about encouraging petroleum and mineral exploration, and more dams and more irrigation projects. The National Government just does not get it. It is not listening. The United Nations climate chief, Christiana Figueres, has said that three-quarters of known fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change and cap the rise in global mean temperatures to 2 degrees. Yet the National Government is doing the exact opposite by encouraging more oil exploration and more exploitation of fossil fuels.

In the Speech from the Throne the Governor-General said that the Government would continue to focus on managing New Zealand’s emissions. That is a joke. Under National, we have seen net emissions increase by 20 percent, and they are predicted to increase by another 50 percent in the next 10 years unless Government policy changes, and we have seen absolutely no indication of that happening in this term. So it is the National Government’s complacency on climate change that is a threat to the health and well-being of present and future generations, to our environment, and to our economy, because it is based on maximising the exploitation of nature. That means that New Zealand remains part of the problem in terms of climate change rather than part of the solution. Instead of locking us into this high carbon investment and oil exploration and agricultural intensification, the Government needs to focus on reducing our emissions, and that is something that is a priority for the Green Party in this Parliament—to get a change of policy. We have an urgent need to shift to a much smarter and fairer economy, and that will provide many opportunities in terms of export income, regional development, and jobs.

In this term I am really pleased to pick up the oceans and fisheries portfolios, because our marine environment is underprotected, and it is seriously threatened by overfishing. The Government is certainly promising new marine protected areas legislation, but that needs to be supported by a comprehensive ocean protection strategy and a commitment to an extensive network of marine protected areas that use the best practice in marine reserve design—instead of what we have got at the moment, which is a very ad hoc approach with postage stamp - sized reserves scattered around the coast.

If the Government is to be serious about marine protection, we need to do something about ocean acidification. There is a recent report from the Ministry of Primary Industries that makes chilling reading about its effects on shellfish. Ocean acidification leads to changes in the saturation levels of calcium carbonate. That makes it more difficult for shellfish like oysters to actually form their shells. As larvae they have a very small window of time to form shells, otherwise they die. There have been massive mortalities in oyster larvae off the Oregon coast in the United States. We have the potential to experience those effects here unless we do something about climate change and contribute to reducing our emissions. Thank you.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Congratulations to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, and to the others in the House on their various roles. This Government has clearly stated it wants to grow primary production and it has even announced since the election $3 million - plus for new forage development. Is this money for genuinely sustainable production, aimed at being genuinely resilient in the face of climate change though? Is it for genuinely sustainable farming systems, or is it more of the unsustainable type that PGG Wrightson and Dupont are developing using Primary Growth Partnership money from the Government in its last round of funding? They are developing for their Chinese master, Agria, which is the dominant owner of PGG Wrightson Seeds and wants to rival international GE giant Monsanto in the seed world.

Unfortunately, some farming leaders and agriculture companies in New Zealand seem hell-bent on maintaining a slide into the lowest commodity level of production, moving away from climate change resilience as they go and threatening both our marketing reputation and the health and safety of stock and consumers alike. The latest casualties from this unsustainable kind of farming are the several hundred stock, mainly dairy cows, that became sick and even died after consuming herbicide-tolerant forage brassicas, particularly swedes from PGG Wrightson Seeds Cleancrop Brassica System. This system relies on multiple herbicide and penetrant applications, seed treated with insecticide and fungicides, heavy fertiliser use, and insecticide sprays thrown in as well. The stock are eating a cocktail of chemicals with the swedes, and we consumers then eat the dairy products and the meat from them.

The particular herbicide that that system is designed around has proprietary rights. You and I cannot just go to buy the seed. It is specially licensed, and farmers have to sign up to certain things for it. It is called Telar. It is Dupont’s chlorsulfuron herbicide. It is banned in China, or about to be banned—it is being phased out over this year. We have had problem after problem with contaminated dairy products, but this Government, through Primary Growth Partnership funding, is putting money into forage development that goes down these sorts of paths. How stupid is that?

We need genuine, sustainable production in this country, not more of the unsustainable production that our customers, ourselves, and certainly our stock will not be happy about. We want good quality, safe food. The Greens stand for a smarter, greener, fairer economy using genuinely resilient production systems.

It is no secret that the Federated Farmers President, William Rolleston, as an ex-Life Sciences Network spokesperson, wants to see GE in New Zealand. He wants to see it in farming. Recently—in fact, it was in April—he came back from Argentina squawking about being in the middle of a great big crop of soy there, and it was somehow wonderful. There is nothing wonderful about it. It had the same problems that we are talking about. People are getting sick there from being associated with it. Then we have had Ian Mackenzie, Federated Farmers’ head of grain and seed, supporting it. More recently, Southland president of Federated Farmers Russell MacPherson came back from being shown by Monsanto around its wonderful stuff. He came back chortling about their no-till system. It is the same system that was killing his cows in his own region in Southland.

