Tuesday, 12 February 2019

TUESDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2019

TUESDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Resignations

Hon Christopher Finlayson, National

the Hon Christopher Finlayson

SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from, resigning his seat in the House with effect from Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 11.59 p.m.

List Member Vacancy

List Member Vacancy

SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993, Agnes Loreta Loheni has been declared to be elected to the House of Representatives in place of the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I understand that Agnes Loheni is present and wishes to take the Oath of Allegiance. Would she please come forward to the Chair on my right.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

Agnes Loheni was called forward to the Chair by the Speaker, took the Oath of Allegiance, and took her seat in the House.

Visitors

Republic of Korea—National Assembly

SPEAKER: I am sure members will wish to welcome Representative Pyo Chang-won from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, who is present in the gallery.

Appointments

Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives

SPEAKER: Honourable members, I’m pleased to announce that pursuant to section 7 of the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988, the Governor-General has appointed Suze Jones as Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives for a term of seven years commencing on 11 February 2019.

Ministerial Statements

Nelson—Bushfires

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I wish to make a ministerial statement on the Nelson bushfires. I rise on behalf of the coalition Government to inform the House of the progress made by emergency services with managing the fires in the Nelson-Tasman region. The fire started on Tuesday, 5 February. Nelson mayor, Rachel Reese, and Tasman mayor, Richard Kempthorne, declared a state of local emergency the following day. The declaration allowed emergency authorities to respond quickly and activate the emergency operation centre. The fire has covered over 2,300 hectares, destroying forest and agricultural land, impacting stock, and leading to the evacuation of 2,500 people.

While the fire has destroyed two homes and caused widespread damage, I do want to acknowledge that loss but also thank those who were involved in the response. Their action has saved homes, stopped the spread of the fire, and protected the lives of those living in the area. We’re advised that the fire is currently being held within control lines and the weather forecast is for favourable conditions. That is encouraging, but we remain cautious for the large number of hot spots throughout the fire zone that could become active, should there be a change in the wind. Emergency authorities are doing everything that they can to get people back into their homes and farms as soon as it is safe to do so.

The declaration of a state of local emergency will now be extended for a further week to allow authorities to continue to control the fire and deal with the current situation and if conditions change and if the fire risk increases. I know you will join with me in expressing that our thoughts are with all those people impacted by this emergency. On behalf of the Government, I’d like to thank the local residents for their continued patience and the community spirit that they have displayed. Since the fire started, more than 1,000 properties have been evacuated. It was incredibly encouraging to see Wakefield residents return home yesterday. Emergency authorities are today assessing when the remaining 228 households will be allowed to return. Many evacuated residents are staying with family and friends, and a number of marae have played a valuable role in the response by opening the doors to all those who needed support, and I thank them for their manaakitanga.

To the people of Nelson-Tasman: we want to reassure you that the Government is making available the necessary resources to the agencies working to gain control of these fires and preserve life and property. Recovery planning is already under way to get the area and the community back on their feet as soon as possible. The Government has now committed a contribution of $70,000 to the Tasman District Council mayoral relief fund and to providing $50,000 for the rural support trust and primary industry groups to help speed up the recovery of farming and horticultural businesses.

I do want to highlight, though, that this funding is only intended to plug gaps that are not already covered by other Government funding. The fire has had a significant impact on Nelson-Tasman’s rural communities, with animal welfare, access to stock, and dealing with property and infrastructure damage remaining a significant concern for many, even after this fire is brought under control. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has deployed additional animal welfare staff to the region to look after animals from affected areas, with the showgrounds being used as a temporary home for evacuated animals. These staff have been really well supported by the SPCA, NGOs, and local veterinarians, and I want to acknowledge that.

Finally, I want to commend the wide range of agencies involved in this response for their decisive, coordinated action. The Nelson Tasman Civil Defence Emergency Management Group is leading the response with support from multiple agencies who have deployed additional personnel from around the country to assist. Over the past week, hundreds of staff from Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the New Zealand Police, the New Zealand Defence Force, the Ministry for Primary Industries, as well as the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management and regional civil defence management (CDM) groups have been on the ground in Nelson-Tasman. They have our sincere thanks.

Welfare service agencies are on hand to assist with people’s needs. Alongside other organisations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, the district health board and primary health organisations have set up support services which include free GP visits for those affected. Support is available through the rural support trust, and the Ministry of Social Development has activated an 0800 Government helpline, providing urgent financial help for people affected by the fires, with staff working through the weekend, and to them goes our thanks as well.

There is still some uncertainty ahead, but we can all, I believe, be very proud of the extraordinary efforts of all of those involved. The Government again thanks those agencies, those community groups, and individuals working tirelessly to fight the fire and support people in affected communities.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): I want to thank the Prime Minister for the update on the progress of emergency services in managing the fire in the Nelson-Tasman region, and I’d also like to echo all of the sentiments that she’s made. I’d also like to pay tribute to the heroic work by so many in the Nelson and Tasman districts over the past week: those in the local communities who have worked around the clock in preventing the loss of life, saving dozens of homes, and providing refuge for animals. We thank you.

There have also been so many levels of support involved in the recovery and the rescue efforts, from assisting people in evacuation procedures to getting access to care for animals, income support, alternative schooling, and transport.

My strongest praise goes to those directly involved in fighting this wild fire. The volunteers from the local Richmond, Stoke, Māpua, Motueka, and Tākaka brigades have been outstanding; so too have the Brightwater, Appleby, Hira, Upper Tākaka, and Ngātimoti rural fire forces. Many of the firefighters in the region are rural volunteers, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for the prevention and assistance work they are undertaking. These firefighters have been doing the hard, dirty job on the ground. We should be equally grateful for the skilled helicopter pilots in the air and the workers driving the water trucks, bulldozers, and excavators that are containing the fire. They have been doing extraordinary hours in tough conditions.

I also acknowledge the work of the local mayors, civil defence, police, army, and Ministry for Primary Industries. This fire is the largest in New Zealand in some 64 years, and is a tough test for the newly merged Fire and Emergency New Zealand. This response has been well led and is a credit to them. I applaud the efforts of national incident controller John Sutton and our local Principal Rural Fire Officer, Ian Reade.

The volunteer effort to support our emergency services has been unbelievable. Red Cross, St John’s, Rotary, Helping You Help Animals, and our local marae and churches have stood out. I’d also like to acknowledge the hard-working local MPs in the region, who have all been involved in the response efforts, particularly in coordinating assistance for constituents.

As we speak, emergency services are still battling the wildfires in the region. It’s good news that most people are back in their homes, but we are not out of the woods yet. I’d encourage ongoing vigilance on any activities that could spark another fire, given the extreme conditions, until we get significant rain. There are weeks of work still required on this fire, and I wish those hard-working officials and volunteers all success as they continue to battle the fires.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, I present the Prime Minister’s statement.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Copies are available on the Table.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move, That this House express confidence in the coalition Government and commend its programme for 2019, as set out in the extensive Prime Minister’s statement.

I do hope that all members of this House have had a restorative summer—particularly, Mr Speaker, your good self, as we move into question time tomorrow. I hope you will look favourably upon us as we enter into question time / the game of tennis between the two of us.

I have reflected over summer on three things that remain true to me. No matter how much this Government did in the last year—and it was plenty—there is more to do. There is more to do. Even if there’s a summer break, I didn’t stop thinking about that for a moment. I reflected, secondly, that a teething baby has no timetable or respect for summer. And thirdly, I reflected that every day in this place is a privilege. I reflected on the privilege of serving with our confidence and supply partner, with our coalition partner, and the fact that we reflect the values and ideas of the majority of New Zealanders, and we will demonstrate that in 2019. I have to say that remains true, certainly, as of yesterday, as well.

I want to reflect on the context for which we enter 2019. We have strong fundamentals, and I want to reflect on the traditional measures that are used internationally to reflect the success or otherwise of a Government. Unemployment is at the second-lowest rate in a decade—the second-lowest rate in a decade—and, of course, the lowest in a decade was last quarter. Of course, some will claim that unemployment is currently pretty close to being at about the maximum sustainable level. I don’t for a moment accept that, though. We have a goal as a Government to get it even lower, and that will be our focus.

Our growth rates remain strong at around 3 percent, particularly as you look at the IMF’s predictions of other advanced economies, which are at 2 percent. So, relative to that, we have a lot to be proud of. Inflation is tracking at 1.9 percent. We are, as a Government, running surpluses. We are on track with our management of net Crown debt. Our Budget Responsibility Rules remain absolutely in place, and just for the benefit of the Opposition, who may have missed this: Standard & Poor’s revised their outlook for New Zealand from “stable” to “positive”. Of course, that’s the first time it’s been in that state since September 2011. Now, we might reflect on that, and if you were any other Government—say, for example, the last one—you might look at those fundamentals and say, “That’s enough. Let’s just govern. Let’s just stay exactly where we are.” They might say, “GDP is looking sufficient at its current point.” They might say, “Employment is close to full. Let’s just govern.” But we as a Government have acknowledged that those measures do not tell us enough. They do not tell us the full story.

Take GPD. Even Robert Kennedy, a long time ago, was saying that GDP measures everything—just about everything, except that which is worthwhile in life. If you look even at employment figures, they may capture the work that’s undertaken, but not whether or not it is quality work, whether or not it is secure work, and whether or not people fear the potential of losing their work. Again, those numbers don’t tell us about some of those domestic challenges that we all know exist. They don’t necessarily tell us about the skills shortage that we’ve inherited. From 2011 to 2017, 23,000 students exited the polytech and training sector. At a moment where we have a skills shortage crisis, we have not been training our future workforce, and that has been a travesty and an indictment left behind by the last Government. We have an infrastructure deficit. There has been a lack of investment in health and education, and there has been environmental degradation and inequality. Those fundamentals won’t tell you that story, but those are the long-term challenges.

They also won’t tell you, necessarily, about the international headwinds, and we cannot ignore them. There are trade tensions. There is a slowing in China, and, of course, we’ve already seen the economic downgrading by the Bank of England about the UK’s prospects off the back of Brexit. We are preparing for the future, because strong fundamentals provide you a foundation, but they don’t provide you answers to those long-term challenges that New Zealanders elected us to tackle. That’s why on this side of the House, we won’t just govern; we will lead. Our plan is not just for the next three years; it is for the next 30 years.

Let me step through the fundamentals of that plan. It covers 12 areas, which we put out for the public in September of last year, but now is an opportunity for me to touch base on some of the progress on each, whilst outlining where we will go next. The first priority is around growing and sharing more fairly New Zealand’s prosperity. That goes directly to the heart of the inequality that that last Government failed to fundamentally address in New Zealand.

We dealt with that immediately. We cancelled the last Government’s tax cuts, and we instead put that spending into the Families Package. We’ve already had hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders benefit. This year, we’ll continue to see the roll-out of that package, the winter energy payment will run for longer this year, Best Start payments will be extended, and all in all, by 2021, 384,000 families will be better off.

This year—and I acknowledge our coalition partners, New Zealand First, with this commitment—the minimum wage will increase to $17.70 in April. That means, for over 200,000 workers, they will be better off by roughly $48 a week before tax. That is significant, and it’s exactly what that workforce needs.

We’ve also laid out a plan and a programme of work around welfare and around tax, both of which report this year. We will be engaging in a debate with the public around the next steps we take as a Government, in both of those areas.

We know we also need to address the issue of prosperity. Our economy will not be a success if it follows the last Government’s formula of just trading on housing and allowing immigration to be a growth strategy. That is not a plan. That is what you do when you govern but not when you lead, which is why we have said we want to directly invest in research and development. The R & D tax credit will be coming into force in April, and we know it will make a difference to business development in this nation.

We want to build greater resilience for our exporters. That’s why we’re pursuing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, that’s why we are pursuing vigorously an EU free-trade agreement (FTA), it’s why we’re amongst three countries in line to be first off the block with the UK in negotiating an FTA, and it’s also why we are pursuing a Trade for All agenda. We want the benefits of trade spread more evenly to a wider range of New Zealanders, and that’s the work that our Minister is leading.

I want to come and reflect on another area of distinct neglect from the last Government: supporting our thriving, sustainable regions. I remember at the last election visiting a small town in the South Island where one of the local elected council members said to me that they had seen a desertion of their main street, they had seen businesses who should have been able to grow in their region leave, and they had seen young people lose opportunities as a result. Now, the Government of old would have just continued on with the plan that they had, which was to do absolutely nothing, invest in roads that weren’t regional—and, in some cases, were ghost roads—but that pretty much amounted to their regional economic development plan. That was it!

The Provincial Growth Fund (PFG), I know, is making a difference, and how do I know? Because local people tell us it is making a difference. The PGF has already invested in 166 projects from around the country. It is investing $700 million, and, attached to that, based on the submissions by the applicants, in their own words, it has the potential to increase jobs by 10,000. I have come to conclude that one of the reasons that the Opposition particularly dislikes the Provincial Growth Fund is because their mayors love it so much. And when I say “their mayors”, I mean their mayors—John Carter, in particular. Of course, when it comes to regional and economic growth and development, the billion-trees programme remains critical, as well as the work that we have to do that is often unexpected. We will continue on with our plan to eradicate M. bovis, and I do hope that we will finally see success as part of that plan.

Our third focus within the economy, of course, has been about governing responsibly, with a broader range of measure of success. The Budget Responsibility Rules will cushion us against uncertainty, and it sets out our expectations so the public can see in a full and transparent way our expectations around economic management.

Contrast that with the Opposition, who I’ve seen have announced in recent times $650 million worth of spending with absolutely no way to fund it, including, I’ve heard, suggestions that they will halve debt—again, absolutely no plan to achieve that. I’ve heard State sector wage promises—again with absolutely no way to fund that. To use a phrase I’ve heard before: show us the money, because at the moment I see absolutely no plan whatsoever.

We’ve also committed, though, that those economic fundamentals are not sufficient for us. We have said this year that we will develop a well-being Budget, and that, yes, that focus on the economy is critical, but we need to add those additional levers. And, again, this is what you do when you lead, not just govern.

The issue of environmental degradation, the changing international environment we exist in, and the international responsibilities we have means that if we are going to act responsibly—not only according to our international obligations but, actually, to the people of New Zealand—we need to transition our economy to a clean, green, carbon-neutral economy. We will progress our climate change bill this year. We will continue to invest in just transitions, and we’ve seen excellent examples already today where the Provincial Growth Fund has been partnering with some of those ideas on clean energy and so on.

We have the Green Investment Finance Ltd, the entity established with the strong support and initiative of Minister James Shaw and the New Zealand Green Party. For all of their leadership on biodiversity, on climate change, on all of the challenges we face with transitioning to a just, sustainable economy, I thank you for your work. We need to plan for the future, not just sign international agreements, and that’s what you do when you lead, not just govern.

We’ve frequently said that those economic measures are not enough, so the agenda for us around well-being is absolutely critical. We’ve talked about creating an environment where everyone who is able is earning, learning, caring, or volunteering. For us, fees free was the way to prepare the workforce for the future. And it’s undeniable when you have stories, as I have, on a frequent basis, of someone who is in their 30s who had never gone into tertiary education and is now studying to be a teacher because of us; of the child of a beneficiary in Kaikohe who said to me, “I’m going to university because of fees free. You have made a difference to us.” But where we need that extra emphasis is vocational training, and the Minister of Education will be saying more on that very soon. Overall, there is $4.2 billion of new funding in education—an extraordinary investment—but just wait for the work that we continue to do on Tomorrow’s Schools, on early learning, and under our employment work for those who are NEETs, through, for instance, Mana in Mahi.

The second area of focus, of course, is in health. The 2018 Budget invested $3.2 billion in operating funding in health. We’ve had a significant number of capital rebuilds. Just to cover a few: Auckland District Health Board, Greenlane Clinical Centre, North Shore Hospital, Counties Manukau, Wellington Children’s Hospital, Whangarei, Buller Hospital. We’ve also had investment in Capital and Coast District Health Board and Bay of Islands. These were all areas that had lacked investment from the health sector. They are things that we are turning around.

But, of course, it matters what is happening for people: 540,000 people have already had cheaper doctors visits, in the order of $20 to $30. But, again, as we’ve said over and over again, mental health needs to be the priority this year, and it will be. It’s within our Budget priorities statement. It’s an area where we’ve had the support of the sector to develop up their expectations, and May will all be about delivery.

All of our well-being measures, though, are absolutely affected by housing.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Haven’t mentioned KiwiBuild yet.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And I will proudly, Dr Smith, mention KiwiBuild, because I put this question to the House: how many affordable homes did the last Government build? Absolutely none—absolutely none—and when this Government was faced with an extraordinary challenge, when we were faced with a housing crisis, the option was to do what the last Government did and do nothing, or the option was to show leadership. We have shown leadership. We have contracted 4,000 houses for building under KiwiBuild. First-home buyers are already in their homes. We will keep building houses. How many State houses did the last Government build? They actually sold them. Not only have we stopped the sale; we have built more than a thousand State houses. I am proud of the leadership this Government is showing on housing, when that last Government wouldn’t even call it what it was, and it was a crisis.

Finally, we’ve said we will focus on children, and that means continuing to progress our targets on child poverty; again, another Budget priority area for us, as is domestic violence for the effect it has on children and their families. We’ve said we want to govern differently. The royal commission into State abuse will continue. The Pike River re-entry work will continue. State sector reforms will continue. Te Arawhiti and our relationship with Māori will continue to be built and grow as we fulfil the obligations that we have signed through successive settlements and that we will look to conclude. We have also placed lifting Māori and Pacific incomes as another priority in this Budget.

On international issues, on our reputation in the world, we stand proud of our independent foreign policy. We will not play politics with our foreign policy, and we have long had a proud tradition in this country of a unified voice in favour of our independence. Well, we stand on the side of no one but the side of New Zealanders and our values. I ask, Mr Bridges: what changed? I ask: what changed?

Finally, to conclude, we have done a lot, but there is a lot more to do. We as a Government had two options: to follow what the last Government did, to take no risks, to defer challenges, and to govern; or to lead, to look for new solutions, to tackle what’s in front of us, not just in the next three years but in the next 30 years. That does mean doing things differently. It does mean taking risks, but if that benefits more New Zealanders, if that reduces inequality, if it gets people housed, and if it gives jobs in the region, those are risks worth taking. I am proud of this Government, and I’m proud of what we’ll do in 2019.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That all the words after “That” be deleted and replaced with “this House has no confidence in the Labour-led Government because in its ambition to be measured on its vague intentions it is proving itself completely incapable of delivering good outcomes for New Zealanders.”

In the last year, we’ve seen over 200 working groups, and we’ve seen a situation where we’ve had vague, virtuous talk from the Prime Minister and not a lot else. But this year it’s OK because it’s the—what did she say?—year of delivery. That’s what she said. So she came back, and on her very first day, out on the deck, doing the work, what did she do? What did she deliver? The scrapping of houses for the KiwiBuild target. Even they’re embarrassed. She didn’t mention KiwiBuild in the speech she made, did she?

So let’s go through it. From 10,000 houses a year, 1,000 in the first, and now they’re not even sure they’re going to do 300 in the first year. But Winston Peters said at Rātana, “No problem at all—we’ll make a thousand.” Well, he’s the only one who’s saying that.

So, Phil Twyford: how many KiwiBuild houses have they built so far? This is not a trick question. I’m not asking about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, our founding document. How many, Grant Robertson? Forty-seven. There are more problems with KiwiBuild than there are houses, and they didn’t even do that. The market, under us, did.

Like so much of this Government, it was intentions. It was talk of kindness and well-being—KiwiBuild—and not a lot else. This year, we will hear a lot more about KiwiBuild: homes that no one wants, that they can’t afford, and that aren’t even being built.

Then we come to Shane Jones, who’s been splashing cash around New Zealand with his $3 billion fund. Again, I’ve got a pretty simple question for him: how many jobs has he created from his $3 billion? What did they say? Fifty-four—a $3 billion fund and 54 jobs. How many staff roles have they created in Molesworth Street and Bowen Street and Lambton Quay to do deep dives, to talk about the learnings, and to have workshops about his $3 billion fund? How many? One hundred and eighteen. He’s pretending to talk because he knows how embarrassing this is. The provincial champion of New Zealand is more the “Minister for Courtenay Place” than he is the “Minister for Kawerau”—big on announcements, small on substance.

Then we had the Prime Minister’s state of the nation address on Friday. After 200 working groups and after talk of kindness and well-being, I thought, “Surely in that, and surely today, there’d be some sort of delivery, some sort of substance.” Well, what was there? Nothing. No policy, no plan—no nothing. But there was one thing—and we heard it again today. Excuses for the New Zealand economy—that’s what. It’s all offshore’s fault. She’s suddenly discovered global conditions and everything that’s happening overseas, except that’s not true, is it, Grant Robertson?

Oh well, let’s go through it, Mr Robertson. Growth at the end of last year: 0.3 percent—the worst in quite a number of years. Grant Robertson—what did he go on about every single day in this House? Growth per capita. He hasn’t talked about it in about eight months. Why is that, Mr Robertson? It’s going down. It’s shrinking, Mr Robertson.

House sales have stalled, unemployment is up by 10,000, and in terms of NEETs, I say to Willie Jackson, Kelvin Davis, and Shane Jones, there are 26,000 more New Zealanders, young New Zealanders—our people—who are not in employment, training, or education. Job growth under us: 10,000 more people were in jobs every single month for the last two years. What’s it under them?

Hon Members: 600.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Six hundred. It has stalled—and that is before the global downturn. Jacinda Ardern, in her Prime Minister’s statement, had the audacity to say that the economy is performing “above expectations”. I set one challenge for Jacinda Ardern: find me one credible commentator who will say at the start of this year that the economy is performing “above expectations”.

Look in the mirror, Prime Minister, and you will see your anti-growth agenda, your anti-business agenda, staring right back at you. A country can’t re-unionise the workforce, it can’t change all the overseas investment rules to stop foreign investment, it can’t pile on more taxes all the time, and it can’t say no to new oil and gas exploration and expect it is going to be all beer and roses. Talking about well-being in Davos is OK, Prime Minister, but your Government is delivering less of it here in New Zealand. [Interruption] And if Ruth Dyson—

Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s not true.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: She says it’s not true. Well, I know—and the facts don’t lie—that we are seeing more food parcels than ever before in this country’s history. We are seeing more hardship grants—64,000, I think it is, more hardship grants, Carmel Sepuloni, and we were seeing rent increases of $30 more each and every week last year. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment told us just yesterday that people are paying another $10—that’s $40 more in rent that people are paying. Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern say we can’t afford tax indexation so New Zealanders can keep more of their money against those increases in cost.

Let’s go through the things that matter in the Prime Minister’s speech. The economy: getting worse. Housing: getting worse. Transport, Phil Twyford, is getting worse. The Whangarei to Auckland four-laning, Shane Jones, is cancelled. The East-West Link four-laning: cancelled. The Mill Road four-laning: cancelled. The Cambridge to Piarere four-laning: cancelled. The Tauranga Northern Link—by Phil Twyford himself—is cancelled. Mount Messenger to Awakino is stalled because one department is fighting another. The Ōtaki to Levin four-laning is cancelled and instead they’ll get two lanes sometime in the never-never. The Nelson Southern Link is cancelled, and any intention of Christchurch to Ashburton four-laning is cancelled—and absolutely nothing to show for it from this Government. There are no new projects.

Health: getting worse. Deficits in literally every district health board (DHB) around the country are going up. We have had health targets cancelled under this Government for the same reason that they cancelled the KiwiBuild targets: they know they ain’t going to meet them. They know they’re not going to get there. I would say this, Grant Robertson—[Interruption] We’ve already used those lines. I would say this, Grant Robertson: this is from the most open and transparent Government, supposedly, we’ve ever seen, and all targets have been done away with. Don’t take my word for it; that’s what the cancer experts around the country have said about this. They have made it really clear that there are people now dying because without national standards there is nothing to drive those waiting times and those accountabilities. They’re laughing about this. They’re laughing about health targets and what is happening. There was a case over summer where a 37-year-old man was waiting for eight weeks, and so he went private. Under us, in our targets, it was four weeks, and that’s the difference.

Pharmac: a $200 million saving—some would say a cut—that could have been reinvested into life-saving drugs, and that’s not to mention the cochlear implants, and that’s not to mention the $100 million gone from mental health initiatives. There are nine new working groups that will have hui all over the country in relation to that.

In education, Chris Hipkins, how many working groups have we got?

Hon Nikki Kaye: 18.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Eighteen working groups, Nikki Kaye. There are strikes literally every other day. It is a sector that is in absolute disarray, thanks to what they’re doing. Well, I tell you, Chris Hipkins, we will back parents and local communities over bureaucracy and centralisation every single day. And all the while, free fees—so there isn’t money for those teachers and there isn’t money for those schools. We will find out, I think, in the next day or two that there isn’t money for polytechs. He’s laughing. Fifty million dollars was wasted from students who stopped turning up under his stupid, wasteful scheme.

In justice, Andrew Little—what have they done? What have they done? Well, I thought we were going to have some sort of nirvana where we didn’t need prisons anymore. Well, I tell Andrew Little, every single day, we will back the victims—that’s where our heart is; not with the criminals. The Government has done nothing.

In terms of the environment, James Shaw, you might have thought that after—what is it?—20 years in opposition, they’d come in and they’d try and do something. And I know, Winston Peters, that they’re not really in Government; I get that. I get that. Let’s not rub that in. A Kermadec sanctuary has been put on ice. What should be the fourth-biggest global sanctuary in the world—where is the Green Party on that?

I haven’t agreed with him often, but Russel—with one “l”—Norman wrote an incredibly good article the other day. What did he say? That the Hon Nathan Guy was a good fisheries Minister, and that bloke over there is not doing anything. Let’s run through the points he’s making. [Interruption] Cameras on fishing vessels have been scrapped, Marama Davidson. I think that’s because she’s too concerned about the “c” word and not concerned enough about the seafood. Look at her; she’s pretending she’s not listening. The situation under the most transparent Government ever is that an independent inquiry into fisheries has been scrapped; there are piffling fines for dumping fish waste instead of real, meaningful penalties; and there are big increases in fishing quotas for the companies. I say to the Green Party: what is the point of that Green Party over there? What are they doing? [Interruption] There’s always good news. [Interruption] Oh, they don’t like that, because at 5 percent he knows Vernon Tava’s coming for him.

But here’s—[Interruption]. Calm down. I’ve got about 10 minutes of material to fit into six minutes—be quiet. Here’s the good news. [Interruption] Calm down. They may be a do-nothing Government, but on this side we’re not going to wait for them. We’re going to get out and we’re going to deliver over the next year. National will lead the serious policy debate in 2019. We have eight policy documents out this year, and the first, James Shaw—unlike yourself—will be on the environment, because we know what matters to New Zealanders and we’ll be delivering it.

We’ll hit the ground running. Actually, I forgot foreign affairs. And I want to come back to that because Winston Peters is laughing. What did the Prime Minister say in her statement? “The Government has demonstrated a new kind of leadership.” That means: let Winston do whatever the heck he wants, even if it means ruining a $29 billion Chinese economic relationship. Look at him; he’s laughing.

We will be prepared with our policy work. A National Government that I lead would, among other things, repeal—[Interruption] Oh, calm down. You can tell they were surprised by that poll. We’d repeal a capital gains tax. We would have no new taxes in our first term, we would repeal needless restrictions around foreign investment, and we would repeal the terrible industrial law changes aimed at re-unionising the workforce. We would reform the Resource Management Act, we would repeal the oil and gas ban, and we would reintroduce health targets, because we actually believe in having measures and accountability. We would introduce Dr Shane Reti’s fine and comprehensive medicinal cannabis regime to New Zealand—actually do the work. We would reinstate charter schools, we would reduce class sizes, and we would ensure there are second languages taught in the classroom. We would repeal the regional fuel tax; we would ensure there were no new petrol taxes in our first term; and, Winston Peters, we would pull out of the United Nations migration pact.

He’s laughing. They weren’t laughing around the Cabinet table. Someone got quite angry, didn’t they, Winston?

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Winston Peters, the right honourable.

We’d reinstate Better Public Services targets. We would strengthen sanctions to ensure beneficiaries meet reasonable obligations and don’t languish on the dole queue, Mr Davis. And we would have tax indexation to ensure New Zealanders keep on top of their costs and are not going behind. You see, in the last year and this summer, we’ve been working hard, and when the Prime Minister announced nothing in her state of the nation speech, actually, we’ve done the detailed work, we’ve done the costing, and we have an enduring policy on tax.

Hon Grant Robertson: You have not.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: He says we have not. He didn’t ask a single question. We oppose a capital gains tax. This Government collects more than enough. He talks about a fiscal hole. Since the election, Grant Robertson is stealing $17.7 billion more from New Zealanders. That is $10,000 a household. We know, Winston Peters, that a capital gains tax will be bad for farmers, it will be bad for small-business owners, and it’ll be bad for New Zealanders who are saving a nest egg and just trying to stay up and play by the rules. It is the last thing that we need in the New Zealand economy at this time—and the uncertainty that goes with it.

But the funny thing is we’re not the only people in this Parliament who think that. As someone else in this House said in 2017, on the election trail, “It’s very clear. It’s off the table.” Who was that? The Rt Hon Winston Peters. And he also said, quite rightly, in 2017, of Labour and a capital gains tax, “This is yet more confusion from a party that has had nine years to get its tax story straight.” Well, nothing’s changed except it’s a decade on, Mr Peters, and we still wait for them to get their act together.

In contrast, we’ve got the policies on tax indexation. We understand that New Zealanders deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. Jacinda Ardern in her speech today, in writing, has made three key points. She says they’re growing the economy. Well, it’s slowing. She said it was all about well-being. Well, actually, for New Zealanders in terms of rent, costs, and hardship grants, it’s getting worse. And she said there’d be new leadership. Well, that’s code for letting the Rt Hon Winston Peters do whatever he wants when it comes to fisheries, when it comes to racing, when it comes to China—you name it. In the year of delivery, where the Government doesn’t have a plan and things are getting worse, we’re not waiting for them. We have a plan and we will deliver it for New Zealanders in 2019 and 2020.

