Tuesday, 8 August 2017

TUESDAY, 8 AUGUST 2017

TUESDAY, 8 AUGUST 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Transport, Auckland—Rail and Congestion

1. JACINDA ARDERN (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Did the Auckland transport announcement he made on Sunday include any acceleration of his Government’s plan to wait 30 years to build rail to the airport; if not, why not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Our announcement on Sunday confirmed that we are committing $267 million to improving commuter rail in Auckland and in Wellington, to support future passenger growth. It is part of a $24 billion transport plan that we have worked together on with the Auckland Council, and that plan is currently being updated. That update process will take account of growing demand for light rail, and it is always possible that it could come forward, but right now Waterview has reduced the travel time to 25 minutes and reduced congestion, and so we have got time to consider the need for light rail.

Jacinda Ardern: Given the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) says traffic volumes to Auckland Airport have risen by a third in the last 4 years, how long does he expect the delays will get in the next 30 years?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The travel time has dropped considerably since the Waterview tunnel opened, and that is a big step forward. As part of the transport plan with Auckland, we need to fast track the route protection for the mass transit corridor, and that is agreed and under way. As the plan is reviewed in light of changing demand, we are interested in the light rail and it may come forward if that is what is required.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with NZTA that Waterview—thank you, Labour—“is not a means”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will ask her question without the level of interjection that is coming from my immediate right.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just given a warning and it was ignored by one very senior Minister. I hope I do not have to mention that again.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with NZTA that Waterview “is not a means of removing congestion altogether, especially in peak periods,”; if so, why is he relying on what is likely to be a temporary solution to fix Auckland’s transport issues and refusing to give Aucklanders alternatives and choices?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong about a lack of alternatives and choices. Waterview has just opened. That is having a big impact, particularly for those travelling from west to south. The City Rail Link is under way, which, when completed, will double the train capacity, and all of this is in the context of an agreed plan with the Auckland Council, where $24 billion of projects is planned and agreed and the update is likely to bring the number up to about $27 billion of planned agreed projects and funding.

Jacinda Ardern: If light rail is “a good idea”, as he said on Sunday, why is it not a good idea until 2047, by which time Auckland’s population will have grown by an estimated 700,000?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, the plan between the Auckland Council and the Government has concluded that fast-track route protection for a mass transit corridor should get under way. Secondly, the Auckland Council and the Government are not willing to do light rail now at the expense of the key economic project of the East-West Link, which is about freight and trucks and economic activity. Labour’s proposition is going to scale back the East-West Link and bring in a regional fuel tax. We simply disagree with both.

Jacinda Ardern: When the Auckland Council, Greater Auckland, and the Auckland chamber of commerce all support light rail to the airport straight away, why does he think he knows Auckland’s transport needs better than Auckland’s own community leaders?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have spent a number of years—the last couple of years—forming the Auckland transport plan with the council. For the first time ever, central government and the council have a common view about the projects, a common view about the funding, and, of course, there are some differences of opinion. We both agree we need the East-West Link because it is critical to the logistics of getting in and out of the largest industrial area in New Zealand, and I am surprised that the Labour Party does not understand how necessary it is.

Jacinda Ardern: Does he understand that Aucklanders are paying the price of congestion already—they pay it in the time they spend stuck in traffic, in the work that does not get done, we have the world’s worst housing shortage in Auckland yet our builders are spending hours a day stuck in traffic; does he understand that the cost of doing nothing for 30 more years is great?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may have noticed all the red cones around Auckland, because there is no major transport route that is not undergoing major change, with more projects to come. Waterview has just opened, we have the northern corridor improvements, and we are expanding a number of lanes on the Southern Motorway. There is the now planned busway on the Northwestern Motorway where there has already been a lot of work. The City Rail Link is the biggest project of them all, the East-West Link is to come, and we are dealing with Mill Road. Aucklanders see all this happening and it is having an impact on the flows of traffic. We have a growing economy—that is a good thing. We are going to invest to support that growth.

Jacinda Ardern: Rather than delaying a decision as he did with the City Rail Link for so many years, will he join with me to make Auckland a world-class city by building a modern light rail network linking to the city centre, to the airport, to west Auckland, and to the North Shore? It is an open invitation. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am interested in hearing the response.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have done something way better than that—we have got together with the Auckland Council, and work with it. Interestingly enough, while it is interested in light rail, it, unlike the Labour Party, is interested in the people who live down south, the people who live out west, and the people who live up in the north—and that is why we have got a comprehensive $24 billion plan, and it is currently being updated to probably about $27 billion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister possibly tell the country how it is that we have massive infrastructure problems in Auckland from roading and trains to housing, medicine, and health when the two parties who are having a row in the House today about it caused it with mass immigration in the first place?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I think the member may know, the biggest single change in population in New Zealand has been that over the last 5 years, 150,000 Kiwis who were predicted to leave actually stayed home. They put New Zealand first, and I thought that member would have thought that was success. That is why we welcome the growth and we invest to support it rather than the member’s view that we should stop New Zealand being successful to slow down to what he can handle.

David Seymour: How much infrastructure would New Zealand have if New Zealand First was in charge and nobody had ever immigrated here?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no prime ministerial responsibility for that.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Prime Ministerial Conduct

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the Todd Barclay matter; if so, how does he actually do that?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes; because I said them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s press conference, did he tell reporters that he “wasn’t aware of the employment settlement” relating to the Todd Barclay matter, when one of his texts says: “settlement was larger than normal because of the privacy breach”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That was the text that came out with the police report. That was the discussion that was had with them at the time. There is absolutely nothing new in that. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will have the supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s press conference, did he tell reporters that he “wasn’t involved and didn’t know about the nature of the employment settlement.”, when his text message states that Glenys Dickson’s settlement was “part paid from prime ministers budget to avoid potential legal action.”—his words?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I stand by what I said at the prime ministerial press conference.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which of the following statements does he stand by: (a) “I wasn’t involved and didn’t know about the nature of the employment settlement.”, or (b) “The settlement was larger than normal because of the privacy breach”, and “Had to be part paid from prime ministers budget to avoid potential legal action. Everybody unhappy.”? Which one of those two statements does he stand by?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just remind the Prime Minister that in rising to answer the question, he does not need to make any comments around the leader’s budget. He has no prime ministerial responsibility for that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, he put it at issue at his Prime Minister’s press conference yesterday, which makes it relevant, and that is why he should be answering the questions, not ducking behind—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I will resume my seat, but you answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: In the first two—I advise the member that when I ask him to resume his seat, he does so. In the first two questions, he certainly referred to statements made at the press conference. In the third supplementary question, which he has just asked, he did not, and that is why I gave that warning to the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That will not do. The Prime Minister at his press conference said he—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume seat immediately, and if he carries on behaving like that—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Don’t threaten me.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I will threaten the member. If he carries on behaving like that, I will be asking him to leave the Chamber. Does the Prime Minister wish to address the question that was asked?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no ministerial responsibility for that.

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without questioning any of the previous rulings that you have made on this, with reference to Speaker’s ruling 170/2AA—which has not previously been canvassed—by Speaker Carter, it states: “Although considerable weight must be given to Minister’s claim that actions or statements were not made in a ministerial capacity, this can never be definitive. Where I judge a question to reveal a reasonable likelihood of a connection to ministerial responsibility, an informative answer must be given.” I would contend that given that it was the Prime Minister’s office that arranged that additional payment, I would say that there probably is a reasonable likelihood of a connection to the ministerial responsibility that is there for you to judge.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his scholarly study of Speakers’ Rulings. Can I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 173/1: “The Prime Minister is not responsible for funding provided through Parliamentary Service to the party.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister tell us why he deleted hundreds of his text messages relating to the Barclay matter, according to the media, yet insisted upon Judith Collins producing her telephone records when she was a contestant against him for the job of leader of the National Party?

Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister, in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no idea what the member is referring to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of the times he has been down to the Clutha-Southland electorate since he retired as its MP, how often were those trips primarily to meet with Glenys Dickson?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no ministerial responsibility for that, that is for sure.

Economy—Moody’s Report, Housing Market, Growth, and Exports

3. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Ratings agency Moody’s Investors Service last week said it expects New Zealand to be one of the fastest-growing Aaa-rated economies in the coming years, outpacing others in the Aaa group such as Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States. The Moody’s assessment is based on New Zealand’s economic resilience, proactive policy-making, and fiscal flexibility, all of which feed into economic growth. This kind of economic performance is a hallmark of the Government’s strong economic plan, which has been in place since 2009.

Andrew Bayly: What risk did Moody’s highlight in its report?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Moody’s notes that the New Zealand economy is exposed to unexpected shocks, such as natural disasters or sudden downturns in the global economy. That is why it is important to keep the Government’s books in good order, and we have made good progress in that regard. New Zealand now has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios amongst Aaa-rated countries. However, we need to maintain our resilience to shocks further if we want to ensure people in hardship retain access to entitlements should a shock occur. That is why Budget 2017 commits the Government to cutting net debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020, and further reducing it to between 10 and 15 percent of GDP by 2025.

Andrew Bayly: According to Moody’s, how have housing market risks eased?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Low interest rates are a reality of the post - global financial crisis environment worldwide, and that has fed right through into the prices of all sorts of assets, including housing. In this, New Zealand is no different to any other country. However, Moody’s reports point out that the introduction of macro-prudential controls by the Government, and then their inclusion by the Reserve Bank, means that the housing market risk is now much lower than 5 years ago. This can be seen in Auckland house prices, which are currently flat and falling. However, there is no place for complacency, and once again I would encourage homebuyers to factor in where interest rates could be in the future, not just where they are today, when making borrowing decisions.

Andrew Bayly: What other factors contribute to New Zealand’s Aaa rating and strong growth outlook?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the key differences between New Zealand and some other advanced economies we compare ourselves with is the level of policy stability that we have enjoyed in this country over the last 8 years. You only have to look at the US, the UK, and Australia to see the negative impact that a changeable policy environment and a changeable political environment can have on the economy. I am sure New Zealanders will be assessing these matters in this country as we approach the upcoming election.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm the Statistics New Zealand reports that show that the export sector has had three consecutive quarterly falls in output, of minus 1.1 percent, minus 3.2 percent, and minus 0.4 percent, and how is he going with that export target?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I will not confirm that for the member, because I find it always pays to look at his data quite carefully because he is prone to making some interesting observations. New Zealand exports by value have been growing over the last couple of years, despite the dairy industry struggling for a 2- or 3-year period. Now, with the dairy sector starting to grow again and prices recovering, I fully expect that maintenance of growth and export values to continue.

Housing, Rental—Cost Compared With Wages and Accommodation Supplement

4. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with the statement of the Prime Minister that a shortage of rentals is “a problem of success”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): The member asked the identical question 2 months ago, and, as I said then, I stand by the Prime Minister’s full statement. New Zealand is doing well. Kiwis are not leaving in droves as they were, and our population is growing strongly. This is putting pressure on the housing market. The good news is the massive growth in home construction now has building activity at record levels and a record pipeline of new homes coming on stream of over 100,000 over the next 3 years.

Phil Twyford: Does he think it is acceptable that more than 50 percent of those receiving the accommodation supplement spend more than half their income on rent, according to his ministry’s own analysis?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would draw the member’s attention to Massey University’s housing affordability measures, which show in every region of New Zealand houses are more affordable now than when this Government came to office.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary and the supplementary questions were about rents.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I think it was around 50 percent of the accommodation supplement being spent on rent. That is around affordability, and in this case I think the question has been addressed. I invite the member to consider asking further supplementary questions.

Phil Twyford: Why does he think the cost of rent has been outstripping the growth in incomes, particularly for those on the lowest wages, as shown by his ministry’s own analysis?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would ask the member to look at the record of rent increases under the previous Labour administration, because, actually, rents have not gone up as quickly under this Government. Furthermore, I would draw the member’s attention to the Family Incomes Package in this year’s Budget, which put a huge level of support and increased accommodation supplements for those families that are facing increased rents. I note with concern that members opposite voted against those accommodation supplement increases.

Phil Twyford: If I am willing to acknowledge that rents went up a lot under the last Labour Government, will he admit that rents have gone up even more in relation to incomes under National over the last 9 years, and will he explain to renters now what he is doing to rein in out-of-control rent increases?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would draw the member’s attention to the latest rental data. It shows that in the market of Christchurch we are now in the second straight year of rent declines, and the reason that has occurred in Christchurch is that the Government took hold of the planning system, released large volumes of land for housing, and that is now delivering benefits. The Auckland market is larger but exactly the same approach is proving to work, as we see by the growth in home construction.

Phil Twyford: Given that in so many rental markets around the country property speculators and the shortage of housing are responsible for driving up rents, why will he not tax speculators and back a massive Government-backed house building programme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I love the hollow lines from the member that he is going to ban speculation. My simple challenge to him is this: when he goes along to a housing auction, how does he determine those who are genuine investors and those who are speculators? You cannot. It is a nonsense, and it just reinforces the hollow sound bites from that member. I contrast that with the substantive tax changes, planning changes, and other changes that are seeing a record-high house build and these issues being addressed.

Tourism Infrastructure Fund—Announcements

5. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has she made about the Government’s Tourism Infrastructure Fund?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism): Last week I announced that applications are now open for the first round of the Government’s new $100 million Tourism Infrastructure Fund. With tourism booming, creating employment in our regions and in our cities throughout New Zealand, we acknowledge that there is some pressure on infrastructure, and this fund is now open for councils to apply to.

Maureen Pugh: How does the fund work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The first round will focus more on helping communities in the most immediate need of assistance. To give an example, for the mid-sized facilities grant that we previously had, for $5.2 million we were able to get 28 projects under way. This is a $25 million a year fund, so we will be able to have a number of projects, particularly for those councils that have a low ratepayer base but high visitor numbers.

Maureen Pugh: What other support is the Government providing for tourism infrastructure in the regions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Budget 2017 also included a $76 million fund for the Department of Conservation. That is to upgrade tourism infrastructure, which is used by both visitors and New Zealanders to look at some other short and great walks throughout New Zealand, to advertise that there is more than just the Tongariro Crossing, and to acknowledge that there are needs around toilet facilities and car-parking.

Transport, Auckland—Rail

6. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Yes, including my statements that Kennedy Graham and David Clendon are men of principle who do not accept dishonesty in public life. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to ask his supplementary question.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement on rail to Auckland Airport that “route protection will be progressed with urgency to future-proof options for both advanced bus and light rail.”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Absolutely. That is exactly what we are doing. We are getting on with the job and we will move progressively to rail, as demand requires.

James Shaw: Can he confirm that the urgent business case for protecting the light rail route to the airport was originally due to be completed this year?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That sounds right, and it shows what a great Government we are—making progress on a huge raft of projects and a range of projects in our biggest city.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table a briefing obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA) that confirms that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) was to urgently progress a business case for route protection in 2017.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

James Shaw: Can he confirm that the urgent business case to protect the route for Auckland Airport rail has now been delayed until the end of next year?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, I cannot confirm that. Look, as I say, I think my expectation of the NZTA has been very clear. I expect it to get on with that route protection. What we know, though, is that light rail and mass transit on that route is not a silver bullet. We know that Waterview is doing a fantastic job of halving the travel across that corridor, but, actually, it is really important that we get on with a range of projects—whether it is Waterview, which is done now; the Northwestern busway; Mill Road—where there is real growth and where there are Aucklanders who need the assistance.

James Shaw: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response from the Transport Agency stating that “completion of business case work for route protection is now late 2018”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

James Shaw: What led his Government to delay work protecting the airport rail route, which it had previously described as “urgent”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We have not. As I say, my expectation is that we get on with it. I think, as we have heard from the Prime Minister, there are a huge number of orange cones all around Auckland. We understand that we have got to make progress on a range of projects in public transport, roads, rail, and cycleways. We are not going to pick just one winner when we know that the north, the west, and the east all need the work because of the high growth and the strong economic opportunities that are happening in Auckland right now.

James Shaw: If his response, then, is accurate—that his expectation is that they get on with it—how does he explain the discrepancy between those two OIA documents, one of which says that they were to progress the business case for route protection in 2017, the next of which says that they have delayed it until late 2018? How does he explain that discrepancy?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, I think the member is trainspotting, quite literally. I think if you go through it and you look at really big projects, they do take a long time. There is a lot of legal, practical, planning, and design issues to work through. That was true of Waterview, it is true of the City Rail Link, and it is true of the massive projects that we are progressing all around Auckland at the moment. What is also true is that when you oppose every kind of Resource Management Act reform that has ever come to this House, you are not going to help us to do these projects quicker.

James Shaw: Given that two separate business cases have already shown that airport rail has significant positive benefits, how can it possibly take 2 years to do a third?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member is simply incorrect. What is true is that it takes time to do this kind of work. What is also true is that this Government has prioritised route protection, and then it will get on with mass rapid transit, such as buses, I think, and moving to light rail, as the demand requires. But I think where the Labour-Green members, in their close unity, get things wrong is that they do not remember that actually you have got to keep working on a range of projects; it is not one silver bullet. Actually, the people out in West Auckland need the Northwestern busway. The people out of the South, where there is massive growth, need Mill Road, and that is why we are doing all of these projects.

Southern District Health Board—Performance

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Thank you. My question is to the Minister of Health—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just need to ask that the conversation cease so that Dr David Clark can ask his question.

7. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the authors of an open letter to him reported on Checkpoint yesterday that comments he made on Southern District Health Board “suggesting one of our departments is ‘toxic’” and that the district health board “is a ‘cot case’ are particularly unhelpful”; if so, will he now apologise for those comments?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The comments that the member is referring to have been plucked from a 14-minute interview that I did last Friday. With regard to the first comment, that is how matters had been described to me. I also said in the interview that the reason we had to put a commissioner into the Southern District Health Board (DHB) was that it was a cot case. Turning around the Southern DHB was never going to be fast or easy. But I am pleased to say that thanks to the hard work of the commissioner, the new chief executive (CE), and the 4,500 staff, the DHB is on a long-term track to sustainability. The Government is working on the indicative business case for Dunedin hospital. The facility needs upgrading, and this Government is determined to make that happen.

Dr David Clark: Does he think it is acceptable that one-third of orthopaedic patients at the Southern DHB are unable to be seen and are referred back to their GP because of a lack of capacity?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As with any assertion that that member makes, we would have to go and check that; he was wrong on the intensive care unit (ICU) beds. But the fact is that across the country, out of all those patients referred from general practitioners for first-specialist assessments, 87 percent see a specialist, about 5 percent are turned away, and another 8 percent have just been inappropriately referred or their time has passed. Thanks.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a letter, not publicly available, sent to the Minister yesterday, which references—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members know the letter. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular open letter to the Minister. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none; it can be tabled.

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

Dr David Clark: Is he concerned that as part of the cost-cutting measures at the Southern DHB, clinicians are improvising by modifying their own equipment, including a pair of hardware store vice grips used in surgery, one of the 112 non-registered medical devices removed from southern hospitals by the end of last year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to go and check all of that. I would expect the CE to look into it. So I am not aware of the claims that he is making.

Dr David Clark: In light of his acknowledgment that there is a shortage of ICU beds in the Southern DHB, does he think that it is appropriate for financial penalties to be imposed on the DHB when it fails to meet its targets?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Let us be very clear: there are eight ICU beds there. They have just approved another one. But, crucially, they will be able to double the capacity to 18 by next August, and the fact is that there are not financial penalties.

Dr David Clark: Has he seen a draft of the urology report being circulated at the Southern DHB?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not.

Freshwater Management—Government Initiatives

8. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for the Environment: What are the next steps in the Government’s programme to improve New Zealand fresh water, and what specific lakes and rivers will benefit from these initiatives?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Today I have announced with the Prime Minister 33 freshwater improvement projects across the country, covering over 100 lakes and river. The grants, totalling $44 million, involve a total investment of $142 million with council and other contributions. It will fund fencing, riparian planting, sewerage reticulation, water storage to increase minimum flows, the eradication of water weeds, removal of pest fish, and the restoration of marginal land adjacent to waterways. Significant water bodies included in the initiative are the Wairoa River in Northland, Lake Tarawera in the Bay of Plenty, Lake Horowhenua, the Manawatū River, the Waimea River in Tasman, the Selwyn River in Canterbury, and Lake Wānaka in Otago, and I note the member’s advocacy for the Waituna Lagoon in Southland.

Sarah Dowie: How does the level of Government investment in improving freshwater quality over the past 9 years compare with the previous 9 years, and what is the total amount this Government has committed?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Our Government has committed $201 million over the past 9 years, as compared to $29 million over the previous 9 years—i.e., the investment has increased by sixfold. This is the amount actually spent on programmes. We have also committed a further $160 million through initiatives like the Whanganui, the Waikato, and other rivers from previous funds and Treaty settlements. Today’s announcements bring the total to over $400 million of investments in cleaner water for New Zealanders.

Sarah Dowie: How do these announced initiatives fit into the Government’s broader freshwater improvement programme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is simultaneously putting in place stronger national policy direction and regulation. Just today I have launched new forestry regulations with Associate Minister for Primary Industries Louise Upston, which will see a substantial reduction in the amount of impacts of that sector on water quality. I am also working with the Minister for Primary Industries on national regulations that will require 56,000 kilometres of fencing. We have also put in place national rules around ecological health, limiting nutrients like phosphates and nitrogen, and setting a clear target of 90 percent of water bodies being swimmable by 2040. No Government in the history of New Zealand has made as much progress on improving freshwater management.

Marama Fox: What steps has the Government taken in response to the consistent and impassioned advocacy by the Māori Party to ensure local iwi are involved in freshwater clean-up projects across New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first initiative of the Māori Party was formally recognised in Te Mana o te Wai, in our national regulatory framework, and that will be put in place. Secondly, with regard to this Freshwater Improvement Fund, the Māori Party advocated that a condition of receiving funding was for local iwi and hapū to be involved in those clean-up projects. That is a condition of those 33 projects that we have announced today. Then, the third area of work has been with the Minister for Māori Development, in which, through the work between my ministry and his, we have also funded a further 12 specific projects in partnership with iwi.

Sarah Dowie: Do any of the freshwater improvement projects announced today involve irrigation schemes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, two of the projects do: one in Canterbury and the other in Tasman. The $1.1 million project from Environment Canterbury involves taking water from the Central Plains irrigation scheme to recharge the Hororata, the Irwell, and the Selwyn rivers, resulting in improved volumes of water and improved quality, and will significantly help a number of notable swimming sites. The Tasman proposal involves a partnership with the council and irrigators for the Waimea Community Dam in funding water storage for increasing summer recreation and ecological flows. This pragmatic approach shows that smartly designed water infrastructure can deliver both environmental and economic benefits, consistent with this Government’s blue-green approach.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister still believe his repeated statements that a swimmable standard is impossible for our rivers because of bird excrement, volcanic soils, and floods; if not, what date did he flip-flop, and if he cannot remember that date, what date did he put a stop to bird excrement and floods?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to line up, on any day he likes, the record of indecision that occurred over the 9 years of Labour on freshwater management and the progress that we have made. I would further point out that the swimming standards that this Government has proposed are even tighter than those in the only other jurisdiction that grades them—in Europe—and represent a substantive step forward for New Zealand.

Mining on Conservation Land—New Talisman Gold Mines

9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she support the locking of gates across public walking tracks on conservation land to facilitate mining?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): If it is appropriate to protect the public from danger, then of course I do. If decisions of that kind are made, they are made by the operational people on the spot. I am sure Department of Conservation (DOC) staff always weigh up public access and safety, and I support them to make the appropriate decisions.

Catherine Delahunty: Why has she allowed New Talisman Gold Mines to restrict public access to conservation land—

Hon Simon Bridges: You guys know about restricting access to people at the moment.

Catherine Delahunty: —and prospect for industrial gold mining in an area described, Simon, by the Hauraki District Council as “a national attraction and one of our most valued assets.”?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I think I got the gist of that. It is the same refrain. The area of land that the member refers to is very small—0.3 hectares, around 230 metres. It is in a relatively low area of public use. It does not affect access to other parts of the park. It is a temporary closure between 5 June and 9 September. The alternative would be putting the public at risk. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will have just the supplementary question.

Catherine Delahunty: Will she support the petitions of 20,000 people seeking to protect Mount Karangahake from mining, by advocating for its inclusion in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: No, I will not.

Catherine Delahunty: Does she think that the 50,000 people who marched down Queen Street in 2010 to oppose mining in conservation land have now changed their minds and welcome mining in precious places like the Coromandel Forest Park at Karangahake?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The protest that the member is referring to was around schedule 4 land. This is not schedule 4 land; it is not protected. It is land that has been mined for more than 100 years and is now in a temporary permit and a temporary closure for 3 months. The member is getting well ahead of herself.

Immigration—Exploitation of International Students

10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Immigration: Is it acceptable that, after nine years of a National-led Government, there are business owners charging thousands of dollars for jobs that lead to residence?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): No illegal activity by any party in relation to immigration is acceptable at any time. That is why this Government has invested heavily in both Immigration New Zealand and the labour inspectorate to stamp out this kind of behaviour. Unfortunately, where there are rules, a small number of people will inevitably try to bend them. Our improvements mean there are far fewer problems now than there have been in the past.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why, after 9 years of National Government, does Immigration New Zealand say that some private training establishments (PTEs) enter agreements with dodgy employers who recruit students to work at their business in order to sell these students jobs when they are ready to apply for work and residence visas?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As I said, when there are more than 100,000 international students in our second-largest service export earner, there will always be a small number of people who try to bend the rules. That is entirely unacceptable, which is why this Government has put in place a number of measures to prevent and prosecute that behaviour.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why, after 9 years of a National-led Government, is it possible for a PTE to bus its international students to kiwifruit orchards, to work 5 days a week for $5 an hour?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: If the member has evidence of that kind of illegal behaviour, I would expect him to tell the appropriate authorities. What I do know is that Immigration New Zealand and the labour inspectorate are diligent in deploying the resources the Government has given them in detecting that type of behaviour.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Given that answer, why was that example in an Immigration New Zealand report that was handed to him, and why does that same report say that the issues occurring at that unnamed PTE are one facet of a larger issue regarding immigration- and labour-related offending at franchises and small businesses?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It was probably in a report because Immigration New Zealand was doing exactly what I would expect it to do, and that is detect, prevent, and prosecute that behaviour. There is nothing unusual in that. It would be nice to think that of the 800,000 visas that are issued by Immigration New Zealand every year, everybody complied in all respects. That is not the reality. But we are on top of it.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Is he concerned that by opposing Labour’s policy of tightening up on student visas, to weed out those PTEs that exist solely to exploit their students and create a back door to residency, he gives the impression that National sees international students as cash cows and has no interest in their welfare or the impact that their exploitation has on working conditions for all New Zealanders?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This Government is not interested in any lazy policies that would arbitrarily cut immigration because of populist reasons and, at the same time, tar every private tertiary education provider with the same brush. There are a great number of them in this country that are doing a very fine job of delivering international education to those students.

Immigration—Fraudulent Visas and Exploitation of International Students

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Supplementary question—

Mr SPEAKER: We will have the primary question. [Interruption]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Primary question—[Interruption] I got ahead of myself. It will happen in this campaign.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just trying to get a bit more silence.

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does his Government take immigration fraud seriously; if so, how?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): This Government takes any type of visa or immigration fraud very seriously. We have done this by investing heavily in verification and risk resources, including a world-class identity management system that enables face photos and fingerprint information from applications to be captured online and automatically matched against personal data held by Immigration New Zealand. We also amended the Immigration Act in 2015 so that residence-class visa holders are liable for deportation where it is established that any of the information provided in relation to their application was fraudulent, false, misleading, or any information was withheld.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is remotely true, what is his priority to manage fraud in the Mumbai and New Delhi offices, and why has he excluded the Manila, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong offices, where fraud updates for March 2017 to his department identified fraudulent document concerns regarding hundreds and hundreds of applications?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Immigration New Zealand has been working very hard in that Mumbai market, particularly in those high-risk areas in the north of India. But, I stress, the Indian market is a valuable one for export education, but it also carries risks not only to New Zealand but to a number of countries that trade in international education. We have seen significant reductions in the number of fraudulent visas. The decline rates are now starting to drop and there has been a 90 percent reduction in fact, year on year, in terms of fraud detection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can a self-respecting First World country like New Zealand have a Mr Big and an old boys’ club controlling the Indian student market, exporting Indian students as cheap labour and charging them up to $20,000 just to get a job? Why do you not do the world a favour and resign?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would encourage the member, if he has any information other than that, which he got from the Radio New Zealand website, to provide it to the immigration authorities. I, frankly, will not be holding my breath.