We need far, far better systems, and we have got them. We need to be moving in a different direction. I have the role of agriculture spokesperson for the Greens and I will certainly be aiming to hold this Government accountable on that area. I will be promoting organic biological farming systems that give farmers more profit, leave our land in a way that we can be proud of, and make our products something that we can be proud to market. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is indeed a privilege to be able to stand and speak in the 51st Parliament. As is tradition, I would like to acknowledge the Speakers, but also you, in particular, Mr Assistant Speaker, as going from being just another sitting duck to the person holding the shotgun. You have moved up the ranks to being someone now, and I just hope you get the right targets in your new role.

I would like to acknowledge all the new MPs. There were some spectacular and wonderful maiden speeches here. I would like to acknowledge the retreads, and, in fact, everyone who has had the privilege of being elected to this Parliament, but in particular, the constituent MPs, whom I have a passion for, because those people—and, I would like to think, I myself—have, I guess, won the trust of a geographical area of the country and have the responsibility to represent all the hopes and aspirations of those people.

I would like to acknowledge the team who helped me get back here to Parliament. One volunteer drove 18,000 kilometres to put up and service my signs. I alone did 20,000 kilometres in about 6 weeks getting around West Coast - Tasman. It is the most spectacular electorate in the country. Eight national parks are in or bound on my electorate. Beat that. I am sure that nowhere else in the world could claim that.

Yes, there was a reality that we did not do too well in the election and we have a lot to learn from that. I think each and every one of us in Labour will be going away and listening, and will be taking on board the lessons of a campaign that did not give us a brilliant outcome. What makes it more frustrating is that we will be sitting here while the National Government continues on its path to destruction for our country.

I have found it hard to celebrate since getting elected back in, because the National Party is taking this country away from the values and the aspirations that people fought for through two world wars and other conflicts, that people worked hard for in order to build this country into what it is—a fair country, and a country where any child from any town or city should be able to reach the heights of their talents, their aspirations, and their wishes. That is no longer true, unfortunately, and I have seen this country, since 2008, head down the wrong path.

Indeed, some could say that we are moving from social welfare to corporate welfare. We have gone from a caring to a sharing country. The problem is that the sharing is just among the mates of the National Party over there. It is among those who have the wealth and who have the control, and who happen to be getting a bigger slice of the pie.

Nowhere is this better explained than by having a look at social welfare fraud versus tax evasion. If you look through it, in 2011 a study was done—it was a couple of years ago, but there has not been much change—where it was estimated there was about $39 million of social welfare fraud across this economy. No one condones fraud in any way. At the same time and in the same year there was $1 billion to $6 billion of tax evasion—$1 billion to $6 billion. We hear lots from the Ministers over there, and from all the pious MPs, about how we have to clamp down on ACC fraud—we heard figures today—and how we have to clamp down on DPB fraud. We hear occasionally about tax evasion. In fact, today the Minister of Revenue made an announcement and said that overseas companies that are evading tax effectively have another 5 years before the Government will clamp down on them.

I looked at some of the figures. There is average benefit fraud of $70,000. That is quite high, I have to say. The chances of going to jail if convicted are 60 percent, on a figure of $70,000. The average tax fraud, on the other hand, is $270,000. You have got a 22 percent chance of going to jail. That is the seeping mentality, driven by the National Government, that has allowed judges to impose those quite unfair penalties on New Zealanders. We do not condone any fraud—but just make it fair and get it right, and do not look after mates.

We have gone from being a country that has tried its best to create real wealth through primary sectors. We have had a couple of people speaking—in fact, the Associate Minister for Primary Industries was spouting on before about the wonderful things that the National Government is doing. We have gone to speculation, from real wealth creation. The National Party used to be made up of a fair chunk of farmers and there were jokes made about that, but at least they were people who understood. Shane Ardern was one of them here who had worked hard to create a farm and worked hard to create real wealth, but he has moved on. In his place we have got traders, academics, lawyers, and an influx of public relations spin-doctors into the National Party.

So what has that done? It has shifted their heroes. Their heroes are now the people who run NZX, the banks, the overseas investors, the insurance companies, and the real estate agents. Those are the heroes of the National Party and those are the people whom the National Party is looking after very, very well.

Mr Thompson, a senior real estate agent in Auckland, said the other day that it is pretty hard and pretty tough for those people who do not have a home, but that they are just going to have to lower their expectations—lower their expectations. Do you know why? He does not want more homes built. He wants a constrained market to push up prices so that every sale gives a better deal to a real estate agent and a real estate company, and so that the banks can lend more money, and they can all walk away with record profits, as they have been doing. That is the environment that this National Government is creating in this country. It is unfair, it is not right, and it is not the country that our ancestors fought for and worked hard for.

We did not get the capital gains tax right, in selling it. We have got to look at it again. But the principle is sound. If someone can make $100,000 selling a house in 2 years’ time and pay no tax, and someone on $50,000 a year, working hard, pays about one-third of their salary, income, or wages in tax, that is unfair. So somehow we have to show New Zealanders that fairness should underline everything this Government does. We will look again at a capital gains tax as a way of keeping things fair.

