Dyson Ruth: Address in ReplyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Address in Reply[Sitting date: 28 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:278. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Can I begin by also congratulating the member Jacqui Dean who clearly was not aware she was on the speaking list and made a good contribution to this debate anyway. I also congratulate her on her re-election as the MP for Waitaki. I want to congratulate the Rt Hon David Carter on his re-election as Speaker. He was my opponent in I think six elections in the seat of Lyttelton and Banks Peninsula and more recently in Port Hills. He has not been my opponent in the last couple of elections and obviously he is not going to be now because he is the Speaker. I also want to congratulate Lindsay Tisch the Hon Chester Borrows and yourself the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is a pleasure to have you as the rigorous person who I guess understands the rules of the House more than anyone else but also who is intent on having them implemented which will be a pleasant change from others who just make a passing reference to them during their ruling.I want to congratulate all returning and all new MPs. It is a huge honour to be a member of Parliament and with that honour comes a great deal of responsibility. I look forward to getting to know particularly the new members more and sharing some of our experiences for the betterment of New Zealand. I think we are all in here for the same reason but we all have different views on how that betterment can be achieved.I want to thank the Labour team in the Port Hills for our campaign. It is a privilege to have been re-elected to represent the Port Hills electorate. Regardless of what Scott Simpson said earlier in relation to his electorate Port Hills is actually the best electorate in the country not only because of the Port Hills the river the estuary and the harbour; it is really because of the people that it is the best electorate. We have had more than our fair share of challenges over the last few years and the people of the Port Hills have shown they are up to meeting those challenges and supporting others through them. I pledge to continue to be a strong voice for our electorate to be accessible and to work hard to progress the aspirations of my constituents.I want to acknowledge and thank Kristine Bartlett the Service and Food Workers Union and Peter Cranney for the victory in the Court of Appeal case on the pay equity legislation. This gives the Government members a real opportunity to make good of at least one of the points they made that has been the subject of this Address in Reply debate and that is looking at wage issues. If they can respond to that victory on pay equity with some substantive moves that would be a huge contribution and recognition of the value of the work that so many women workers do in our nation.I want to support the amendment to the motion before the House the amendment that was moved by the Hon Annette King. She talked in her amendment about wanting to see all New Zealand children living in warm dry homes. She wanted to see the number of affordable homes increased ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to affordable healthcare wages for all rising faster than the cost of living jobs created unemployment back under 4 percent exports increasing as a percentage of GDP the diversification of our economy the reduction of economic and social inequality targets to measure and address child poverty a commitment to a cross-party approach to the elimination of domestic and sexual violence real measures to address climate change and improve our sustainability a plan for the recovery of Canterbury and the Government to be guided in its work by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. If those issues were addressed and if that amendment was supported then all New Zealanders would indeed have a more positive future to look forward to and all New Zealanders would have an opportunity to contribute to the best of their ability and to have a better future for them and their children.I want to touch more specifically on three of those points: on child poverty on housing and particularly on employment law as it is so relevant at the moment being debated as the first piece of legislation the incoming National Government wants to progress. On child poverty it really has beggared belief to watch both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance progress the issue—after 6 years of total denial of the existence of child poverty in New Zealand let alone any inclination to want to address it—and to suddenly decide that it is going to be a priority for this term.I thought the icing on the cake though was when Bill English blamed local government for child poverty. I saw one of the better tweets on this issue when somebody said: “Mum’s just got home opened the door and said: ‘Couldn’t find a job today so there’s no dinner.’ And the children screamed: ‘Damned urban planners!’.” That really spoke volumes about the lack of understanding that Bill English has and his total inability even after 6 years in Government as the Minister of Finance to take any responsibility at all for the increasing number of children we have in our country living in poverty. There are 20000 more children living in poverty now than when this National Government was elected and first took office. I hope that the commitment bears some fruit. I doubt that it will after the constant denial but for the sake of those children who are living in poverty and for the sake of their futures and their children’s future I certainly hope that the National Government will deliver on that.In relation to State housing there was not a mention during the entire election campaign of the Government’s commitment and plan to sell off one-third of our State housing. It is breaking an 80-year-old agreement across all parties in this Parliament that it is a Government responsibility to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society have somewhere to live. We have seen an increasing number of people not being able to have access to any home at all and that is where the Government needed to get into that space to say: “We do not have enough houses to house New Zealand families. We should be building more houses. We should be making sure that all New Zealand families are able to live in a house. It does not have to be a flash house but it should be a decent house. It should be warm and dry.” Instead this Government is breaking that 80-year-commitment to ensure all New Zealand families are properly housed. It is walking away and saying it is going to be someone else’s responsibility. This is one of the biggest moves—the biggest abandonment of commitment to New Zealanders—that I have ever seen a Government take and all the newcomers all the newbies in the Government will just close their eyes close their ears abandon the commitments they made when they were standing for election to this Parliament and support the Government selling off one-third of State houses.I think it is an outrage particularly after what both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said in this House about good organisations like the Salvation Army and what they said about people like Campbell Roberts a leader in social policy research and advocacy in New Zealand. Mr English and Mr Key said he did not know much and he should get out more. That is what they said about the leadership from the Salvation Army and now they are saying that the Salvation Army can be the major providers of social housing in New Zealand.I just want to conclude by talking about the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Simon Bridges who has been speaking during the Committee stage on behalf of the Government clearly has no understanding of the history of one of the provisions in the employment legislation we are discussing which is the right for people to have a break during their working time. He talks about air traffic controllers causing chaos. He talks about small businesses having to close so that the workers can have a break. I am going to challenge him during the next round of the Committee stage to give one example where any business or any airport has had to close so that the workers can take a break. The legal right for a worker to have a break has been in our legislation for only a few short years and the first thing this Government has done—this incoming National-led Government—is to take away that right from New Zealand workers. I think that is wrong. It is not as if anybody in the workforce is asking for much. The right to have a break should be something that this Parliament supports. I do not buy into the argument that bad employers will abuse the law; I buy into the argument that this Parliament should be about making good law and nothing that this Government has signalled as introducing is good law. Thank you.