SPEAKER: I would normally put the amendment at this stage, and when I have an amendment in the proper form I will put it—possibly after the right honourable gentleman’s speech. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Mr Speaker, thank you, and happy New Year to you and all members of this Parliament. Now, that last comment from the Speaker—I don’t want to bring him into the debate—but it just about encapsulates what’s going on in the Opposition: can’t even draw and draft a motion to this House properly so it’s acceptable. I mean, why does Mr Bridges pick these special debates to publicly humiliate himself? Why does that happen all the time? And here’s the National Party, right, that evinces a temporary leader—

Hon Simon Bridges: Tell us about China.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I will tell about—I’ll tell you about China but not “Choyna”. China, yes, I’m the current expert on China, but “Choyna”—I don’t know anything about that country unless a new rock has jumped up in the Pacific.

Now, back to my point. There he was: no vision, no plan, no answers, just some vacuous marketing announcements to keep the wolves from his own door, and we know that that would be the most nervous, stressed speech that I have seen in a long, long time. And I’ve seen some stressed National Party people, but that one will take the cake, and I’ve never seen anything so addled. He got, for example, up and said they were going to repeal the UN migration pact, which he and his colleagues signed up to.

Yes, and he’s been telling the media that he doesn’t support the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act, which was at the back of the Huawei decision, even though they passed the legislation—he passed it. And then, of course, he got more stressed out and he talked about something. He said it’s not about “free fees”. That’s what he said—that it’s not about “free fees”. You can’t have “free fees”. It’s “fees free”—I’ll say it slowly. Now, that shows you how stressed out he is.

But, you see, here’s the point: this is a man who leads the National Party with no business experience at all—no business experience at all. He doesn’t know what it’s like to run a business, doesn’t know what it is to fill out monthly reports, doesn’t know how to pay wages. He’s got no experience at all, unlike some of us—unlike some of us.

Hon Simon Bridges: As a teacher?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He’s got—no, no, no! Sir, I made more money per month than a parliamentary salary for a year. Everybody in the law should know that. Everybody knows that. Oh, yes—unbelievable! More in one month than in a year. Him, all he was doing was sitting behind a warrant that was in the Tauranga office, and he calls himself the prosecutor. No wonder so many people have been free in Tauranga. No wonder they’d want to get out of the Rotorua court and get to Tauranga as fast as possible, because there they’d not see a decent lawyer in the form of Mr Bridges. Unbelievable!

You know he said to the media that he had a leaked report on New Zealand politics around the country. Mr Bridges, that statement wasn’t true was it?

Hon Simon Bridges: Which one?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That you had a report about the politics around this country and what was going to happen. I saw him on TV saying that at the National Party caucus, and my statement to Mr Bridges is: “That’s fake news, isn’t it?” It wasn’t true. And then, of course, he says that a screw-up by Air New Zealand is actually a response by the Chinese to some other matter. Air New Zealand says, “We screwed up.” They made it very clear that they may have got the form wrong. They may have even got the country wrong, and they’ve owned up to it. But not him—oh, no, no! He’s got some people up there [Points to press gallery] who don’t know enough about him like I do.

Hon Grant Robertson: Just making it up.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Just making it up as he goes along.

As for the four-lane highways, Mr Bridges, what money was put in the New Zealand Transport Agency funding budget—and Mr Twyford can confirm this—for the four-lane highway from Whangarei to Warkworth, which he and his colleagues keep talking about? No, no, no! No use talking to Paula now. I want him to talk to me. I’m not the only New Zealander that wants that. What I’d like to know, Mr Bridges, is how much money was set aside for the four-lane highway from Whangarei to Warkworth.

Hon Ruth Dyson: None.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You’re right: doughnuts—nothing. But if you go up north there’s a big sign saying, “National was building a four-lane highway”, and, if you go on another 100 metres, “and the Labour Government shut it down.”—or words to that effect. There’s a word for that: it’s called a “porky”. It starts with “h” but I can’t say it in this House. But there it is in big, bold print. Mr Bridges, one more time: how many dollars were set aside for the four-lane highway between Warkworth and Whangarei? Unbelievable—I don’t think I’ll bother any more, actually; I’m wasting my time.

Can I say, 2019 begins for the Government amidst serious and ongoing international disruption, with the political turmoil such as Brexit or looming electoral contests—

Simon O’Connor: What about Venezuela?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I’ll get to that, sunshine. Given how disengaged that man is with this Parliament, he can afford to wait all year for the answer. I’ll get to that very shortly; in fact, it’s in the brief somewhere. Whether it’s Brexit, or overseas political contests, or threats of trade wars, or the contest between the US and China, there are significant threats to New Zealand’s continuing prosperity.

As we said before we were sworn in as a Government, these storm clouds cannot be underestimated or ignored, and this year the Government will be focusing, as the Prime Minister has said, on improving New Zealand’s well-being, and at its core will be, across all portfolios, the intention to improve the resilience upon which the concept of wellness rests. That way, it sounds like a vision, and it is—and it is.

Can I just say that boosting the Government and the country’s resilience is a priority because while we are, all of us, tending to our patch, we are none the less exposed to the international climate, and it is a very stormy climate indeed.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We’ve got another 13 minutes of this.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You’ve got far more than 13 minutes, Mr Brownlee; you’ve got about three or four terms yet to go, to hear this out. Ha, ha! As Rob Muldoon used to say, “I’ll be round long after you’re gone.” I’ll be round long after he’s gone.

Now, it’s our priority to promote stability amidst all the international disruption. New Zealand First will likewise continue its role as a stable partner within the coalition and all of its governing arrangements. Bearing in mind, of course, when you get a leader from the Opposition who raises, of all things, the Kermadecs, you have to have two things on your side to do that. First, you’ve got to be brazenly ignorant of the facts, and you’ve got to be brazenly arrogant. It was the National Party that gave the northern Māori the interest in the Kermadecs against my advice, and then thought, by going to New York without even telling anybody, that they would take it away. We don’t behave in such an irresponsible, illegal way. And I don’t know what Nick Smith’s condition is, but I bet it’s difficult to pronounce—shaking his head and whingeing over there like he always does.

Here are the key facts: we came into Government with the most expensive housing crisis anywhere in the whole wide world. They can laugh, but nowhere around the world was the average income to buy a house required to be, when the house price was put up, 12 times the average income—12 and a half times. Nowhere in the whole world. Of course, they discovered after the election that there was a housing crisis. Before, they had no problem whatsoever. And Nick Smith running around, even announcing housing projects on Māori land when he had no legal authority whatsoever. Now guess what? They’ve made him Māori spokesman on Treaty of Waitangi issues.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They did—they did. I’ve run into Māori people around the country and they have been deeply disturbed to learn this—that poor Nick’s back.

You know, in Adelaide the other day, houses were being advertised for four bedrooms at $160,000; three bedrooms, $120,000. We can do that, and we will. If anybody thinks we’re not going to build a thousand houses in the time frame we set ourselves—if they even dream that, they can wake and apologise, because we will. We’ll do that and much more. We need to expose the arrogant neoliberal twit-ism that is coming from that side of the House, and we will.

Take our hospitals, for example. You had sewage seeping into Middlemore Hospital under that administration. The cost of roads—the East-West Link was to cost $327 million per kilometre. That was their plan. On the bungled Christchurch rebuild, we had mistake after mistake and fraud after fraud, and it was compounded by even the small amount of money that Mr Brownlee spent—$180,000 of taxpayers’ money—to spy on Kiwis during the bungled rebuild.

As for the regions, the National Party, which for all these decades has been here on the back of the regions, utterly let them wither, prioritising their banker and property developer mates in Auckland. Capital was taken from the regions to pawn to the cities, despite the fact that it is the people out in regional New Zealand that create the greatest wealth in this country. There are provincial members over there—oh, looking somewhere else now.

Hon Member: Not for long.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, not for long—here because of the regions, and never prepared to raise a mutter nor a murmur to defend them, ever. That’s why they’re so angry, because above all things, they have just heard about the UMR poll. Now, forget about the rubbish Reid Newshub poll—but it’s pointing in the same direction. When you’ve got a spread of 18 percent between the governing parties and those opposing it, it’s hardly a harbinger for great leadership in the National Party. And if you look at it between—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What’s your poll? Mr 3 Percent.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, really? Ha, ha! Mr Smith, this is a visual poll. I’m here, and that member’s there, and you will be for a long time—for one long time. I know. [Interruption] Oh no, don’t worry, Paula. Paula, let me give you some sound advice. This is how it happens in the African veldt and in the jungle. They don’t start with the number one person; they start with the weak one. They’ll come for that member first. And I’m sorry about that sort of behaviour. I see it in the jungle—I don’t like it—but I don’t like it in humanity. I’m warning her to find a new job now, look around the place, find something outside of Parliament. But they’ll come first to her, and then they’ll start on—guess who? “Mr 3 Percent”. He’s on five now, and he’s falling—and he’s falling.

Can I say also that across our portfolios, New Zealand First members are doing very, very well. In defence—no argument—for the first time, countries abroad are saying New Zealand is actually pulling its weight. When it comes to foreign affairs, they’re saying, “It’s great to see you back. We don’t need the big divan chair anymore to entertain the foreign affairs minister when he comes. We can cancel that and get back to the ordinary order.”

When it comes to Oranga Tamariki—exciting new policies there. Then across the regions, there is no doubt—despite all the pettifoggery and criticism and carping and downright nastiness from urban members who wouldn’t know how to hold a shovel or a spade—we are out in the provinces rebuilding New Zealand, right across this country. Every member here, right across this country. There is no doubt from my travel around New Zealand that the New Zealand people in the provinces are with us. They are behind us. And he can scoff and laugh, but those polls, sunshine, mean something.

How could they, if their criticism was so strong or right, be so flagging in the polls? If Reid have got you at 41, I can guess you’re at 37 and falling. I’ve seen the face of the National Party before like that. I’ve seen where they fell all the way to 20.93 percent. As for goodbye—you’ve hardly arrived. Sorry, not you, Mr Speaker—you’ve been here a long time—but that member there, he’s one of those members who turns up for five seconds. He’s probably going to be forming an alternative new-right, far-right party. There’s a few over there who have been skiting and planning, and I know they’ve got Michelle Boag and others designing a new party to try and prop them up: the blue-greens. Well, that won’t last five minutes. They didn’t have Gareth Morgan, because he’s got brains and they haven’t. So they’ve got all these problems that they’re building, and then they sit there scoffing and jeering.

Look, I want to tell the backbenchers, the young members over there: what you heard from the Prime Minister today is a vision and an outline of where this country is going to rebuild its wealth, to rebuild its prosperity—in fact, to recapture the glory days when we were number two or three in the world. It’s happened in past generations, but it’s with policies like this that you get there, not some neoliberal claptrap that has failed everywhere that it’s been put in place. Even Donald Trump knows that, and he said so.

Now, back to my point: this year, there are going to be many programmes where we set out to rebuild this country’s economy, this country’s infrastructure, and this country’s social structure, whether it be health and education, whether it be roading, or whether it be KiwiRail and our ports. What’s happening differently now is that New Zealand does have an emerging plan. After only 15 months, the Government is clear as to where we’re going.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: There are 200 more reports to come—200 more working groups to make it up.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I mean, how do you sit here all these years with just bluster and bulldust like that? He’s the most unqualified guy ever to be in foreign affairs, the most unqualified guy to be in the whole House. Where does his background experience in business come from? Mr Brownlee—what business did that member run? Just name one, apart from being a director for five weeks on a backed, under-the-scene, illegal Christchurch casino. And he got found out. Guess who by: yours truly. I exposed him. And the other colleague up there in the gallery, who has just gone—the former National Party president—was his co-director. He must have known I was going to say that because he’s vanished. They were the two directors for five weeks until a guy in prison fingered them to me, and I got rid of them. Remember that, Mr Brownlee? Oh, yes, that’s his experience in business: five weeks in an illegal business. So, Mr Brownlee, don’t go and preach to the rotary clubs or the chambers of commerce; you’ll bore them witless. They all know, like I know, that he knows nothing about business.

Now, back to my point: we are, can I say, in a sea of unrest: trade wars, pressure on the World Trade Organization, unrest with the Venezuelan election, Middle East elections, and elections in Afghanistan, Australia, and, indeed, Canada this year. When you look at that and look at the present coalition Government, we look like stability in an ocean of disruption. We don’t only look like it; we are. That is the difference. And Mr Carter—I don’t know why he’s laughing, because he may as well retire from Parliament now. There’s no future for, as The Timaru Herald said, the worst agriculture Minister the country ever saw. That’s what they said about him—the worst agriculture Minister the country ever saw—and he sits up here preening and laughing as though he’s got something to stand on.

Can I just say, on foreign policy, on racing reform, on the SuperGold card that’s coming shortly, which will go to 690,000 retired New Zealanders—an updated card with many new benefits, all coming this year. I can see the Opposition getting worried now. The Provincial Growth Fund—further expansion. We have got ourselves on course for an exciting 2019.

You know, 15 months ago we rejected a modified status quo in favour of lasting change, and none of my colleagues have ever regretted it. Now we’re doing something for New Zealand’s future, whereas the Opposition wanted us to preserve the impossible past of privilege, elitism, and greater wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. We made a conscious philosophic decision to do what is right for New Zealanders, and we’re proud of it.

Can I just say, the party’s focus will be on the things that matter socially and industrially. It’s also very clear that they don’t understand over there what the problem is with their behaviour. They carp and argue every day. It puts me in mind of an old Māori saying, using, of course, a very good example when it’s said in English: “Not like the seagull tossing and turning its head at every wave”—no, no—“Like the rocks, steadfast against the surging sea.” That’s the difference between this side over here and that side over there. We do have plans. We do have visions. And guess what? It’s not easy being in a coalition Government, but it’s far better being in a coalition Government than taking your dictates from the big end of New Zealand’s downtown, where your caucus members have no say whatsoever.

It is so much better negotiating in a fair environment than having your policy dictated from the big end of town in Auckland and elsewhere, where you become mere puppets of the system rather than party principle perpetrators. Quite the opposite is happening in this coalition. We are getting on with the job. We know exactly what we’re going to do and where we’re going to do it. We know who the people are who are going to be doing it, and we’ve got this very certain view as well that we’ve got more and more talent on our backbench than their whole front bench all put together. Have a look at them. Who over there is a good speaker? Look, they even know there’s not one, right? Who over there has got a serious business background? No, the ones with the serious business backgrounds are over there—they’re in the backbench, not the front bench. The backbench have got it. Over here, we’ve got things around the right way.

Hon Paula Bennett: Mr Peters, look to your right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One last saying, Ms Bennett, who recently discovered that she was a Māori. Ms Bennett, there’s a great saying in Māoridom, and it’s taken place since the 2017 election. Since she discovered, like Simon Upton, that she had a Māori background, their linkage to the Māori people and their intensity knows no bounds. But they discovered they were Māori after they got here. The Māori saying is: “Ka pū te rūhā, ka hao te rangatahi.” You know what it means? It means, “When the old net’s shot full of holes, the new net goes fishing.”

SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, I will indicate that I am going to put the amendment now, which is that all words after “that” be deleted and be replaced by the expression used by Mr Bridges at the beginning of his speech.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. About a third or a quarter of the way through Simon Bridges’ speech, I thought to myself, “I have never looked forward to a speech by Winston Peters so much.” I want to pick up on where he left off, which is just after the election in 2017.

On election night 2017, I said that New Zealanders have voted for change—for change. On that night, the Opposition parties, the three of us, commanded a majority of votes, and I said it was time for us to work together to create a Government of change that New Zealanders wanted. Four weeks later, as he’s just mentioned, the Deputy Prime Minister said that there had been a choice between a modified status quo and change—change.

This Government—our Government, the first that the Greens have been a part of—was elected on the basis of change, to ensure a good future for all New Zealanders, to confront child poverty, to reverse the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, and to ensure that people’s wages are actually enough to cover their living costs. We were elected to fix the housing crisis, to make sure that every New Zealander has a roof over their head and a warm, dry home that they can call their own whether they rent or own. We were elected to reverse the epidemic of ill mental health that is sweeping our nation, and to get people with drug problems out of prison and into care.

Our Government—and the Green Party that Marama Davidson and I are proud to lead as part of it—was given a mandate to bring about equality for women, finally, and to stem the tide of domestic and sexual violence against them; to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to create a country where future New Zealanders can understand each other not just in te reo Pākehā but in Te Reo Māori as well. We were elected to clean up our rivers, to give sanctuary to the dolphins and the whales and the fish that live in our oceans and to free them of the deluge of plastic waste that is choking them. This Government was elected to restore our native forests and to save our endangered birds. And this Government—our Government, we—were elected to make climate-change history.

Now, that is the change—that is the change—that we campaigned on, all of us, and that we were elected to bring about. On this side of the House, all of us—all of us—want to be able to look our kids and our grandkids in the eyes and to say that we did our best to create a good future for them. I know that some people are frustrated that things aren’t moving as fast as they could be; I am—I am. But can I just take a moment right now to say that if anyone still thinks that the Green Party could be making more progress on any of those issues if we had gone into partnership with a limping, conservative, fourth-term National Government, whose central policy was the slow erosion of public services, then they are beyond mistaken. There are some other words I could use, but they would be unparliamentary. When you hear the Leader of the Opposition start the year with his exciting new idea about cutting taxes—because you’ve never heard that one from the National Party before!—what he’s telling you is that he wants to cut funding for doctors that keep us healthy, and he wants to cut the funding for midwives that deliver our babies, and he wants to cut funding for the teachers that educate our kids. He’s been going around over the summer saying, “We’re going to build loads more roads”—any road, anywhere, as long as it’s got four lanes; it doesn’t matter where it goes—“and we’re going to pay more teachers, and we’re going to cut debt, and we’re going to cut taxes.” And if Mr Bridges thinks that he is going to ride into Government on the back of that bandwagon, he’s going to need to be towed there by an entire blessing of unicorns.

It’s been widely reported over the summer that National wants to do nothing more than talk about how we fund public services—or, as it’s commonly known, “tax”. Well, let’s indulge them—let’s just indulge them a little bit. Let’s start by talking about Karen. Karen is a renter. She’s got a career, and she earns roughly the median wage. Over the last 10 years, she’s earned about $450,000 and she’s paid, roughly, $70,000 in tax. She budgets well, she can manage the rent, and she can manage the other expenses, but she can’t quite have enough left over to save. And then there’s Paul. Paul also earns the median wage. He’s a bit older than Karen, and Paul got lucky and managed to buy some rental property before house prices really started rocketing—about the time that Karen came into the workforce, about the time that John Key became Prime Minister. On the day that Paul sells that rental property, he makes as much as Karen has in the last 10 years, and he pays zero tax on that income—and remember that Karen has already paid $70,000 on hers. Now, what does Paul do? He uses that as a deposit to buy two more houses. That is the rational thing to do. And what does Karen do? Well, Karen keeps renting because there is no way on God’s green earth that she’s going to be able to scrape together a deposit on $45,000 a year. And that, in a nutshell, is why we have a large and growing wealth gap in this country, and it is undermining our ability to pay for the public services that we all rely on, including Karen—including Paul.

Now, the Green Party has long been calling for that fundamental imbalance to be addressed, and every single expert working group in living memory has agreed with us, but no Government—no Government—has been bold enough to actually do it. But if we are to be the Government of change that New Zealanders wanted and elected, we must be bold. The crises that we face on multiple fronts—the wealth gap, climate change, the housing crisis—we cannot solve without fundamental reform. These crises have been allowed to metastasise because generations of politicians have timidly tinkered rather than actually cut to the core of the problem. And the consequences of that timidity—the consequences of that timidity—are being felt by Karen and by hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders just like her, trapped in “Generation Rent”. So when the commentators pontificate about whether this Government can politically afford to do what no other Government before it has done, I ask, “Can we afford not to?”

Can we afford not to? We were elected on the promise of change. If we want to reduce the wealth gap, if we want to fix the housing crisis and to build a productive high-wage economy, we need to tax income from capital the same way that we tax income from work. The very last question that we should be asking ourselves is: can we be re-elected if we do this? The only question we really ought to be asking ourselves is: do we deserve to be re-elected if we don’t?

I have to say, boldness is needed everywhere, everywhere. The vast majority of New Zealanders were delighted when the Prime Minister and my fellow Green Minister Eugenie Sage announced last year that we were phasing out single-use plastic bags, but New Zealanders also know that plastic bags are just a tiny part of a much larger problem. Enormous islands of plastic waste are spewing into our oceans all over the world. Plastic has been found in the fish that we eat. We need to massively cut down on what we use as well as dispose of it properly.

So this year Minister Sage will be leading the next phase of the “war on waste”, and part of the solution will be to put a proper price on pollution and waste. Now, in its interim report last year, the Tax Working Group pointed out that New Zealand makes less use of pollution pricing than almost any other country in the OECD—almost anyone. So it’s hardly surprising that we have some of the highest waste per capita in the OECD. Just as we don’t have a snowball’s chance in Australia of fixing inequality without taxing income from capital the same way that we tax income from work, neither can we resolve our environmental challenges without putting a proper price on pollution and waste. And Simon Bridges says he wants the National Party to have a strong environmental focus. So I look forward to seeing how he does that—how he cleans up the environment, without making polluters pay. People aren’t stupid—they know when they’re being lied to and they appreciate being told the truth.

Now, I believe we have nothing to lose by being honest with New Zealanders, and the truth is that we can clean up our oceans, and our rivers, and our skies. It will involve changing the way we do things now: we can make the switch from coal and oil to solar and wind, we can have fast and comfortable and convenient electric trains and buses through our cities, and congestion-free roads for our electric cars.

My other fellow Green Minister Julie Anne Genter and our colleague Phil Twyford will this year be making some of the boldest investments in New Zealand’s future transport infrastructure ever. We can replace our ageing freshwater and sewerage pipes with new infrastructure that’s resilient to the effects of climate change and sea-level rise. We can rebuild our hospitals and our schools to make them fit for purpose so that everyone can have a good future. In all these areas, in all of them, in transport, water, schools, and hospitals, just as with the tax system, successive Governments have simply been too timid—too timid—to actually do what needs to be done to solve the problem. They’ve preferred to kick the problem down the road, to lump it on future generations. Well, here we are—here we are.

In the United States, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez is making headlines, calling for a Green New Deal that offers everyone a good future. I just would like, in all modesty, to point out that the Green Party first called for a Green New Deal for New Zealand, here, 10 years ago in the middle of the global financial crisis. We have a 30-year infrastructure deficit to deal with and we have an urgent need to build a new generation of infrastructure that is resilient to the effects of climate change and sea-level rise. Conveniently, we also have the lowest cost of borrowing in recent history and we have a public expectation that finally there is a Government willing to make the big investments not just for this generation but for future generations as well. We have no excuse not to.

When the House resumed after the formation of Government in 2017, I said, “It is 27 years since the Green Party was [first] founded, with the goal of bringing the principles of ecological wisdom, social responsibility, appropriate decision-making, and non-violence to New Zealand politics to solve the problems that traditional politics could not. It has been a long and a very winding road, but the Green Party has arrived in Government.”

In the 14 months since that formation of Government, our Government, Marama and I, and our Green colleagues—well, we have been busy. Our Government has nearly completed a top-to-tail review of our entire tax and welfare systems, with a view to fundamental reform this year. Our Government has introduced a Families Package that will increase the incomes of 380,000 families by $75 every week—every week—and make it easier to send that child to school camp or to afford extra schoolbooks. Our Government has put 1,900 families into public housing so they have a roof over their head. We’ve made the lives of New Zealanders warmer with Warm Up New Zealand and winter energy payments. We’ve restarted the home insulation scheme. We’ve introduced new standards for rental properties that mean our homes are healthy and not making kids sick. We’ve taken a huge step in launching, just yesterday in Porirua, the pilot of the youth mental health scheme that the Greens campaigned for. Young people in Porirua will no longer have to book an appointment with their GP and form a long queue and then pay around $150 that they don’t have to get critical support that could save their life. That service now comes for free.

We’ve built a whole-of-Government framework for tackling violence against women in the home. We’ve given our native birds a fighting chance, with the largest increase in conservation funding in 16 years. We’ve invested billions in light rail, in buses, in cycling, and in walking to make it easier and safer to get around our cities, and last year our Government said that fossil fuels are not our future. This year, the Green Investment Fund will make the first investments in the low-carbon economy of the future, and also this year, we will pass the zero carbon bill, hopefully with political consensus across the House. Finally, we will have legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and a politically neutral climate change commission to help guide us there.

Our Government is busy; we make no apology for it. These few changes that I’ve had time to list won’t, by themselves, result in the truly transformative outcomes that New Zealanders elected this Government to shepherd in. As the Prime Minister said at Waitangi, and again today, we know—we all know—there is so much more to do, but we are just getting warmed up. But to do it—but to do it—for Pete’s sake, we must be bold. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You know, there was one thing missing from the Prime Minister’s statement today; it was an answer to a simple question—a question that any Prime Minister should be asking, especially one who wants to have a year of delivery—and it’s this: where does prosperity, where does wealth, actually come from? It’s not actually complicated, but it seems that today we must state, and restate, the most basic truths just to keep them alive at all. That prosperity—it comes from combining more investment, better ideas, and more skilful workers to produce products and services that people want to pay more for. That’s it. It’s not complicated, but nowhere in the Prime Minister’s statement did we come close to an articulation of how New Zealanders actually get wealthier and generate the prosperity that she seeks, whether it be to pay for new cancer drugs, whether it be for new roads, or better houses; we didn’t hear where that prosperity comes from.

I predict that instead of having more skilful workers working with more capital, many New Zealanders are going to decide that a better idea is moving to Australia, just as they did last time Labour was over there on the Treasury benches, and that is a great shame. ACT, on the other hand, will continue standing for freedom and opportunity, because those are the values that make us prosperous. But instead, we have heard from this Government an endless array of new initiatives that put sand in the gears of prosperity—new red tape and new regulations.

Let’s just go through a few of the impediments to combining more skilful workers with more investment and better ideas. The minimum wage—we’ve heard that the minimum wage is going to go to $20 by 2021. We in New Zealand already have the highest minimum wage, compared with the average, in the developed world. That should be a clue that if the Government pushes it too much further, there will be job losses, and, indeed, the officials have told the Government that if they increase the minimum wage to $20 by 2021, there will be 11,000 fewer jobs than there would have been otherwise, taking people off the ladder of opportunity, with less freedom to gain the skills in the workplace that would have given them a more prosperous future.

What about fair pay agreements? We’ve got Jim Bolger somehow seeking to sell his socialist soul by cuddling up to the most left-wing Labour Government—whose leader is, effectively, elected by the unions—introducing 1970s-style national awards. They call them fair pay agreements. What is fair about being in a workplace where 10 percent, or fewer, of the people who work there can suddenly engage everybody in a negotiation that means, whether you work hard or not, you end up getting paid the same? How are professions, or industries, defined in 2019? It might’ve been easy in the 70s, when there were tinkers, tailors, soldiers, and sailors, but today we have such a wide range of employment categories, it will be impossible to define industries, and ACT predicts that if the Government does go ahead with its fair pay agreements, the only people who will prosper from it will be those who are employment lawyers.

We heard about the capital gains tax, most recently from James Shaw. Winston Peters didn’t mention it, but we heard about the capital gains tax from James Shaw, and it was a really interesting story about Karen and—I think Peter was the guy’s name. Karen was going to have a better life if there was a capital gains tax—if Peter, who bought a house, had to pay a capital gains tax. Well, the sad thing for Karen is that nowhere in the world—not in London, not in Hong Kong, not in Singapore, not in LA, not in Vancouver, not in Sydney or Melbourne—has a capital gains tax prevented house prices going over 10 times income when supply and demand were mismatched. So the capital gains tax is not actually going to help Karen. But here’s the thing: a capital gains tax is not about helping anybody; it’s about dragging people down. It’s not about helping Karen; it’s about dragging down the other guy.

Here’s another simple truth about a capital gains tax: James Shaw said that the Government should tax income from labour, or work, the same as it taxes capital. Well, this Government has a comprehensive tax on income, a progressive tax on income, and a capital asset is only worth the income that it produces, which is taxed. So I’ve got news for the Government: if they make a capital gain on an asset, well, it should be producing more income, and if it’s producing more income, under the progressive income tax system that they support, it’s going to pay more tax. We are already taxed on any gains made on capital in this country. Only a Government fixated on envy and dragging people down—the opposite of the values that make a country prosperous—would want to tax people again. The madness of it, in a country that has for almost two centuries been desperately short of capital and paid a premium on capital—we have a Government that now wants to put an extra tax on saving and investing. It is madness.

Then we have the welfare reforms. We have a Government that is going to squander years and years of carefully improving the welfare system so that people get off welfare into work. And what are they doing? They’re increasing entitlements, they’re relaxing work tests, and they’re finding, predictably enough, that even at a time of record low formal employment, a time when people up and down this country are screaming out and desperate for workers, we have 300,000 people on a main benefit of working age. That’s 10 percent of adult New Zealanders. It is a scandal, and this Government, through relaxing mutual obligation in welfare, is going to make it worse.

Then we get into the technical stuff. The Commerce Commission has been let loose, with the permission of both main parties in this House, I might add, to go into whole industries—starting with petrol, then it will be supermarkets, then who knows who’s next; whoever’s politically unpopular, I would guess—and demand information from that industry with greater powers than the police, and then decide, I don’t know, “I think that profit is too high or too low. We bureaucrats somehow know how much money a particular industry should be making.” It is an outrage, another bureaucratic impost, and another violation of the very principles that make a country prosperous.

Then we come to the Provincial Growth Fund—we’ve heard lots about that. Now, I would like to call the Provincial Growth Fund pork-barrel politics, but that would be unfair on pigs. I don’t want to insult pigs by comparing them with what Shane Jones is doing, brazenly and blatantly splashing the cash up and down this country with no robust evidence, no public policy case. And, of course, as we’ve heard recently from my very able constituent Paul Goldsmith, in actual fact he’s creating more jobs on Courtenay Place than he’s creating anywhere out in the regions. Well, I think Shane Jones is going to discover that people in the regions are actually able to work it out. They’re going to see through him, and it’s not even going to work politically in the way that he hoped.

