Thursday, 9 February 2017

THURSDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2017

THURSDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 14 February the Government will look to complete the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, the third reading of the Taxation (Business Tax, Exchange of Information, and Remedial Matters) Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday, 15 February will be a members’ day subject to completion of the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

District Health Boards—Funding and Service Delivery

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he believe that DHBs have enough funding to meet the needs of the public in a fair and equitable way?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): And happy New Year to you too. Yes, under this Government, Vote Health has increased by $4.3 billion. In terms of fairness and equity, funding is distributed to district health boards (DHBs) via the population-based funding formula introduced by health Minister King nearly 20 years ago.

Hon Annette King: Is it a fair and equitable system when 20 percent of people refused a first specialist assessment under his funding are people needing orthopaedic operations—in other words, older New Zealanders living in pain and disability?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member is focusing on the small percentage of people who are not getting a first specialist appointment, but the wider picture is actually that first specialist appointments under this Government have gone up massively, by about 110,000 per year. In fact, I think it is actually even more than that. In terms of hip and knee surgery for older people, there has been a huge uplift in joint replacements over the last 8 years, from 8,800 in our first year in Government to over 11,000 now. So we are doing more all the time, helping more New Zealanders to get the services they need. The member should be positive and focus on the good things that are being done rather than nit-pick around the fringes.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that the answer to increased demand is to do more, when the increase in hip and knee surgery was a mere 2.7 percent over the previous year, and eight—eight—district health boards are doing fewer hip and knee operations than before while the demand and need for surgery is exceeding the funding he is putting in?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member wants to be cheerful and focus on the big picture, which is, actually, that hip and knee surgeries have gone up 8 percent over time. In terms of doing more, I agree that we should be doing more. That is why I was very disappointed that when Mrs King was Minister she managed to deliver 7,500 fewer operations each year. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just have the supplementary question, please.

Hon Annette King: When he said on 2 November that eye treatment in the public health system was “actually pretty good”, was he aware that the College of Ophthalmologists estimated that more than a hundred people could lose their vision or go blind because of delays in treatment?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Once again, the member should not be so gloomy. When you are looking at eye assessments and eye surgery, let us look at the bigger picture—the facts. Ophthalmology assessments are up 40 percent in the last 8 years, and ophthalmology surgeries are up a whopping 57 percent. Of course, there is always more to do, and that is what we are doing—unlike, of course, when Mrs King was Minister, when she did less.

Hon Annette King: Is the hastily-put-together $2 million package announced 2 days before Christmas realistic when the College of Ophthalmologists estimate that up to 21,000 people are overdue for follow-up eye appointments, from the five main centres, and the only people who are gloomy are those who are not seeing properly?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Oh, no, I know a lot of thought went into that $2 million package—$100,000 for each district health board. It was consulted with the ophthalmologists, and they thought it was an excellent initiative that is going to benefit a lot of New Zealanders.

Hon Annette King: Was it acceptable to him to sit on his hands and do nothing, denying warnings that the college gave him a year before of the massive failures in follow-up eye treatment, and watch an estimated hundred people lose their vision or go blind on his watch?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As Mrs King knows, that just did not happen.

Economic Outlook—Reports, Forecast, and Housing Market

2. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What is the outlook for the New Zealand economy over the next 3 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement released this morning highlights a strongly positive outlook for the economy over the next 3 years. The bank noted, in particular, New Zealand’s positive outlook for growth relative to other advanced economies and noted the recent strengthening of growth to an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the most recent quarter, expecting that to continue at around this level for the next 2 years and to continue strongly over the forecast period at around the 3 percent mark.

Alastair Scott: What else does the Reserve Bank say about New Zealand’s growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The bank noted that the growth has been driven by a wide range of service industries, including construction, low interest rates, a recovery in dairy prices, strong population growth, and increased household spending. In addition, the bank highlights strong employment growth in the last year, as demonstrated by the number of people employed reaching 2.5 million for the first time and New Zealand’s employment rates and participation rates reaching all-time highs of 66.9 percent and 70.5 percent respectively in the last quarter.

Alastair Scott: What is the outlook for the housing market?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Today’s statement notes that although annual house price inflation remains high by historical standards, it has slowed recently due to increasing interest rates and the tightening of loan-to-value ratios, with nationwide monthly inflation averaging 0.1 percent over the last 5 months compared with 2.1 percent in the 5 months prior. The bank also highlights the strength of the construction industry, driven by strong residential investment, and notes an expected increase in residential building in Auckland once appeals that the Unitary Plan is currently working through are through. This is further supported by today’s Statistics New Zealand building consents release, which shows the total number of homes consented in the year was just under 30,000, up 10 percent from 2015 and the most for a calendar year since 2004, with Auckland consents up 7 percent on 2015.

Alastair Scott: What risks are there to this economic outlook?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Reserve Bank identifies that international factors are the key risks to the economy. Although the Reserve Bank notes an improved global outlook resulting from more positive business and consumer sentiment in other developed countries and recovery in commodity prices, rising geopolitical uncertainty may impact on the outlook in this country. In particular, the bank cites uncertainty resulting from the new US administration, the upcoming euro-area elections, and Brexit as potential risks.

Conservation, Department—Funding and Fire Management

3. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Clayton Mitchell: Does she stand by her statement that the Department of Conservation (DOC) had the budget it required and denying that it was being increasingly underfunded; if so, why?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: In order to inform the member of the facts of the matter, because that member has been responsible for peddling some complete nonsense, the DOC operating budget has increased—[Interruption]—listen carefully, you may learn something that is factual and will help you—and $316 million, in 2008-09, has gone to $374 million in this financial year. Vote Conservation has increased from $416 million in 2008-09, to a forecast of $491 million this financial year. Not a cut, not a knock back, not razoring down all of the facilities that DOC has as its resources, but in fact an increase.

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.

Tracey Martin: The question was: does the Minister stand by her statement? She actually has yet to answer whether she stands by her statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. [Interruption] Order! The question was very clearly addressed, to my mind, and there were a significant number of interjections coming throughout the answer from many members of New Zealand First. The Minister has the opportunity then to respond to those interjections. Are there further supplementary questions?

Clayton Mitchell: In light of her answer, how does she can explain that fire control expenditure for fire management of over 8.6 million hectares of conservation lands has dropped by 94 percent, from over $11 million in 2011-12 to just $724,000 last year?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It may be helpful to the member to understand that our fire services have been reviewed substantially. The Minister responsible for that is Peter Dunne. DOC has managed its firefighting expenditure very well. I think what the member might be alluding to—and I am happy to help the member, if he would like to write me a question about it, to go through the detail of the costs and operational. But it has been a major review and the basis of the charges has been changed, and therefore it would be appropriate for me to respond to you in writing, if you would like to know more, or for you to address the questions to Minister Dunne.

Clayton Mitchell: Supplementary—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is going to be little point in carrying on with supplementary questions if you cannot get the assistance of your own parliamentary colleagues so that we can all hear the answer.

Clayton Mitchell: In that case, is it not true that under the restructuring of the Fire Service, DOC will retain its responsibilities for controlling fires on conservation land?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The Department of Conservation will always look after public conservation land in the way that it has in the past, and also in the way that the new regulations hand down. There are some alterations to the ways in which and the areas in which this is done, and the size of the areas. As I say, it is a very detailed assessment and change that has gone through. Very happy to answer the member’s questions if he would like to put those to me in writing. The primary question did not in any way allude to this line of questioning—happy to address it, but it needs to be done in the proper channels.

Clayton Mitchell: What impact has the extreme reduction in fire expenditure had on preventing fires like last Saturday’s 300,000 hectare fire on DOC land at Castle Hill—a fire that also resulted in the closure of the Christchurch to Greymouth rail link?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Putting resources and money into preventing fires is a very difficult business. There could be any number of reasons why those fires were started. It could have been a naturally occurring event, it could have been an accidental throwing away of a cigarette, it could have been arson—nobody knows. No amount of money that DOC or any other entity can put into fire precautions is going to stop those kinds of things from happening. Firefighting is always something that DOC takes seriously and always will.

Clayton Mitchell: I seek the leave of the House to table a document showing the figures outlined, as I have spoken about today, with a 94 percent reduction—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All I need now is the source of the document.

Clayton Mitchell: This was sent through to us. It is a compilation of annual reports put together and confirmed by the Parliamentary Library, so it is in fact from the Parliamentary Library, from 7 February.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that compilation prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Climate Change Policy—Rail, Transport Planning, and Funding

4. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does she stand by her statement, “we’re on the right track on tackling climate change”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes I do, and to just expand on the quote, it was that “Ratifying the Paris Agreement is a good way to show our strong commitment internationally, but the real work happens at home, and I am optimistic we’re on the right track to finding better ways to live and leave this world for future generations.”

Julie Anne Genter: Does she agree that the real work of reducing climate pollution can be achieved only by investing in infrastructure that does not rely on fossil fuels?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I believe that it is going to take a concerted effort across everything, from how we live our lives, the products we use, and, yes, infrastructure as well. Electric vehicles I am a big fan of. I also think that our renewable energy targets are good. So a whole lot of work—across forestry and everything as well.

Julie Anne Genter: As climate change Minister, did she agree with the decision to replace clean electric trains on the North Island rail line with diesel trains?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It was not a decision for me to agree to or not. It was an independent decision by the directors.

Julie Anne Genter: Does she agree that the independent decision made by the directors was influenced by the amount of funding that is available to KiwiRail by her Government?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, and in fact I am someone who has sat, over the years, and watched literally hundreds of millions of dollars—

Hon Steven Joyce: Billions.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —it is billions, I am being told—go to KiwiRail, so I do not believe it was a funding issue.

Julie Anne Genter: Does she agree that the 10-year transport plan set out by her Government, which will spend over $30 billion on infrastructure, should consider the overall impact on climate pollution and allow for investment in rail, not just highways?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We spend literally billions on rail over the years. I am aware this Government has proven itself to be a supporter of rail, but we also need roads that cars can go on and that people can travel on.

Julie Anne Genter: Does she agree that completing the electrification of the rail network and buying new electric trains will not only help reduce climate pollution from freight but will mean New Zealanders can reduce freight costs, reduce maintenance and operational costs, have cleaner and quieter transport through our towns, and that that will benefit the country for generations to come; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I believe that that would cost billions and billions of dollars. Ultimately, they have decided to retain the diesel trains because it would cost more than $1 billion and would have taken years to upgrade the electric trains. I am also assured that this would have meant more trucks on the road in the interim, and trucks emit 66 percent more to move the same amount of freight as a diesel train.

Julie Anne Genter: Does she know that her Government could fully electrify the rail line between Auckland and Wellington, allowing electric trains to go the full distance, for less than the cost of 17 kilometres of “Holiday Highway”, which will do nothing to reduce climate pollution or even save time for trucks?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I very much question the member’s math.

Marama Fox: Given that answer, is there any plan for the Government to announce about reconnecting the rail line from Napier to Gisborne?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility, as Minister for Climate Change Issues, for that question.

Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the relative cost of electrification and a project that the Government is currently funding. Those numbers are publicly available to the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not a point of order. The question has been addressed, and if the member feels that there has been a misrepresentation, then there is another way forward. But it is not by raising it as a point of order.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek your guidance and clarification on when a supplementary question is appropriate. Marama Fox asked a supplementary question off the back of the Minister for Climate Change Issues citing statistics that trains actually reduce emissions. Marama Fox asked whether, perhaps, trains would be applied in another part of the country. Surely that is an appropriate supplementary question, or is it not?

Mr SPEAKER: No, on this occasion it is not. There was no reference in the question from Marama Fox that in any way related to climate change issues. She simply asked whether a particular railway line would be reopened. The Minister does not have a responsibility for that whatsoever.

Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will deal with the point of order first.

Julie Anne Genter: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I called for a point of order before the supplementary question from Marama Fox.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not understand now what the point of order is.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Julie Anne Genter sought a point of order from you immediately after the Minister’s answer to her question, but you did not hear it and you gave a supplementary question to Marama Fox. As a result, Julie Anne Genter was not able to ask you to ensure that the Minister answered her question. That is what her point of order is about.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought I had made it quite clear that the question that was asked by Julie Anne Genter was, in my opinion, then addressed by the Minister. If the member has another point of order, I am happy to hear it. But if it is questioning whether the previous question asked by Julie Anne Genter had been asked and then addressed by the Minister, in my opinion it had been.

Julie Anne Genter: Does she really expect New Zealanders to take her Government’s efforts on climate change seriously when her Government cannot produce a long-term plan for infrastructure investment that is going to reduce climate pollution in the long term?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member will be absolutely thrilled to know that we are currently working on that very long-term plan of how we meet our nationally determined contribution for 2030, and that will certainly include emissions reduction in New Zealand.

Marama Fox: Given her response that climate change and emissions will be reduced when you use rail over trucks, will the Government be announcing the reopening of the Napier to Gisborne rail line?

Mr SPEAKER: Well done.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I cannot answer that question because I am not the Minister of Transport. So, sorry, I am not sure exactly where they are, as far as opening or reopening other tracks—but not intending to.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table the business case from KiwiRail cited 21 December 2016, released to us under the Official Information Act, showing the switch to diesel trains will increase emissions by 12,000 tonnes.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information obtained under the Official Information Act. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Police Resourcing—Numbers, Safer Communities, Community Policing, and Crime Rates

5. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Police: What announcements has the Government made about increased police for rural and regional New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Police): This Government’s half-a-billion-dollar Safer Communities package is focused on ensuring that police are accessible to all New Zealanders when they need them. That is why the package includes 140 new sworn officers who will be dedicated to serving just our regional and rural communities. This will bolster staff in up to 20 regional stations to 24/7 capability. Regional communities will also benefit from the new police to fight organised crime and investigate serious crimes such as child abuse and family violence.

Ian McKelvie: How will this boost in police numbers make police more accessible for rural communities?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Police have made a commitment that 95 percent of New Zealanders will live within 25 kilometres of a police presence 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This does not mean police sitting behind a desk at a station 24/7; it means police out on the streets, patrolling in their cars, and ready to come to the assistance of people who need it.

Kelvin Davis: When she stated last week “I think the timing was about right” for her announcement, how safe does she think those of us who live in the Far North felt in our communities, with a 140 percent increase in robberies last year, when we needed the police?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Under this Government we have seen nearly a thousand equivalent police in the last 8 years—600 of them came from previous Minsters, and we introduced 354 through technology advances, which freed up more police on the front line. So the time was about right to bring in more police at this stage.

Kelvin Davis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was “how safe does she think those of us who live in the Far North felt”, not just a relitigation of her policy.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the member could make that the question instead of the lead-in, that would make it easier. If the member asks the question again, because it was a confusing question in the way it was asked—I will allow Kelvin Davis to ask it again and we might get the answer.

Kelvin Davis: When she stated last week “I think the timing was about right” for her announcement, how safe does she think those of us who live in the Far North felt in our communities, with a 140 percent increase in robberies last year, when we actually needed the police?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am going to repeat my answer because I am answering the first part of it: the timing is right. This Government has committed 600 new police, on top of the equivalent of 354—

Kelvin Davis: That wasn’t the question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Your question was whether or not the timing was right, and the timing was right for this introduction over 4 years, which will make a huge difference to those up in Northland, and will ensure that they have more police on the beat.

Ron Mark: How many of the 880 sworn officers fought for by the Hon Judith Collins and announced by her will be based in Waipukurau, Woodville, Pahīatua, Carterton, Martinborough, and Featherston by June 2018—and even by June 2020?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The deployment of officers is a matter for the commissioner.

Ian McKelvie: In what other ways does the Safer Communities package help rural communities?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This package includes funding for 12 new mobile policing units to provide policing services on the move to where they are most needed in those very small rural communities and towns. Police will also establish the rural duties officers network, recognising that in many of our rural communities they have different crime issues—and addressing some of those as well.

Ron Mark: What confidence should residents in Rangitīkei have in her plan for improving safety in the community, when statistics show that from 2008 to June 2016 there were 215 burglaries in Taihape for only three arrests, and 35 cars were stolen for only three arrests, the last of which was made in 2013?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: With this new announcement, with a half-billion dollar investment and with more than 1,100 new police staff, I am told that all districts will be getting more officers on the beat, and that will make a difference.

Ron Mark: In her full and detailed briefing that she received from the police about the need for an extra 880 sworn officers and where the needs lay, can she now tell the House precisely which towns are going to receive those extra police, or do we all expect them to end up in Auckland as normal?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: OK, one more time for the member, and if he listens carefully—all 12 districts—

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is sarcasm the norm for this House?

Mr SPEAKER: It is something that frequently infiltrates the House. On this occasion I can understand it, in that the question now being asked is very similar to a question that was just answered by the Minister. But the member has got every right to ask the question again, and I will invite the Minister to answer the question again.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you. I was very specific in that all 12 districts will be getting more police. So we are making an absolute obligation to do that. The deployment of police officers is absolutely at the discretion of the police commissioner, and it is not for politicians to be deciding where our police force should be around the country. I can honestly stand here in this House and say that I do not know at what numbers where police will be deployed over the next 4 years. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Mark, I need substantially less interjection once the questioning has finished. If the member wanted to use a supplementary question to ask that, he could have done so.

Housing—Supply, Affordability, and First-home Buyers

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with his predecessor’s reported statement that “the Government was keen to get the cost of housing down, so that whether people owned or rented a house they did not use such a large proportion of their income paying for it”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, and that is in fact the case. Overall affordability of an average mortgage repayment on a medium-priced house currently costs 38 percent of gross household income compared with 49 percent back in 2007. Improving housing costs relative to incomes is a priority for the Government, and—

Grant Robertson: Interesting numbers and dates here.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, 2007, for the member’s benefit, was the highest ever rate back for quite some time, as far as records are available, and today is around 38 percent. The Government is focused on improving housing costs relative to incomes by encouraging increases in supply of housing—

Grant Robertson: Not working.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and today’s consent data shows that it is working, with a total number of houses consented in the year of nearly 30,000—up 10 percent from last year—and the most for any calendar year since 2004. And we expect that to continue to increase.