There are two things that are major problems in this country. The first is the value of houses, the cost of houses—

Jami-Lee Ross: The Labour Party.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —the affordability of houses, and the second one, for that trader and speculator over there, is the cost of farmland. It is the cost of farmland. We now have farmland going at about $40,000 per hectare on average for dairy, and people are struggling to make way at that level. What the Government is going to do—Lochinver Station is a classic—is open the doors to foreign investors to ensure that rural property values remain high and the banks do not take a bath, and all their mates can walk away with the money in their pocket. The foreign investors, who get the money at 1 percent, can come in and make it pay, maybe just. It is wrong, because the value of New Zealand farmland is overvalued. It needs to go through a readjustment so that young New Zealanders can afford to get on to a farm, create real wealth, and support our rural communities.

I will finish on one classic example of corporate welfare, Primary Growth Partnerships. A previous speaker mentioned it. There are 17 programmes, one completed, $350 million of taxpayers’ money without any accountability at all—one completed. I went to the report and it is Stump to Pump. It is forest waste into biofuels. It says “… has the potential … [will] take longer [to establish a] test plant … [because the energy market] has softened … [and] biofuels development more challenging …”. This is a $13 million project, $6.75 million of taxpayers’ money, and that is all they come up with. The rest of the 16 projects will do no better, mark my words. The Auditor-General is investigating and hopefully will expose one of the greatest examples of corporate welfare that this country has seen for a long time.

The National Party has insulted the primary sector by forcing it down the throats of a few privileged in the primary sector, while the farming sector matches it one to one and the farmers have paid the rest of it. This National Government is taking New Zealand down the gurgler, and the sooner we get rid of it the better.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the honourable member I just want to point out to David Seymour that it is not the tradition to bring briefcases or schoolbags into the House.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Fakatalofa atu ki te mamalu o Tokelau mo te tatou vaiaho o te gagana Tokelau. Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, I just greeted you in Tokelauan. It is Tokelau Language Week, and we have our Tokelauan MP—first and only—in Kris Faafoi. I just want to welcome him here today in his native tongue. It is a pleasure to take this, my first call, in this Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

First, may I thank the people of Maungakiekie for returning me as their MP for a third consecutive term. To the people of Maungakiekie, thank you for entrusting me as your voice in this Parliament and for putting your faith and trust in me to deliver your dreams and aspirations through our Government. I aim to serve your interests as those of the people of New Zealand with the passion and vigour that I have over the last 6 years. May I also offer congratulations to our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, on also winning his third term as the leader of our nation. I believe he has demonstrated over the last 6 years a bold and strong leadership style, which I think resonates with New Zealanders, and he deserves another 3 years. Mr Assistant Speaker, congratulations also to you. I think I prefer you in the Chair, actually, to across the Chamber. But congratulations to you, to the Rt Hon David Carter, as well as to Lindsay Tisch and the Hon Chester Borrows as the officers of our Parliament.

To new parliamentary colleagues who have arrived—and I see Jenny Salesa across the aisle—I want to welcome you all. To the 15 MPs—we have got three here today: Dr Parmjeet Parmar, Todd Muller, and Andrew Bayly—welcome. Welcome to all our new MPs—congratulations. It is not easy to get here as a new MP. Although sometimes this role can be full of ambition, ego, and testosterone, I just urge you not to forget that sometimes better outcomes for people in New Zealand are achieved through collaboration across this House, on select committees, and with just a touch of humility. But enjoy your time here. It is a real privilege to be a member of Parliament. I also want to say commiserations to those who have failed. It takes courage to run for public office. There are numbers of people out there who missed out this time, but as Stuart Nash has proved there are opportunities in the future to come back and I wish all those people well.

The hoardings are now down and the last election pamphlet was delivered over a month ago. New Zealanders delivered their verdict. They delivered the verdict in favour of the National Party and our coalition partners—and I want to acknowledge David Seymour, who is also a new member here today. The public has given us the mandate to govern for the next 3 years. In my view Kiwis voted for a party that campaigned on the issues that matter to them as New Zealanders. They are issues like work and employment for mum and dad, affordable and accessible healthcare, and a top-quality education for children and our families. Kiwis also wanted safe and secure neighbourhoods. That is why I believe that they voted for our National Government. These are the issues that matter to the people of Maungakiekie. They are issues that I want to champion in this, the 51st term of this Parliament.

It is also a pleasure to be appointed as a Cabinet Minister in our Government. I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister for entrusting me with some of the responsibilities that I have today as Minister of Corrections, Minister for Ethnic Communities, and Minister for Pacific Peoples, and also as an Associate Minister of Health alongside my colleague the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman. In corrections our key target is about reducing reoffending by 25 percent by the year 2017. Although it is currently down by 12.1 percent, we know that there is much more work to do. So, as Minister, I plan to continue the fine work of the Hon Anne Tolley to make every prison a working prison. I want to give every prisoner the opportunity to work a 40-hour working week. Why is this important? We know that on release this will help transition prisoners to a life outside of prison with an aim of reducing their reoffending. We also intend to increase drug treatment programmes because we know that over 50 percent of all crimes involve drugs or alcohol and that over two-thirds of prisoners have addiction problems. So we plan to upgrade our prisons to make them safer, fit for purpose, and have a greater focus on rehabilitation. I want to acknowledge and thank the approximately 8,000 men and women and over 2,000 registered volunteers who serve tirelessly in the area of corrections. They serve every day and they ensure the safety of New Zealanders while they support offenders to become productive and law-abiding members of our society.