Forestry Regulations—Announcements

12. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcement has the Government made regarding forestry regulations?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): Earlier today Dr Nick Smith and I announced a new nationwide set of environmental rules for managing New Zealand’s 1.8 million hectares of plantation forestry. Forestry is New Zealand’s third-largest primary industry, but its efficiency is hampered by the confusing mix of planning rules across our 86 councils. This new national approach will better protect the environment while improving productivity by reducing consenting costs and applying consistent environmental standards. This new national forestry standard is an important part of the Government’s Resource Management Act changes, facilitated by amendments passed in May and aimed at getting better environmental outcomes with less cost and bureaucracy.

Ian McKelvie: How will these regulations benefit the forestry industry?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The forestry industry will benefit from having a set of consistent regulations to operate under. Planning rules at local government level mean there could be as many as three sets of regional or district plan rules. The forestry sector employs over 26,000 people and exports in total around $5 billion a year. So removing this uncertainty will encourage greater investment in a significant contributor to our economy, especially at the regional level. More plantation forestry will provide a variety of environmental benefits, including improvement in water quality, carbon storage, habitat for indigenous species, and stabilisation of erosion-prone land. The standards come into force on 1 May 2018. They will be implemented over a 9-month period and key stakeholders will be consulted to ensure an effective roll-out.

Appointments

Independent Police Conduct Authority

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Defence): I move, That, pursuant to sections 5 and 5A of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Judge Colin John Doherty as chairperson of the Independent Police Conduct Authority for a term of 5 years commencing on 31 August 2017.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority is established by section 4 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988. Its function is to investigate complaints alleging any misconduct or neglect of duty by a member of the police or concerning any practice, policy, or procedure of the Police affecting the complainant. The authority is also responsible for investigating any incident involving serious bodily harm or death notified to the authority by the Commissioner of Police.

Section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 provides that the authority consists of up to five members, appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. One member is to be appointed as the chairperson of the authority. The chairperson must be a judge or a retired judge. Appointments to the authority are subject to the provisions of section 32(1)(b) of the Crown Entities Act 2004. As such, members of independent Crown entities are appointed for a maximum term of 5 years.

The term of appointment for the current chairperson, Judge Sir David Carruthers, expired on 15 April 2017. Sir David indicated that he did not wish to be considered for reappointment. However, the authority is currently undergoing an organisational restructuring, and, in order that Sir David can oversee this work before vacating office, it is proposed that he remain in office until the end of August 2017. Because the chairperson of the authority must be a judge or a retired judge, nominations for this appointment were sought from the Chief Justice and the Chief District Court Judge. Judge Doherty, currently a senior member of the judiciary, has been nominated to fill the important position of chairperson of the authority by the Chief District Court Judge. I am confident that Judge Doherty has the legal acumen, judgment, and administrative skills to equip him to be a very able appointee.

Judge Doherty is the National Executive Judge of the District Court of New Zealand. He has been a District Court judge since 1997, after spending 20 years as a practising lawyer. Judge Doherty is also an Alternate Judge of the Environment Court and a Justice of the High Court of the Cook Islands. He has previously served as an Associate Judge of the High Court of New Zealand and a Justice of the Supreme Court of Samoa. Over the past 15 years Judge Doherty has held a number of senior administrative positions in the District Court judiciary. He is the chair of the District Court’s International Framework for Court Excellence committee. He oversaw the implementation of New Zealand’s first International Framework for Court Excellence, an assessment in 2012, and its second assessment in 2015. He previously chaired the judicial reference group established in the wake of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, for which he was a recipient of the 2013 Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Award for Excellence.

Before closing, I would like to pay a tribute to the outstanding work of Sir David Carruthers as chairperson of the authority since April 2012. Under his leadership, the authority has been a rigorous and independent watchdog of police conduct. His distinguished service in this role matches his achievements in a succession of crucial legal appointments over many years. He was appointed to the District Court bench in 1985, as the Principal Youth Court Judge in 1996, and the Chief District Court Judge in June of 2001. In July 2005 he was appointed chairperson of the New Zealand Parole Board. I congratulate him on, and thank him for, all he has done as a part of our judiciary.

To succeed Sir David, it is with great pleasure that I commend to the House Judge Doherty for this very important role. He is a highly able New Zealander, and I am confident that he possesses the range of skills and attributes that will ensure the authority continues to meet its significant responsibilities impartially, efficiently, and effectively. All parties were consulted as part of the appointment process and all those who have responded were supportive of Judge Doherty’s appointment. Thank you.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I stand to agree with the honourable Minister Mark Mitchell. I think Judge Colin Doherty is an excellent appointment. Everyone I have spoken to about His Honour speaks very, very highly of him as a very experienced judge, a man of honour and integrity, and I think he will do a fantastic job, as the Minister just mentioned. He fills very big shoes with Sir David Carruthers, who has done a very, very good job in leading this most important authority.

What is the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA)? Well, it exists “so that people have trust that complaints about, and incidents involving, Police conduct, and any practice, policy or procedure, will be fairly and impartially investigated or reviewed and any recommendations made and implemented will result in improved Police performance.” The authority also provides reassurances for the public and Parliament that policing standards are of the highest calibre through impartial and independent oversight. The IPCA exists as an independent Crown entity under Part 3 of schedule 1 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 and it is established under the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988. The functions defined by the Act are as follows in the authority’s statement of intent: “Receiving and taking action on complaints alleging misconduct or neglect of duty by any employee of the Police, or concerning any practice, policy or procedure of the Police.” Also “… investigating incidents involving death or serious bodily harm caused or appearing to have been caused by an employee of the Police acting in the execution of their duty.”, where it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds in the public interest to do so.

The authority also has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Police, and this covers instances that may present reputational risk to the police, including serious offending by the police officer or police actions that may have an element of corruption. Under the MOU, cases are referred by the police to the authority even though there may not have been a complaint from a member of the public or there may not have been a death or serious bodily harm. Under section 17 of the Act, when the authority receives a complaint, it can investigate the complaint itself; refer it to the police for investigation under the authority’s oversight, which may include direction of the police investigation, proactive oversight, or a review ordered upon completion of the police investigation; defer the action; or actually take no action.

What I would say at this point in time when the police are, I believe, very under-resourced—we are hearing from the members of the public about a very reactive response to crime at the moment. As Labour’s police spokesperson, I am getting more and more complaints about the police, which I am referring to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. If I have a look at the work of the authority, what it does is it divides complaints into five different categories. The first one is an independent investigation by the authority, and last year there were 73 of these. The second category is referral to police for investigation with active oversight by the authority and a full review of the file by the authority at the conclusion of the investigation. This is category two, and in the last financial year there were 140 of these. Category three is referral to police for investigation with a full review of the file by the authority at its conclusion. There were 65 of these. Category four is referral to police for resolution by mutual agreement by the complainant—there were 794 of these. Then category five is complaint declined by the authority, and there were 1,264 of these.

So, overall, the Independent Police Conduct Authority dealt with 2,441 complaints, so this is not an easy job. There is a lot of work involved in it, and it does require a man of exceptional integrity because of the very nature of the confidence that the public must have in the police and the processes if they are actually making a complaint against the police. This is why I conclude by saying that Judge Colin Doherty is the perfect man for this position. I wish him well, and I look forward to seeing him in front of our select committee, but also I would like to say, once again, that Judge Carruthers did a very good job in this role. He has left the Independent Police Conduct Authority in good stead. Thank you very much.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): And I am sure your benchmate will now talk to you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I rise to indicate the Green Party’s support for the motion to appoint Judge Colin John Doherty as the chairperson of the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) for a term of 5 years commencing on 31 August this year. It is important to have this independent authority to ensure that we have got the sufficient checks and balances on the conduct of our police. The role of the IPCA is to “receive complaints—(i) alleging misconduct or neglect of duty …” by any member of police or “(ii) concerning any [police] practice, policy, or procedure …” affecting a complainant, or to investigate incidents in which a member of the police “acting in the execution of his or her duty causes, or appears to have caused, death or serious bodily harm …”.

On that, I wish to acknowledge the outgoing authority chairperson, Judge Sir David Carruthers. I acknowledge his work, such as the authority’s report of September 2016, which found that police are more likely to let off non-Māori with warnings—that is, that police are less likely to use their discretionary power to offer a pre-charge warning as an alternative to prosecution for minor offences for Māori. Sir David Carruthers, in his role as chair, noted the possibility of differential treatment on the basis of ethnicity and said that “Pre-charge warnings are more likely to be given to non-Māori offenders than to Māori offenders.”

During his time in charge, Sir David Carruthers oversaw several large investigations, including those into the Urewera raids and the Roast Busters scandal. The IPCA’s reports on both matters were highly critical of police, finding the raids unlawful and the Roast Busters investigation full of deficiencies. Carruthers, a staunch advocate of restorative Justice, recommended in his report on the Urewera raids that police apologise in person to those they had wronged.

The incoming appointment, His Honour Judge Colin Doherty, is the National Executive Judge of the District Court of New Zealand. He has been a District Court judge since 1997, following 20 years as a practising lawyer. Judge Doherty is also an Alternate Judge of the Environment Court and a Justice of the High Court of the Cook Islands. He has previously served as an Associate Judge of the High Court of New Zealand and a Justice of the Supreme Court of Samoa. I look forward to the newly appointed Judge Colin John Doherty taking the helm of the IPCA and upholding the important work of keeping police conduct to account. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a very short call to, firstly, thank the outgoing chair of the Independent Police Conduct Authority, Judge David Carruthers, a sterling chap from Pahīatua in the Wairarapa, and a good friend—I thank him for the service that he has done for this country and wish him well in the future—and to note the appointment of Judge Colin Doherty and to wish him well.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2017/18) Bill

First Reading

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2017/18) Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Imprest Supply Debate

Imprest Supply Debate

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2017/18) Bill be now read a second time. This Government is very proud of the work that it has been able to do on Budget 2017, and Budget 2017 is one that continues to deliver for New Zealanders, based on this Government’s strong economic plan.

The New Zealand economy grew 3 percent in the year to March, making us one of the top-performing OECD countries. In fact, last year we were the fifth - fastest-growing OECD economy. That is all good, but the important thing is what it means for New Zealanders, and the most important thing has been employment growth, which is very, very strong. In fact, we have now seen more than 180,000 new jobs created in the last 2 years under—[Interruption]—that is right; 180,000 new jobs in the last 2 years—with another 215,000 people to be in work by the middle of 2021. Unemployment has fallen to 4.8 percent. But, more importantly, the employment rate is growing, and the employment rate is now 76.2 percent, which is the second-highest rate in the whole of the developed world—the second-highest rate of employment in the whole of the developed world.

What that means is that we are rapidly approaching full employment in this country, which is interesting when we have the discussions around migration and we have those sorts of discussions, because all of the companies that are continuing to grow around this country are looking for skilled workers. We can train some, and we are. We have something like 43,000 apprentices currently in the New Zealand economy, including a record number in construction—11,000 apprentices in construction currently. And we will and can bring some of the remaining 29,000-odd 15- to 24-year-olds who are available for work into work through apprenticeships and some of the other programmes that we are doing, like the Regional Growth Programme, Project 1000 in Hawke’s Bay, and the Taitamariki 500 programme in Northland. These are intensive local programmes to bring people into work that arise out of this Budget.

The other important thing is that inflation remains low, so while the average wage is going up—it is now $59,000, nearly over the $60,000 mark—inflation is remaining low, and the gains are going into people’s wallets. In fact, the OECD said recently that New Zealand has one of the strongest real income growths of any developed country, including more than Australia and the US. [Interruption] Well, I invite the members opposite, who seem to disagree with this approach, to go and talk to the independent referees, the independent monitors, like the OECD and like the IMF, and like Moody’s, for example, which declared last week that the Government of New Zealand—I quite like this headline—is Aaa stable.

Brett Hudson: Aaa stable.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Aaa stable: the Government of New Zealand, which, I have to say, is quite a contrast to the Opposition, which you could describe as many things but not as Aaa stable. That is certainly not what you could describe the Opposition as.

But I want to talk about productivity for a minute—

Grant Robertson: Yes, do.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —because I happened to be alongside Mr Robertson speaking about productivity last night in Christchurch. He gave me some figures that I thought were a bit weird. You have always got to watch it with the member Mr Robertson—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —so I went away and had a look, and, actually, helpfully for the member, something for him to think about is that Treasury this month, in its Monthly Economic Indicators, which came out yesterday, put out a special topic: “Adjusting for level shifts in labour market data”. It was pointing out that, actually, the headline productivity statistics are wrong, because the household labour force survey was changed in June of last year. So when Mr Robertson pops up and starts talking about productivity shortly, I would recommend that he adjust the productivity measures for the level shifts in the labour market data caused by the change last year, otherwise he might find the public a bit cynical about his comments on productivity.

The good news, though, is that the Government’s stable, reliable platform and the growth of the economy give us the opportunity through this Budget to invest heavily in the future of New Zealanders. We have done that in three main areas. Firstly is a big investment in infrastructure. That has been talked about a lot, but over the next 4 years the Government will spend $32.5 billion on infrastructure in this country. You can see it all over this country; you just have to drive not too far north of here, for example, to see the highway being built at Transmission Gully, or you can go up the Hutt Valley to see the wonderful new interchange there at Haywards. In Auckland you can travel the Waterview tunnel, which the Labour Party seems to have forgotten exists—the Waterview tunnel between—

Grant Robertson: We started it.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, you did not start it, actually. That is an interesting point about that; I am glad the member raises it. When I was transport Minister in 2009, they came and said the Government’s plan—this is the Labour Government’s plan—was to build a tunnel that was two lanes in each direction. That is what the Labour Government settled on. It was going to be longer than this tunnel, and it was going to cost $2.3 billion. I said “That sounds a ridiculously large sum of money.”, and I sent them away with two targets. I said: “I want you to build it three lanes in each direction, and I want you to build it for a billion dollars less than you’re proposing.” So they came back with a shorter tunnel. You see, the previous Prime Minister did not want any part of it in her electorate above ground. She did not want that, so we shortened it, and we reduced the cost of that tunnel.

Despite adding an extra lane in each direction, $1.4 billion was the eventual cost of the tunnel. We did not get a billion dollars off; we got $900 million off, we got an extra lane in each direction, and Aucklanders are benefiting from that now. They are having the joy of driving between the city and the airport in 25 minutes. Eventually, we will need the rapid transit option. Of course, the rapid transit option as proposed at the moment is to take 43 minutes to the airport. Instead of 25, they are proposing that it will take 43 minutes. So I think we should send them back and say “Shorten that time up a little bit.”, and that will actually be useful.

But there is $32.5 billion in infrastructure and also a very big investment in public services—a very big investment in public services. There is a very big investment in public services, including the biggest investment in the health sector in 11 years—in 11 years. You have got things like the bowel screening, you have got things like, of course, the care and support workers—you have got some very big investments in the health sector. You have got big investments in the education sector—all the roll growth being met, and all the new schools, of course, coming in the infrastructure budget. We have said—in fact, the leadership, the Prime Minister, said—that we are not going to muck around. We are going to meet the demand of a growing country, and that is what we have in this Budget.

Then of course there is the bit that the Opposition really does not like, and that is the Family Incomes Package—the Family Incomes Package, where 1.3 million New Zealand families from 1 April next year will receive income of an additional $26 a week. It is an additional $26 a week on average, and some of them will get a lot more. Some of them in west Auckland and South Auckland will get well over $100 a week more because of the way the package works for them. The good news is that people on the median wage and on the average wage are not forgotten by this Government. Now, the Opposition is proposing to pay people who earn the same amount of money as you or me a $3,000 baby bonus. That is what it is proposing—a $3,000 baby bonus for me, which I have to say is unlikely at this point, and for people who earn what I am earning. I actually think we are far better to change the tax thresholds and let people spend the money. In fact, Mr Little actually used to support that, and he may well again support that, because he is now away from the leadership, so he will be able to speak his mind a little bit more. Perhaps he does support threshold changes, because Mr Robertson collared him and said he could not support threshold changes just after he had said that, actually, you do have to change the thresholds from time to time.

So this Government is delivering for New Zealanders, this Budget is delivering for New Zealanders, and most of all we are delivering the political stability for New Zealanders that is allowing the economy to grow, as against, say, the Opposition.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): This Budget is a tale of missed opportunity. The Government can say that the economy is growing, at the high-level indicators, by around 3 percent, and that is absolutely true. But what Mr Joyce knows and what the Government knows is that on a per person basis, the economy is growing less than 1 percent a year, and that is the reality that this Government has to face.

Brett Hudson: If you measure GDP worked on a Sunday afternoon.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Once upon a time—in fact, not that long ago, in the 2016 version of this legislation that we are debating today in 2017—the Prime Minister said that the most important indicator for living standards in New Zealand was GDP per capita. So it is all very well for Brett Hudson to yell across the House and say that that is not right, but, actually, it is what Bill English said, and GDP per capita still sits below 1 percent. What that means is that two-thirds of the growth in our economy, measured as it is by GDP, is actually coming from the fact that there are more people in New Zealand at the moment. The reality of that also comes through in terms of our productivity. The lost opportunity in this Budget is that the Government could have come forward with a series of initiatives to address the productivity problem New Zealand has. It is a long-running issue, and I am not putting the blame for it at the feet of any individual Government, but right now, in New Zealand today, one of the things we could be doing to be a better country is focus on what lies behind that poor productivity.

In the last year, output per hour per worker has dropped by 1.3 percent in New Zealand; across the Tasman, it has gone up. So the gap in terms of what we are producing is growing between New Zealand and Australia, and it is that productivity that drives higher wages. So when the Government sits there and cannot quite explain it—Bill English called it a puzzle as to why wages were not growing well. Well, the puzzle can be solved quite easily: we need a higher-value economy and we need more productive jobs. But a Government that relies for its economic strategy on population growth and people selling houses to one another is not going to get those high-paying jobs and is not going to get the productivity that we need. When we go looking in this Budget for the initiatives that are going to move the economy in this direction, they are, sadly, lacking.

Then we look at what the issues are that the Government thinks it is addressing here. Mr Joyce, in his speech just now, said to us that infrastructure was the big deal for them. Well, on this side of the House, we are not going to give the Government credit for waking up at the end of 9 years in office and saying it needs to put some money into infrastructure. The deficit has grown under National’s watch. It is the underfunding that has caused this, be that in housing or be that in transport. That is why we are in the position we are in now. For the Government to wake from its slumber a couple of months before the election and say it is going to put some money into infrastructure rings hollow, and that sits right throughout this Budget.

Of course the Minister can say there is a record amount of money going into health, but per person, looking at the type of population we have got now, this Budget once again falls short on health. Cumulatively over the last 6 years, the National Government has underfunded health by more than $2 billion, and every day in this Parliament we see the end result of underfunding health as this Budget does. Every day that we hear stories of people missing out on treatment, of hospitals being grossly underfunded, of nurses working back-to-back shifts, of doctors speaking out about the fact that they cannot provide the care that they need to—that is a direct result of that underfunding.

The same applies to education, because, once again, simply saying that you have put more money in does not assure New Zealanders of a quality education. It does not assure New Zealand parents that they will not be asked again and again for more and more in school donations, because, bottom line, per person, the funding is not keeping up in education either. It is the responsibility of the Government to deliver a Budget to this House that meets the needs, the basic needs, of New Zealanders, and this Budget is a missed opportunity in that regard.

The Minister of Finance reacted to some interjections from this side of the House about some of the OECD statistics he was raising. Well, here is one for the Minister, if he thinks the OECD is an independent referee: it has told New Zealand that we have the worst homelessness in the world—the worst homelessness in the world. If you go looking in this Budget to try to find the real solutions to that—the building of more houses, the understanding that Housing New Zealand should actually be a proper State housing provider—you will not find them.

When I look at this Budget, I say that it is a missed opportunity. What should have been in this Budget—what would have been in this Budget if it had been delivered by a Labour-led Government—would be a massive investment in the basics of a decent life. To start with, that means housing—a roof over the head of every New Zealander, and warm, dry, and safe housing. Billions of dollars should be spent in this Budget on the construction of affordable homes for first-home buyers. The market is broken. It is not working. It is not delivering the basic things that New Zealanders would expect of a housing market, so it is time for the Government to step up with a massive, State-run building programme. We call it KiwiBuild; I do not mind what the Government calls it, but it should be doing it in this Budget and it is not.

Yet again, we see health failing to get the money that it should, so the commitment from the Labour Party remains that it will, over the next 4 years, add $8 billion extra into the health budget. We are not going to sit around and wait until election time to decide that mental health is important; we are going to get on straight away with getting school-based health services and better community mental health services, and then doing that review of the mental health system. We are going to get on straight away to having a national cancer centre and a proper strategy that means it does not matter where you live—you will get the same basic access to healthcare.

In the education sector—there is another missed opportunity here to get us back to quality early childhood education, to get us back to schools where parents are not being asked more and more. We have said to New Zealanders that the deal is this: if a school says it will not ask for donations, it will get $150 per pupil extra from us. This should be a free education system. We do not want to see financial barriers placed in front of people achieving their potential. Every single member of this House knows that it is education that will unlock the potential of New Zealanders, that will allow our young people to achieve their dreams, and we must not place a single barrier in front of them. But this Budget lacks any vision when it comes to education. It is tied up in the knots of ideology of charter schools, when in fact we can actually deliver a world-class education to every New Zealand child with the schools that we have in New Zealand, if we fund them and resource them properly.

This Budget does not speak to what I believe is one of major challenges facing New Zealand today, and that is the issue of lifting children out of poverty. I heard the Minister; I saw the Minister’s Family Incomes Package. Of the seven parts of the Government’s Family Incomes Package, let us start with parts one and two, which we on this side of the House can agree with. Yes, we need to lift the accommodation supplement. It is a deeply flawed instrument, but right now, in the middle of a housing crisis, we have to acknowledge that people need more support. We cannot have people paying 50 percent of their income on rent. You are in housing stress if you are paying more than 30 percent of your income on rent, and we are seeing far too many New Zealanders in that state. We need to get in there and review that accommodation supplement, but right now we will accept it.

We need to lift Working for Families. We actually need to go back and undo what National did when it changed the abatement rates for Working for Families and cut families out of that scheme. But yes, we will accept that we need to lift Working for Families, and we want to do a bit more.

But the other five-sevenths of that families package is a poorly targeted tax-cuts system that delivers to members of this House $1,000 a year that we do not need. I am proud to stand for a families package that says that every family earning $62,000 or less will be better off under Labour’s package. That is because we are taking that money that is going to high-income earners—the $400 million that is going to the top 10 percent—and we are saying that that money can be better spent: focused on delivering to those families, focused on people who have children and have costs for children. I am proud of our Best Start policy because it recognises that every family, when it comes to having children, has increased costs.

This Budget is a tired Budget from a tired Government. The National Government is out of ideas, it is out of touch, and on 24 September it will be out of the Government.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): The Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill enacts a fine Budget from a fine Minister of Finance. What it does is a few things all at the same time. People often say: “Oh, it’s very unusual that you can make a record investment in public services as well as invest in infrastructure at the same time, improving the resilience of our country to future shocks, and also make a significant investment in family incomes.”, but this Budget does all of those things.

I want to talk briefly about the Family Incomes Package. It was very interesting in the debate earlier in the House on the Family Incomes Package, because what the Government decided to do with this Budget is to allow New Zealanders to share in the dividends of growth. It gave New Zealanders a dividend, basically, for the hard work they have done over the last few years, because we did endure the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008, 2009, and beyond.

It is worth remembering that New Zealand entered recession before the worst effects of the GFC were even felt. Our tradable sector had been in recession for 5 years, from 2003 to 2008. We did endure rising unemployment back in 2008, 2009, and 2010, and we did endure tough times in that period. Then we had the Christchurch earthquakes of late 2010 and early 2011, which had an enormous buffeting effect on the Crown accounts. So New Zealanders have had to go through a degree of pain over the last few years, and what this Budget does is deliver the Family Incomes Package, which allows them to share in the benefits of growth. The Budget enacts a range of proposals, firstly by adjusting the bottom taxation rate at the bottom end of the scale, and it also makes changes to Working for Families in order to deliver the support to those who need it most.

The Budget projects that New Zealand’s economy will continue to grow at around 3 percent for the next few years. This will make us one of the top-performing OECD countries. Just a couple of days ago, Moody’s credit rating agency expected our economy to be one of the fastest-growing Aaa economies in the world.

The other thing this Budget brings—and what this appropriations bill enacts—is significant investment in infrastructure right around the country. What it does is it makes sure that our infrastructure needs keep up with a growing economy, a growing population, and growing demands on that infrastructure. Because that has been one of the stories of the last few years—that New Zealanders are coming home, staying in the country, and, for the first time in almost a generation, Australians are moving to New Zealand and wanting to make a better life for themselves here, and that has quite rightly put pressure on our infrastructure and put pressure on some of the services that New Zealanders take for granted.

The Government has responded, and by using some of the fiscal buffers that we have built up over the last few years we are in a position to make significant capital expenditure on things like roading and rail. Just on Sunday you saw some of the announcements in relation to that—in Auckland made by the Prime Minister in Papakura, and, indeed, in Wellington with the metro rail network.

The other thing I want to mention that is very important is making sure we build in resilience for the future, so that we make sure that when that next rainy day arrives, we are in a position in order to potentially borrow and potentially spend if we need to. Because we do live in uncertain times—we do. We have Britain exiting the European Union, which members in the House will be well aware of; we have a relatively new President in the United States with policies that are still being shaped up and still being formed, particularly when it comes to trade; and we still have quite slow growth rates in various parts of the European Union and various other parts of the world. So in this uncertain and unstable international environment it is worth making sure that we put aside money for a rainy day. What the Budget does is signal that the debt will start to be paid down over the next few years. We are on track to reduce Government debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2021.

Sometimes people say that this Government has borrowed a huge amount of money. The constant refrain from Labour is “worse than Muldoon”, as David Clark likes to say. It is true that the Government, during the global financial crisis and during the Christchurch earthquakes, did borrow money as the bottom fell out of the world economy. That was the right thing to do to support our second-largest city but also to support New Zealanders during a very particularly tough time—to support vulnerable New Zealanders in need. There were plenty of people saying “cut welfare, cut entitlements, and cut superannuation” and the Government resisted those calls. But it is important that we do start to pay down the debt that we have built up, as I say, for that future shock, if indeed that shock comes.

The other point I want to mention in relation to the Budget is the important investment it makes in equipping New Zealand for a rapidly globalising 21st century economy. There are big investments in this Budget in delivering New Zealand’s Trade Agenda 2030—this very ambitious goal of making sure New Zealand signs free-trade agreements with as many countries around the world as will allow us to sign free-trade agreements with them. Our bread and butter on the world stage is trading with other countries. New Zealand firms and New Zealand individuals, often small businesses, are selling our goods on the world stage, and we need to make sure that the barriers that are sometimes put in place by other economies and other countries are as minimal as possible. The only way to do that is by the hard slog of our world-class trade negotiators driven out of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but also New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, which helps New Zealand firms make their way on the world stage.

I have seen first hand the really important work that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise does in all sorts of countries around the world, helping New Zealand businesses and individuals sell our products. This Budget makes a record investment in those very important parts of New Zealand’s future. New Zealanders, as we know, are shaping globalisation to their own advantage. We are adopting the opportunities and seizing the opportunities provided by a rapidly globalising world that is lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but it is also providing enormous opportunities for our businesses and our exporters.

Relevant to that are the very important investments that this Budget makes in the innovation space. What we need to do, as an economy and as a country, to seize those opportunities is make sure that we remain agile and innovative and nimble, and that we have innovation spreading throughout the economy. Quite rightly, New Zealand is sometimes criticised for a lack of innovation in our export base. It is tied, really, to a lack of diversity in our exports. I think that this Government will be able to look back on the last 9 years, as we approach the election, with some degree of pride at the diversification of our economy that has occurred during that time.

When the bottom fell out of the dairy industry a couple of years ago that did affect the value of the dairy industry, but, overall, our exports went up, actually, because we have got a rapidly growing wine sector, other horticultural products, and, indeed, ICT, and the other parts of the technology sector, which are growing very rapidly, spurred and developed by some of the Government’s policies, including Callaghan Innovation, R & D grants, and some of the growth grants that are available.

The Innovate New Zealand package—that was actually developed in the last Budget but has continued to be funded in this Budget—continues those very important investments. The good news is that the proportion of New Zealand firms and businesses undertaking research and development is growing, and the proportion of it as a percentage of GDP is growing for the first time, frankly, in quite a long time. That figure is growing. We have got a target of getting it to 1 percent of GDP. I will not lie to the House and say that that is going to be an easy task; it is not. We are someway off that. It is an ambitious goal, but with the right policy settings in place it is something that we can most definitely strive hard to achieve. What this Budget does is make record investments in that.

This is a confident Budget for a confident country and a confident Government and one that we can be very proud of as we head into the very important day of 23 September.

BARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Mangai o Te Whare, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. I rise to speak at the third reading of the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill. What we are really talking about here is whether or not we have confidence in the Government’s Budget. This is ultimately a confidence and supply issue. In this speech I am going to talk about the ways in which this Budget takes us farther down the route towards—and I think it is an accurate term—private affluence and public squalor. This is a Budget that is founded on providing an election bribe to convince voters to return this Government, paid for by means of under-investing in our public services. In this speech I particularly want to draw attention to a sector that we hardly ever talk about. It is the arts and culture sector. It has been decimated in this Budget.

Let me give an overview of this Budget. The Green Party voted for a very small increase in support for the poorest households. We supported additional funding for families and for accommodation supplements because under this Government there are so many people in New Zealand struggling. We did not vote for the tax cuts, which deliver for higher-income earners but not proportionately for the rest of New Zealand’s population. These tax cuts have been bought as a result of severe under-investment in public services.

Victoria University and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research did an analysis of what this Budget means for spending on some key public services, and they mapped between now and 2020-21, which is 3 years’ time. They said, firstly, that education will be cut by 7.9 percent in real terms. That means that our current situation, where teaching assistants and teaching staff are already deeply underpaid—they will continue to be underpaid. It means that we will have teacher shortages in areas like Auckland, so children will not have a chance to have a decent education. It means that special-needs children, particularly, will not get the attention and the assistance that they deserve in our education system.

Health spending will be cut by 7.5 percent in real terms. What that means is that we will continue the underfunding of mental health that sees New Zealand record the highest suicide rate for teens in the world. It means that we will continue to underfund services, which Dr Phil Bagshaw of Otago and his team have estimated means that 29 percent of people will have unmet needs for accessing GPs and primary health services. It means that 9 percent of people who need operations will have unmet needs. That means pain and suffering for people who have to wait for cataract surgery or for knee surgery or for any number of conditions. That is what this Budget means. It means half a billion dollars a year of underfunding, according to Infometrics.

Core Government services will be cut by 15.1 percent in real terms. What does that mean? Well, it means that we cut funding in ways that will damage people in our society. The OECD estimates, for example, that child poverty costs us $8 billion. It is hidden from this Budget, but that is the cost of underfunding our ripped safety net. It means underfunding emergency houses—that we are putting people up temporarily in motels. It means that we have the worst homelessness in the world. It means shortages of housing in Auckland, so that we have the most unaffordable city in the world. These are the costs of this Budget. It is the underfunding of public services that is an absolute scandal, in this Budget. It means 20 percent of children living in cold houses and getting sick. It means failure on climate change, on conservation, and on rivers—60 percent of our monitored rivers are unswimmable. It means that the only increase of substance that we have here is $1 billion in prisons—what is that a success indicator for?

This is 9 years of this Government. It is an economy that is built on speculation, on immigration, on dirty money, and on commodities.

In arts and culture, as a particular sector—and we do not talk enough about arts and culture in this House—Creative New Zealand estimates that 89 percent of New Zealanders engage each year in arts and culture. We are the country of Lorde, of Flight of the Conchords, of Eleanor Catton, of Taika Waititi, and of Peter Jackson. This is who we are as a society. Culture should be a source of pride. We should support it. Creative New Zealand estimates that the arts and culture sector is worth 131,000 jobs in New Zealand and $17.5 billion in GDP.

And what has happened to it? Well, there are cuts of 25.6 percent between now and 2020-21. That is 25.6 percent. That is a decimation of our budget. It is slashing our screen production grants to zero. It is reducing our regional culture and heritage. It means a 9 percent cut in real terms for Creative New Zealand and all of the arts and culture organisations, and a 9 percent cut in public broadcasting for Radio New Zealand. Radio New Zealand got a small increase this year, but there is a flat budget from now on for broadcasting for Radio New Zealand. It means a 9 percent real-terms cut in promotion of arts and film, New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, New Zealand ballet, New Zealand music, museums and Te Papa, heritage, and thousands of community arts organisations and projects. These are all suffering real-term cuts from this Government.

That is the kind of under-investment in our public services, which are so valuable to New Zealanders, that is funding these tax cuts for the higher-income earners in New Zealand. It is an absolute disgrace. This Budget takes money out of the public services that New Zealanders really value and gives it as tax cuts to the rich.

This Budget is about priorities. Those priorities are not the environment or climate change. Those priorities are not health, education, or housing. They are not restoring our ripped safety net, which leaves so many people in poverty. And this Budget is certainly not about supporting our arts and culture sector. This Budget, in terms of priorities, is about this Government trying to get elected again by giving a tax bribe to the higher-income individuals in our society. It is the creation of private affluence alongside public squalor in this country.

We should not go down this route. We should not continue to underfund our valuable public services; otherwise, we will end up as a more polluted, a more divided, a more unfair, and a more unequal society. That is not in our interests. That is not who New Zealand is. We are different from that. We are better than that as a society.

This Budget is a failure of vision after 9 years of this Government. It is a failure to properly invest in the things that are important in our society. We can do better than this. We have no confidence in this Budget and we have no confidence in this Government. We need to change this Government. Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very happy and proud to be able to stand in support of this Budget. To think that the previous speaker, Barry Coates, would read out a list of such a magnitude of cuts and deprivations is unbelievable. I think of the achievements that have been achieved for everyday New Zealanders. I think that, yes, there is $1.3 million for families in this Budget—on average $26 more a week. But, looking beyond that, the Minister of Finance, the Hon Steven Joyce, who has been a fantastic architect and brought together so many elements and moving parts, has produced a complex Budget that delivers right across the board for New Zealanders. He has stated that in West Auckland and South Auckland—and I lived in West Auckland for 25 years; I know what it is like there—there will be families who will receive $100 a week more because of the cost of living there, because of the care of this Government to enable some of those low-income families to have enough to make ends meet.

All we get is scoffing and a list of incorrect facts that come from the other side of the House. You know, we heard it from the second speaker in today’s debate, Grant Robertson, who was saying that we are seeing cuts in health spending—$1.6 billion, the most money spent on health ever in this country, in this Budget. That is up by $4.3 billion per year since we came into Government. Claims that health funding has been cut are incorrect, and it is deceptive to say so, because this year New Zealand is forecast to spend 6.26 percent of its GDP on health. Under Labour, the percentage of the economy spent on health was under 6 percent. And so, to say that this year there have been cuts and there is less and there is deprivation in health spending—the facts just do not say that at all.

So I do not know why we have this sort of information coming out. They are certainly alternative facts. I hear this afternoon about the lack of investment in education. I have information here on this card in respect of Māori students. What we need to understand when it comes to Māori students, and particularly young Māori males, is that they have the highest level of taking their lives of any demographic in our country.

Ron Mark: What have you done about it?

JONATHAN YOUNG: So there is grave concern for that group of people. Listen to this: year 12 NCEA level 2 achievement by Māori students in 2008 was 52 percent. This year it is 75 percent. That is what we are doing about it, Mr Mark. We are ensuring that young Māori people are becoming engaged and have a future and a hope and a possibility to gain an apprenticeship and have the possibility to move forward in their lives. That is a lot more than what you would have done—52 percent to 75 percent talks about excellent educational achievement.

I remember talking to one of the principals of our secondary schools, who said this to me: “If we can get Māori young boys into year 13, they will surpass the achievement of the rest of the boys in that cohort.” And he knows that getting them through years 11 and 12 is really pivotal, and this is what we are achieving. You know, we need to thank the work of the Hon Hekia Parata and what she has done to drive achievement. She has been unrelenting in her goal to see young people in this country succeed and be able to get ahead.

We have seen a 61 percent increase in these young Māori men and women gaining Bachelor’s degrees since 2008. What a phenomenal achievement, and this speaks of the investment that this Government is making, and continues to make, in this Budget: in education, in health, but also in infrastructure.

I am really pleased to come from a region where it is very can-do, and Andrew Little knows that. He also comes from Taranaki. It is a very can-do region. We have put up for a long time with a very difficult highway north out of our region up into the Waikato region and up into Auckland, but I am pleased to say that our accelerated regional roading package is investing $135 million of infrastructure improvement in that highway. We do not have a railway north; we have a highway north only because of the very difficult and the very challenging topography, and just the soil types—it is very difficult, it is unstable, and we need to have a secure and a resilient route. We are improving that as part of our investment going forward—$135 million to improve State Highway 3. There has been $24 million spent on the northern outlet in New Plymouth. Those are two roading projects that mean a lot to the people of Taranaki. They really do. The work that is being done around the Normanby overbridge, and bypassing that—an $18 million investment. That is such an important infrastructure investment for the people of South Taranaki, which no doubt the Hon Chester Borrows would like to talk about.

These things all speak of a Government that has managed the fiscal position of this country exceedingly well, so it is able to invest into the future. Look at him—scorning and smiling away through his squint. But listen: these are the facts. This is what is happening in New Zealand. It is improving the state of New Zealanders. We are seeing some great growth. That is why Moody’s says that New Zealand is going to be one of the very best countries it will look to see in the years coming ahead. There is $32 billion of infrastructure investments over the next 4 years in schools, roads, and hospitals, and all of the work that was done in terms of the investment into Canterbury, Christchurch, that held us back from those surpluses for 1 or 2 years: $18 billion was spent down there through the Government’s investment.

All of those things are very important. They come from a Government that works very, very carefully, that manages its spending, while all the time working hard to improve the services for New Zealand, whether that is in education, health, transportation, or right across the board. I am hesitant to say that Taranaki is the second most affordable region in the country, because some of you might want to come and live there. It is a great place to live, and just what you were saying in terms of the emptiness of investment into arts and culture—you know, we are very proud of the Len Lye Centre that this Government has invested in. You know, it has made quite a difference in terms of the attraction that it has for the visitor industry.

In fact, in the last quarter of 2016, the last quarter of last year, because there was a bit of an investigation around free parking on a Saturday, the New Plymouth District Council did a survey to find out how many cars were coming into the CBD, particularly at that end of town. It counted the number of vehicles over a whole 3-month period on a Saturday in New Plymouth, up around the Len Lye Centre. Do you know what they found out? Sixty-eight percent of the cars at that end of town came from out of the region—68 percent; that is huge. They were all driving there for a great weekend in New Plymouth, to go to the Len Lye Centre, to enjoy the cafes and the gardens and the parks and the coastal walkway—to enjoy all of those things and spend their good money.

You know, I have talked to retailers, particularly down that end of town, and they say that that has turned around their businesses. That is because it is not just investment into arts, culture, and heritage; it is actually an investment into the economy. You know, we have had all of that fantastic infrastructure built by Taranaki companies. They have won awards around the world. Those investments enhance our reputation internationally and also enhance our capability regionally. The regions are another great story about what this Government is doing.

Winston Peters went around the regions for a 2-week tour, and since he came back he has not asked one question on the regions. Do you know why? It is because he cannot find too many grumbling people out there, because regional New Zealand is doing better under this Government than any before. I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It is always good to have a good laugh when we kick-start the week off, and that speech provided us with plenty of reason to laugh over on this side. What that speaker, Jonathan Young, does not understand is that throughout New Zealand what we are seeing, and we are seeing it very clearly in this Budget, is that this Budget is a Budget that deals with the haves and does not deal with the have-nots. It is a Budget that is going to be renowned and recognised for being focused on the haves as opposed to the have-nots, being focused on the need-nots over the needy, and it is a Budget about “will not”, as opposed to “will”.

I have got one simple message for every speaker in the National Government ranks: speeches like that are not going to cut any ice over the next 5, 6, or 7 weeks. The truth will be shown on 23 September as exactly what the people of New Zealand, and, in particular, the regions, think of that last speech, which I will post.

The fact of the matter is that this Government seems to think that it will be judged by the amount of money it is throwing around. This side of the House continually strives to tell the Government that it is not about the dollar figure; it is about the dollar figure in real terms and the real buying power, and what the Budget looks like when one factors that in. There is no point in telling people out there, be it in Masterton or Taranaki or down in Selwyn, “Oh, the Government has put in more money—over 4 years—and therefore we are doing great; we are wonderful.”, because if that was the case, then we would not have all these deficits, would we? We have got deficits in KiwiSaver because of the money the Government has not put in. We have got a social deficit that is reflected in the homelessness in this country on such a level that we have not seen in our entire history—never. Not under Robbie Muldoon, Keith Holyoake, Richard Seddon, Norm Kirk, or Mike Moore—go back as far as you like.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Mike Moore? Six weeks?

RON MARK: Well, says he in a declining seat of his own, where his vote is going to drop and his polls are already showing that. I wish they would stop the leaking over there; it is getting all our paperwork wet in New Zealand First.

The balance of payments deficit, shrinking businesses—the speaker who just spoke is talking about the regions booming. Well, clearly, he has not been into the Wairarapa, because if you go to Infometrics—get away from the Government’s spin; get away from what we might say, “we” being her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Go to Infometrics. What is it saying about growth in Dannevirke, in the Tararua district—1 percent. Jeepers, that sounds just like what the Rt Hon Winston Peters has been saying now for 3 years—and I have got to say 3 long years, because 3 years with this Government has been exceedingly long. It almost feels like 30.

Compliance overload—well, that is up. If the Government wants to talk about the things in the Budget that are up, the things in the economy that are up, it should talk about compliance overload, but it does not really want to talk about that because that leads us to talk about small business, which is shrinking. Go and have a look at the number of businesses in Dannevirke over the last 12 months, 2 years, or 3 years. For the Government’s information—if, for a start, it had a decent MP, it would know that it is going backwards. This Government does not do anything to address this. This Government is distinctly deficient in promoting, supporting, developing, and enhancing the export sector, in particular the value-add. Do you want evidence of that? Look out the window at the Wellington port, the piles of logs. Nothing in the Budget incentivises New Zealanders in the forestry sector to keep that timber here, to process it here, to create more jobs here, to add value here, and get more money for that export back here. No, what it actually does is it promotes the sale of that asset to foreigners and the repatriation of the profits therefrom back to the same country to which they are exporting the raw material.

Brett Hudson: Always the nationalisation—always expropriation of assets with you, Ron.

RON MARK: What’s-his-name over there, he is chirping away like a galah. He looks like something off The Muppet Show. He can ignore this, but he is going to get the very clear message on 23 September. We stand to be judged on these statements right now.

Look at health. There is no sense crying about health; go and look at the budgets of the district health boards—deficits. Go and look at Canterbury’s—deficits and climbing. There is no point saying we put more money in if the buying power and the value of that money has shrunk and it is not keeping pace with the demand of an increased population, which, by the way, is coming from—

Brett Hudson: Higher than inflation, so you’re wrong there too.

RON MARK: No, the Government can say all it likes, spin it all it likes. If it thinks the population increase is due to Kiwis staying here and not leaving—bull. No one believes that. Everyone knows the net figure—the net figure—is at record heights. End of story—record heights.

So we talk about the boom and—between Labour and National, we are getting tired of hearing about Auckland, let me assure you that, but we understand that is where National and Labour want to get their votes from. That is where their thinking is—deeply entrenched in metropolitan New Zealand and those lifestyles, ignoring the provinces that generate the wealth, ignoring the regions that generate the wealth. Is there anything in there to incentivise them, to help them to overcome this plethora of “ninny State” legislation such as the occupational safety and health legislation? Not a jot—nothing—but, hey, it will be judged on 23 September.

Where else are we looking at—oh, there is a growth area for this Government in the Budget: corrections. It is building another prison. It is building another prison—well, there are some more jobs. We can employ some more of our whanaunga to turn the keys, locking people up. Well, what that actually says is that the other numbers that are also up, like crime; serious fraud; corruption, particularly in immigration; bribery; and fraud, particularly in the export education sector under this Government—I guess we will have another prison to lock these people up, if they ever get caught and if they ever get prosecuted.

We know, from the other side of this Budget, that police resourcing has fallen behind once again. The Police asked—and here is the grab. The Minister, Paula Bennett, goes on TV and tells everybody that police have got all the resources they need and it is up to the police commissioner to allocate them where he thinks fit.

Well, what did this Government say to the Commissioner of Police when he put forward a business case for extra officers, and the Government cut it? It did not approve it. Did the Government say: “Oh, we think you’re lying, commissioner. We think you’re making it up. We think you’re just padding out the numbers.”? No, I actually think that is what the Government did say, but what the police commissioner said was: “This is the level of resourcing we need to do our job, to stop the flood of P coming into the country, to get down on the organised criminals, the gangs, and to actually get some prosecutions, so we don’t have to wait for the P to wash up on the beach in Northland, you know.” I guess that is the sort of policing we are open to now, under National. We will just wait for the P to wash up on the beach, and then we will claim that it is a great success of the Government.

What a load of rubbish. It is a success—the success in that P bust is exactly the same success behind anybody achieving anything in the regions. They are getting on and doing it, despite the Government. They are making the best of a bloody bad situation. They cannot wait for the election, and they are looking for a Government that is responsive to their needs, and a Government that sees that the infrastructure overload on provincial New Zealand is such that they need help, and not the pathetic amount that this Budget throws in, by the way. They want a Government that actually understands that for police officers—men and women—to be effective in their job they need to be resourced.

What an astonishing story that Nicholas Jones published today in the New Zealand Herald. This Government is failing to resource the police so that police can crack down on the sexploitation of our young and our vulnerable on the internet. If there is one thing that finally says this Government is out of touch when it comes to resourcing our police so they can do their job, that is surely it.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Budgets are a numerical expression of a vision statement of a Government. What we have here in front of us in the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill and Budget 2017 exposes a visionless Government that is out of ideas and stuck in the past. This is not a Government that is brimming with ideas to take us to an exciting and optimistic future, to take us into the 21st century. Instead, what we have is a Budget that simultaneously manages to express visionless cruelty and bland managerialism rather than leadership. That is what this Government is delivering to the people of New Zealand.

What this Budget delivers is $400 million in tax cuts to the top 10 percent of earners. We heard at the time of the tabling of the Budget, the debates that came after that, the weeks that have ensued, the rapid spinning on the head of a pin of National Government members, and we have heard here today in this debate, that this is New Zealanders’ share in the dividends of growth. This is a Government that has exposed itself for wanting to give a disproportionate share of that dividend to the highest income earners.

This is not a vision for New Zealand that Labour can get behind. We want to see our families flourishing. That is why we put together an alternative families package that sees 70 percent of our families better off. We want to see our health system and our education system funded so they can take us into the 21st century. We want to see that New Zealanders can get into housing and have affordable housing. These are things that we want to see.

We also want to see a Government that is making protecting our environment a priority. This is not a Government that is either doing enough to protect our environment or doing enough to combat climate change. Budget 2017-18 delivered $4 million in the fight against the globe’s most pressing issues; this is $4 million additional funding to address climate change. This is what this Government is delivering to New Zealand. What it is not delivering is the additional funding that is required to meet the unmet need in the health sector, and particularly in the mental health sector.

The Government will say that it has never spent more on health than it has in this Budget. That is correct, but there have never been more people. Until this Government starts having an honest conversation about per capita growth in our economy and per capita spending, then we are not having the conversation that is required in this country. It is why there are thousands of New Zealanders who are not getting the healthcare they require. It is why thousands of families are having to reach very deeply into their own hip pockets for those stationery bills that the schools sent home—up to $200 for some of the stationery bills that parents in the Wigram electorate showed me they were being asked to pay at the beginning of this year. Parents are being asked to fund some things that any of us would reasonably expect a school could fund out of its operations budget.

The freeze on operations funding to our schools has meant that they simply cannot pay for the things that are required. I am not talking about fancy extras here, either. I am talking about parents being asked to pay for the photocopy paper for the classroom, to pay for the whiteboard markers, and to pay for the tissues that children require in the classroom. I never recall my parents being sent a chalk bill when I was at school and, frankly, I am perplexed as to why it is that parents are being asked to fund this kind of thing now. So—if I can get over this coughing—one of the things that we simply have to do is we have to have an alternative vision. That is exactly what Labour’s fiscal plan has delivered.

The sixth Labour Government is going to be about putting people first and restoring fairness. This simply has to be what we see as a priority. We have come up with a detailed plan that shows how we can do that. We have come up with a detailed plan that shows how more of our families can be better off, how more of our families will have additional money in their pockets, how more of our families will not be having to go without to fund tax cuts for the top 10 percent of workers.

We have also come up with a plan that can address those deficits that I have identified in health, in education, and in housing. What is more, we can do it while still paying down debt. This is a fully costed plan that we have come up with that shows that we will do it. We have also said that we will stand up for New Zealanders. We will be there, and we will be a Government that backs our people. Yes, we will crack down on speculators by banning overseas speculators from buying existing houses. We will tighten the tax rules around that.

What will we do with that additional income from that additional tax revenue? We will use that money to make more of our homes warmer, healthier, and drier. We are not content to leave hundreds of thousands of homes uninsulated, like this Government is when it winds up its insulation package in the not very distant future. We will keep investing in insulating our homes, because the job is not done. But it does not matter how much insulation a home has. Unless there is an efficient and affordable and sustainable way to heat that house, it is not going to be warm. We have said we will make that funding available for those homes, as well.

We realise that even with good insulation and efficient and affordable forms of heating in a home, for someone on the pension or someone on the main benefit, winter power bills can still be a struggle. We are going to help people with their winter power bills, because we know we are a richer country when we are not having to pick up the health tab for people who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately. When I look around, when I meet with people in my electorate, I know what a difference that $700 or $450 a year is going to make to people.

It is not just the small things that we have observed that we know are going to make life better. We are going to be a Government that actually has a 21st century plan for infrastructure. We saw Jacinda announce on Sunday a light rail plan for Auckland. Well, we have a vision that sees commuter rail in Christchurch, also. We have a city that has grown and is reshaped in all different directions as we have recovered from our earthquake, and we are not content, as this Government is, to fund simply building back the 20th century. We want to look ahead and see what we require for the future, and commuter rail has to be part of that picture for us and we are absolutely committed to that.

We will back our young people. We are not going to call them pretty damn hopeless and consign them to a scrap heap. We will really back our young people by reducing New Zealand’s unemployment, getting apprenticeships up and running, and working with young people to make sure they are ready for the workforce and to be part of an exciting future that should be there for all New Zealanders, and not cast to the side.

There is a real choice for people with this election. Unlike National’s cynical tax bribe of $400 million to the top 10 percent of earners, Labour is sketching out a plan for a future. It is full of ideas. It is full of doing things differently. It is not just about the bland managerialism that we are seeing from the Government at the end of three terms. This is a Government that does not have ideas and certainly is not thinking about the future. It is not a Government that is addressing the most pressing issues of our time. It is a Government that is not even willing to think about what we have to do to address climate change in any meaningful way. It is not a Government that is thinking about what the health sector for the 21st century looks like. It is not a Government that is producing the kind of exciting education policy that my colleague Chris Hipkins is. It is not a Government that is looking out for its people, and that is what the sixth Labour Government will do.

MELISSA LEE (National): I am a little baffled by the speech that was given by the member who just sat down, Dr Megan Woods. I know she was coughing, so I hope she is feeling a lot better. One of the things she said that baffled me was this whole idea that Labour is innovative and into the future and looking to the future—that Labour has brand new ideas and that it has actually got a brand new leader. It has just got a brand new leader, and she took some time to come up with this brand-spanking-new, big-hit policy announcement, and came up with a policy that was from, like, 10 years ago—one of Labour’s big hits that the electorate denounced and said it was not going to take. It was rejected by the electorate. Labour members have come back with this brand new idea, they claim, and they are innovative, they say.

It is a great pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the debate on the Appropriation Bill. The Estimates process is in fact a really important one. I would like to acknowledge all of my colleagues who have spoken on this topic here and through the select committee process, which actually lasted quite a few months.

I believe that this year’s Budget is one of the greatest yet, and is one of the reasons why the Opposition is very upset. I think Dr Megan Woods talked about how only the top 10 percent is benefiting. Really? I thought it was 1.3 million New Zealanders, who are, in fact, going to be taking home $26 in their pocket. They are going to be better off—1.3 million New Zealanders. Is that considered the top 10 percent of New Zealand taxpayers? I think we need to do better, obviously, on numeracy. Obviously, it did not work for the Labour members.

I am really very proud of the fact that I have chaired the Commerce Committee during the 51st Parliament to back innovation, economic development, and engagement with our telecommunications sector. I am very proud to be a National member. It is in fact a great honour to speak on the important work that the committee has undertaken. I think one of the things I was really proud of was that we were able to rewrite a piece of legislation as a select committee. That is something that does not often happen, but it was with the approval of the Minister that we did it, and I thank all of my members who helped the committee through that process, especially the secretariat, who work really, really hard.

At the Commerce Committee we heard a number of Ministers during the Estimates review process. I would like to thank them and the advisers and the officials for the information and the way that we engaged with them. Often I am very proud of the speed at which New Zealand has done the ultra-fast broadband network. I know a lot of people say that it is not fast enough, and often we all complain about that. I remember that a while ago—it was actually visitors from overseas who had in fact come to New Zealand. They were from my birth country, Korea. As everyone knows, Korea is really advanced in terms of technology and ultra-fast broadband. Download speeds over there are actually massive. When its president visited New Zealand, the media pack came to New Zealand, and they could not actually send video back to Korea. That was many years ago, back in 2009.

But since then, New Zealand has rolled out ultra-fast broadband networks, and, thanks to the great work of our previous communications Minister, Amy Adams, and now the Hon Simon Bridges, the second phase of the ultra-fast broadband roll-out is expected to reach 151 new towns and communities across New Zealand. By its completion in 2024, we will ensure that up to 85 percent of New Zealanders can access fibre and achieve better connectivity for their homes and workplaces. I note the important role that Crown Fibre Holdings, now to be renamed Crown Infrastructure Partners, has had in the roll-out, and that further work is under way to support increases to the roll-out speed and tightened time frames for the implementation.

I think Mr Ron Mark talked earlier about the fact that some New Zealand businesses are sold to overseas entities. I would just like to remind the honourable member that overseas investment is not necessarily a bad thing. You know, I get really tired of members who try to say that speculators happen to have my skin colour and who suggest that overseas investment happens only from countries that have my coloured skin. I recently had an opportunity to visit Invercargill. I went and visited my colleague Sarah Dowie, and one of the reasons I did that was that there is a great Korean company that has invested in Southland. It invested $130 million. It rescued a New Zealand company—actually, it was invested in by an American company; I guess nobody talks about American companies. But it was failing. It was failing badly. It was losing money, and the Korean company decided to invest in New Zealand and actually invested a lot of money into it.

I went to visit that company. It does not sell logs; it actually brings in logs. It pulps them. It makes boards for furniture-making. It does not send them back to Korea; it actually exports them to Japan and America and brings in a lot of export dollars for New Zealand. Its annual wage bill is $13 million. That does not go back to the country where they invest from; it is actually invested back into New Zealanders who are working for that company in New Zealand, who earn that wage. Also, there are the surrounding businesses, like the truck drivers who actually supply the company with the logs; the restaurants that are in Southland, in Invercargill; and the local shops that supply all of the workers. So it is the community that actually benefits as a result of the great big investment that happened, which happens to have come from an overseas country, and I celebrate that. I think it is actually a fantastic thing that it does that.

Talking about trade, we in this House have often talked about the great work that both Governments have done in terms of the free-trade agreements (FTAs) that we have actually signed. I am a very firm believer in that, and the National Government has actually worked really, really hard to make sure that our trading partners know we value them and that we expand those trading nations we deal with. One of the greatest things that I heard after the Korean FTA—I mean, it is not something you talk about often, but Korean people like deer velvet. I was talking to a deer velvet industry representative who said that within 6 months of the FTA between New Zealand and South Korea being ratified—within 6 months of the FTA being ratified—the exports of deer velvet actually doubled. That was not even a year; it was only 6 months. Their exports doubled, and that is a huge benefit for New Zealanders who are working in that field. The primary industry sector should benefit. I know that—I was actually talking to the Hon Anne Tolley with regard to the growth in the export of squash that is produced in her region.

Earlier, my colleague Jonathan Young mentioned the great work that the Hon Hekia Parata has done for our children as the Minister of Education. I would just like to honour her, actually, and say thank you to her. As Jonathan Young has mentioned, year 12 National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 achievement by Māori students is actually up 75 percent from 52 percent back in 2008. From 52 to 75 percent—that is a humungous jump, and it is all thanks to this National-led Government and the great work that the Hon Hekia Parata has done. I have always said this: I have seen the passion in her eyes, the twinkle, whenever she talks about the achievement of our children, and I would like to say that she has done a fantastic job.

Also, the other thing that I am very proud of this Government delivering is the free GP visits for all children under the age of 13. I think that is a fantastic thing. As a mother, as a parent, when children sometimes get sick, that is often the most stressful—that the Government is actually delivering free medical care for children under 13 is one of the best things that this Government has ever delivered.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): They say a week is a long time in politics—in fact, the phrase was coined by a former British Prime Minister—and a week must have felt like a very long time in politics for the National MPs, who have never appeared more despondent and lifeless than they have over the past week. The contrast could not be greater. While the National MPs are busy staring at their feet dreading the forthcoming election, we on this side of the House are feeling upbeat and excited about the forthcoming general election. We cannot wait to get to the polling booth, because we are excited about the future and we are very much looking forward to the election campaign and the choice that New Zealanders will have to make.