Grant Robertson: What responsibility does he take, given his failure to support the building of affordable homes, for first-home buyers needing to borrow $400,000 on average to get into their first home and his recent admission that they are hugely exposed to risks from rising interest rates?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Unlike in Labour’s control economy, people actually get to make their own decisions in terms of their investments, and they go into their mortgages based on the affordability of their mortgage repayments, and, of course, interest rates are at historic lows. My concern about that is they may not necessarily stay at historic lows, and that is the nature of the comments I have made in the last few days and I think it is important that people think about that over the next period when considering entering into new mortgages.

Grant Robertson: Does he think it is people’s own decision that the rise in housing costs in 2016 totally wiped out any income increases they had, according to Statistics New Zealand’s household expenditure and income survey?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I think we have to be careful about these individual small changes, both on increases in incomes and in housing costs. But I think the good news is the trend is good, because in 2007 we reached a peak of the cost of a house mortgage relative to income, which was 49 percent of people’s incomes. That is the correct figure, unlike Mr Robertson’s alternative facts, and this year it has been running at 38 percent. It is still a bit higher than we would be comfortable with, but it is a significant improvement on what it was back then.

Grant Robertson: What is his response to the Reserve Bank Governor’s assessment that he “has an ongoing concern about the imbalance between supply and demand in housing”? In other words, after 8 years, the Government is still not building enough houses.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Reserve Bank Governor not only made that concern apparent in the Finance and Expenditure Committee today, he also discussed it with me as late as yesterday. But he also signalled that he was very pleased to see the increase in construction that is occurring and the very big increase in the number of building consents, and, like me, he believes that the supply response is growing, and that is indicated in the figures. Again, I say for the member’s benefit that the number of houses consented in the last calendar year was 29,970, up 10 percent in 1 year, and the most for a calendar year in 12 years—the most since 2004.

Grant Robertson: When his first comment on housing as Minister of Finance is to caution first-home buyers against buying a house, can he see what a complete failure his Government’s housing policy is?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member thinks that was my first comment on housing as Minister of Finance, then he must have been asleep for the whole of January.

Health Services—First Specialists Assessments

7. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm the number of patients benefiting from first specialist assessments has risen from 404,511 a year in 2008, to 552,423 a year in 2016, and that this is an increase of 147,912 more patients now being seen?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, indeed. This new data shows a huge 36 percent increase in the number of patients who are now receiving a hospital specialist assessment each year. That is due to the hard work of health professionals and the extra $4.3 billion invested in the health system under National.

Simon O’Connor: Can the Minister confirm that this positive increase in specialist assessment has included a big increase in the number of patients benefiting from ophthalmology assessment?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Once again, yes. In 2008, 41,468 patients had ophthalmology first specialist assessments, and in 2016, 57,004 patients had ophthalmology assessments. That is an increase of 15,500 patients, or 37 percent more than under the previous Government.

Hon Annette King: How confident is he that the figures he has provided of nearly 60,000 New Zealanders being refused a first specialist assessment are in fact robust figures and are not considerably higher?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would be much more confident of those figures than anyone in the Labour Party would be of their position on the Labour Party list.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think there was anything political in my question. I will repeat it if you like, and you can hear it.

Mr SPEAKER: No—no need. No need to repeat it. The question asked—[Interruption] Order! The question asked how confident the Minister is in the particular figures of people who are refused first assessment, and he said, obviously, that he was reasonably confident. He added something that was certainly unnecessary, but—

Hon Annette King: Well, did he say “reasonably confident”? Did he say that bit?

Mr SPEAKER: He said he was more confident than he would be in some other figures—[Interruption] It was enough to address the question.

Housing, Auckland—Building Consents and Urban Land Use

8. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement made yesterday in the Finance and Expenditure Committee that “New Zealand is in the middle of its largest ever building boom”; if so, how?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do. The value of building consents nationwide was $19 billion in 2016. That is the highest level ever recorded, and it is 68 percent higher than in 2008. The number of people employed in the construction industry in this country is also the highest ever. At the end of December last year the household labour force survey recorded 242,900 people employed in the construction industry; it has never been higher.

David Seymour: Minister, how can you stand by that statement, when the actual number of dwellings consented per 1,000 of population was 13.1 in 1974, 8.3 in 2004, and last year only 6.2?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With the greatest respect to the member, he is asking a different question. He asked me whether this was the biggest building boom New Zealand has ever seen, and, quite obviously, it is.

David Seymour: Well, I guess if inflation gets going, it will solve the whole problem. Can I ask—another question, ha, ha!

Mr SPEAKER: I have given the member the call.

David Seymour: That is all right—that is all right. I wonder whether the Minister’s Government will back the likes of Kathleen and Steve Vitasovich, who would like to develop their land, which is 3 minutes from a train station but outside Auckland’s rural urban boundary; does he agree with the Productivity Commission that such boundaries are a “constraint on urban growth”, reducing the supply of new housing?

Mr SPEAKER: Two supplementary questions there—the Minister can address either or both.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member’s latest question will not get a cheer from Phil Twyford. Two points, if I may: firstly, in clarification to the member’s rejoinder before he asked the question, it is both in nominal and real terms that it is the biggest construction boom ever; to the second point, in relation to the rural urban limit, I do have great sympathy for the concerns of your example couple that you mentioned, because that has been a very significant problem. If you look at the trend in availability of sections in New Zealand from the year 2000 through to now in Auckland, the rural urban limit, or what was then known as the metropolitan urban limit, has greatly restricted the availability of sections over that period. That has been a cause of a reduction in available supply, despite population increase, which is now being addressed by a range of measures, both by this Government and by Auckland Council. My view would be to encourage Auckland Council to speed up the availability of land, and I am pleased that, for example, the Auckland Unitary Plan is making sure that there is more land available for building houses in that city.

David Seymour: In light of that concern, does the Minister agree with Local Government New Zealand president, Hastings mayor, and prospective National Party candidate, Lawrence Yule, who says that ACT’s proposal of new fit for purpose urban land use planning laws is something that “warrants consideration”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There was some reasonably relevant information in that question, but, in regard to the overall question around planning legislation, the member may be aware that the Productivity Commission is due to report back on those matters shortly. In terms of planning law, the Government looks forward to that report-back because we have a round of Resource Management Act (RMA) reform in the House at the moment that will make significant differences, and it is important to look to the longer term in terms of where you go next after that. In the meantime, I would advise Phil Twyford, who talks quite a big game but does not actually do anything, to vote for the bill.

David Seymour: In that case, will the Minister also consider ACT’s suggestion of central government sharing revenue with local government for infrastructure on the basis of their consenting activity—a suggestion that The New Zealand Initiative chairman, Roger Partridge, has described as “compelling”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of the question, rather than Mr Partridge’s endorsement, I think it is important to note that, actually, the Government makes a very big contribution to infrastructure in our cities and towns now, for example, in terms of paying for 50 percent of the roading costs of all roading in the local roading system through the petrol excise duty and road-user charges system and the National Land Transport Fund. The Government also makes very significant contributions through such matters as the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative. So there are a number of ways in which we do that—and we also have the Housing Infrastructure Fund, which is offering to do that for new subdivisions. So there is very, very significant investment. In fact, our total infrastructure investment around the country in this current year is expected to be around $7 billion—and I look at Minister Parata and I forgot to mention the very big investment in the education sector in schools.

Housing—Supply, Affordability, and First-home Buyers

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What responsibility does he take for the housing affordability crisis?

Hon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for Pacific Peoples) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: The Minister’s core responsibilities are for building and construction, which also include growing supply and ensuring that our quality assurance systems work. The number of new houses being constructed has doubled, from about 13,000 to 30,000 per year, during this Minister’s time. This is the result of the strongest growth in residential construction in New Zealand history. The growth in Auckland last year alone—the member may be interested in figures out today—was 27 percent, and that is phenomenal growth in anyone’s eyes.

Phil Twyford: Does he take responsibility for the failure of his policies to deliver houses when, despite his promises of thousands of extra consents, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials told the Social Services Committee yesterday that only 653 houses were completed by Government-backed building programmes in Auckland last year and that only half of those were affordable?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: There is no single Minister responsible for housing issues. There are many more, and just as there are a number of Ministers in charge of—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member, but I need to hear the answer.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: There are other Ministers who are in charge of the economy, and also, too, around child poverty as well. In regard to the comments that were made about what is the actual number of dwellings that have been delivered in the various Crown projects in 2016 at select committee yesterday—the member’s questions—the officials did report this number as 653 houses built in 2016. However, the correct number is actually 759. The original figure quoted did not include numbers for the last few months of the 2016 year.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with his officials, who told the committee yesterday that only 30 hectares of surplus Crown land will now be built on; if so, how did Nick Smith get it so wrong when he promised 500 hectares 2 years ago?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: The figure of 500 hectares relates to the total Crown holdings within Auckland, not all of which is suitable for redevelopment as housing. Initial estimates by officials placed the likely amount of land available at around 100 hectares. Under the programme, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has purchased, or is close to purchasing, approximately 30 hectares, with a further 30 hectares in the pipeline.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with independent economist Shamubeel Eaqub, who said that “Extremely unaffordable housing has had the expected consequences: increased homelessness, housing stress for the poor and vulnerable, and slipping hopes of middle classes ever owning their own home.” and “denials of a housing crisis are now simply lies.”?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I am not responsible for the comments of this economist Shamubeel, but what I can say is that under this Government, it takes its core responsibilities seriously. We spend over $2 billion in regards to housing costs and subsidising those housing costs. We have taken our responsibilities, clearly. We know that we have increased benefit levels—by $25—which have not been increased in the last 40 years. We think those are comprehensive in a number of different ways to meeting those needs as well.

Joanne Hayes: How are the Government’s initiatives helping first-home buyers and the growing of supply?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: The Government made significant changes last year to the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme, which is delivering very positive results. The number of first-home buyers accessing KiwiSaver for a deposit grew from 13,000 to 30,000 in 1 year, and the support grew from $200 million to $500 million. This was complemented by a large increase in HomeStart grants to first-home buyers. The special housing areas, the new unitary plan, the Crown Land Programme, and other good initiatives are also contributing to the recent 5 years of growth in housing supply, where we have building from 13,000 to 30,000 per year.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with Bill English that the Government has reached the limits of what it can do, when three-quarters of renters cannot afford even the deposit on an average home and rent increases are outstripping wage increases?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I always agree with the Prime Minister. He is a wise man. He made some wise appointments just lately, and I think that his wisdom is there. But I would also have to say that National does have a comprehensive housing programme—213 special housing areas have been created nationwide, with a projected yield of more than 70,000 homes. We have announced nine sites in the Crown Land Programme, which will deliver 1,500-plus homes. More than 20,000 people have received HomeStart grants and more than $89 million has been paid out in subsidies. I could go on, but I think that is sufficient to give an indication of the comprehensive plan that, under this Government, we have in place.

Question No. 8 to Minister

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I forgot in my earlier enthusiasm. Can I please seek leave to table a document showing that the current level of construction activity is far from New Zealand’s largest ever building boom, measured by residential—

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

DAVID SEYMOUR: It is assembled from Statistics New Zealand data by my office.

Mr SPEAKER: In that it may be very coherently produced and be valuable information to the House, I will put the leave and let the House decide. Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Fuel Market—Financial Performance Study

10. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is she doing to ensure drivers aren’t paying too much at the pump?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Today I announced a market study into fuel prices and returns to determine how fair petrol and diesel prices are at the pump. The market study will be undertaken by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), with cooperation from the industry. I want to know that fuel prices are reasonable and that motorists are getting a fair deal, and I am concerned that this might not be the case.

Barbara Kuriger: What is she doing to ensure the industry works with the Government to make the study a success?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I spoke to the industry yesterday about this, and I can assure the House that the advantage of a fuel market financial performance study is that it can be done reasonably quickly, and it will help to build a more informed picture of the overall performance of the fuel market. However, it will require the industry to cooperate. Having spoken to and written to the fuel companies this week, I have been assured by each of them that they will work with MBIE and that they will provide the required information. We are consulting on the terms of reference, and they will be released once they have been finalised.

Pay Equity—Care and Support Workers’ Case and Government Response

11. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of Health: When will the Government make an offer to settle Kristine Bartlett and other care and support workers’ equal pay case?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Since June 2015 negotiations have been under way between the Crown, unions, and providers. The negotiations are continuing, and I expect to receive an update on progress shortly. Any settlement would benefit 50,000 care and support workers across the country, so watch this space.

Jan Logie: Is it acceptable that the women who, on the request of the Government, put aside their legal claims for equal pay to negotiate directly with the Minister are still waiting for an offer over 15 months later?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I said, negotiations are under way, and I am not commenting any further. It would be pretty silly to do so.

Jan Logie: Is the Minister really telling this House that he thinks over 15 months is an acceptable time frame for a pay negotiation?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member would not know what has happened in those negotiations, and I am not going to comment on them further, because it is a negotiation.

Jan Logie: Has he chosen to let these tens of thousands of low-paid working women continue to struggle to make ends meet so he can get an election-year announcement?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No.

Schools—Funding and Fees

12. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she concerned at the amount of money parents often have to pay for education at State and State-integrated schools; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. The costs incurred by parents are determined by their school. The decisions they make over uniforms, the teaching and learning programme that they decide to deliver, and, therefore, the stationery and equipment that is required are all determined by their school, so I would be concerned if those schools are not doing it in consultation with, and with an awareness of, their parent community.

Chris Hipkins: Is the Nelson Budget Service wrong when it states that the number of parents seeking help with increased school costs has increased: “It’s higher than it should be, it’s definitely higher than it’s been in the past and it seems to be creeping up.”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have no responsibility for the Nelson Budget Service, but I do have for Vote Education, and Vote Education is the highest it has ever been. It has gone up by 35 percent when student numbers have gone up by 3.56 percent, so this Government is not under-funding education—quite the opposite. In terms of parental contributions to the revenue of a school, it remained at about 1.8 percent all through the administration of the Opposition, and it remains the case today. However, where a parent is finding difficulty, then there is support available from Work and Income New Zealand and from their own schools, because the operational grant is discretionary.

Chris Hipkins: Does she acknowledge that Statistics New Zealand figures show that since she became Minister of Education in 2011, parental contributions have increased 23 percent, almost five times the rate of inflation?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I cannot acknowledge that. I am not aware that that is the case. I am happy to look at that. But based on the information we have, which is the financial reports of each individual school every year, we can say that donations to schools are about 1.8 percent, of which parental contributions are a part. They do not make up the entirety of that.

Chris Hipkins: Is she concerned that a recent survey found that one in five parents revealed they had sacrificed basic necessities, including food, electricity, clothing, and personal hygiene, in order to cater for the cost of sending their children back to school; if so, does she still believe that the Government is honouring its legal commitment to provide a free school education for Kiwi kids?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: That member’s record in quoting surveys is parlous at best, so I am not aware of that particular survey. In fact, that member was also reporting the costs that ASG used in its survey, and given that its client base is private schools, which make up 3.7 percent of the New Zealand education system, in neither regard are they representative of the issues being spoken about. However, as my colleague the Minister already indicated, this Government is the first Government in, I think, 43 years to raise benefit incomes for those families most at risk. This is also the Government that has provided in Vote Education, in last year’s Budget, just over $43 million to be targeted at those families most at risk. Again, if there are particular families who have concerns, there are agencies standing ready to assist them.

Chris Hipkins: Given she has mentioned it, has she seen the data compiled by ASG that shows that parents of a child born today can expect to pay almost $40,000 for their child’s education in a State school? Is that not yet more proof that schooling in New Zealand is not free?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: There are a number of questions about the ASG survey because the bulk of their clients, first of all, are Australian private schools, and in New Zealand they, again, relate largely to private schools. The member would actually be better spending his time looking at what the actual investment is through the Treasury account of what we spend rather than selecting specious examples to support his weak arguments.

Chris Hipkins: Is the president of the Principals’ Federation, Whetu Cormick, wrong when he states that due to Government underfunding “schools will be forced to put pressure on families to help increase their operations grant.”; if not, why will she not admit that lack of Government funding is making a mockery of New Zealand kids’ legal right to a free schooling?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, he is wrong. This Government is not underfunding education. How can it—[Interruption] If the member occupies that universe of “alternative facts”, then, yes, the member might be correct. But how is it possible to argue that? Funding has gone up 35 percent, to $11.04 billion, while student numbers have gone up 3.56 percent. How can that gap in funding be described as “underfunding” in anybody’s world? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order in that quarter as well!

Question No. 5 to Minister

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Reflecting on the questions that I asked and the answer I received in your deliberation—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

RON MARK: Mr Speaker, can I ask you, I know that when you return to your office, you always review the transcripts and you always review the answers. The point that I would ask you to consider is that I never asked the Minister what allocation she had made; I asked her what allocations had been made. She has avoided the question by saying she does not make those decisions about allocations. I think she completely ducked the question. I think she should have answered my question specifically, given the advice from Police.

Mr SPEAKER: I will do the member a deal. I will go back and look at the Hansard today if the member also has a look at the Hansard from yesterday and the tone of questions that came from his own leader throughout question time yesterday afternoon.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 8 February.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): I rise to support the motion of confidence in the National-led Government moved by the Rt Hon Bill English and to debate strenuously and, of course, oppose the amendment moved by Mr Andrew Little.

It is ironic, given that the Prime Minister of the nation not only can deliver a state of the nation speech some days ahead of Parliament opening that was chock full of policy and, in particular, focused on the issue of law and order in New Zealand; can come into this House at the start of the parliamentary year having successfully negotiated his way through some of the difficulties that have in the past appeared at Rātana, where he was able to congenially meet with those people and have recognised the enormous progress that this Government has delivered for Māori throughout New Zealand; and can then have a very successful Waitangi Day spent with Ngāti Whātua in Auckland, to find that the Leader of the Opposition, who gave a state of the nation speech with no policy in it, went to Waitangi to say that he was sorry he turned up, and went to Rātana to say “I’m pleased I turned up.” and nothing more—no policy anywhere, at any point—then gave a response to the Prime Minister’s policy statement with, again, no policy but a simple claim that he was a messiah, a better leader for this country, and that that is why voters should support him and his Green colleagues in the Labour-Green coalition.

