Brownlee Gerry: Address in Reply 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Address in Reply 
[Sitting date: 07 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:93. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 Today marks the beginning of the new parliamentary term— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am aware of course that giving the call is a matter that is entirely at your discretion. My understanding was that in this debate to date the Government had followed Labour that there were Government speakers at the end of the last debate and that therefore it should not yet be a Government call. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me if I am wrong on this but my understanding of the Standing Orders is that if a member moves the adjournment of the debate previously then that member has the opportunity to have first call when the debate is resumed. It is Standing Order 131 I have just been advised. It was the Hon Gerry Brownlee who moved the adjournment of the debate and that is why the Hon Gerry Brownlee has the right to the first call. He does not have to take it but he has sought the call. At least that is my advice—that it was the Hon Gerry Brownlee who did that—and that is why I gave him the first call when he sought it. But I assure the honourable member it was not any departure from alternative arrangements. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I accept that. The normal process I understand is that you do call it an interrupted speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My advice is that that is not the normal situation. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Just for clarity it was me who moved the adjournment debate. It was Mrs Tolley who spoke in the adjournment debate. That is quite a different matter. That may have been the confusion on the other side of the House.  
Today marks the beginning of the second parliamentary term for the re-elected National-led Government. It is very interesting to note today that the dynamic of the House completely belies the claims that have been made by the new leader of the Labour Party about taking a completely different approach to politics under his leadership. The Government set out a strong programme read from the throne by the Governor-General Her Majesty’s representative and that is a programme that is designed to ensure that New Zealand makes significant progress measured by the better lives of New Zealanders over the years ahead. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It was hopeless. No details—no policy. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Although there are people in this House who for their own convenience will want to sit there screaming out that it had no policy it had no vision and it had no this they are the same people who have been consistent in their political ability to move with the times. I would expect that they might begin to exhibit some of those skills in the years ahead as the National-led Government forges ahead with its programme.  
One of the contentious issues that we are facing is the question of the mixed-ownership model. I have no difficulty and my party has no difficulty with the sort of discussion that we are getting over section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. That is to be expected. It is quite reasonable and it is one of those points of difference that will be discussed and will be I think elegantly sorted out. I know that the Minister of Finance has committed himself to a great deal of time to ensure that all New Zealanders understand fully exactly what those issues are. It will not matter how many times Mr Harawira or any of those on the left who want to suddenly march alongside him try to make a bigger case of it; it is what it is—a perfectly reasonable part of the debate.  
The prime question though is about the decision to extract a little bit more capital out of those assets for the State to use in other things. What I find most extraordinary is that the Labour members will sit over there crowing about the fact that they started KiwiSaver which has seen the export of millions and millions of New Zealanders’ dollars and capital into foreign markets to buy foreign shares but the same opportunity being given to New Zealanders to buy blue-chip stock here in New Zealand is somehow found by them to be abhorrent and unacceptable.  
No one should forget that they were the group who presided over the massive losses suffered by so many New Zealanders—particularly elderly New Zealanders—as the finance sector went out of control in this country completely unchecked by Ministers who failed to understand what those companies were up to and repeatedly listened to their own advice on what needed to be done to stem some of the wild claims that those companies were making. Their credibility in this area is absolutely zero and no one should be moved by the sort of silly “get out in front of a parade and wave a flag” nonsense that David Shearer appears to be leading the Labour Party towards.  
It was interesting to note in his reply to the Speech from the Throne that the first 5 to 10 minutes indicated a new approach but then straight away there was a slot back into the old loser politics that saw Labour so well dealt to in the 2011 election. I want to say to the Labour members who repeatedly say they want to act in a more bipartisan way to start acting that way if you want to be respected for that decision. At the moment what we are seeing essentially is a knocking at the door a pressing at the window a demand to be let into the room to be part of the decision making so that they can run outside and work out how to attack you even better. 
 It is not our job to be the Opposition; it is their job. And if they want to be the Opposition then they should be. If they want to be the Government or if they want to be part of Government decision-making then they need to behave in a far better way than we have seen not only before the election but post it as well. I speak about some of the issues in Christchurch in that regard as well.  
There is no doubt that New Zealanders have an expectation that a Government will do what it can to make their lives better. This Government is not in any way shirking from that. One of the things that is sort of fascinating is that the Labour Government—the Labour Party I should say—is saying that if they were in Government they could achieve all sorts of things without making any hard decisions. We for example have recognised that if young New Zealanders are to have the very best education system in the world then they need to have the very best of facilities in which to be taught. That means that over the next few years facilities in schools are going to have to massively improve. It is no good just putting in the broadband which I will speak about in a few minutes; there has to be a capacity to take full advantage of that. 
We have committed in the Speech from the Throne to $1 billion from the Future Investment Fund being put into not only building new schools but modernising all schools so that they are fit to deliver 21st century education to our young people. But if you listen to the other side of the House they believe that you just pluck that out of the sky somewhere and put it into place at absolutely no cost. If it comes to a choice between holding 100 percent of a particular asset and choosing to have greater quality schools for our young people and therefore a greater investment in the future of this country then I know which side of the fence I sit on.  
The Government is also committed to increasing or improving the infrastructure for our transport in this country. We have said that over the next 10 years the State highway network the local roads network etc. need to have some $12 billion worth of investment. That is a huge amount and it will make a difference to those economies. Anyone who goes to Auckland will know that the Waterview Connection is a very smart piece of infrastructure that will massively improve traffic flows in that city. We have also got the problem of KiwiRail and I say “the problem of KiwiRail” because it does not operate at the maximum of its potential at the present time. But the Government is committed to the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan and that also has to be funded from somewhere.  
Then there is the very very big commitment of $5.5 billion—up to this point—for the rebuild of Christchurch. Christchurch is around about 15 to 20 percent of the New Zealand economy with a massive potential to increase in the future. Although there will be huge stimulus that comes in from the total $20 billion that will be spent there over the next few years there is no doubt that beyond the growth that comes from that initial rebuild input there is a need for greater levels of economic activity in that area. In that regard there is the Government’s commitment to irrigation and to assisting people to put up those projects. Then there is our commitment to ensuring that the resource management project taking full consideration of all environmental matters does deliver the opportunity to build those sorts of projects to get the sort of growth that the province needs and frankly that this country desperately needs.  
I want to just mention the consequence I guess of the earthquakes in Christchurch the biggest being the way in which New Zealand prepares itself for future events of a catastrophic nature. In New Zealand they say you live with your risk. Some parts of the country are very earthquake-prone; others are flood-prone. Auckland has the potential for a volcanic eruption as well as being considerably exposed in the event of any tsunami. And we can sit and laugh about that as they are doing on the other side of the House and say: “Well it may never happen.” or “It probably will never happen.” Well I would hope it does not— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Don’t be so crass! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I was not talking to you Mr Cosgrove; you show very few emotions at any time. I was talking to Mr Mallard who is behind you who is finding these things somewhat amusing. What I would say is that no one can be certain in saying that we should just put these things on the long finger.  
But it is going to mean change for a lot of New Zealanders. It is going to be a big cost to our economy. You cannot escape the fact that changes to the way in which an insurance market views Christchurch will filter through to the rest of the country as well. So we are going about things down there in a very considered fashion—not being knee-jerked into fast decisions but at the same time not taking so long as to be unreasonable—in making sure that the province and the capital city of that province do have a future.  
I think that the Government’s programme is comprehensive; I think it very clearly points towards the sort of growth New Zealanders would expect. New Zealanders will also be able to see in a very short time that the continuation of the National-led Government will be very much to their advantage and will make sure that their lives are better for the future.