Then we have the well-being Budget—the Budget that tells you how you should feel, and manages whether or not you have a sense of national identity. Well, I can tell you that people in the Epsom electorate and people in Auckland—their well-being would be improved if the Government could provide roads that weren’t congested all the time and public transport that actually functioned. They’d be happy if we had a justice system that could rehabilitate people, instead of having a revolving door outside every prison. They’d be happy if we had an education system that didn’t put out one in six people functionally innumerate and illiterate. There’s a whole lot of things the Government could do better before it starts lecturing us on our sense of identity and how we feel.

In conclusion, we have a Government who believes that prosperity comes from tax and red tape and regulation, a Government that has no regard for the real creation of prosperity and the real creators of prosperity. It is a Government that will soon enough find that when the stardust wears off and the prosperity evaporates, nobody likes them at all. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): He pō, he pō, he ao, he ao, ka tākiri mai te ata, ka korihi te manu, ka pō, ka ao, ka awatea. Kei te whiti mai te rā ki runga i te tau hou o te Paremata. Mr Speaker, tēnā rā koe. Hei tīmatatanga kōrero māku hia ahau te mihi atu ki a tātou katoa ngā mema Paremata i eke ai ki runga i te marae o Waitangi i te wiki kua pahure ake rā. Nā reira huri rauna i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[It is night, it is night, it is day, it is day; the dawn breaks and the birds sing. Night becomes day becomes daylight. The sun is shining on the new year of Parliament. Mr Speaker, greetings. As my commencing speech, I wish to acknowledge all those members of Parliament who arrived on to the marae of Waitangi in the week which has just passed. Therefore, all around the House, greetings to you all.]

I just want to begin by acknowledging all the members of Parliament across the House who participated in the celebrations at the Waitangi Treaty Grounds a week ago today. You know, to show that we’re a united country, we parliamentarians needed to actually set an example and lead the way, and we need to do things differently. Guess what? When we did do things differently, and when we went on together as a group and when we backed each other up with our waiata, when we had equal numbers of speakers—when we did things differently, everybody else did things differently, too. So they followed suit, and everybody—everybody—who calls themselves a New Zealander, regardless of where we’re born, was able to celebrate a day that we could all be part of. So dignity, decorum, and respect were what we hoped for at Waitangi 2019. We hoped that was what it would be about, and it was. I couldn’t have been prouder, both as a Ngāpuhi and as a parliamentarian. Again, I just want to say thank you to all the members who contributed to the day.

As the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, we wanted to do things differently and we wanted to address the difficult issues, and I guess one of the first difficult issues that we needed to address was, in fact, the way that Waitangi was run and the way things went that day. In fact, it had got so hard that people decided not to turn up. There were discussions about moving the Waitangi celebrations around the country. The reality is that we just needed to actually look at the issue and address it and then make changes, and it certainly worked.

The Prime Minister gave a speech today setting out a great plan of action built around three core themes—that is, the economy, well-being, and leadership. Her speech was a reminder of the scale of change that we needed to bring to Government, and that we brought to Government 15 months ago, in order to place better outcomes for people back at the forefront of our policy. As the Prime Minister has said, there’s no point in having great GDP if people are living homeless. There’s no point in having a really strong economy if people don’t have jobs.

So we came in, after nine years of a Government that took a hands-off approach. This meant our coalition Government was left with an unbalanced economy that was overly reliant on property speculation and immigration, and it simply wasn’t working for far too many Kiwis. There’s no doubt that we inherited a housing crisis, we inherited a health system under huge strain, we inherited an education system that was going backwards, and we inherited inadequate transport, jobless regions, and a rapidly escalating prison population.

Now, as the Minister of Corrections, I want to acknowledge the work that’s being done under our Government for us to finally see a reduction in the prison population. We’re now hovering around about 10,000. In March of last year, the prison population peaked at 10,860. To think that two years ago, we could have reduced the prison population by as much as we have done, safely and without changing any legislation, it would have been thought impossible. But, again, we’re doing things differently, and we’re addressing the hard issues. If things had gone on in the way they were, right now, the prison population would be around about 11,500. Quite frankly, we just didn’t have that number of beds in our system.

Now, the first goal of corrections is to make sure that the public is kept safe. I fail to see how we could have kept New Zealanders safe if we didn’t have enough beds for prisoners in the system. So we’ve done things differently, and we’re making a change. Despite the falling crime rate and despite the reduction in victimisations that we’ve seen over a number of years, that prison population continued to climb. This is just one example of how taking a new approach to a problem has avoided the mistakes of the past. We know that it costs around about $100,000 per prisoner, per year, to stay in prison. In contrast, the bold and comprehensive work programme outlined by the Prime Minister today is focused on delivering for New Zealanders.

We know there’s plenty of work to do, but our Government has a clear plan, and we are just getting on with the job. Whether that means delivering improvements now like increasing the minimum wage—and we’ve heard criticism from the leader of the ACT Party, who was saying that there’s going to be increased unemployment and job losses if we increase the minimum wage. Well, we’ve heard that argument every time the minimum wage has gone up, and we haven’t seen the job losses. It’s just that what they say and what actually is the reality just doesn’t occur as these guys describe it.

We’re addressing pay equity and investing in health and education, and we’re taking on long-term issues of climate change, investing in public transport, and addressing our chronic skills deficit in infrastructure. We are a Government committed to advancing our long-term blueprint for a better New Zealand. As the Prime Minister said, we’re beginning 2019 with an economy that’s performing well, with the second-lowest level of unemployment in a decade, with wages going up, and with support for those who need it through the Families Package. We’ve got solid growth, we’ve got low inflation, and we’re running strong surpluses. There are international headwinds, but our Government’s economic plan and responsible management of the books means we’re in a good position to face them, and I just have to give credit to the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, who’s done such a great job in actually leading us into the strong financial position we are in.

I’m proud of what we’ve achieved so far. We’ve begun raising the living standards, protecting our environment, and upgrading critical transport. We’re rebuilding the hospitals, schools, and public services that all New Zealanders rely on. But the most important measure of our country’s success and our economy’s success is whether it’s delivering real gains for our people.

That’s why our coalition Government’s long-term blueprint for a better New Zealand, as outlined in our plan released last September, is built around three key themes: to build a productive, sustainable economy that works for everyone and that is fit for the 21st century, to improve the well-being of all New Zealanders and their families, and to take a new approach to leadership, focusing on long-term issues. Within those themes, our 12 priorities will drive the Government’s ongoing work programme. These priorities go beyond just having a strong economy, to include ensuring that our children don’t live in poverty, our houses are warm and dry, our regions are supported, and our climate is protected, and ensuring that our relationship between the Crown and Māori grows even stronger.

As the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, I want to touch on that last priority of building closer relationships with Māori. Under this Government, we’ve established a new agency to oversee the Government’s work with Māori in a post-settlement era and to support the Government to try to be a better Treaty partner. The Office for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti will support this Government in addressing the difficult issues—and I’ve already outlined just one, which is Waitangi—and in measuring the health of the Māori-Crown relationship. If Waitangi is anything to go by, this relationship is improving. We won’t make the mistakes—and some of them have already been outlined such as the Kermadec situation. I don’t think there are many people in this House who wouldn’t want that big area protected, but there is a way of doing it. Trampling over rights of Māoridom is not the way to establish something like that.

It is not in the best interests of Māori or New Zealanders to fall under the influence of an overseas NGO and make poor decisions that impact on Māori rights. As Michael Joseph Savage said and as the Prime Minister has alluded to, we don’t claim perfection in what we do, but what we do claim is a substantial improvement on what has gone on in the past. That’s what our plan is about, as outlined by the Prime Minister. Our plan is to ensure the well-being of New Zealanders. Our plan is to make sure that we improve the way we engage with Māori. Our plan is to make sure that New Zealanders and their living standards are going to be better not just now and not just over the next three years but well into the future—over the next 20, the next 30 years. That’s going to be the legacy of this, the sixth Labour Government. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): In the words that I have heard previously and in answer to the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, I have heard many times from Jacinda Ardern that if you can’t measure it, you won’t know whether it’s successful or not. You have to set targets, you have to measure it, and then you can know whether or not you are having success in those areas. What we are seeing from this Government is great talk and great kōrero, lovely well-being, good intentions, and nice things being said but no actual actions that are being executed in a way that we can see New Zealanders getting ahead.

I have asked myself many times: is there a portfolio that this Government is not stuffing up? I thought for a while, and I thought, “Well, what about statistics?”, because that’s a classic. No. They’re stuffing up that too, because even the census didn’t go well, and, you know, statistics are statistics, as statistics will be, and yet even there we’re seeing actual failure. It’d be funny if it wasn’t funny, and the reason it’s not funny is it’s about things like KiwiBuild. They promised and promised again, and then won’t apologise for making those promises, because the promises were so well intentioned, but they had no way to actually build those houses. They had no way to know whether they were even needed. They had no way to get them to the New Zealanders that needed them the most. In fact, they have built up a false hope that, actually, many New Zealanders are now, very sadly, seeing for the reality it is.

It is sad that there are 11,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit in the last 12 months—11,000 more people. The reason that is sad is we should be asking ourselves where those 11,000 people have come from. So for those aged between 18 and 25 years, we have seen a 10 percent increase in the number on welfare—a 10 percent increase. Have those kids come out of school and gone on to welfare? For there to be 11,000 more people on a jobseeker benefit, have people fallen out of jobs and gone on welfare? We’re certainly seeing fewer jobs available for New Zealanders to take up. It used to be 10,000 when we were in Government; it’s now more like 600 a month—from 10,000 a month, down to, now, 600.

I do want to pick up on what Mr Davis was saying. He said that one of the things that the Prime Minister espouses and that they as a Government say is that you can’t just have a strong economy if people don’t have jobs, and I echo that. You can’t have a strong economy if it doesn’t mean real jobs for real people. We are seeing fewer jobs being created under this Government every single month, and that is having real effects. So while we have the Prime Minister espousing the virtues of a low unemployment rate, what we have are more people on welfare. I don’t think it is just because sanctions have been dropped and there are no longer the same expectations that people are actively looking for work, although I do think that is having an effect and I do think that is part of it. But, equally, there are fewer jobs and fewer expectations on people as to what they will do and how they do it. If we don’t think that that will affect them and their children and their children’s children in the decades to come, then we are being sadly misled.

So a well-being Budget can sound good, and it does. Doesn’t it sound nice? Who doesn’t want to have good well-being? I care that you have good well-being, Agnes Loheni, and I wish you very well for being in this House and I look forward to working for you. But, actually, it’s only going to work if I get alongside of you and I help you and encourage you and see you do well, and that’s what we want to do for New Zealanders. That’s not what we see from this Government. What we see is rhetoric. What we see are good words, but we’re not seeing the actual actions that back it up. In fact, we’re seeing new Zealanders go backwards.

So let’s get to a few of those. When it comes to the numbers on welfare, that’s going up. The numbers needing food parcels have gone up and are in fact the highest that New Zealand has seen. The numbers on the Housing New Zealand wait-list have gone up. The number of people on welfare has gone up. What we have seen is that fuel taxes in New Zealand have gone up. We have seen the cost of food go up because it’s costing more to transport that food around New Zealand, so as a consequence, the dollar, the hard-earned wage, or even welfare, is not going as far as it used to. So they’ve got less money in their pockets because costs are going up.

Rents have gone up and they keep going up, and we are seeing more New Zealanders fall behind and become worse off because of that. Hardship grants, I think I said, are up—that’s a real problem. For the first time, more are needing hardship grants—more than those on welfare who are needing actual help with housing. That’s the first time we’ve seen that—so that’s been reversed. NEETs are up. We know what NEETs are: those are the young people that are not engaged in employment or educational training. That is up 26,000 people in the last three months. The number of NEETs is up 26,000 in the last three months. That is the highest number on record.

This is from a Government that espouses well-being and how much they care and how much they are going to do all of this good stuff. However, what we are seeing is the reality of it. Unemployment is up. There are 10,000 more unemployed people in the last three months. These are real people that are living real lives in this country and are hearing, and have heard, a lot of promises but have not had anything delivered. The Prime Minister herself admitted it when she said to New Zealanders that this will be the year of delivery—because last year certainly wasn’t for them.

As a fellow Kiwi, I actually hope that they do that well, because there are New Zealanders that are failing and whose lives are going backwards. They are suffering and, actually, I think they are in a worse position because they were given some hope. That hope is showing itself to be hollow. It is hollow hope that has been offered to them by a well-intentioned Prime Minister who either doesn’t have the means to actually do it or the team backing her up to deliver that for New Zealanders. So when one goes out there and promises tens of thousands more houses, when one promises people more jobs and better jobs and that their lives will be better, one better be in a position to be able to deliver that to New Zealanders, and that is not what they are seeing.

Another thing I will be concentrating on this year is around drug reform. I have a lot of questions that I think we need to answer before we get to a binding referendum on the legalisation of marijuana next year. In that case, we will need to know what the regime will look like. How are we going to legalise it? Will there be a market? Will the market be commercialised? Will it be big business? Is it just the not-for-profit that could sell it? Can you grow marijuana yourself? How does it fit with smoke-free New Zealand by 2025? What will happen with drug-driving?

Look, I’ve got a fairly neutral position on this one, and I’m not inclined to see people being criminalised or having convictions against them because they are adults that enjoy the odd joint, and I’m certainly in support of medicinal marijuana. But I believe that we have seen overseas jurisdictions enough that the New Zealand public can see what they will actually be voting for in the binding referendum. This is a Government that has an obligation and a responsibility to be showing them all of that. So far, I’ve been hearing that that work isn’t even being done, and I think that’s a shame. It is very typical. I’d even celebrate a working group on it—I’ve got to be honest! I would celebrate a working group on it. We’ve got a little bit of time, so we could put a working group together that actually means we could look at what the question will be, what a regime would be like if we were to legalise marijuana in New Zealand, so that when they go to the polling booth, they know exactly what they’re up for.

Mr Speaker—Mrs Speaker; Madam Speaker, I will go for. It’s nice to see you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Hello. Happy New Year.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Happy New Year to you too, and it’s good to be here for another year ahead. I hope that the debates are fulsome. I hope we discuss more about New Zealanders and how we deliver for them, as opposed to the personalities and the insults that can be thrown around this House at times. I hope that we look at those that are currently suffering and were given great hope and aspiration and promises from a Government that has done anything but deliver for them. Thank you.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Can I say happy New Year to all the members in the House, even though it’s February, given it’s our first day back in the House. Can I acknowledge the new member, Agnes Loheni. Can I welcome you to this House on behalf of our side and wish you all the very best with your political career.

Can I start by saying how predictable that last speech was. And I love how she ended it by saying that she hoped there would be no personal insults or attacks on others, because I think she might have known where I was going to go following on from her.

Some of us accessed support through the State.

Hon Member: No!

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, some of us did. Some of us accessed support through the welfare system. Some of us acknowledge how helpful that was with getting ahead. And we don’t pretend that we did it by ourselves, without the support of the State, or pull it out when it works in our favour. We certainly don’t go and pull up the ladder on other people after we have received those supports. Unfortunately, that’s not the case for all of the members in the House.

I found it really interesting to listen to David Seymour and also the deputy leader of the National Party when they talked about the welfare system. David Seymour said that he is fearful that we are going to squander what he calls “years and years of good work in the welfare sector.” Well, can I just say that that good work is definitely not reflected in a report I released last year which was called What happened to people who left the benefit system, whereby, after the welfare reforms were introduced by the previous Government, of 133,000 people that left the benefit system in 2013, in 2014—under their watch and after their welfare reforms—46 percent were back on benefit within 18 months. So if that’s what you call good work, then I don’t know what David Seymour’s doing here and I don’t know how he’s providing a service to New Zealanders.

We need to rearticulate the fact that 4.3 percent unemployment is the second-best unemployment that we have had in over a decade. The best unemployment rate was last quarter—under us again. So when they talk about unemployment going through the roof, I don’t know what statistics they’re looking at. In fact, I think they’re looking at the ones that existed whilst they were in Government and not the current ones.

I’m really proud of this Government, and I think that this Government has demonstrated a new kind of leadership, proving that it is possible to be responsible stewards of the economy while advancing concepts like compassion and kindness. We’ve made no secret of the fact that one of our key objectives is improving the well-being of New Zealanders and their families. We want every New Zealander to have access to world-class education and healthcare, to live in a home that is healthy and in a community that is safe, and to realise their potential. We will ensure that everyone who is able to is earning, learning, caring, or volunteering.

For too long—particularly under that Government—New Zealanders have not been able to access the services that they deserve. Our welfare system has often been seen as a source of stigma and shame rather than a valuable support that over a million New Zealanders every year interact with or rely on: disabled people, young people, senior citizens, parents, students, and those who are unemployed or not regularly working all use our welfare system. In fact, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) even provides support during natural disasters, as we have seen recently following the devastating fires in the Nelson-Tasman area. Under the previous Government, New Zealanders who accessed support from MSD were shamed and blamed—but not under this Government.

This Government has already achieved so much since coming into office, and I want to say that MSD has been a part of that. During the first 100 days, MSD played a critical role in our fees-free policy, the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, and, of course, our Families Package, which provided extra support for low and middle income families: 1 million people now have access to a winter energy payment, 65,000 children will benefit from Best Start each year, and 136,000 people have had an increase in their accommodation supplement.

As part of our confidence and supply agreement with the Greens, our Government agreed to overhaul the welfare system. As the Minister for Social Development, I am committed to seeing this through to ensure we have a system that is fair, accessible, and maximises the potential of everyone who uses it. This Government wants to make sure that people who come to Work and Income for support are treated with respect and dignity—that they get the support they are eligible for and are able to participate meaningfully in the communities that they live in. As the Prime Minister has outlined, we are committed to improving the well-being of all New Zealanders and their families and, actually, improving our welfare system is an important part of that.

Previously, the deputy leader of the National Party stated that hardship grants have gone up, that the demand on our Housing New Zealand register has increased. Well, let’s not pretend that that demand only came about in the last year. Actually, what’s happened, with respect to the housing register, is that all of a sudden, I think, New Zealanders are feeling a little bit of hope—a little bit of hope that this Government may actually have their best interests at heart and may actually be able to provide them with the types of support that they need, which includes housing, and, unfortunately, because of the cost of housing, in too many instances, it also includes support for things like hardship grants.

Under this Government’s watch, we’re not going to put people off from coming forward for support. In fact, they are legally eligible for that support, and we are going to make sure that we uphold our commitment to those New Zealanders who need it, whilst at the same time engaging in that very important building programme and doing things like building the State houses that New Zealanders need. And I’m proud of the fact that we’re part of a Government, in that first year, who have already built 1,200 to 1,300 new State houses. We stopped the sell-off and we started to replenish the stock.

Hon Amy Adams: All put in place under us. All put in place under us.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That member who’s yelling out should be ashamed of herself because she was part of the creation of this housing crisis and did nothing to address the issues that New Zealanders were facing.

And so, yes, New Zealanders are feeling hopeful, and, yes, we are seeing more New Zealanders come out of the cars and the garages that they were staying in—under the previous Government’s watch—to actually seek out real housing support, and where we can, we will do.

Over the next year we are going to be rolling out changes—as we have for the past year—to our Work and Income offices. I do want to say that common sense, as I said, has finally prevailed. We recognise as a Government that it is of no use to New Zealanders if we kick them while they’re down. In fact, it doesn’t help them get ahead at all. It is much better when we put a hand out and help them up, and that is what this Government is about.

As part of overhauling the welfare system we have an expert advisory group that will be reporting back to us at the end of the month. And I have to say it’s really important to note that, yes, this is about reforming our welfare system, but it’s also about how we provide the best support we can to New Zealanders needing support for getting into work and getting into upskilling and training. As has already been mentioned today in the House, under that side there was very little investment in upskilling and training, and, in fact, we saw the demise of our polytechnics occur because of them, and now it’s time to reinvest in those spaces. We need New Zealanders to have the skills to fill the places with regards to work that will exist moving forward, and we’re focused on doing that.

Again I want to refer back to what was said today about beneficiaries and the number of people that are out of work. I think all too often what is forgotten or overlooked is that 50 percent of those that are on main benefits actually identify with having a health condition, a disability, a mental health issue, or an injury of some sort, and yet that side would still proceed to stigmatise that group of New Zealanders. Very little was done under the previous Government to actually support that group of people to get into employment. This Government isn’t about pushing people off into jobs just for the sake of getting them off benefit. We are about ensuring that they get into sustainable, meaningful employment to ensure that not only is life better off for them—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I apologise to the honourable member. Your time has expired.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you very much, and I’m very happy to rise and take my first call for 2019 and can I say happy New Year to you and to all members of the House. We’re looking forward to being joined by Agnes Loheni on this side of the House. She’s a wonderful person and she will make a fine MP, and we’re very much looking forward to her maiden statement.

The Prime Minister has dubbed this—somewhat ironically and in a way that I’m sure she will come to regret—the year of delivery. And what a wonderful way of pointing out how absolutely little this Government has done so far. It’s been the year of working groups and the year of thinking about policy that they didn’t spend any time working on in Opposition and now, apparently, it will be the year of delivery. But the only things that this Government has delivered are backward steps. The only things we’ve seen from the Prime Minister take us backward. So let’s have a look at them.

The very day after the Prime Minister announced the year of delivery, what did she announce? A massive backdown on KiwiBuild. That’s going backwards. All the promises—you know, if this was in the commercial world that would be a Fair Trading Act breach, wouldn’t it? “Elect us and you’ll get 10,000 new houses a year, maybe 1,000 the first year, maybe 300—actually let’s just not measure.” That’s a great step forward, Prime Minister. We’ve seen more strikes. How about that for taking us backwards; taking us backwards to the 1970s? This week alone, junior doctors and midwives—just in the health sector.

And speaking of the health sector, cancer wait times have gone backwards: under the National Government, four weeks’ maximum; under this Government, no targets, no accountability, people waiting eight weeks or more for cancer treatment. This is a Government that promised to be about kindness. Well, tell that to the people on the cancer waiting list who are being told that this Government no longer cares enough to measure and report on cancer waiting times.

The economy is slowing down. There is no question. The economy is getting worse under this Government and this Prime Minister has gone in record time from “Everything’s wonderful.” to “Don’t blame us. It’s not our fault.” In the speed of light she’s gone from one to the other as we are seeing the slowest economic growth in the last quarter in five years. We’re seeing 10,000 more people over the last quarter in unemployment, and that new jobs rate that Simon Bridges talked about earlier is a minuscule, a pitiful, 600 jobs a month created over the last quarter under this Government. That is an appalling backward step. That’s what’s being delivered by this Government.

The other area in which this Government is delivering a massive step backward is in the cost of living for New Zealanders. You go out there—and I’m sure members have over the summer been out talking to people—and the one thing you hear is that it’s getting harder and harder for those hardworking families in the middle of New Zealand who work hard, who do the right thing, who pay their taxes, to get ahead.

And just this week we’ve had another jump in average rents across New Zealand: now $40 a week more under this Government, thanks to their reforms—and remember this was the Government that said it was all about helping tenants. Well, how did tenants get helped if they pay $40 more a week in rent? And the Government was told. They had advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, they had advice from Treasury, they had advice from those actually in the sector that this would happen, but they knew better. Remember that? They knew better; it wouldn’t happen. It has happened. They need to get their head out of the sand, start listening, and start doing things that actually advance New Zealanders.

In the state of the nation speech, the Prime Minister talked about three planks of her economic plan. “Oh good,” I thought, “finally, we are seeing an economic plan.” What is it? The first one was an aggressive trade agreement. Well, how’s that working for them? The week after the Prime Minister gets back from Europe we see the EU threatening our preferred lamb and butter access. The week after she’s back we see the skids go on one of the most important issues for our exporters. And now we’re seeing exactly how much damage the Winston Peters wrecking ball has done to our relationship with China. This is our biggest trading partner. This is not about some race-based, jingoism, dog-whistle, out-on-the-stumps politics. These are the jobs of New Zealanders and that Government is putting it at risk by not caring enough to make sure we maintain a healthy, respectful relationship with our major trading partner. That’s why the Prime Minister can’t get them to pick up the phone. That’s why the Prime Minister is not going to China.

The second big part of the Prime Minister’s economic plan is tax: “We’re going to make the tax system fairer.” Fantastic. Somebody tell me how taxing small businesses, how taxing farmers, how making our capital markets less attractive, and how making foreign investors not want to come to New Zealand is going to be a good thing for the New Zealanders. I can tell you it’s not. It is a massive step backwards and it doesn’t matter how often the Government says the word “fairness”, taxing New Zealanders more, taxing small business, taxing farmers, and taxing retirement savings is bad for New Zealanders, and they’re not going to thank this Government for it.

And then, the third part of her economic plan—so two strikes so far, if you’re keeping track at home. The third plank: skills. Well, again, how’s that working for you, Jacinda Ardern? There were 10,000 more people in the unemployment lines over the last quarter; 26,000 more young people not in education, work, or training. The last Minister who spoke said she wanted to see every young person—well, so far, Carmel Sepuloni, it’s a fail. Under this Government, that number has gone up by 26,000. So I’m not going to sit here and have that Government tell us how much they care when they’re taking the people who need their help the most backwards. The costs are getting harder. There are fewer jobs. There are more people in the unemployment queues.

And you want to talk about housing. Well, KiwiBuild is a massive fail, but here’s one thing the House might not know. I remember Phil Twyford in the election campaign saying that no one would be sleeping rough under his Government. Well, let me tell you some figures he might not have heard in respect of emergency housing special needs grants. The month that the National Government left office, they were running at $2.2 million for that month; about 1,000 people—$2.2 million. Do you want to know what they were in November of last year—the most up-to-date number? It was $6.4 million and double the number of people.

Under this Government more than twice as many people are needing emergency housing assistance and they’re spending three times as much money because of their incompetence, their failure to deliver, their failure to have anything other than big words, hollow promises, and utter falsehoods to the people of New Zealand. That’s what kindness and well-being means under this Government: more people who can’t get houses, more people on the dole queue, more people getting hardship grants. That’s the reality of this well-being Government. We’ve got to get past the platitudes, the big words, and the global media photo opportunities and start having some accountability. There is zero accountability from this Government.

Look very carefully at the Prime Minister’s words in her statement today. She’s now talking about being measured on long-term changes in New Zealand. Do you want to know what “long-term changes” is code for? It’s code for zero accountability.

She doesn’t want to be measured on anything that happens in this term of Government, because she knows the measurements are all bad. She wants to talk about pie-in-the-sky, long-term accountabilities. Well, I can tell you that New Zealanders deserve more. They don’t deserve a Government that is so incompetent, so wasteful, and so lazy that they’re now taking $17.7 billion more tax from New Zealanders over the next four years.

Matt King: How much?

Hon AMY ADAMS: They’re taking $17.7 billion, and that’s before the capital gains tax. But that’s not enough for Grant Robertson. He wants a capital gains tax as well, so he can come after you. Well, I say to that Government: stop wasting other people’s money. Stop spending it. Stop wasting it.

Shane Jones’ $3 billion slush fund is poorly planned: zero jobs, zero impact, $50 million on students who haven’t even turned up to do their courses, $2.8 billion on an utterly failed first-year tertiary fees policy, and let’s not even start on a failed KiwiBuild programme. If this Government stopped wasting, New Zealanders could keep more of what they earn. 2019 will see people realise that Labour means fewer jobs, higher costs, and Labour taking more out of their pockets. National, in 2019, is about jobs, opportunities, communities making decisions—not bureaucrats in Wellington—and more money in the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. And every day in this House, we’re not going to stand here and face empty words and promises from a Government that is taking New Zealand backwards.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): In recent months, highlighted again today, the hollow men and women of the National Party—and they are disproportionately men in that old-fashioned party on the other side—have been exposed for their shallowness. For years and years, they’ve run on a rhetoric that the then Opposition parties—Labour, New Zealand First, the Greens—couldn’t be trusted because we were tax and spend parties and we were going to break the bank. Neither of those attacks were pressed home in any meaningful way today by the Hon Simon Bridges, because they are no longer credible attacks. And absent those attacks, which were never credible but were run for years, the National Party is left bereft of ideas—bereft of ideas.

When they’re left with nothing but empty rhetoric, like Simon Bridges promising tax cuts while at the same time he’s undermined by Nikki Kaye as she burnishes her own credentials traipsing around the country calling for more education spending and for further pay increases for taxes and the current industrial dispute that they lament, why is it that they are incredible in their old attacks: “tax and spend” and “they’ll break the bank.”?

It is because facts tell otherwise. We have a Budget surplus under this Government. Net Government debt is now under 20 percent of GDP. People shouldn’t be surprised by that: the last Government, of which I was part, reduced net debt, including the super fund, to zero.

Hon Member: Then what happened?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, well, then what happened was that the National Party changed the measure so that they could ignore their abandoning contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, and they increased debt by about $60 billion to around 25 percent of GDP. This Government has reduced debt already to under 20 percent of GDP. We’re running a Budget surplus while investing in important services in health and education, which was so run down. Inflation is under control. Unemployment is low—one of the lowest rates it’s been for over a decade, and growth is strong.

Now, the other side, they toss off and they say, “Oh, they make excuses about the rest of the world.” So I thought I would just tell Amy Adams about what growth rates are in the rest of the world. In Europe, the average is less than 2 percent; in the UK, they’ve obviously got a few problems at the moment and some uncertainties; Japan is around 1 percent; in the USA, the growth projected this year is 2.3 percent, next year, 2 percent, in 2021, 1.8 percent; and in Australia, it’s under 3 percent. Advanced economies overall are at 2.2 percent. What about New Zealand? Better: close to 3 percent in the forecast period; our growth prospects are strong. China is growing strongly, but slowing.

The challenges of Government are never finished. It’s always easy under the National Party; they just manage things down. They take the good things that are done by prior Governments, they nickel and dime, they run down health and education services, they run up debt, they flog off assets, and in the end they leave big societal problems, like increasing inequality, a health service that’s struggling, education underfunded, and the economy really languishing.