Mr Little is no messiah. I have got to say that if his idea of presenting a clean, new, interesting alternative to the country is to bring back Willie Jackson and Laila Harré, then he is sadly deluded. Those are two individuals who have destroyed parties one after the other. The Alliance fell apart because of Willie Jackson and Laila Harré. The far left of politics could not hold itself together with those people, and now they are being brought into a supposedly centrist Labour-Green coalition.

Well, leadership also requires that you talk to people at various times, discuss things, persuade them, and get them on your side. I have not heard those persuasive comments coming from David Parker or from Sue Moroney or from Megan Woods or from Rino Tirikatene. All of them are in big electoral trouble and are now being pushed further down the list by—

Rino Tirikatene: Ha, ha!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Tirikatene over there, he laughs. Right? That is because he does not get the polling data that shows him what a terrible state he is in; if he did, he would probably read it upside down and think it was actually the opposite result. I have got to say too that in Wigram Megan Woods, poor thing, is in deep trouble. National has a candidate there who is out there right now, and do you know what he is doing? He is knocking on every door in that electorate, one after the other. What is he hearing? What is he hearing? “Who did you say is our MP?”. He says “It’s Megan Woods.”, and they say: “Oh, we thought it was Jim Anderton.” So there is another one down the tube.

The real point, though, is that here we have loyal Labour Party members who toil away in this House—well, actually, they turn up in this House—and then they are just summarily dismissed for the flash boy Willie and the destructive Laila. It is a terrible situation, and I do feel some sympathy for them. But now I understand why Jacinda Ardern, who of course we all know has been considering her political future, bolted for Mt Albert to sort of shelter from the storm that she knows is coming.

When you have a state of the nation speech that focuses on the problem of law and order and delivers 880 new police—sworn officers—over the next 4 years, which takes the increase in police staff to 1,125 over that same period of time, you know that there is a Government that is in tune with the needs of New Zealanders. It is recognising what sort of a proportional response you need to the growing population and to the various aspects of criminal activity in this country.

It was very interesting today in the House to learn that New Zealand First does not support Police autonomy. It does not support Police autonomy. When the Minister of Police said that it was up to Police to identify where it needs to surge its staff to fight crime, Ron Mark said: “No, I should be doing it.” Well, I do not think that Mr Mark is going to get that opportunity, but it will be interesting for us to explain to people, on the stump, that if New Zealand First gets there, Police autonomy will go and it will be Winston and his henchmen who decide what the police do and where they do it.

The other aspect of the speech delivered by the Prime Minister the other day was the focus on vulnerable New Zealanders. On this side of the House, we know that if you keep doing the same old things in the same old way that you did them, you just keep getting the same old results. So why is it that Labour members are out there saying that they want to do exactly what they did when they last had a chance of being on this side of the House? They want to do what they did as far back as the 1970s.

We go out there and say: “Well, actually, we’ve tried a few things and some of the results are impressive.” There are 50,000 fewer children living in poverty. Thousands of people who were on the benefit are now enjoying the personal, well-earned benefit of work. There have been 130,000 new jobs in the last 12 months. Those are the sorts of things that make a difference to the lives and the quality of life of New Zealanders. The social investment proposals that Bill English is championing and leading with other Ministers are going to do very well for this country. Many of the people who have, over the years, worried about increasing benefit dependence will not listen to a Labour message that says: “It’s all good.”

I actually thought Michael Woods’ maiden statement yesterday missed the mark. It was the sort of speech that might have been good in the 1970s. It is not good to criticise the member, but it is a fact and it typifies the sorts of candidates who will be on display for Labour in the coming election.

I think we have also got to recognise that if you are going to propose a policy platform that is, basically, “Let’s go back to the future; let’s just look at the past.”, then, in fact, you are asking people to look at times when they felt themselves a lot less prosperous. This country is heading towards an average wage of $66,000 during the next term of a National-led Government. That is something that people can put in front of themselves in a tangible way. They will measure that opportunity against the opportunity that the Labour Party offers to go back to some sort of past that did not offer the sorts of inducements to work and to produce and to enjoy life that that would bring for them.

New Zealand ranks among some 200 countries as one of the most prosperous countries, or the most prosperous country, in the world—the most prosperous country in the world. With that being the situation—and given the information that Mr Joyce will present to the House later this year, which people will consider, going into 23 September—people will be able to see that a Government that does focus on growing an economy, while recognising its obligations in a social sense, provides opportunity for people to do more in their own lives. There is no sense in anybody hanging up their opportunities for the Labour Party to determine what they get out of life. That, I think, will be one of the crucial points that comes under discussion.

We are also ranked as first in the world, among all those countries, for freedom and for civil rights. New Zealanders value freedom. They do not like being told what to do. They prefer to make choices on their own. We have learnt over and over in Government that if we give people a choice, they will make the right choice, and it will be a choice that is not only good for them but also good for the nation. We will be continuing along those lines as well.

We also rate very highly in this country for quality of Government. I think that is very much at stake if there is a Labour-led Government that is stewing in the internal machinations that we are seeing at the present time. But I have got to be honest; I have got to be fair. Every party at some point goes through it. But do they have to go through it for as long as the Labour Party has? This is a 9-year stew in a bucket. It is horrible. At the moment, you have even got someone like Poto Williams, who wants to take a strong, personal stand, not at all supported by the machinery that she attracts funding for inside that caucus. Having to go off to a PR firm to get a press release put out—that is no—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is tragic to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): A Māori friend of mine said to me recently: “Do you know what the difference is between William Hobson and William English? At least William Hobson showed up.” I think that epitomises what we have seen so far from this Government. We have seen a Government, led by Bill English—if we can use the word “led”—that is simply failing to lead. The most fundamental job of a leader is to lead. That speech there from Mr Brownlee—I think the irony there was probably lost on him. It was the speech of a stuffed shirt—the epitome of a stuffed shirt, perhaps. What that speech told us, what Mr Brownlee tried to tell us, was that—he was arguing against speeches with no substance that were full of bluff and bluster, in a speech that had no substance and was full of bluff and bluster.

That is the unfortunate thing from this Government. It is out of ideas. Not only is it out of touch, not only is it arrogant, but it is out of ideas. It does not have leadership on its side of the House. When its members talk about new leadership and new faces, let us not forget that Bill English was here in Parliament when I was still in high school. That is the new face of the National Party: a leader who was here when I was still in high school. That is not a new face. So what we have is the same old, same old from the National Party.

The vision that National presented in the state of the nation speech was a skinny version of Labour’s policy of 1,000 new policemen. It said: “No, no. We can’t manage 1,000; let’s make it 880.” The thing that sticks in my mind about that speech was an interview I heard afterwards on Radio New Zealand National where Bill English was asked to explain why they were following Labour’s policy—why it was a watered-down version of Labour’s policy. Mr English said: “Oh, it’s not, it’s not. We have been thinking about it for a long time. And, you know, when you manage the economy and you think about the money and you think about the options you’ve got, and so on—we thought through the many options and we realised we had some options, and we eventually decided that the option that was open to us that we’d like to take was policemen.”

There was nothing in there about vision. It was not the kind of answer that will inspire New Zealanders. It was not leadership. It did not say: “We need safer communities. We want a New Zealand that’s fair. When people work hard, they should be able to get ahead, not be afraid that someone’s going to pinch from them or beat them up in the street. We want a New Zealand where everyone has the opportunity to get ahead.” No, no—it was: “We worked bureaucratically through the options available to us, and we eventually came to the conclusion that we’d like to do a watered-down version of Labour’s policy.

What we have on this side of the House, in Andrew Little, is a leader. We saw that very clearly in Dunedin just 1 week ago, when we packed out a hall in Dunedin with 400 people. The people who were there—and they had been around for a while, some of them—and particularly the reporters, said it was the biggest political meeting in Dunedin since the 1980s. There is change in the air. Bill English said in the House the other day that he could not pack out a crowd of 500—it was a passing comment. I would challenge Bill English to come down to Dunedin and host a meeting. Let us see whether he can get 400 people in a room, because I bet he cannot. People will not show up. Only insomniacs will show up to hear Bill English deliver a speech in Dunedin.

And that is the problem. National does not have a leader, and its members know it. Their heads are down on that side of the House. The only man smiling during question time today was Jonathan Coleman. He knows his time is coming. He knows that we have a temporary leader in Bill English, and we know Bill English’s past track record. There is no leadership on that side of the House, and that is why the squabbling has started behind the scenes over there. On this side of the House, we are united, we have a vision for a New Zealand where every New Zealander can get the healthcare that they need, where it is affordable and accessible, where parents are not being asked to dig deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper into their pockets just for the basics of a primary school education. But that is what we have got under this lot. That is what we have got under this lot.

That is not even to mention housing, which I would like to mention next. This housing crisis that we have in New Zealand is the big issue out there. Everywhere I go in the country, it is the thing that is on the top of people’s minds. Grandparents are worried that their grandchildren are putting off having kids because they cannot afford a place for them to live in—because they cannot afford a stable, warm, dry home to raise their kids in. It is having a real impact on New Zealand. We heard again today some apology from Mr Joyce about the number of consents going up. There are still not enough houses being built each year to meet the rising demand now, let alone close the gap that has emerged under this Government’s watch. We have a housing crisis—41,000 New Zealanders are currently homeless. We have the lowest homeownership rate in New Zealand since 1951, and it has happened under National’s watch.

We have the biggest gap between the ultra-rich and the rest of us that we have ever had. The OECD put out a paper just a couple of years ago saying that New Zealand’s inequalities had grown faster than any other country in the Western World and that that was holding growth back in New Zealand. It is not only that it is socially wrong—the OECD did not make comment on that—I happen to think it is wrong when people do not get the basics that they need, when kids grow up in cold, damp homes. I think that is wrong. The OECD made the basic point that when you have that growing inequality and you have some kids who do not get the basics and who go to school hungry, they do not learn, they do not maximise their opportunities—that has held New Zealand’s growth rate back, it estimated, by a full 15 percent over recent decades. Growth in New Zealand has been well behind what it should be, because of those growing inequalities, and it has just got worse under these people, as the homeownership rate has continued to drop.

The official statistics on homeownership disguise the size of the problem, because it is an average across the population. The fact is, for 25- to 40-year-olds, homeownership rates have about halved in a generation. That is just wrong. How can we hope for young people coming through who are skilled, who have student loans—which, by the way, are billowing—to want to stay in New Zealand when they must go overseas to pay off their debts? That seems to be the only option for many. It is not the future that I want for New Zealand, and I do not think it is the future that most New Zealanders want. Most New Zealanders want to know that they will have the opportunities in education, that they can get access to the healthcare system, that one day they will be able to afford their own home. That is the Kiwi Dream. That is what Labour stands for, and that is what Labour will build when we make Government in September, when the interim Prime Minister moves over and lets us have a real leader in this Parliament, in Andrew Little.

Let me talk a little bit more about underfunding in the health system. As we know, Infometrics has independently calculated that this Government has cut $1.7 billion—$1.7 billion—out of the healthcare system in the last 6 years, and that is hurting New Zealanders. They cannot get access to the surgery they need. I have them coming into my electorate office every week, and I am sure members opposite do just as much as we do on this side of the House.

We also have in Dunedin, where I am from, a situation where we urgently need a hospital rebuild. When he was Minister, Tony Ryall was promising a business case for the Dunedin Hospital rebuild before the year was out. Well, it has not happened. We got a new Minister in Jonathan Coleman, but he is no longer a new Minister. He promised it would be by the end of the year, then he promised the start of the next year, then he promised a year later, and now we have a preliminary business case due in the middle of this year. It just keeps getting pushed out. It is an absolute disgrace.

I have looked at overseas studies, particularly in Australia, where they have just had a hospital-building boom, and there are countless reports written on how to plan and build a hospital. It can take 4 months to settle the vision, and a hospital can be built—a quality hospital—in 4 years. It has just about been 4 years of talking since Tony Ryall promised that new hospital. But they just do not seem to care on that side. We have a Government that is sitting on its hands, that is not concerned about ordinary middle New Zealand—and not so ordinary middle New Zealand. Most Kiwis are missing out on the healthcare that they really need. They are missing out on the healthcare, their kids are not getting the education that they once did, and so many more people are living in cars in New Zealand. It is a national disgrace, and that homeownership rate just continues to drop.

There are obvious solutions there. Of course we could ban non-resident foreign speculators from buying housing in New Zealand. It is a very simple solution. They do it in Singapore. They have preserved the option to do it in Vietnam and various other countries around the Pacific. But when, for example, this Government was negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement it did not even ask for that provision. Government members wanted to lock overseas speculators into the New Zealand housing market. They wanted to make that a law that we signed up to as part of an international agreement. That is how little they care about first-home buyers being locked out of the New Zealand housing market. It is a shame, but it does show where their priorities lie, who their backers are, whom they are trying to appease, and it is not most New Zealanders.

Most New Zealanders do want opportunities, they do want a world-class education at their local school, they do want access to quality, affordable healthcare, and they do want do have a warm, dry home to live in and to bring up their kids in, or to see their grandchildren living in. It is not too much to ask. It is the Kiwi Dream, and Andrew Little, when he is Prime Minister, will deliver that dream again for New Zealanders.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): I suppose it is the Opposition’s job to always speak negatively about the country, but I was a bit saddened that David Clark feels the need to only ever concentrate on what he sees as the shortcomings of this great nation. I was down in Dunedin, where he is based, a couple of weeks ago, and what a wonderful city Dunedin is—what a wonderful city it is. I went to the university—it is doing well, doing enormously well. There are thousands of bright young New Zealanders setting forth with a positive outlook. They are making incredible strides in terms of, for example, Māori graduates in the medical school. There are huge numbers and they are having huge success in that area of consequence to the country.

When I look around the world and when New Zealanders look around the world—

Fletcher Tabuteau: You’d still make a better Deputy Prime Minister.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you. When New Zealanders look around the world, they see chaos, they see division in so many countries, and most of them who are generous-hearted New Zealanders—unlike that previous speaker, David Clark—do come to the conclusion that New Zealand is a well-managed and tranquil place, where we are governed by strong stable Government, where the leaders of this country and the Government in this country are united, know what they are doing, are competent, and are focused on the interests of what New Zealanders really want and need.

We all experienced a wonderful day on Waitangi Day. I was down at Ōrākei Marae in Auckland, not far from the Epsom electorate, where I am based, with the Prime Minister. A wonderfully positive occasion it was, with a large crowd of New Zealanders and Aucklanders of all different ethnic backgrounds all together in a very positive environment. That is so rare in this world and something that we should celebrate.

When it comes to the, I suppose, research department lines that the Labour Party put together on the leadership of Bill English, I can reassure you that this is a man who has a genuine concern for all New Zealanders, who has thought about the issues that New Zealanders face over decades in Government—

Dr David Clark: But he’s not a leader.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the best leader is somebody who leads by example, and he is a man who has worked very hard every day for New Zealanders. He has the absolute confidence of this caucus, and we are so much looking forward to the opportunity to have another term so that we can carry on the hopes and dreams that we have developed over the last 8 years.

One of the main determinations that we continue to have is to grow our economy here in New Zealand, because although the Opposition can talk about all the sorts of things that they want to do with the money that is taken from New Zealanders through their taxes, the most important thing we can do is ensure that we have a strong productive economy that is internationally competitive and that can provide the jobs that New Zealanders need. It is wonderful to see that even in the last year we have had 137,000 new jobs created by this economy—137,000 jobs. So more and more New Zealanders and their families have the ability to get a job and get out and work.

A stronger economy enables us to invest in the sorts of things that we need in order to manage a growing economy. Where I come from in Auckland, yes, there has been rapid population growth in Auckland, and so the most important thing—

Dr David Clark: That’s just his family.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, and the most important thing we need to do is make sure that people can move around. So I am looking forward, in the next few months, to the opening of the Waterview tunnel, which is one of the biggest ever infrastructure investments made by this Government. It was held up for many years by Helen Clark, who should have done it a long, long time ago but held it back. We put the money in, and we are going to make a big difference to traffic in Auckland.

That is just one of many, many investments that have been made by this Government, and we are determined to make sure that we can try to keep ahead of the growth that is the reflection of the fact that so many people do want to come and live in Auckland because it is such a wonderful city. We can also, when we have a strong economy, invest in strengthening New Zealand families, and, again, it is very easy to forget that this was the Government that was the first to increase benefits for the first time in 40 years, in real terms, and we can invest in so many ways to help all New Zealanders. It seems incredible to me that it is not recognised—the colossal amount of investment that is made by Government on behalf of all New Zealanders to help those vulnerable New Zealanders, through free education, through stronger welfare, through strong, free healthcare services, and the fact that everybody under the age of 13 can have access to GPs visits, and in so many ways. That is why we enjoy the high levels of social cohesion that we have.

Most important is that everybody wants to feel safe in their homes, and that is why I was so delighted that the Prime Minister’s opening speech referred to the fact that we are investing in extra police on the beat on the streets—another 880 new police officers, who will make a real difference in terms of keeping our community safe. I am looking forward to seeing them out and about on the streets of Auckland and in—

Ron Mark: Ha, ha!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and they will be everywhere, and they will continue to make a great contribution to what is, ultimately, a safe country and one where we do enjoy very high levels of security. But, like everything we do in this Government, we are determined to raise the bar further and improve the quality of what we do. So that is why most of the ideas that you will be seeing this year during the election year will be coming from this Government, 8 years into Government, from a caucus that is full of ideas and wanting to raise the bar further, rather than from members over on the opposite side, who, you would have thought, given their many years of Opposition, would have come up with some new ideas but have not.

I was given the great privilege of picking up some new portfolios over the summer: Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment; Science and Innovation; and Regulatory Reform. The tertiary sector is, of course, incredibly important to the future of this country in terms of helping New Zealanders into jobs, and that is why it is so important that we have got an economy that is developing jobs such as we have—137,000 new jobs last year.

The tertiary sector needs to deliver the next generation with the skills that they need in a demanding world, where I think many people will end up doing a number of things over the course of their lives. So the most important thing they need to come out with from university or a polytechnic or an industry training course of some variety is the ability to be adaptable in a changing world. If we do that well, we will increase our productivity as a nation, but we also deepen our culture, our understanding of the natural world and the scientific world, and our contribution to global knowledge.