In terms of my Pacific portfolio I want to work with Pacific peoples and continue the fine work that this Government has done by supporting Pacific peoples out in our communities. We have helped raise educational achievement in terms of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. The achievement rates have gone from just under 50 percent to just under 75 percent. This is the bare minimum for our children to succeed in society. I want to acknowledge, obviously, the fine work of the Hon Hekia Parata and the Hon Anne Tolley in this area. At the tertiary level, the number of Pacific students—and I know that the Hon Steven Joyce is in the House; he will be proud and he knows this—completing Bachelor’s degrees has increased by 56 percent. Jenny Salesa knows it because she worked at the Tertiary Education Commission. She knows the rates of Pacific achievement that have been achieved under this National Government. There are now 550 more Pacific people each year graduating under National. On top of that there are over 5,000 more Pacific students achieving qualifications across all levels of tertiary education. So I want to thank the Hon Steven Joyce for the work that he has done in this area.

Next year we will have two partnership schools focused on the needs of Pacific children. Choice in education—and I know Jami-Lee Ross understands and supports this wholeheartedly—will benefit Pacific children and their families by combining high-quality educational outcomes with Pacific culture and values. Supporting culture and language through the provision of language resources will continue under National. I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister’s announcement of investing $0.25 million into the Polyfest festival to support the language, the culture, and the arts that are within that cultural festival. Why is education important? We know that a better educated populace leads to opportunities for higher-paying jobs, and that is what Pacific people want in this country. That is what we migrated to this country to do and that is happening under this National Government. In the last year 18,000 more Pacific people have been employed, and we need to leverage that Pacific talent, that innovation, and that success to lift up the aspirations of all our Pacific people.

Finally, I want to just touch on the ethnic affairs portfolio. I want to explore new, innovative ways to attract more talented people to New Zealand. We want to ensure that we are working with schools to promote cultural awareness programmes and ethnic diversity as a desirable end goal. I look forward to engaging with more of our ethnic communities, as we did last night with the Prime Minister and the Diwali festival that we hosted here in Parliament. In summary, our John Key - led Government has a mandate, a mandate to continue the work of managing the economy towards surplus, to provide more effective public services, and to provide more jobs at higher wages. I look forward to working in this the 51st Parliament, serving the interests of all New Zealanders to improve their well-being and uplift their aspirations, while also helping those who are in genuine need. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Ā, tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e ngā mema huri rauna i tēnei Whare. Tēnā koutou i tēnei Pāremata e rima tekau mā tahi o Aotearoa, Niu Tīreni. Tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker and to you members collectively throughout this House. Greetings to you in this 51st Parliament of New Zealand. Acknowledgments and accolades to you and to us all collectively.]

It is a pleasure. This is my first opportunity to speak in this 51st Parliament, and, as is the tradition, I wish to congratulate all the officers of Parliament—the Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker; the Hon Chester Borrows, Deputy Speaker; and Lindsay Tisch, Assistant Speaker. I do want to give special acknowledgment to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard. We cover the same territory, albeit yours is the northern portion of my vast electorate of Te Tai Tonga.

There is a saying in Māoridom that this august House is called “Te Ana Raiona”—“The Den of Lions”. I guess there are a lot of lions and lionesses from all different parties in this House, and some have been here for some time, while others are new. We welcome them all. Mr Assistant Speaker, you have been elevated, as has been mentioned previously, to gamekeeper, and I look forward to working under you as we settle down to the business of this 51st Parliament.

I am delighted to be here representing the largest electorate in the country. It is larger than Mr Damien O’Connor’s, although his is spectacular and we do cover the same patch—West Coast - Tasman—and there are 20 other electorates that comprise Te Tai Tonga. I do want to acknowledge the wonderful whānau, whanaunga, right throughout the South Island, Te Wai Pounamu, from Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka right the way through ngā pae maunga o Te Wai Pounamu, all the way down to Murihiku—the entirety of Te-Waka-a-Māui. It also includes the outlying islands all the way out to the Chatham Islands and here in Te Upoko o Te Ika, Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. I acknowledge them all for their endorsement. It is a vast electorate, but it is one that I am very, very proud to represent and I would like to acknowledge all of the Labour whānau who have supported me and brought me back here with a double majority and mandate to represent the people of Te Tai Tonga.

I am very proud to stand in this House yet again, and I do want to acknowledge my new colleagues, my fellow MPs, in Labour, in particular Jenny Salesa, Peeni Henare, and Adrian Rurawhe—our three wonderful, wonderful new additions to our Labour team. I acknowledge, as well, returning members and, indeed, all of the new members in this House. There are some faces that, obviously, have not returned. I gaze over to that seat next to the Ayes lobby and I vividly remember the barrages from the Hon Tau Henare. We may have lost one son of the north but we have gained many more. We have gained Peeni Henare from Ngāti Hine up in the north and Te Tai Tokerau. We have gained Kelvin Davis back in Te Tai Tokerau. He did what was perceived to be the impossible and knocked off Hone Harawira up there in Te Tai Tokerau. Those are great achievements.