The person who let the mask slip the most last week was the Hon Gerry Brownlee, when he decided to attack the media for being too sympathetic to Jacinda Ardern. He went out there and he said that Paddy Gower was a cheerleader because he had described Jacinda Ardern—he had told the truth about her—as positive, energetic, and in command, which, of course, she is, and Gerry Brownlee cannot handle the fact that someone is saying something nice about somebody other than him.

But I think that really highlights just how far out of touch the current National Government has become and it is another illustration of why it is time for change in New Zealand. This year’s Budget, which we are giving the final reading to today, is yet another example of that. The contrast is very clear: National, which has run out of ideas, simply wants to try to buy votes by giving people back a little bit of their money in the form of tax cuts. Labour is the only party in this House that is saying that health, education, and housing are more important than tax cuts. We have voted against tax cuts from the very beginning because we do not believe it is responsible for a Government to be cutting that vital funding when our social services are so in need.

It is only the Labour Party that has a plan to address the housing crisis—a real and concrete plan to address the housing crisis—and a plan for how to pay for it: by cracking down on overseas speculators, by building 100,000 affordable homes for first-home buyers through KiwiBuild, and by increasing State housing. Let us remember that State housing has been at its most affordable in New Zealand’s history when the State has played an active role in building State houses, and not only will we make sure that we build more State houses but we will ensure that all rental accommodation is warm and dry for those New Zealanders who cannot afford to buy their own home. This Government does not address any of those issues in this year’s Budget, and that is another reason why New Zealanders will be voting for change in the coming general election.

Only the Labour Party is willing to pump an additional $4 billion over the next 4 years into our education system, which is crying out for extra investment under this Government. While the Government boasts about the fact that it is spending more on this than ever before—more on early childhood education than ever before, more on schools than ever before, more on tertiary education than ever before—what they do not say is that is because there are more people in the system than ever before. There are more New Zealanders than there have ever been before, and when, actually, you look at it on a per-child basis, early childhood education has been cut every year that this National Government has been in office. When it is calculated on a per-child basis—

Hon Hekia Parata: That is not true—about 60,000 students a year. Rubbish!

CHRIS HIPKINS: I say to the former Minister of Education over there that shrieking is not going to change the fact that under her watch, every year that she was the Minister, early childhood education was cut. The funding for early childhood education was cut. In the school sector funding was pretty much flat-lining for the entire time that that Minister was in office—flat-lining, flat-lining during the tenure of this National Government. We are saying that the education sector needs additional investment. It is one of the most important investments that we can make in New Zealand’s history, and that is why the Labour Party is saying that education is more important than tax cuts.

So let us look at what those tax cuts are going to deliver. What has Steven Joyce promised New Zealanders—the man my colleague Kelvin Davis described as being as authentic as a $3 bill? His tax cut package gives the wealthiest New Zealanders an extra $35 dollars a week, while the lowest paid get just over $5 a week. Someone on the average wage, apparently, gets $11 a week, but wait—there is a catch. They then take $10 a week back off the person on the average wage if they happen to live alone. They penalise single people by removing the single income-earner tax credit. So, basically, that $11 shrinks down to $1, which, of course, is why we are describing this move as the “One Dollar Bill Budget” from Prime Minister Bill English.

I found a picture of a $1 bill to symbolise this year’s Budget, because for many hard-working New Zealanders that is what they get; they get an extra $1 as a result of Bill English’s and Steven Joyce’s Budget. One-dollar bills, coincidentally, were phased out in New Zealand in 1990, the year that Bill English became a member of Parliament, when he made his transition from Treasury to being a parliamentarian. Anybody who says that somebody at the age of 30 does not have enough real-world experience to be a member of Parliament or perhaps Prime Minister of New Zealand should look at our current Prime Minister, who fits that description exactly. They should think very carefully about whether they think that that is a criticism that they should be levelling at others, because it is certainly one that I have heard coming from the National benches in the past few days, and, by implication, those members are simply criticising their current leader.

The Labour Party has been clear about its priorities for investing more in education. There are huge and emerging challenges in the education system—in the early childhood system, the schooling system, and the tertiary education system—that this Government simply is not addressing. One of the big ones is the looming teacher supply crisis. We know that we have a huge proportion of the teaching profession in New Zealand who will be retiring in the next decade. Schools in Auckland, in particular, are already saying that they cannot recruit teachers and fill vacancies in Auckland and other parts of the country where it is becoming too expensive to live. That problem is only going to get worse over the next decade as increasing numbers of baby-boomer teachers near the retirement age move out of the classroom, and schools will struggle to be able to fill those vacancies. The Labour Party has put forward a comprehensive plan to deal with this looming teacher supply crisis. We are the only party so far to have done so.

The National Government has failed to address the issue of school overcrowding and the fact that our school facilities are very, very rundown. Some schools are doing pretty well. They tend to be the schools in areas of population growth, which also, coincidentally, happen to be the wealthier-income areas, while schools in poorer communities are being left to rot into the ground. We have a plan to bring all of our school facilities up to scratch by 2030 at the latest, and the current Government is simply refusing to give a time frame—

Hon Nikki Kaye: How much did you spend on it in the last Labour Government? You left us with rotting schools.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —on upgrading the schools that do desperately require work. The current Minister of Education chirps in. What year—this is a simple question, and I am happy to yield the remainder of my time, if she wants to give an answer. By what year will the National Government ensure that all school facilities are upgraded to a modern standard?

Hon Nikki Kaye: Well, we have been upgrading them.

CHRIS HIPKINS: But what year—what year?

Hon Nikki Kaye: We have been upgrading them.

CHRIS HIPKINS: There is no year. We have said that by 2030, all schools will be upgraded to a modern standard. They will no longer have cold, mouldy, leaky classrooms, and the current Government will not give that kind of commitment because it knows that the capital budgets that it is allocating will not be sufficient to bring schools up to scratch even within a decade—even within a decade. An entire generation of young people will pass through our school system with the shoddy buildings that this National Government will have left us with before it would even think about getting all of the schools up to scratch. That is not good enough. We have said that within 13 years—by 2030—we will have that problem addressed. We will make sure that schools are up to date.

We will also make sure the financial pressures that parents are facing are dealt with. Early childhood education fees have risen, on average, 25 percent under this National Government. We will deal with that by ensuring early childhood education services are properly funded. The so-called voluntary donations that parents are asked to pay by schools have increased by 50 percent under this Government. We will make sure that those voluntary donations are done away with by ensuring that schools get the funding that they need to deliver the curriculum. In tertiary education, the Labour Party will deliver 3 years of free post-school education for those who are leaving school and going on to further study, because we know that that is an investment in our future.

Labour is prioritising increasing social spending on health, education, and housing over tax cuts. We know that that is what New Zealanders want to see. They have a real alternative at this year’s election, and it is the Labour Party.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am not sure about viewers at home, but I am a little bit confused by that last presentation by the member who has just taken his seat, Chris Hipkins. That was meant to be from a party that is relentlessly positive, and I was sitting there optimistically looking for something positive, not only relentless. Look, it is a very confusing time, actually, to be in this House. We have a Labour Party that has changed its faces, if you will, but not the substance of its arguments, and a Green Party, which is meant to be about aroha, love, and many other things, ripping itself apart.

I mention that because, in contrast, we can maintain a stable, strong Government here, which is incredibly proud of the Budget that it has put forward. It is a Budget that recognises where New Zealand has been, where New Zealand is, and where it is going. Why I bring those three up is that we know that New Zealand has been through a very difficult time over recent years, through the great financial crisis to the Canterbury earthquakes—

Carmel Sepuloni: Through 9 years of a National Government—that’s what’s been difficult about recent years.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —and the like. We have worked through that, and also—as has been helpfully pointed out—9 years of a Labour Government, which left us in quite a bind. So we have fixed things up over the course of these 9 years with, importantly, the support of New Zealanders. Obviously, as a Government, there is much that we can do—but it is actually working alongside New Zealanders, from those who run the large to the small businesses to those who work in the various sectors, be it education or health. Right across all of those sectors, we have worked together as a nation to restore the Government’s books to an excellent position, and we are in such a position that the Government in this Budget has been able to announce an array of new services, new funding, and new support.

With regard to the previous speaker, look, education is not my forte—my wife, who is a teacher, will tell you that—but, actually, we have just heard this relentlessly negative presentation by the Labour spokesperson on education around, well, education and, supposedly, this woeful funding. Well, right in front of me, in fact, is the Minister of Education and sitting down the back of the Chamber is a former Minister of Education. If they were speaking here today, they would tell you of the enormous amount of good work and effort that is going into the education system through, obviously, their leadership and that of their associates but, actually, by the teachers, the principals, the teacher-aides, and others on the ground. The enormous amount of funding that is going into new classrooms and, in fact, fixing up classrooms as well—those classrooms that the Labour Party talks about at length, which it neglected year after year. It has been this Government and these Ministers who are now making the efforts.

Speaking of my own electorate in Tāmaki, it has only been in recent days that even more classrooms were announced. I should probably rephrase that in some way, because just about every year that I have been in Parliament, in Budget after Budget, new classrooms have been introduced. In the recent array of Budget announcements, three of my schools have more classrooms. Stonefields School, one of the most amazing modern learning environments—in fact, I encourage anyone in the House to go and visit—has new classrooms. St Thomas’s School, a really excellent school in Kohimārama developing for an ever-growing roll, has more classrooms. The most wonderful school in Meadowbank—in fact, it is hard to explain verbally, I would have to say, but imagine, effectively, an intermediate school and a primary school that straddle a valley. It is the most bucolic area, if you will, in the middle of a city. It is well worth a visit. It has been given new funding for education and new funding for classrooms. So I find it very difficult to reconcile, as a constituent MP, these suggestions that there are no moneys.

I look to the innovations around the partnership schools. What a marvellous addition to education there. I think of the likes of the Villa Education Trust. It is an amazing, amazing result that this trust is developing, not for the sake of the school itself but for the students. I am really looking forward to this campaign to hear the deputy leader and the leader of the Labour Party argue this out because, of course, they have conflicting points of view on this. I will be interested in what the wider Māori caucus has to say on this, but I will not put a certain member on the spot here.

That will be a fascinating tension, but I, for one, see real value in having these partnership schools. In fact, I see it as part of diversity, really—which is a word that gets bandied about a lot in this House, usually by those who do not really believe in it—and, actually, in the education system, why not have some diversity? We have integrated schools, we have special schools, we have private schools, and we have State schools, and we heard—I was sitting on the Education and Science Committee at the time—particularly from the Māori and Pasifika communities that they want this. They want this, and I am very proud to see that we continue as a Government to support those.

Look, as most people know, my particular interest at the moment—primarily through chairing the Health Committee—is health. There is a record $16.8 billion being spent—the highest health spend ever. I keep reiterating that in this House because there is mischief being made by minor parties, like the Labour Party, that the spending has actually been cut. You cannot increase spending by I think it is about $3.9 billion—you will have to correct me on the figures; I am talking off the cuff—which is an enormous increase, and then say it is a decrease. I have said many, many times that when Labour comes out and says there is $1.7 billion missing or $2.5 billion missing, that is not an actual fact. That is purely what it believes should be spent. It is a utopian view, and I continue to be surprised that those members limit themselves to only a $1.7 billion underspend.

This Government is incredibly proud of its record in health. Anyone who works in the health sector knows that health always is and always will be challenging, and one of the areas that often comes up is around mental health. I think what the Government is doing in that space is actually quite incredible and quite comprehensive. Really importantly, in this Budget there is around about $224 million set aside for mental health. It is partly supporting existing services, but about $100 million of that has been ring-fenced to work across agencies.

Why I mention that cross-agency funding is because of something we heard from the Mental Health Commissioner last week before the Health Committee. He was speaking very clearly of the need to work across agencies. I am not sure what input he had, but we have seen the Minister of Health and others front-foot that early by seeing a particular amount of money—like I said, $100 million—put aside in that space.

Look, there is more funding to district health boards (DHBs). Over $40 million - plus a year, I believe, is going into the likes of the Auckland District Health Board. That is just indicative. It is right across the country. DHBs are where the tyre hits the road for most health spending, be it primary, secondary, or tertiary care. This is the Government that has continued to deliver more and more operations. The demand keeps growing and so the challenges will keep growing, not only to the DHBs but to the Government as well, to work out how to fund these.

The other area, of course, in health is always around pharmacological products—so drugs—into the community. There have been about two announcements around this particular appropriation of more funding into Pharmac. It is going to be a continuing challenge, I would suggest, and I think this Government is up for it, of how to embrace a slow change, now, with drugs between those that manage care and those that cure. Why I am putting that up is that I think that one of the great drugs that have recently been funded is around hepatitis C. I think it was about 2 years ago on the Health Committee that we heard a number of people speaking to the need for a fresh approach here. Particularly, again, it was that the older drug products actually just managed the condition. Now there are actually drugs out there that cure it, and about 50,000 New Zealanders are going to benefit from this Government providing more money to Pharmac to ensure that those new drugs are available.

It is one of many that have been announced, of course—we will remember a few months back the whole discussion around pembrolizumab, the likes of Keytruda and Opdivo, working particularly against melanoma. I mention that we are funding that drug now, but, as you may appreciate, Mr Assistant Speaker, there is the call that that drug be looked at for other conditions—lung cancer comes to mind, and actually, while I am standing on my feet, I acknowledge the likes of Philip Hope and the Lung Foundation for the advocacy they are providing.

This is a Government that is responding. We heard that the ambulances needed to be double-crewed; we have found the money for that. All ambulances moving forward will be double-crewed. We have heard, particularly from those within the disability community, that they want more support, and actually, through the work of the Minister for Disability Issues, Nicky Wagner, there is more money available there, particularly in pilot programmes that enable disabled people to take much more control of their lives and, I think really importantly, of the governmental moneys that they are receiving. I think that is an incredibly positive situation.

I actually stepped right past—shame on me—one of the biggest announcements in health, which is, of course, $2 billion for the pay equity settlement for the carers. It is terrible for me to forget, because, actually, I had a whole lot of people from the retirement and rest home industry from my electorate in my office yesterday. What a difference that has made for those people who have been, in effect, underpaid, who have seen from 1 July an incredible increase in their wages. That in and of itself is a win, but fundamentally and importantly there is also a whole training mechanism now. I think that also plays into something for the Government. It is not simply about throwing money at people and dusting off one’s hands; it is how we create a pathway that enables people to become more and more independent and to move up the chain. So there is great news in health; I am pleased to take this call.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It is my privilege to speak in this debate, the last speaker for the Greens on what, hopefully, will be the final Budget of the National Government. When I look at the Budget that this Government has delivered, I would say that what we have here is a lost opportunity. We have a vision where all our people, especially our children, have warm, safe, dry homes to live in; where families have enough to get by on—to live on, not just to provide shelter, and currently most families are spending a huge amount of their income on providing that shelter. So not just to provide the shelter, pay the rent or the mortgage; not just to buy the bare essentials to get by, like food and clothing; and not be in the situation of having to choose between feeding the kids and paying the power bill: we have a vision where our families have enough to live on. We have a vision where kids go to school with full bellies, with shoes, with raincoats; where they go to well-funded schools, where they are ready to learn; and where the teachers are not exhausted from the underfunding and overwork that they are facing, and where they are paid adequately, too.

We have a vision where our water is treated like the taonga that it is, where we can trust that what comes out of our tap will not poison us, where we can swim in our rivers without getting sick. We have a vision. We have a vision where not only our children but also our protected species are thriving; where we can arrest the decline of our endangered birds, like our takahē, our kiwi, and our kōkako; and where our treasured places, our wild places, are protected, and are protected from exploration by mining companies that are greedily wanting to suck the minerals out of the ground and destroy it for all of us.

We have a vision where our country stands up and takes our place globally, where we say to the rest of the world, “Yes, we will increase our refugee quota. We won’t have just 750 quota refugees that we will accept in this country.”, like we have since 1987. I know that it is going up to 1,000 next year, but we could do so much better than that. We have a vision where we could have 5,000 refugees, 4,000 of them as quota refugees and another 1,000 supported by ordinary Kiwi families. We could do that, and that would bring us up to just what Australia is doing per capita. I do not know about you, but I actually hate being beaten by the Australians in anything.

We also think that taking our place globally means that we would do more to meet our targets about reducing our emissions. We absolutely signed up to reduce them, but we have relied on sleight of hand to try to meet those targets. We have been buying credits, spending about $10 million a year to make us look better in the eyes of the world, when we could actually be doing real things. We have a plan where we could keep that $10 million. We have a plan for an investment infrastructure fund. We have a plan where we could invest to reduce our emissions. Instead of enriching other countries, where they are using that money to really become carbon neutral, we could do that here, and what a difference that would make to our economy. It is such a smart way of spending the money that we gather as a nation.

Instead, Budget 2017 lacks vision. This Government has delivered the usual election bribe of tax cuts to the wealthy, while our people, our public services, and our environment lack investment. The Government’s insistence on sleight-of-hand tactics is a false economy. Rather than address the fact that there are 215,000 children living in poverty in this country—and that costs us about $8 billion; that is what child poverty costs all of us—rather than invest in those children, this Government gives tax cuts to the wealthy, to the people who do not actually really need it. This Government has lacked investment in building homes, homes for the 41,000 homeless people in this country, and it is shameful that there are that many people who do not have homes in this country. Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on temporary solutions like putting families up in motels, we could have been investing in our people by building social housing, the social housing that they desperately need. That is definitely what we need. Meanwhile, in Manurewa, where my colleague Marama Davidson comes from, two rough sleepers lost their lives in the last month because this Government has not invested in its people.

This Government shows no compassion. This Government has ensured that Housing New Zealand does not house New Zealanders; it actually makes it more difficult for them. The free market is broken. It does not work for the most vulnerable people in our communities, and it never has. Those who are vulnerable remain vulnerable. Where is the investment? I would say that investing in private prisons, which this Government seeks to do under this Budget, is not the right investment. That is not housing. Well, I suppose it is a type of housing, but it is a false economy, and it is an irresponsible Government that does that. I believe that we should be judged as a Parliament on how we treat our most vulnerable.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise for interrupting the member, but in accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I call on Catherine Delahunty to make her valedictory statement.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā koutou Te Whare Pāremata me te tangata whenua o Te Motu, me ngā Tangata Tiriti katoa. Tenā rā koutou, nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata, Te Whare Raruraru, Te Whare Mamae, Te Whare Kaha!

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to you collectively Parliament House, indigenous people of the country, and all Treaty people. Salutations indeed to you collectively, welcome and come hither to the House of Parliament, the troubled House, the House of pain, the House of strength!]

I make this speech with profound gratitude to all the people who have helped me do this job for the past 8½ years, and with few regrets. Possibly, my greatest regret is not being in the Government so I could establish the “Ministry of Pākehā Affairs” and create the national standard for honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. “Dear Mrs Brash, your son Don is well below, again.”

However, before the thankyous, I need to name the inspiration that has carried me and the deep disquiet that keeps me awake at night. Che Guevara said: “The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth.” I have been guided by this view, and by this whakataukī: “Whatungarongaro he tangata, toitū he whenua.”—“People perish, but the land remains.” Thank you to kuia Betty Williams for what you have taught me. These two statements are not contradictions; they are complementary truths. If this makes some of us green-red watermelons, how sweet is that? The watermelon is the most colourful, refreshing, and delicious fruit imaginable.

But all is not well in the garden of Aotearoa. In the past 8½ years we have seen this country become even more unequal and dirty. I could be referring just to the quantity and quality of our water, but it is a universal degradation. In the past 8½ years politics has become depoliticised, celebrity-trivialised, and empty. This is not an accident of Facebook; it is a consequence of neo-liberal strategies to reduce citizen’s scrutiny of the concentration of power, at the expense of our survival on earth and our humanity towards each other. “New Zealand Inc.” replaces Aotearoa as the brand we must embrace, while the beggars on Lambton Quay are just a necessary price they must pay for failing in the great competition of hypercapitalism. While we read about Bill English cooking up some tasteless, folksy food designed to fabricate Kiwi authenticity, the real game show grinds on, glamorising consumption, ignoring the chaos of the climate and the collapse of endangered species—the cruelty of a stripped-down, irresponsible State under corporate control. How about they go take their social investment rhetoric and insulate their invisible social housing with it?

In my time here, we could have had the overdue deeper national conversation on Te Tiriti - based constitutional change. Tangata whenua are ahead of us, as usual, offering collective wisdom in the face of colonisation’s mutating virus—Aotearoa, a Pasifika nation whose double-hulled waka could float in a storm with all crew safely on board, instead of sitting in a cold, broken flat watching rich men race superyachts around in circles.

There are many alternatives to the current degraded state of the nation. As the poet Pablo Neruda said: “You can cut all the flowers, but you cannot keep the spring from coming.” What might a transformed spring look like in the 21st century? Spring inevitably has indigenous roots, vibrant with reimagined political structures based on caring, distributive, steady-state economics, the technology of respect, and a few wealth taxes thrown in—full employment, housing for all, free education and healthcare, not market economics. That religion is over, and it failed to provide. We have to start with an economic system that supports the collective dignity of indigenous people, the unemployed and working class, women, children, refugees, exploited migrants, and the so-called disabled. As my satirical poem “Double the quota of white men, you can never have enough” so crudely states, it is time for a different definition of whose voices matter. I may not see this in my lifetime. I want it for my mokopuna. The alternative is our “down home” version of a Trump dystopia, and it is too here and too now.

In my time in Parliament I have been proud to work with so many people on public education, inclusion in education, mining, clean awa, Te Tiriti rights, and toxic sites. I have been champion of some of the least-popular causes ever brought before this House—[Interruption] it is true; thank you, people—connected to disability, human rights, and contaminated land. I am most proud of the work that I have done with others—I have just lost my place here. That is the trouble with reading when you just like talking, eh? I am most proud of the work for a free and independent West Papua. Our Pacific neighbours are violently occupied by Indonesia and their resources and human rights plundered, while our Government is literally useless. I hope my colleagues in the MP network will keep making this issue visible. I will be on your case from the outside. Political freedom gives us responsibility.

One of the reasons I am looking forward to going home is the necessity we have in the Hauraki-Coromandel to stop multinationals from goldmining. After 30 years of activism, I want to honour the Coromandel Watchdog family and all our communities that have been willing to protect home. We have a Government whose economic plan is dirty water, development, and holes in the ground. We will never accept this. We are motivated by the love of the land, not the dollar.

I am also proud of what can be practically achieved in Opposition. My partner, Gordon Jackman, and I negotiated a memorandum of understanding with Nick Smith that set up a national register of contaminated sites. Working with Chris Finlayson, we changed a clause in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act to ensure archaeologists must demonstrate cultural competency to hapū and iwi. I have had a number of members’ bills—five selected—that have raised the issue of things like a disability commissioner, and the Public Works Act and Māori land, not to mention the seemingly eternal struggle to get pulp mill waste out of the Tarawera awa.

Thanks to all the groups and individuals who have taught me so much about all these causes. I give particular thanks to the rangatahi who have given me their honest feedback about the education system. This quote is from Crystal Te Moananui, from the youth rōpū Te Mata Rangatira of Hauraki—kia ora—“You set us up to fail in a system we don’t fit, now you ask for my compliance, my forgiveness. Well, I resist. Until your debt is paid and education includes my world. Take what you have offered, leave my pounamu and take your pearls.” She was 15 when she wrote that.

I want to thank the Green Party for giving me a place and, at this very moment, inspiring me again that we stand for all people and for justice, as well as for the environment. The Right is desperate to keep us in a tidy little green box, focused on the environment minus people. It will fail in the attempt because our mission has always been the commitment to the inseparable solutions of environmental healing and social justice. Many of us believe that if we are neutral and allow injustice to continue to happen, we are siding with the oppressor. Today is a particularly good day to reflect on that.

When I joined the party, we started working on our commitment to honouring Te Tiriti. Not settling treaties but honouring them is the task, as Moana Jackson has reminded us. I am proud to be one the few Pākehā to stand in this House for Te Tiriti, because it is only via this kaupapa that we, the dominant privileged with our oft-denied default racism, can transform ourselves into tangata Tiriti—people of honour with a place to stand.

To everyone who wants change so badly this election, let us be brave and honest. A pallid centrism will not serve us or this country. The era of the slick, bland slogan is over; truth to power, or, as some unlikely leader said, for the many, not for the few.

I have many people to thank. Firstly, the cleaners, messengers, security, library, IT staff, and the Copperfields staff—you have been most kind, most professional people to work with. Some of your wages are a disgrace, but you are the opposite. Thank you too to the Chamber staff for all your work, and the Clerk’s Office. All of you guys have been so patient and so professional.

To my entire office team, starting with Liz Robinson, Frances Mountier, Asher Goldman, Jess Bignell, and Himiona Grace: only you know how truly incompetent at basic tasks an MP can possibly be. Also, grateful thanks to Elinor Chisolm and Mary Davies Colley for their short-term help. Thank you for helping me to find “Bold” on the computer.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: You think I am joking? You have all given me hope for a generation and held me to account. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. To all the Greens staff—the hard-working, dedicated, and patient champions—thank you all for all you did to make a better collective effort, for which I got the credit that belonged to us.

Thank you also to where I come from, for Te Tai Rāwhiti and Hauraki-Coromandel Greens, who work so hard for the common good, and to all the people who are here because they are not only political allies but true friends. Thank you, politicians from across the House, for the small courtesies that keep us human in this status-ridden, patriarchal institution that needs a shake-up. Man, you are going to miss these speeches!

To the other women who walked out of this House together to reject any disrespect of our very selves as sexual assault survivors, I am proud to be one of your number. We walk this painful path for all the daughters everywhere. I want a Prime Minister—or co - Prime Minister; hang in there, Metiria, we love you—who does not have to be told not to touch a woman’s ponytail or that a river is not a commercial property flowing out to sea and wasting itself. This MP job is for grown-ups, not shallow gamblers.

We are lucky in the Greens. We stand on the shoulders of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons. My thanks to all my Green colleagues, past and present, especially Sue Bradford and Rod Donald, who encouraged me in this perilous venture. And to our current caucus, thank you so much. Thank you for putting up with my ranting, bad jokes, and other character flaws. I am so proud to have been here with you through all of this, especially today, and I wish you all the best. Kia kaha; do not give up. If you get power, be very careful, and listen hard to the outside voices. Remember, power and leadership is a shared kaupapa that can be exercised in many forms.

I want to say to the younger generation of Greens—and yes, I do mean you, Jack McDonald—whose energy and idealism inspires me, that it is not natural for politicians to become more conservative and compromised. I am living proof. Of course, I am the typical person! But privilege and high status can do that to anyone. This place creates an unusual and somewhat delusional experience of power, and we must be held to account, for our own sake, as well as for the country.

Finally, to my family. In the time since I have been here we lost both our parents, who were here for my maiden speech. I am glad that I was here in Wellington for that time, and I need to thank everyone, but especially three people: my sister, Sarah, who cared for our parents and for me throughout this whole time, and who has shown me what caring for others looks like; my daughter, Esther, for the kindness and the encouragement and for always being on my side, telling me what to wear and where the stains were on my clothes, and our shared life, as a mother and a grandmother, which has kept me sane; and to my beloved partner, Gordon Jackman, my rock, my brain, my scientist, my guide, your love is the reason I am still standing upright—your politics, your generosity, your sacrifice.

Lastly, I want to say to my grandson, Leo, this is all for you, my darling—you and your generation, who have a huge challenge ahead. I believe in a better way for you, and thank you for making Nannie play soccer every Monday and not be able to talk at the same time.

Metiria Turei: Well done.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Yeah, well, I tried. Right now, I also want to particularly acknowledge my co-leaders, Met and James. They rock.

I am done with this place, although I nearly changed my mind—like David Lange—this morning, because I thought: “I want to fight alongside my brothers and sisters.” However, I am done, and I have some views, which I have written down. More of that later, but, in the meantime, I will see you on the steps outside, but from the other side of the barrier. I am looking forward to the fresh air out there.

He mihi nui ki a koutou katoa, he mihi nui ki te whānau whānui; tēnā rā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[A huge appreciation to you all and to the extended family; acknowledgments, accolades, and congratulations to you collectively and to us all.]

Now, do not clap; we are going to sing.