That is why New Zealanders, through the Government, make a huge contribution to tertiary education in all its many guises. As Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, I am determined to ensure that we get the absolute best value for money for that investment, and that is why we brought new legislation in to the House only yesterday to ensure that the Tertiary Education Commission has the powers necessary to make sure that that investment is wisely spent and that it makes the difference that we are looking to make from that investment.

Also, we have got the international education side. Again, many thousands of New Zealand families, let us not forget, have their livelihoods sustained by that export education industry, which brought in export earnings, by one estimate, of more than $4 billion last year. Thousands of New Zealand households have their living sustained by this important industry, and we want to make sure that it continues to grow and that it is sustainable, and in most cases a wonderful product is delivered and many students come to New Zealand. Most of them go back home. Some stay in New Zealand, and that is absolutely as you would expect. If you have come and done a degree in New Zealand, you have learnt and you have a qualification from New Zealand, and you have had years in the country learning the language, you may well be some of the best migrants that we can get.

But it is also very important that we ensure that the systems that we have in place there continue to be robust and that, fundamentally, the main thing that is being offered is an education, not a pathway to residency. So we are absolutely determined to make sure that the systems that we have are robust, and we have made big changes over the last couple of years in that area and we are seeing changes there. I am determined as a new Minister to keep a very close eye on that aspect.

On science and innovation, again this Government has been determined to raise our investment in science, because we see that some of the many challenges that we face as a nation, as outlined in the science challenges, such as sustainable seas and resilience to nature’s challenges, are ones—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the Minister’s riveting speech. His time has expired.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate today, Mr Deputy Speaker. Welcome back to you, and welcome back to the other members of the House. It is great to follow the “Minister for Professional Sign Removal”; I was worried that I might have to follow Mr Brownlee. As much as I disagree with just about everything that he says, at least what he says is eloquent and entertaining.

Mr Brownlee commented, in his contribution, on supposedly greater employment figures—actually, so did the previous speaker, Mr Goldsmith. Because Mr Brownlee works about an hour a week himself, he thinks that he and his party should define employment as “about an hour a week”. That is how this Government defines employment. So when—

Todd Barclay: Where are you going with this, Fletch?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Where am I going with this, Mr Barclay? Because you work an hour a week and decide to define everyone else’s employment as an hour a week, you completely undermine the job statistics used in this House. When you say employment is at its highest rate, you are saying that more people are working an hour a week than ever before. That is an indictment on you. That is an indictment on that party, on that side of the House. It is a meaningless statistic and it is an indictment on all of you.

That ruling party has taken New Zealand to a new post-truth era. Mr Brownlee just showed us how expertly the members across the Chamber can do this when they speak to the public. They manipulate statistics; I wonder whether I can get away with saying that they manipulate the truth.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you cannot.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No, I cannot? I take that back, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ron Mark: But you wouldn’t say that, would you?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No, I would not say it. This National Government has taken the New Zealand public literally down the garden path. It has started its campaign by using phrases like “We’re great economic managers.”, “We’re here for business.”, “We’re here for farmers.”, and “We’re here for the regions.” I have only 7 minutes and 30 seconds left, so I hope I can elucidate and illustrate to the New Zealand public just how ridiculous those statements are.

Our new Prime Minister—and I just want to touch on this first, because I am worried for him—is being sold to the public as a down-to-earth family man and an honest operator, with those core religious beliefs that are the foundation of the man. And here is the kicker for the members opposite: I truly believe that line. I believe that script. He is a good, honest, hard-working man. He has those core values. But I despair hugely for him. I worry for him, with great empathy, that in this new era of post-truth politics that this National Government brings to New Zealand, he will not be able to survive running up to the election period.

Why do I say that? Because we have seen him before attempt to run for Prime Minister in the past, and, boy, did he look tired towards the end. He looked absolutely exhausted, and I have no doubt that that will happen again for the Prime Minister. Why do I think that? Because this post-truth era goes against what the man believes, and doing that is incredibly, incredibly exhausting. I wonder whether he will be able to make it to that final goal.

The Prime Minister, for example, stood up in Auckland and spoke to an Auckland audience, and not only omitted discussing the housing crisis but denied there is one—in a city that ranks in the top five in the world for housing unaffordability; in a city that has to absorb more than two-thirds of record immigration numbers at a time of the Government’s vigorous apathy, allowing foreign speculators to use New Zealand homes as speculative financial instruments. It is allowing foreign speculators to use our homes as investment tools, instead of ensuring that those homes are available for Kiwis to live in and to raise their families in. The Government is vigorously doing nothing about it. The Reserve Bank is trying valiantly, but vainly.

Minister Joyce gave us another example of post-truth politics. He spoke of a downturn in housing prices a day after he was advised by Statistics New Zealand that house prices over December and January have gone up in Auckland in an unprecedented manner that has not been seen over that period for a very, very long time. The Government is using the brightline test, which experts said would do absolutely nothing for the housing market, and the evidence of that is in front of us now. The Government talks about consents. Mr Joyce again talked today about the amazing number of consents that have gone through this month but failed to mention the huge downturn in consenting that followed in that same period. Consents are going downward, and the trend is downward. Working families now struggle to find a home, let alone rent one or pay for one.

Yesterday the finance Minister spoke to the Finance and Expenditure Committee about threats to the New Zealand economy. He could speak only about external threats, never mind that the Reserve Bank and other astute observers hold the incredibly high debt levels of our dairy industry as a real threat not only to farmers’ livelihoods but to our entire economy. And what does National do? It sits back and prays that prices in the world markets will go up. I think they did once recently, but by, like, less than 1 percent.

The Government does nothing. Its modus operandi prevails: vigorous apathy. One of the more obvious examples is the new Prime Minister’s position on the police. In the very recent past, New Zealand First was attacked for saying that police numbers need to increase to balance out the astounding number of immigrants swelling our population, in what has been described as the greatest social experiment of our time. That man and that ruling party said that crime was falling, that no action was required, and that freezing the Police budget for the last 8 years was completely justified. The message now has not actually changed; the Prime Minister has only said that he is going to increase the numbers. He has not said why. There has been no discussion from the Government about the justification for this. Everything is fine, according to your own spin. Why are you raising the police numbers? Now that he is in his job, we need more police—but the discussion is not taking place.

Just the other night—oh, you have not rung the bell, Mr Deputy Speaker. I need to get to my conclusion. [Bell rung] Ha, ha! I have got about 20 pages of notes here. New Zealand now has levels of inequality we would normally associate with Third World dictatorships. Immigration has been used by this Government as a panacea, and, so far, on the surface, it would appear to have been working. It has been able to claim 3 percent growth in GDP, but that is meaningless. Immigration will never be the solution, and when the taps are finally turned down, New Zealand’s growth will fall back to zero, where it literally is right now. That is the actual situation now. It is a complete fallacy that increasing the population, although increasing your wealth, will increase revenue. The larger workforce—and we have seen evidence of it already—will necessitate enormous costs for infrastructure and social spending.

You will be amazed to know that I agree with the National Government on at least one thing: I believe that we live in a great country full of hard-working, aspirational people. Where we differ is in the underlying meaning of this. I believe that it has been because of these amazing people that this country has been doing as well as it has. They have succeeded in spite of that Government, and I believe it is the good, working people the Government has been leaning on heavily who will no longer believe the spin or believe the marketing message. We live in a great country, and we deserve the truth.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I just want to very quickly wish a happy New Year to all those who work in this place—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry; this is a split, 5-minute call.

IAN McKELVIE: —thank you—and I hope that those of you who do work in this place had a pleasant break. That last speech certainly came from the post-truth era. If ever there was a definition of the post-truth era, that was it.

Anyway, it is a privilege for me to get up in this House, as the MP for the mighty Rangitīkei, and speak to the Rt Hon Bill English’s first such statement of many. Our new Prime Minister is a man who has worked harder for New Zealand than anyone else I know. He is a man who has great rural experience, who understands the challenges facing our farming community—

Carmel Sepuloni: He’s reading the lines so well.

IAN McKELVIE: —who understands the country’s finances, and who will, despite the bleating of the other side of the House, prove to be a compassionate and strong leader for New Zealand. In partnership with the Deputy Prime Minister, Paula Bennett, he will lead a very strong and competent Government into the election on 23 September.

I too attended Rātana, in the heart of the Rangitīkei—despite the people of Rātana thinking it is in the heart of Wanganui—with the Prime Minister and 15 other MPs and Ministers, and I have to say it was a very positive experience. Despite the utterings we have heard from a number of members of the Opposition, the Prime Minister was extremely well received and understood. In fact, despite the wind—which is often in the Rātana area—we were made to feel extremely welcome at Rātana. The visit further emphasised the role this Government has played in helping the Māori community get ahead: higher achievement for their school-leavers, better job prospects, and a Treaty resolution rate that is helping to overcome many of the historic challenges of the past.

Carmel Sepuloni: Page 2.

IAN McKELVIE: It is page 2. Well done; you are very observant. But I have not got as many pages of notes as the previous speaker, who is of the post-truth era.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: As long as they are only notes, we will be happy with that.

IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! There has been some very good news for rural New Zealand in the last couple of weeks: firstly, the very large increase in police numbers across the country, with a specific plan to deliver better services to provincial communities, as we heard from the Minister of Police during question time today. This means that we will have police presence within 25 minutes of 95 percent of all New Zealanders. It also includes a specific provision for 140 new officers to be spread around rural New Zealand.

The second piece of very good news for rural New Zealand in recent times has been the extraordinary success of the Rural Broadband Initiative and the ultra-fast broadband being rolled out in provincial towns and villages throughout New Zealand. This initiative, when completed, will provide rural New Zealand with one of the biggest boosts possible for our rural economy. It is providing businesses with the opportunity for new employment, for new innovation and technology to be applied, particularly in our farming sector, and it enables our businesses to operate their businesses remotely. This ability to use technology is taking our rural communities to new ground at a pace many of us would never have envisaged some 15 years ago.

Other exciting prospects for the lower Rangitīkei electorate will be the completion of the Kapiti Expressway, a roads of national significance project—this will bring us closer to the capital—the completion of the Ōtaki bypass; the Whirokino Trestle Bridge replacement, which will enable heavier vehicles to move directly down State Highway 1; and the Transmission Gully project. When these are completed, and some of that road is elevated to 110 kilometres as hour, Wellington will almost become Rangitīkei’s local town.

In the primary production sector, we are looking forward to a more stable outlook for dairy, and I have every confidence that dairy farmers are capable of managing their finances, contrary to the comments of the previous speaker from New Zealand First. We have reasonable beef prices in the foreseeable future. Lamb is struggling but holding up better than forecast, and all other sectors in the primary production area are doing particularly well. The Primary Production Committee looks forward to the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act legislation making its way to us, and we have all but completed deliberation on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill, which will put our food production sector in much better territory.

As one becomes more dated, there are some things that suddenly grow in importance: the opportunity for our young, as their taxes will keep us; great and accessible health services; a rising average ordinary-time wage, because this sets the superannuation level; and the knowledge that we can live in a safe, secure community. These are but a few. I am grateful to be a small part of a Government that has worked so hard to achieve so much of this and will continue to work hard for all New Zealanders. Thanks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one point. I would like to remind the member who has just resumed his seat—or make the statement, I guess—that if the glowing reports of the Government reforms are as glowing as he says in the Rangitīkei, he should be able to recite them verbatim.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that advice.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, but you are welcome.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i Te Whare nei, ngā mihi nui ki te tau hou Pākehā, nō reira e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Huge greetings throughout this House in regard to the Pākehā New Year, therefore my compliments to you all.]

It is indeed my pleasure, and I am very appreciative of the fact, that I can stand here and really support the Prime Minister “Wīremu Ingarihi”, or the Rt Hon Bill English, in his statement. In that statement is indeed an incredible overview—a plan—for 2017. What that is is actually about providing huge opportunity for all New Zealanders. My theme today is that, within that statement, the Prime Minister is also delivering—and I am confirming this for Māori. What I want to do is, first of all, just go through a few milestones from over the last, sort of, 80 years on how the National Party has actually delivered for Māori.

If we go right back to 1936—let us go back to Apirana Ngata, who was actually one of the first Māori MPs for the National Government then. What he did was to introduce first of all the beginnings of Māori land development. Then, if you move to 1935, who set up the Māori Battalion under National? It was Ngata. If we go through to the 1950s, the building process for the Rātana Pā was actually done under National.

If we then go and move through to 1951, the Māori Women’s Welfare League was set up under National. If we go to 1962, the New Zealand Māori Council and the Māori wardens were all set up under National. If we then go through to 1981, in 1981 there was the first Wānanga o Aotearoa. That was from Raukawa. If we go through to the next one, the Māori Women’s Development Fund was set up under National. If we keep going, there was the Sealord fishery deal—that was set up under National. If we go to the Treaty process: again, under National. If we keep going through, the first hauora Māori health provider was actually done under our present Prime Minister when he was Minister of Health. If we go through then to the next part, the Māori teachers initiative—that was first set up under National. And Māori Television. If we look at Te Reo Māori initiatives, and even looking at kura kaupapa Māori, which was actually put into law to protect it—all of those incredible milestones were under National.

So let us have a look at the statement that is actually here today. Under that, what we have done under this Government is Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori. And then the next one—the Treaty settlements process. As the Prime Minister said, 56 settlements have been done already in the last 8 years; 41 enacted. Labour did 16 in 9 years. So this particular Government, particularly over the last 8 years, has actually been incredibly excellent for Māori. Finally—OK, listen to this one; let us just listen to this one. This is from the media, quoted about the Prime Minister: “Ask any Māori at the coalface of change, and they know [English] cares deeply about how policy affects their families.” This is from Fairfax: “English has done more to understand Māori … than any other finance Minister or Prime Minister.” National in 2017 has a plan to continue to deliver opportunities to all New Zealanders, and especially Māori.

Over on that other side of the House, to you the glass is always half empty; to us, it is half full. It is half full, and it will be completely full by the time we get there in September. There is no hesitation here, but this plan here in the Prime Minister’s statement that has actually been put to the House for 2017 will see true progress for Māori. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call on behalf of the Green Party—Julie Anne Genter.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Our new Prime Minister has already let us down. Now, I have respect for Bill English. He has always struck me as a bit of a principled, compassionate conservative. I do not share all of his principles, but I respect him for having some. That is why it was such a let-down when he put his principles and values aside with his wishy-washy response to President Trump’s racism. New Zealanders do not share Donald Trump’s values, and our Prime Minister could have said that. Now more than ever, we need leaders who will stand up for what is right. Just because someone is in power, it does not mean their actions are acceptable. There have been despots and tyrants in the past. We all know that what Trump and his administration are doing and saying is wrong. He is a bully, he is an autocrat, and, while we might pity him for the obvious pain that he suffers, we must never condone or excuse actions that hurt others or that go against democratic principles. Just because he is in power, it does not mean we have to stand by silently and accept bad behaviour.

There is a quote from Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Hundreds of millions of Americans are doing what they can to resist the policies of the Trump administration. How bad does it need to get before we stand up in solidarity with those Americans and say: “New Zealand does not support racism. New Zealand does not support sexism. New Zealand does not support xenophobia.”? How bad will it need to get before we stand up and defend our values: tolerance, equality, inclusion, religious freedom, science?

Leadership is having the courage to stand up for what is right, even when—especially when—it means defying the interests of those who are in power. When our children’s children look back on 2017, will they say: “Thank goodness our Government of the day stood up for what was right.”? What would they think if we silently stood by, betraying our values, and tried to stay on side with whoever was in power?

We have so many challenges before us right now—climate change, inequality. We also have all of the solutions. There are no real technical barriers. We can end the use of fossil fuels. We can clean up our waterways. We can end poverty. We can make sure that every child in Aotearoa has a warm, dry home, and that they can walk and cycle safely to school, where they can learn well because they are nourished with healthy food. The only reason Bill English and the National Government he leads cannot achieve this is that they are unwilling to stand up to the people benefiting from the status quo and say: “You’ve got enough. You’ve done very well. Now it’s time for us to look after those who do not have as much. Now is the time that we are going to invest in the future. Now is the time for us to protect that which is precious to us.”

The Green Party can and will show leadership on the things that New Zealanders care about most. We reject powerful economic elites who let multinational corporations get away with paying tiny amounts of tax, when those tax dollars are desperately needed to fix up our schools and our hospitals. We reject Trump’s idea that climate change is a hoax made up by China. We listen to the climate scientists, and we believe them because they have evidence-based science.

Climate change is an opportunity to transform our economy, to change our ways of producing food and getting around, and to work with our environment instead of exploit it. But the climate change Minister said today that she sees no problem with ditching our electric trains and replacing them with diesel trains. We could easily afford to invest for the long-term and complete electrification of our rail network, but the National Government would rather spend the money on infrastructure that increases pollution.

In 2018 we can have a Government that uses its opening-of-Parliament speeches to announce things like a target to end child poverty and a strategy to achieve it, and a plan so that New Zealand stops importing so much oil and burning so much coal. We can have a new Government that recognises 40,000 homeless people. An average Auckland house price of more than $1 million means the housing market is broken. We are in the days of a tired, old Government—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired, and, as I mentioned earlier to the member for Rangitīkei, speeches are not to be read. It seemed to me that the content of her speech was core to the beliefs of her party, and she should not need to read those. I call Barry Coates—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party.

BARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata. I am replying to the Prime Minister’s speech; this is, after all, a state of the nation response. To paraphrase Mr English’s speech: GDP is rising; we don’t need to do anything new; trust us. Well, I do not and the New Zealand people do not. So I have got some questions for Mr English on the economy. For those members here from the other side of the Chamber, please pass on the questions.

First question: is the economy really doing so well? What we are told is that GDP is increasing by 2.8 percent, for example, but, actually, most of it is due to population growth. That is not the right way to measure economic growth. That is alternative truth. Actually, if you look at per capita GDP, which is a measure that we should be looking at, it is around half of 1 percent. That is anaemic. That is worse than most of the OECD. And if you look over 5 years, it is around 1 percent per annum over 5 years.

Furthermore, the economy is in a bubble. There are three drivers of the economy. At the moment, it is tourism, without investing in infrastructure; it is international education, with the kind of regulation that exploits students and migrant workers; and it is house price speculation, which is shutting young people out of opportunities of homeownership. So it is no wonder that this economy is failing the Government’s own target for increasing exports to 40 percent of GDP. In fact, exports have been going down. We are 21st out of 30 in the OECD in terms of income, and it is falling. We have a bubble of an economy and it is unsustainable.