I do welcome back Pita Paraone from the north. I do have an affinity to the north, because although I represent the south, on my mother’s side my whakapapa is to Ngāti Hine in the north. I guess we are, in a way, almost overrepresented through membership in the House. I do welcome to the House the new Shane, Mr Reti, from the north, who gave a splendid maiden statement today. As we welcome the new Shane to the House, I do recall some very sage advice that I received from the former Shane of Te Tai Tokerau, Mr Shane Jones. It was—and this is sage advice to all new members—“Do as I say, not as I do.” I believe that if we follow that for all new members, they should do very well—very well—in their careers in this House. This is a den of lions. There are wild, powerful, and ferocious moments that we have.

But as we settle down to business—the people of New Zealand have spoken. They have given a mandate to the National Government and we on this side of the House accept that. We are loyal members of Her Majesty’s Opposition and our role is to hold this Government to account—to challenge and to probe and to make sure that we stand up for our constituency that has put us here, and to make sure that New Zealand gets on the right path.

We saw the spectacle with the Māori Party. I do want to refer to that party because it was an unedifying spectacle yet again. For three successive elections the people have spoken and the Māori Party members have run up to the ninth floor of the Beehive. They cannot wait to give supply and confidence to the National Government and jump in their chauffeur-driven limousines. That is a disgrace to Māoridom, because if you look at the results in the Māori electorate seats, that was one silver lining of the Labour Party’s results this past election. Ko ngā turu Māori te mana o Reipa—six of the seven Māori seats have returned to Labour. That is a very strong message to the Māori Party that we have their number. The people have spoken and they have wholeheartedly endorsed Labour in the Māori seats. So it is very sad. It was a very sad spectacle to see them scurrying up to do their supply and confidence deals. We know that it is not going to be benefiting Māori over this term.

Already in this first week in the House we have seen wholesale attacks and onslaughts, yet again, by this Government on workers’ rights. Today we have seen shameful reports on poverty levels in this country not improving in over 6 years of this Government. All the while I do recall from Ms Fox’s maiden statement that she is committed to this Government. By that party’s commitment to this Government, it is committing to the erosion of workers’ rights and all those other atrocious and odious policies that this National Government is inflicting on Māori. It is definitely not raising the aspirations and the well-being of Māori. What will be their answer to that? What will be their answer to the wholesale sell-off of thousands and billions of dollars of State housing? What is their answer? It is Whānau Ora. What is the Māori Party’s answer to the growing poverty in this country? It is some half-baked policy around Te Reo, which is, again, a disgrace. It is a disgrace that this Māori Party has been holding up this National Government.

I do want to acknowledge my whanaunga on my southern side, Tutehounuku—Nuk—Korako, a member for National. Nuk mentioned in his maiden statement that he wants more “brown blue”. He wants to grow the “brown blue” vote. He need not look too far, because he needs look only to the Māori Party. That is the “brown blue” of the National Party. We know that brown and red go together. Our Māori people have spoken. They know where their home is. In fact, they are ahead of the game. They are ahead of the game because our Māori and Pasifika people have voted very strongly for Labour. They are ahead of the game. It is an opportunity for us to reconnect with our wider constituency. We will be back, because we need to have a change of Government.

I hope that our fellow colleagues on the other side and Auckland’s new golden boy over there from Epsom make the most of this opportunity. Rest assured, batten down the hatches, because we will be coming after you with everything that we have got. We want to be challenging you every step of the way, so, pleasantries aside, we are coming. Kia ora tātou. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): In the Speech from the Throne last week the Prime Minister identified the usual domestic goals for his Government. I counted 17. They are not my subject today. I wish, instead, to focus on matters beyond our shores. In the speech the Prime Minister also welcomed our election to the Security Council. “New Zealand”, he said, “is determined to make a positive contribution and in particular to represent the perspective of small states [on the council].” We agree, but such a contribution will need an aspirational world view of a kind that I doubt the Prime Minister can even appreciate just yet. Let us see whether we are up to it.

Let me cite four areas where New Zealand could make a positive contribution on the council. There are several areas of peace and security doctrine that need strengthening. There is scope for work on nuclear disarmament. There is climate change and there is reform of the council itself. There are three areas where the fabric of global peace can be strengthened, picking up from the 2005 World Summit Outcome document, which serves as the current building block of international peace and security. First, the council should develop a more objective and rigorous procedure for referral of situations to the International Criminal Court so that leaders—civilian or military, Government or not—can be held individually accountable to the global community. Cases such as Syria and Iraq, Israel and Gaza, and Afghanistan and Ukraine could be added to the cases out of Africa.

Second, the council could develop a new doctrine of mandatory referral, under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, of territorial disputes to the International Court of Justice, overriding under binding powers any national reservations entered against the International Court of Justice statute. Third, New Zealand could lead in raising the status of the responsibility to protect doctrine in the council as an aid to decision making involving the legal use of force for the protection of civilians who are vulnerable to egregious abuses of human rights. This has special resonance for counter-terrorism. The Prime Minister said the Government has already commenced work on a review of policy and law in relation to terrorist fighters returning from conflict zones. He said the rapid rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) poses risks to which the Government will respond.