Waiata

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): It is an honour to deliver a valedictory speech; so many MPs do not have that opportunity. Some of my favourite words have always been possibilities, opportunities, and curiosity. If one is curious, it is possible to create opportunities and then, if the door is opened further, possibilities are created; that is how I have viewed my time in this House. So today is not just another day for me; it is a new opportunity and a new beginning. For me, personally, 2017 has been a very challenging year; a year that without the support of many of you would have created so many more challenges.

So I am going to begin with my thanks to the many people who have been at my side during this journey. Mr Speaker, thank you for your patience, tolerance, and understanding. It is very much appreciated. It was not easy when my husband became ill. Eventually, I was needed elsewhere. Likewise, with my own medical challenges, unfortunately, my health became the priority, and the district health board dictates my activities. I think back to my former colleagues Helen Duncan from the North Shore electorate and the late Parekura Horomia coming to sit in this House when they were so ill. I count myself very fortunate that I am able to attend the numerous hospital appointments and ongoing treatments that are necessary and will continue to be for some time.

To my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, thank you for your support and for allowing me to follow this course of action. It has meant a lot to me and my family. It has been a privilege and an honour to have worked with you and for you. I am sure that history will portray you as one of the greatest political leaders in recent New Zealand history, which I know you definitely are.

To my colleagues within New Zealand First, thank you for your support in covering my various duties. Election years are notoriously frantic and I appreciate all that you have done. I have followed you in the House. I have kept the TV on for question time, which, as a whip, you no doubt expected.

To my colleagues across the House, thank you for your kind messages of support. Your messages of support were and are appreciated, and it ensured that I did not feel alone. I feel very humbled, because I know that you are all very busy people, so thank you.

I would also like to take this opportunity to give thanks to my fellow members of the Health Committee, ably chaired by Simon O’Connor. Though we have not always agreed on all issues, it is a very productive committee and we have always worked towards a common goal: improving the health outcomes of all New Zealanders.

I would like to thank the New Zealand First Party, all of its members, the staff, and the volunteers for the wonderful opportunity to become a member of this House and for your support and encouragement. It is a demanding role and a true privilege to participate in the democratic process on your behalf.

The New Zealand First parliamentary team has been outstanding, and I want to thank those who have worked for me: Anne Moore, Philip Wakefield, Api Dawson, Elizabeth Miles, Carol Braganza, and Maree Myers. You have all ensured that my office has worked as perfectly as possible and you have done all of the hard work. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with you and I have appreciated your support.

To my out-of-Parliament staff, Kelly Hunt and Laura Hopkins, thank you for all of the outstanding work that you have done. I know that I could not have managed or completed the number of constituent inquiries without your input. These inquiries were never easy, particularly when New Zealand First was often the last port of call. Clients wanted a miracle and, Kelly and Laura, you gave them hope and you delivered some miracles too. So thank you both for managing under extremely difficult circumstances. It is much appreciated.

I am very appreciative of the fantastic support that I have enjoyed from the Parliamentary Service team, from the Office of the Clerk, the security team, the Copperfields and the Bellamy’s team, and the cleaners. Roland, thank you for your oversight of the House. I would particularly like to thank the team at the library, without whom life as a list MP would be extremely difficult. You all do an outstanding and wonderful job, sometimes working to very tight deadlines, which can be very trying for us as MPs and no doubt for you as well. Priorities can change. Never underestimate the work that you all do. It would be an uphill struggle without your expertise.

Some very important people in our lives are the Chamber and gallery team. It would be totally impossible for me to count the number of glasses of water that you have brought to me over the years. One can get amazingly thirsty in this Chamber. Service with a smile and a kind word is appreciated, so thank you very much for your focus and dedication.

To my son, Alister, thank you for your patience and tolerance. I have been away from home for many years, and we have delayed celebrating important events on the day, so thank you. I remember only too well when I first came into Parliament in 2002 and you were in year 7, telling me not to mess up because one day you would be here and you did not want to live down any mistakes that I had made. I remember being quite astonished. I had had a relatively successful career in the corporate world and I had not messed up. I could only think to say to you that the reverse also applied: I did not want to read anything about you in the newspapers. I believe that we have each lived up to our side of the bargain, and I believe that that will carry on. Thank you for all the help and assistance you so willingly gave to me, particularly at election time. I can only hope that someday I can return the favour.

Thanks must also go to the various family members who have helped me out—particularly at election time. Loreen, your assistance on the North Shore was invaluable. Diane, your focus on the well-being of children helped enormously and ensured that I retain a similar passion. Thank you for your ideas and assistance, which definitely provided great direction. Our families pay a huge price to enable us to do this work, and I extend my thanks to you all. To my friends, I appreciate your understanding and thank you for your support. I have often been a challenging guest, arriving late and leaving early. To Milan, my friend, thank you for your support over the years; your reliability is second to none. I was always in the right place at the right time—likewise, with Ross in Hamilton.

I would like to thank the members of the press gallery, past and present. I believe that I have had fair treatment from you. I did not come into Parliament to be a headline act, but rather to assist people to receive fair and just treatment from the various Government departments that are a part of the lives of so many. It was basically an extension of the various human resource roles that I have previously held, and I was able to do that along with my outstanding out-of-Parliament staff.

Last but not least, I want to thank all of the wonderful voluntary organisations that I have met with for their time and knowledge. It was always a humbling experience to hear about the great work that you were doing out in the community. It has sparked a passion.

Nine years in Opposition and 3 years being a part of the Labour-New Zealand First confidence and supply agreement has meant that I did have some wins in some areas. The greatest achievement was to ensure that free medical care for the under-sixes was to continue as a part of life. The Hon Pete Hodgson worked hard with me to ensure that this really did become a reality. We would have liked to have extended this policy to the under-13s, but just could not at this time. However, we were totally delighted to see the National Government eventually put this policy into action.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Very wise.

BARBARA STEWART: Very wise indeed.

Oral health care for children is an area that I am passionate about, as I believe what gets measured gets done. My select committee colleagues can attest to that. Children who have had their front teeth extracted in their early years have so many challenges. It is very difficult to speak and read, so many do not reach their potential. Unfortunately, the permanent teeth do not have a guide, so often require orthodontic work that is unaffordable. So these children are basically wanting until they can do something about it themselves, which many cannot and do not. I am hoping that someone else on the Health Committee will take an interest in this very important area. We all talk about child poverty, and this is an area that is indicative of poverty, but it is absolutely essential for a child’s well-being. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Annette King for her unending support on this issue. Children need the very best start in life if they are to become the best that they can be. To unleash that potential is essential. Children are our future.

Over the years that I have been in Parliament, I have believed—and still do—that a preventative approach to health problems must be followed. Pressure has to be taken off the public health system. The bottom line is that our nurses and our doctors are frantically busy, always looking after the patients. There is rarely a quiet time and, unfortunately, I have personally seen and experienced this. The reality is that people cannot work at maximum output all of the time for every shift, and that is what is currently occurring. Our doctors and our nurses do an absolutely wonderful job, despite the many challenges, and they do need some hope that this constant pressure is not going to result in burnout.

I believe that it is time to consider other approaches to health because, despite increases in health spending, our population is both increasing and ageing. There are few winners. Two of my members’ bills drawn from the ballot attempted to relieve this pressure on the public health system. Unfortunately, both bills never proceeded past the first reading, but I live in hope that the Minister and the Government will eventually have to consider these courses of action.

To ensure that SuperGold card members can visit their GPs three times annually for free was an attempt to keep this special group of citizens well and out of hospital. We know that small ailments can be treated before they become debilitating illnesses, as many do, and result in the person being in hospital. It makes common sense to prevent the necessity of a hospital stay. Preventative measures such as this will benefit everyone and save our health system some much-needed dollars in the future. Likewise, encouraging employers to take out private medical insurance for their employees, and getting some recognition for doing this, was also an attempt to relieve pressure on the public health system. The public health system is essential. We need it, but it does need to be sustainable.

Now, another area that I have enjoyed working on has been that of petitions. In Opposition, that is the only way that one can make a difference. We always need to be aware of the matters that affect the lives of others and attempt to get those matters aired in Parliament, if possible, to get some action and hope for sufferers. Surgical mesh is one of those issues. The Health Committee made some recommendations that we believe outline a way forward. Lives have been ruined and potential has been taken away. I can only applaud MeshDownUnder for the superb work that it has done in raising this issue. I hope that there is eventually a positive outcome. One should not have to live in pain after a medical procedure. However, it does go against the grain to leave work unfinished but, unfortunately, I will not see this project completed. However, I will keep an eye on it and I know my colleagues will continue to seek positive action for those affected.

So, for me, it has always been a goal to try to work issues out and serve the many people who have approached us for assistance. Petitions have become an important avenue for me. When I entered Parliament in 2002, I said that I wanted to help people. I know that I have achieved this for many; not always with the most-wanted outcome, but usually an outcome.

On the subject of children’s health, I would like to see a stronger focus on education in schools, for children to learn about healthy eating and nutrition. This is an important factor in the fight against obesity. I have had the privilege of seeing Project Energise in action at a primary school in Hamilton, and was impressed at the results. Children often bring that knowledge home to their mum and dad, which can change the habits of an entire family. This programme is something that should be celebrated and rolled out across as many schools as possible.

I cannot leave this House without mentioning the urgent need for an independent review of our mental health service. We have all seen that the system is under immense pressure and changes do need to be made. Our unacceptably high suicide rate demands urgent action. I know that those who come after me in New Zealand First will bring new knowledge and new skills to build a strong team and pick up on some of those issues that I have not completed.

The next chapter of my life is about to begin. I will be fit again and, as soon as possible, I will be contributing to the voluntary sector. There is so much that can be done. I believe that I have done my best in this House and I go with my integrity intact, which is important to me. I wish all of my colleagues across the House the very best for the upcoming election and thank you for your friendship, and I hope that our paths will cross again. I know that all of us come to work each day with the aim of improving the lives of all New Zealanders, despite our different ways of going about it. So thank you for all of your support over the years. Take care and go well.

[Applause]

Waiata

SUE MORONEY (Labour): The Parliament of Aotearoa New Zealand has it better than many other parliaments around the world. We govern a beautiful, peaceful country where the climate is mostly agreeable, good for growing food, and great for getting outdoors. But our people are our greatest asset. They are fair-minded and hard-working, and they value tolerance and resilience. Our young land shakes us up from time to time, but we do not face the challenges of other countries—wars, political unrest, unforgiving droughts, or ongoing devastating floods—so it should be relatively easy, eh?

The greatest ongoing challenge we face is how we improve our collective wealth in a sustainable way and how we distribute that fairly so that everyone benefits from it, and yet we are getting that relatively simple task wrong. Increasing homelessness, a growing need for food parcels from food banks, children going to school hungry, worsening domestic violence, too many people waiting for too long in too much pain, and one of the highest suicide rates in the world are all outward signs that our relatively wealthy country is not getting it right and can do much, much better.

In my maiden speech of almost 12 years ago, the basic right for us to have decent work in order to live, rather than living just to work, was at the forefront of my first speech. So it is no surprise that my first achievement under a Labour-led Government was to have my member’s bill ensuring meal and rest breaks at work picked up and passed as a Government bill in 2007. Along with working to secure the funding to clean up Te Aroha’s toxic Tūī Mine, it was a good start. It is deeply ironic that my last act in this Parliament will be debating the exact same member’s bill, in my name, to get that basic right reinstated after the current Government took it away in the intervening period. Talk about coming full circle. Look, I know that there is something to be said about synergy, but that is just plain ridiculous.

Along the way, I have injected my proposal for a commuter train service between Hamilton and Auckland into most speeches, no matter what topic we were actually debating in Parliament at the time. I worked to help people with desperate housing needs who faced unnecessary stonewalling from Government departments and had problems getting the help they needed on complex problems in our fourth-largest city, and did I remember to mention that Hamilton is indeed our fourth-largest city? Yes, I do think that Hamilton is our most underrated city. It is a relaxed but high-performing hub of innovation and creativity, and with the right leadership it has the opportunity to learn the lessons from Auckland’s mistakes so that it will grow and continue to be a place for people to live, to raise their families, and to thrive.

I also tabled some large petitions in Parliament, including one on pay equity with 15,800 signatures; one to establish that Hamilton commuter train, with 11,500 signatures; and a plea to bring back Hamilton’s community policing model, which was signed by 550 people. On every one of those big issues, National blocked the petitioners from even being heard, and I think that is wrong.

In 2009 I exposed the Government’s plans to cut funding for early childhood education services. Its target was qualified teachers, and it came on the back of scrapping the planned increased teacher ratios for under-3-year-olds. Quality for our youngest learners at a time when their brain development is at its best was under attack.

It was the same year I wrote my bill extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks for very much the same reasons that I was arguing against those cuts to early childhood education. That year, the growing global financial crisis loomed large and the Labour caucus did need some convincing that it was a priority, but it was great training for when I presented the idea to the New Zealand public. That happened at Easter 2012. Yes, my bill rattled around in the biscuit tin for 3 long years. At 2 p.m. on the day it was drawn out at the midday ballot, I plonked myself next to Peter Dunne and reminded him that he had promised to support this measure. The Green Party, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, and the Mana Party also supported 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. It was game on. Two amazing young mums, Rebecca Matthews and Fleur Fitzsimons, established a coalition of community organisations to support the proposals, and the 26 for Babies coalition was born.

It was amazing to run a positive campaign from the Opposition benches that required communicating a message that resonated with New Zealanders while keeping the support of five other political parties. I relished that challenge. To this day, I still feel exceptionally proud to represent a country where, at the height of the global financial crisis, most New Zealanders agreed it was a priority to put children first by funding 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.

This campaign was full of remarkable moments, but I want to highlight two events. The first was when my bill had a one-vote majority. I was preparing to speak in the second reading—the first time around—and I glanced at my phone to see that one of those votes had just left the building. Te Ururoa Flavell had just, quite rightly, rushed to the birth of his first grandchild, leaving my bill one vote short of passing. We thought “Well, surely the National Party will allow Te Ururoa his vote.”, given we were debating paid parental leave and he had rushed off to welcome his mokopuna, but National denied him that vote. So we swung into plan B. Grant Robertson took points of order while I spoke, Louisa Wall got on the phone to Te Ururoa, and Trevor Mallard worked with the Speaker’s office to test a new provision called compassionate leave, which Nanaia Mahuta had argued for. And there it was, right there. The Labour Party, which this country needs, was using all of its talents, resources, and networks together, fighting to improve the lives of working people and their families, and what an awesome sight that was.

I was still on my feet arguing for the bill when I got the sign that it was all agreed and that all the votes would count, but then the National Party cast an incorrect Māori Party vote against the bill, and the vote was lost. The Māori Party was prevented from correcting its vote that evening, but did so the next day. So the bill survived its second reading, but it was a night full of the type of high drama that seemed to accompany that bill at every single turn.

The second standout event for me was straight after the last election. The election result meant that bill was suddenly just one vote short of passing its remaining votes. Even though our campaign had already gained 4 more weeks’ paid parental leave, I was determined to get more support for families so I amended my bill for families of multiple births, babies born early, or babies born with a disability to get extra leave. Even though it brought the already reasonable costs right down, National still would not vote for it. I needed one more vote. So I said to my colleagues “I’m off to see David Seymour from the ACT Party.”, and they said: “Good luck with that.” I tended to agree, but I knew that I could not look those families in the eye if I had not done everything possible to get that extra vote to help them out.

So off I went. David Seymour told me he was opposed to extra paid parental leave, but I asked him to listen to my proposed amendments anyway, and when I finished describing them to him, he said: “Well, why wouldn’t I support that?”. Instead of falling off my chair, I looked straight back at him and I said: “Yeah, I thought you’d say that.” So, because of MMP, families with babies born pre-term can now get up to 13 weeks’ paid leave on top of the 18 weeks that other families get.

I find nothing more satisfying than when complete strangers come up to me on the street and tell me about the extra time they now have with their babies, but I cannot wait to see 26 weeks’ paid parental leave delivered in the first 100 days of the incoming Labour-led Government. This is one bill that deserves to be rushed through under urgency, as it has already faced select committee scrutiny twice and both times it has gained a parliamentary majority.

I also learnt more about financial vetoes than I had ever hoped to know about. You may be surprised to know that I think the financial veto does have its place in an MMP Parliament, but I think it should be outlawed where the measure has majority public support, has been subjected to scrutiny and official costings by a select committee, and still commands a majority in the Parliament. Yep, I am proposing constitutional change.

Talking about our constitutional arrangements brings me to the extraordinary events that have unfolded from the fraud I exposed at the Ministry of Transport. Naming fraudster Joanne Harrison was one of the best decisions I have made. My phone rang red-hot with information on her from around the globe, and within 15 days she was back in New Zealand, arrested, and charged with fraud, so that was one good outcome. Wherever she went, she did two things: she worked hard on establishing a trusting relationship with a middle-aged male running the show and she got rid of people who were on to her. It was a successful formula, because while her fraud almost always got found out, her victims were so ashamed of how easily they had been duped that they swept it under the carpet, and so she was able to go on her merry way, largely unscathed.

It was obvious to me that she employed exactly those same techniques at the Ministry of Transport, but the ministry refused to answer my questions until her court case was over, and this delayed that information coming out by 6 months. In the meantime the unthinkable had happened. Martin Matthews, the CEO at the time the fraud was committed, was appointed to the crucial watchdog role of Auditor-General. The integrity of the role of Auditor-General is vital to our constitutional arrangements. In my view, the person in that role must be above question. I knew that people working at the ministry, those in associated organisations, and the media had questions about Martin Matthews’ performance in relation to the fraud, and so did I.

At the select committee the ministry had to confess to poor recruitment processes and it struggled to explain why 3 years’ worth of fraud had not been stopped earlier. The ministry also refused to investigate my concerns about the restructuring of the finance department, which Joanne Harrison had had a hand in, and so did the responsible Minister. Eventually, the State Services Commission did, and it found that four diligent whistleblowers were disadvantaged in their employment by Joanne Harrison. Those heroic public servants have now been vindicated and celebrated. It is another good outcome.

It also exposed inadequacies in the whistleblowers’ legislation in the way the Official Information Act was being used, and it resulted in promises to fix them up. That makes it a third good outcome from this work. On Thursday Martin Matthews resigned from his role as Auditor-General. That is the fourth significant action to come from this episode. But I know that Joanne Harrison has wrecked many lives and reputations from her dishonesty over three decades, and I do not want the next reputation she wrecks to be that of the New Zealand Parliament.

The one major lesson that I take from this episode is that transparency and accountability are the best disinfectant for fraud and dishonesty. So I call on the Speaker to publicly release the investigation report. It is the best way to move forward and learn the detailed lessons our Public Service needs to have the benefit of.

My advice to future parliaments is simple: if you have to go to the Serious Fraud Office to satisfy yourselves about the person you are about to appoint as Auditor-General, then they are almost certainly the wrong person for the job.

My next bit of advice for future parliaments is even more simple: have more women. But not just any type of woman—I want to see women of courage, women of principle, and women of great determination, because who else will call out the Minister of Finance when he deliberately exaggerates and nearly doubles the cost of extending paid parental leave? Who else will take on the old boy network and the Wellington mafia over the Auditor-General’s appointment? Who else will ensure that women can claim equal pay, as per the recent union victory, and who else will shake up the systems that promote patronage over performance? Unless we truly believe that men are just inherently better at representing the needs of our communities than women are, then there is no excuse for the decades-long dominance, numerically, of men in here.

I am encouraged by the wave of support generated by our second woman Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern. When I think about what Helen Clark endured and then conquered, this is real progress.

I want to encourage more parents into this Parliament. My boys were 6 and 7 when I was elected to Parliament. I worried I might wreck my boys’ lives, and some people told me I would. I can report that that did not happen. What mum would not love to have this message exchange with their teenage son? Him: “Congrats on bringing the Auditor-General down, Mum.” Me: “Thanks, darling. If only I could get you to tidy your room, then I would be truly powerful.” Him: “Power over people is not a desired skill. The power to hold people accountable is.” There are so many layers of parenting gold in that exchange, it is priceless. But he still has not tidied his room.

My other son was with me when I was told that the party hierarchy did not want me back in Parliament. When I decided to resign as a result, his strength and wisdom were outstanding. “Tell it like it is, Mum.”, he told me, “That’s what you’ve always done.” What a wonderful value to be reminded of at that moment.

It takes a village to support an MP to do this type of work. My village has been large and solid as a rock. I thank Labour Party members for trusting me to represent them. I hold party members in the highest regard because they are committed to the collective good, social justice, and a fair go for all. Those who have supported me most are too many to name, so I am going to use one person as a representative of them all. Maxine van Oosten has been my campaign manager for the past three elections. She is smart, she is great fun, she is kind, she is principled, and she is hard-working—thanks, Maxine.

I have been fortunate to have had wonderful and committed staff over the 12 years. In Wellington I have been supported by Wendy Daniel, Angus Hodgson, Rebecca Fox, Paul Grant, Catherine Pantling, and Ted Greensmith-West; in Hamilton, Jill Hobden, Jenny Patching, Ellen Hayward, David Symon, Janine Jackson, and Melanie Dorrian have all held the fort at various times, but I want to make special mention of Melissa White, who has been with me in Hamilton for 9 years. This talented woman has raised two children as a sole parent while helping out many Hamiltonians with complex issues and keeping me at the forefront of local issues. Melissa, you are a star.

I have been fortunate to have mentors like Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson, James Ritchie, Mark Gosche, Carol Beaumont, and John and Gloria Marshall giving me advice whenever I asked for it.

My family have been amazing. I think my parents—who are here tonight—have really only just come to terms with having a politician in the family. They see me being opinionated and fiercely determined, and they seem genuinely perplexed about where I get it all from. My brothers, nieces, and nephew have coped well with it, too. My sister Catherine died before I came to Parliament, but she had already shaped and supported the person I am before then.

Mum and Dad are also amazing grandparents to our boys. Quinn and Logan, I am beyond proud of the principled, smart, witty young men you are. Thanks for letting me use your exciting basketball tournaments as my downtime from politics, and also for keeping my feet firmly on the ground while being my main source of inspiration.

That brings me to my husband, Shane. Shane, we have a true partnership. Whether it be our fight for social justice or the way that we have raised our two boys, we have always done it as a team. In this job you come across passionate and principled people, and you come across great political strategists. It is rare to come across a person who has all of those abilities, but, Shane, you are that person. You have those abilities in truckloads, and we have many adventures ahead of us.

I have had this incredible opportunity to represent my country at this level for 12 years. It has been one wild ride and a great honour. I am at the top of my game, and that is not surprising because I am at that age when women are in their prime, career-wise. I have learnt so much about myself and our world during that time, and I am proud of what I have achieved as an Opposition MP with my small but perfectly formed team.

I do wish I had had the chance to deliver change from the relative luxury of Government, because that mission to improve our collective wealth in a sustainable way and then distribute it fairly so that everyone gets a chance to benefit from that is unfinished business. But it is the type of business that does not just have to be finished in Parliament alone, so I pledge to do my best to use the knowledge, the skills, and the confidence I have gained here and elsewhere to finish that business. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

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

Bills

Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Imprest Supply Debate

Imprest Supply Debate

Debate resumed.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is great to be back in Wellington tonight. I have been down in Kaikōura today for the reconnection of the rail back up today; the last weld in the rail track to connect the rails between Picton and Christchurch. But I will talk a bit more about that later on.

I think this imprest supply and appropriations debate is a fantastic opportunity to revisit some of the initiatives in our Budget, which has gone a long way to make a really big difference for my electorate, in particular, with $17.5 million going to earthquake support for 862 businesses, which was really fantastic support. That has rolled over into business grants now and is really well received by the businesses, helping them get back on their feet. It has been a big task for businesses to grapple with the changing environment that they are now working under. A lot of those tourism businesses that would normally be going through a really quiet time now anyway, a lot of their staff are out working on the road doing traffic management and earning very good money and being part of a rebuild, which is fantastic.

There was also $5.7 million to reinstate the harbour. I was down there the other day, when we have made a major step forward. They will be finished in October; the last bits of that will continue on. That money that has gone forward to help—even things like the coastguard, whose ramp did not go all the way down into the water after the earthquake; that has been deepened and the ramp has been extended so the coastguard can actually get out and do their job. So that is phenomenal support for the local community in that.

But I want to talk about the $812 million that was set aside for the rail and the road. It was only last month that they spent $47 million in that month on the rebuild, and that is $10 million more than was spent on the Waterview tunnel at its peak. So there is a phenomenal amount of activity going on there now. And today there is a stack of rolls of mesh in the forward operating base for the helicopters sitting there and they were taking one roll at a time underneath the helicopter to bolt on to the top third of Ōhau Point to stop the rock that has been fractured in the earthquake from coming down on to the road. When they get that finally completed they will be able to work safely underneath it, and it is a massive task.

You can imagine the work that the abseillers are doing there; it is phenomenal. You wonder what these people do for the rest of the time—not you, necessarily, Mr Deputy Speaker; we all wonder what those people do in between disasters, but they must be doing something, because they are very good at their jobs. They are hanging off a rope, drilling holes into the rock and bolting that net and working with a helicopter dangling a heavy piece of net underneath the helicopter and putting it in place. It is phenomenal work to see that happening.

But today I had the pleasure of being there to see, with Peter Reidy, the chief executive of KiwiRail, where the workers actually did that weld. I have never seen one of those welds done before. I thought they might let me have a bit of a go with the electric welder, but it was not electric welding; it was athermic welding, I think it is. But it was amazing to see that last bit put together. I understand it will be a few weeks now; the rail line is actually connected. They have to go through and tamp it down—get a tamping machine in there. Effectively, they have got a rail line that is equivalent to a muddy farm track, and they have to bring it up to the level of a highway to take the freight trains down there that will start running, hopefully, in a month’s time. But it does take quite a bit of work to get it up there.

But this is a major step forward with a track that will run two freight trains a night in either direction, and during the day there is still more work to be done in some of the tunnels to bring them up to standard. It is all about safety, of course, but it also gives them room on the road to continue with the construction during daytime. They are working at night, as well. It is amazing, the progress that they have made. That money and that very quick action that came out once the decision had been made that we needed to reinstate the road and the rail, it needed fast action and they have stepped up. I really want to take this opportunity to thank those people who are working on that road. The work that they are doing is making a tremendous difference for New Zealanders. It is a great fillip for the people who live on and around that road to see that that progress is being made.

From the outside, you cannot see what is happening. I can tell the House that pictures do not do it justice; to actually get on the road and see the scale of it is phenomenal. They are now getting access to Ōhau Point. That slip has been nicknamed “Granddaddy”; it is the biggest one of the lot. It is three times larger than the one through the Manawatū Gorge that kept it closed for 18 months, I think. So it gives you some idea of the scale. So it is phenomenal and great news that that is moving on.

But let us go back to the Budget. I would like to talk a little bit about what is really the heart of the Budget, which is the Family Incomes Package. That was made up of tax thresholds, which I will come back to in a minute, Working for Families, and the accommodation supplement. Now, there has been some debate about tax thresholds, saying it was a tax cut. It will, effectively, lower tax, but it is about a much-needed shift in those brackets, those thresholds. It has been quite insidious; it creeps up on you over time. Even though we are in a low-inflation environment, wages are going up much faster than inflation, and it is phenomenal. Even though the numbers are small—

Andrew Little: Not for two-thirds of wage and salary earners. Two-thirds are going backwards.

STUART SMITH: —it is actually larger—it is a shame there was not a bit more economics studied on the other side of the House.

Anyway, I will come back now to those tax cuts, because I was quite curious about what had happened when the last tax cuts occurred in 2010. There is a thing called the Laffer Curve, which is quite an interesting concept. This is Arthur Laffer, who was an economist who came up with the theory of the relationship between tax rates and the overall amount taken in in tax, which is really important when you are starting to talk about tax cuts. If you want to talk about it, people should really understand what they are talking about.

Andrew Little: You have not had the Laffer Curve since 1985. How embarrassing.

STUART SMITH: I think there is a bit of a grumpy person on the other side of the House. I wonder why they are grumpy?

I had a look at this. So the top 1 percent of taxpayers—what do they pay in tax? If we were to believe the rhetoric coming from the other side, you would expect when tax levels were lowered that the amount of tax that the top 1 percent would pay would go down; in fact, the opposite occurred. So tax take from the top 1 percent went up, so that sort of puts the lie to that theory. So then I thought I had better look a wee bit wider than that, so I thought I would see what percentage of taxpayers actually pay half the tax in New Zealand; half the income tax.

So, looking at that, you would expect the reverse to occur. You would expect that, actually, more taxpayers would pay half the income tax, if in fact lowering the tax rates actually was bad for low-income earners. But, in fact, again the reverse occurred: 2 percent more. It went down from 14 percent to 12 percent; so 12 percent are now paying half the income tax. It is a phenomenal number. I think most New Zealanders do not understand that. It is really interesting to think about that. So income taxes are the key to our prosperity. I think it is quite interesting. I would like to have a conversation with someone who could actually understand economics, but that is another question. I think this a phenomenal step forward, to do that.