Secondly, who is responsible? Every time we hear good economic news, apparently Bill English and his Ministers are responsible. But, actually, the successful business people whom I talk to say that they are the ones out there doing the hard work. They are the ones who are building their businesses. And, actually, often the Government is more of a hindrance than a help. The Government is not setting the right framework for our businesses. If we look at the business of government done by Government officials, the officials are trying hard but politicians keep on getting in the way. And the All Blacks is not the best rugby team in the world because John Key photobombs their photos. Bill English and the Government and the politicians are harming rather than helping the economy.

The third question is: who is benefiting from all of this? The rules on the economy are rigged to help the rich. We have had Skycity—recently we heard about Peter Thiel, a US billionaire who got given millions of dollars for supporting a New Zealand company. We have had business lobbyists successfully managing to forestall regulation on cartels money-laundering. Yesterday we saw weak legislation on tax havens. We have seen the lack of progress on alcohol regulation and sugary drinks. Meanwhile, we have got 210,000 children in poverty. We have got young people who cannot buy a home. We have got families who are struggling in multiple jobs, working long hours, and trying to pay the bills. And we have got senior citizens squeezed by rising costs of living and falling healthcare, and beneficiaries who are being punished rather than supported.

The Greens would support a fair and sustainable economy for all. We would tax speculation and pollution, not hard-working New Zealanders. We would support sustainable business to succeed, and build our international reputation as a clean, green economy. We would invest in education, skills, and jobs for all. Our rivers and beaches would become places where our children could swim. And it is about being responsible. It is about being responsible to our planet, to our people, and to the future generation, rather than loading them with student debt, Government debt, and climate debt.

Roll on 23 September. The Green Party will create a better future for all New Zealanders to look forward to.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister of Corrections): I want to quote a sentence from our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Bill English: “I believe in the capacity of all New Zealanders to improve their lives in some way, large or small. And I believe in the generosity of this country to help them do it.” I am very proud to stand in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. We have a leader of our country who is investing and is committed and dedicated to ensuring that every New Zealander sees the benefits of a growing economy. So often the conversation is about the facts and figures about the growing economy, but I want to focus on the benefits of that to New Zealanders, because at the end of the day, it is about ensuring that that economic growth leads us to having stronger communities, stronger regions, and safer communities. One of the areas where I have accepted new responsibilities is ensuring that every one of our young New Zealanders achieves educationally, so I want to focus on a couple of those areas.

One of the other important parts of this Government’s trademark, of which Bill English has been such a significant part, is the fact that we do have Better Public Services targets, and in education we have seen just this week the announcement by the Minister of Education, Hekia Parata, about NCEA level 2 achievements going up yet again. That is the sort of thing that actually makes an enormous difference in the lives and the futures of New Zealanders. If you look at the achievements, it is now at 77 percent of students achieving NCEA level 2, which is a significant lift on what it has been. But, I think more importantly, Māori achievement is just absolutely rocketing up. Previously, when we came into office, one in two Māori students were not achieving NCEA level 2. So we are absolutely, on this side of the House, focused on ensuring that the gains of our economy are invested right back into the very New Zealanders whom we want to see have a fantastic life and have opportunities in front of them.

If we look at education, one of the areas where I have taken on responsibilities as the Associate Minister includes parental engagement. At the end of the day, if we do not have both whānau, aiga, families, and communities embracing and committed to students’ learning and achievement, we will not get the gains that we are looking for. I think one of the significant achievements has been the introduction of the communities of learning, because what that does is it lifts individual student achievement, it engages the family and community, and what it enables is the sharing of teaching practice and excellence across a cluster of schools. So, on so many layers, our education system is absolutely designed and reshaped to deliver for the future.

But it is not just what we are doing in the classrooms to lift achievement. If I look at my own electorate, with a growing population in the north, pressure on school infrastructure has been challenging. This is a Government that is absolutely responding to that need—so there is a billion dollars of new capital for school property, delivering 11 new schools and over 700 new classrooms. But, overall, and I think this is a figure that should be imprinted on every New Zealander’s minds, the education budget has gone up by 35 percent—35 percent—and the student numbers have increased by only 3.5 percent. So when we say this is a Government and this is a Prime Minister who are investing in New Zealand and New Zealanders, absolutely that is the case, and I am enormously proud of that work.

If I look at the tertiary education space, we have got a target of 50,000 New Zealanders to be in apprenticeships by 2020, because, at the end of the day, whether it is in primary industries, or whether it is in the construction industry, we need more of our young New Zealanders to choose trades and choose a career that will give them lifelong rewards and opportunities. So we are absolutely investing where it counts.

One of my new roles is, of course, as the Minister of Corrections. At the core of a strong country is safer communities, so we had the announcement that Prime Minister Bill English made in terms of the investment in additional police—and I want to refute completely one of the comments made by an Opposition MP from New Zealand First, because this investment is going into more proactive policing, and it is going into prevention of greater levels of youth crime, which we have seen falling significantly, by the way. That investment is going to be really critical in terms of supporting the front-line work that has already been done, the proactive policing, the support for victims, and ensuring that we actually have convictions where that has occurred. And, at the end of the day, if you come back to this conversation about investment, at the heart of it is supporting young people, stopping that very first offence, getting them back on to greater opportunities, and preventing them from offending in greater levels of more serious crime.

One of the things, coming back to the Taupō electorate, is absolutely to have police in our local communities, and in terms of the announcements that the Prime Minister made, 12 police districts across New Zealand, from one end to the other, will get more police officers. But if I look at this in terms of really rural New Zealand, which is an area that I represent, they do want to know that if there is an issue, they can call a number that will not clog up the emergency lines. So the introduction of the non-emergency line is important, as well as having 24/7 police presence within 25 kilometres of New Zealand communities.

So, then, looking at the corrections side—absolutely, I am proud to be part of a Government that is tough on crime. I am proud to be part of a Government that is ensuring that those who do the crime do the time. But the reality is that for every offender, they will come back into our families and back into our communities, so I am very committed to ensuring that for the time they are in the care and protection of Corrections, we do whatever we can to ensure that they come out as better people. Having visited 10 prisons over the last month, I have seen some fantastic examples, and I am enormously proud of the work that the Corrections staff do. Some of the work is very much about prisoners demonstrating that they are able to give back to the community that they harmed, whether it is in the carving of a pou for the local school, whether it is the growing of fruit and vegetables that are then donated to a food bank or women’s refuge, or whether it is in the refurbishing of bikes that are then provided to decile 1 school students.

There are so many ways that our offenders, while they are in prison, are giving back to our communities, and I think that is a critical part of their reintegration back into our communities. But it is more than that; it is about education. It is about skills and work experience. As I said before, they are members of our families and our communities. We have a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayer funds that are spent in Corrections are used effectively and efficiently and are delivering results.

I am incredibly proud to be a part of Bill English’s team, to be a part of a Government that is absolutely investing in New Zealanders. With a growing economy, that growing economy ensures that we are able to improve the lives of every New Zealander—every New Zealander. That is our commitment. That is what we are doing. We are led by an extraordinary Prime Minister, who is delivering on that promise.

I am sure that later this year we will show to a greater number of New Zealanders that we can continue the work around social investment, that we are tackling the very hard issues, and that we are not afraid to try different things. This is a Government that has a record, but a Government that also has new ideas about how we can go even further in delivering for New Zealanders on that aspiration for the life we know they love and the future that they want to have. We are a party that is backing their opportunity and backing their future.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my privilege to take a call in support of Andrew Little’s amendment: that we have no confidence in this Government. Listening for the hours now that we have had on this Prime Minister’s statement and listening to the National Government members’ speeches, one after another getting up and claiming that they are the party of ideas and then spending their entire call talking about the Labour Party, explains to me exactly why I have no confidence in this Government.

This is a Government that has no ideas. It can say it has new ideas all it likes, but when all it can do in its policy announcements for the year is reheat other parties’ policies when it talks about its announcement on police numbers, I have absolutely no confidence that this Government understands what is happening for New Zealanders. It seems to be a party that is absolutely obsessed with this side of the House, with the Labour Party. I can understand that. We are fascinating. We are interesting, and we are just brimming with ideas—

Hon Member: We’re humble!

Dr MEGAN WOODS: —and things that we want to do, and we are humble as well. You are absolutely right. To have a party that is coming in to its ninth year in Government that cannot talk about what its vision for New Zealand is is a grave concern for all New Zealanders.

We have speeches like the one we heard from the Hon Gerry Brownlee today, who seems strangely obsessed with the 1970s. All the way through his speech—all the way through his speech—he was obsessed. I can only imagine that the Minister was having some kind of traumatic flashback to the fashions of the 1970s and having recovered memory syndrome around bellbottoms and the velour jumpsuits that he had to wear. We need a Government that is focused on the issues that matter. But what do we have? We have a Prime Minister, but we certainly do not have a leader in the new leader of the National Party, “Mr Invisi-Bill” Bill English.

What does he do whenever there is a challenge? He does not front up. This is a Prime Minister who thought he did not need to field a candidate in a seat where his party had done very well in the party vote. This is a leader who does not turn up to Waitangi. This is a leader who does not front up when the issues are there, and that is not what we have on this side of the House. We have a leader who will not tell us exactly what happened on that phone call with Donald Trump.

What I want to know, and what the Prime Minister has not discussed and, certainly, his Deputy Prime Minister has not referred to again, is whether or not Paula Bennett was making calls, the morning of that phone call, for the Prime Minister to discuss one of the most important issues of our time and our generation with President Trump. She was imploring the Prime Minister to discuss climate change. She was on the radio saying that she hoped that this would be discussed. But was this discussed? Is this one of the things that we are hearing? No, it is not. But that is hardly surprising, because when the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Minister responsible for climate change, gave her speech in this House yesterday, did she mention, again, one of the most pressing issues of our time and our generation: climate change? No, she did not. She spent her entire 10 minutes taking pot shots at the Opposition rather than sketching out a vision for one of the most pressing problems we have in our time. The reality is that we are not on track to meet our targets and we have no plan from this Government.

What else has not been discussed? Well, we have a Prime Minister who gave his state of the nation address and did not mention the housing crisis once. This was not something that was mentioned, but it is one of the biggest issues facing New Zealanders, and I know that in my electorate office in Wigram, people’s inability either to afford home ownership or to find rents they can afford is certainly one of the things that occupies our constituency work all the time. It is a major concern to so many New Zealanders, but the Prime Minister does not think that it merits a mention in his state of the nation address.

Another thing that was conspicuous in its absence in the state of the nation address was any mention of the Christchurch recovery. Once upon a time the Government used to mention this as one of its key priorities, but it certainly is not now. This is no longer a priority for this Government. This is a Government that has slashed Earthquake Commission staff at a time when we have an increased number of remedial repair complaints coming in. There is no plan, no end date. The Government will not even give an end date to people who are waiting for their homes to be repaired, more than 6 years on, so they can get on with their lives.

This is a Government that is still leaving inner-city Christchurch to stagnate around the anchor projects. The anchor projects that were meant to stimulate what was going to happen in the CBD have not become that point of stimulus; they have become a dead weight of an anchor. What is happening in the middle of Christchurch is in spite of the Government, not because of it. We see the private sector flourishing, but we have seen fenced-off areas where there should be a convention centre. We have no movement, as yet, where we should see housing in the East Frame. Cantabrians are sick and tired of it. They know that this is a Government that no longer has them as a priority.

When it comes to education, my colleague Chris Hipkins asked questions in this House today about the increased costs that are increasingly falling on parents who send their children to a State school. We in this country believe that we have access to education. It does not matter how much money your parents have; you can go to a school and get a good education and have the ability to realise your potential, no matter where you come from.

For the last couple of weeks, in my electorate office we have been dealing with phone call after phone call and people coming in who just simply cannot afford their children’s stationery bills. We are talking of upwards of $200 for each child at primary school, in some instances. The Minister of Education has decided that you blame the schools. I do not, for a moment, blame these schools. These are schools that are trying their very best, but the reality is that our schools have had their operations budgets frozen and they simply cannot afford to provide the kind of education that children need without having to ask parents to dip into their pockets.

This is not good enough. This is not the New Zealand that we believe in. This is not the New Zealand where everyone gets the opportunity to realise their potential and the kind of vision that we have. The kind of New Zealand that Labour believes in is where everybody has a go at the Kiwi Dream, and it is not dependent on how much money you have or how much money your parents have when it comes to our children.

The other issue that occupies another big chunk of time in my electorate office is people coming in who simply cannot access our health system. The Hon Annette King talks about this all the time and brings this issue up for scrutiny time and time again, because it is something that we must look at. It is absolutely one of the worst parts of the job of being an MP, sitting opposite an elderly constituent who is in pain but has been told they do not match the criteria. They know, and you know, the fact of the matter is that they are not a priority in such a stretched health system. They are not making the cut for specialist appointments, and they are certainly not making the cut to go on the surgery waiting list.

This is not something that any member in this House should be prepared to accept. This is not the kind of country that we believe in. It is not what I want for the people of the Wigram electorate, and it is certainly not what I want for us as a country. That is why Labour has a different vision—one where we do restore funding to health, where we properly fund our education system, where we make sure we address the housing crisis, and where we face the challenges of the future that are facing us. We do not just forget to mention big issues, like climate change, and put them on the back-burner.

We must have a Government that is ready, willing, able, and full of ideas to face these challenges of our future. That is an Andrew Little - led Labour Government, which, come September, will be occupying the Government benches. The people of New Zealand know that this is a Government that is out of ideas, a Government that simply is not showing the leadership that is needed, and a Government that is not standing up for New Zealanders when it is required. We deserve more than a Prime Minister who is “Mr Invisi-Bill”.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Wow! Megan Woods is a bit grumpy. I guess 9 years in Opposition does that to them. Well, she can get used to it, because having listened to Andrew Little so far in the House this year, having seen him, without his glasses, up at Waitangi, saying he would not go back again, and having seen him on the news, stuffing up his big captain’s call around Willie Jackson, I can envisage that Labour members are thinking that they are going to be spending a lot longer there, sitting on that side of the House.

From listening to the Opposition, from listening to the Labour Party members talking about how New Zealand is going backwards, in their view, and why New Zealand must be one of the worst countries in the world to live in, according to what they are saying, you would think that things are terrible. You would believe that if you listened only to the Labour Party members. You would believe, if you listened to the Green Party, that the great plans of protectionism and closed economies that they believe in will work well. We are already seeing what is happening in the United States when you have got a leader who believes in protectionism and closing down the economy.

New Zealand is doing well. New Zealanders are succeeding. New Zealanders are seeing more jobs. New Zealanders are seeing higher wages. New Zealanders are seeing greater opportunities. I have to say to the Opposition that if things were so bad in New Zealand, if this country was going down the drain in the way that they are saying, why would we have been seeing 130,000 people gaining a job in the past year? Why would we have been seeing that? Why would we be seeing average wages going up at double the rate of inflation? If New Zealand is so bad, why would that be happening? If New Zealand was such a bad place, why would we be seeing NCEA achievement results going up every single year? Māori achievement rates under NCEA are the fastest-gaining achievement rates in the system. Māori achievement rates are rising faster than any other sector group. If New Zealand was so bad, why would we be seeing that?

If New Zealand and the National Government were so bad, why would we be seeing a conservative Prime Minister going to places like Rātana, going to places like Ngāti Whātua’s marae, and talking to them about the relationship that we have with Māori? If the National Government was so bad, as Labour likes to say, why would we see the Minister of Justice today announcing that we will scrap the convictions of those who had convictions under our old anti-homosexual laws?

We are actually a progressive party that is working hard to achieve things for New Zealand—not progressive in the way they like to talk about progressivism. We are progressive as in we are doing things for New Zealand, progressive as in we are getting runs on the board for New Zealand, progressive as in we are building a country that is seeing opportunities for New Zealanders. We are seeing a place where children in this country can go to school, get a good education, go to university, and get a job. They are seeing an education, seeing a future, and seeing a future for their family as well. We are seeing a country that is the envy of countries around the world.

Opposition members like to say that Bill English is some terrible Prime Minister, like he does not know what he is doing. If that was the case, why would Finance Ministers around the world be knocking on his door, asking how he managed the New Zealand economy over the past 8 years? Growth rates are at 3.5 percent—faster than the average in the OECD. We are seeing those jobs created, as I talked about. Inflation rates are low. The Reserve Bank Governor has got a difficult job; he is trying to get inflation rates up to get within his target because inflation is so low in New Zealand. We are seeing the economy continue to diversify, we are seeing investment in infrastructure, and we are seeing future opportunities for New Zealand. Bill English is not the same Bill English of 2002. The Opposition members think they have got an easy task on their hands—2002 was a long time ago. This Government, now led by Bill English, is delivering for New Zealand, and I am proud to be part of his caucus going into the 2017 election.

I am also proud to be part of the caucus that has endorsed and seen a half-billion dollar investment in law and order—half a billion dollars. The Labour Party, the Greens, New Zealand First—they can pluck whatever number out of the air that they want, but the reality of the situation is that New Zealanders want to see investment in law and order and we are delivering that. We have already seen 600 police officers put on to the streets. We are seeing crime rates that have come down since 2008. We have seen reoffending rates come down since 2008. Now we are investing even further: half a billion dollars into more police; 1,100 new police employees for New Zealanders, to keep them safe. More money is going into Corrections, as my colleague talked about about 20 minutes ago. More money is going into the wider justice sector—all designed to ensure New Zealanders will be safer.

But it is not just about numbers in the police force. It is not just about Corrections officers in the prisons. It is about doing better things for New Zealanders and getting better outcomes, and we are seeing that as well. If we were the nasty conservative Government that they like to make out that we are, why would we be seeing more people getting access to rehabilitation programmes? Why would we be seeing more New Zealanders with more money in their pockets, even through the benefit system, if we were the nasty conservative Government that did not care about people? Why were we the Government that put benefit rates up for the first time in 40 years?