Long-term solutions are what New Zealand needs—and I’m going to turn particularly to the part of the speech that the Prime Minister made about growing and sharing New Zealand’s economic prosperity more fairly. Long-term solutions are needed. Now, I haven’t got time to cover everything, so I’m not going to cover the social challenges that my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni raised and which were spoken to by the Prime Minister earlier; I’m going to talk a little bit about our volume-to-value journey.

I heard Amy Adams there—she is so out of touch. She is an example of why the National Party aren’t just drifting down in the polls; they are plunging backwards in the polls because they are not listening to New Zealanders who know that she is wrong when she said that there had been no changes in economic management under this Government. We’ve introduced the research and development tax credit. We campaigned on it to be at 12.5 percent. What are we delivering? Fifteen percent R & D tax credit across the economy, a billion dollars of a tax break for businesses that invest in innovation over the next four years—a billion dollars to stimulate the development of the new points of comparative advantage that we need to increase the value of our exports to the rest of the world and to prosper in the world in this volume-to-value journey.

What else are we doing? Well, the regions in New Zealand—in fairness to the National Party, they haven’t just been ignored by them; it’s actually been many decades since there has been adequate attention paid to the growth prospects of the regions. Since the neo-liberal takeover of New Zealand in the 1980s, there’s been very little regional development. Jim Anderton did a bit, under the last Labour Government, particularly in the forestry area, but, other than that, there’s been virtually none, and there was certainly none under the last Government.

The Provincial Growth Fund, under the stewardship of the Hon Shane Jones, is making an enormous difference: $1 billion per annum spent in the regions. In some areas, it’s infrastructure. Gisborne said that their pressing need was roading expenditure so that they could get their goods to port in order to grow their exports and for their jobs to thrive in those export industries. In other areas, it’s the development of businesses that just need a bit more capital so that they can reach those overseas markets and employ more people. In addition to that, we’ve got the green growth fund, because we’re trying to achieve environmental growth within environmental limits, and the green growth fund encourages that, as does the Provincial Growth Fund.

It is true that there are rising trade tensions in the world. It’s not true that the Labour Party or the Labour Party in coalition with other parties in Government is the cause of them. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is under threat. We’re trying to help fix it. There is rising protectionism on a bilateral basis, and protectionist barriers are being erected in countries at an alarming rate, greater than we have seen for many decades. Now, what are we going to do about that? We’ve got to try and protect the WTO, but you need insurance against that because we don’t control that outcome, even though we influence it. So we’ve got a very strong bilateral programme and plurilateral programme. Obviously, the biggest news in the last year was finalising the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (CPTTPA). The prior Government had done some work on that, and we thank them for that.

Andrew Falloon: Oh! Some work? You protested against it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, a lot of work—a lot of work. It was actually started by the prior Labour Government under Phil Goff, but the last National Government, after a decade in office, couldn’t land it. We did. We don’t take all of the credit, but we take a little bit. It is so galling for them on the other side to have to admit that the Labour Government landed the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement and CPTPPA. We’re taking responsibility for the China upgrade, for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and for the European Union agreement that the National Government couldn’t even get started. We hope to finish that on good terms.

In the last minute and a half, I want to switch to the environment. There are real environmental problems in the world. If New Zealand cannot overcome these problems, no one in the world can, and if New Zealand can’t or doesn’t, the world won’t. That is a very bleak alternative for our children and their children. We can do much better in New Zealand across climate and water. They’re the only two things I’ve got time to talk to today. Climate is being led by the Hon James Shaw. We are bringing forward a zero carbon bill this year. We are establishing the climate commission so that we can try and depoliticise the path towards net zero in 2050, when that target is set in legislation. There is great upside for New Zealand. Imagine not having that enormous oil bill, that big cheque that we send to Saudi Arabia and other parts of the world every year. Wouldn’t it be great if we were running ourselves on our own renewable energy sources, including in the electrification of industrial heat and transport and the development of a hydrogen economy. Great work is being done by the energy Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, on hydrogen. We’ve signed an agreement with Japan. We’ve got the commencement of commercial activity by New Zealand, and international players are interested in our green hydrogen and the greening of our energy system. We will get wealthier as well as cleaner.

On water, the last Government oversaw the continuing decline in the quality of waters in our rivers. They spiked the national policy statement of Judge Sheppard. We are going to do better. Every river in New Zealand should be clean enough to swim in in summer without getting crook.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First with a good-news message for those people in the Opposition over there, a good-news message to the people of New Zealand, and a big, warm greeting to everyone, because despite the speech from the Leader of the Opposition earlier today, it’s actually good to be back. It’s good to see you all. Let’s get on with the work, shall we, because I’m looking forward to it, and this gives us an opportunity to outline what that looks like.

But I tell you what—and I do hate to be negative after that, but it was incredibly frustrating listening to the Hon Simon Bridges, who seemed to wallow and revel in the post-truth facts he was kind of spewing out at every opportunity in his contribution. I can only pick on one, because I want to move on to the bulk of my speech, but one example was his apparent—apparent—vehement opposition to a capital gains tax. And I say “apparent” because in the last year they were in Government, the National Party introduced legislation to the House which was a capital gains tax. Despite the fact that they tried at all times never to say the words “capital gains tax”, it was a capital gains tax and it was the National Party that introduced it to the House, and it was the bright-line legislation. So that’s just one example I picked up from the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution this afternoon.

Can I give my, I don’t know, condolences to the leader. His contribution didn’t start well. I’m not sure he knew what he was doing when he moved the motion to rebut the Prime Minister’s contribution. But here we go; he kind of got there. But what I want to suggest to the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition is that as painful as it was to watch National operate under their “do nothing” mindset when they were in Government—“do nothing, do not disturb or do anything unless we’re picked on”—it might be a good way to run the Opposition. Let me make a few points about what it was that this Government, this coalition Government that I’m proud to be a part of, is having to pick up the pieces from.

Our regions are neglected. There was some mention from previous speakers about how long-term this neglect has been, this kind of post - neo-liberal movement back in the mid-1980s, but let’s be clear about this. The support base of the National Party is supposed to be from the regions—and I’m going to touch on that later on—but no MP over there, when they were in Government, stood up and decried the lack of effort, the lack of motivation, the “do nothing” contribution from the National Government.

In education we’re seeing skills shortages now because there was no money spent in tertiary education. I was part of that for a long time. I saw first-hand just how difficult it was for not only the staff but the students, having to cope with that supposed refinement of our tertiary education sector.

Then there’s border protection. Almost every other month, the very livelihood of this country was put at risk because of supposed cost savings from the National Party. Just about every other month there was some kind of infringement across our border, compromising the very lifeblood of our nation, and it was unbelievable: “Nothing to see here; let’s not do anything about it.”

In terms of homelessness and the lack of homes, they go on about the struggle to build homes, and it’s real and it’s tough, but we are getting on with it. We are building homes because we need to. They took them away. They demolished them. They refused to add to the pool. And here we are, still trying to deal with this housing crisis.

My next point is about the mental health crisis and the suicide rates in New Zealand. Their solution there was actually to take away money in nearly all parts of the medical services, not only directly through our health services but through our volunteer organisations and non-governmental organisations.

Next is roading and infrastructure, and their imaginary four-laning of just about every part of the country. It’s just unbelievable how they speak to New Zealanders about how this Government on this side of the House isn’t four-laning this or that road or this or that part of the country, because when we looked at the books and all the promises that were supposedly made, we saw that not a bean, not a cent, was allocated to those roading projects. It’s just unbelievable.

I turn to police and crime, and, unfortunately, the expansion of the drug market in New Zealand. Crime in New Zealand went up. The drug problem has increased in New Zealand, and I’m proud to be a Government member and a New Zealand First MP who said we’ve got to stop this. We’ve got to increase our police force. We’ve got to put resource there to stop the harm and stop the crime, and let’s try and create better, safer communities for New Zealand.

Another issue is our prison population. What was the solution to the ever bulging bubble of prisoners in New Zealand? I know—the National Party will spend over a billion dollars on a new prison and then spend at least $100 million more each year maintaining that. It’s just unbelievable.

For me, in the area of foreign affairs and trade—I’ve travelled the world and had the privilege of representing New Zealand in my role, and what I have seen from our team in foreign affairs and trade around the country is a rejuvenation of energy, a pride, an increase in not only resource but commitment to this country, and, actually, that has tangible benefits. What did they say? They said we’re going to increase our free-trade agreements by some percentage. Actually, what we need is more people on the ground eyeballing our trading partners, helping our businesses engage, and making it easier to do business overseas, and that’s what I’ve been seeing over the last year.

Geez, I’ve written about six pages of notes and I’ve just got off the first page. So I think it’s best to touch on, perhaps, the economy, because Mr Bridges—and, I’m sure, others in the Opposition—tried to talk it down. But as Mr Parker pointed out in his contribution, when you look at the rest of the developed world, New Zealand’s economy is growing faster and stronger—

Hon Member: 0.3 percent.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —compared to the rest of the developed world. Yeah, 3 percent. Thank you. So it’s good news for New Zealand and the New Zealand economy, the regions, and the people in them. But this is about more than GDP and the growth numbers. The conversation and policy now, and the future direction of this Government, is about the well-being of New Zealanders. It isn’t an arbitrary number of GDP—it’s great to have economic growth, but how do we share that? How do people in New Zealand equally or rightly share in that growth—growth that’s from something other than rampant immigration growing the population in Auckland and property speculation supposedly making New Zealanders wealthier?

That’s not what we’re trying to do here. In fact, the latest statistics—despite the post-truth claims of the National Party over there with regard to the signing of the UN resolution—are that we’ve actually had a decrease in immigration, and forecasts are that it will continue to do so because, quite rightly, as has been pointed out numerous times, we have the right to make those decisions on behalf of New Zealanders when it is in our best interests to look after New Zealanders. Whether they’ve been here a day or whether they were born here, it’s our job to look after New Zealanders.

So with the political turmoil around the world, which others have touched on—I won’t go into detail there, because I see I’ve only got 40 seconds left. I want to point out that, as the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said, GDP in New Zealand is stable. It’s not only stable but growing at world-leading rates. We are carefully managing the books in terms of any potential future world shocks, and that balancing and that surplus is an important stabiliser for New Zealand as we move forward, but it’s there. It’s there, and we’re ready and we’re able, and I congratulate the finance Minister at the end of my contribution. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Well, wasn’t that a lovely contribution? I was thrilled to hear from Fletcher Tabuteau, the member who has just resumed his seat, that there is going to be an increase in trade of “some percentage”. Well! And he is one of the better members on the other side. I thought “some percentage” was pretty good, really. I also heard that, apparently, we are growing as an economy at an enormous rate of 0.3 percent in the last quarter. That does not seem like that’s an enormous rate of growth, and, apparently, it’s the highest in the developed world. I guess someone’s going to have to tell the United States that they are not in the developed world, because, clearly, they’re not if we are the highest in the developed world.

This man is actually one of the cleverest members of the Government, and I think we’ve had an excellent contribution from him, as opposed to the Prime Minister. Now, unlike many people, I have read the entire Prime Minister’s statement today. I have marked it with all sorts of little weeny things in there, and I was looking for something in here that would tell us how she intends to grow the New Zealand economy. I was not able to find much at all, really. I saw something in there that said there was going to be an upgraded free-trade agreement with China, but I’ve just got this feeling it’s not going quite as well as she might have thought, given that this was supposed to be the year of tourism between New Zealand and China and that that’s all being cancelled—and, by the way, not by New Zealand. So I think there’s possibly not much in there about it.

I heard some of the interjections from the Government side of Parliament. They were shouting out today to my colleagues, “Show us the money.”, because, apparently, they all watched a lot of movies during the holiday break. Well, I say this to them, show me the houses—show me the houses. I’ve heard that Prime Minister and that Government giving all sorts of excuses for KiwiBuild and Mr Phil Twyford. There are a lot of excuses, I guess, for Mr Phil Twyford. One of the things that has been said by that Prime Minister and that Government is that they’ve only had KiwiBuild for six months. What tosh. What rubbish.

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s true.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We have—I can prove it. Money was being spent, announced, and delivered straight after the election in December 2017. They’ve had it operating now for 15 months. They’ve now got, apparently, 47 houses in 15 months. There was $2 billion in last year’s Budget—$2 billion. All the interim targets are gone, but, apparently, we’re all supposed to believe that there are going to be 100,000 houses built through KiwiBuild in 10 years, as though Phil Twyford’s got a hope in Hades of ever being the Minister of Housing and Urban Development in 10 years. I can tell you this: there’s no hope at all of that Government being here in 10 years.

But, in the meantime, what has happened in the private sector? The private sector has just got on. In the 15 months where Phil Twyford has been able to buy off developers 47 houses—just bear that in mind; 47 entire houses—the private sector has built a whopping 35,200 houses. It has built 35,200 houses, versus only 47 sold houses. Which is the failure? Which is the failure?

I’ve heard from the Government about what a failure the private sector has been in building houses. No, I don’t think they’re the failure; I think the Government is the failure.

When they look at why it takes so long and so much expense to build a house in New Zealand, what have they done about the Resource Management Act and planning? Nothing—not a sausage. Nothing. Zip—nothing. And why? It’s because they can’t agree with each other.

Well, I think we on our side are going to have to deal with all this, so that’s why we have got work going on right now on wholesale reform of the Resource Management Act, planning rules, provisions, policies, practices, and the Building Act. We are taking this time in Opposition—hopefully, only a short 18 months—to make sure that we have the work done, because the Government can’t do it.

In fact, what we have heard from Phil Twyford is “Well, it’s too hard to get houses built, so we’re going to have an urban development authority. That will take out all the problems when it comes to getting consents for Government-type buildings.” So my question there to the Government is: if it’s so hard for a Government to get anything done, then how come it’s OK for the private developers to have to go through that cost—because they’re the ones who are building the houses for ordinary mum and dad Kiwis to live in. Those are the people who know how to get stuff done, unlike the current Government.

I have also heard today from the Prime Minister all about our international obligations. I didn’t hear much about our obligations to New Zealanders. I heard an awful lot about how we need to strut along the world stage and we have to sign up to things like United Nations migration treaties. Why? When we questioned this from Opposition, the answer was, I thought, quite a cynical answer from the Government. It was that, apparently, “It’s not binding, so we’ll just sign it.” Well, what does that say about our international obligations?

What we know is this: this Government, with the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern as the Prime Minister and the Rt Hon Winston Peters, together—people will remember this—have signed us up to a migration pact that gives over sovereignty for so much of our immigration to the United Nations. And when we’ve questioned it, they’ve said, “Oh yeah, but it’s not binding.” So why sign it if it’s not binding? If it’s just the vibe, as Dennis Denuto from that excellent movie The Castle would say—it’s just the vibe—well, what it’s all about is trotting off overseas, showing everybody that, you know, you just want to be part of the in-crowd.

Well, in this particular case, how about New Zealand? How many New Zealanders got to vote on that? None. Will this even come back to Parliament? Probably not, but if it does, New Zealand First are going to vote for it. They’re going to vote for it. The Greens are going to vote for it. Labour are going to vote for it. We’re not voting for it. You’re out on your own, Government, when you start doing things like that.

I want to talk also about rail. I want to talk about rail because, apparently, it’s really important at the moment, particularly something called light rail—which I would call a trolley—going up Dominion Road. That was talked about by the Prime Minister in her speech, and you’d have to say, where does it go to? Well, I have made public statements asking how come we’re paying all these billions of dollars of fuel taxes that the rest of us are paying. Diesel, road-user charges, and fuel taxes—why are we paying for this? And you might say, “Well, because it’s good to get people from the Auckland CBD to the airport.” Except it’s not going to the airport; it’s going to Māngere. People might tell me that the airport is in Māngere. Well, it’s actually right on the side of Māngere. It’s not where this trolley, train, or whatever you want to call it, is going. It’s actually going to Māngere—and it’s in the Prime Minister’s statement. It’s not going to the airport.

That’s why her side should read her statement, and maybe she should. It’s telling us that, really, the plan is to stick people on a bus to then go from the Māngere town centre—

Hon David Bennett: Go away!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —through to the airport. Well, it is true, David Bennett. It is true. That is exactly it.

Hon David Bennett: That’s as good as the Hamilton train.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It will be just like the Hamilton train. Remember them campaigning on the Hamilton train? Whatever did happen to that, Mr Strange? Whatever happened to that? He’s a nice chap, too. He’s a nice, very pleasant person. He’s always laughing, because he has to.

We heard today some statements about what Labour were going to do. In housing, let me tell you what they’re doing. They’re buying Vietnamese flat-packs to put into New Plymouth. That’s how they’re going to solve housing—Vietnamese flat-packs. They can’t even get Chinese flat-packs—Vietnamese flat-packs.

Hon Todd McClay: No. Well, China won’t sell them to them.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: China probably won’t sell it to them. So no wonder Phil Twyford says that consenting’s all a bit of a drag, really—imagine trying to get that one through.

This Government doesn’t know what it’s doing. It doesn’t get stuff done. It is a Government that has spent 15 months of wasted money and time fluffing around with KiwiBuild—getting 47 houses that they’ve had to buy off developers because they can’t build a thing themselves. Hey, it’s only $2 billion of other people’s money! That’s what this Government has done—almost nothing.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, ka tīmata ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. Tuatahi māku ka takatū tōtika atu ki roto i te puna o mahara. Ko ngā maharatanga ki ngā aituā maha ki roto i te raumati kua pahure ake nei. Ā, ka tīmata ake ki roto i a au ki tōku tupuna ki a Hone Bristow kua ngaro atu. Ki tōku pāpā, ki a Te Kopa Tīpene kua ngaro atu. Ki tōku tuakana ki a Alby Shortland kua ngaro atu ki roto i ngā wiki tata ake nei. Rātou katoa ki a rātou, ka kī tēnei, otirā te Whare, koutou o te pō, haere, haere, haere. Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou te hunga ora e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Me ngā whakaaro nui ki te hunga ki roto o Te Tau Ihu o te Waka. Te wāhi i patu kinohia ai e te ahi ki roto i te wiki kua pahure ake nei.

[Madam Assistant Speaker, I will start in the Māori language. Firstly, I will commence by delving into the wellspring of memories; the memories of those who have passed in the summer just passed. I will start amidst my own with my ancestor Hone Bristow who has passed away. To my elder, Te Kopa Tīpene, who has passed, and to my kinsman Alby Shortland, who passed in the recent weeks; may they rest with each other, and I say, and indeed the House says, to those of the underworld, farewell, farewell, farewell.]

After acknowledging those who have passed on over the summer and, of course, acknowledging the hardship faced by the people of the Nelson-Tasman area with what’s happening down there, I want to express to them that our thoughts are with them. Madam Assistant Speaker, can I say to you, and to one and all in the House, a happy New Year.

After another successful Waitangi Day—and it pains the Opposition to hear that: “after another successful Waitangi Day”—the names that were being shared on the marae to describe our Prime Minister were: Pirimia o te Aroha—Prime Minister of Love; Pirimia o te Rangimārie—Prime Minister of Peace; Pirimia o te Ngākau nui ki te Tangata—Prime Minister who has a big heart for the people.

If there’s one lesson that’s clearly been lost on the National Party, it’s that politics in this country is headed in a different direction. For politics in Aotearoa New Zealand now, the demands of our people are that we mahi tahi—we work together—and that we cut out cheap political shots and we focus on the matters that are important to our people. Some of those matters have been well-traversed by my colleagues, and I want to share a couple with the House in my contribution today.

I want to start with Whānau Ora. Much of the work that’s been done by the Government over the past year has been well described by the Prime Minister in her contribution. She also talked about the challenges that are in front of us as a Government and the need for us to do more, after what has already been a busy 12 months. She’s right, and after we’ve looked at all of the problems with the social systems, the social inequities in this country, I can say this: Whānau Ora is the way forward, where we as communities, where we as businesses, and where we as a Government put families at the centre of all decision making. We make sure that we look after them.

Hon David Bennett: Why did you cut it, then?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We have not cut Whānau Ora. Let me explain to that side of the House exactly how Whānau Ora was set up.

Hon David Bennett: Well, we know; we set it up.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Listen up—listen up: Whānau Ora was set up by the National Party simply for commissioning agencies to commission for outcomes. We haven’t cut it; in fact, that contract is still going. However, what we have found in the review that I established last year—and the findings will be made public very, very shortly—is that it could be done better. It could be done better, where we cut out the middlemen, where we make sure that the money and the resources go to where they’re needed: right to the whānau, whānau who make up communities, whānau who make up hapū, and whānau who make up iwi. There is not one proof of evidence that the National Party can produce that says we have cut Whānau Ora or we are cutting Whānau Ora. In fact, I challenge them: if there is, table it in the House. Let this House debate it. Let the public see what it is. I can guarantee that there isn’t one.

However, there is a positive future for Whānau Ora—there is a positive future for Whānau Ora. Off the back of the mental health inquiry, we know—we know—that simply dealing with an individual isn’t going to be enough to make sure that their mental well-being and the well-being of their wider family is indeed on the up and up. What we do know is that if we put the resources in the right place, if we make sure that they have a safety net of whānau and an environment that will help them, their mental well-being can only increase. So I am positive that Whānau Ora—off the back of much of the work that the Government has done in the past 12 months—is the answer. I really believe that.

What I also took heart from in the contributions today was, of course, the discussion around the environment. In the last term of Parliament, when I sat on that side of the House, we heard the Government talk about their plans for the future protection of our environment here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The only problem was that plan was on ice for 30 years. They kicked the can down the road on eradicating pests from our forests and from our natural environment—they kicked it down the road to some year when, I know for a fact, most of the members on that side of the House will no longer be in the Whare, will no longer be in Parliament. What we have done—and I’m proud of this Government in our work with the Green Party and, of course, with New Zealand First—is to make sure that what we all know is the rivers are polluted.

Over the summer, I challenged my colleagues to a bombing competition. There aren’t many rivers in this country that you can actually swim in, and we can all agree on that. So why is there such a challenge and a problem with us all focusing on making sure that rivers in this country are swimmable and making sure that water quality and the environment are actually healthy? That should be an important focus for this entire House, but, sadly, the National Party kicked it down the road, and I am proud that this Government has picked it up to make sure that not only are we focused on making sure that our environment is clean but also that the way we conduct ourselves is actually in line with making sure our environment is healthy and sustainable. I mean, the last Government was too scared to ban single-use plastic bags—scared. The Māori word for that is “mataku”—mataku. They didn’t do it; we did it. This side of the House did it—the Labour Party, the Green Party, and New Zealand First. We did it; they did not.

One of the other lessons that the other side of the House didn’t learn was clearly, by the way they treat other people, that you need friends in Parliament—you need friends. You need friends to be able to govern, you need friends to be able to push forward the causes that our people care about, and I am proud of the leadership of our Prime Minister in the way that she is able to work collaboratively for the collective good. With New Zealand First, with the Green Party, it’s clear we are the Government that clearly has the mandate of the people, and I am proud of that—I am proud of that. I also want to speak in the final two minutes that I have about some other kaupapa that are specific to Māori and, indeed, young people.

Can I commend my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson. Mana in Mahi is a fantastic kaupapa, and when the announcements were rolled out up in Te Tai Tokerau over the past week, it was clear that in communities where it’s needed the most—like Kaikohe, Moerewa, Kawakawa, dare I say it in the Kaipara—they could see the value of Mana in Mahi and, in fact, could even identify that their own young people wanted to be able to benefit from such an important programme and such an important kaupapa. We know—and it’s been said many times over—that the way we look after our young people will be how our country will be into the future. And I commend the Hon Willie Jackson for the vision and the focus he has in making sure that our young people have the opportunities through Mana in Mahi to contribute not only to our economy but also to their well-being.

Can I just say, in conclusion, my grandfather, the late Sir James Henare, was right when he said: “Kua tawhiti kē tō haerenga mai, ki te kore e haere tonu, he nui rawa ō koutou mahi ki te kore e mahi nui tonu.”, which means, “We have come too far not to go further, and we have done too much not to do more.” And I’m really excited that the 12-month plan set in motion by our Prime Minister and the Government of New Zealand is one that will reach the aspirations that our people aspire to and, most importantly, will make sure that this kōrero rings true across Aotearoa.

Kia ōrite te noho a te Māori me te Pākehā ki runga i tēnei whenua. Kāti e Te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, tēnā tātou.

[This statement rings true across New Zealand: that Māori and Pākehā should live in equality on this land. Well, then, Madam Assistant Speaker, greetings to you and to all.]

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): When the Prime Minister stood somewhere in New Zealand and announced that this would be the year of delivery, few New Zealanders would have thought the Prime Minister’s definition of delivery was, in her very next breath, to drop all targets around KiwiBuild except that there will be 100,000 houses—and I’m sure she whispered, “We hope”—and then the very next day to also drop all health targets as well.

So if delivery means not being held to account, not being accountable, and actually not doing the things you’ve said that you will, then I think there will be many, many more Kiwis who are concerned by this. It’s easy for a Prime Minister to stand up and make great headlines, but for the people who voted for Labour in the last election because they believed in this KiwiBuild dream, who are now told there won’t be any houses for them any time soon—but even if there are a few, we’re not going to count them and tell you about them—well, actually, they will be disillusioned because the Government is not delivering upon their promises. Simon Bridges, our leader, went through a very, very long list of all of the things they have been promising and talking about that just aren’t quite working out.

You know, we hear about the Provincial Growth Fund and all of the jobs it’s going to create—actually, they’ve done one job a day and after 54 days decided to sit down and have a rest, sit on the couch, because it’s created 54 jobs only, at a cost of more than $400 million a job. When we have a closer look at where these suggested jobs that the Minister has been talking about are to come from, well, they’re just not going to arrive. They’re just not going to arrive, because not only is it wishful thinking but you just need to dig into some of the advice Treasury is giving around the Provincial Growth Fund before you realise just how very much trouble it is in.

It’s very, very easy for a Government to spend taxpayers’ money—very difficult for a taxpayer to work hard and to earn it—but here’s the thing that the Government is going to find: you can’t spend that billion dollars twice. They owe it to hard-working New Zealanders to spend it well, and that’s not happening anywhere at all at this moment. A slush fund—well, it’s one heck of a slush fund, but I guess that’s the price the Prime Minister was willing to pay to become Prime Minister.

You know, when it comes to these things, we need to look outward. We’re a small country that must trade with the rest of the world. We must trade with the rest of the world. We produce too much to be able to consume here, and our economy demands that we are outward-looking and that we are putting our best foot forward.

The Prime Minister in her speech mentioned giving up a bipartisan approach to an independent foreign policy, and I take absolute issue with that. The Prime Minister’s memory is not as short as she is suggesting to New Zealanders it is. Where was their independence through the whole discussion and negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), when they were out holding up their signs against the best interests of New Zealand? And lo and behold, as soon as the election was over, they adopted the work that had been done. They said it was so very, very different. Well, I’m yet to meet anybody, apart from the odd troll on Willie Jackson’s Facebook page—and you know it’s not him writing, because the spelling’s correct—that actually believes that they went in there and after a moment they changed it all and it’s a different agreement.

What about the deployment of our troops to Iraq, when they came out and said they were against it on that side of the Government, and to a man and to woman they were opposed to it? They didn’t back our forces. Where was the bipartisanship then? Well, I say to the Prime Minister, the definition of bipartisanship in an independent foreign policy is not “just go along with anything that the Government says and does”. The reason for that is our foreign policy and our trade policy are too important just to leave it up to a whole lot of people that don’t like to travel and are becoming amateurs in their approach to our relationship with important countries around the world.

I want to just give a few examples of the things that are going on with some of our partners around the world in countries we’re close to, and the Prime Minister’s involvement. Of course, she’s just been overseas to the United Kingdom. We heard that, when there, she signed a deal with the UK—negotiated on the spot and signed a deal that, the week before, Australia had signed. Now, it’s very important, in as far as Brexit’s concerned, that what the Prime Minister signed said there will be recognition of standards for our exports from New Zealand to the UK in the case of Brexit. But we didn’t hear a single thing from her about market access, nothing about tariff rates, nothing about quotas going into the UK, nothing about, actually, what type of access she is demanding for our exporters in the UK market in a post-Brexit trade negotiation. What we heard were soothing words about something that was going to happen anyway. I guarantee, as with much of the TPP, that the agreement she signed is exactly the same, word for word, as the one Australia signed the week earlier. Not so much going on, and the important issues to New Zealanders were not dealt with.

She then went on to the European Union, the EU, and announced that there would be a deal of high quality that would make us feel better—comprehensive and progressive—in 12 months. Well, I hope she’s correct, but what we didn’t hear from her is one word about market access and what the Government would demand and how they would stand up for New Zealand exporters in the EU market to make sure that we are treated fairly. A deal with the European Union will only be of value to New Zealand if this Government and the Prime Minister can deliver the same that Canada got, which is virtually open access for agricultural products to that market.

The moment that she returned to New Zealand, the European Parliament passed a resolution saying that New Zealand will lose its preferential access for butter and lamb that we’ve relied upon for 45 years—taken away the moment she left. We didn’t hear from her anything at all when she was there about the special tariff rate quotas, about lamb, about butter—nothing at all—but it sounded good when she was there.

As for our so-called very good friends the US, the Government should do everything they can to make sure we keep a positive relationship. It is important to us. It’s a big trading nation. But the challenge that we’ve got is that when TPP came in at the end of last year, and this Government stood up proudly to claim the work of the last National Government—this is the agreement they protested against—and I called, on behalf of the National Party, for the Government to do everything they could to get a trade deal with the US or bring them back to TPP, the duty Minister at the time, Andrew Little, angrily scoffed and said, “We need to realise how small we are and be a bit realistic. It’s all a little bit too hard.” Well, that type of thinking would never have got the original TPP. It certainly would not have got the revised TPP. But the one thing this Government has delivered with the US is higher punitive tariff rates upon our steel and aluminium exports to the US. The trade Minister said, “Well, we don’t export them very much.”, but it didn’t happen to Australia.

