Address in Reply 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Address in Reply 
[Sitting date: 07 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:93. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Address in Reply 
Debate resumed from 21 December 2011. 
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. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 There is a rumour going around actually that Gerry Brownlee is thinking of changing his name to Gerry Dotcom in order to get access to National’s economic plan which I understand is in a cyber-locker somewhere caught up in the Megaupload debacle. I say that because we have once again seen from the Prime Minister in the state of the nation speech—the so-called state of the nation speech—the absence of an economic plan.  
We also saw that in his response in the Address in Reply debate. I am not sure whether the Prime Minister is a fan of Ronan Keating the Irish singer who was in town last week but in outlining his vision for New Zealand the Prime Minister seems to have adopted the words of one of Ronan Keating’s favourite songs: “You say it best when you say nothing at all.” That is the Prime Minister’s approach—nothing at all. There was nothing at all in the state of the nation speech and nothing at all in the Address in Reply speech—nothing at all that is except for one thing: sell it off. The pathway to the PM’s heralded brighter future is paved with “For Sale” signs.  
Well the message for Mr Key is that you cannot sell your way to a brighter future. The Prime Minister is getting that message loud and clear from the 70-plus percent of New Zealanders who do not want their assets sold. He heard the message from Maori loud and clear this past weekend. From those at the flax-roots through to the iwi leaders they do not want these assets sold.  
You would have thought that for something that is the centrepiece of National’s programme for this year there might have been a little bit more thought given to the removal of the single most significant legislative clause for Maori in this area: section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. Goodness I was in form 4 in 1986 and I knew about the Lands case and the genesis of section 9. Mr Key was at Elders Merchant Finance at the time I think—too busy selling things I suspect to actually notice the significant political action. To claim as Mr Key has done that section 9 is symbolic and not relevant is not only a slap in the face to Maori but symptomatic of the shambles that now surrounds this asset sales process.  
Mr Key is looking for an elegant solution to the problem he has created. Well I have got an elegant solution for Mr Key: do not sell the assets. That is the elegant solution: do not sell the assets listen to New Zealanders and keep Kiwi assets in Kiwi hands.  
But there is a very good reason why this Government is so determined to press ahead with asset sales: it is that it is all they have got. The plan to lift our economic sights comes down to selling off our future hoping someone will dig up some wealth and cutting public services. Now whatever the merits of cuts to the public sector I can say this to the Government: it will not provide the answer to the lack of a plan for the economy.  
That is what the Government has in store for New Zealand: sell cut hope. That is the plan. That is the total of the strategy: sell cut hope. It is a tired old theory and it fails to grasp one of the core opportunities that lie in front of New Zealand: the opportunity to base our future on ideas and policies that see the economy and the environment as two sides of the same coin. The notion that in order to grow our economy we must compromise our environment comes from another century. It comes from the same century as the trickle-down economics practised by the party opposite.  
For Labour we recognise that our future lies in the development of companies and people who are smart clean and green. David Shearer has already talked about LanzaTech in this debate. In universities Crown research institutes and businesses throughout this country there are people who have the ideas that will propel our economy forward. We must invest in those people and we know that this can happen only if the economy and the environment go together hand in hand. That is Labour’s vision and we will continue to promote positive ideas in that space over this term.  
New Zealanders’ passion for our environment is something that I believe truly unites us as a nation. The horror that greeted the grounding of the  
Rena 
 and its impact on birdlife the coastal environment and our beaches and oceans resounded throughout New Zealand. Was it not interesting to hear Nick Smith today? Despite telling New Zealanders that he was going to throw the full force of the law at those responsible for the grounding of the  
Rena 
 it turns out that that amounts to a hope that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council might take a case. That is the full force of the law from Nick Smith. That is how much protecting the environment seems to mean to him. That is how much of a priority he wants to make it.  
In the wake of some of what happened at Waitangi it could be easy to focus on issues that divide us but I believe that the protection of our waterways and our coastlines is something that all New Zealanders—Maori and Pakeha alike—want to see made a priority and Labour will certainly be doing this. In the environmental space that priority must be seen in the management of fresh water. The Maori Council has a right to put a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal and we will await the court process as is the right thing to do with that. But let us be absolutely clear: this would not be happening if the Government was not selling assets. This would not be needed if the Government was not selling assets and the solution which the Maori Party knows which the Maori Council knows and which this Government should know is that this could all stop if the sale of those assets stops.  