If we are such a terrible Government that is so bad for Māori—as they like to make out—why would Māori achievement rates be going up? Why would Treaty settlements be progressing at a fast rate? Why would we be seeing smart Māori New Zealanders coming to National and saying: “We are actually achieving. Our whānau are doing well. They’re getting jobs, they’re getting access to education, and we’re seeing better opportunities for them in this country.” The National Government led by Bill English is doing good things for New Zealand. The National Government led by Bill English is seeing New Zealand families do well, and I am proud to be a part of that.

The Opposition members are trying to say, throughout all their speeches—their new line appears to be that he is a caretaker leader and that he is only filling in. Well, I think when they talk about that, they are actually talking about their own leader. If they think they can get into Government with 30 percent of the vote and with 10 percent of New Zealanders saying they want their leader, then it is not going to happen. They know that 3 months before the September 23 election they have that golden opportunity to change their leader without having the unions vote. They will be able to change their leader—

Grant Robertson: What are you talking about?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: —without that union jack-up in their rules. Grant Robertson has just come into the Chamber. Grant Robertson knows that 3 months out from the election—that is his opportunity. Grant Robertson, Jacinda Ardern—they will be there, ready to take over because Andrew Little is failing. Andrew Little is not delivering for the Labour Party. Poto Williams knows that he is not delivering for the Labour Party, and Poto Williams is about the only member on the other side who has shown the integrity that they probably need. They know that Andrew Little is not succeeding. When you see the grumpy, angry man that Andrew Little is, and you contrast that with Bill English and Paula Bennett, who are getting runs on the board and who are achieving things for New Zealand, it is easy to see why New Zealanders will be choosing to continue with the plan that is working when they come to the election in 2017.

We have had a number of announcements since January, since the start of the year. We have seen NCEA rates going up. We have seen half a billion dollars for law and order for New Zealanders. We have seen more building activity in the economy. Building activity is at $19 billion right now. Consents are double what they were a decade ago. We are seeing 30,000 consents being issued in New Zealand. Auckland build rates are at record highs for the past decade. We are seeing more supply coming into the market. We are seeing more New Zealanders getting access to home loans and access to funding to help them get into a home through the KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme. We have seen more ultra-fast broadband funding being put into place with a $300 million UFB package to see greater access for UFB for New Zealanders. We are seeing families succeed, as well.

Every single member on this side of the House is proud to stand behind Bill English. If you look the Opposition in the eye and they ask themselves whether they are really proud to stand behind Andrew Little, when they are honest with themselves I do not think they will come up with the same answer that we have. New Zealanders want to see more jobs, they want to see more opportunities in education, they want to see a healthier workforce, they want to see opportunities for their children, they want to get access to doctors, and they want to continue to see the economy continue to go from strength to strength, and we are delivering that on this side of the House. It is going to be an interesting year. I am looking forward to it. We have got the team to succeed for New Zealanders, and I think that New Zealanders will see that fairly soon.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The first political event of the year that is in the public eye is generally Rātana. I have got a transcript here of what Bill English said to the public of New Zealand, through Rātana. He said—and I am quoting his exact words—“we’ve reached the limits of what Government can do”. I am going to repeat that: “we’ve reached the limits of what Government can do”.

That is the ambition of this Prime Minister, in respect of housing. We have the lowest rate of homeownership in New Zealand since 1951, and yet Prime Minister English says “we’ve reached the limits of what Government can do” for you. We have got rents going up at higher rates than wages, but Bill English says: “we’ve reached the limits of what Government can do”. We have got homelessness rates in New Zealand that are worse than we have ever seen in total terms, and they are probably the worst that they have been in terms of people living in deprived housing situations since the Great Depression in the 1920s and early 1930s, but we have got the Prime Minister saying: “we’ve reached the limits of what Government can do”. Indeed, we have got a Prime Minister who would not take the necessary decisions in respect of his good friend Nick Smith—rather than cure the problem, he did not actually appoint a Minister for housing.

We have got the Minister of Finance absolutely embarrassing himself in the House today on a housing question. It was highlighted by the ACT Party how Minister Joyce was abusing statistics by pretending that we have got the highest level of housebuilding activity ever. That is what he said in answer to a primary patsy question put up by a National Party member, only to have to accept the proposition from David Seymour that the number of houses being built per capita is lower than it was 10 years ago and far lower than it was 40 years ago. It is no wonder that the homelessness problem and the problem with the price of housing that we have got in so many parts of New Zealand continue to get worse, because we are not catching up on the housing shortage that we have got in New Zealand. In fact, after 8 years of Government from National, it is getting worse.

I want to turn to another area. The now Prime Minister once said 8 years ago, when he came into Government, that prisons are “a moral and fiscal failure”. That is another quote from him. Now he is saying—he did not raise this issue at all at Rātana, when he said “we’ve reached the limits of what Government can do”—that he is putting in another billion dollars to build prisons.

Phil Twyford: That’s their affordable housing policy.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Their affordable housing policy—well, I almost laughed at that, but that is terribly sad.

The other sadness in this is, of course, that more than half of our prison population is Māori—more than half. What a disgraceful statistic. That makes it even more abhorrent that the Māori Party members, the patsies of the National Party, sit there and vote for the legislation that props up National. They vote for every Budget, they support most of its political agenda, and they try to spin it that Labour supports more legislation in this House from National than from Labour. They have actually said that; it is not true. It is one of those “alternatives facts” that have become popular in the United States recently. But it is true that this moral and fiscal failure in respect of prisons has not been fixed, after 8 years of Government.

We heard the last speaker, Jami-Lee Ross, heralding some alleged facts about New Zealand’s economic performance. And it is true that our headline growth rate is actually quite high, but if you strip out the population increase—a large proportion of which is this astonishingly high rate of immigration, mainly into Auckland—per capita growth rates are barely 1 percent in New Zealand. One percent per annum—hardly a stunning performance. As for our export performance, 8 years ago National came to power promising to increase exports from 30 to 40 percent of the economy. Exports have gone backwards. They are now 29 percent of the economy.

In respect of other issues, I have recently been given the foreign affairs portfolio for the Labour Party. I was very privileged to get it, because it is a very uncertain time in the world at the moment as a consequence of international events, not the least of which are some of the actions of President Trump since the US presidential elections. He has been in power for only about 19 or 20 days since the inauguration, and there have been some pretty unsettling things happening. Well, what leadership was shown by the National Government in respect of the issue of the ban, which is now injuncted at the moment in the United States because its courts are worried about it? What was the New Zealand response to a piece of executive action in the United States that targeted, at least on a temporary basis, people on the basis of religion and race? If they are from Syria or a few other countries—even if they are already in the United States, if they leave, they could not come back, and all these other people were caught up in this ban, on the basis of their race or religion.

Chester Borrows spoke out about it. Actually, he said something I agreed with. He was willing to stand up. What did the Prime Minister say? For the first 3 days he said virtually nothing—virtually nothing. It was so much so that the criticisms in the newspapers were pretty telling. The lack of leadership shown by the Prime Minister in respect of this issue led to cartoons in both of the major newspapers groups—both the Fairfax Group and the New Zealand Herald group. The New Zealand Herald cartoon by Emmerson—and I have got it here—shows the Prime Minister curled up, sucking his thumb in the spotlight, doing nothing. The caption is: “Prime Minister Bill English on the world stage, boldly stating in no uncertain terms, NZ’s position on the Trump Muslim ban …”. It is, effectively, depicting, in that very clever cartoon, that the Prime Minister failed in his duty to New Zealand to stand up for the values of New Zealand.

This morning at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee we had Brook Barrington, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, expound on the position that New Zealand has long taken in order to chart a principled place in world affairs, based on our values. That long history has meant that through the bumps of our relationship with America, we have still stood up for what is right. The New Zealand Government of the 1980s went so far as to have a ban on nuclear weapons in New Zealand. We said: “We are a nuclear-free country and we will not permit nuclear vessels that are going to be carrying nuclear weapons, or, indeed, nuclear-powered vessels.” That was something that we did on principle. We stood up for that principle. We managed to maintain an enduring relationship with the United States, notwithstanding our effective criticism of the failure of the nuclear countries to stop proliferation and to reduce their own weapons of mass destruction.

We maintained our relationship because we stood for our principles and we expressed them clearly. We did the same thing, in New Zealand, on Iraq. We disagreed with the United States on Iraq. The National Party just wanted to go where America went, but we stood on our principles, and history shows how wise we were to stay out of that illegal war in Iraq, which has inflamed a terrible situation and made it even worse, and which was one of the contributors to the tragedy that we have seen in Syria. But on this occasion, notwithstanding the fact that as a liberal, open democracy we have actually got both the right and the responsibility to say to our long-time ally and friend, the United States, that it is not OK—to say that it is wrong to target people on the basis of race or religion; that it actually inflames racial tensions and the sorts of terrorist conduct it claims to want to prevent, rather than making it better, and that it is wrong in principle—no, we did not say that for many, many days.

Even now, it is a bit unclear as to how direct the Prime Minister was in his eventual conversation, because it was not recorded. It takes a great degree of trust, after the inaction of Prime Minister Bill English for so many days, to actually accept that he put New Zealand’s position clearly, because we know that President Trump is incredibly thin-skinned. We know that he has hung up the phone on Prime Minister Turnbull of Australia. We know that he has criticised the judges in America, calling them political for opposing him. And yet we are expected to believe that even at this late stage, the Prime Minister led, despite the fact that there was no record kept of those conversations. It was not a good start to the year by the Prime Minister.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): So focused on America! Labour seems to be focused on everything but the future of New Zealand, and its negativity is washing across the House but it is not landing on this side of the House and it is certainly not landing amongst the benches of the Government.

I rise proudly in support of the motion of Prime Minister Bill English, and I stand here very proud to be part of the National-led Government in 2017. Although this might be the first sitting week in what is going to be a very busy parliamentary year—and I send my compliments to the House and to Mr Speaker and to all of those in the parliamentary precinct who look after us so well—there have been many of us, on the Government side, who have been here in Parliament working hard, those of us with new roles, coming to grips with our new responsibilities. But Bill English has been all around New Zealand, except when he was overseas, since January, meeting people, going to events, getting interested and wanting to know what is going on, and being connected with New Zealanders, which is what Bill English has been doing for many, many years on our behalf.

I was proud to accompany the Prime Minister to Rātana together with a number of Ministers and members of Parliament. The day was cold and the wind was chill but the warmth was very, very welcome. The speech that the Prime Minister gave was thoughtful, the speech was considered, and Bill English outlined his plan for all New Zealanders and also for the emergence and potential of Māori enterprise.

The member David Parker, who just resumed his seat, selectively pulled out a quote from Prime Minister Bill English’s speech at Rātana, which, effectively, said that Government cannot do everything in people’s lives. That was a message that was very well received because he then went on to acknowledge the work of Tariana Turia and the work that she has done over a number of years with Whānau Ora. The Prime Minister’s message was, in acknowledging Tariana Turia and the work that she has done, that the answer for Māori lies with Māori, with whānau, and he said that it is the aunties working from whānau to whānau to whānau. That is a very strong message of hope. It is a message of belief in Māori, and the term “Māori enterprise” is, I think, a term we will hear a lot more of.

I was with Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett—and I tell you, I feel really good to be able to say that: “Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett”. I was so proud to be with the Deputy Prime Minister and, again, a large contingent of MPs and Ministers, at Waitangi where the Deputy Prime Minister’s message was an elegant speech at the dawn service where she spoke of aspiration, living a good life, and aspiration for all New Zealanders.

I am excited to be back in the House here in what is going to be a very busy year, and I am very excited to have new roles—roles in which I can make a contribution to the Prime Minister’s ambitious vision for New Zealand. I will play my part in programmes such as the Business Growth Agenda. Look, we want to continue to build on the good work in previous years of building a productive and competitive economy, and we will continue to deliver more jobs, higher incomes, and higher living standards for all New Zealanders.

I want to talk about my role as Associate Minister for ACC, where I will be working with Minister Woodhouse, and just to note at these early stages of my work in this portfolio that ACC is on a decent and good track to deliver for New Zealanders. The levies will drop this year by $126 million. Over the last few years, since 2012, there has been a total deduction of $2 billion. That is great news for individuals. It is also great news for small business and for the whole economy. So I look forward very much to continuing the good work of the Minister, Michael Woodhouse, at ACC.

Small business is a role that I am particularly interested in. Make no mistake; I make no apology for being a very parochial MP of a very special part of New Zealand. It is a mixture of high growth: we have got Wanaka, which is very high growth in Central Otago and we have got eastern Otago, which is also experiencing growth. It is rural, it is provincial, and I proudly represent that part of New Zealand. Small business, which makes up a large part of the New Zealand economy, is made up of New Zealanders who are hard-working. They are innovative. They are not afraid to do the long hours. Our role in the Government is to absolutely support them in doing that.

I have a particular interest in tourism. It is now, of course, New Zealand’s largest income earner, and all throughout New Zealand there are emerging start-up businesses that are getting into tourism. We will support them. I want to be able to direct people to the business.govt.nz—we will find a better name for that—website, which gives good information for small business so that it can go about its business, with us out of its way as much as possible.

I also want to mention that I will get out and talk to small business, and the first place I intend to go—when I am not in my own home territory—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Please do. Talk to as many of them as you can.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —is going to be Kaikōura. You see the Opposition going “Ah, ha, ha!”, but, actually, Kaikōura is being very well supported after the earthquake, and I want to make sure that this Government connects with small business in places not only like Kaikōura but all around New Zealand. I intend to get down to Southland—probably during the oyster season. I plan to go up to Northland.

Grant Robertson: This just sounds like your holidays. What are you talking about?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I want to talk to the small business community. Yes, it does sound like a holiday, and that is because New Zealand is such a wonderful place, and this Government cares a lot for regional New Zealand and all New Zealand.

Very closely related to small business is local government. I am very pleased to be working with Minister Tolley in that regard. We will continue the good work on building relationships with the local government sector. A couple of years ago I undertook, with a group of New Zealanders, an investigation into the rules that get in the way of doing business with local authorities. It was called the Rules Reduction Taskforce. The Government is responding to that. Already we are seeing legislative change as a result of that. I will be picking up that work in local government and working with it so that we deliver better services to New Zealanders, and, particularly, those New Zealanders who are trying to go about being innovative, and small business.

In the commerce and consumer affairs portfolio, I am very keen to continue the good work in lifting performance in the financial and commercial sector. There are a number of work streams in that area where we are lifting the performance of those professionals who are providing services in the financial and the commercial sector, as I say.

I just want to say that, in terms of KiwiSaver, we are very focused on delivering better outcomes for New Zealand and how New Zealander investors in KiwiSaver can make good choices about the funds that they invest in. So we are doing some work around changes to make it more transparent around fees and around the disclosure of fees and annual statements. It might just sound like a small thing, but if we can empower New Zealanders, who are making significant investments in their own futures, to better understand their investment, then that has got to be a good thing. And if we can then go on to empower New Zealanders to make good choices around money and general decisions around budgeting and how they spend their money, then that has got to be a good thing and that is going to be a strong focus of mine.

I just want to finish on one very exciting announcement that I was a part of last week, and that was around the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. It was great news for small businesses and great news for regional New Zealand. I was in Te Ānau for the launch—a very small, fast-growing tourism town in New Zealand. They were very excited about the potential this Government brings for the growth of that region. I am very proud to be part of this National-led Government. Thank you.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Talofa, Mr Speaker. Happy New Year to you and happy New Year, also, to members of this House. I also want to wish a happy New Year to the electorate of Māngere. Manuia le Tausaga Fou, le tapuaiga o le tatou Atunu’u. This is an electorate in which I have spent the last 8 years trying to promote a sense of confidence, a sense of aspiration, particularly with the young people. I call it “Māngere: the gateway to the nation of Aotearoa New Zealand, land of the young, beautiful, and gifted”. And I have now added, as of last month, “home of world champions”. It was also last month that the community came together to celebrate and acknowledge Joseph Parker for winning the heavyweight World Boxing Association title, which was important. He now joins the ranks of people like Dame Valerie Adams, Jonah Lomu, David Tua, and many, many others, including Sir John Kirwan, who all hail from Māngere. I do that to give the young people inspiration for what they have got to do and aspire for in the years ahead.

Māngere also has many, many churches. On that occasion, our service—a blessing upon Joseph Parker—was led by Father Michael Anderman, who heads Catholic Churches with Samoan parishes all over Auckland. I make mention of the faith community because this is an important sector in New Zealand society. It would be wrong for this House if at any point in time it said “This congregation will vote National.” or “This congregation will vote Labour.”, because that is not the way they do things.

You will find—and it may be a surprise to many members of the House—that the faith community prays for politicians. They pray for the members of this House. They particularly pray for the Prime Minister and the Government. They do so because of a sense that it is the Government’s role to provide support to the people at large. Irrespective of whom the faith community may vote for—some of them are liberal in some things; many of them are conservative in other things. Irrespective of that, the faith community are united in some core values: a sense of social justice; a sense that there is a need to look after the poor; a sense that housing is important for families; a sense that education is the key to success of many, many of the young people; a sense that employment and good incomes are important in stabilising communities; and a sense that education is the key to the success of our young people and we need to invest in it.

So when they pray for the Government, they are hoping that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet will actually do the right thing and address some of these issues. It is also the faith community who is at the coalface in trying to address some of these things outside of the four walls of their churches. Take, for example, the Salvation Army. That is a faith community. We saw earlier this week the release of its report where it has shared concerns about the lack of effort by this Government to address child poverty. It has noted that child poverty continues to increase.

In response, we have heard from the Minister for Social Development how she is monitoring those issues. I just have to say that you can monitor all you want, but if you are not investing and if you are not doing anything constructive to address this issue, it does not get addressed. The faith communities who are dealing with child poverty are recognising this. Thus, that report is a call on this Government—and if it was a Labour Government it would do the same; it would ask this Government to address this particular issue.

Housing is a big issue. In Māngere we are struggling—many families are—because once upon a time Housing New Zealand was a Government department that was set up to help people into a home while they were preparing to buy their own home. For people who lived in Housing New Zealand homes, it was accepted—here was a stepping stone. People who could not afford to buy their own homes would be able to have a roof over their heads, but that is not the case anymore. I am saddened that 100 years ago the first Labour Government had a hand in establishing this Government department that we now call Housing New Zealand. And for the first time in 100 years—some people are telling me—this Government department is no longer charged with helping people to get into a home. That is why we are seeing more than 40,000 people in homeless situations. We are seeing the highest number of people who no longer own their own homes—the highest number in 51 years.