The most assured way of responding to terrorism is twofold. First, we make sure that any use of force against terrorists is strictly in accordance with international law, as Resolution 2170 demands, and we address its root causes, as identified in the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy of 2005, reaffirmed last August in the council’s Resolution 2178. The second area where we could contribute is in nuclear disarmament. New Zealand could more actively promote the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention, which we voted for in the General Assembly recently. Obviously, the nuclear powers on the council will not be enamoured, but article 26 imposes on the council the obligation to develop plans for the regulation of armaments. Article 24 requires the council to act on behalf of all member States. Article 2 requires it to fulfil those obligations in good faith. New Zealand could respectfully remind the council of its obligations.

The third area is in climate change. New Zealand could reintroduce climate change on the council’s agenda when it takes the presidency, as was done by Germany and the UK, with a view to finally declaring it to be a threat to international peace and security.

Finally, there is the much broader issue of Security Council reform. This has a long history of intelligent proposals fronting up against the implacable and entrenched opposition from the major powers. Small States cross this terrain at their risk, but creative work from the middle powers and the small States will be the only way for fundamental change to the Security Council. New Zealand, Jordan, Chile, and Chad are the four small States on the council next year. Can we work together?

The contemporary saga of Security Council reform dates from 2004 with the report of a high-level panel on threats, challenges, and change. As the panel said then: “We see no practical way of changing the existing [permanent] members’ veto powers. Yet … the veto has an anachronistic character that is unsuitable for the United Nations in an increasingly democratic age …” The panel urged that its use be limited to matters where the vital interests of the major powers are genuinely at stake. The panel requested the Permanent Five, individually, to pledge to refrain from the veto in cases of genocide and large-scale human rights abuses, and has proposed a system of indicative voting whereby council members could call for a public indication of position and where a “no” vote would not constitute a veto and the vote would not have legal effect.

The panel’s general ideas were picked up by a group of small States known as the Small Five Group: Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Jordan, and Singapore. The group put forward a draft resolution to the General Assembly, back in 2005 and again in 2011 and 2012, on improving the working methods of the Security Council. The draft was both far-reaching and far-ranging. Among other things, it proposed three major changes to the veto. First, a permanent member casting a veto would be required to explain its reasons for doing so, including how such a decision is consistent with the charter and international law. A copy of its explanation would be circulated to all member States. Second, the Permanent Five would refrain from using a veto to block council action in situations involving serious allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and grave breaches of humanitarian law. Third, a convention would develop in appropriate cases of declaring that a negative vote will not constitute a veto under article 27.

I think that no action in the history of the United Nations has illustrated such vision, such creativity, or such courage as the proposal of the Small Five Group in 2012. The matter came to a head when the Permanent Five pulled out all stops to prevent a vote on the draft. It effectively became a struggle between the five most powerful and, virtually, the five least powerful over the future of the world body. The matter was settled by way of a ruling from the Secretary-General’s chief legal officer that such a resolution required a two-thirds majority, not a simple majority, so the Small Five Group withdrew their draft.

Things remain the same. Russia and China veto resolutions over Syria. The US vetoes over Israel. The council remains largely ineffective. Not as ineffectual as during the Cold War, but not as effectual as is needed for the 21st century. I cite these developments because they stand as a beacon for New Zealand’s forthcoming tenure on the council. We displayed courage of our own kind back in 1994 with ambassador Keating’s work on Rwanda, but reform of the council along the lines of the Small Five Group will challenge us in new and different ways. I hope the Government is up to it.

These are, I believe, the areas where New Zealand could make a positive contribution to the Security Council, as the Prime Minister is rightly aspiring to do. The Green Party stands ready to assist and also to judge.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I wish to congratulate you on your appointment and very much look forward to a successful and well-managed 3 years in the House, partly under your guidance.

I was very pleased to be re-elected on the strength of a very strong National Party result at the election—in fact, a historic result in terms of a third time, with such a high level of widespread public support. That support was particularly strong in my home electorate of Epsom. Indeed, I remain committed in my second term here in Parliament to being a strong voice for the people of Epsom, within the National Government, and to work alongside my colleague David Seymour from the ACT Party, which has continued to support the National Government so successfully over these past 6 years.

Last week was Diwali, and I had the pleasure of speaking to a very large crowd at an event over the weekend for the Rotary Club of Auckland Harbourside. In fact, they managed to get 560-odd people to pay $100 to go along to a dinner on the Labour Weekend Saturday night. Diwali is a time of reflection and celebration, and it made me think that we do, indeed, have much to be thankful for in New Zealand. We obviously live in a wonderful physical environment, which we all share and treasure. I am blessed to live in a beautiful part of Auckland, which is, I think, one of the most magnificent cities in the world. We all celebrate that.