There was an absence from Mr Key’s state of the nation speech—and indeed from his contribution to this debate—of the environment but there was also an absence of discussion on the pressing social issues of our time: inequality and child poverty. If Gerry Brownlee wants to find evidence of a bipartisan approach I say that three times in the last term of Government Annette King wrote to the Government and said we would cooperate on child poverty. David Shearer said straight after being elected as leader that we want to be part of a parliamentary committee that deals with issues of poverty and this year Jacinda Ardern has repeated the call. That is bipartisanship Mr Brownlee. That is where the opportunity is in this House for us to work together and address child poverty and it has been rejected by the National Government not by the Labour Party.  
When we look at child poverty the one reaction we have seen from this Government was its trying to stop New Zealanders hearing about it. It is outrageous that the showing of a documentary on child poverty just before the election would generate from Mr Key’s electorate chair a complaint and an attempt to stop it. The problem with the broadcast of that documentary was that it was the only one on those sorts of issues before the election. What we need prior to an election in New Zealand is more information for the public not less.  
Public broadcasting in this country is in serious danger. We need quality public broadcasting. It is good for democracy it is good for accountability and it is good for public participation. This Government is starving Radio New Zealand of funds and dismantling one of the few remaining pieces of public broadcasting in the form of TVNZ 7. It is not good enough and it is especially not good enough for New Zealand On Air to be used in such a political way.  
What that documentary on child poverty highlighted was the huge damage being done to New Zealand and the loss of the potential of those involved. It is simple stuff. If you live in a cold draughty damp home you will get sick. If you do not have food in your cupboards your kids will go to school hungry and they will not learn as well. If it costs too much to go to the doctor you just will not go. Child poverty is a moral issue. It is as David Shearer has said a human rights issue for those children and it is a shame on this Government that the Prime Minister in his state of the nation speech failed to even mention these issues.  
Six billion dollars a year is lost to the New Zealand economy through child poverty but of similar importance to our society is the loss of empathy that goes with growing inequality in our country. When the salaries of chief executive officers grow 14 percent in a year but the salaries of those on the factory floor grow by only 2 percent we have a growing problem. As gated communities grow around us we have a problem. We need answers that are sensible but that are also visionary. We must invest in our people.  
Many New Zealanders are facing tough times and when that happens we know that New Zealanders will come together and pitch in. We have got to use our brains and we have got to invest in people get them into education give people a chance to achieve their potential and allow them to live lives that will allow them to achieve their potential. We need sensible solutions; we need positive solutions. What we do not need is sell cut and hope and that is all we have seen from this National Government. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 At least Labour members are looking a bit thoughtful now because after the 2008 election they all sat there thinking “Haven’t the public made a dreadful mistake? They didn’t really mean to vote us out; they put in that flaky John Key and the National Government.” They sat there puzzling about how the public could have made that mistake. In 2011 they came back after the election and they are thinking “How did the public do it again? How did they make the same mistake again?”.  
You see Labour members still do not understand that it is the public that is right and Labour that is wrong. It is not a mistake that they lost seats and vote share in the last election; it was the deliberate intent of the New Zealand public to send one more message—because the last one had not arrived—that the nasty stale Labour Party was irrelevant. Until they start talking about what matters to New Zealanders instead of what matters to the Labour Party nothing is going to change. I welcome this new thoughtfulness. They are sitting there scratching their heads thinking “How did the public get it wrong again?”. Well the public did not get it wrong; it got it right.  
In listening to the deputy leader of the Labour Party I can only say that I am sure his colleagues hope that he does not disappear as quickly as he did when he became the tertiary education spokesman never to be heard from again. I am told—because I was not aware of this—that apparently he was the health spokesman. Is that not meant to be one of Labour’s strongest issues? Apparently he was the health spokesman; well he disappeared quickly from that. Now he is the environment spokesman. I just say to Labour that the Greens do it a lot better. They do it a lot better. The way they think about the environment and the economy is more sensible and more sophisticated—well more sophisticated but not that sensible—than what Labour will ever come up with.  