This is a concern to many in the faith communities, because if people are not living in a home that they can call their own—in a home that is warm, that is dry, and that is comfortable—it is hard to keep the family together. If you are living in cars—how on earth do we expect these people living in cars to then contribute to our society, and to contribute to the local community? How do we expect them to vote in local elections and in the upcoming general election if the authorities cannot find them—if the relevant Government department cannot find them and send them their voting papers? So it is an issue that has rippling effects—and I see detrimental rippling effects—on the wider society.

I am saddened that the Housing New Zealand office in Māngere now seems to be focused on removing people living in those homes. I have often asked them: “Where will you send these people then, if you are no longer going to house them?”. They do not seem to care—they do not seem to care.

Health is another situation that the faith communities are concerned about. Many who are elderly, of course, have a vested interest in ensuring that our heath sector is able to provide them with the healthcare that they need when they so need it. We are finding that, despite the promises of this Government—despite its promises—we now know that the health sector has been underfunded by $1.7 billion, and that is reflected when some of the elderly are needing surgery. They are not getting it—they are not getting it in the time that they require. When somebody walks into the accident and emergency centre they are having to wait long hours because the doctors who are working in those A & E centres are just overworked. They are not receiving the support that this Government promised that they would get.

Yesterday I heard Paula Bennett reflect on her ambitious programme to address climate change. I wanted to ask a question—whether that ambitious programme includes addressing the climate change issues in the Pacific region. I wanted to ask her whether that ambitious programme would include what New Zealand’s role is in preparing to take on about 130,000 people who are going to be displaced as a result of rising seawater levels between now and the not too distant future. I am not sure that that Minister recognises how important that issue is. It is not just going to affect New Zealand; it is going to affect the whole region, and we need to be prepared for the role that we have to play.

I started this speech—my remarks—by saying that the faith community prays for the leaders. You know, I like Bill English, and I know he has got a good heart. But the reality is that when John Key resigned from the Prime Minister’s post and gave it to Bill English—Bill English is a nice guy, but he is not a leader. A leader would not shy away from recognising that we have a national housing crisis and recognising that child poverty is on the increase, and a leader does not shy away from investing significant public funds in core areas that are needed, to invest in our people in core areas such as education and in health. What we are seeing is that, despite the prayers of the faith community, that is not happening at all.

I stand to support the motion moved by Andrew Little. I stand in support of this man who cares about these issues, who is adamant that he can provide good change, and who is not critical of this country but critical of this Government, because it is this Government’s policy that is actually failing to ensure that the full potential of this country is reached. I call on the faith communities to participate in the upcoming general election.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak in the House with you as Speaker. Happy New Year, and I look forward to working with you during the year, and to you presiding over this House in the strong manner that you have over the last year. I welcome members of the Opposition to the House as well, and I look forward to the work that will go on together, as we work together—

Hon Member: Very statesman-like!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —to build—ha, ha!—a stronger New Zealand going forward.

Grant Robertson: He’s reaching out.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: I have reached out to you in my first speech. I know it is something unusual, but it is something that is happening.

I just want to acknowledge, as well, our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Bill English, who is leading this country into another generation of strength and leadership and aspiration for a country that has so much potential going forward. We are so blessed to have as our leader the Rt Hon Bill English and, also, the Hon Paula Bennett as Deputy Prime Minister. They are doing an excellent job for New Zealand—dealing with the issues that New Zealanders face in their everyday life and making it a much better place for all New Zealanders going forward.

The Labour Party members tried to start off this year with an aspect of positivity that had not been seen in their party for many years. They tried to present a unified front. They tried to present a message to New Zealanders for once. The Labour Party tried to actually be a political party of substance, but, unfortunately, that did not last. The Labour Party could not go more than a month during the holiday period actually being a viable political party in the New Zealand political system at this time.

The Labour Party as we know it is gone. It is unfortunate for the Labour Party members and unfortunate for their previous voters, but the Labour Party does not exist in a viable form. The only thing that is the Opposition Labour Party now is a combination Green-Labour party, in which we all know the Green Party is the dominant factor. The Green Party is actually the real true Opposition party, not the Labour Party. The Labour Party sold out its values to the Green Party last year, and the result of that is being seen this year.

We see a Green Party that is reinvigorated in its power to represent left-wing values and left-wing ambitions in an election system. We do not see that from the Labour Party. We do not see leadership and issues from those members, but we do see that from the Green Party. The Green Party is providing the leadership on the left when it comes to transport issues.

Catherine Delahunty: That’s not true. We’re one of the leaders on the left.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: They are. They are providing the leadership on the left when it comes to race relations. They are providing the leadership on the left when it comes to immigration. The Labour Party has given up on all those factors, and the Green Party is now the party of preferred choice for the left-wing voters of New Zealand. We know that. The voters know that; the poor old Labour Party itself does not know that yet. It is still clinging to some ambition of being a major political party in the context of New Zealand politics. We have to look at how the Labour Party gave up its ability to do a state of the nation address at the start of the year and how it gave up its ability to actually present a vision for New Zealand.

In recent days the Labour Party has fallen apart in its ability to provide even that partial unified voice. We see what has happened to Poto Williams. Why does Poto Williams have to apologise today? Why does Poto Williams have to apologise today? Why is Willie Jackson not apologising? Why is Andrew Little not apologising? Why is Poto Williams the one putting out the press release and apologising for the Labour Party? What is the difference? What is the reason why one of the strongest members of the Labour Party in this House has to apologise for speaking her mind and saying what most people in this House believe, apart from the Labour Party leadership? I think that is a tragedy for this House that a member of Parliament like that has to apologise in this House for the actions that the Labour Party has taken. It should be Andrew Little apologising, not Poto Williams.

But we all know that the Labour and Green combination is not alone. They need one other player, and that is the New Zealand First Party. The New Zealand First Party is back to its old tricks: anti-immigration and very nationalistic causes. It is the Trump party of New Zealand politics. The New Zealand First Party is not going to deny that at all; it will go through this whole year—it is about a month behind the American political cycle. It looks for its leadership in what it gets off tweets from America, and that will be its policies over the next year. That will be the New Zealand First Party of this year.

But New Zealanders do not want the party policies of the Green Party, the Labour Party, or New Zealand First. They want realistic policies that are going to lead to an open and free country that actually delivers opportunities for New Zealanders, and that comes from National. We are delivering the infrastructure for New Zealanders to take advantage of the opportunities that this world offers.

In Hamilton, for example, we have a fast-growing city that has done extremely well out of the National Government. The infrastructure investment in our city has never been seen before. It is a city that is growing at a very fast rate. There is a buzz in the air in Hamilton. There are jobs, there are opportunities, there are new schools going up. There is a real desire amongst Hamiltonians to actually take their place in the future of this world and the future of New Zealand. That is something that the National Party has helped to deliver, in providing the base for that economic growth.

We have provided that stable economic environment for places like Hamilton to succeed and prosper. We have provided the infrastructure for it to grow, and we have provided the services for it to actually deliver to its people. You just have to go around our city and look at new schools opened last year and this year and a hospital that has been rebuilt. You look at the Waikato Expressway and other roading projects that are coming to fruition through that region, and you look at a strong and vibrant part of New Zealand that is doing extremely well.

The messages that the Green-Labour Opposition and the New Zealand First Party will try to promote do not resonate in that community, because they see the positive side of life; they see what is happening and how successful New Zealand is going forward. We need to make sure that we continue that process.

This is an important year for New Zealanders, with an election coming up. It is an important choice. Do we put the good things that have happened and the bright future ahead of us at risk for the old policies of division, State control, and—

Grant Robertson: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: They may laugh, but that is what the Labour-Green party wants. We know they want higher taxes. I bet you that during this year they do not come out and actually say what their high tax rates will be. They will conflate it and do everything but tell the public what will actually happen under a possible Green-Labour Government. We would love to see their tax rate policy, but that will never come out before the election. They would never promote the reality of what they will do. They will never tell us their true intentions. They will just try to divide New Zealanders over the next year, and that is something we must resist. New Zealanders must resist that. New Zealanders must look forward and take advantage of the opportunities that we have, and National will give that opportunity to New Zealanders going forward.

Hon Member: You’ve got to get back first.

Grant Robertson: Go backwards!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Going forward is exactly what is happening in this country. Look at the growth rates in New Zealand. New Zealand has an economic growth rate that most countries around the rest of the world would love to have. Look at the inflation rates and interest rates. Interest rates are at some of the lowest rates in New Zealand’s history for New Zealanders going forward, giving certainty for New Zealanders who invest and build their futures in this country. So we had that strong economic base that you see throughout this country.

So we have an important year, with an election ahead. It will be a contrast of ideas and there will be choices, but people know what they are getting from this side. They know they are getting strong, dependable, prudent governance. On the other side there will be a lot of promises that will not be supported by any attempt to give a true indication of where that money is coming from. It is going to be a big year for New Zealanders.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call—Rino Tirikatene.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Is not Hamilton lucky? That is their first Minister in 33 years. How lucky they are! How lucky they are! I am pleased to take this short call in support of Andrew Little’s amendment to the Prime Minister’s statement.

We do have a new Prime Minister, Bill English, or, as Nuk would say, Wīremu Ingarihi. He is a nice enough guy—he is a nice enough guy—but he is not a leader and he has demonstrated that just in the short period that he has taken on the reins. What did he do up in Waitangi? Well, he did not show. He did not show up to the one day that is important for Māori. He could not front there. What did he do in his state of the nation address? Did he talk about the housing crisis? No, he did not. The housing crisis is the biggest issue that our country is facing at this moment, and Phil Twyford is doing some fantastic work in that area. But this is a no-show Prime Minister.

I do acknowledge my colleague David Clark. He gave a great comparison between Governor William Hobson and Bill English. He asked what the difference between the two is. Well, I would like to ask: what are the similarities between Governor Hobson and our new Prime Minister? It is, of course, that they are both affectionately known as Willie. That is some self-deprecating humour—it does work in the latter stages of this week. But I would like to support Andrew Little because he is our outstanding leader. He has shown the steel that Bill English has not shown; he has not shown it.

Can we just look at the state of our nation. I just want to cover three areas. Look at healthcare. Look at the fact that our health system has been underfunded to the tune of $1.7 billion and increasing, since this Government has taken office. What that translates to is that, on average and per capita numbers, the average Kiwi is being underspent on for their health dollar by $300—that is, $300 per person less—under this Government.

Andrew Bayly: How much?

RINO TIRIKATENE: $300 less per capita, and that translates across the board to fewer first specialist assessment appointments and more agony, despair, and pain for many, many Kiwis around the country.

I do want to move on because I do have a short amount of time. I do want to move on to the housing issue, because it is a national disgrace. It is a national disgrace—particularly in the Auckland area, house prices are hitting the million dollar mark. It is not quite that level down south, but that is just unheard of, those astronomical figures. Also, the fact that rents have increased by, as I understand, $8,000 on average since National has taken office—the average household in Auckland is paying $8,000 more in rent. So that is putting a huge squeeze on the average Kiwi family, and that is something that this Government has just let glide by.

In addition to that, we have seen a huge amount of the dreaded four-letter word, this huge taniwha that is emerging across New Zealand. I am talking about debt and indebtedness of the average household. We are looking at Kiwi families now with private debt approaching half a trillion dollars in this country—that is all private household, corporate, consumer debt. That is an obscene amount of debt, which has now been taken over and is being fuelled by the housing crisis that this Government has let grow rampant under its watch. It is an indictment.

Mr English is not a leader. He is not a leader. He is the accidental leader. So I am just pleased that we have a leader in Andrew Little and that we are revived and we are energised and we are going to take it to the nation. We want to have a change of Government this September, and I am very proud to be part of this team. We are going to be working hard all the way through to the election to change the Government this year. Kia ora tātou.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement earlier on, where he said that there will be business as usual this current year. This is my first speech this session, Mr Speaker, and I would like to wish you and all my colleagues from across the House a prosperous and wonderful New Year. I would also like to wish all New Zealanders, especially those from South Auckland, a prosperous year.

These past 8 years have been a time of growing inequality, a time where many, many New Zealanders are going without. The Salvation Army’s 2017 state of the nation report, which we received just 2 days ago, is evidence that things are getting worse. Inequality is growing, child poverty is growing, and yet this current Government does not even want to define child poverty, let alone measure it. How can we effectively address this issue if we do not even know what the definition is and if we are not even measuring what it is? Do we live in a country where everyone is prosperous? Do we live in a country where all of our children have equal opportunities? Not when we have tens of thousands of families and children living in cars, living in garages. Not when we have over 40,000 who are homeless.

One of the staff in my office in Auckland, in Ōtara, lives on a street where every second house on her street has two families sharing the house, because this is the only way that they can get by in Aotearoa New Zealand today. We do not live in a prosperous country, when we have $1.7 billion taken out of the health system, when nearly 60,000 people have been declined specialist medical treatment, and when mental health services and emergency departments in hospitals in very many cities across New Zealand are stretched to the breaking point where our doctors have gone on strike, not once but twice, because they are not being funded adequately. Not when many parents are struggling to manage the contributions to the schools that their children attend, when we live in a country where the education that these children are receiving at State schools is supposed to be free. New figures show that parents of a child who is born today can expect to pay almost $40,000 for their supposed free State education, and that is simply outrageous.

We live in a country where we know, from figures released just last week, that we have 90,000 of our young people who are not in employment, education, or training. That is also outrageous, when we have 15- to 24-year-olds, 90,000 of whom are not in employment, education, or training, and, at the same time, many of our employers are going overseas, recruiting from overseas, because we do not have the right skilled people to rebuild our own country. We need a country where we are actually training our young people and making sure that they have the right skills. The longer that our young people are disconnected and are not in education or training, the harder it is for them to become a member of society where they can actually contribute.

The good news is that this is 2017, it is election year, and we can have a Government that actually invests in core health, education, and housing. We can have a Government that actually addresses the housing crisis. Labour will address the housing crisis by building more affordable houses, by making sure that there is a health system that everyone can rely on, and by making sure that young people have access to quality education. Labour is committed to reviving the Kiwi Dream. Thank you.

Mr SPEAKER: And I understand this is also a split call—Andrew Bayly.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Prime Minister’s statement and, also, to be part of a dynamic, united, vigorous team that is absolutely setting out to continue the good work that National has been doing over the past 8 years. And, of course, we have got new, strong leadership under the Rt Hon Bill English, the Hon Paula Bennett, and, of course, new finance Minister the Hon Steven Joyce, as part of a team that is rich in talent. It was good to see my colleague the Hon David Bennett talking, one of our new Ministers, but there is a whole stack of them. In fact, there is another one just behind me, the Hon Jacqui Dean—lots of talent being promoted, as it should be.

As the Prime Minister noted in his statement, what a great place New Zealand is. It may not be perfect, but it is a fantastic place. I have just listened to all that doom and gloom from various people—well, this is a fabulous place, and even if you do not believe me, just look at the international rankings. We are first in terms of overall prosperity—this is in terms of the OECD. We are first in terms of personal freedom and civil rights. We are first in terms of ease of doing business. We are first equal in terms of being the least corrupt country in the world, and we are second for quality of government. Now, if that was any other country around the world, I am sure everyone in this House would be quoting them and holding them up as the standard. That is New Zealand’s record now, based on independent assessment.

We have all heard the PM’s statement, and, I can assure you, it is rich with lots of good initiatives. As we have heard, the policing initiative is one of the key aspects, and, obviously, everyone is very supportive and comfortable with that policy initiative. We have also heard about the expansion of broadband into the regions, and that is part of a wider strategy in terms of making sure our regions are having their fair share of investment. We also know about how New Zealand is trying to create a better pathway for trading options around the world, and we are very keen to continue building relationships on a bilateral basis with a number of new countries.

It was interesting that the Treasury secretary was saying yesterday in the Finance and Expenditure Committee how lucky New Zealand is to be able to have all these dynamic Asian economies close at hand that actually want our products and services. It is not like we are going to have to go out and sell our products. A lot of these countries are seeking our products and it is great that we have got those to hand. But what I am really excited about in the plan is the substantial increase in infrastructure spending. What has been forecast for the next 5 years is a $32 billion increase in infrastructure spending, compared with the massive $18 billion that we have spent over the last 5 years. Of course, it is going into roading projects. In my own area of Hunua we are going to see the advantage of the Waterview Connection coming on stream, and down here in Wellington there is a big project like Transmission Gully—the billion-dollar project. I do note that $43 billion is going to be spent over the next 10 years on roading projects.

Then there is the massive expenditure into schools, as Nikki Kaye was saying on Tuesday. We are so busy opening new schools and putting in place new classrooms. Hospital rebuilds—we have got the new hospital rebuild down on the West Coast. We have had the mass investment in Christchurch, and those investments continue, as well as the major expenditure of $20 billion being forecast for defence over the next 20 years. In housing we have also got the $1 billion housing infrastructure spend, and there are a lot of good projects that have been put forward by councils.

But I am also really pleased and happy to be part of the team that is prepared to attack the hard issues of our economy—the vulnerable people. That is on the back of that massive $800 million package last year that we spent on increasing and improving benefits by $25 a week for all beneficiaries, as well as packages providing free access to healthcare for under 13-year-olds and making sustainable homes more safe and secure. These are all great packages and it is a pleasure to be a part of this team.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak today in support of the Prime Minister’s statement and to support the clear evidence for a stable and growing economy. The Prime Minister’s statement led off with: “The Government’s programme of responsible economic and fiscal management is delivering benefits for New Zealanders.” With reference to the regions, the statement read: “This includes the regional growth programme, working with local communities to develop and implement economic action plans.” This time last week Ministers Joyce, Bridges, Barry, and Guy attended a Northland regional action plan progress meeting in the Far North. It was an opportunity to review a year of progress under the regional action plan. I want to talk to some of the highlights that are actually outcomes supporting the Prime Minister’s statement.