Then we come to the important relationship that we have with China. The Prime Minister has been trying to get there for the whole of last year. She is the first elected Prime Minister not to visit China in the first 12 months of her Government since before Robert Muldoon, and when the media asked her last year why it was that she wasn’t going, she said, “Scheduling issues are a bit busy around Christmas.” Well, two things, Prime Minister: the Chinese don’t celebrate Christmas, and I would call it scheduling issues too if I couldn’t get a visa. What we’ve heard this week is that over the last two years, the New Zealand Government—both Governments—and the tourism sector have been planning for the China-New Zealand Year of Tourism. Just last year, the tourism Minister, Kelvin Davis, was proudly saying how much it would do to enhance the relationship. Secretly, a few weeks ago, they took his announcement down from the website—that the Chinese would come to New Zealand to open that year on the 20th of this month. And now we find out it’s because China are not able to find a Minister to send here.

This is a $30 billion relationship we have with China. It’s one of our most important trading relationships. It’s as important as any other relationship we have anywhere else in the world, and this Government is not working hard to fix it, to maintain it, and to make sure it works for us. Mark my words: if the Prime Minister doesn’t get there, as her office has been telling the media, in the first quarter of this year—the first quarter of this year—it will be a very strong signal that is being sent about how little attention they pay to that relationship, and the failure of this tourism meeting, and all the other things we’re starting to see, will not only be laid at the feet of the Government but at the feet of the Prime Minister. Words are very easy, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, “Words are important.” The words we need to hear are their commitment to international affairs to make sure that we’re putting our best foot forward and that they will deliver for Kiwi exporters.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to commence my remarks today by echoing something that the Hon Paula Bennett said earlier today when she said, “It’s great people love her.” The difference is, when we say on this side of the House, “It’s great that people love her”, we’re talking about the captain of our ship, the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. On this side of the House, we are exceptionally proud of the work of our Prime Minister and of the statement that she has tabled today, which sets out a clear vision and a clear plan for building a better, more prosperous and inclusive New Zealand for every person.

Why is it that there is such huge and building support for our Prime Minister and her style of leadership? I think it’s because she’s a leader who is caring, but it’s also because she is a leader of significant substance. She is focused on leading a coalition Government that will build a stronger, inclusive economy that deals with the issue of well-being so that our economic growth is actually felt by the people in our communities and makes their life better. She is a leader who, if she is on the international stage, if she is representing the Government at the most grassroots levels in our community, makes Kiwis feel proud. It was only one week ago that I was at the Chinese New Year celebrations, hosted by the Auckland Chinese Community Centre in Auckland. There was an incredible reception for our Prime Minister when she appeared at that event, and the overwhelming feeling that I got from that is that people want to be with her because they know that she is there with them and she is there working for their best interests and for the well-being of them and their families.

But, of course, when Paula Bennett said those words, “It’s great people love her”, she wasn’t speaking about her leader. She was speaking about Judith Collins. I think it is instructive that she couldn’t bring herself to say those words about her own leader. I think it’s because, over the last six to nine months or so, the leadership of the National Party has been completely rudderless. We have leapt from bizarre, Breitbart-style conspiracy theories about the UN migration pact to fearmongering around sensible reform of our cannabis laws, and, from the Leader of the Opposition, just anger—so, so, much anger every time that he speaks. In my view, this stems from the failure of the Opposition to get over the fact that, 18 months ago or so, the people of New Zealand chose a different direction for this country, and they simply cannot let go of that old-style National Party arrogance and the belief that they have a divine right to govern. Well, they don’t. The people of New Zealand choose who will govern, and they chose a different direction.

I don’t actually particularly blame Mr Bridges for these difficulties. In fact, I think I feel sorry for him. He is simply a symbol of the incoherence of his party in the post-Key era. That previous Government was one that for nine years coasted along on the charisma of that man, on his skill with the selfies and the talkback radio, pumping economic growth up through heightened immigration and a house-price boom. They got through and, as the Prime Minister said, did and delivered very little in those nine years. So in the vacuum that has appeared in the post-Key era, we don’t actually have anything coming from the Opposition—virtually nothing positive and forward-looking in terms of the ideas that they present.

I thought it was incredibly instructive that there was, basically, one thing that Mr Bridges got passionate about in his speech—one thing—and that was tarmacking as many acres of New Zealand as he possibly could with four-lane highways. Was there any ambition or any word about lifting kids out of poverty? Was there any ambition or any word about getting our young people into sustainable employment and building up their hopes for the future? Was there any word about tackling the challenge of climate change? There was virtually nothing, but, boy, was that man excited about building four-lane highways. That was about the beginning and the end of the vision from Mr Simon Bridges, the Leader of the Opposition.

I was sitting in my office late last night listening to the greatest rock band in history, Pink Floyd, and their timeless track from The Dark Side Of The Moon, “Time”, and some words came on in the penultimate verse of that beautiful melody that I thought might apply to Mr Bridges as he surveys the landscape at the moment:

Hanging on in quiet desperation

is the English way

The time is gone

The song is over

Thought I’d something more to say

But the good news is that this Government has a lot to say about our plans for the year ahead and, I hope, for many years ahead, in fact. This is a Government which is focused on building an economy that doesn’t just work for the few but for the many. It’s true that in this country we have had around about 10 years of solid economic growth. That is a good thing, and some credit goes to some of the management of the previous Government for that. But what is the point of that economic growth if we have people who don’t have houses, if we have kids living in poverty, and if we have rivers and streams so full of cow manure that people get sick from wading within them? That is what makes this Government different. We have a focus on the well-being of our people, our families, and our communities that goes beyond the narrow, dry, dusty accounting standards that the previous Government held itself to account for. This is a Government that believes that well-being actually matters, that we have to work harder and go deeper and think more carefully about the decisions we make if we want to make sure that all of our kids, all of our tamariki, have hope for the future and can live good lives, if we want to make sure that we have strong families, and if we want to make sure that that growth actually benefits the people that all of us in this House serve. The Government, over the last year, has made an incredibly strong start in this area.

It was instructive, as the Prime Minister pointed out, that one of the first things that this Government did on coming into office was to cancel the tax cuts put in place by the previous Government that would’ve most benefited people, like the members of this Chamber, on high incomes. Instead, we replaced that with a Families Package, the overwhelming benefit of which goes to the low and middle income families of our country, where the needs are felt most keenly. I was so proud that as part of that package, we implemented the winter energy payment, because I cannot believe that anyone would accept that the older people of our country, our respected seniors, should have to sit and shiver through the winter because they’re afraid of turning on the heater because they can’t afford the bills. Well, this Government did something about that. We said that was more important than tax cuts going to members of this Chamber.

I’m proud that on the well-being front, this is a Government which is actively supportive of the living wage, because it’s our view—it’s the view of the Labour Party, the party that was founded by the working people of New Zealand; I know it’s also the view of our coalition partners, New Zealand First, and our support partners, the Greens—that every working New Zealander who gives their labour, who goes to work, who contributes to the productive economy in New Zealand, should be paid enough to live a dignified life on. There’s a lot of talk from the other side of the House about the importance of work and wanting to crack down on bludgers, and all of this sort of stuff. Well, if we value work so much, then why don’t we pay people enough to live on?

So I’m exceptionally proud that in the Budget last year, this Government actually said that we’re going to pay our core State servants the living wage. Because of that direction—because of the movement and the work done by people in the trade unions, in the churches, and in the community groups who pay the living wage—it is a movement that I think is unstoppable, and with this Government in power, more and more people are going to be paid enough to live a dignified life on.

A bit more of a word on well-being from a portfolio perspective. I’m very proud to work alongside our Minister for Ethnic Communities, the Hon Jenny Salesa, who is doing exceptional work in this area to make sure that New Zealand’s ethnic communities—over 600,000 people in our country—are included in our country and are supported to contribute to making this a better country for everyone. I’m very proud to serve as her Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and one of the privileges of that role is that I get to see what is happening on the ground. I get to visit the gurdwaras in Auckland, where the people in those communities are coming together to feed people on low incomes and to feed the homeless people of our city because they see the need there. I’m proud to see the work of organisations like Gandhi Nivas, a community organisation that is doing incredible work to make sure that we get alongside the men who are the perpetrators of family violence and we surround them with the support they need and bring them to a place of well-being so that they can change their ways.

What I’m coming to with this is that there’s sometimes a critique of well-being from the other side of the House that it’s somehow a woolly, academic concept that comes from the 12th floor of Treasury, or something like that. Well-being is understood at the grassroots in our communities. Our communities instinctively get it because it’s the glue that makes our communities work, and the difference between this Government and the previous one is that we understand that, and we’re going to get aside our communities and we’re going to fund them and support them to deliver that well-being. Our focus is not simply going to be on cutting taxes and hoping that the market takes care of it. We’re going to be a Government that says that well-being matters, and we’re going to work with communities to deliver it.

I’m exceptionally proud of the statement that our Prime Minister tabled this morning. It speaks to her qualities as a leader, it speaks to the vision of this Government and the three parties that make it up, and it speaks to our belief that the people of New Zealand deserve a Government that supports and enhances their well-being. It’s going to be a busy year, and I look forward to it. Thank you.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I’m pleased to speak in this debate, but, firstly, can I acknowledge the speech by Michael Wood. Isn’t it telling that half of his speech was dedicated to bagging the Leader of the Opposition, rather than talking about what’s actually in the Prime Minister’s speech? And why was that? The reason for that is that actions speak louder than words, and it is incredibly telling that in Jacinda Ardern’s state of the nation speech, what is she saying? “This is going to be the year of delivery.” Well, newsflash to Labour: you have been in Government for 15 months. It’s not OK to wake up almost halfway through your term and not accept that you will be held accountable for what you have or have not delivered.

I want to address what Michael Wood has just said about well-being. I’ll tell you what well-being looks like. Well-being looks like answering to the person whose rent has gone up by $40 a week, and to the family who is paying $20 extra a week for fuel—they know what well-being is. They know that that extra hour or that extra hour or two that they are not going to be with their families is because they’re having to pay higher fuel taxes. The exporter who is deeply worried about the relationship with China—this stuff matters. So we don’t want to get a lecture on this side about what well-being means when the Government is doing a range of things that actually really hurt families, and a classic example of that that was mentioned in the latter half of that member’s speech was the tax cuts. He constantly said, “We cancelled the tax cuts that would give to a few.” Well, what we know on this side of the House is that three-quarters of families were worse off as a result of those tax cuts.

So look, I thought that I would dedicate a little bit of my speech to talk about what the Government is actually delivering. I’ll tell you what the Government is actually delivering, and I call this “Let’s not do this, but let’s review this”. So what we have are more than 200 working groups. That is at least $190 million. That really, really matters. We know that the Government wasn’t experienced. We know that they didn’t have a policy plan. But we have a Government that is absolutely strangled in reviews at the moment, and that affects the delivery of policy for New Zealanders.

We also know that they have played a blame game in terms of National. Every second statement is a crisis. Every second statement references National’s record in Government. We know that they’re trying to erase the Canterbury earthquakes and the global financial crisis. Look, again, we are 15 months in, and I don’t believe that that is going to cut it this year. The Government actually needs to start delivering in a range of areas.

But the reality is—what people are saying to us—is that in all of their flagship areas, they are failing. They came into Government with huge aspirations around housing—of building 100,000 houses in 10 years—and I want to acknowledge Judith Collins in this. She has completely demolished Phil Twyford in demonstrating that it is not KiwiBuild; it is “KiwiFlop”. Now, do we all want to do better in terms of housing? Absolutely. But it is unacceptable to not take responsibility for the fact that instead of a thousand houses in terms of the target, I think we’re in a couple of hundred territory. But there is no way that the Labour Government are going to meet their targets in terms of housing. So we have a situation where not only is the Government strangled with reviews and still blaming National but a key flagship policy which they went out there and absolutely sold to a whole lot of young people is failing.

There is another area that we know that they are failing in, and that is, again, the huge promises to the regions—a $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund. How is it—how could it possibly be—that, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, Shane Jones has become the “Minister for Wellington” and we have a situation where you have 54 jobs and to every job we have two bureaucrats? There will be regions that will hold this Government to account in terms of that $3 billion in promises. Again, we hear a lot about well-being, but the reality is that if your economy is failing and you have an additional 10,000 people in unemployment, then how is their well-being going if they are now on the dole? The reality is we are hearing complete—and, again, I have to be a bit careful in the House and I can only use certain words—spin from this Government in terms of the economy.

We know that we have had a situation where business confidence is tanking. I’m the member for Auckland Central. It’s not OK for the Prime Minister to make statements that aren’t true. Business confidence has dropped, investor confidence is at a two-year low, unemployment is up by 10,000, and we have a situation where people have additional taxes like fuel taxes, and it’s not OK in terms of the PM making economic claims that more families will benefit from the Government’s Families Package when you have a situation where three-quarters are, in fact, worse off. It’s not OK for the Prime Minister to make statements like, “Wages are rising faster than the cost of living.” when the reality is the labour cost index grew at 1.9 percent in the last 12 months—exactly the same rate as inflation.

This is a Government of spin. They have woken up nearly halfway through their term, their major flagship policies are failing, and the only thing that they can do is either bag the Opposition and still play the blame game or literally try and spin their way out of it.

Let’s go through the rest of their flagship policies. When it comes to education, we have a situation here where we’ve got 18 reviews in education. We’ve had huge ideology. We’ve seen Chris Hipkins literally spend the first year of his time in office dismantling everything that National did, from national standards—gone—to partnership schools, which actually—[Interruption]—for those members that are making comments, helped a whole lot of vulnerable young people. Communities of online learning—scrapped. Cohort entry—again, changed. Now we have these Tomorrow’s Schools proposals, and, again, National has said that we are happy to work on things where they make sense in terms of education. But what we’re not happy to do is centralise our system and put a whole lot of power away from parents and into the hands of bureaucrats.

Again, we’re seeing a bit of a pattern here—Shane Reti will be talking about this tomorrow—but this idea of a typical nanny State Labour Government trying to centralise and take power away from communities is certainly a hallmark of education. Again, we have this inexperienced Government that has major policies flailing. We have them basically reverting to spin. On this side of the House what we are trying to do is make sure that we get around New Zealand. We’re going to be delivering eight discussion documents in terms of policy. We believe that, ultimately, if that side of the House is not going to do this, then we’re going to have to, actually. It’s going to be National that is going to have to do this for New Zealand because we have a situation where Labour are literally trying to spin their way through Government. We also have a situation where they are one of the most lack-of-transparency Governments that we have had. Again, I would call this, “Let’s hide this.” We saw this with two Ministers going down last year. But when all of us get our Official Information Act requests we will see that they are the least transparent Government that we have ever had.

Again, on this side of the House, we’re not going to take any lectures around well-being, because we know there are a range of New Zealanders that are struggling. What well-being means to them is their fuel prices being lower. It means their rent not being as high. It means that they don’t have additional taxes, whether it’s tourism taxes or capital gains taxes. It actually means funding education rather than putting money into officials or into bureaucracy. The reality is that this is a Labour Government that has reverted to type, has only just woken up, and is still working on its policy. I don’t think that New Zealanders are going to see that as good enough, particularly in a situation where the economy is tanking and where we have major issues around business confidence, unemployment, investor confidence, and now, obviously, this situation in terms of China.

Again, we don’t want to be negative. We are out there on the ground, working on policy, and ensuring that we have the best ideas possible to win next year. But I would argue that what we on this side of the House need is for this Government to finally do something. Let’s do something, Labour, because people are struggling and it’s not good enough to spin your way out of major failure in terms of policy.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand this is a split call—five minutes.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call today in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. I’d like to wish everyone a happy New Year. It’s good to be back here in the House; although, it didn’t feel like that at 6 o’clock this morning when I realised that I would have to be getting up and coming in. But, anyway, I want to talk about change.

The Hon James Shaw talked about change earlier on and that New Zealanders voted for change. At the last election, they voted for change very clearly. They’d had enough of the status quo. Yes, they had, Mr Simpson. You might shake your head, but I’m standing on this side of the House and, quite clearly, this is the side that is in Government and that the public of New Zealand voted for.

Now, I’ve been sitting here listening to things and I want to talk about the change side of things. Some people don’t like change, right? But the reason that we are actually all here is that we ourselves—and that includes the people sitting opposite—wanted to make a change. We want to make things better; we just have different ideas about how to get there or what that might look like. But what we knew on this side of the House when this Government was sworn in was that the status quo was not an option. Things had to change. Our people—our mums, dads, brothers, sisters, and our elderly—were living in or close to poverty. We had families who couldn’t afford to send their children to school in the correct uniforms and with all the books and things that they need. We had elderly people choosing not to turn on their heaters in the winter because they simply couldn’t afford the power bill. We had a new working poor, where we had two-income families barely able to make ends meet. State houses were being sold off. Kiwis were becoming less and less able to buy their own home. That dream of owning our own homes was slipping away.

Chris Penk: How’s it looking now?

JO LUXTON: That’s a really good question. Actually, we are rebuilding our homes. I’ve heard lots of criticism from the Opposition around KiwiBuild. The Hon Nikki Kaye called it “KiwiFlop”. Well, I tell you, you say that to those people who are living in those KiwiBuild homes that have been built, that they have shifted into, and that they could afford to buy and live in, which they wouldn’t have been able to under the previous Government, because how many homes did the previous Government build? What was it? Oh, that’s right: zero.

They chose to sell off State homes. They chose to let them sit and rot away and do nothing about it. Well, we won’t do that. This is a Government of change. This is a Government that is doing things differently. When I say “differently”, I mean “better”—far better. We are bringing kindness and compassion back to the forefront as well as ensuring that we have a strong, well-performing economy. We are running surpluses. We’ve got the lowest unemployment we’ve seen in many, many years. Over the past year, we’ve achieved great things with our children and families being at the centre of the things that we make and at the heart of our programmes. We are fixing our hospitals and our schools. We’ve got the winter energy payment. There have been elderly people who have said to me that that is one of the best things they’ve ever had available to them, so they can turn their heaters on in the winter and not worry about it.

We have lifted 350,000 families’ incomes throughout New Zealand with our Families Package, and I am so proud of that. I am proud that our families are not having to live in poverty and that they are not having to choose whether they should pay the power or whether they should buy food and they are not having to make those really difficult decisions. What I really like, though, is that with the rise in the minimum wage the necessities of life are no longer going to be “nice-to-haves”, because necessities should not be “nice-to-haves”. That’s not fair. We are raising the minimum wage this year to $17.70 an hour. As the Hon Kelvin Davis mentioned before, people have said—or there’s the rhetoric going around saying—“Oh, jobs will be lost.” etc., etc. That is unproven and has been every single time the minimum wage has increased. In May, we are going to see a well-being Budget introduced—a world first, and I congratulate Minister Robertson on that. I am so proud of the work that this Government is doing, and we are only just beginning.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Marja Lubeck—five minutes.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I echo all the sentiments of my colleague Jo Luxton there. I am absolutely proud and it’s a real privilege to be able to take a call in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement today. We heard the Prime Minister outline the work that we have been doing and the very ambitious programme that we have in place to build a stronger and fairer country for all New Zealanders. There are many, many things to be proud of in this programme. We are also very proud of the new kind of leadership that we are seeing in this Government. It’s a new kind of leadership. It’s also a fiscally responsible leadership. This Government is running responsible surpluses, but at the same time we are meeting those big challenges by investing in them.

One of the previous speakers—I think it was the Hon Judith Collins—made an odd comment during her contribution. She questioned this side of the House when we asked the Opposition, rightfully, to show us the money. I think it’s odd to draw attention to the fact that they, obviously, are unable to show us the money. I did read it in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald article. It said, “National won’t … say if [they plan] to create an independent body to cost political parties’ policies before an election.” Now, of course, National cannot support this legislation, because it would mean transparency. It would mean they have to tell us how they are going to fulfil all their promises and all of their policies. How could they feasibly pay for something when they are going to pay everybody more and when they are going to build four-lane highways all over the country but, at the same time, give tax cuts? So it doesn’t make sense at all.

Now, I talked about this Government’s ambitious programme because it’s a far more positive and uplifting story to talk about. My colleague Jo mentioned the lowest unemployment rate in a decade. We are creating a record number of jobs, but, as the Prime Minister already told us, it is not about the numbers. It’s about the quality and it’s about the wage level of these jobs. We have seen years and years of erosion of employment rights.

Now, the Hon Nikki Kaye mentioned that actions speak louder than words, and, yes, we saw under the actions from the National Government nine years of a decreasing share of the economy going to working people. At the moment, what we’re seeing is that less than 40 percent of our economic growth is actually going to working people. Under the previous National Government, they cut the pay and working conditions of hard-working Kiwi people. National, by doing so, has exactly shown what their view is of hard-working Kiwis. They have undermined and they have put us in a race to the bottom, but what we have done—this coalition Government—is we have stopped that race to the bottom. We have changed that employment legislation. We are giving New Zealand and its families who have been locked in this low-wage economy an opportunity to get ahead. We are doing the mahi to tackle the issues, and our legislation will ensure that New Zealand will grow and prosperity is divided more evenly.

Many New Zealanders—as my colleague Jo Luxton mentioned before me—can’t make ends meet. They’re doing it tough. So one of the very first things we did was we rolled out the Families Package, making improvements and lifting the income of over 350,000 families. Now we know from feedback that this is making a massive difference to the lives of so many people. After nine years of neglect, it is about time that we made a change, and we’re getting on and making a difference.

We announced in December that the minimum wage is going up from 1 April to $17.70 an hour. Again, this is benefiting about 209,000 workers and their families, and that puts us on the way to increasing the minimum wage to $20 an hour by April 2021. This will mean that hard-working Kiwis on the lowest incomes will share in the growth, rather than what the previous Government has done—leaving them behind.

A common theme that we’ve heard from low-wage workers is that they’re worried about being able to pay the bills, pay the basic cost of schooling, buy vegetables, and buy fruit for their families, and they’re having to choose between paying the rent or maybe paying bills or paying for groceries for their family. So this Government is making life better for working people. The Hon Peeni Henare mentioned the beautiful Mana in Mahi programme. I too commend Minister Willie Jackson, because this is really looking at the people that have been left behind by the previous National Government. It’s looking at the 18- to 24-year-olds, giving them a future, and giving them an opportunity to gain an apprenticeship and a useful qualification to set them on the road to a future.

So our Prime Minister has said it already: we are very proud of the work that we have been doing. There is so much more to do, but guess what? We are doing just that.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you and wish you a happy New Year, and also to all our colleagues that are here as well.

During the Christmas break, once I’d hung up the suit and put the shaver away, I was given the deferred maintenance list by my wife. She said, “This is six years old.” So there were things to be done, and in particular she wanted the trees to be cut down at the back and the hedges to be trimmed. And I thought, “Oh, but they look nice and leafy. They look healthy.” She said, “Yeah, but they’ve grown tall. You just need to do that and you’ll understand why.” So out came the chainsaw and the hedge trimmer. As I was cutting away, what actually happened was it exposed that there were vines that were growing that were actually killing the hedges as well—there was rubbish that had sort of gathered in there. I suppose the analogy that I give for that is that once you cut away from all the leafy stuff and you get down to the substance, you then tell the tale of actually what’s happening in that situation.

So we had all this wonderful rhetoric from a Government in its first term telling us about the wonderful things that it would be doing: be caring and kind, be tolerant, grow the economy, and make a difference. But the truth is, one year on, that once you’ve cut down and trimmed down to look for the substance, the substance isn’t there.

So let’s go to that. It’s an interesting thing that the Prime Minister herself in her speech, in her first paragraph, would admit that, actually, we’re not doing as good as we thought we were. In her first paragraph, she says this: “There remains much to [be done].” In other words, why would you say that unless you knew that, yes, you’d made promises, and the reality is that you couldn’t quite keep the promises that you’d made, as well. And here’s the tale of the story and the tale inside of that because, when we think about all of the things—and as I’ve gone through the speech like many of our colleagues here; we’ve read through—what we hear a lot of is consulting, working groups, advisory groups that are coming through, and we’ve heard a lot about that. But I went a little bit further. I decided to actually pull out the list of these different working groups, just so that we had an idea about the work that they were doing.

To the listeners that are out there in the public, you’ll know—or you may not know—that there are actually now 233 working groups, at an average cost of about $1.9 million. It’s contested on the other side, but they need to know that this information came from Government officials themselves through an Official Information Act request. So we didn’t fabricate that number. It’s actually officials themselves from the Government who’ve given us an average. So on average it’s around about $290 million—I just want to state that—for 233 working groups. Well, hey, they’re working groups; maybe they’re trying to do a good thing.

So let’s have a look at some of these working groups. There’s a Government review to look at how to control the prison population. Well, Mr Kelvin Davis will know that that’s important. That’s what he’s trying to do. That’s his mahi; that’s his work. There are Government reviews about six contracts for new charter schools. I know, and also too my good colleague over here knows, that the fact is that those charter schools struggled. Why? Because they wanted to retain the principle of trust that they had originally under the National-led Government, but they had that as well.

But here are the ones that start to get a little bit testy, and maybe out there in the public they may question: “Was there a need for it?” Let’s take this one: the review into how Australia and New Zealand can work together digitally. Work together digitally—I’m not so sure about how important that is to the economy, but that’s another thing. There are freedom camping working groups out there, and a Whānau Ora review panel. We know there has already been a review. At a cost of just under a million dollars, we had another working group.

There is a concern out there in the public, because a Government that is now here governing, that had nine years to prepare, has not prepared. They don’t have a plan. In spite of standing up and saying they “will lead, not just govern.”—and those were the words from the Prime Minister—we are not seeing that in this situation.

So what’s the concern out there in the public? The concern is that, yes, there sounds like there’s compassion, but is there competency? Is there competency in this current Government to be able to do what it says? In the Prime Minister’s speech, she said, “We will keep working to modernise transport services in Auckland, by progressing rail from Māngere to the inner city, to give our largest city a world-class, environmentally friendly transport network.”

Just yesterday, out there in the public, in the New Zealand Herald and on Stuff, there were questions in regards to that very project happening. I want to quote this from Chris Darby, who’s a current Auckland City councillor and the chair of the transport committee in Auckland Council. And what they are saying is this: “Yes we’ve had the meetings. Yes we’ve had the consultancy, and we like that active style of participating. The difficulty is there has been nothing of substance”—and I quote his words—“to bring other councillors in on this project.”

The public are now saying these words: “We’ve seen all the stardust. We’ve seen all the promises. We’ve seen all the convenience of saying, ‘We are compassionate and we are caring.’ ” But what they are saying is this: “Where is the competency and, more importantly, where is the substance to make a difference?” For all the talk around transport and what they would they do to improve that, again, those who traditionally would be supporters of this Labour-led Government are now saying this: “Due to the transformative nature of the project, it is vital that ministers and elected members [of] Auckland Council have [a] meaningful and regular engagement, as it is local communities that will be directly affected, both positively and negatively.” The concern now is the impact it will have on our local communities. So you can make the promise, but if you can’t deliver, then you shouldn’t be making that commitment to our constituents and even to our communities.

I see the Hon Willie Jackson over there, and he’s probably proud of the Mana in Mahi programme that’s been initiated. Here, the Prime Minister talked about innovative programmes. It’s a programme, and it talked about the whole aspect of the apprenticeship schemes to increase the number of those going into the different trades. As a tradie myself, I think it’s a great thing. But, you see, that’s not innovative and that’s not new because, under a National-led Government, we increased the reboot scheme, and that allowed for both the employer and also the apprentice to have an allocation of funds for their tools and also for their training. They use the word “innovative” when there is nothing new inside of that as well.

The Prime Minister got up and talked about innovation and things that were new in regards to the Pacific. And so I thought, hey, that’s great, and, being previously the Minister for Pacific Peoples, I wanted to see something new. Where was that innovation? The only innovation that they have included is to increase the funding to a programme that we had initiated. It’s called the PESS scheme—the Pasifika Education Support Scheme.

There is no innovation. There is nothing new. In other words, it continues to reinforce the point that there is a lack of substance and there is a lack of competency from this current Government to deliver in the areas that it has promised to the people.

There are a number of things, and let’s talk about the housing issue. I know that people on the other side, and members and others, asked what the National-led Government had done. Well, I’ll tell you what it did in the nine years. We inherited in 2008 stock that was run down, and there was a lack of respect for the people that were living in those homes. I know; I was part of a community in Glen Innes in Auckland, which had the largest State housing stock in the whole of New Zealand—around 2,500 homes. And what we did as a National Government was to ensure that they were fit for purpose, they were warm, they were drier. On average, around $300 million was spent in regards to that scheme. People have said that we were selling off our State houses out to the public. That’s not true at all, because under a National-led Government we were again putting power in the hands of the people. We started up community housing providers who took over the allocation and the administration and organisation of those homes.

You see, the thing that I’ve become concerned about is that the party that declares itself the people’s party and talks about power to the people is removing that very power from the people. The Hon Nikki Kaye got up and talked about education, and I’ve been on boards of trustees for almost 20 years through the schooling years of my children. The great thing about Tomorrow’s Schools is that it put power in the hands of the people and around boards of trustees. In other words, they were able to participate with the decisions and the direction of a school through its charter. And now we are having this, where under a Labour Government they are now removing that. Why? They’ve shared their concerns that there was a lack of governance. I was part of the Ministry of Education, which was improving governance for those parents who put their hands up to be participating on those boards. We saw the increase in confidence. What we are now seeing is the fact that under this Government, the power for people to participate is being removed, and that’s got to be a concern.

So I hope that the message that goes out to our communities is that the underlying issue of concern being raised is that there is a lack of competence but, more importantly, there is a lack of substance to the plans and to the vision, supposedly, for this country. I hope the fact is that we will continue to hold them to account on all the issues of concern that are being raised. We’ve seen it time and time again. There is nothing new. There is no innovation. There are no new ideas. Instead, it is constantly, through the advice of the public, about trying to give them the idea to govern and to lead this country. If you are going to lead, then make the right decisions. Make sure you give the power back to the people because that’s true governance, that’s true leadership, that’s true democracy for this country of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this debate be now adjourned.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

Debate interrupted.