With the old arrogance of the Labour Party the deputy leader is saying there is a balance between the economy and the environment as if that is some new idea. No one has thought of that before! Well if he comes to my electorate to see people who would never think of voting Labour but vote National he will see that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money finding exactly that balance and changing their farming practices trying to find that balance.  
They know what Labour means when it says a balance between the environment and the economy. It means bigger government making more rules taking more tax and borrowing more money. That is actually what that means whereas what they will get from this Government is strong support for the competitive export economy. That is one of the priorities of the Government through this term of office. Our first priority is to get back to surplus—to manage the Government finances prudently to get back to surplus by 2014-15. To continue the process of rebuilding New Zealand’s international competitiveness is our second priority. The third one is to deliver better public services and the final one is to rebuild Christchurch.  
I want to refer to the need to continue rebuilding the competitive economy. I think few New Zealanders understand just how damaging the custodianship of the previous Labour Government was—to be fair they were part of a movement across developed economies around the world—where our export sector actually shrank in the first decade of this century. Even though the world economy was growing faster than ever our ability to earn income by selling to that world actually shrank. However our ability to spend what we were not earning grew fantastically well. The gap of course was filled by borrowing. A more competitive economy has to be about the movement of resources—that is people and capital—into the tradable sector.  
We want to see in the next 5 years something we did not see in the last 10 years and that is job growth in the export sector. Today there are hardly any more jobs in the export sector than there were 10 years ago so very little of the job growth of the last 10 years actually occurred in the income earning side of our economy. The prospects for that are pretty good as long as Government gets behind and pushes hard. Those prospects are good because the markets into which we are selling increasingly are growing reasonably fast and our export sector has become remarkably resilient.  
In this context I want to pay a particular tribute to the manufacturing sector which in recent years has continued to grow when for instance the Australian manufacturing sector has been shrinking. That is because they have worked out how to be adept fast-moving adaptable organisations finding their niche in a very competitive world.  
The Government will be focusing on this rebalancing of the economy. The sources of growth over the next few years I think are reasonably clear now. Our continued high export prices are actually as high as they have been since the late 1960s and if those prices can hold up even somewhere near where they are now that will continue to add wealth and jobs to the New Zealand economy.  
Another source of growth will be the Christchurch rebuild. There is roughly $20 billion that needs to be spent in Christchurch; only $2 billion has been spent so far. It is already having an impact on New Zealanders’ incomes. We see in the labour market figures coming out today the growth in construction wages in Christchurch of around 8 percent in the last year—more than double the average wage increase across the rest of the economy. Of course we will have to watch out for inflationary effects of a wage blowout but there will be thousands of new jobs and huge investment going on in Christchurch. Whatever discussions they might be having among themselves about their local council they have shown remarkable resilience and persistence about the recovery of that city.  
I want to make a few remarks about another of the Government’s objectives and that is to deliver better public services. I think the Public Service has now understood that this is not just a passing phase of fiscal restraint; it is now permanent. It will never go back to the days it enjoyed in the first decade of this century when because of the economic situation it had money pouring in the door. I want to pay tribute here to the leadership of the Public Service. Across Government departments they have got to grips with the new reality and worked with the Government through a considered process of getting ready for significant change. Some of them have already executed significant change. Almost all of them are planning significant change in the delivery of public services.  
The Government will be focusing very strongly on ensuring that the service to the public is the same or better as we reduce the costs of delivering that service. But it will be a challenge. Over the next 3 or 4 years most Government departments will get no new money. So we would not want to underestimate the challenges and the discussion—vigorous discussion I am sure—that is going to flow from the Government’s ambition to deliver better public services despite the fact that the budget is very tight.  