Firstly, the biggest economic driver for Northland is the $700 million road of national significance (RONS) from Pūhoi to Wellsford. The groundbreaking ceremony before Christmas was welcomed by Northlanders as a start to this important corridor joining Northland and the economic powerhouse that is Auckland. However, Northlanders do not need to wait for the RONS to reach Whangarei to see roading improvements. They can see the investment in roading right now, today, as they enter the Whangarei electorate and see the multimillion-dollar road safety improvements being built on top of the Brynderwyns. And while you are there at the top of the Brynderwyns, looking out over Bream Bay, what do you see? Well, you see the majestic visage that is Bream Bay, One Tree Point, Marsden Point, Ruakākā, and Waipū. But look closer and you will actually see something else, because what you are also looking at is what Infometrics recently announced as a regional economic hotspot. Infrastructure investment supports economies, which is supporting Northland.

A second action plan is the Government’s ongoing commitment to the Hundertwasser Arts Centre. The Hundertwasser Arts Centre was proudly announced by Minister Joyce a year ago and was being supported by Minister Barry and Minister Bennett during 2016 and was strongly supported by Minister Bridges last week as the new Minister for Economic Development. They all get what the community gets: the important annual economic impact of $22 million that Hundertwasser will bring to the North. I want to especially note here the ongoing guidance and support from Minister Barry on this project.

I have highlighted two progress items, but the nature of the economic upturn in Northland also supports the Government’s ongoing drive to diversify the economy. A Northland snapshot would show that the kiwifruit and avocado industries are doing well and log prices across Northport are strong. Manufacturing is doing well, with the Marsden Point oil refinery taking on new operators, in a workforce that is now close to 500 people. Cullen Engineering, the Whangarei-based steel manufacturing joint-venture for the Auckland convention centre, is taking on more staff. And if you go into central city Whangarei today, to Pak ’N Save, and look across the road, you will see another new commercial development being built and a sign from Steve Bowling Contracting, saying: “Workers wanted”. Construction is doing well in Whangarei. There are new jobs for residential and commercial projects, as well as huge infrastructure projects, such as the recently completed million-dollar roundabout at Kensington led by AJ and Annie Robinson, from a local firm called Robinson Asphalts.

Tourism is a billion-dollar industry for Northland, and is a discussion all on its own and for another time, but highlights include the recent New Zealand Transport Agency region-specific targeting of Melbourne people to Northland and, of course, the superb current Air New Zealand safety video shot around Paihia and the Hokianga. On a related matter, however, supporting tourism in Northland requires a regional air service that has a schedule that meets the needs of the travel community and is reasonable and reliable, and I challenge Air New Zealand to up its game in Whangarei and Kerikeri.

The real extent and depth of diversification of the Northland economy can be seen in the launch of the Hawaiki Cable at Mangawhai before Christmas, providing redundancy to New Zealand’s sole operator. New people have come to Whangarei; new people bring their own micro-economy. They each spend, on average, $65,000 per year of household expenditure, and that money goes through the economy. They buy clothes, food, petrol, transport, and housing, and that all supports the local economy. Whangarei is growing. People are coming to Whangarei. Just recently the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research announced its findings for 2016, and Whangarei was the second warmest city in New Zealand last year.

The people of Whangarei are looking for more than just the turnaround that they are seeing. They do not just want to look; they want to find. And in this Prime Minister’s statement they are finding a road map that will guide and fulfil their aspirations. Thank you.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): What a pleasure it is to rise and take a call in this debate in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement, and to make my first contribution for this year. I would like to extend a very hearty happy New Year to you, Mr Speaker. I will undertake now, with witnesses, to do my very utmost to make sure that you do manage to keep your New Year’s resolution.

Well, honestly, what a load of sycophantic rubbish we have heard spouted over these last couple of days, really, from both sides of the House, about the new Prime Minister and how wonderfully he is doing and how wonderfully he is going to do and so forth. But in actual fact, I have to admit that I was quite looking forward to Bill English’s first speech as Prime Minister. I had always found that Mr English’s speeches, as Minister of Finance, had this particular soporific effect on me. He would get started and then, a few bars in, I would find myself drifting off to sleep.

So I was quite impressed, when he first got started, that he was actually quite animated. He was really quite excited, using expression and gesticulating—you can look that word up, Mr Bennett; it is not what you think it is. But shortly thereafter, he reverted to type. The next thing I knew, my colleague Clayton Mitchell, who was sitting next to me, was elbowing me in the ribs. The familiar waft of verbal chloroform had come over me, and away I had gone. It appears that “Cruisy Bill”, as Labour seems to have dubbed him, is no more exciting than “Snoozy Bill”, who used to put me to sleep.

I actually have here a copy of the speech that he gave, and I was here listening to it when he gave it. But, having sat through it, listened to it, and read it again, I still do not know what he was saying. It is quite impressive, actually, that as Prime Minister and leader of the Government—through to the election at least; certainly not beyond—Mr English has not lost his ability to spend a long time saying nothing at all. That is actually quite appropriate—

Hon David Bennett: Well, maybe it’s you, you can’t.

RICHARD PROSSER: —thank you for those comments, the new Minister from Hamilton, which does deserve a mention—as the Government has not actually done anything to talk about, and so I guess saying again the things it is going to do in the future falls in the same vein. It is all sort of smoke and mirrors.

When we talk about what the Prime Minister states about his agenda—what he is going to do, what his Government is going to do, what he wants to do—we hear the same old refrain National members have been repeating over and over for as long as I can remember. Long before I joined New Zealand First, long before I became an MP, long before I came into this House, I heard the Prime Minister on the other side talking about being aspirational—aspirational this and aspirational that. Well, that is a great thing to be, but it seems to be a bit of a mirage. We seem to be getting ever and ever closer to it but never actually arriving. That, I think, is because this Government, as I said, never does anything. It talks about wanting a better future for New Zealand and wanting a brighter future and wanting a bigger, more bustling economy, but the Government never does anything about it.

A case in point: when looking out my office window, just before I came down to the House, I saw a wharf filled with logs. If a Government was truly aspirational for a country like New Zealand, which has a huge forestry resource, we would not have a wharf full of logs. We might have a wharf full of plywood, a wharf full of particle board, a wharf full of pre-nailed trusses, or a wharf full of processed timber products that were being exported to foreign countries—

Hon David Bennett: Well, what’s to stop that happening?

RICHARD PROSSER: —but, no, we see a wharf full of logs, because the Government is insufficiently aspirational that it still allows that sort of thing to happen, Mr Bennett.

Hon David Bennett: But you want us to build the factory?

RICHARD PROSSER: Look, Mr Bennett, I want us to have sawmills and processing plants, and for those industries to occur in New Zealand and to employ New Zealanders—good jobs for real people.

Hon David Bennett: Are we going to pay for it? Are we building it?

RICHARD PROSSER: This is all private enterprise, Mr Bennett. It is all private enterprise. There is a difference, Mr Bennett, between free enterprise and free trade. When New Zealand First is leading the Government next time round, you will see this, because we will show you the way forward. As our leader has been prophesising for the last 20-something years, there is a better way. The time has come when that is going to be demonstrated. If you are lucky enough to come back next time, if the good people of Hamilton return you as their representative—and, who knows, they might, now that you are making them famous by giving them a Minister for the first time in decades—you will be privileged to watch while the Rt Hon Winston Peters leads a Government that puts these plans into action.

Logs are simply one example. Members on both sides, actually, have made mention of housing. Of course, the Government members have not spoken about it very much because they do not want to acknowledge the crisis. A Government that was truly aspirational and had plans and vision would probably turn the clock back to about 1930, and actually just start building some houses. That is because if you do not have enough houses, the answer to that problem is to build more houses. It is all well and good saying: “Well, we’ll let the market decide and we’ll carve off these special areas and we’ll make it easier for developers to move in and build houses.”, and so forth. They seem to have this strange idea that if you put some land aside, the developers will move in and build cheap houses for poor people. Well, no, of course they will not. I mean, why would they?

The same thing happened in Nelson—it is happening in Nelson right now. There is a block of waterfront land that has been put aside for affordable housing. The developers have moved in and they are building half-million-dollar apartments, because they can. The thing about the free market is that when there is a demand for something, suppliers will supply that demand, and when there are no limits on who can come in and who can buy houses and how many houses they can buy, and they have access to virtually unlimited money, they will pay whatever the developers want. Why would a developer say to himself or herself “Well, I’m going to go and build 100 low-cost houses.”, when they can build 100 high-cost houses instead and still sell them?

An aspirational Government would put some rules in place around who can come into the country and buy houses with their unlimited money, and who cannot. Then the aspirational Government would turn round—as, in fairness, the first Labour Government did in the 1930s—and say: “Well, we have a problem with people who don’t have enough houses. We will build some.” They plucked some money out of thin air, as this Parliament has the authority to do, they built houses, and then they rented them to people over years and years and years, and paid back that expenditure.

That is the kind of thing that an aspirational Government that actually has a plan does, Mr Bennett. It does other things too. It extracts value from the products that this country produces, and it does that in a number of different ways. It does that not through restricting enterprise but by directing trade in ways that make it more profitable, both for the country and for the private businesses that generate that wealth. We cannot get away from the fact—we should never ever get away from the fact—that the resources that are extracted from this country are extracted, for the most part, by private enterprise, by farmers, by miners, by foresters, and by fishers, and sold to the world. But they are sold into a market that is a fierce jungle kind of a place out there, and it needs some rules around it. It needs some rules to make it work in our favour.

An aspirational Government would look at the products and the resources that this country has, and the way that it sells them to the world. It would look at putting some rules in place and giving some assistance to New Zealand businesses, to make sure that they were extracting the most money out of those resources as possible. A Government that had aspiration could do this off its own bat, from the very start, by looking at, say, the royalty regime that this country charges for the products that we export. Our oil, for example, is one of our biggest export earners, yet New Zealand’s oil royalty regime is about the cheapest in the world. Saudi Arabia charges between 50 percent and 85 percent as royalties on its oil. New Zealand charges between 1 percent and 5 percent. Why are we giving this wealth away?

The next great gold rush, for want of a better description, may well be fresh water, and New Zealand has a freshwater resource, as we know, that is incomparable in the world. At the moment that water is allowed to be exported from this country by anybody who has a permit to extract it, with no return at all to the country that supplies it. So New Zealand First, because it is truly aspirational and does actually have some plans for the future, is saying that when water is exported from this country it should command a royalty, paid to the Crown on behalf of the people who own it.

Hon David Bennett: How much?

RICHARD PROSSER: Well, we have not set any numbers, Mr Bennett, but we certainly will.

Hon David Bennett: Oh! If you know what it is—

RICHARD PROSSER: OK, as a comparison, if we said, for example, 10c a litre, that would make our water worth—to the Government, to the nation—about $16 a barrel, in terms of an oil equivalent. If you say that Saudi Arabia is charging a 50 percent royalty for its oil at the moment, it is getting about $25. That is quite comparable—$16 for water against $25 for oil. Ask yourself which is actually more valuable. I mean, you can live without a barrel of oil, but can you live without water? People who are buying this water are buying it because they have not got it themselves and they cannot get it. We have it in huge quantities, and yet we are giving it away for nothing. The rest of the world is looking at us and saying: “You’re silly. Why are you doing that?”.

A New Zealand First Government will not be doing those sorts of things. We will be extracting the value that exists in the resources and wealth that this country has, and bringing it back into this country for the benefit of the nation and for the benefit of its people. The good news is that a new order is sweeping the world. We have seen it with Brexit. We have seen it with Trump. It will happen here in New Zealand. There is an exciting leader with a vision, who will go forward after the next election and take this country to the great heights that it deserves, and that is the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He will be there after September, leading a New Zealand First Government. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take this call. I am actually very excited for New Zealand. Despite what the last speaker, Richard Prosser, said, there is one really good leader in this House, by the name of Prime Minister Rt Hon Bill English—ambitious for New Zealand, ambitious with his new deputy leader, the Hon Paula Bennett. The year has got off to an extremely good start. These two have gelled the team, making sure we are all working forward in a new way after a leadership change. It has just been amazing, the way the team has come together. We have always been a tight team, but to regroup and re-gel—we are all really excited about going forward. I think it is really great that we are ambitious not only for New Zealand but for my part of the world, a place like Taranaki - King Country; there is a whole lot of stuff going on for my electorate and others like mine, for provincial rural New Zealand.

So we get off at the start of the year, and the first big announcement is around ultra-fast broadband. I know what ultra-fast broadband can actually do for towns in rural provincial New Zealand. First of all, young people who cannot pull their phones out of their pockets will not come and live in rural provincial New Zealand if their mobile phones do not work.

Clare Curran: Six or 7 years isn’t going to cut it.

BARBARA KURIGER: We are looking to attract young people—the 6 or 7 years that you are talking about, Ms Curran, is actually well facilitated. All of these councils have put their bids in; they are extremely well organised. So I am excited. I am talking with my councils, and they are looking forward to getting ultra-fast broadband in as soon as they practically can, in terms of getting the detail done. So the funding is there and we are all ready to get started. So ultra-fast broadband is the first thing that is going to bring productivity to rural New Zealand; it is going to bring people, it is going to give business—I tell you what, I see a lot of people coming to live out in those areas now who can conduct their business, and once they are hooked up to ultra-fast broadband they can trade with the world from anywhere.

The second big announcement that came out in the new year, just last week, was around police. I have been really pleased because a lot of the work—I would like to make mention and acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins. The announcement has been made by the Prime Minister and Minister Bennett, but Minister Judith Collins did a lot of the groundwork when she was the Minister of Police. She was out in my electorate late last year speaking to police from Te Awamutu, Ōtorohanga, Te Kūiti, and Piopio, and talking a lot about rural resourcing and policing. So I am really excited, and they are really excited, that as soon as we can get those new recruits trained, up to 95 percent of all New Zealanders will be within 25 kilometres of a police presence. To clarify, that does not mean a station; that means a police presence. I am pretty excited about that because rural security and safety are really important to our people.

I have to mention roading, because we have had some fantastic roading announcements over recent years. I cannot let it go by without making mention of the Mount Messenger and Awakino realignment. We have recently had a consultation around that. We have asked the public—the New Zealand Transport Agency has been out asking people to have their input into that, and I think that is going extremely well. But on top of that there is the commitment of money that is going into rural roads—and I think about things like the roundabout at Hangatiki, where people turn into Waitomo. You have got tourists who have traditionally struggled with roundabouts and intersections in our country, and just putting those roundabouts in will make those roads safe, leading down to great tourist attractions like the Waitomo caves. I was with Minister Bridges when he did the first road safety opening at Waitomo and it was a real pleasure to be there. There are six more of those rural road activities going to be happening in my electorate: roads out to Raglan, roads to Whatawhata, and some more State Highway 3 announcements.

But what I am really also excited about—and I think it is something that our team understands very well, but we are still working on getting the other parties and New Zealand into the fold—is in the realm of social investment. We are now in a space where we can integrate the data and we can identify those people who are the most vulnerable and who are at risk. We can put those people first and we can wrap around the services for them. If you can imagine putting the thousand most vulnerable 5- to 7-year-olds—and we hear a lot about vulnerable people in this House. We can actually wrap the services around those people.

Previously, they did not know whether they were perhaps working with the health or education department, whether it is family violence or whether it is something to do with social housing; now we can actually talk to each other. We can get everyone wrapped around those young people. It is going to save a huge amount of effort with those people later on in life when it comes to corrections, policing, and prison. But, more importantly than that, it is going to give those young people great self-esteem, more confidence, more learning ability. And we all know what happens to children at school when they are more confident. They actually stand up and they actually show that they can do things, because when the expectations of those children lift, the ability of those children happens to lift with them.

On top of that we are putting extra funding into schools for teachers to be able to give more resource to those children from vulnerable families and those children who have special needs. I talk to a lot of people in my electorate who have grown up perhaps not with the learning resources for those with dyslexia and special learning needs. I have got 85 primary schools in my electorate and I go in them now and I am starting to see children who are learning in so many different ways. Some people learn better by writing, some people learn better with technology. I went into a school one day where they were doing maths, and they were measuring and they were creating a golf course out of recycled grass matting. It was about measuring and figuring out where the holes are. All children learn differently, and I think that extra special recognition that those children in those schools need special attention is going to make a big difference.

Then we move on to health and some of the legislation we are doing. I am really pleased to be part of the Health Committee because we work very well together. Some of the legislation that has been passed is recognising the work that nurse practitioners and other medical professionals do. Up until now it has been the realm of the doctors to do a whole range of things. We do know that there is a shortage of doctors, particularly in rural provincial New Zealand, but there are a whole lot of nurses out there who have been trained and with a little bit of extra training can become nurse practitioners and fill the needs of some of our rural provincial communities. When it comes to health, those people who visit the doctors, particularly the elderly, like to know that there is actually a team around that medical centre—a great support team, people they know, people they trust when they walk in to a medical practice. So these nurses have been more than capable of doing that, and now, legally, they are able to do that.

The other thing is tourism. We have had an investment of 80 beds going into Piropiro. That is in the middle of a place called the Timber Trail. It is 84 kilometres. You get on a mountain bike. I have done it over a 2-day period. Some people who are much fitter than I am do it over a 1-day period. There are 80 beds going in the middle of there, so we can encourage more people. A lot of visitors come out of the cities and they are going into our rural cycle trails; they are going into the Forgotten World railways and highways in places like Whangamomona. You know, when Minister Adams was the Minister for Communications—the tenders for places like Whangamomona to be able to get that next phase of the Rural Broadband Initiative, cellphone coverage, more tourists.

I am really looking forward to 2017. My electorate is excited about the initiatives that have come their way. We have had good tourism and we have had good beef prices over the last few years. That has kept things afloat a wee bit, but the dairy is looking much more promising than it has been. There are lots of exciting opportunities coming on board. There are things like mānuka honey, and there are just more people recognising that provincial New Zealand is alive. It is a great place to live.

And while we are talking about provincial New Zealand, I would like to make a special mention before I close of our Te Kūiti legend—one of them—one Sir Colin Meads, and the other one is Sir David Fagan. Sir David Fagan has this week, with his team, brought 32 countries to the New Zealand world shearing championship in Invercargill, showcasing our agriculture to the world. Thank you.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

BARBARA KURIGER (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to adjourn.

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

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.