Bills

Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 18 December 2018.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, when the House last discussed this bill, Alastair Scott had the call, and he has nine minutes and 40 seconds remaining to speak, should he so wish.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I do so wish. I do so wish—I was expecting to be speaking after the dinner break, obviously, but it seems that we’ve missed a couple of speakers. But it’s a pleasure to be here. I’ve got nine minutes and 40 seconds to go, which obviously meant that I had 20 seconds in the last contribution, which was on the last day of the year. At that point, I had the pleasure of wishing everyone a very merry Christmas, and I trust that they had a happy New Year. So it’s great to have been the one of the last of the last year and be one of the first of the new year.

So welcome, Mr Assistant Speaker. I welcome all the members back to the House. It’s good to be back. It’s good to be opposing, generally, this amendment bill. Of course, as we’ve already heard from a number of speakers, it’s a bill—the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill—which we will, as you know, be supporting.

However, there are a couple of points I would like to make regarding the bill. There are four parts to the bill. There should have been more—there should have been a lot more. There should have been a number of points which were submitted on and made by submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that were not picked up by the Government. This is disappointing. It’s an opportunity the Government had to get this bill in first-class order, really. Unfortunately, it’s a bit of a band-aid. The work is good, but, as I say, we have to wait for another review of the Government to come forward before we get into the meat of what should be done and needs to be done with the Earthquake Commission (EQC). Another bill will, no doubt—the Minister’s already said—come before the House to fill in more of the gaps that are existing right here, right now.

But there are four good parts to the bill, and if I could just quickly go through them, first of all, of course, the Earthquake Commission does an excellent job. It’s essentially an insurance company, a little bit like the fantastic agency that is the ACC. The Earthquake Commission is not unique, but is extremely embedded in part of the New Zealand culture, because if we didn’t have the Earthquake Commission, we would end up in a situation where premiums for insurance in places like Wellington, the Wairarapa, Christchurch, and Kaikōura would be much more expensive than they are today—much more expensive—because we have a situation where the Earthquake Commission now insures houses and property, but not contents and personal property, if you like, across the board. So we’ve got Aucklanders paying or subsidising or insuring those who live in earthquake-prone areas, and that, of course, enables those people in Wellington, Wairarapa, and Christchurch to have private insurance for amounts above the cap but at a reasonable rate, because without it, the risk is that people wouldn’t bother insuring. It would be too expensive to insure a house in Wellington, for example.

So that is one of the main purposes of the Earthquake Commission: to assist and, essentially, spread the load of an earthquake that might occur in Christchurch across the country. The cost is spread across the country. So that is why it’s a good thing.

The first point that was made in this bill is that the cap has been increased, from $100,000 to $150,000, plus GST. That keeps up with inflation, but only just. However, it has moved from $100,000 to $150,000, so my first point is it could have been adjusted annually or every three years by inflation—so keep adjusting to keep in touch with inflation. Otherwise, without that adjustment, that $150,000 will be eroded over time by inflation and may be less meaningful to those who own a home.

The other good part about the cap, if you like—or the amount that’s insured—is that cover for personal contents is excluded. It’s been taken away. So the effect of that is, essentially, you’re raising the cap to a greater extent vis-à-vis the property, because that is what we are focused on and that is what we’re concerned about. We’re concerned about the housing of those people who live in the dwelling as being tantamount. The personal belongings of the individual—the personal crockery or furniture or whatever that might be damaged in an earthquake—is not superfluous, but it’s not the core being or the core statement or the core meaning or purpose of the EQC. The real purpose is to make sure people are housed. So the cover for personal contents has been removed from the Act with this bill, and that is a good thing. The onus is on the individual to put more attention for themselves in the private sector for the purposes of insuring their personal property, and that is a good thing.

The third point that is brought up in the bill is the extension of time that a member—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member—

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Again?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): —but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora tātou, everyone, and welcome to 2019.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Happy New Year to you, too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. We are on the third reading of the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill. When we broke for dinner, Alastair Scott had the floor, and he has three minutes and 52 seconds remaining to speak.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Third time lucky, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you’re the third presiding officer I have spoken to in this contribution—

Hon Member: The best!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Undoubtedly, the best!

ALASTAIR SCOTT: —once, late last year, for about half a minute; earlier, before the dinner break, today; and now—where was I? Where was I? Let me start from the beginning. We are in support of the bill, as the House knows. There have been four substantial points made in the bill. I’d covered off a couple of them before the dinner break, so I’d like to just go to the final two.

I’ve found it interesting that the Government supported the idea that the personal property aspect—well, personal property is excluded from the Earthquake Commission cover. It’s outside the cap. It’s now up to the individual to personally insure their own contents. The EQC now, with this bill, covers only the dwellings, if you like, which is good. I think that’s a good point. It focuses the purpose of the EQC on that, and doesn’t distract it with the huge complexity involved in personal insurance.

So I was quite pleased to see the Government admit, essentially, that the private sector is better than the Government sector at doing this particular role. I think it’s a point worth making that the private sector is more effective and more efficient—and at least the Government is admitting it—in this personal space. So that’s a good thing. So that’s a good thing, and I challenge the Government to look at other areas that the private sector can do better than the Government sector. I know that we, on this side, could list dozens of opportunities that the private sector might be able to take off the State sector, but that’s for another day. So that’s the first point.

The second point was the increase in the cap to $150,000 from $100,000—very good. As I say, it excludes the personal contents, which essentially means that the cap has been raised more than it otherwise would have been, so that’s good. The bad thing is that that’s not adjusted every year, or even every three years or five years, for inflation, and that’s the suggestion at the select committee. It should be indexed to inflation, at least, so that we don’t have a situation where the $150,000, essentially, gets eroded away over time by inflation. So indexing would’ve been great to see.

Of course, there’s a whole lot of other things that the Minister did allude to—I’ll give her credit for that—that do need to be considered and will come before the House at some other point, once the review’s been done and the committee or the review or the consultation—

Stuart Smith: Working group.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: —or the working group has finally completed their work. Unfortunately, the Minister did have an opportunity to bring more of those ideas into this bill, but has chosen not to. But at least she’s suggesting that there is more work to be done, and I commend her for that and I look forward to that work being presented to the House. But at this stage, there’s those four points that we’ve covered off from this side of the House, and with that, I commend the bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’d like to acknowledge the member Alastair Scott, who just resumed his speech—thank you for the third instalment of that speech. It started in 2018, carried on into 2019, and we even had a dinner break intermission as well. So I’m sure the good people of the Wairarapa will acknowledge your tenacity and determination of getting through that contribution.

I’m delighted to speak at the third reading of this bill. We’re dealing with issues around insurance of residential properties caused by certain natural disasters. Of course, what comes immediately to mind, even though it’s not a natural disaster, is the fires and the emergencies that are taking place right now in the Nelson and Tasman districts. As the member for Te Tai Tonga, I wanted to take the opportunity in this, my first call, to just acknowledge all of the work that is happening on the front line there, and not only with all of the firefighters but also the whole communities that have rallied around and are continuing with their efforts. I wish them every success in putting those fires out.

Albeit not covering fires caused by natural disasters, this bill indeed covers natural disasters and the damage to residential properties. It’s been 25 years since the enactment of this legislation and these are the first substantial amendments which are taking place. I want to acknowledge the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission, the Hon Megan Woods, for her leadership in this matter. No one wants to even contemplate things like natural disasters, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floodings, and the like, but they are possibilities that we have to prepare for. That’s what this bill is about. It’s about ensuring that the Earthquake Commission (EQC) has greater preparedness and is able to efficiently and effectively respond to these events, and also respond around the claims management, which is a big part of its job. I want to acknowledge the Minister.

I know the member from the Wairarapa was lamenting that the bill didn’t quite go as far as he wanted it to in certain areas, but I do want to thank him and his fellow members of the Opposition for their support for this bill. These are very helpful, logical, and sensible changes and improvements that we’re making to this legislation, which can be implemented now. Who knows what future natural disaster events may happen, but certainly by having these changes in place it will enhance the effectiveness of the Earthquake Commission.

We mustn’t forget Dame Silvia Cartwright, the former Governor-General and an eminent jurist and judge of our courts. She is leading an independent public inquiry into EQC around its handling of the Christchurch earthquakes. I know that the Minister is going to be awaiting her report. We certainly could expect, I would imagine, some helpful improvements, additional improvements, that can be made to this piece of legislation. But for now there are four immediate amendments which we are making in this bill. Mr Smith—no, sorry, our member for the Wairarapa. First day back, and I’ve forgotten your name!

Hon Member: Alastair Scott.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Alastair Scott—Mr Scott from Wairarapa. There are four helpful, significant amendments that we’re making. The first, which has been traversed, increasing the amount per claim. It’s been 25 years and it’s been stuck at $100,000, plus GST. So that rate has been increased to $150,000. That’s certainly overdue in terms of the recognition of the increase of costs.

Also, the removal of contents and personal property cover from EQC, which will now be picked up by private insurers—I think that’s eminently sensible. We’re dealing with residential property, real estate, significant home damage, and that’s really where the focus for EQC needs to lie, as opposed to dealing with a whole multitude of personal property claims. So it’s good that further clarity has been made in that area.

Also, there is a longer lodgment period. There have been many people, particularly with the Canterbury earthquakes, and—who knows? It may emerge through the Kaikōura earthquakes. They are two of the most significant seismic events to happen in this country, and the largest events which EQC has had to deal with. There are situations where having to lodge a claim within three months is not—some people are unable to do that, for various reasons. Having a degree of flexibility and discretion whereby EQC can—indeed, I think we’re stretching it to up to two years now. Provided certain criteria are met to the satisfaction of EQC, then those claims will be accepted. So that’s another welcome addition. Of course, lastly, there are some various changes around the ability for EQC to share private information.

So all of these amendments are very welcome. They are the first of a series of amendments that will be made to this very important piece of legislation, but it’s important that we enact them now. I once again want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Megan Woods for her work in this area and the Earthquake Commission. Likewise, all of the members of this House who are supporting this bill and have done work through the various stages which has led us to this point. With that, I want to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

I am really pleased to be here to speak on the second reading of a bill that has been a long time coming. In 2003, when the Social Workers Registration Act was introduced, the system of voluntary registration of social workers was intended to be a transition measure. I know that since then, both sides of the House have been interested in mandatory registration for social workers to ensure we keep our young ones and families protected and increase the professionalisation of the social work workforce. Throughout my time in Parliament, I have acknowledged the need for greater professionalisation of social workers and for further protection for some of our most vulnerable people.

In 2015, I had a member’s bill pulled from the ballot which sought to make registration mandatory, but, unfortunately, this did not receive support from the Government at the time. Now, as the Minister for Social Development, I am so pleased to be continuing to progress the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the previous Minister, the Hon Anne Tolley, for introducing this bill. Strengthening the social worker profession is something that we have in common on both sides of the House.

The bill will provide better protection to those New Zealanders supported by social workers, who are often among the more vulnerable adults and children in our community. Social workers support people through tough times, look out for the well-being of our tamariki, bring families together, and provide a voice for people in need.

In the short term, social work alleviates stresses on individuals and whānau, and addresses social problems that may be beyond the capacity of families to deal with themselves. Social workers deliver effective social services and interventions that mitigate and prevent harm that could otherwise have long-term adverse consequences. In the long term, social workers are also vital for the overall well-being of people and communities.

A lot has changed in the social work sector since the Social Workers Registration Act was passed in 2003. There has been a steady increase in the proportion of social workers who have professional qualifications. We’ve seen a very high level of voluntary registration. Around 80 percent of practising social workers are now registered. However, under the current voluntary registration regime, there is still no mechanism to effectively deal with anyone practising as a social worker who is not registered and where serious misconduct or poor practice is involved. Non-registered social workers can cause serious harm. They can potentially continue to practise without appropriate penalty or sanction, except as provided under employment law and in compliance with statutory restrictions on tasks that can only be done by a social worker.

The bill provides protection for the title of social worker. The bill proposes that any person who refers to themselves as a social worker or claims to practise as a social worker must be registered with the Social Workers Registration Board. If they are practising, then they must also hold a practising certificate, which is renewed annually. This will provide assurances for people interacting with social workers and who rely on them for support. It will also give greater weight to what it means to be a social worker for those who are practising. Employers will benefit too, as they will have more confidence that when they employ someone, they will be skilled and able to do the job they were hired for.

Before I go into greater detail about the bill itself, I want to take this time to acknowledge everyone who has been part of this process. I’d like to particularly recognise the contribution of the Social Workers Registration Board in supporting the change and in taking on the commitment to change itself. It will have a leading role in the coming months and years to give effect to the bill once passed. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the social work sector, which has been demonstrated through the cross-sector group the Social Work Alliance. They have put significant time and effort into working with the Ministry of Social Development in the development of the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper which will be discussed further during the committee of the whole House stage.

To everyone who has participated in the select committee process, the Social Services and Community Committee members, and all those who submitted on the bill, thank you for being part of this and contributing to the bill. The feedback from social workers, organisations, employers, and service users has been invaluable. To all those involved, your willingness to work together has made the bill stronger and more in tune with the reality of social workers. It took a while for us to get here.

Once this bill is in effect, entitlement to registration will require the Social Workers Registration Board to be satisfied that the person has a prescribed qualification, is competent to practise as a social worker, is a fit and proper person, is competent to practise with Māori and other ethnic and cultural groups, and has enough practical experience in practising as a social worker. Any person claiming to be a social worker and not registered will be liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment. Whether or not a person will need to be registered as a social worker or is entitled to be registered will be determined by whether their position description, job title, or someone else such as their employer suggests they are practising as a social worker, and/or the qualifications claimed or implied as being needed by a person for their job as part of a profession are the same as required for a practising social worker.

As part of giving effect to the bill, the Social Workers Registration Board will provide guidance that determines what positions held by a registered social worker come within the definition of practising as a social worker and those that don’t. The bill provides for a shift from five-yearly competence assessments to ongoing professional development. This is in tune with best practice and removes some costs on social workers. The bill will align complaints and disciplinary processes under the Social Workers Registration Act with other professional regulatory bodies.

I recognise that there are a lot of talented social workers in the community who do good and vital work but who may not hold recognised social work qualifications. This is why the current practical experience pathway to registration as a social worker will continue for a limited period to allow them to make the transition to registration.

If a non-registered person is practising as a social worker and they do not hold a recognised social work qualification, then they have two years to ensure they are eligible and have applied for registration under the practical experience pathway if they wish to continue practising. There will be no change to any person currently registered as a social worker based on their practical experience; they will continue to be registered.

To strengthen the bill even further, I’ve released Supplementary Order Paper 187, which I will propose during the committee of the whole House. The Supplementary Order Paper will carry forward some suggestions arising from public submissions to the Social Services and Community Committee and in subsequent consultation by the Ministry of Social Development with the Social Work Alliance. Most notably, the Supplementary Order Paper proposes scopes of practice for social workers. I know this is an issue that was favoured by the select committee and the sector. Scopes of practice provide a mechanism to describe the professional practice for a social worker and any conditions limiting an individual’s practice. The use of scopes of practice is something that is commonly applied to health practitioners. It is a tried and tested approach that has operated for many years. It will be familiar to many social workers.

Though mandatory registration has been widely expected in the profession for years, it is important to make sure that people currently in the profession, and their employers, have time to adjust because there will be changes for some people. The two-year lead-in time will give the Social Workers Registration Board time to communicate out across social workers and employers so that everyone knows what to expect and, crucially, what they need to do. The social worker profession and the community have pushed for years to make sure that all social workers are accountable for their practice and are recognised for their professionalism. This bill will make that happen. It is a significant step forward for social workers and the people that they support. I say again that the time has come to move to mandatory registration, and I’m very proud to commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind speakers that the second reading is not a place to debate any proposed Supplementary Order Paper. I didn’t stop the Minister. You can outline, but we don’t go into detail.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are a number of things that we of course do agree on with the Minister Carmel Sepuloni, who has just resumed her seat, but there are also areas that we disagree on.

I want to start by commending Madam Deputy Speaker, in her former role as the Minister for Social Development, for introducing this important legislation. I’m sure it might feel a little while ago, because it was, of course, in August 2017, and it was legislation that was unanimously supported in the first reading, which I think is important to have on record.

The voluntary regime had been in place for quite some time, and there was general agreement that moving to mandatory registration was important, for a couple of reasons. One of those was to help improve the status and professionalism of social workers. I think that for a lot of people who are listening to this debate, they will have very personal experience of the work that social workers have done with them and their families. They do incredibly important work with some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders, and I want to commend them for the work they do. There will be others, though, who aren’t sure what social workers do, and perhaps won’t understand, actually, why it is so critical for us as a country to ensure that we recognise the skills and capabilities of those who are working in social work but also that we attract the next generation of people into social work.

So when I talk about the status and professionalism of social workers, that is really critical. But it’s also about those people who are interacting with social workers—the clients, the customers; you know, I’m sure we’ve got different names for the people they work with—and one of the things that they want to be assured of is that the social worker who’s in front of them in some of their most vulnerable times is someone that’s been vetted by the police and is someone who is subject to professional ethics and who undertakes professional development as a condition of their practice. One of the things that we heard through the submission process was that for some people, that’s a given—it’s assumed—but, actually, for others, it’s not taking place right now, and for a client or a customer who’s dealing with a social worker, we actually want to have that level of quality. We want to have that level of assurance for them when they are dealing with a social worker.

One of the really significant challenges with this piece of legislation, which kind of does make this reasonably flat for me, is that this was an incredibly rushed process in the select committee. I want to just kind of talk through the time frame, because it will be a point that National members make in this debate and in subsequent debates. One of the roles of Parliament is to scrutinise legislation and to ensure that as the Parliament, we have the ability to produce the best law possible, with as much scrutiny as we are able. In the select committee process, the scopes of practice were raised on multiple occasions, and despite the National members requesting on more than one occasion for an extension to the report-back time frame—which was only two months from the close of submissions—the Labour members declined that request.

So there was quite a lot of frustration in the select committee process that members couldn’t explore all of the issues and concerns that were raised by submitters, and, actually, that’s the job of a select committee. So it is pretty unfortunate that the time frame for the Social Services and Community Committee report back was reduced, particularly when you consider that the report back was in April 2018. What’s interesting to note is that the revised regulatory impact statement (RIS) that is, of course, produced for the Minister was produced back in July 2018. There was plenty of time for this to go back to the select committee for consideration and for further work. There was plenty of time—no urgency.

I’m not sure why Labour members refused the request at the time to allow the select committee to do its work fully and properly. Actually, this is a bit of a bad habit that I think the Minister is slipping into, and I would seriously urge her to stop dropping large Supplementary Order Papers so that members of the public don’t have the ability to scrutinise the legislation. I accept that she’s talked about the fact that she’s worked with the Social Workers Alliance—that’s great. But, actually, there are others affected by this legislation, and the select committee is the proper place for scrutiny of legislation and for the select committee members to ensure they hear the voice of the submitters and they explore any unintended consequences.

So I do have grave concerns about this legislation and the direction that the Minister’s outlined it’s taken. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have said that that’s not a matter for the second reading, but the issue that the Minister raised about the scopes of practice was an issue in the select committee, and the select committee was not given the opportunity to deal with it fully and thoroughly, which is good practice. It’s actually more than good practice—it’s best practice. That’s how the Parliament is meant to work.

So my message clearly to the Minister is that it’s not good enough. It is not good enough to ignore the select committee process. It is absolutely an abuse of power and an abuse of responsibility. What we are dealing with here, as I said in my opening comments, is that social workers work with the most vulnerable New Zealanders, and the Minister should think about that when she is considering legislation, instead of ramming it through.

Actually, it’s not being rammed through, because it was seven months from when the RIS was drafted to now, so there’s been plenty of time. The select committee could have had a lot more time with submitters. We could have done another round and we could have got more advice, and that’s interesting because in the departmental report, which is from the Minister’s advisers—it is the Ministry of Social Development and, in this case, the Social Workers Registration Board were also an important part—they didn’t make that recommendation.

So one of the questions that we’ll be wanting to explore fully in the committee stage is: what changed? What changed in terms of the officials recommending no change to the scopes of practice, to now? So that sounds like a Minister that absolutely ignores the select committee process, makes her own mind up, and then goes off on a tangent, and it completely ignores the parliamentary process.

I don’t want to take away from the importance of this legislation—it is important. We have a committee stage next, in which we will absolutely explore Supplementary Order Paper 187, and we will do that in a huge amount of detail. The Minister sort of nods her head in a fairly patronising manner, but the Minister has not given the opportunity to the public to have scrutiny of the significant changes that she’s proposing, which I find quite appalling.

This is a critical piece of legislation. As I said, it was unanimously supported at the first reading. It will be supported in the second reading, and we’ll see what happens from there. I hope that it is a full discussion and a full debate and that the Minister engages in that process, rather than just abusing the processes of Parliament.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: You’re just abusing the time of the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve said this is an important piece of legislation. It was introduced by the National Government. I have the same ability as that member to contribute in this House and in this debate and to put important things on record in terms of the process that has happened to date, the comments from the select committee, and the concerns that were raised that weren’t addressed, and it wasn’t recommended that they be addressed.

I want to come back to something that’s been raised as an issue with this, particularly in the area of scopes of practice, because it is a challenging area. In the submissions that we heard, there were a range of views in terms of this being a very full and very tight licensing regime—which is one end of the spectrum—and other areas where it doesn’t actually change much in practice. So there’s a wide range of views around scopes of practice that do need to be explored, which is why I wanted to make sure our concerns were on record.

National will support this bill in the second reading. We want to ensure that social workers are supported with mandatory registration and—equally as important—that the vulnerable New Zealanders that they serve are also protected.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Today in the House, our Prime Minister defined what true leadership is. It isn’t about management; it’s about being bold and being able to make decisions that improve the lives of New Zealanders. Sixteen years is far too long to wait for this process. Here we are being accused, on this side of the House, of rushing through a process, denying the select committee the opportunity to make a robust bill in this House. Sixteen years—16 long years. One can only guess at how many families, how many individuals who have engaged with social workers over 16 years, have needed this bill.

That member, and also the Minister who introduced the bill in its second reading this evening, made it very clear that the mandatory registration process that this bill enables is actually good for both families and individuals and, of course, the practitioners themselves. It ensures that robust mechanisms are in place for (1) the safeguarding of not only those who receive the services, but (2) those who actually work with our people—the practitioners in the field. That’s important to remember.

So after having gone through a process over a long 16 years, and, indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, under your guidance in your time as the Minister, and now under the new Minister, and with a Government who are keen to lead—keen to make sure that we can get on with the business so that families right across this country can be reassured that the social worker that they engage with is registered, is qualified, and is able to provide the service that they need. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know as an electorate MP, and MPs right across this House will know, the situations that families present to our offices right across the country are becoming more and more complex—more and more complex.

We have just finished the inquiry into mental health. We have just finished another piece of work into looking at how we can improve the social welfare system. This is why this bill is timely, and we on this side of the House are not going to sit around and wait for debate from that side of the House simply because in the nine years that they were in Government, this didn’t happen. In fact, I recall speaking on it in the first reading, in the last term of Government, and I am proud—I am proud—that this Government, this evening, is progressing the bill. We talk about the safety of clients, and we talk about the safety of the practitioners themselves. We are also talking about an entire workforce, actually—an entire workforce; a workforce that has, indeed, served this country well. This particular bill will allow it to serve our country even better and to give the families what they deserve.

I want to quickly slip on my Whānau Ora hat and make it clear that this particular bill and the social workers that we expect will register with the Social Workers Registration Board are very different to navigators. There is confusion in our community that navigators for Whānau Ora are social workers—indeed, some of them are registered social workers and qualified social workers, but in other cases they aren’t. This particular bill will have a clear separation so that we can clearly identify what a Whānau Ora navigator is in their role, and also what a social worker is in their role, and I can guarantee that this isn’t to separate them; it’s actually to complement each other’s work, because we are working with the same people. We’re working with the same families right across Aotearoa New Zealand. So I think this particular bill is indeed timely, and I am disappointed that the other side want to try and prolong something that has already taken far too long to come to this stage.

Very briefly, the Minister mentioned the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and flagged it for discussion. We do look forward to that opportunity when the committee of the whole House sits to consider the progression of this bill. We welcome that opportunity to sit down and debate the merits of that SOP. What we do understand from social workers and leaders in our communities is that, actually, scopes of practice are important, and this is where I say once again, and our Prime Minister stated the position of the Government today: we’re here to lead, and we want to be brave when we do that. We know that it might cause some contention, and we welcome the debate from the other side of the House so that this bill is robust as it progresses through the House. But we want to get on with the job. Our people across Aotearoa New Zealand can’t afford to wait any longer.

It’s in that vein that I don’t wish to trivialise too much more time of the House, but I also thank all of the people who have been involved with this for many, many years. Some are sitting in the gallery this evening, and it’s important that they witness the progression of this bill—their hard work and the profession that they serve so loyally and, often, thanklessly. We want to acknowledge them, the many submitters, and the hard work of the committee both from the last term of Government and the current term of Government.

We are proud and we look forward to further robust debate on this bill and, more importantly, to the assent of this bill. It has already been described by the Minister that it is staged out so that it isn’t the case of flicking a switch to make sure that everybody, come Monday, is going to have to be at a particular level, or qualified, or registered; it sets some very clear parameters that will allow social workers, budding social workers, and future social workers, the opportunity to pathway into what I think is a very honourable career. In its second reading, I commend this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill tonight in its second reading. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do beg your indulgence, before I begin to talk about the bill, to take this opportunity to wish communities in Tasman who are still feeling the impacts of the fire all the very best. I pay tribute also to the outstanding outpouring of love and support from within the Nelson-Tasman communities, and indeed from across New Zealand, and I acknowledge the exemplary work of Fire and Emergency New Zealand and the other agencies doing their very best to keep this fire under control and, of course, to get people back into their homes. I say thank you to them all.

I also wish to acknowledge the new member of the Social Services and Community Committee, Agnes Loheni, and a very warm welcome to this Parliament to her. I look forward to the pleasure of her company around the Social Services and Community Committee table.

It is a pleasure, speaking to this bill, to introduce a formal registration process for our social workers, and, as we’ve heard already tonight, this will provide a professionalism to this highly valued workforce. We’ve also heard tonight that this bill had its first reading in this House on 17 August, in 2017. And I just want to make a comment about Peeni Henare—who has just finished his contribution on this bill—who says he wants to get on with the job, but it has, in fact, been quite some time since the rushed report date that the select committee had to meet. And while it has been languishing since that advanced report-back date, you have to wonder why the committee could not have given consideration to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that found its way to the Table Office late last week.

But this, of course, is another great piece of legislation introduced by the former National-led Government. However, the conversation about social workers registration actually started way back in the year 2000 and it has followed a series of reviews: one in 2007, one in 2012, another in 2015, and then an inquiry in 2016, as requested by the then Minister, the Hon Anne Tolley. And it was determined through that select committee inquiry that legislative change would be required to strengthen the framework—the regulatory framework—for the sector, which is, of course, the purpose of this bill.

We’ve also heard tonight about the need for this piece of legislation also to protect the people that the social workers engage with—our more vulnerable citizens. This bill was of high interest to the social worker sector and their employers, and as a result the select committee actually received 170 written submissions and we heard 17 oral submissions. They were very detailed, and out of those submissions there came some common themes. And talking about themes, tonight we are seeing another theme developing, which is the habit of dumping significant SOPs—this one a 67-page one, as I said, delivered to the Table Office late last week, at the end of the Christmas break. However, we’re very grateful it’s not as large as the 500-page SOP that was delivered a couple of hours before the second reading of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. Notice a pattern? Notice a pattern?

Hon Member: Oh, yeah.

MAUREEN PUGH: Yes, yes, she is making a habit of it. It means that this SOP is not going back through the select committee process and, as I said, we had ample time last year for the committee to actually scrutinise this new SOP. But, no, when the Minister considers herself the absolute expert and does not value the expertise of the people who work on the coalface, who employ those social workers, then I’m afraid that’s why we end up with rushed legislation and detail falling through the cracks. And so now they don’t have the ability to contribute any further to that SOP. And it’s not just small detail; we’re actually talking about the scope of practice for the entire industry. I would suggest that that sector—the social workers themselves and their employers—have a huge interest in contributing to the detail of their scope of practice. And had it come back to the select committee, we may have found that—for instance, we were told during the select committee submission process that district health boards have already developed scopes of practice.

We could have aligned those scopes and we could have actually made sure that they were aligned and we ended up with the best piece of legislation, or we may have even found that the scope of practice may have been better developed by the Social Workers Registration Board and didn’t need to be embedded in legislation. But here we are. So because the sector has not had its opportunity to support or have input into this Supplementary Order Paper, this side of the House will not be supporting it. However, we will support the bill. It’s a very good bill initiated by the very good National-led Government. So, of course, we understand the need for the legislation and will be supporting it.

Now, there were other things that the submitters brought up during the process that I’d like to spend some time talking about. In the initial draft of the bill, there was considerable concern that the registration process and the annual professional development would be a financial barrier to some people maintaining their registration, and, as such, some of those submitters asked that the contracts and the funding for those contracts be adjusted to reflect the added cost of compliance for the social workers. Now, the social workers are also going to be required to have 20 hours of professional development a year, and that will come at a cost to their employers and will be a cost to the contract. So, again, I ask that the Minister takes note of this request from those submitters and ensures that the social workers and their employers are not financially disadvantaged by this legislation.

The submitters also raised the issue of workforce continuity, and there was a little bit of tension, which I picked up, between social workers employed by district health boards (DHBs) and those employed by NGOs. The DHBs had a much higher ability to provide a higher hourly rate to their social workers than some NGOs did—and, as we know, NGOs are really the backbone of our community services and they, of course, do tend to run on the smell of an oily rag, so the last thing we want to do is to add added tension to them. As I said about workforce continuity, we need to take into account the ability of those sectors, the DHB sector and the NGO sector, to have a higher hourly rate and therefore enable those NGOs to maintain their workforce rather than losing them once they’ve been trained and have had some coalface experience to then be attracted into the DHBs.