Also, I think, one of the key things that we also need to remember is that if anyone were to reverse that decision, then can anyone guess who is going to be most impacted? Actually it is superannuitants, because then their increase in their superannuation is dependent on the average after-tax income, which will, in fact, go up. So it is a phenomenal outcome for New Zealanders, a great tax package, and a great Budget that has actually helped deliver for the people who have been affected by the earthquake, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I just want to start by touching on Mr Stuart Smith’s comments about wanting to speak to someone who knows how to run the economy. He is talking to a party on this side of the House, which, when last in Government, ran nine surpluses, and his Government—let us remember—ran one. Actually, my colleague Ruth Dyson sent a letter out to her constituents and used a line that I think is really true and we should use more often. That line is: “A real surplus comes once the Government has met its obligations to its citizens, not by delayed expenditure and clever accounting.” That is the only way that they reached one surplus over 9 years. So if Mr Stuart Smith wants to talk to people who know about the economy, then he should probably have more conversations with people on this side of the House, because he is wasting his time—he is absolutely wasting his time—on that side of the House.

We have all been out and about—6 weeks now out from an election—I am sure, at many meet-the-candidates meetings, many political panel discussions, and debates. The one thing that I stand up and say proudly at every single one of those debates is that Labour will not apologise for not supporting the National Government’s tax cuts—and every time I say that I get a round of applause from the room. The reason I get a round of applause from the room is because New Zealanders know that that Government has underspent and under-invested in the things that matter to New Zealanders: a lack of funding for health, a lack of funding for education, and a massive lack of funding and investment in housing.

So New Zealanders do not want to see $400 million - plus of tax cuts go into the pockets of the top 10 percent of income earners in this country. They see it as irresponsible, and it is going to be one of the worst memories that members of this Government have of one of their last actions, because they thought that they could buy the votes of New Zealanders, but it is not going to work and we are getting that sense out there. New Zealanders are telling us that it will not work.

Let us reflect on National’s tax package in Budget 2017. Bill English’s tax change is so the wealthiest get $35 extra a week and the lowest paid get $5.13 a week.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How can that be fair?

CARMEL SEPULONI: How can that be, my colleague Ruth Dyson says. How can we in this House need an additional $35 a week, particularly when we know that we have got over 41,000 New Zealanders who are homeless now, particularly when we see that, actually, we have got the worst level of homelessness in the whole OECD. Yet they think that the politicians in this House deserve an extra $35 per week. It does not sound very fair to me. Someone on the average wage will get just $11 a week. That makes me think back to 2008 when we were getting criticised on this side of the House—for what? What were they comparing our tax cuts with? A block of cheese, I think it was. Well, with $11 you will be lucky if that gets you a block of cheese now. So are members on that side of the House now thinking that a block of cheese is enough? Because that is what they are giving the person every week who is on an average wage with their tax cuts; $35 to themselves, but $11 to the person on the average wage.

Their changes, however, will also take money away from people as well. For example, a full-time single cleaner on the minimum wage gets an extra $11 in tax cuts but loses $10 from the removal of the independent earner tax credit, so they will end up with $1, which is where “One dollar bill” came from, people.

There are changes to Working for Families, some of which we support. There are changes that that side of the House has made with regard to the accommodation supplement, which we reluctantly had to support—reluctantly, because we do know that that money goes directly to the landlords of the people who are receiving it, so it does not actually benefit them in any way. I will give a couple of examples from my own electorate where it was very clear that that is the case. So at a caravan park in west Auckland—it has been covered in the media quite a bit over the years—the landlord is very aware of what his tenants are entitled to, so he charges to the hilt so that they get the maximum entitlements, and he is the one who benefits off it. So that landlord of that caravan park will be going: “Thank you, National Government. You’ve just enabled me to put my rents up a little more to these vulnerable people living in the caravan park, so that I can maximise their accommodation supplement and pocket all the money myself.”

It is not just caravan parks, though, that I have seen it with; I have seen it with boarding houses. So if it is caravan parks and boarding house landlords who are doing it, what makes them on that side of that the House think that there are not private landlords who know how the system works and know how to maximise the entitlements of the vulnerable people who are living in their houses so that they benefit from it, because, unfortunately, that is the case.

We have talked in this House—over and over again and we sound like a stuck record, but all of New Zealand knows that this is true—that we are going through a housing crisis. It is embarrassing—embarrassing—about the fact that after 9 years in Government all of the Government members are trained to deny that that is the case. You know, years ago we had climate change deniers; now we have got housing crisis deniers on that side of the House.

Hon Ruth Dyson: We’ve got some climate change deniers still too.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Well, yes, that is the case. There are still some climate change deniers. But by denying that we have a housing crisis what they are doing is they are unable to actually address it appropriately or adequately, because they will not accept the extent of the problem that we are facing.

I have seen it in my electorate with a tetraplegic woman who ends up living in a modified van after being told by Work and Income and Housing New Zealand to go and stay in a boarding house. So she ends up living in a modified van with her partner and her 4-year-old daughter, and the only time the system springs into action is when an Opposition MP brings it to the attention of the media. I have seen it in my electorate when I found a family—parents and two children—living under a tarpaulin, a makeshift tent, at the back of a house in Henderson, and the only time the Government department springs into action is when an Opposition MP brings it to the attention of the media. Yet, you know—and I will say this—we have one of the Ministers saying that Labour MPs or Opposition MPs are using our constituents for fodder with the media. Well, actually, the only way we get attention half the time is if we get public attention around the case. That is the only time the Government responds.

But it is disappointing, because as an Opposition MP after 9 years, even though I had 3 years out with my short sabbatical there, I have come to learn that the only thing you can do in Opposition really, or one of the few things you can do, is achieve success on a case by case basis, but you cannot create the over—what is the word?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Arching.

CARMEL SEPULONI: “Overarching”—that is the word, Ruth. You cannot create the overarching change that you want to change the system and to make it better off for a lot more New Zealanders. You are just dealing with it on a case by case basis.

So their management of our economy, their management of taxpayers’ dollars, has been irresponsible over the last 9 years. Their priorities are in the wrong place. You need only to go out into the public and people accept the fact that housing has been under-invested in; health has been under-invested in, particularly mental health; education has been under-invested in; and, actually, New Zealanders have had enough. They want to know that when they need to access their public services, they are there for them and they support them and their families adequately. But that has not been the case under that Government; in fact, things have continued to get worse, and I think on 23 September people will make their voices known in terms of how well they think that Government has looked after them and their families. I think that that side of the House is in for some disappointment.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a privilege to be able to take a call in the third reading of the Estimates debate. I want to talk about a Budget and a finance Minister who followed the lead of our previous finance Minister, who, of course, had the role for some 8 years and put this country into very good stead in those 8 years, and will continue to do so as the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Stuart Smith’s speech a few moments ago emphasised the value of the Government being in surplus. The fact is that the Kaikōura earthquake did such an amazing amount of damage to harbours, railways, roads, and other things in that area—certainly to property in that area—and that the Government was able to move quickly and, in fact, get that railway reinstated in the very short time it has is a tribute to the financial management of this Government over the last 8 or 9 years.

We heard Ron Mark talking earlier about the haves and the have-nots and heard the claims that the Budget rewards the haves. Well, that is not true, and nor are the Labour members’ claims that we lack vision and they have it. As late as yesterday, its members continued to drag out their policies of yesteryear. They know best how to spend taxpayers’ money, and the very speech we heard a moment ago from Carmel Sepuloni proved that. They are much better at spending taxpayers’ money than the taxpayers are, and, of course, the Greens have gone to ground completely.

I want to spend a moment or two talking about how this Government has continued to seize the opportunities that we have as a country. We have built on the hard work of this Government over the last 9 years, and, despite three major earthquakes and the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008-09, we are growing at over 3 percent a year. We have created some 200,000 jobs in this economy—well, we have not, but the economy has—in the past 3 years, and a further 215,000 are predicted in the next 3 years. We have an economy that is responsive, and a public sector that is more efficient and effective and that better serves its people than it has done for many years.

The results of that hard work by the Government and its support parties that make up that Government are that we now have a growing population and a thriving tourism industry, and you have only got to look at the north of the Rangitīkei electorate to understand the magnitude of this thriving tourism industry and the fact that Ruapehu Alpine Lifts is spending some $100 million on the side of the mountain. The Lines Co., which has been the bane of my life for some years, has started to perform in an admirable manner and has got its act in order, and accommodation rates in the north of my electorate have significantly risen, giving that industry a boost that it probably thought some 4 or 5 years ago that it would never see again.

We have an unemployment rate south of 4.5 percent, and in some parts of New Zealand it is as low as 3 percent. We have a primary sector that is growing at a record rate, and not only at a record rate but also at a sustainable rate through adding value and gains from technology and science. No longer are we using the old adage of producing more from less. We are producing more from less, but we are using very different technology, and the science behind that is giving us a great advantage as an economy.

Regional New Zealand is in the best order it has been in for many years. It is very easy to go round regional New Zealand and pick off some bits here and there and complain about how bad it is, but that will always be the case. Of course, those people who live and breathe in rural New Zealand—as many of us do—understand very well the ups and downs of regional New Zealand. We understand what happens to us when we rely on a primary production sector and a tourism sector, and our small towns have suffered for many years. At last those small towns are in a much better state than they have been for many years.

We also have a country and a Government that can care for its less fortunate. I am very proud to be part of a Government that has put an extra $2 billion into the lower-income end of our community just in this last Budget. In the previous Budget, all beneficiaries benefited by $25 a week, which was the first such lift for some 40 years. I think that the actions of this Government are in the best interests of all New Zealanders. We will always have philosophical differences between the various parties in the House as to how we should go about these things, but definitely the role of this Government is to encourage people to look after themselves and to give them the opportunity to spend their own hard-earned dollars on improvements to their livelihoods and their lives.

I want to spend a moment or two talking about the Rangitīkei and the $576 million that has gone into the Defence Force upgrades, which largely benefit people and communities in my electorate through Waiōuru; Ōhākea, which is close to Bulls; Feilding; and, of course, the Linton army base south of Palmerston North. New Zealand’s defence is hugely important for our future. The recent Budget announcements around those upgrades will give the Defence Force great heart, and it will really look forward to the future with confidence, I think.

The ring road around Palmerston North, the Kapiti Expressway, and having Transmission Gully moving quickly are great advances for my part of the world, and I have got to add that from my place to here, it used to be an hour and 50 minutes. It is now an hour and 40 minutes on the back of the Kapiti Expressway, and I would imagine that with the completion of Transmission Gully in 3 years’ time—which will be interesting—it will take 20 minutes off the trip from where I live to Wellington, which is hugely important and is a great economic boost to the Whanganui-Manawatū region.

The Manawatū Gorge—I want to talk about the gorge for the moment, because it has been a challenge for my region for 150 years at least, and probably longer. This Government, through Minister Bridges, has made a commitment to fix the gorge one way or another. There are some challenges around the gorge. One of them is the Ashhurst community, and the Ashhurst community, of course, suffers from a bypass going fair through the middle of it. As we move to repair the gorge, one of the first issues that will arise is how we get round the Ashhurst community.

The ministry and the Minister are paying particular attention to this and have visited Ashhurst on a couple of occasions already to talk about that. I think the community in Ashhurst can be assured that the Government—this Government—will move in every way it can to protect that community from the extraordinary number of heavy trucks going through there on a daily basis, right through the middle of a town. Although, to be fair, those people who bought in that street knew it was a bypass road for the gorge when it was closed, but they did not expect to have 7,000 vehicles a day going through it. So I am sure this Government has got to grips with the gorge and will make great progress with it.

Briefly, back to the tourism industry—which, clearly, affects my electorate significantly—we have had some recent announcements around the Tourism Infrastructure Fund, which has given some of our councils a great opportunity to get on and develop some critical infrastructure for the tourism industry. We have some amazing walking and cycling tracks in the north of the electorate as well, and not only are they in the north of the electorate but, in fact, the Manawatū Gorge walk is a critical walk that joins the Manawatū with the Alastair Scott’s electorate on the other side of the hill. That, of course, is under some pressure as well because of the challenges that the gorge faces. So the Tourism Infrastructure Fund and the spend around tourism is pretty significant for the Rangitīkei electorate.

The science spend is another area that is critical for us, and, of course, we have the Crown research industries based on the Massey side of Palmerston North. We also have Massey University. Both of those institutions, as well as the Fonterra Research Centre, are smack in the middle of the Rangitīkei electorate—a little bit odd that might seem, but that is the fact.

So as a country we continue to innovate and clean up the environment in partnership with our farmers, our foresters, and our urban communities. The forestry national policy statement launched today will be a significant advance for that industry. It will give clarity as to how it goes about its business, it will give clarity as to where councils need to sit within that sector, and I think it is a great move forward and will continue to be.

The freshwater clean-up fund—nearly $6 million of that has gone to the Horizons Regional Council, and is being spent from Levin and particularly around the Manawatū River. It is a great opportunity for us to get on with the job of cleaning up our environment. It is a challenge for New Zealand. We are a country that has based itself on agriculture. We have also based ourselves in communities that all seem to be located by rivers, and we can tell that pretty much every time we get a flood.

Finally, the Rural Broadband Initiative, which must continue and has been hugely productive for provincial rural New Zealand, will continue to strengthen the opportunity the farmers have to adopt technology that will, in turn, help us to improve our environmental outcomes.

On our boundary we have a sleeping giant finally awakening from the GFC and the commodity downturn that accompanied that, and, of course, I am talking about those across the Tasman. They are a great strength to New Zealand. We must continue to grow. We must continue to work hard on trade, which is critical to our future. We must also strive for increased stability to pay people more, and already in the time of this Government—in the 9 years of this Government—average wages have lifted by $17,000. There is plenty of scope for that to improve. So that is me. Thank you.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am not normally a religious man, but tonight I find myself thanking God, or the gods, that this Budget debate, the appropriations debate, is almost over—that the pain and suffering that has been inflicted—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You should try sitting up here, sonny.

RICHARD PROSSER: —I do feel for you, Mr Deputy Speaker—on our ears and sensibilities from the rampant sycophancy spewing forth from the Government benches is almost over. I thank the same gods, however many there may be, that this appalling, diabolical Budget is Steven Joyce’s first, last, and only Budget, because come 23 September, or the morning of the 24th, we will be rejoicing in the fact that we will not be “re-Joyce-ing”.

Hon Members: Aw!

RICHARD PROSSER: Hey, you have got to work with what you have got, all right? You have got to work with what you have got. It is always a delight to follow on from the most affable, amiable chair of the Primary Production Committee, Ian McKelvie, as I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do have to pick up on something that Mr McKelvie said. He talked about the National Government creating 200,000 jobs, against the rhetoric where the Government also says that it does not create jobs, industry does. Those 200,000 jobs—how many extra people has this country managed to absorb in the time that those 200,000 jobs have been created? Over 9 years—we have about 50,000 school leavers every year, so if we are not creating at least 50,000 new jobs every year, never mind immigration at 70,000 a year, we are going backwards. And, of course, if we look at the rates of young people not in education, employment, or training, and we look at the numbers of people who are being shifted from one benefit to another or being classed as working when they are doing 1 hour a week, moving statistics around, we are going backwards.

Getting back to the almighty, because we do start every session in this House with a prayer—and that is a fine thing, in my estimation—Labour will obviously be praying for redemption, the Greens will be praying for a miracle, and the Nats will obviously be praying for rain on election day, because that might actually the only thing that they have going for them that might save them. Mr Bishop, when he spoke, talked about uncertain times and the fact that we live in uncertain times. Well, yes, we do, and that is obviously pertinent to the members on the National benches. I imagine that any number of them are looking around in these uncertain times and contemplating prayer, wondering which 15 of them are not coming back after the election.

If you look at the polls, and the polls are where they are because of what is actually happening in this country due to the Budget—not the spin, not the rhetoric, not the mix-and-match statistics, not the pick and mix and highlight what you want, but what is actually happening out there to real people, out in real New Zealand, who are suffering and who have been suffering since 1984, since the reforms brought in by the Rogernomics Government of Labour, carried on by the “Ruthanasia” Government of National, this neoliberal continuation of an experiment for which New Zealand was the great global guinea pig, which has not created any kind of a trickle down, apart from the one that has something to do with doing something down my back and telling me it is raining—those members over there, I would imagine, are concerned about Mr Joyce’s Budget and the effect that it will have on their future career prospects.

New Zealand First is praying also. We are praying that after the election we have sufficient time to repair New Zealand’s biosecurity network before foot-and-mouth strikes, because otherwise we going to get hit with the blame for it despite the fact that we have spent the past 6 years telling the National Government what is wrong with biosecurity and what needs to be done to repair it. We have argued about its great border levy that it talks about imposing on tourists. It is fine that tourists coming in should pay something towards the biosecurity costs of vetting them, but it is not fine that that is simply a replacement revenue stream and not actually a new revenue stream, or that in a country where three-quarters of our economy comes from the primary sector, we spend a paltry $248 million, out of about that same number of billion dollars, on securing the border against the things that promote the greatest threats to that industry and that income on which we all depend.

Minister Upston, when she spoke, talked about forestry, and I want to touch on that, too. It was with great pride that Minister Upston talked about the forestry sector employing 26,000 people and earning $5 billion in export receipts. Going back to 1980, the forestry sector employed 25,000 in the processing sector alone. There were more than 100,000 involved in forestry in total. So in 37 years we have lost 75,000 jobs from the forest and wood product sector. Try telling people in Tokoroa and Rotorua and Murupara, people who used to work in mills in towns that used to be mill towns and that are now ghost towns because all that timber is going offshore in the form of logs as some kind of a sop to the free market, because this Government cannot see the nonsense in exporting a primary product like timber with six-sevenths of its value still contained within it. The $5 billion in exports, most of it from logs, could be $25 billion if we were processing it here, and it could be employing another 70,000 or 80,000 people in the very parts of middle New Zealand that need that employment most. But do we see anything in this Budget promoting that? No, we do not.

Go back to 1980 again. Go to Indonesia. In 1980 something like 80 percent of Indonesia’s forest output went to Japan in the form of logs, and the Japanese turned it into plywood. And then in 1984 the Indonesian Government imposed a 700 percent export tax on logs, and the log trade died overnight. The Japanese plywood producers said: “Oh, my God, what we do? We can’t get logs from anywhere else. Oh, perhaps we’ll have to buy plywood from Indonesia instead.” Four years later those figures were completely reversed, and Indonesia went from supplying 4 percent of the world’s plywood to supplying 84 percent of the plywood coming out of Asia. That was done by one stroke of a pen. It was done by the Indonesians 35 years ago; it can be done in New Zealand now. There is no reason why not, apart from this National Government’s slavish adherence to a proven failed neoliberal ideology that puts the rest the world first and New Zealand last for the sake of something that, really, after 30-something years, I cannot imagine why it is still holding on to.

Why is it doing this? People out in the provinces, people out in real New Zealand, are telling us that this is what is happening. Drive through those mill towns, those ghost towns. Look at those closed-down mills. There is a mill not far from where I used to live in North Canterbury. It is a Daiken Corporation particle board mill at Sefton, just up the road from Ashley. It does make value-added products, but it is owned by the Japanese. It seems that it is fine for this Government for us to have a processing industry as long somebody else owns it, as long as all the profits go offshore. It cannot see the wood for the trees. It cannot see the wood for the trees.

If we look at the other things that are going wrong in biosecurity, we know about the Mycoplasma bovis. We do not know how it got here, but we know that it did. We know about myrtle rust. We do not know how it got here, but we know that it did. All these marvellous things that are said about the intelligence and about the technology that is going into the border, that is going to make the border more secure—there is more intelligence, there is more money being spent technologically—things are still getting through it. The latest one is lake snow. It is a relative of “rock snot”, another import. The genetic basis of lake snow does not exist in the Southern Hemisphere, apart from the southern lakes of New Zealand. It got in somehow, through our amazing border systems. All the rhetoric in the world will not stop foot-and-mouth coming into this country. What will stop it is proper inspection.

The green lane that lets people come into this country if they have certain passports without any kind of inspection did not meet the Ministry for Primary Industries’ target of 98.5 percent compliance. It was the most compliant of all the channels by which people come into this country, but it did not meet 98.5 percent, and even if it had, over the last 4 years, with the volume of passengers going through that lane, 135,000 things will have come through the border that should not have. One simple X-ray machine for everyone’s baggage, with modern technology that can detect biological material, and some sniffers, would stop that. It does not take many more boots on the ground, but it does take an acceptance and an acknowledgment that we cannot rely on fancy computer models or intelligence officers stationed overseas or anything but doing what actually needs to be done, and that is putting proper resourcing into biosecurity, which is the most important part of this country’s economic defence, and doing it the right way and inspecting everything that comes in. There is nothing in this dreadful, diabolical Budget to address that, apart from rhetoric and spin and false statistics. Come 24 September that regime will come to an end, and New Zealand First will come to the rescue. We only hope it is soon enough. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on this third reading of the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill, and hopefully we can be more cheerful than that former speaker, Richard Prosser, because that was very, very dreary. Actually, I think this is an excellent Budget, and I will tell you why: this Government is delivering for all New Zealanders. This is a Government that is open to trade, is open to investment, and is happy that Kiwis are choosing to stay at home because this is where they want to live. They do not need to flee to some other country; they want to stay here because we are successful, we are growing, and we are delivering for everyone.

We are not taking a break, as some people said—oh, sorry, that may have been last week; someone else might be saying something different this week. But we are on a road to growth, to prosperity. So what are the people of New Zealand actually achieving? Well, one of the first things they have done, through the hard efforts of everyone in New Zealand, is get one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. In fact, I asked the Minister of Finance today in question time about the Moody’s report that has just come out. Moody’s, an independent body—and I am not sure if many of the Opposition know who Mr Moody is. But I am not referring to Mr Moody; I am talking about that international credit agency. It stated that New Zealand is one of the fastest-growing Aaa economies in the world, and what is that leading to? Jobs—180,000 jobs in the last 3 years. That is 10,000 a month—10,000 every month. That is what we want. We want to see New Zealanders with the opportunity to get good employment, earn money, buy a house, and look out for their families. That is why you create successful economies.

What that is leading to is low unemployment—4.8 percent, and projected by Treasury to go even lower. Wages are increasing as well. Increasing wages—a $17,000 net increase over the last 8 years in real wages. That is all against an environment where we have got low inflation, which means low interest rates, which means people can afford to buy houses much more readily than when interest rates were at 10 percent or 20 percent under the previous regime.

I think this Government should be named the “Government of infrastructure”. What a facilitator of growth. We know how important it is, and this Budget—contrary that last speaker—is one about investing in new infrastructure. Do you realise that $32 billion will be spent on infrastructure over the next 4 years—$32 billion? Unbelievable. You know what it is going to go into? Well, a lot of it is going into roads—and I am going to talk about that and other transport initiatives—but also into big things like schools. In my electorate of Hunua, I have got three brand new schools committed: Ormiston Junior College, Flat Bush, and a new one at Belmont, Pukekohe. I have got lots of schools that have got new classrooms, upgraded facilities, and all those good things.

Hospitals—lots of them. We have been doing all the big ones, and now we are doing things like the West Coast hospital and further south. Defence—I see the Minister of Defence here doing a great job, and we have committed $20 billion over the next 20 years to upgrade our facilities and our defence capabilities. Housing—I hope you have been listening to the Hon Amy Adams. She is doing a great job in terms of delivering a real plan for housing, and not one that is uncosted. It is not like the one that we have heard from the Opposition about these 100,000 homes: “How are you going to pay for it?” “We don’t know.” Amy Adams is doing a great job because she has costed it. We have got a plan. We know what we are going to do, and that is what we are going to do, and already we are seeing the benefits of housing prices easing off—if not decreasing—and that is going to make it better for everyone.

There is $550 million put into rail around New Zealand and $436 million allocated in the Budget for the central rail loop. But what a weekend—what I weekend I have had. I am most grateful to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Transport, the Hon Simon Bridges, because they have recognised the need of the South Auckland community. They specified in the weekend that this Government is going to invest $130 million to electrify the rail line from Papakura to Pukekohe. One hundred million is going to go into triple-laning the rail track between Wiri and Westfield. Some people will not appreciate why we have invested in that. What this is about is that currently on the rail loop between Westfield and Wiri there is congestion with freight trains, and the triple-laning will mean that the rail track coming up from the south can be more optimised, better used, and have more trains on it. This, of course, builds on the recent announcement to buy 17 new electric trains operated by battery. That is just working its way through the process, but the intent is to get it in 2 years’ time so that we can have battery-powered trains coming up into Pukekohe with the capability to go as far as Pōkeno, and also up into the north, to the member for Rodney’s electorate. So that extends the capability of our rail network.

Of course, in the previous weekend, we had the announcement around another two railway stations that are going to be built in the southern loop—one at Paerata, where the Wesley development is going to take place, and also at Drury South. These are great things. They recognised the high-growth area I represent, and where the hard-working people of the south come from and travel into the rest of Auckland. I think when you combine this with the announcement that the Government is looking at a new four-lane road corridor that mirrors the Southern Motorway, this is what we are all about. This is about improving the infrastructure in New Zealand, improving the infrastructure in Auckland, and assisting people to get to work and go about their lives.

It was remarkable—I had just watched, with a sense of anticipation, what the Labour Party might come up with for its transport policy. What did I hear? Labour wants to invest in a new rail link that goes from the Wynyard Quarter to Mount Roskill, for light rail, over the next 4 years—already, we have had people saying: “Well, we don’t know whether we could do that.”—and then extend that to the airport within 10 years. How is Labour going to fund that? Well, the first thing it is going to do is tax everyone. Everyone in Auckland is going to be taxed another 10 cents—another tax. Then, what Labour is also going to do is it is going to slow down—scale down—the East-West Link. At the moment there are 2,000 trucks a day using the route from Onehunga to Mount Wellington, and Labour wants to slow that down. It wants to stop those truckies from coming out of that heartland business area and feeding the nation—it wants to slow that process down so those trucks cannot get out, and continue the congestion that goes on.

Tomorrow morning at 6 a.m. when my people—my constituents from Hunua and Papakura—get in their cars, I do not think they are going to be saying: “I wish we had a new light rail to the airport.” What they want to know is that they can get into their cars and get on to the motorway or get on the train, and go to work without any problems. That is where the real priority is.

When you take this package, together with the recent one around the Crown Infrastructure Partners package, which is about the Government committing a further billion dollars in terms of investment in infrastructure—$600 million from the Government and the rest from councils and private equity—this is about a Government delivering infrastructure, which is one of the most crucial drivers of growth. That is what we are going to do. That is why we need to be back here in October. I am looking forward to being part of that Government when we do come back. Thank you very much.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Well, that member, Andrew Bayly, obviously had something inspiring over the dinner break, and we could hear the booming start. But he missed a few points, and I want to draw attention to a few of those before we get too far in. First of all, he was talking about his constituents getting in their cars at 6 a.m. The bit he omitted to tell you was that they have work at 10 a.m. It takes them 4 hours to get there in the current gridlock that his Government has overseen. Now, I used to live in the area that he represents, so I speak from experience. It certainly is a lot more clogged up than it used to be, and that member knows it.

And I do not think that when he pours scorn on the light rail policy announced by the Labour Party over the weekend that he has actually talked to any constituents about it—he certainly did not reference any specifically—because the people I have heard from are pretty jolly excited about it. Finally, there is a proper plan to get Auckland moving again. These guys are still crowing about Helen Clark’s Waterview tunnel like they invented it. That is the only major infrastructure thing they have put in place in their time, and they did not even start it themselves.

There are quite a few things I have to touch on that the previous speaker touched upon. He talked about delivering for all New Zealanders, because he has not got the memo yet that the “all” has dropped out of National’s slogan because it cannot justify it any more. He talked about homeownership becoming more affordable, without saying that we have got the lowest homeownership rates in New Zealand since 1951. The only affordable housing plan National seems to have is getting sponsorship from Subaru and Toyota, because people are living in cars now.

That member knows it. He knows the situation in Auckland; he lives there. I do not believe he has not seen it, but he gets up in front of this House and seems to expect us to believe that National has a plan, when it has been sitting there for 9 years and has presided over this mess. Its members have watched real wages drop—and they have; real wages have dropped—and we have still got 90,000 kids not in employment, education, or training.

That is why we need a change of Government. That is why we need a Labour-led Government, which will actually do something about these issues and will make real progress to make sure that the economy is shared with everybody. It will make sure there is a shared prosperity so that all New Zealanders can have the benefits of a good public education and a good public health system, so that everybody can make the most of their talents, and so everybody can have the opportunity to get ahead, not just those who have parents with deep pockets or who are born into good fortune, which we are increasingly seeing defining the prospects of New Zealanders.