We also should be thankful for the peacefulness of our land. When we look around the world, sadly, that is not the typical state of affairs. Indeed, New Zealand, I think, can take a great deal of pride from the fact that it has a highly diverse, multicultural society—particularly in Auckland and in Epsom, where I come from—and yet a successful multicultural society. Again, that is, sadly, a very rare thing indeed in this world. It was, to me, epitomised by the function that I went to for Diwali, based at the Rotary Club of Auckland Harbourside, with a third Pākehā, a third Indian, and a third Chinese from the start. Those three strands of the Auckland population all worked together, were all looking beyond themselves, and were deeply involved in the community, raising funds. There was a hospice that they were raising funds for on that evening. They were all working together, developing a cohesive society in New Zealand and in Auckland. I think that is something we should take great pleasure from.

Finally, I do think we have a lot to be pleased about in terms of the strength of our economy. I think this Government can take some credit for that. Of course, it is primarily due to the hard work of New Zealanders in all their many industries and businesses that they have around the country. When we turn to what Governments can and cannot do, the most important way that Government can contribute to the economy is fundamentally to provide a strong, stable, predictable, and fiscally sustainable environment in which New Zealand businesses can go about their business and have a high level of confidence—business confidence and also consumer confidence.

When you have that confidence over an extended period, such as we have had these past 6 years, that confidence leads people to invest. You invest only when you have confidence, and when you invest, whether it is in employing more people or paying for plant and machinery, that is how you get fundamental growth in this economy. When you have a period of stability and predictability, leading to confidence, leading to investment, and leading to growth in jobs for an extended period, the country does well. That is what we have seen for the last 6 years. It is a great pleasure to be given the opportunity to have the commerce and consumer affairs portfolio, which has played such an important part in providing that stable and predictable environment through good legislation and regulation around financial markets, around the way that companies operate, and around our internet protocol systems, our competition law, and our consumer law. All these areas are fundamental to providing that strong, stable, and predictable environment that is so important, leading to investment, growth, and jobs. On that basis I am very much looking forward to the next 3 years.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): I am delighted to be standing here in the 51st Parliament as part of the National-led Government, and particularly as part of a Government that has received such a strong mandate from the people of New Zealand. For the last 6 years our Government has worked hard to focus on the things that matter to all New Zealanders, and we will continue to do so. Our job is to build on our carefully managed economic results and our world-leading economic growth, and to build it into something that is sustained for long-term prosperity and well-being; to encourage investment and enterprise; to create new jobs; and to increase incomes. We are working hard to build a better future for our country and everyone who lives here.

As the MP for Christchurch Central, my heart belongs to that city, and I am really inspired by the people of Christchurch and what they are doing in their homes, their neighbourhoods, their businesses, and their organisations as our city recreates and rebuilds itself. Right across Canterbury the pace of the rebuild is picking up. Yes, there is an enormous amount of work still to do but Cantabrians can see very real results. Every day people are moving into new or repaired homes, more than half our horizontal infrastructure is complete, and roads are repaired. Construction is now more common than demolition in our city, and the clearing of the residential red zone is almost done. Christchurch is the city of cranes and the city of many, many building sites. Businesses and events are coming back into our city and every week new buildings open up, and new offices, shops, and restaurants beckon.

Our plan for Christchurch is to build a very people-friendly city with wonderful public spaces, especially along the Avon River, Ōtākaro, riverside. The anchor projects, like the justice and emergency precinct, the bus exchange, and the convention centre will bring people into the city and those numbers will be boosted by 2,800 Government staff moving into the central city offices. Around them, around the people, small businesses will pop up. Christchurch people are already very keen to get out and about and enjoy our city. Just last weekend thousands of them thronged to two wonderful festivals of light: the traditional Indian festival of Diwali; and FESTA, the high-tech, innovative festival of transitional architecture, a first for the world and the third in Christchurch. FESTA livened up the centre city with 13 installations by architectural students from across the country. It brought youthful excitement, creativity, and energy into High Street and into the innovation precinct of the central city. It is the diversity of these community events that epitomises the new spirit of Christchurch that we want to foster and encourage as we build a new 21st century city.

Christchurch people are excited about the opportunities of the rebuild in so many different ways. We especially value the new opportunities for education and health. The $1.1 billion Government investment into future education opens doors to all sorts of possibilities—in teaching philosophy and practice, and in co-location of services, as well as the school buildings themselves. Similarly, we are looking forward to the improved health services underpinned by the two new hospitals being built in Christchurch. Yes, there is a lot more work to do and, yes, there are plenty of challenges along the way, but the system is working and we are beginning to see how special our new city could be.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Taloha ni, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to Tokelau, and talofa lava. That is my way of acknowledging you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and through you the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, and the other Assistant Speaker. Contrary to what others might say about you, I have the deepest respect for your knowledge, and I have always found you very helpful in terms of passing that knowledge on to a person such as myself. I want to also acknowledge the Government, and congratulate National on its win in this last election.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Don’t go too far.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Well, it is important; the people of New Zealand have elected you. You ran a good campaign, you had more money, and at the end of the day, despite our best efforts, the people of New Zealand have elected you. It may not have been our preferred stance, but at the end of the day you are now the Government, and therefore congratulations. I do also want to congratulate the Prime Minister on elevating Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga into Cabinet. I did not believe that it was the right thing for your Government to have him sitting outside Cabinet, so congratulations. I think that the people who supported this Government would appreciate the elevation of Peseta. I thought that perhaps Alfred Ngaro would have received a position outside Cabinet or perhaps an undersecretary position, but I suspect that we will see that in time to come, perhaps closer to the next election.