There was another issue raised by submitters and that was that when the professional development is being set up, social workers have cultural competency included in that professional development, and they wanted to ensure that that was also included in the legislation. So because of this bill, a social worker must undertake that professional development, and we are, of course, supporting that, because we understand that we do need the very best workers out there dealing with our most vulnerable, but they also need to be subject to professional ethics.

Now, we take note too that this is an omnibus bill, and it will be making changes to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004, which will ensure that any convictions are discoverable during the police vetting of social workers. I thank our social workers for the work that they do in the community—I know there are some watching tonight—and I understand the value that you bring to our communities and the value that your work brings to individuals. Thank you so much.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege to stand, for the first time this year, on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this bill, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill. I’ll get into the four main aims in a second, but first, I just want to address a few things that Maureen Pugh said in her speech, and Louise Upston.

I don’t blame Maureen Pugh so much, because she wasn’t here last term when this bill was introduced, and, quite clearly, she’s been given some wrong notes about the accuracy with which this bill has made its way to the House and why it has come to this House. Louise Upston made the point that—and wanted to make a point, and she literally said that she wanted it noted—the bill that was introduced by the Hon Anne Tolley when she was the Minister for Social Development was unanimously supported, and that was after an inquiry that Maureen Pugh said was instigated by the National Party and by the Minister as well. What I would like noted also is that in 2016, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s member’s bill that did exactly the same thing and that was pulled from the ballot was not unanimously supported, and I believe the only party that did not support it was the National Party.

So if we want to talk about political expediency, or political motivations, and getting the facts right, then maybe the National Party—and, in particular, Maureen Pugh—needs to do a little bit of a history lesson and have a look at who voted against the original legislation that was brought in by the now this side of the House and who didn’t support it when it was coming through, and who are now claiming that they are holier than thou—that they are the saviours of the social services sector in ensuring that there is mandatory registration. It is utterly not true, and they know it—I mean, the sector knows it. Both Labour and New Zealand First—because New Zealand First did have a member’s bill in there as well, and I believe it was prior to the Labour Party’s, but we won’t go there—were putting pressure on the National Government, and this is why it has come this far.

Not only that, but the first reading did occur on the very last sitting day of the last parliamentary term. So where was the importance—I mean, we’ve been hearing about back in 2000, when the requests were made about being registered and how it’s a long time overdue, but it was not until the very last sitting day of the last term that National brought this to the House. Where is the importance that the National Party has been saying is on this topic?

What’s a little bit more ironic is that the whole scope of practice and definition of the role of a social worker has dominated both speeches from the National Party members, and, in fact, the original bill that came in in 2017 did not include the definition of what a “social worker” is. One of the most important submissions and comments that was made from the major stakeholders that came through the select committee process was that there was an absolute need for the definition of what a “social worker” is, what their role is, and the scope of practice, and that is what the Minister has been bringing in, and will bring in with Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187.

Back to the bill and the aim. There are four main aims—there are actually two main aims and there are four ways of getting there. So the two main aims are to “increase the professionalism of the social work and protect the public from harm”. Four ways of doing that are “making the registration system compulsory for all social workers; protecting the use of the title ‘social worker’; ensuring that social workers are competent and fit to practise; providing an appropriate complaints and disciplinary process.”—all of which will be achieved not only with this bill as introduced but with the SOP coming in the future.

I mentioned earlier that the Minister and I had put in members’ bills on this topic earlier in 2016, and the main motivation for that was because I was one of I think it was about 85 percent of the public of New Zealand who automatically assume that social workers are registered and have to be registered in the first place. It just makes common sense, and with the fact that we know that the important professions deal with not vulnerable people but people in general and society in general, and, in particular, certain professions like teachers, doctors, nurses, and social workers deal with very vulnerable people and children. Everyone assumed—quite rightly—that they had to be registered in the first instance and they weren’t, and this is the process of getting there.

When we’re talking about a registration, above all else, it’s about not only the trust that the individual has with that relationship with that social worker but also the trust that society and the country and the community has with the important role and profession of social workers and what they bring, and the service that they deliver to society as a whole. It’s not only about the trust but also it’s about ensuring the higher levels of training and the ability for oversight of higher levels of training, quality control, and discipline, all of which are, basically, a struggle and/or impossible if there is no mandatory registration.

It’s also important to note that there were a few issues raised during the select committee process, and the main issue from the main stakeholders in the practising of social work is, like I’ve mentioned, the definition that includes the roles that use the title or description of “social worker”. So in the original bill when it was introduced, there was an ability for people to get around the—in the bill that we introduced, if we had just protected the title “social worker”, that would have led itself to be open to manipulation, unfortunately, not only by individuals, and all they would have had to do was not call themselves social workers and carry on doing the same role, but also by employers in not creating a job entitled “social worker”, and the job and the role would have remained the same.

So the problem that we’re trying to solve is not necessarily just—because it is part of it—protecting the term “social worker” but also protecting the role and the relationship that they have with those that they provide the service with, and the only way that that can happen is if there is a definition of what social work is, and a scope of practice as well. So we fully support where the Minister is going with in terms of this bill and the SOP that will be introduced in the committee of the whole House.

I’d just like to finish my speech with the reality of what the SOP is and why the SOP is needed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you can’t—no, you can’t. You can talk about issues that were raised in the select committee, but you can’t talk about the SOP, because it isn’t on the Table.

DARROCH BALL: Well, I’m not talking about the SOP; I’m talking about the reason why it’s needed, which is what I said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no—only as it relates to the issues that were raised in the select committee.

DARROCH BALL: Well, that’s what I said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, well, you need to reframe it, is what I’m saying. Don’t talk about it as a reason for an SOP; talk about it as issues that were raised at the select committee.

DARROCH BALL: OK. So one of the main issues that was brought forward, which I’ve already mentioned, for the need of something that will be tabled later on was from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. Their primary concern with the whole bill was that the bill as it was introduced failed to meet the stated objective of protecting the public from harm, as only practitioners employed—paid or voluntary—in roles described using the words “social worker” or “social work” will be required to register. It is anticipated that anything up to half of the current social work workforce would not require an annual practising certificate or be required to register.

So that’s the problem in a nutshell with the bill as it stands, and that is why—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is what was raised in the select committee.

DARROCH BALL: —that was what was raised, which we will be addressing throughout the process of the bill going through the House. New Zealand First supports this bill.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill—in support, I should say, of the bill in the second reading. Before we get into the actual specifics of the bill, I just want to say that I’m seeing a theme in the speeches from the Government side today, and the theme is around how we on this side do the mahi, but the Government takes the credit. We’re seeing it with the economy. We are seeing it with things like trade in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and now we are seeing it with social services, and in particular with this bill. Let’s be clear: this is not something that’s been going on for the past year; this is something that was started by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your role as Minister—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into the debate.

DAN BIDOIS: —for Social Development, and this Government has continued that on. So I want to make clear to the public that is listening at home that this was a process started by the National-led Government and then led by the National-dominated Social Services and Community Committee, and that has been continued on to this second reading, which we are grateful for. We acknowledge it on this side of the House when the Government picks up our legislation and continues it on, but we would appreciate that this side of the House is acknowledged for the contribution that we have made to bringing this legislation to the House today.

But, most importantly, let’s now get to the purpose of this bill, because it is a very important bill. It’s about the importance of social workers to the functioning of our society, and we can all agree in the House on the importance of the social worker profession in terms of protecting our most vulnerable and at-risk citizens in New Zealand, and on the value that these workers do in order to change people’s lives, to steer them in the right direction, and, hopefully, to lead them to a better and happier life.

At the last census, we had on record, roughly, about 8,000 or so social workers in existence. About 6,000 of those are, in fact, registered, and there are about a quarter, or 2,000, that aren’t, but that doesn’t include the vast array and thousands of people out there that are fulfilling the tasks of social workers but that are not necessarily in the role of social workers. So I do want to put a special thanks out and acknowledge the contribution that social workers make to the fabric of our society, and the hard work. This bill is about, essentially, improving the professionalism of the social worker profession but also making sure that the public have certainty and assurance over the quality of these social workers, because we know that the issues that these social workers deal with are very complex. This bill seeks to, essentially, make sure that we’ve got the very best people dealing with these complex issues for the benefit of New Zealanders.

So about this bill, which was supported by National in the first reading and will be supported in the second reading as well—it provides for a number of provisions. Firstly, it enables that, essentially, an unregistered social worker cannot claim to be a social worker. So there will be a process in place where you need to be, essentially, certified before you can go out and call yourself a social worker, and that is for several reasons. One is so that the public of New Zealand and these vulnerable people that these social workers are dealing with have a sense of security that these social workers have the qualifications to deal with these complex issues but also, too, do the employers that take them on to help encourage and grow the profession even more. It also defines the practice of what a “social worker” is and makes sure that that is enshrined in legislation and that it is used throughout the profession. It also sets professional regulations for social workers in the areas of being certified to say that you must have a qualification, and it also provides an array of processes in place for employers to, in fact, come to the Social Workers Registration Board with complaints over social workers’ conduct.

Finally, in terms of the legislative changes, this is an omnibus bill, so it does impact several other pieces of legislation, and my colleague Maureen Pugh has already gone into details about some of those Acts. But, as I said, essentially, it professionalises the profession and provides a process for employers to take disputes or issues with social workers to the Social Workers Registration Board.

So I just want to talk a little bit about the select committee process. My colleagues have already outlined that we have concerns about the way in which Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187, on which I will not go into details—you’ve already traversed the reasoning for why that is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker. But I do want to express my dissatisfaction that we weren’t given an opportunity as a select committee—which I now sit on—to actually review that SOP, which is about 37 pages long. The Minister for Social Development actually had the time in order to go through the select committee, but instead the Minister has dropped this SOP at the last minute. Again, it’s a recurrence with this Minister of making changes at the last minute and not bringing the parties or the people in the House along with this. So I do have serious reservations, and we would have loved to have debated the SOP in the select committee, had we had the time to do so.

But we will support this bill in its second reading. We will support it because we believe in the impact and the value of social workers in New Zealand. We believe in creating a professionalised workforce, partly to encourage and attract more social workers into the profession but also to retain existing social workers and make sure that they feel valued and they feel that what they are doing is a professional aspect of society, and we feel that this bill will, in fact, go along those lines. So this bill, essentially, provides better outcomes for social workers and, we believe, better outcomes for the people who are being dealt with by these social workers—and we all know social workers in New Zealand. I’ve got social workers in my own family. I’ve got next-door neighbours that are social workers, and they work very, very hard and often without the valued respect that they deserve.

So the changes that have been outlined in this bill that result from an inquiry that the previous select committee recommended are changes that we will support on this side of the House. So that is, in a nutshell, my position on the bill, and our position. I do want to acknowledge the former Minister for Social Development—your contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker—in bringing this to the House. I do want to acknowledge also Minister Carmel Sepuloni for continuing this piece of work that is really, really important and for bringing this to the House. Again, we would have loved to have had the constructive dialogue on the Minister’s SOP in the select committee, but we understand that this is a behavioural trait that we’re coming to terms with, with this Minister, of dumping SOPs at the last minute. So I just want to say on behalf of the National Party that I must strongly commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I’ll try and speak through my cold and hope I can be understood. It’s a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of the second reading of the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill and the introduction of a mandatory requirement for registration. I think, in getting to speak at this stage, that it’s hard not to reflect back on the journey to get here, and I’m looking at the speech that the Greens’ spokesperson gave in the introduction of the original legislation in 2003. After listening to the submissions at that time, she noted that we felt that in order to enhance the quality of social work, the bill should reflect a commitment by the Government to work towards the mandatory registration of all social workers within an agreed and specified time frame.

We had offered the suggestion of 10 years in that time, because we noted and understood, from listening to submitters at that time, some of the logistical and financial challenges for our practitioners and NGOs to get to that point of mandatory registration. So here we are, 15 years later, at that point again of still in some ways having that conversation. I’ve been in Parliament now for seven years and this issue has been with me the whole time—sitting on the select committee and hearing from the Social Workers Registration Board, which appeared in front of the committee and told us how things were going and what issues they saw out in the community. Every time they presented to us, they raised their concerns that anybody could operate as the social worker and there was no ability to actually be able to engage with the quality of their practice or to intervene if indeed there was a dangerous practice happening.

It took until the now Minister Carmel Sepuloni introduced a member’s bill that really prompted the shift in the conversation to “Let’s do this”, which then enabled the National Government to support it. While they voted down that legislation, actually, there was support for an investigation into it and then there was the introduction of this bill.

So it’s one of the things that I reflect on in all of that process. I think the submissions in terms of the Social Services and Community Committee also showed that we are on a journey, and it’s really important that we start moving to more partnership with the social work profession. We talk, and there have been speeches from everybody in this House tonight acknowledging the importance of social workers to our collective well-being as a society. The job is incredibly difficult. You can’t come up with an A plus B equals C kind of flow chart for how to respond and work with families or individuals. Lives are complex, and there’s often a lot of danger, particularly for people who have been discriminated against and pushed out into the margins.

So it requires a huge amount of skill to do this job well and safely, and we have undervalued and under-recognised that work. I would say that over the last 10 years there was a sense that often when we were discussing really tricky, complex social issues, actually, there were simple solutions—there aren’t. It’s ultimately about getting good social policy that supports everyone and enables relationships to be able to support change for individuals and whānau and families. That is why we need to respect and value the work of social workers.

So, clearly, through the process of the select committee, many issues were raised about this legislation. Certainly, Parliament was given the feedback loudly and clearly that the initial legislation as introduced by the last Government lacked a defined scope of practice for social work. There was a real concern that our community organisations and anybody employing social workers may just take the name out and, in effect, keep the job the same to avoid the cost of registering, and that we would not see an improvement in practice and support for our families.

I think it is important to note with that that there are two sides of that. So there is the issue around the scope of practice, and there’s also the acknowledgment of the absolute reality that our social services have been run down and neglected, and that they have not been funded properly. So when I heard a National Party member just earlier speaking about financial barriers and implications for our community organisations from mandatory reporting, and that being raised, just the irony of that sat with me quite deeply after we heard those organisations being questioned again and again by the previous Government about whether they were making any difference whatsoever in our community, and that absolutely a freeze on their funding had implications for their staff, to the point that some of those organisations’ staff members were having to go to food banks to be able to support themselves and feed themselves and their families because of the decisions and the undervaluing of those organisations’ work, which is connected to not understanding the vital importance of social work within our society. So I have absolute confidence that this Government will take on that issue and that the Greens have always stood strongly for well-resourced and properly valued community services, and we will continue to do that.

I know that this is out of scope for this stage of the debate, but I will also acknowledge that there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been tabled and that will be discussed in the committee stage. I know that there are some concerns amongst some social workers that I really look forward to exploring through that debate and for the Minister for Social Development to be answering some of those concerns, to put people’s minds at rest over that. I would point out too that my understanding is that that SOP has been developed in partnership with the PSA and the alliance of social workers—so with the profession. That is a very significant change in approach from what we had under the previous Government, who thought they could sort it all out. Actually, this Government recognises that in working with the experts in our communities and different sectors, we get a better result. So my understanding is the SOP is a reflection of that new approach.

I would flag that—and I’ll be interested in the Minister’s discussion around the potential of this in that debate—I have heard a concern raised that the Social Workers Registration Board will play a very significant role in terms of the new direction of this legislation, and that those positions are all Government-appointed. There is a discussion about when social work is not just about working with individuals but about challenging Governments to do better and get our social policy settings right, and they have a duty to tell us things that we may not want to hear—actually, whether we would want to build in a new mechanism to enable more independence for that board, which may protect into the future the values of this Government. So I’ll be interested in that discussion as we go forward. But, in conclusion, this has been a really long time coming, and I want to congratulate the Minister for progressing this through.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look, I’m absolutely delighted to be able to stand and take a call on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill in its second reading. Look, as colleagues have indicated, we are, overall, supportive of this bill. As has also been noted by colleagues, it was a bill introduced, mostly in its current form, by the Hon Anne Tolley in the previous Government and we are pleased on this side to see that the bill is progressing. I’ll touch on some caveats near the end, but we’re pleased to see that the bill is progressing.

Once again, it’s not a surprise that it’s, effectively, at this point, a National bill which is being picked up by the Government. I noticed today that there has been a lot of talk about a great vision being put forward. I must have been in a different House of Parliament or another temporal moment, but I didn’t hear any vision, and when we come to the House, the first piece of legislation is, yet again, a piece of legislation of the past. We’ll just have to wait for all those hundreds and hundreds of committees to come back before we see some new legislation.

Look, the overall intention of this bill is to increase the confidence of—and confidence in the work of—social workers, and, as a couple of colleagues have noted, it’s here, thanks to the work that social workers do. They fill a particularly important role in our community, alongside a whole lot of other people who support our community in different ways, be they from the medical profession, through to iwi leaders, churches, and so forth. So I give my thanks to those who are in the social work profession and, of course, the many who have inputted into the process to date.

One of the difficulties, though, with social work is that it’s rather difficult to define, and that’s been one of the conundrums, I think, that’s faced the progress of this bill to date. I suspect most of us in this House—and people out on the street, if you went on to the street now to talk to them—intuitively have a general understanding of what social work is. The difficulty comes when you try to define it, when you try to put together a scope of practice to specifically and definitively define what it is, and it is one of the issues of this House when we try to take these rather general aspects of a profession, or we take a general policy idea, and have to define it quite precisely in law. And that’s one of the reasons that it’s taken quite a while for this bill to progress.

A member who spoke earlier was lamenting the lack of priority—that it’s taken something like 15 years, I think, for this bill to progress.

Hon Members: Sixteen years.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Sixteen. Look, it wouldn’t matter if it was 20. Sometimes things take time to progress through and to get through right, but notice there are two things that were noted there. One was that it’s now so important—it’s still taken this new Government a year, if not more, to get to it. The second is—and we’ll come to it later with the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—that they’re actually trying to ram things through. As we say, it’s a difficult thing to define. Social workers work across an incredibly wide range of areas, with an even wider range of people with, actually, a very complex array of needs. And I think, as I quickly skim the SOP, I can see the array of problems. “Problems” is probably the wrong word; it’s the difficultly in, again, trying to define things. Overall the bill is processing it well.

First and foremost, it seeks to protect the name or the title “social worker”, and that makes perfect sense. A person in this country should not be able to manifest themselves as a social worker if they have not done some training and some form of registration. When we initially introduced this bill, we had not moved towards a licensing of people to social work; instead seeking, rather, to certify, to make sure that those who are or wish to become social workers obviously have been police-vetted. There are some elements around the clean slate Act there which are rather important—that a person can indicate sufficient training, sufficient competency to be able to take upon themselves the title of social worker and then, importantly, to register themselves.

Again, I think that nuance there—the difference between certifying titling versus licensing—is fairly important, and, again, indicative of the complication that’s here. The best analogy is ultimately from the medical or the legal field. A number of people undertake legal work, but not all those are lawyers. It’s the same in the health profession. There are some that are doctors, there are some that are nurses, but, actually, the health profession is much, much broader than that.

So, again, we say we are, overall, supportive. The problem that we are about to run into is ultimately that an SOP has been dumped on this House. That’s a problem for a number of reasons. One, I suppose, just from a process point of view, is that the SOP was not given in good faith to the House first and foremost. That was only done in recent days. We first learnt of this through a press release on the Ministry of Social Development website. I don’t think that’s very prudent.

The second is that we had a truncated select committee process. This is becoming an unfortunate habit of this Government, and that’s of concern—particularly when we’ve had speeches earlier about how we have to listen to people and we’ve got to be empathetic and understand what people say. But when the tyre hits the road, the Government’s not particularly interested in engaging with people. We’ve been seeking, as an Opposition, to find out from the Minister who she did consult to bring about this SOP, and there’s been incredible reluctance—incredible reluctance—to say who. In fact, all we wanted was just a bit of evidence of what was said.

We’ve had some indications from the Green Party tonight that it was the unions—I suppose not a complete surprise; not a complete surprise. But the problem is, you see—[Interruption]—I’m hearing a funny noise. I’m not sure if it’s tinnitus. The thing is that the unions are one voice; they’re not the only voice. That’s the problem with the left and progressives—they often think that just because the unions have a say, that’s the say of everybody. And I think those of us who have had the privilege to sit on select committees understand that there are an array of voices that want to be heard. When I think of the social workers that I’ve worked with over the years—some are in the union, some are not—some would support this bill, and some would not. It’s a variety of views that I think deserve to be heard. So I’m concerned again that this particular Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, is dumping an SOP on the House at the last moment—an SOP that will not be put in front of the public.

And again, part of the argument’s been, “Well, we’ve waited 16 years, so now we have to rush it through.” Well, if I’ve learnt one thing in my years in the House it’s that when we rush things through, we make mistakes. If all the seriousness and the compassion being manifested by those on the Government side—of course, they all talk about the empathy required to be given to people yet, of course, if they get this wrong it’s going to be those very people they want to help that they’re going to harm the most. So I’m disappointed.

The consequence, of course, is that we as an Opposition will need to take a good amount of time to debate this in the committee of the whole House to understand more fully what the SOP is about. Fortunately, it’s not like the last SOP of 501 pages that was dumped. This is about 37 pages, but I think we give it a good hearing so that we can properly understand what this is doing to the public of New Zealand.

Fundamentally, as we say, a good bill started under National, engaging continually and over and over with social workers—both those, if you will, professionally unionised and those without—to understand how we progress forward. But I return to what I indicated at the start: social work is a fantastic and important profession, alongside many others, but it is a complex work. It is not easily and readily defined. I think one of the concerns that has been manifest throughout the progress of this bill over many years is making sure that we enable those who wish to be social workers to continue their good work for the communities of New Zealand and not to be limited. I can see that as an unfortunate consequence.

So I look forward to this progressing—well, I suspect it will progress tonight; we’ll see how we go—to the committee of the whole House and, eventually, towards this registration that has been mooted for some time. Thank you very much.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise to this bill, the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, after much of the heavy business of international politics and finance. We could have come back here on the first day to something that is really bread and butter politics here, or bread and butter legislation, I should say, because this is the type of thing that actually does impact on people’s lives. It’s not going to impact just on the social workers, it’s not going to impact just on the social work profession, but it’s actually going to impact on those they deal with.

I had the privilege of sitting through the Social Services and Community Committee, and we heard a range of submitters. One of the things that did strike me is one of the submitters who talked about where they were accompanied by someone who purported to be a social worker, called themselves a social worker, and, as far as those taking the advice of that person were concerned, they were actually a social worker. It turned out they weren’t, the advice was terrible, and it just highlighted the need to ensure that when someone is administering advice that is actually life-changing and is going to be heavily influencing decisions people make, they must have the confidence that that person has been through some sort of a screening system—that they are professional. And that’s what this bill really does address.

I was fortunate to come to the committee after a previous profession I was in where I was working with my Australian colleagues to try and work through a registration process for policing within the eight Australian states and New Zealand. And that gave me an understanding of the need to understand, for those who do call themselves a police officer, like those who call themselves an electrician or those who call themselves a doctor—as referred to by the previous speaker—that it is important that there is actually an element of trust or understanding that to do that, you have come to that position with a suitable level of training and understanding of what it is you should be doing. That project is still ongoing; trying to get eight Australian states to agree on anything—last I heard, they had different gauges on their rail lines so that may well be something left to my successor’s successor.

But coming back to New Zealand again, I talk about the need—when we talk about social workers, so often we are talking about the traditional dealing directly with people who really need assistance to be able to participate fully in mainstream society or just get back on the horse or to do whatever—they’re going through some sort of period in their lives. But it’s much more than that, the social workers—I mean, I had a personal experience myself. I had a child who was at death’s door and one of the pieces of advice I got from the then social worker at the hospital was “Think about where you’re going to bury this boy if he dies.” Now, that is something that was, it actually turns out, very good advice. I can say he didn’t die, but it actually did turn my mind to those issues that people who had been experienced in that situation before, who knew what was going to come up, knew what’s going to happen—and that was actually having someone experienced in that position and that person was a social worker. As people go through different aspects of their life, they will encounter social workers who are practising a profession and understanding a body of knowledge that they are putting into practice that is absolutely essential.

So just going back to what a social worker will be: it will be an offence to call yourself a social worker if you’re not, and that’s important, and I think that really lies at the basis of this. So if you are dealing with someone who is a social worker, who says they are, they will be, and we can understand they have that level of understanding. They have to have a prescribed qualification, be competent to practise as a social worker, and be a fit and proper person. And, again, part of the element of a profession is to ensure that there is a governing body over that. A very important part of this is the competency to practise with Māori and other ethnic and cultural groups, and to have enough practical experience in practising as a social worker—all those things that are incredibly important.

In my short time left to me, I’ll just speak about the matter that has being talked about, the scopes of practice, which will be the subject of a Supplementary Order Paper. It became clear from listening to submitters that the fear will be that simply—one of the previous speakers talked about 8,000 social workers in the last census, but that could very quickly drop down to 2,000 if the profession is not defined. So there is going to be an important bit of work, and I look forward to being part of that discussion, part of that debate during the committee stage of the bill. So thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Hamish Walker—five minutes.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): This is a very interesting bill and one close to my heart: my sister is a social worker. She’s been a social worker for the best part of 15 years. It is a very, very interesting bill—I mean, the Government had time to scrutinise this bill, to go over it with the select committee. The thing that really disappoints me about this bill—National supports this bill but we oppose Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 in the name of the Minister for Social Development. The Government had time but they chose not to use the time to go over the bill, and one thing I’ve learnt in my short 17, 18 months as a member of this Parliament is that select committees improve bills. It’s a chance for members from all sides of the House to panel-beat the bill to make it the best bill possible. And, unfortunately, this Government—which is very common, very typical of this Government—has chosen not to.

This bill was introduced by the last National Government and was intended to help to increase the status and professionalism of social workers. I just want to acknowledge all the social workers out there. They do a fantastic job, and just over this recent summer talking to my sister, some of the cases, some of the people that she helps—it’s just incredible and they deserve a lot more credit than they currently get. And as a result of this bill, people would like to know, basically, when they’re dealing with a social worker. There are a number of different social agency providers across New Zealand, so it’s good, once this bill passes, which was introduced by the previous National Government, that people, the members of the public, will have a very simple, easy process to follow so they know when they’re dealing with a social worker.

Because of the restricted time frame and the fact that this Government chose to not put it through the select committee, submitters’ concerns were unable to be fully addressed, and this bill really needed more time to come back in front of this House. So it’s very disappointing. In saying that, we support the bill, but we oppose SOP 187, and in future, for the better of people of New Zealand, if the Government can follow proper process and put it through the select committee.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is an absolute honour to be able to contribute to the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill in its second reading. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for championing this bill through the House.

But before I get to that—most people today have referred to “I know of social workers.”, “I know of cases.”, “ I know of what—”, “I know of what—”. I have the social work registration number 1473—

Hon Member: Yeah!

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Yay—and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge my lecturer in Auckland College of Education, Robyn Corrigan, who first introduced me to social work in my first year; also Shannon Pākura, whose parents were caregivers when I was a social worker in Ōtāhuhu, and she was also the Chief Social Worker at that time; and the managers here at Child, Youth and Family, now Oranga Tamariki.

I want to bring a voice of insight from the field. Social work is a calling and it is based on values and ethics. The Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers has 11 principles which its members must abide by. But I want to just cover three points, three of those principles, because then I can go on to talk about the reasons why this bill is so important and that it is about time that this bill—as I acknowledged to the Minister, it is about accountability to the ethics and value of our profession of social work.

So the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers that I used to be a member of—I just want to say that my annual registration expired on 30 June 2018. My competency certificate does not expire until December 2019. Members of Parliament do not have a job description, so the social workers registration board said to me, “You are non-practising, because there is no job description for members of Parliament, so we cannot actually measure whether you actually do social work or not.” So my official title—I’m listed as a non-practising social worker with a competency certificate that expires in December.

OK, let’s just talk about those values. I’m going to have to read them because it’s important that we all hear that in the House. One of the ethics and principles of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers talks about “Upholds value of democracy and human rights.”, “Protects the client’s integrity”, “Recognises and accepts Māori as tangata whenua of Aotearoa, and that the social worker’s role is to achieve social justice for Māori at both a structural and individual level written within the spirit of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” Unfortunately, Māori are the mainstream clients of Oranga Tamariki. The reason why I refer to that principle is because it is important when we say social workers are credible and they are fit to practice that they must be able to demonstrate that they can practise with a cultural component, and the majority of that needs to be Māori, the tangata whenua of this country.

I’m not sure Mr Assistant Speaker, whether this is a split call or am I speaking for 10 minutes? I just want to confirm—

Hon Peeni Henare: Keep going until he says stop.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Keep going until he says—yeah, OK. So one more minute; OK. So the Minister referred to—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s a split call.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: It’s a split call. So the Minister referred to an acknowledgment of the cross-sector group the Social Work Alliance.

We hear from the other side—they keep saying, “Oh, we need more time to hear from the people. We need more time. We need more time.” Let me recall who exactly is in the Social Work Alliance: it is the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, Careerforce, it is the Council for Social Work Education Aotearoa New Zealand, Social Services Providers of Aotearoa, New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, District Health Boards Health Social Workers Leaders’ Council, ministry of Oranga Tamariki, Social Workers Registration Board, and New Zealand Public Service. I think those members actually represent the voices of people who bring the experience and the insight into the service that is for most of us, people who refer to ourselves as social workers; it is a calling and it’s a value-based profession.

Anybody at the moment can call themselves a social worker—anybody can call themselves a social worker. But a person who’s done a law degree at university cannot call themselves a lawyer unless they’ve gone through all their practising, done the hours and time. The social work profession—I’ll come to a close soon—to practise as a social worker, it is never done in isolation. Social work is group work. I’ve come through the service as a social worker. I’ve been a social worker and in my role as social worker I’ve had supervisors who supervised and critiqued the decisions that I made. I’ve had practice leaders who actually look after social workers and supervisors to make sure that they’re practising. All these people that are referred to within this bill are people who must be registered social workers, all reading from the same hymn book, and all singing from the same hymn book.