On this side of the House, we have always stood for the provision of high-quality access to affordable healthcare—sorry, affordable access to high-quality healthcare, as well. I want to say that that is something I would like to talk a little bit about in my contribution. In recent days, we have seen the consequences of the underfunding in this Budget here that we have been debating. We know for a fact that district health boards (DHBs) needed about $530 million to meet cost pressures, but in this Budget they got just $439 million, meaning they slipped yet further behind.

An independent research firm, Infometrics, has had a close look at the Treasury data, and it has discerned that since 2009, $2.3 billion—$2.3 billion—has been stripped out of the health system by these people opposite, and that is just the extra money that would have been required to deliver the same level of health services. We know that it is getting harder to access scans for cancer and the like. We know that it is getting harder to get hip replacements and knee replacements. We know it is getting harder to get cataract surgery.

Let us take an example from down my way. In the Southern DHB, we have had people go blind waiting for cataract surgery. We have had people go blind. We have had open letters in recent days written to the Minister—orthopaedic surgeons saying a third of people who should be getting care are currently not, and that the incentive sets it up for them to refer those people back to their GPs, who ping them backwards and forwards, so they do not get penalised for having a waiting list under this Government’s exclusive focus on short-term targets.

We know that the elective target is being propped up by eye injections and skin lesion removals, many of which could be done in GP practices more cheaply. But no, they have got to meet their targets, or they get punished by this Government, which is determined to build up statistics, prop up statistics, and make itself look good, when it is failing to deliver healthcare for all New Zealanders, which it ought to be doing, which any decent Government would do.

Well, we on this side of the House are the only party in this Parliament that voted against the Budget package. I am going to repeat that. We are the only party in this Parliament that voted against the Budget package. And we did that because, in good conscience, we could not do another tax cut package in election year, targeted at the wealthy, like those members do on that side of the House. That was not what we think the priority is for most New Zealanders. Tax cuts for the wealthy are always the priority for those members on that side of the House. A thousand bucks a year for every MP in this Parliament—we do not think that is the priority.

We think the priority is quality healthcare for New Zealanders. And so we have promised that we will put $8 billion more into health over the next 4 years than those people on that side of the House, because that is where the money is really needed right now. Parents are struggling to pay school fees. We are going to put $4 billion more into education. These are the priorities of New Zealanders, not tax cuts that benefit the MPs sitting in this Parliament.

That is what National would have you believe—that tax cuts for people earning what MPs earn or what Ministers earn is the priority. We in Labour do not believe that. We actually think we need a better future for everybody, where we promote those basics of good public healthcare and good public education.

The other thing I want to mention is not just that extra money. The other thing is that that money needs to be well spent. Labour understands the importance of spending public investment money well. We have made sure that we have run a good ship when in Government. I have not been in a previous Labour Government, but we know from talking to people in the health sector that Labour has made the real advances. The Minister opposite, Jonathan Coleman, in the Budget, got the figures wrong. For the first time, as far as I am aware, in New Zealand history, the Minister on that side of the House got the health budget wrong. He got the budget wrong.

Hon Ruth Dyson: And blamed someone else.

Dr DAVID CLARK: He blamed someone else. He always blames someone else. And then his director-general phoned around and told DHBs they could keep the money. Where I am from, they got told 2 weeks out from the start of the financial year that they were going to have $5.7 million recalled. The equivalent of an additional 120 nurses was taken out of the Southern DHB 2 months—sorry, 2 months, oh, if only; 2 weeks—before the financial year began.

The DHBs in this country—many of them billion-dollar businesses—did not have a budget or plan in place 3 weeks into the financial year. How many billion-dollar industries do not have that? This is basic stuff. That is the mismanagement on that side of the House. It has truly lost touch. It is no longer getting the basics right, and that is harming the DHBs.

The DHBs are speaking out. They know there is poor management. They know that the Minister is disinterested in the sector, and the Minister is denying there is an issue. He refused, in this House today, to apologise for his remarks when he attacked staff at the Southern DHB who are speaking out about the shortage of funding and the shortage of care for people in the South. We know the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons recommends 3.2 full-time positions at Dunedin Hospital; it has been operating at 2.1 for, I think, nigh on a decade. These people have overseen that shortfall.

It is 30 percent underfunded and under-resourced, and people have been dying. People on that waiting list are facing death right now. Thank goodness Checkpoint is making an issue of this, and local MPs have been raising the issue for some time. I want to acknowledge my colleague Clare Curran, who has drawn attention to care shortfalls in the Southern DHB. I too have been doing it. And to those local staff who have spoken out and had the courage to challenge the Minister, who maintains that everything is well—I think we need to see a whole lot better and we need to see it soon.

A Labour Government will make sure that there is a timely rebuild of Dunedin Hospital if we get down to brass tacks in the South, because in 2014, when this Government promised it would have a business case to Cabinet in 2014, people believed it. Now it is saying it is going to be mid-2018. The hospital rebuild in Dunedin is now further away than it was before the last election. We will see some glossy pamphlets, I am sure, before the election day, but the people in the South have become cynical, because that side of the House has underfunded health for so long.

We are not promising the tax cut bribe that National is promising. Instead, we are going to fund decent healthcare to make sure there is affordable access to quality healthcare for every New Zealander. Thank you.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It is great to be, I think, the last speaker on the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill this evening. I have had the great privilege to sit and listen over the last little while to a couple of parliamentary colleagues who have spoken before me: Richard Prosser, whose stream of consciousness was discernible only to himself, but it was entertaining to see him have a go at it anyway; and, of course, my colleague Andrew Bayly—what a vociferous promotion of the Budget that was. It reminds me, actually, that—I have to detour, if you do not mind—last week I was involved in a silent leadership challenge in Tauranga. You, over on the other side, will enjoy this. It was a silent leadership challenge where we had to sit in Tauranga with earmuffs on—this actually had a serious context—to understand what it would be like if we were hearing impaired. I had the “pleasure”—inverted commas—to be sitting opposite Simon Bridges while he was talking to me with his earmuffs on and, of course, I was talking to him, and we were struggling to hear each other. But I was thinking, while you were speaking, Mr Bayly, that you would have had no problem being discerned by anyone wearing those earmuffs through that entire event.

As for Dr David Clark, he has the audacity to stand up here and lecture this side of the House around our investment in health, which has gone from $11 billion to just $16 billion, and to wave his finger at us and say “Only the Labour Party knows how to deliver in the health sector.”, when for 9 years of that Government, from 1999 to 2008, the health expenditure went up 50 percent but hip and knee and elective surgeries stayed flat. They stayed marginally flat. It was absolutely extraordinary that he could stand here and say that this Government’s focus on delivering improved productivity and outcomes from the health dollar should be lamented, and that his party’s record, which was appalling and focused just simply on the process and the bureaucratisation of the health sector, should be lauded. It was a complete reflection of how out of touch Dr Clark is in respect of the health sector. What we are doing is investing in ensuring that there is actually more delivered for that public investment.

Part of the reason I stood 3 years ago to be part of the John Key—now Bill English—Government was to be able to one day add my voice to a Budget like this, for it speaks to the core of the National Party that we could come in here in 2008 with an economy that was an absolute cot-case. Every single time the Labour Party has come anywhere near managing the Treasury benches, we have ended up coming in after it has been involved, with the place in a mess. It cannot help itself. It is tax and spend and tax and spend, because that is the philosophy that underpins the Labour Party. There were 11 percent interest rates—do we remember that, New Zealand? That was when the Labour Party was last in office. There was 5 percent inflation—do we remember that, New Zealand? That was the last time it was in office. It was a disgrace.

Hon Damien O’Connor: There’s a tired Tory over there.

TODD MULLER: And for the 4 years prior to 2008—and I hear Damien O’Connor, who was involved in the rural sector at the time—the country was in a recession of the tradable sector. The only sector that was growing was the Government sector, the public sector, because that is the philosophy of the Labour Party: you keep the wheels moving by spending money in the public sector. It does not matter what you do with it, it does not matter if you make any effect on New Zealanders’ lives, it does not matter if you do not deliver, as long as you can stand up to your group and say “Look, we’re spending more money.”, because in their world that is the definition of success.

But in our world, as this Budget shows, the definition of success is being able to retire debt and being able to build an economy that is actually delivering surpluses, that is able to deliver over 10,000 jobs a month to New Zealand—10,000 jobs a month. These jobs are New Zealanders; they are families; they are people who are able to get an opportunity to contribute and deliver for themselves and their family. Not only can we have an economy in which now, as we look forward over the 3 or 4 years, we have surpluses—which we have not dreamt of as a country for over 20 years—in this collective effort of this Government in this country, we can now do that and we have choices. We can use those surpluses to invest in the areas of the most need, but in a way that actually delivers.

So last year we could stand in front of this House and this country and say: “For the first time in 40 years we are going to lift the benefits for working families.” This time we stand in this House and this country and say: “We will, through the Family Incomes Package, lift the incomes for New Zealanders on an average of $26 a week.” In my town of Tauranga, I can talk and have been able to talk to families who will have—if this Government gets returned—the opportunity to have real, significant increases in their take-home salary in terms of an adjustment to Working for Families and to an adjustment of the accommodation supplement. This, I accept, needed to happen, but we had the choice to make it happen because we have an economy that is growing and an economy that is strong. It is great to be able to take that message strongly to the people of Tauranga.

The other area that I have felt very proud to be able to support in this Budget is our investment in infrastructure, particularly schools. My colleague Andrew Bayly talked about the schools investment in his electorate. I too can stand up in front of my community and talk about the new school that is going to be built in Pyes Pā West.

Dr David Clark: It’s a formula. There’s a formula.

TODD MULLER: That I could talk to. We get the “Oh, it’s a formula. It’s a formula.”, but in our community it is real. It is actually something that is going to make a difference for people’s lives and families, because in Pyes Pā there is a school opening in 2 years. This Government’s management of property and investment—

Hon Tim Macindoe: It’s been outstanding.

TODD MULLER: —and, of course, my great friend and colleague Tim Macindoe is now a key part of that decision making and focus—is ensuring that I can stand up and say: “Pyes Pā West, you’re getting a school. Papamoa, you’re getting a school.” And the various schools of Golden Sands and Papamoa College and Ōropi and Maungatapu, and on I go—they are getting the impact in terms of new school buildings. I am very, very pleased to be able to talk to that record, which is inherent here, and explicit—more than inherent—in this Budget.

The other area that I would like to touch on is the infrastructure that is of course going to give support across the country—an eye-watering commitment of $35 billion. They do not want to talk about that, because in relative terms this sort of investment dwarfs Think Big in a relative context, if you look at the scale of the country back then versus where we are today, and the size of this infrastructure investment that we have in front of us over the next 4 years.

In my community, an example of that is the housing investment fund that we talked to 2 weeks ago. This Government is intending to give an interest-free loan of $230 million to the Tauranga City Council so that it can build the waste-water facilities required to facilitate the growth in Ōmokoroa, Tauriko, and, particularly, Papamoa. In my electorate, there is an expectation now of 4,700 properties going to be able to be built in the short term because of this innovative approach of using the Government’s balance sheet to be able to support Tauranga City Council in its investment plan. It will be a huge material difference for the people of my community.

Finally, an area that I am particularly—I guess, personally—interested in is the investment that we are putting into trade to help facilitate the continuing opening of markets and the ease of trading across markets for New Zealand exporters, and particularly Bay of Plenty exporters. There is $90 million signalled over the next 4 years to be able to open two embassies, which are critical, in Dublin and Sri Lanka. I know from experience of being engaged in business in Sri Lanka that that is going to be huge not only for Fonterra but for other businesses that are working in that area.

There is also the investment in technical capability in the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to be able to be in markets and to be able to work with our small, medium, and large exporters to reduce the technical barriers to trade. This is because when you boil down the rhetoric to be able to focus on actual delivery of making a difference for people in the market, having people who understand the technical issues at a very deep level and who can argue and debate them to get the change required to support small businesses to ensure that their products and services can get into markets—that makes a real difference. We are putting real money behind it, and people with real skills, to be able to ensure that we constantly push on our trade and economic opportunities.

It is a great privilege for me to conclude this debate. I am sure that New Zealanders at home will have reflected and will reflect on the extraordinary effort that this Government can put in front of them in terms of surpluses, fantastic economic stewardship, significant jobs that are being created every month, and, on the basis of those surpluses, investment in areas with prudent focus on outcomes for real New Zealanders. I am proud to support it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2017/18) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill read a third time.

Imprest Supply (Second for 2017/18) Bill read a second time.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2017/18) Bill

Third Reading

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2017/18) Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill

First Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. This is a historic bill. When passed, it will ensure that female-dominated occupations that have historically been subjected to gender pay discrimination are in future paid fairly. It will make a vital contribution to closing the gender pay gap.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is an important debate, and I would appreciate the opportunity to explain the bill and its intent without the barrage that started from the moment I stood up.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear the member, and I take his comments. I do not yet think it has yet registered as a barrage, but I am prepared to monitor it closely.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Moreover it will have a substantial impact—[Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t push it! Order! [Interruption] Order! Just have a bit of a listen to the speech. Treat it with the respect that it should be.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —for women in the labour market. Addressing and correcting the pay imbalance created by systemic undervaluation will benefit individual women, their families, and future generations in New Zealand. This bill had its genesis in the commencement of proceedings in the Employment Court in 2012 by the Service and Food Workers Union, now E tū, on behalf of Kristine Bartlett, in proceedings now known as the TerraNova case. In 2014 the Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Court’s decision that the Equal Pay Act 1972 applied not only to cases of equal pay—the same pay for the same work—but also of pay equity: the same pay for work of equal value.

In the wake of that decision, the Government took two important steps. Firstly, it entered into negotiations with the union and Ms Bartlett, which culminated in a more than $2 billion settlement—55,000 care and support workers received pay increases of up to 71 percent over 5 years, following the passage of the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill. Secondly, the Government established the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles. That group, led by Dame Patsy Reddy, made recommendations on a set of principles to guide pay equity claims, a process by which the claims were considered, and a dispute resolution process to help parties to keep moving forward in the claims process without having to rely on the courts in the first instance, as they would have under the Equal Pay Act, which can be expensive and prohibitive.

The working group was groundbreaking in its process and involved hard-working commitment from all parties, and I am grateful for their dedication. In November 2016 the Government accepted all of their recommendations and this bill gives effect to them. The bill replaces a grievance-centred process of the present legislation with one more aligned with the bargaining-based approach of the Employment Relations Act. The working group made considerable progress in taking the ideas of pay equity forward. However, in order to maintain consensus, it was necessary that the recommendations were focused on high-level principles. In developing this legislation we have had to drill into a further level of detail while retaining consistency with the principles of the working group.

There was one area where the joint working group was unable to reach a consensus. Again, we have made decisions here to support the workability of the pay equity principles. The result is a well-grounded bill that will allow parties to effectively work together to address systemic, gender-based undervaluation of work performed by women. The bill provides employees with a right to make a pay equity claim directly to employers. From there, employees and employers must work together to determine whether the claim has merit, meaning that the work is predominantly performed by women, and that there is a reasonable cause that the work could be subject to both historic and current undervaluation.

In assessing whether the jobs are subject to ongoing undervaluation, parties will look at the market features for that job to understand why wages may remain depressed. The bill sets out factors that could result in this sort of undervaluation, which include circumstances where an occupation may lack competition, have a dominant source of funding, and/or lack effective bargaining. This process is entirely consistent with the joint working group’s recommendations.

I would also point out to those who say the merit-establishment process is too onerous or that establishment of merit should not preclude bargaining and look to the TerraNova case to support that view, that the Employment Court did not even get to the point of establishing merit. That step was still to be taken when the Crown stepped in and, in all likelihood, would involve similar questions to those set out in this bill. If the parties agree that a claim has merit, they move into pay equity bargaining where the work is assessed against appropriate comparators, to reach a settlement to address the pay equity in that role. At each stage of the process, the parties will be able to access facilitation, mediation, and Employment Court determinations as necessary.

In determining which comparator is the most appropriate for a certain claim, the bill establishes a hierarchy of comparators to support the appropriate selection. This starts with comparators within the employer’s business, moving to similar businesses, then the same industry or sector, and, finally, comparators outside the industry or sector. This hierarchy of comparators was the point upon which the joint working group could not agree. The Government believes it is a necessary component of efficiently reaching an appropriate comparator, and consistent with the Employment Court’s expectations.

I refer members to the following comments of the Employment Court judgment: “is the Authority or Court entitled to have regard to what is paid to males in other industries?”. It answered thus: “They may be if those inquiries of other employees of the same employer or of other employers in the same or similar enterprise or industry or sector would be an appropriate comparator group.” My interpretation of that statement is that regard to what is paid to males in other industries should be made only after inquiry of the same or similar industries does not identify a valid comparison.

The Court of Appeal found that the Employment Court’s answer to that question was not wrong in law. However, I should stress that the parties are not bound under this bill to that methodology. If they can agree an alternative method for determining the equity gap, then they are free to do so. There are other approaches for carrying out this assessment, and parties, by agreement are free to draw on the approach that is most appropriate to their particular claim.

I can also advise the House that as far as I can establish, the ability to use a comparator after checking within an organisation or industry is more progressive than any other country with whom we compare. The European Union, the United Kingdom, California, Australia, and most provinces of Canada restrict comparisons to within a workplace or industry. New Zealand will be far more enabling in this regard.

Another area of contention is that of back-pay. Back-pay for up to 6 years remains payable under the equal pay provisions of the bill. For equity claims the commencement of back-pay is the date a valid claim is made. The reason for no further arrears prior to that point is that unlike equal pay underpayment, where the employer has consciously paid a woman less than a man doing the same role, that condition does not exist in a pay equity claim. An employer and employee have—

Jan Logie: They have a legal requirement to do it now. You’ve let them away with it for 40 years.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Pipe down, Jan. You will blow something. An employer and employee have previously bargained an appropriate rate, often with the support of the union, and the employer has kept faith with that agreement. The rate is paid to both men and women performing that role, notwithstanding that it is female dominated. Under these conditions, and especially given that funding may have been provided by a dominant funder or purchaser on the basis of an agreed rate of pay, the Government does not consider further back-pay appropriate.

I would note that notwithstanding the strident criticisms already levelled at the Government, which, no doubt, are about to come my way during the first reading of this bill, the TerraNova settlement, which put $2 billion into the pockets of 55,000 care and support workers, was, I understand, achieved by reference to comparisons within that industry and without the payment of back-pay. It was a forward-looking settlement, and this bill is also forward-looking. Statements by unions and others that the TerraNova settlement could not have been achieved had this bill been in law just do not bear up to any scrutiny of the facts.

Another comment we are bound to hear tonight is that the Government, in the face of the Court of Appeal decision, was forced against its will to settle the TerraNova case out of court. This is patent nonsense. In the first place, the Government was not even a party to those proceedings. It made interventions but it was not party. Second, the Court of Appeal simply ruled that the Equal Pay Act provided equal pay should be paid for work that had equal value. That was the start line. It took 3½ years just to establish whether or not section 9 of the Equal Pay Act prevailed.

The point is, had the parties been left to their own devices, they would have been locked in court for years and years. The Government chose to intervene, because it accepted that this hard-working group of mostly female employees deserved better. It acted decisively, and the notion that further claims would be better dealt with under the Equal Pay Act than this bill is just ludicrous. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that we will continue that conversation with the unions, business, and other interested parties as we have over the last couple of years. I commend the bill, and I look forward to that conversation.

JACINDA ARDERN (Leader of the Opposition): In amongst all of that from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, I have one simple question for the Minister—one simple question. Does he believe in equal pay? Does the Minister believe in equal pay? It is 2017, and does the Minister who just took his seat believe in equal pay? Because if he does, how is it possible that he could present to this House a bill that takes us not only a step backwards but an entire generation backwards in terms of our ability to actually move forward in terms of giving women access to pay equity?

Fundamentally, the achievement that the Minister has spoken of, the achievement by Kristine Bartlett, will not happen again under his law. It will never happen again. It will be a first and it will be a last, and that is an absolute disgrace.

If I speak personally on this issue, or if anyone senses some deep personal connection to this issue, I am sure they will hear that from many women in this House. I grew up surrounded by women who have been in low-paid work. I have seen the indignity of that low-paid work, particularly when it has been compared with the work of others. There is no dignity for women who are working predominantly in areas of valuable work but, because they are areas that have been dominated by women, they are, by virtue of that, earning low wages. That is absolutely unacceptable in 2017.

I want to speak to the things that gave rise to this bill—how we got here in the first place. I cannot do that without acknowledging someone whom we all, on this side of the House, would call a modern-day hero—Kristine Bartlett. She, alongside her union, E tū, took a case against her employer, TerraNova Homes and Care Ltd, went to the Court of Appeal, took a case under the Equal Pay Act 1972, and got a result that would not just affect her life but the lives of tens of thousands of women—tens of thousands of women. It was a landmark case. We had an opportunity at that point to improve the access of other women, to be able to ensure pay equity in our lifetime. Instead—instead—we have this bill.

But what could have been? What could have been? And should we actually have even seen the writing on the wall? I was actually reading an article written by Wellington employment lawyer Steph Dyhrberg. Not only does she outline the simple premise of pay equity, she flagged a couple of warning bells that after the historic landmark pay rise, the Prime Minister was reported as warning that the carers’ case was “unique”. Well, actually, it is not unique; thousands of women are in the exact same set of circumstances. He called it unique straight away, when, actually, it should have been a benchmark for what we were doing for others. It was unique and “the hurdle would be pretty high”—the hurdle would be pretty high.

Grant Robertson: Only if you set it high.

JACINDA ARDERN: My colleague is exactly right. The Minister obviously established, alongside his Government colleagues, that, actually, maybe the hurdle was not high enough. So that is where this bill came from.

Let us look at what actually could have been. There was some goodwill around the table, Minister—there was some goodwill around the table. The Government, unions, and Business New Zealand all came together to create the joint working group. They negotiated on the basis that there were assurances that the 1972 Act would remain and they would be making amendments to that. That is not what has happened. We have not enshrined principles; instead we have done away with them, and we have done away with any hope that we will make any further progress in this area in the future. Why? Because the very essence of what the Kristine Bartlett case was based on has been gutted.

The point I want to start with is comparators. The easiest way to explain the comparators is that if you are looking at a workforce, a sector, that is dominated by women, then in order to establish what equal work of equal value is in another sector, you use comparators. That is what happened in the Kristine Bartlett case. There was a very pragmatic approach, and there was a wide range of comparators that were used. There was not a lot of ongoing dispute where time was wasted simply settling on one; a range of skill sets were used to formulate what would be an appropriate outcome in that case.

So what has the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety instead come up with? Instead, in this case, this bill introduces a hierarchy of comparators that attempts to keep male comparators as close as possible to the female claimants’ workplace. That fundamentally does not work and misses the point of having to resolve cases where the workforce is predominantly female. So in the case of TerraNova, TerraNova tried to use male gardeners as a comparator, and that would be the exact kind of outcome you would see if you follow the Minister’s logic. Yet the complexity of the job that Kristine Bartlett and others were doing should have been compared across a wide range of other sectors.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh, read the bill, Jacinda.

JACINDA ARDERN: Minister, I absolutely understand. I absolutely understand this bill, and if the Minister is claiming that I do not understand, why did he not implement what the joint working group suggested? Why did he not introduce what the joint working group suggested: not only comparators within the same employer but comparators from within a similar employer; if none are appropriate, then comparators from within the same industry or sector; or, if none are, then appropriate comparators from a different industry or sector? He has removed the flexibility that led to the successful outcome of the Kristine Bartlett case.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh, rubbish.

JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely, it is true. It is true, and every single person involved knows that. But that is not the only issue—that is not the only issue. I ask the Minister as well: has the barrier to taking a case increased? Has the barrier to taking a case increased?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: No.

JACINDA ARDERN: OK, well, let us look at the requirements. The requirements for women to prove merit in order to initiate a pay equity claim—they need to prove that their part of the workforce is 66 percent female dominated, prove it is historically undervalued, and then prove it is the subject of ongoing undervaluation, including through detailed labour market evaluation. The bar that has been set in this bill makes it absolutely untenable for women, especially, who work outside of unionised workplaces to be able to establish a case. We are asking them to establish a set of macroeconomic criteria in order to demonstrate that they have merit in their case.

Yes, there are some sectors that will have a union that can do this work, but what about the rest? What about the rest? That is where we say that there is a much higher barrier to access equal pay claims. But not only that; not only is the barrier high for new cases, it actually now exists for all cases. This bill not only says that going forward will this apply; it actually says that for any case, even under way now—I am sorry, but the Equal Pay Act no longer exists. You now have to operate under this legislation, which is utterly unfair in the way that it is applying retrospectively to any other sector that is currently under negotiation. That is patently unfair. Where else does this House do that? It is very, very rare that we would pull the rug out from underneath a sector in this way. It is utterly unfair.

But I want to come back to that simple issue again of the fact that we stood with pride in this House, the Government stood with pride in this House, and declared that the Kristine Bartlett case was a success that we should all feel good about—that we should feel good on behalf of our mothers, our sisters, our aunties, our daughters, and granddaughters; that we should feel proud at what had been achieved. And then, within the bat of an eyelid, we fundamentally changed the ability of anyone else to achieve that moment in the future.

I think, again, the article by Ms Dyhrberg—I want to refer to that again, because she, in my mind, sums it up perfectly. Her closing statement is: “Contrary to the stated purpose of the draft bill, it does not re-enact and modernise the Equal Pay Act and it does not implement a workable regime based on the Bartlett case and the joint working group report. Passing this bill would be a major backwards step for pay equity. It could bring New Zealand under renewed criticism from the ILO for failure to comply with the ILO 100. The bill and, as importantly, the policy underlying it require significant change if women in New Zealand are to achieve pay equity in our lifetimes.”

I give you this commitment now: Labour will not rest until we have pay equity in this country. We will not rest. It starts with voting against this bill today and then it restarts on 23 September when we have a chance to make this right.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity. I am taking this call to support the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill in its first reading. It is amazing to see that the Opposition opposes this bill, and, on the other hand, they say they are committed to pay equity.

I want to acknowledge our Minister the Hon Michael Woodhouse for introducing this bill. This bill is to support a pay equity regime by providing a practical and fair process for employees to follow if they feel that they are not being paid fairly, as per their job. I also want to note that this is an issue that is not confined just to New Zealand. It is a worldwide issue. The whole world is working towards gender parity. But here in New Zealand this National Government is committed, and this bill will close the gap. We started working on this issue several years ago. We established a joint working group that was made up of representatives from employers, unions, and the Government. They came up with principles to address the issue of equal pay for work of equal value.

The Equal Pay Act is not equipped to deal with equity claims, so it is important that we address the issue of equity claims. With this bill, employees will be able to raise the issue of equity claims, which is important, and it is important that we have a process in place as to how that can be followed through in a fair manner for both employees and employers.

This bill is consistent with the recommendations that were made by the joint working group. This bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000, and repeals and replaces the Equal Pay Act 1972 and the Government Service Equal Pay Act 1960.

In this discussion of gender parity and pay equity I want to say that we should never forget that New Zealand is the first self-governing country to give women the right to vote. We also must acknowledge that since our suffragists earned for New Zealand women the right to vote, we have come a long way. It is important for us to acknowledge that we have come a long way. We cannot dismiss that.

If we look at the number of women gaining tertiary qualifications, if we look at the number of women getting into the workforce, and also at the number of women getting into male-dominated jobs—and also we are making great strides in helping women get into senior positions and leadership positions.

But we know that the challenge is not over. We know there is more that needs to be done, and that is the important thing that this National Government recognises—that the challenge is not over, and we need to do more. That is why we have this bill before the House.

We have a gender pay gap of 12 percent. Yes, it is down from 16.3 percent in 1998. Yes, it has fluctuated. In the OECD countries we rank quite low for gender pay gap. But the point is that any kind of gender pay gap is not acceptable. This National Government recognises that, and that is why we have this bill before the House. We know there are several factors that contribute to the gender pay gap. It is not just one factor. I am sure the Opposition members know those factors. But, along with those factors, the unconscious bias and discrimination towards an individual because of their gender is the issue that bothers everyone.

Yes, the Government is doing its role, through this legislation, but I would say that our business communities, our business leaders, our non-governmental organisations, our career advisers, and our communities—everybody needs to come together, to understand the importance of respecting and valuing difference, to have inclusive workplaces, and to work towards rooting out workplace bias.

This is a great bill. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): As a member of Parliament who has only, so far, experienced Opposition—but I am expecting a change in the near future—the opportunities to experience real joy in this House have been few and far between. I can think of moments like when we passed the marriage equality legislation. I can think of the moment when we managed to amend the Government’s bill on zero-hour contracts, so that we could get it so it actually eliminated zero-hour contracts. And I think of the night when we passed the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill—a Government bill, no less. It was a Government bill that we all celebrated. It was a night when we experienced real joy and celebration in this House because we knew we were doing the right thing. We were righting a wrong that had existed for far too long.