I want to add my voice also to the many other voices in acknowledging the new members of Parliament who have joined the 51st Parliament. I also acknowledge the fact that I have found many of their speeches very worthwhile and have appreciated the values and the passion that each of them has brought to this House. I acknowledge in particular my own colleagues Jenny Salesa, Peeni Henare, and Adrian Rurawhe. I acknowledge the legacy that they bring, their connectedness to their communities, and the passion and the realism that they bring to this House, and I look forward to working with them.

It may have gone unnoticed by Parliament, but I am quite proud of having five Pacific members of Parliament in Labour as a result of this election. There is not only myself, Jenny Salesa, and Carmel Sepuloni, who returns to us as the MP for Kelston, but we also have Kris Faafoi of Mana and Poto Williams out of Christchurch East. That is significant. When I gave my maiden speech in this House some years back, I felt that that was the challenge that all parties in this House ought to take up to ensure that the representation of this House reflected the diversity out in society. I am proud that the Labour Party has enabled the five Pacific MPs to come through our particular ranks. I note that this is the first time that we have had these five Pacific MPs holding electorate seats. In the past we have always had people come through, in addition to electorate seats, on the list. That is significant in going forward.

These are the five who made it through in this election, but for the Labour Party there were eight of us Pacific people who ran under the Labour Party ticket. I have acknowledged the fact that Lemalu Hermann Retzlaff, who ran in Upper Harbour, did significantly well but did not come through, that Jerome Mika, who ran in Papakura, also did significantly well in party votes there but did not come through, and that our sister, Anahila Suisuiki, who was on the list, did not make it through this time. It is my hope that we will continue to work together to push them through the Labour Party. I hope that other parties also take up that challenge. I also want to thank this House for accepting the motion that was moved by our chief whip, in allowing me to repeat my oath in Samoan. It is a practice now that I have continued since I first arrived here in 2008. I think it is something that this House ought to pick up in the Business Committee, and reaffirm that it is OK to be bilingual and that it is OK to use these different languages in our country. I thank also Marama Fox for pursuing and advancing the idea of recognising the Treaty of Waitangi in our oath. It is something I think also ought to be taken up.

May I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the good people of Māngere, a place that I call the gateway to New Zealand, the land of the young, beautiful, and gifted, for their faith, for their commitment to Labour values, and for their electing me again in this term. I am particularly grateful to them for their many sacrifices of time and for their determination to campaign not only on my behalf but also on behalf of the Labour Party. I think the results reflect that. I am proud to be associated with the Labour Party in Māngere and proud of my committee. I am proud that in this campaign we had a bunch of young, beautiful, and gifted youth who turned up and generated a new invigoration in our campaign. They also came up with many, many aspects. We added songs and dance, and just had a wonderful campaign. I think the House would acknowledge their contribution through the outcome that we were able to achieve. To all the people of Māngere: fa’afetai tele lava—thank you so much.

This year, when I listened to the Speech from the Throne, I was looking to find whether that speech would identify the three main issues that I felt were important issues that were passed on to me by the people of Māngere as we campaigned. They were child poverty, employment, and affordable housing. Those were the three things. As we campaigned and talked to the people, they said to us that it was critical that they had jobs. It was critical that they were in jobs where they could earn a living and be able to sustain and support their families. They recognise that it is an indictment on this country and particularly on Parliament that we have a quarter of a million children who are classified as living in poverty. I see that not only in my community but in various other communities the length and breadth of New Zealand.

I agree with those people who are on the ground, engaged on a day-to-day basis, who see the dire situation of these children. Like my colleague Jenny Salesa said, words are fine but action must follow words. I think many people who have heard from the Prime Minister a commitment to tackle child poverty expect those words to translate into targeted outcomes. I think that is going to be the challenge for this Government, and we on this side of the House will hold the Government accountable, to ensure that there is improvement.

As we have seen lately in the news, since 2008 child poverty has not improved under this Government. With unemployment, you cannot expect people to get into a house if they do not have an income whereby they can afford housing. Housing is the single most important issue, but it is much more complex than that. This Government’s determination to just roll out the number of resource consents being approved does not cut it. You have got to build more houses. That is the pattern that I heard earlier today. I am grateful for the maiden speakers who said they began their lives in a State house and then they have achieved much, much more. That is a good pattern that recognises there is a role for State houses in this country. But it cannot be a good pattern, once you have reached the top of your career, to then pull the ladder up and not allow the rest of the population to follow through. We have seen that pattern with the Prime Minister—State house, then a financial speculator. We have seen that pattern with Minister Paula Bennett—State house, welfare support, and now, as Minister, she has pulled the ladder up. That cannot continue.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.