I cannot wait—I cannot wait—for the debate of the committee of the whole House because it is important that we get this passed so that, number one, when we speak about the most vulnerable, the people who make decisions about the most vulnerable children, the people who make decisions about vulnerable parents, and the people who make decisions about vulnerable communities are people who will call themselves social workers. We need to be accountable as country. It is about social justice. It is about human rights. People who have the honour—the honour—to serve and to service the people who are most vulnerable need to be accountable. Actually, we need to be able to stand with our hand on our hearts and say, “We have come up with this great process to make sure that they are actually following due diligence and being professional at their profession.”

I must conclude now, but I just want to acknowledge all the people that work within the social work field, people who go above and beyond. A social worker never ever works eight hours a day. A social worker goes well above and beyond their call of duty, and I want to acknowledge the profession. People out there who call themselves social workers and say, “Oh, you know, social work is easy work to do.” It is not for everybody. I don’t think that anybody here who comes across the ministry of Oranga Tamariki who somehow has not done a good job of being parents, and has somebody at their door to take away their children because we’ve made an assessment that they’re not safe to be in their care, would want that person to actually have been sent by their peers, by their profession, if they are not actually capable of making those decisions. Mr Speaker, that’s it from me today, social worker registration number 1473, who’s not practising. Malo.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I thank God for the day that registered social worker 1473 came into the Community and Social Services Committee, because the day that she came in, she added a bit of common sense to this bill, when we had that in the debate, and I did say that to her. One of the issues that came up during the discussion, and especially during the select committee process, was about scopes of practice. I know that she knew what we were talking about because that was an issue from the very organisations that she’s just named.

Those organisations said, “Look, the bill is great; it’s heading in the right direction.” We know the numbers: 6,300 already registered, nearly 2,000 that were unregistered, who wanted to move from a voluntary to a mandatory regime. Not a problem. Everybody agreed that that’s what we should do. But when it came to the select committee process, through the submissions, from the very organisations, they said this: “All we ask is that you include it in there—not to define it so that you’re bound by legislation. Regulation will define the specific areas of that scope, but you should include that into the legislation.” We on the select committee then said that we’d like to take that back through the advisers, back to the Minister for Social Development, and so forth. But here’s what we got back: “Time is short; we’ve got to move on.” In fact, I want to read some of the advice that came in the regulatory impact statement. It talks about these very scopes: “Scopes were initially considered during the early development of the Bill, but on balance they were not seen as required to meet the objectives of the proposed legislation. Cabinet decisions from mid-2017 affirmed the decision not to include a scope of practice …”. In the regulatory statement that’s what the officials gave back to us.

So why are we here now—and we’ve got Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 187 to now include into the bill? There was plenty of opportunity. We were pushed, we were rushed, to get the bill done. We wanted to give it time and space to allow for those issues to be discussed. We were told, “No, we’re going to move on.” The officials have given their advice, which would have come from the Minister as well. Not today, not now, and probably not ever, but now we are here over in the second part of the bill. We agree with the bill. You will get the vote from National in regards to this piece of legislation. What you won’t get though is the vote for the SOP, and here is the reason why: poor practice. We’re talking scopes of practice inside this bill around the registration on social workers; how about practice in regards to the Minister in her practice?

Here’s an even greater concern. We were asking officials in the Minister’s office, “So what was the change of heart? What was the change of mind? Was there official advice? Was there a report that was submitted? Was there some other part of the regulatory impact statement?” No, there wasn’t. It was a conversation that was had with some other social workers after the fact. For a Government that talks about being transparent, a Government that’s talking about evidence-based, why is it that now a decision to change has simply come through a conversation with some friends? That’s what we’re protesting about. That’s the reason why we’re saying it over and over again. We do not deny the fact that scope of practice should be there. In fact, all of the parts of the bill, this select committee, along with National members, absolutely support it. What we are protesting against—and it’s silence of the lambs on the other side because they know it to be true—is the fact that this is poor practice, didn’t need to happen.

Hon Peeni Henare: How did the Saudi sheep farm happen?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Didn’t need to happen. OK? Well, I don’t know about sheep farms but what I do know is about social workers, OK, that came to us in the select committee from the very organisations—from registration 1473, as she named them, inside here, in this House. Those very people, possibly some of the lecturers that would have lectured social workers, said to us, “Please include scopes of practice.” That’s what I can tell you about. Those are the words that they shared. That’s what we wanted to push through but it didn’t happen. And again, what has to be of great concern to those that are listening on the outside is why having a conversation, possibly over a cup of tea, would’ve changed the mind of the Minister. I know the Minister’s better than that. But I have to say, Minister, on this case here, I have to say it’s poor practice.

Hon Peeni Henare: Only that party has secret cups of tea.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Yes, the member over there can keep trying to interject because it’s a bit silent on the other side, because the reality is they know it to be true. We’re not contesting anything inside this bill. We’re not contesting anything inside this bill but the point we do want to make is this: when you had the support of the House to support this Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill, when you had the fact that we were supporting all the elements in that, would it have taken—and here’s the other thing: from the time that we then had the bill submitted with the report, sent back into the House, six months—six months—it sat there. We were told to rush the bill through. Why? Because time was of the essence. We needed to get this completed because social workers in the communities in Aotearoa needed to have this bill passed. We waited six months before we even got to this point where we’re now having the second reading. What was the rush? Why could you not have taken the time? Why are we here?

There’s only one point to be made tonight in the speeches of the House from this side: it’s poor practice. That’s what we’re saying. If you’d just taken the time—

Hon Peeni Henare: Nine years your party did nothing.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Nine years. Well, let’s just talk about that. As the chairperson in 2016 of the Social Services Committee, we initiated, and as the chair I initiated, the inquiry into social work practice, and in particular around managing registration. In 2017, this was initiated by the Hon Anne Tolley. [Interruption] Well, you can talk about that. What about the nine years previously, under a Labour Government, when they were lobbied—when it was advocated—for change? Did they change? No, they didn’t. You see, the reality is, you’ve got your history of inactivity, and in our time, we began the process and would have passed the legislation.

Hon Member: You had nine years.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Throw your nine years, but here’s the reality, right? The point is that we would have done it. We would have continued the process through.

So you know what? The nine years is not about—the fact is that we are supporting this legislation. You’re hurting because of the poor practice. That’s what you’re hurting about. And you know what? It’s great—I’ve got another three minutes where I can keep saying it: poor practice. That’s what it is. All you needed to do was take another two to three weeks. That’s all we asked for. We asked for an extension—not given. All we asked was to take a little bit more time, allow those very social workers that you are standing up there for and championing; the very social workers you said are doing a great job, and we absolutely agree; the very social workers you stand up and say “We are the champions and the advocates for”—they asked for this, not us. They asked for it. You didn’t give it, and now we’re back here again.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I didn’t give it.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do apologise. I know you’re a strong advocate, Mr Assistant Speaker. But the community of social workers asked for this. They asked for this. They asked that we would simply take the time to extend this to include the scopes of practice. Every time I stand up here and say it, I know it hurts, but it’s the truth. It is poor practice, and what they should have done is just take an extra two weeks, allow them to come up with a submission, extend it—we wouldn’t even be talking about this. We would have been standing alongside you, championing all the parts of this bill. That’s what we would have been doing.

It’s unfortunate that we are at this place, and so I again want to affirm the words that have been spoken on this side. All it would have taken is just a little bit of extra time to turn around and listen to the words that were supported through the submissions by the social workers themselves: “Please include scopes of practice inside the legislation.” It’s what we ask for. But, unfortunately, it had to come through the back door. Unfortunately, it did not come, and when our officials actually asked of the Minister’s officials if we could have some of that advice that was given, it was not forthcoming. That’s an even greater concern: not a single report, nothing that was there that shows the evidence, but, simply, it was advocated in the quiet and in the silence. For a Government that prides itself on transparency, that was not the case in this situation. That is the point that we make here on the side of the House. We will support the bill. We will not support the Supplementary Order Paper that’s being submitted by the Minister.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I’m absolutely delighted to be the last speaker in the second reading, where we’re not debating Supplementary Order Paper 187 this evening; we’re talking about it as it is in the second reading coming back.

I’m delighted because I had to have a wee laugh at my colleague here, social worker No. 1473, when she said around people saying how social work is an easy job and can be easy work. I do sympathise with that because I have worked in my previous career very, very closely with a number of social workers, and I hold them in the highest regard. As a principal of a school, I worked with social workers from Oranga Tamariki. I had our own Social Workers in Schools social worker, who I thought was absolutely crucial to the running of the school. We also worked with a large number of social workers from different hauora. These people had the ability to, and did, change lives—constantly, daily. I think they made lives so much better for the people that I worked with, not just my children that I worked with but also their families; not just their immediate families but the wider families and the wider community—exceptional people, absolutely amazing in the work that they do. So when people say that this work is easy work, then I just absolutely laugh at that, because I think they are just the most incredible people.

Having said that, and having worked with so many social workers over my career, it wasn’t until the last few years that I actually came to the realisation that they didn’t have to be registered. I didn’t know that. I thought that everyone that walked through the door of my school and presented as a social worker had to be registered. I think that that is wrong, that it’s taken so long to rectify that. That’s why I’m excited about this bill as it stands at the moment, and I really do commend the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for the work that she has done and continues to do on this particular bill. I’m excited about where it’s going.

I think that I wouldn’t be the only person. I think I heard the Minister in front of me say that it was a wee while before she had that realisation, as well, that this is so important, and I presume that’s why she put that up as a member’s bill originally, which got turned down by the previous Government. It’s been 16 years since the Social Workers Registration Act was introduced. I don’t think that that’s good enough.

I’ve been part of a profession where registration wasn’t mandatory when it first came in, and I remember going through the process of it becoming mandatory. It didn’t take long. It was only a few years in that first instance. Since then, the teaching profession also has had a number of iterations in the changes of registration. It’s improved along the way. Not only has it helped the people that we work with because it gives them surety—and this will be the case for the social workers, that it will give the most vulnerable people surety, and the people like myself, who worked with them, surety in that registration process—but it will also show value in the profession, and that’s what I’m excited about. This is where we can actually say that these people are highly skilled and they are registered and we have the absolute surety around that. That has got to be good for the profession, and I say “profession” because that’s exactly what it is.

I’m really excited to see this bill come in in the process it is now. I’m not going to talk about the Supplementary Order Paper because this is not the time. However, I am really looking forward to the committee of the whole House stage because I think that’s where we will have the informed debate and hear why that Supplementary Order Paper is coming through. So it’s been said here tonight—I don’t need to add to it. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move, That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This Government is committed to ensuring that the regulatory system that manages New Zealand’s Crown-owned minerals and the permitting regime that underpins these sectors is robust and fit for purpose. This bill seeks to clarify and update statutory provisions and to address gaps, inconsistencies, and errors with the Act. The changes in the bill will ensure that the identified regulatory gaps are closed, it will ensure that there is clarity for regulators and for the industry around permitting, and it will address inconsistencies in the Act.

I’d like to acknowledge once again—as I have in earlier readings—and thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for its consideration of this important and technical piece of legislation. The committee received 11 written submissions, and five submitters made oral submissions. The submissions came from industry participants, environmental non-governmental organisations, iwi, and a legal professional body. I’d like to thank those who took the time to lodge a submission and those who appeared before the committee. Those insights have helped to ensure that the legislation is as clear and consistent as possible.

Although this is a technical bill, it is also an important one. It is important as it ensures that the Minister of Energy and Resources has appropriate oversight over change-of-control transactions. Under the current legislation, a change of control of a permit participant does not require prior ministerial consent. This is not in line with the intent of the Act, as it allows companies to transfer operator responsibilities with reduced Crown oversight. This bill closes that gap and ensures that a change of control of a permit operator of a tier 1 permit receives prior consent from the Minister. It also ensures that the Minister must be satisfied that a change of control of an operator will not affect the permit holder’s ability to comply with an agreed work programme.

The bill as introduced did not expressly provide for a situation where a change of control of a permit operator was commenced but not completed prior to the new provisions in the bill coming into effect. This could result in an unintentional breach of the new provisions of the Act.

As many people in this House will be aware, OMV entered into a sale and purchase agreement in March 2018 with Shell Investments NZ Ltd to purchase all of the share capital of four Shell companies that hold Shell’s offshore petroleum assets in New Zealand. During the select committee process, OMV raised concerns that in the event that the bill be passed even slightly before their sale and purchase agreement was confirmed, OMV could inadvertently be in breach of the bill’s prior notice requirements for a change of control of a permit operator. The select committee recommended inserting a new clause into the bill which would confirm that the current law on change of control will continue to apply to any change-of-control transaction entered into before the new provisions commence. This gives certainty and clarity to commercial transactions currently being undertaken.

Another thing this bill does is provide clarity around clauses in the Act which could be interpreted in multiple ways, or where the meaning of the clause is unclear. Legislation that is unclear may lead to confusion and unnecessary administrative burden for those regulating the petroleum minerals sectors and for the sectors themselves. For example, the bill clarifies that a permit holder must have an access arrangement to undertake minimum impact activities on schedule 4 land, and clarifies which Ministers enter into access agreements in respect of Crown land and land in the common marine and coastal area. Clarifications such as these will ensure that New Zealand’s regulatory system works effectively for both regulators and the industry.

Finally, the bill addresses sections in the Crown Minerals Act where the wording of a clause is either inconsistent with another Act or inconsistent with the purpose of the clause. The bill enables amendments to be made to the minerals programme that are consequential on the changes made by the bill, without complying with the public notice and submission process that would otherwise apply under sections 17 and 18 of the legislation. The changes in the bill have already been through an extensive public consultation process, and it is not considered necessary to delay the update of the minerals programme by going through another consultation process on the same amendments. The new provision does not enable the introduction of new policy; it simply allows consequential changes to be made to the minerals programme.

This Government is committed to a just transition to a net zero emissions economy. The recent changes in the Act via the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill to halt future offshore oil and gas exploration permits is a clear signal from the Government so that industry and New Zealand can begin to make this long-term, managed transition. We acknowledge that there is a need to look at the wider Crown Minerals Act and ensure that it is future-proofed to meet the needs of all New Zealanders. This is why, as previously stated, we will be shortly undertaking a wider review of the Act, which will involve engaging with iwi and other key stakeholders, on how New Zealand can sustainably derive value from its natural resources.

As I have said publicly, a just transition means that the existing work programmes of permit holders won’t be affected, regardless of the decisions that have been made on the future of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand. That means that our current regulatory system must continue to effectively manage the permits that are currently in place. To do this, the legislation must be robust and up to date.

This bill will ensure that the regulatory regime that covers our Crown-owned minerals is fit for purpose. The bill will close gaps, clarify unclear provisions, and address inconsistencies currently under the Crown Minerals Act. This will ensure that we have a regulatory system that remains effective and efficient, while at the same time it provides clear and transparent expectations to industry. Our goal is to have minerals and petroleum industries that responsibly deliver value to New Zealand, and the amendments in this bill will help us to achieve this. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you to the Minister of Energy and Resources for her remarks. I thought she was doing exceptionally well—probably the best speech she’s ever given on oil and gas—until she started talking about the just transition. Then she was speaking to her Greenpeace stakeholders, the lobby group, just to remind them that she’s still on track to get rid of this industry in this country. That’s quite obvious.

Today, North Taranaki celebrates the arrival of a rig offshore from Taranaki, at the Pohokura gasfield, to do some work that will enable that gasfield to deliver energy to this country on an ongoing basis. It’s very interesting that OMV, the company which the Minister referred to, is undertaking this work—a company who has a proud international reputation. What this bill seeks to do, as the Minister says, is make the regime around the change-of-control transactions robust. There was an occasion where a respected operator from offshore wanted to exit their involvement in New Zealand waters, and so offered up shares in their company in this work that were purchased by another offshore company without the Minister of Energy and Resources’ awareness, and this is what has precipitated this bill.

It is correct what the Minister says, and the work was done by the Hon Judith Collins when she was Minister of Energy and Resources. In fact, all the work in this bill has been led by National MPs. It was around that transfer of control that we felt there was some concern, because it was an offshore field. We wanted to know that there was going to be genuine capability of those who were purchasing those offshore assets to undertake the work and, if it came to decommissioning, that their pockets were deep enough to do that work.

We also wanted to know in terms of the health and safety of our environment and those workers on those offshore platforms that that company had a good and strong history of good, sensible, and exemplary health and safety practice. So New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals had to go offshore to the country where this company has its domicile in order to inquire and have that level of satisfaction. I’m pleased to say that what they found satisfied their requirements. But what it did—it highlighted that there was a gap in our regime. There was a gap in our regime that there could be a change of control that would not or did not necessarily have the Minister of Energy and Resources’ prior knowledge or consent. So what this bill does is ensure that that takes place.

This bill, prepared by the National Government, has come to its third reading here nearly 18 months into this Labour Government. I’d have to say that as I look at it these days, I see there are weaknesses there. One weakness in this bill is it says in new section 41AC(2) in clause 8, “If the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons why a relevant person could not comply with subsection (1)(b), the Minister may receive an application by a later date agreed”. Why I say that that is an area of concern is because it requires ministerial discretion. Now, I respect the Minister has that role and responsibility to make decisions by discretion, but I am concerned that we have had a history of this Minister of Energy and Resources rejecting officials’ advice and making decisions that affect an industry without evidence, without research, and without analysis, and that we rely on her discretion. I think that’s a problem. We can’t get away from it.

This is how politics operates: people get voted into office and elevated to a Cabinet role where they do have direction, and we have got to maintain safeguards for the people of New Zealand around that discretion. This is why this place operates and exists—not just for decision-making but also to hold the Government to account for that decision-making.

While the Minister talks about a just transition, I would like to raise something and read out a comment of hers, because this comes to the heart of this bill. She said, “Taking a just transition approach is important for maintaining the social licence necessary to realise our ambition for a low emissions economy.”—this is in her Cabinet paper—“It provides us with an opportunity to articulate a compelling long-term vision that offers reassurance that change takes time and is a natural process within economies and society.” We have seen anything but, and my concern with this piece of legislation is that it puts a weight of discretion upon the Minister.

What we read here in these words regarding the just transitions unit—which the Minister spoke about in her speech, though it had nothing to do with the bill—is that she is now stating that change takes time and is a natural process. Nothing natural took place last year. It was intervention. It was social and economic violence and harm created to an industry and to a community, and that’s why I say—and I am very glad to see—that there is a jack-up rig offshore from Taranaki working on a gasfield that is going to supply more gas to New Zealand. By the way, when that gas flows, the prices of electricity will drop. At the moment, they are double what they should be because of a constriction in gas supply. They were triple that in October-November.

Some people say, “Well, that’s why we shouldn’t rely on the gas industry.” Let me tell you there isn’t an industry out there that provides energy that does not need maintenance. We know that the pole from North to South, South to North came under huge need for maintenance, at one point in time. Because of the constrained supply of electricity, the price in Auckland went to $1,700 per megawatt when it’s normally about $70. I don’t hear the Minister of Energy and Resources criticising the electricity industry.

So what we want through this bill is, yes, we want to have a robust regime but we want to have a Minister of Energy and Resources who is going to treat an industry fairly, and we want to have a Minister of Energy and Resources who doesn’t put this stuff in the Cabinet papers that’s just a lot of rubbish, and it’s not what she believes. So I stand here to say that we will support this bill. Yes, I am increasingly upset by what has taken place, but I believe that these provisions are good and they should be there. We are proud on this side of the House to have initiated this work, and therefore we support it and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, sir.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): That was a speech of two halves, my word. On one hand, we heard a calm and reasoned exposition of Mr Young’s support for the provisions of this largely technical and uncontroversial bill, and it will be worthwhile reflecting a bit on those provisions a little later in my remarks. On the other hand, we had Jonathan Young unleashed—a volcanic man of oil and gas. We could smell the crude on his breath as he leaned over the microphone. What we learnt in his address is that Jonathan Young is genuinely contemptuous of the concept of a just transition. That was put very, very clearly in this speech—

Hon Members: Rubbish.

MICHAEL WOOD: We can check the Hansard for that. It does bring the question to mind: if one does not believe in a just transition away from an energy sector and an economy powered on fossil fuel, then one must believe in either no transition at all or a transition that is not just. Those are the only other options.

So it actually, I think, behoves the National Party to be really clear on where it lines up on this issue, which is one of the most important economic and social and environmental issues that our country and our world will face in the coming years and decades, because we can make choices at this point in time. But if we don’t start making choices to have a transition that is measured and that is just and that allows economies and regions to shift their modes of production and energy generation and to move the jobs in that direction—if we don’t make these choices and investments now, then either we don’t make them, and we’re ignoring the crisis of climate change that is bearing down upon us as we speak—

Jonathan Young: It doesn’t need your help. No, it happens slowly.

MICHAEL WOOD: —or it will happen all of a sudden, and where will those people be then? So on this side of the House, Mr Young, we stand firmly on the side of a just transition and we do it proudly, and we’re going to stand by those communities and those people as we do that. Just kicking the ball down the road is doing those people and those communities no favours at all.

Coming to the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, this is, as I’ve said and I think other speakers have said, largely an uncontroversial bill. I did note there was a submission from Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand, which was largely supportive, and I think, for the current Government, that’s pretty good going.

The bill addresses a number of inconsistencies within the Crown Minerals Act 1991—a couple of loopholes which have emerged over the years. I do want to acknowledge the work of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on this bill. It sounds like it was a good select committee process and—as I’ll come to—there are a couple of sensible changes that were suggested during select committee hearings in response to submissions that were received. It’s also important to say, as the Minister has indicated, that there’s likely to be a wide review of the Crown Minerals Act coming a bit later in time, but this was a bill that could proceed at the moment that makes some sensible and largely uncontroversial changes.

The most important change, I think, as I’ve had a look at this bill, are changes which close some of the regulatory gaps that we have at the moment, and the key one which has been identified by previous speakers relates to the fact that across the sector we have, it seems, two quite significant trends. One is that there is an increase in divestment and acquisition activity, and on the other hand there is a feature of the industry whereby older fields are sometimes being acquired by smaller players who are able to use particular technologies to increase the production on mature oilfields. This is leading to quite a bit of acquisition and divestment activity within the sector, and, of course—and it seems to be accepted on both sides of the House—we have to have absolute confidence and certainty that the operators of these facilities and these fields are organisations who are competent, who will do the job in an effective way, who don’t pose risks in terms of health and safety or environmental risk, and who can, at the end of the process, be trusted to have sufficient financial capability to be able to wind down those operations appropriately. So that’s why we have the ministerial process of approving changes to the ownership of these operations.

The gap that’s been identified within the course of this bill is when we have a change of ownership of one of these entities. That seems to slip through and doesn’t necessarily have to go through the approvals process, so that’s being tidied up.

The key things that the select committee picked up were, firstly, the need to ensure that we don’t have people who are caught midstream if those processes began before this bill comes into effect, and that’s, I think, fair and just that we allow for that to happen. The second thing is to bring a knowledge test in, so that if an operator comes above the 50 percent threshold but possibly because of transactions of which they were not aware, genuinely, then they are not going to be pinged by what are actually quite substantial fines of between $50,000 and $800,000, depending on the circumstances that are in the Act.

So I think those are very sensible and reasonable changes made by the select committee which support the intent of the Act, which is to close the loopholes and tidy up this important piece of legislation. The other changes mainly relate to wording changes and removing inconsistencies with other pieces of legislation.

So it’s a sensible bill. It seems to have wide support in the House. I commend the select committee, the Minister, and other members who have worked on it, and I look forward to further work in this sector from our dynamic Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Megan Woods, to ensure that we do have a just transition to lead New Zealand into the future. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation, which National does support—the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill—which is part of the usual maintenance of legislation that this House does all the time. We pass laws, and over the years the evidence of the industry that is being regulated or legislated over shows that we haven’t thought of something quite right in the past, or somebody has found a loophole or somebody has done something that the Parliament didn’t expect, and so there is an ongoing continuous process of updating the legislation so that it will be clear and consistent.

In particular, what we’re looking at here is the oversight of the change-of-control process, and the Minister of Energy and Resources and several other speeches have outlined the changes that are particularly focused on in this bill, so I won’t labour those issues particularly heavily. But I would, I suppose, make the point that it is legislating for an industry that is indeed under threat by this ideological Government. So it’s tweaking the legislation for an industry that this Government is—

Andrew Falloon: Killing off.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: “Killing off” is not too strong a word to describe it. So, yes, we talk about the just transition, and I suppose our only concern is that we don’t want it to be a transition from New Zealand being a rich country to a poor country. If we’re not careful with the way that decisions are made in this minerals sector, we could be certainly imperilling our future prosperity.

So we all know about the oil and gas decisions from last year, which were not based on any kind of analysis that ordinary New Zealanders would expect that any Government would rely on and draw on in making major decisions about the economy which affect the ability of New Zealanders to go out and earn a living, a good quality income, to provide for the health and the education and all the things that we want to enjoy out of life. Before you make decisions that have a dramatic impact on the earning capacity of this country, you actually do the analysis—not you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but the Government—and they failed to do that in this particular case.

Worse than that, it’s not actually going to achieve any climate change benefit. As has been outlined by numerous reports in the process, if indeed we continue to import coal from Indonesia and places like that by shiploads trundling across the Tasman Sea, full of coal, in order to maintain the energy that we’re not getting from the gas that we used to be getting but we could be getting if we tried to look for it, then that is not helping the climate one jot. If you want to deal with the demand for the energy that is currently being generated out of gas, that might have an impact, but, of course, you’ve got to learn how to turn the milk into milk powder and all the sorts of things that require energy and currently use energy. They’re not interested in dealing with that detail, but that blunt decision-making last year around the oil and gas sector didn’t even contemplate those things.

It still doesn’t cease to amaze me, Mr Shaw—looking over here—what gives the impression of the members of this Government that New Zealand is unique, almost in the entire world, in being so rich and so prosperous that we don’t actually have to look in the future for oil and gas and mineral resources. Every other country in the world, apart from the French, I understand, who don’t have any—they have plenty of nuclear energy and all sorts of other things, and we’ve had a long history of dealing with the French over nuclear interests. So, apart from the French, everybody else, including the most sophisticated and wealthy economy in the world, the United States, which is now the largest producer of oil and gas currently and has seen the biggest reduction in greenhouse gases on the basis of that—they think it’s worthwhile doing. Every other country in the world does, but New Zealand, apparently, according to this Government, is so rich that we don’t need to do that. So we’ve got this bill trying to create clarity and consistency around the regulation of an industry that the Government is, apparently, quite happy to let wither and die sooner than anywhere else in the world.

Then we look at the question of—one element of it is clarifying access arrangements that are needed to access schedule 4 land. Now, that raises the other issue which is bubbling away in this Government at the moment in relation to exploration or extraction of minerals from parts of that land which are included in the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate—not necessarily schedule 4, but the scrublands that have come into what is called stewardship land within the DOC estate.

People sometimes might be surprised to learn that about one-third of the land mass of New Zealand is in the DOC estate—one-third. It’s not a small amount; it’s quite a large amount—one-third. The idea that every single square metre or hectare of that land is so pristine that our ecology and international reputation would collapse if we were to extract something from it doesn’t seem, to me, to hold up to any sort of rational assessment. So, over the last 20 or 30 years, there has been plenty of activity on that land which has been folded into the DOC estate but which came from a whole lot of other Government departments over the years and is of very low-quality conservation value.

Any pragmatic Government would say, “Yes, we absolutely look after our national parks, which are our heritage and need to be preserved, but we don’t necessarily have to do absolutely nothing on large areas of land.” So, as I understand it, the Greens have made it very clear that it is their very clear policy that we should do absolutely nothing on that land, and there’s a bit of an argument about greenstone and quarrying for just some aggregates and all sorts of things that come out of that area. But, you know, it can go down to coking coal and things like that.

Hon Tracey Martin: Nine years and nothing. Now, we talk about it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: But New Zealand First, of course, have a very different point of view, as articulated by Shane Jones, and so we’re all very interested to know what the outcome of that argument will be and what horse-trading will be undertaken to see what they’re going to do over that issue.

Hon Tracey Martin: What argument? It’s called negotiation—not that your party would know much about it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’ll see. We’ll see where we get to on that argument.

It is important, because, ultimately, if you’re talking about economic development in a country, then you need to have a whole series of activities in order to create an economy which provides jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders. That’s about investing in high-tech industries, it’s about good quality farms, it’s about wine, it’s about having good quality infrastructure that carries the stuff, it’s about having a good quality education system and developing skills, it’s about capital markets—it’s about a whole lot of things. But in just about every other country in the world, it also includes actually making use of the mineral wealth of the country where you live. We just need to be a little bit careful, and it worries me that the direction of travel of this Government is to say “No, no. We’re so rich that we don’t need to do any of that.” for no reason.

So, if you look at the West Coast, whose economy was based largely on this extractive sector—you know, going back into ancient history, where they’d be taking lumps of coal the size of pineapples and all sorts of things, and making a real living. Those days have long passed, but there is still much wealth to be drawn from the natural environment. If we go about it in a careful, considered, and sustainable way that doesn’t have a long-lasting impact and is done with the assistance of top-quality science, then that can be an important part of a modern, sophisticated economy, and we’re not seeing much evidence of that.

But, anyway, getting back to this bill, it certainly, certainly is one of the basic pieces of legislation where we are maintaining a legislative regime for a sector which is and remains an important part of the New Zealand economy. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Unfortunately, I’ve only got a couple of minutes. I actually need far more time than that to address the seething mass of contradictions we’ve heard from the National Party over the last couple of speakers. I have sat here for weeks and weeks and months and heard them talk about banning oil and gas exploration, and Jonathan Young just tells me there’s a rig turned up off the Taranaki coast to continue on the transition that we’re doing. There will still be, as we know, 100,000 square kilometres of permitted prospects that are eligible to be drilled for oil and gas, and much of it—about the size of the North Island, I understand, is the land mass. So they’ve absolutely contradicted their own spin that they were putting out and the scaremongering that they were doing.

Of course, New Zealand First support this bill. This bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, is a sensible piece of legislation. It is largely technical and it does look to plug some gaps, and, of course, it is very important. We are a very mineral-rich country.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.