Well, tonight we are debating legislation that will ensure that that moment of joy never happens again, and that is wrong. It speaks to the hypocrisy of that Government, which celebrated and insisted that it was the Government’s win, when it then turns around and says it is going to pull the rug out from underneath every other woman and every other group of women who attempt to achieve a settlement like it. That is shameful.

Carmel Sepuloni: It is shameful.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is shameful. Government members should be ashamed of themselves for bringing this legislation to the House.

The member who gave the previous contribution, Parmjeet Parmar, made a brief acknowledgment of the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap exists in New Zealand and it is persistent in New Zealand. It really does not matter how we compare with other countries. Our task in New Zealand is to eliminate that gender pay gap. That gender pay gap is driven by two things: one is pay inequity, and the other is pay inequality. Those two things are different. I think it is important that the House recognises that those two things are different, and that that is acknowledged in this legislation.

So unequal pay is when a man and a woman are doing the same job, in the same business, and they are paid different rates of pay for doing that same job. Pay inequity exists when professions that are female dominated and male dominated are scoped to the same level of skill, the same level of education is required, the same level of risk is involved, and the nature of the jobs is the same but they are paid at different rates because one is male dominated and the other is female dominated. While both exist, and both need to be eliminated, the gender pay gap in New Zealand is predominantly driven by pay inequity: the difference between professions that are male dominated and female dominated, and the different rates at which they are paid.

That is why those of us who are in the Opposition are so distraught over the fact that the Government has set this hierarchy that requires that people who are attempting to make a pay equity claim have to look within their own profession, within their own industry, before they can start to make that comparison across industries. Because, largely, when you look within an industry, when you look within a profession, you will not find that inequity and you will not find the appropriate comparisons to make because of the nature of the inequity, which is that female-dominated professions tend to be paid less than male-dominated professions.

Before I came into this House I was lucky enough to be an employee of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO). Unfortunately, I was not an employee of the Nurses Organisation when it had the big pay jolt for nurses; it happened just before I started working for it. But I learnt a lot about that pay jolt when I was working for the NZNO, and what was at the core of that was the nurses’ ability—that was not even a pay equity claim; that was just bargaining—to demonstrate that because their profession was a female-dominated profession, they were paid less than a profession that scoped to the same skill rate, the same risk rate, and the same tasks and challenges that were faced in a male-dominated profession. In that case, it was the police and other professions were included, as well. But that was absolutely core to their ability to make that claim and to be able to win that claim, and, again, to achieve something that everybody celebrated.

I am sure National celebrated it back then, when they were in Opposition, as well—that, finally, nurses were being paid appropriately. That could not have happened had they not been able to make the case that a pay inequity existed between the nurses’ profession and an equivalent male-dominated profession.

That is why Opposition members of Parliament oppose this bill—because it is specifically designed to stop a settlement like the care and support workers’ settlement happening again. It actually flies in the face of what the International Labour Organisation (ILO) tells us we should be doing to achieve pay equity. The ILO specifically says that comparisons should be able to be made across industries. I know that members opposite will say that this bill allows for it, but why have the hierarchy in place in the first place? There is no place for it. It does not actually make any sense, unless the purpose of the legislation is to diminish the opportunity to make a pay equity clam.

The sad thing about it is that the joint working group actually seemed to be making really good progress and seemed to have reached agreement around these principles. It was only at the eleventh hour that the Government withdrew its support, and I want to hear from just one member opposite why that happened. Why was it that the Government that seemed quite happy with reaching consensus around all the principles—why was it that this one in particular, this question of the proximity of the comparators, suddenly changed at the last minute? It is unfair, it is unreasonable, and it simply does not make any sense.

What we should be debating tonight is not the repeal and replacement of the Equal Pay Act but, in fact, amendments to the Equal Pay Act to make equal pay and pay equity claims easier in the future. But the fact that the Government has gone so far to remove the piece of legislation under which the care and support workers’ settlement was achieved and replace it with something that actually diminishes working women’s ability to take a claim, I think speaks volumes about what the Government is trying to achieve with this legislation.

I want to support the commitment made by Jacinda Ardern in her contribution to this debate this evening. If a Labour-led Government is elected at the upcoming election, which will be before this legislation has any opportunity to be considered by the select committee, that will be the end of the line for this bill. We will introduce amendments to the Equal Pay Act that actually achieve what the Government claims to be achieving: making it possible for more working women to be able to make equal pay and pay equity claims; to be able to achieve that—I was going to say nirvana; it should not be nirvana, it should just be the way it is. It should just be the way it is in the 21st century.

It is to achieve normalcy. Let us achieve normalcy, where it does not matter if a profession is male dominated or female dominated—that pay equity can be achieved, and it does not matter whether you are a man or a woman doing a job, equal pay can be achieved. That is our commitment. We are not going to muck around with this. We are not going to have silly hierarchies, silly rules that set the bar too high, to make it nearly impossible to establish a claim.

We want to make it as easy as possible, because, quite simply, on this side of the House we do believe in pay equity, we do believe in equal pay, and we believe in working alongside those who have driven this issue for years and years and years to put in place the mechanisms that will achieve it. And if the parties opposite—the National Party, in particular—truly believe in equal pay and pay equity, then they will join us in doing that.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): We do have an election coming up on 23 September and I do hear what the member opposite, Iain Lees-Galloway, says, but he must also consider the prospect that he may still be—as others may be—an Opposition member; therefore this bill will go through the select committee process. That member knows, because he is a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that that committee has handled some very complex bills in the past. One of them, of course, was the Health and Safety Reform Bill, which we adopted after—we did a very good job on that committee.

There were provisions put into that bill that did not need the grandstanding of that member’s claims when he says that he brought magnificent change about. That was not the case, and he knows that. The Employment Standards Legislation Bill was another bill before that committee that had a lot of complexity. This bill has complexity in it, and if there are members of that committee who exist in Parliament today, they will go forward and will be looking at this bill, and then the people of New Zealand can be assured it will go through a robust process, which this Parliament ought to be proud of, out of all parliaments in the world, because it is a fair and robust process. The public come in, they say their piece, they are listened to, and they are considered in terms of what they say.

We have a history in this country of leading the way in terms of recognition of the valuable contribution of women in our society, and there is more to do. There is more to do; we acknowledge that. As a previous speaker Dr Parmjeet Parmar said, we have gone from 16.3 percent in terms of the pay equity gap, down to 12 percent, and we need to go further. Obviously, that is why this bill is before this House, where we can champion the valuable contribution of women and value that contribution through pay equity. I can assure you that I and other members of this Parliament want to seek that end, and that is true.

We all know women in our lives who make magnificent contributions in our workforces, in all sorts of places of employment, and it is very, very important that we continue to drive this battle forward and see that acknowledged. Women’s participation in the New Zealand labour market continues to grow: 65.3 percent compared with 1995 when it was 55 percent. So there is recognition of the value of contribution—there certainly is. We see that women now have the highest participation rate ever on State sector boards, at 43.4 percent. So we are making progress. There is more to be made. There is more to be made and we will continue to press forward with this work in this country, to continue to be a world leader in this aspect.

There are lots of details, there are lots of mechanics that obviously have come under discussion and debate tonight, and that is a good thing—that is a good thing. This bill distinguishes between equal pay, unlawful discrimination, and pay equity claims, and provides for a process for making and resolving each type of claim. We will test that as we go through the committee. I am very pleased to support my Minister and colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is with great frustration I rise to speak on this misnamed pay equity bill. You know, while sexism continues in this country, it is not often that you meet a person who will admit to their own misogyny. I think probably that that is progress, but when this Government tells us that this is a pay equity bill, when it is actually putting hurdles in the way of women being able to achieve pay equity, I think we have got a problem—that actually we need to get to the root causes of pay inequality in this country and this bill does not do it.

This is a fight that was started with the suffragettes. This was third on their list of things to do—to achieve equal pay for work of equal value. It was right after getting the vote and getting women into Parliament. It was that high on their list because it matters. It matters that women’s average hourly earnings are 13.9 percent lower than men’s. For Māori women that is 22.9 percent lower, and for Pasifika women it is 28.4 percent lower. They are not just figures. You add up those hourly earnings, and what that means on a weekly level, and what that means on a yearly level, and what that means when you get to retirement. It adds up to about $600,000 less than what men earn over their lifetime. That means women struggle to put food on the table and keep the roof over their heads, and when they are most likely to still be the sole caregiver for children, it means their children are less likely to have those secure things in their lives.

It means more than actually just what the money can buy. It is what the money represents. It is about our place in this society. It is about the value that is given to work that has traditionally been women’s work—work that matters, work that provides for other people, the caring that makes our society hold together and ensures that everyone has a place in it, the work that is mostly still around minimum wage or not much more because of discrimination and historical underpayment. This, the fight that Kristine Bartlett took with her union, E tū, supported by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and the Public Service Association, through the courts against the employer TerraNova, which was supported by the Government—might I add—through that court process, was to prove that our Equal Pay Act, which was written in 1972, could be used to actually work out what was fair pay for women-dominated employment or jobs.

The court said it was. The court said that economic arguments and considerations did not come into play in this discussion. Economic arguments were used to justify slavery and they had no place in this discussion. The courts also ruled quite specifically, I understand, that they “allowed” historical social and structural evidence as part of the substantive claim—“allowed” those things. They did not “require” those things. The joint working group principles that were agreed were that historical data “may” be used alongside other things—“may”—and now we get legislation that requires “must”.

The market was no part of that discussion. That has been added by the Government of its own initiative. What I understand that that means, having heard from a person working in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, is that the Government does not believe that women can be undervalued or underpaid in the private sector, because apparently the market decides the fair rate of pay, so therefore the market is never influenced by sexism or history or any of those things; the market is always right. So they have built this in here to put another barrier in the way of women getting fair pay for their work.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Now you’re just making stuff up, Jan.

JAN LOGIE: I am not making this stuff up, Minister. The court also rejected—and let me outline this, because we have heard from the Minister about the comparators—that actually there is no big deal what they are putting in here, it is not a problem at all. This is despite the fact that Jacinda Ardern has already read out comments from Steph Dyhrberg from LawTalk—and I understand that she was the lawyer in the Kristine Bartlett case representing the Coalition for Equal Value Equal Pay, so she is quite informed around the detail of this bill and what happened in that case. What I understand is that in Kristine Bartlett’s case, her employer, TerraNova, tried to argue that they could assess whether her pay was fair by starting with males in the same workplace. The court rejected that argument and ruled that pay equity requires male comparators from jobs and sectors that are clearly unaffected by gender bias—that is male-dominated jobs and sectors.

So what the Government has set up in this legislation—and what I need to say—is that those points around proving merit around history and the market place are going to require the employee to put all of that evidence together and convince their employer. They will have to convince them by looking at comparators, first, in their own workplace. The employer is the one who has got the power around that, and if there is a dispute it is going to end up as a dispute, and if they cannot get agreement there: the court sends it back, and then they are saying, “OK, let’s look for a similar employer.” Again, the same process might happen and it might end up going back to a tribunal, and then, next, they have to look for a comparator, if they cannot get it there, within the same industry.

Again, there is potential for dispute and going around and around, and then, finally, if they cannot find one through any of those three places, then they find one in a different sector or industry like the court said they should look at in the first place. This is just potentially creating a legal tangle and so many hurdles that it is just unrealistic to expect a woman to go through this process. I think that is the intent of this legislation.

I do think that there is also a point when you are looking at comparators there is an understanding that female-dominated is when 66 percent of the workforce are women, compared with—you would expect it to be the same and that male-dominated would also be 66 percent. But no, in this legislation male-dominated is defined at 50 percent—“dominated” at half and half? Hum. Actually, the pay equity experts I speak to say this is looking more like an equal pay case because industry, if it is half and half, is likely to be affected by gender discrimination as well. So they are just skewing the whole game.

Then the Government is removing the right to back-pay. We have heard from the Minister that it said that the caregivers gave up on their right to back-pay—that is true—but the working group did not. It did not give up the right of any other group of women to access back-pay. This Government is looking at taking that right away—that commercially established right that anyone else in this country has.

I heard the Minister say earlier: “Well, pay equity is different because you might not know that you’re discriminating against them.” We have had equal pay legislation since 1972. There has been a legal requirement for employers to provide equal pay and to pay women fairly. If they have not worked out that they are not doing it yet and if they have not been listening to the women in their workplace, then, actually, they should be held responsible for that, and they should be liable to pay back-pay.

Another aspect of this bill that is pernicious is that it is retrospective. There are about eight claims that have already been laid, as I understand—six to eight claims—for groups of women who are not being valued and who are not being paid fairly, and this bill will change the entire game for them mid-game. They have started the conversations and they are going to have to start them all over again.

This bill, and just the Government’s gall to come into this House and pretend that this has anything to do with furthering women’s rights, is an absolute shame. The Green Party is pleased to oppose it.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose this bill. We will oppose this bill because it does not do what women fought for it to do. It does not do what the working party asked for it to do and agreed that it would do—and Business New Zealand was part of that working group. It sets about to do away with the Equal Pay Act of 1972, rather than just amend it. It throws the baby out with the bathwater. As both Jan Logie and Jacinda Ardern have articulated very accurately, it sets in the way larger barriers for women to jump over.

I want to read just a little bit from the bill itself. Clause 17 provides that “An employer who receives a pay equity claim must, … decide whether, in the employer’s view, [it] has merit.” I want you to just picture this for a moment. A woman goes to an employer and says: “I think you’re paying me less than my male counterparts for a job I do just as well in exactly the same way for exactly the same number of hours with exactly the same skills.” The employer, under this piece of legislation—under clause 17—can have a think about it and say: “Well, I don’t think it has merit, so I don’t think I’m going to accept that.”

Clause 17 goes on to say that the decision must be made by the employer as to whether it has merit, and the claimant must be notified—which is nice—of the decision “as soon as is reasonably practicable,” and “not later than 90 days” after the employer receives the claim. Let us just remember that 90 days is 3 months.

Now I want you to picture this. Now we have got a woman who goes to her employer and, putting it in writing, says: “I actually think that you are paying me at a lesser rate.” The employer says “OK. Well, leave it on my desk and I’ll get back to you.”, and 3 months later, they might. But the bill goes on, however. The employer “may, … extend the time limit for making [the] decision … if the employer has genuine reasons, based on reasonable grounds,” for doing so. What would be a reasonable ground? A holiday in Fiji—“I wasn’t there, so I couldn’t make the decision within 90 days as to whether I paid you less than I pay all your male counterparts.”? I want the men sitting on the Government benches to tell me whether they would accept that and to explain to me that they would accept that inside any employment agreement that they got. But the Government believes that it is OK to put it inside this legislation.

We know that this is not a Government that values women and values their work. How do we know that? We know that because this is the Government that used its financial veto to stop an extension to paid parental leave, which, considering only 1 percent of the male parents of this country take paid parental leave, was obviously a vote against women.

This is a Government that forced Kristine Bartlett—let us get clear. It is frustrating to the nth degree to have this Government do two things when talking about this particular bill and also the $2 billion that Kristine Bartlett and the E tū union forced this country to recognise and pay. One is that those members now pat themselves on the back as though they gave women the vote. For them to continue to remark how advanced we are because a hundred and something years ago women fought hard enough to actually get the vote is a—I do not think they realise how frustrating that is for women, to listen to these men stand up and take credit for it as if they did it last week because they were overly generous.

It is the same with the Kristine Bartlett case. There is no way that this Government would have addressed this issue if that case had not been taken to court. I am sorry, but the reality is that the Government saw that if it allowed that case to go forward, it was going to be far more expensive than what Kristine Bartlett and those women settled for, in the generosity of spirit of those women.

I want to give another example, though. I want to give another example of a situation that this bill is going to exacerbate. A lot of those in the early childhood education sector will recognise this comment, right? There are often comments around the feminisation of education—that there are not enough men in early childhood education and primary schools. We hear that all the time. So we ask why that is. Why is that the case? Why are there not enough men going into the profession of early childcare, early childhood education, or primary school teaching? The answer comes back: “Well you don’t pay enough.” The answer comes back that those sectors do not pay enough for men to bother with actually training and being part of that profession. What is really interesting about that is that, therefore, the State, which predominantly pays the salaries of the kindergarten teachers and primary school teachers and sets a ratio, has accepted that it is a female-dominated sector because men will not do the job for that money, but apparently it is OK for women to the job for that money.

Alastair Scott: Men will do the job for the money.

TRACEY MARTIN: Men do not. There is no point shouting out, Mr Scott. The men do not do it.

Alastair Scott: Men do participate in that profession.

TRACEY MARTIN: All right. Mr Scott, who was sat over there with his white male colleagues when Jan Logie was pointing out time and time again pieces about this bill, is going to get up and argue with me and read from his notes. He is going to do what every male member of that caucus has done so far: get up and tell the women in this room that we do not understand how the bill works. He is going to get up and mansplain to us that the women in this room do not understand how legislation is written. We do not understand court rulings! We do not understand how working parties go! That is what Mr Scott is going to do. He is going to get up and try to explain why the women are wrong. Mr Scott appears not to realise—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. I actually want to hear what is being said, so I just ask that the interjections be rare and reasonable.

TRACEY MARTIN: Kia ora, thank you. Mr Scott does not appear to realise, with an election 7 weeks out, that 52 percent of the voting public are women, so I welcome Mr Scott getting up and explaining to 52 percent of the voting public why they are worth less and why this Government wants to put barriers in their way to make sure that it is much, much harder for them to actually match their skills to males doing similar work. That is all women are asking for: tweak the Equal Pay Act of 1972; make this about a skills base, not about a sector. Take away the four barriers that have been put up in front of women inside this legislation. Remove ridiculous clauses like clause 17, where a woman has to go to an employer and, basically, somehow convince them that they have merit.

Alastair Scott: Read clause 29. Read clause 28.

TRACEY MARTIN: No, Mr Scott. You listen to the women of this country coming to see you. You explain—[Interruption]—again, more mansplaining. More mansplaining from Mr Scott—more mansplaining from Mr Scott. I just read out to Mr Scott what clause 17 in his own bill says, but Mr Scott apparently does not understand what clause 17, when it is read to him, actually means.

New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. None of the Opposition parties will be supporting this bill. It will be interesting to see whether this bill gets through. Mr Seymour is here, so it will be interesting to see Mr Seymour’s contribution, and where the Māori Party is on this, and where Mr Dunne is on this, because there are a lot of New Zealand voters watching. There are a lot of New Zealand voters watching. Again, we are talking about women and their ability to get access to equal pay and fairness and justice, and to have their skills matched against male counterparts, and there are three male National Party MPs just laughing and interacting and joking together because it is of so little importance to them. They have made up their minds, New Zealand—New Zealand women, particularly. These males have made up their minds that they are right, that you do not know anything, and that the women of the House apparently are mistaken and are misled, and they will now rise to their feet and explain why once again women do not get it and they are the masters of the universe.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure—and I am very proud—to stand up in support of this bill tonight, the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill, in its first reading. This bill is in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse. I have worked my whole life as a woman, and I have never in my whole life had any differential in the pay that I have received. I am very fortunate in that respect, but I do understand that there are some professions where that is not the case for some women, and this bill seeks to address that. Equal pay is the principle where men and women receive the same pay for the same job. Pay equity is the principle where men and women receive the same remuneration for doing jobs that are different but of equal value.

There are some measures that are already under way that encourage women into high-value professions. For instance, this Government is actually leading by example. We have now a record number of women ever on State sector boards. That is now over 43 percent. Police has introduced a target of 50 percent women recruits, and Treasury is also running a gender and ethnicity programme to ensure that there are equal numbers of women participating. New Zealand does seek to close that gender pay gap. We are consistently ranked the lowest gender pay gap in the OECD—it does not matter how you measure that. But we do not want to be sitting on our laurels. This bill is going to further address that gap. This Government is committed to working with New Zealanders, men and women, and I have faith in the wise minds of the select committee to work on this bill and deliver it back to this House for further discussion. I have pleasure in commending it to the House. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The next call is a split call. Denise Roche—5 minutes.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call for the Greens on the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill’s first reading, and what a treacherous bill this is. I cannot think of a different word. It is treacherous. This bill is the result of, basically, a breach of the goodwill that was happening about the negotiations that were setting out the principles to deal with pay equity cases as a result of the Kristine Bartlett case.

So let me just recap a bit. We are here in the House debating the first reading of a bill that will actually undermine and prevent women from getting equal pay because that has already been settled with one particular group of women workers, which was the women represented in the persona of Kristine Bartlett as one of the carers. The Government says: “Right, we’ve done that one. That was $2 billion worth. There is no back-pay claim. Now we’re going to make it harder for anybody else. So we’re going to pull that ladder up, away from anyone else.” This begs the question—I get quite concerned about this. This Government has a history of overturning inconvenient law. It basically has a history of overturning by legislation legal cases that have been won, and this is another example of it.

One of the other ones that comes to mind straight away is for the family carers: that case that was won for that family member who finally got equal pay—well, actually, minimum pay—for the work that he had done over a very long time, over decades, in looking after his adult children, thereby saving the taxpayer an enormous amount of money. The court ruled that, yes, this person was entitled to minimum employment standards and minimum wage at the least. So what did the Government do? Straight after that, and under urgency, it introduced legislation that basically said: “Well, we’ll deal with that one, but we’re not dealing with any more.” This legislation is exactly the same. So you kind of start to wonder where that line is, the separation of the State and the Government from the law and who defends the law. I mean, what is the point?

The proof of how unwilling the Government was and is, and the proof that it was dragged to that negotiation table by the E tū union, by the Public Service Association, by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and with the businesses—it was dragged to negotiate that—is this legislation. This is the legislation that says: “We’ve got equal pay, we’ve had that since 1972, and as far as pay equity goes, you’re not going to get it. We’re not going to allow anybody else to get it.”

One of the most pernicious parts of this bill is that it says it actually prevents any of the other claims that are in the works at the moment from being seen by the courts. That kind of retrospective lawmaking really, really gives me the heebie-jeebies, because I do not think it is fair in any way whatsoever.

Other people have talked about how what this bill does is implement a whole series of hurdles that women workers are expected to go through in order to get a discussion about pay equity in their workplace, and it leaves it up to the woman worker. It does not leave it up to anybody else. The only people who are really going to benefit from this piece of legislation if it goes through—and it will not, on 23 September; it will be turfed—will be employment lawyers.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call David Seymour—5 minutes.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill. Let me reflect on some of the contributions to this debate so far. People watching at home on the TV or listening on their crystal set may not be aware that Denise Roche, who has just resumed her seat, had been merrily celebrating the valedictory speech of Catherine Delahunty earlier in the evening. That explains the coherency of her speech, but what a disgraceful speech—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is unacceptable. I ask the member to withdraw that comment.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw that comment. But what a disgraceful speech that was from Tracey Martin. I have been asked whether I am a feminist, and I say: “Yes. I am the kind of feminist who believes in pushing women up, not pulling men down.” And to hear Tracey Martin hurling across the House “male” and “white” as epithets, as if these people’s opinions are invalidated by their identity—well, I thought we were here to fight discrimination based on sex and gender, not to perpetrate it as people elected to lead this country.

We find ourselves here debating a bill that has come about because of a court case that is completely opposite to the principles of the New Zealand economy that underlie our prosperity. I think it is absolutely true that care workers were underpaid, and I would say that I think our teaching profession is probably underpaid. But the interesting thing about that is that those are professions where the Government is the monopsony employer, where the Government sets, through its budgeting decisions, what those people get paid.

And for all the people on the other side of the House, from the Labour Party and New Zealand First and the Green Party, who have been saying that somehow it is the fault of this Government that these professions are paid less by the Government, well, just remember it was exactly the same when they were in power. So if this Government is sexist in its pay of female-dominated professions, well, what is it when they do it? It seems that the Government has been sexist no matter who has had the Treasury benches in this House.

But what is wrong—what is absolutely wrong—about the TerraNova Homes and Care case and what is wrong about this bill is that no longer, under this bill or under the TerraNova case, is the amount paid to the worker the result of a negotiation between a willing employer and a willing employee, negotiated by them or their union representatives.

Suddenly, we introduce the idea that a court—that does not have the full information, that does not know the conditions of the business, and that does not know the conditions of the work—is able to determine what the value of work should be. And this country has been there before. When we lived in the Polish shipyard prior to 1984, that is how it used to work—national awards. People used to sit in Wellington with bugger all clue about what was going on in the rest of the country, and they used to decide how much work was worth.

Well, I would say to you tonight that the people out there who actually generate the wealth—the people who actually get up early, the people who actually up skill themselves, and the people who are there to get up, make the kids’ lunches, get them to school, get to the workplace, and do productive things—those people know what the value of work is. Those people know what their aspirations are. The courts setting wages is a step backwards to the 1970s.

So why am I supporting this bill? I am supporting it because it is the best on offer right now. At least it limits the scope of this court-appointed wage setting to a narrower scope than it could have been under some other versions of the bill. But, as members are all keenly aware, after 23 September Parliament may be different, and a stronger ACT Party will be pushing whoever is in Government to return wages in New Zealand to the way they should be: negotiated between a willing employer and a willing employee, not set like national awards by courts—the way that they were so long ago when our country was a much more dismal place. Thank you.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a brief call on this very good pay equity bill. I have been in a number of jobs—I have had many jobs—and not one time have I ever thought that I was getting underpaid or not paid as much as what my male counterparts were. I have worked in a shearing shed; I got the same amount as what everybody else got, doing the same work.

Anyway, I think that this is a very good bill. It is a start. Everybody in this House is in favour of pay equity; the approach is just different. Ours is a sensible, measured approach, whereas the Opposition just wants to get in there and just go ahead and do it to the employers. Well, you just cannot do that. We are taking this measured approach.

I do support this bill, and I look forward to it going to select committee, because that is where the debate will actually occur—in there—so that this legislation can come back to this House and be passed. I recommend the bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Just—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Just a matter of clarification—is it going to be a split call, or just—

Kris Faafoi: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Poto Williams.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I am really disappointed by the calls that I have heard from the Government benches tonight. This bill, at the very essence, is about the status of women in this country. That is what it is, at the very essence—how we regard our wahine. We have been fighting this battle in this country for a long, long time. This bill is not about female-dominated industries; it is about industries where there is a lack of men. If those industries had men in them, they would be paid a lot better than they are currently.

Tonight I heard my friend Sue Moroney deliver her valedictory speech. Sue Moroney is an MP and a woman whom everyone would describe—and she was described tonight—as staunch. About the issue of pay equity, she is indeed staunch. She cannot be with us this evening to participate in this particular debate—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You cannot refer to the absence of a member.

POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. But Sue, I want to say to you: I have got your back, because that is what women do. We support each other when the issues are big and when they concern us. So Sue Maroney, I have got your back. Women stick together. We fight together. We do this together. However, of the National Government, I have to say that I think that the women who have spoken on this bill on behalf of the National Government have had to swallow some dead rats. I think at the core of it, particularly, the last two women speakers for the National Government—women who are involved in cross-party women’s organisations and who look to increase the representation and status of women—have had to swallow dead rats on behalf of the National Government tonight, because they, in discussions with Labour, Green, and New Zealand First members, would be talking about wanting to ensure that legislation raised issues of inequality and addressed them fairly.

What does this piece of legislation do? Well, there are four nasty provisions in this. The first one I want to deal with is the transitional provisions: the fact that claims that are currently in process are not going to be processed under the current legislation but are going to be processed under the new legislation, and the fact that the possibility of back-pay has been extinguished—the right to ask for back-pay has been extinguished.

The fact that we have to look at comparatives within an industry: the whole notion of comparatives is to say that we value the work equally where there are skills, where there is education, where there is risk, where there are the types of competencies that are similar to the types of competencies required for the work that women-dominated work does—that that is the comparator—whereas in this piece of legislation there are four ever-decreasing circles that you need to negotiate to actually come to a comparator.

Then the last issue, the key point—and the most difficult one for me—is the one of establishing merit. Women have been arguing the case of establishing merit since the time the world began, and we are in a situation yet again where we have to defend our ability to do a job. If it is not women who are defending the whole notion of merit, it is Māori or other ethnicities or other marginalised groups that have to fight every single day to say: “Yes, we are as good—probably better—than you. But we have to go through these hoops, which you put in place for us, to prove it.” We have to allow the employer to tell us whether a case that we bring has merit!

As a member of Parliament who supports the joyous notion that we could be seen as equal to any man in this Parliament or any man in any Parliament or any man anywhere, I find the notion that I give my power to decide my merit to someone else as complete hypocrisy. In a few weeks’ time this country will have a choice. Today they might be headline news—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption on the next sitting day. Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.