The Prime Minister set out the objectives for the Government in his state of the nation speech. We expect to get on with that agenda in this Parliament and through Cabinet and we also expect that the New Zealand public have had to in a pragmatic frame of mind go through their own process of making change in their households and their businesses because of the economic circumstances. They can look forward to reasonable and moderate growth over the next few years the opportunity for wage increases and better incomes—many of them have not had wage increases in recent years—and a Government that is strongly supportive of their aspirations and is willing to do the hard work now necessary to fulfil those aspirations in a world where it has become a lot more difficult than it was in the last 10 years. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 That speech spent 50 percent of the time criticising Labour in Opposition. Unbelievable. A speech from the Minister of Finance spent 50 percent of the time on criticism of Labour in Opposition rather than on telling New Zealanders what the Government’s plan is for the future. [ 
Interruption 
] OK so the last 50 percent was an attempt to do that but it is unbelievable that we are attacked in Opposition and the Government is not standing up for what it believes in. That is why I am pleased to be able to support the amendment to the motion as moved by David Shearer to add the following words: “and the National-led Government will sell New Zealand’s assets against the will of the public; the Government has no ideas to create jobs or a clean and innovative New Zealand; that the Government is widening the gap between the very rich and the rest and therefore this House has no confidence in the National-led government.”  
I am pleased to be able to speak today. As I went through the Speech from the Throne there were three key things that the Government highlighted that would underpin its way of doing things in this term. The first was a confidence and supply agreement—a strong one—with United Future ACT and the Maori Party. Well less than 2 months later we see that that confidence and supply agreement is under threat. The one opportunity the Maori Party had to hold this Government to account in question time was not utilised by the Maori Party and we should be concerned about that. In fact it forebodes that the Government is on shaky ground and the Maori Party is probably poised to pull the plug.  
The second pillar of the Government’s agenda or strength going forward is that it claimed that it would operate in an effective inclusive and stable manner. What have we seen? There are already claims from within its ranks that the Government has not been inclusive and that it is not creating stability by not being upfront in its coalition arrangements with its parties. Well either the Maori Party is not telling the truth about National or the Government is fudging the truth on the Maori Party. Which one is it? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Both. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: It probably is both as my colleague points out.  
We should be really concerned about this. The country deserves a stable Government that is inclusive and consults with communities in a real way—not a rushed consultation of 2 weeks 3 weeks or maybe a month if we are lucky but real genuine consultation and not predetermined outcomes as we have seen is the case on asset sales and the Government’s consultation with Maori but genuine opportunities for people to give feedback. But what we see here is that the Maori Party itself a coalition member of this arrangement is highlighting some very real cracks in its arrangements with National.  
The third pillar to the relationship of this Government going forward is to build a more competitive and internationally focused economy. But we have already seen in less than 2 months the Crafar farms sold offshore to the highest bidder when there were New Zealand interests on the table and many people throughout the country were hoping there would be a real opportunity for Kiwi lands to stay in Kiwi hands. That did not happen. I think the Government is really underestimating the level of sentiment that is out there in provincial New Zealand in our communities amongst a wide range of people who say we should be looking for ways to keep Kiwi lands in Kiwi hands.  
What else have we seen? We have seen the Government steamrolling ahead with its plan to sell State-owned enterprises. Granted it was a key election platform of National going forward at the last election. But to say that this Government has a mandate to sell State assets I think is clearly overrepresenting the truth. In fact if the Government on that question alone was to put the moral mandate for the sale of State-owned enterprises to the House—and I would challenge the House and seek leave of the House to put that vote certainly in terms of the Maori mandate to the Maori electorate MPs to see whether the Government has any support at all to sell State-owned assets. You know the Iwi Leaders Forum should not be a default for a parliamentary mandate of people who have been elected to represent the views of their communities on issues like this. It is just too important to fritter away New Zealand assets where there is strong public sentiment that we should be keeping them and reinvesting in them to benefit all Kiwis—all New Zealand families.  
Again this question of moral mandate is something I want to focus on a little bit primarily because the Government will tell you again and again that the election result in itself was a mandate to sell State-owned assets. But what we have in the House clearly is the fact that the Greens do not support the sale of State-owned assets New Zealand First does not support the sale of State-owned assets the Maori Party does not support the sale of State-owned assets and neither does Mana. And Labour campaigned on this issue as a core policy: we believed selling State assets was not a long-term investment in the future of this country. Rather it was short-sighted and would not deliver gains.  
So how is it in a parliamentary majority like the one we see here—those 61—that the great views of all New Zealanders will be represented? We have diversity in this House. MMP clearly delivered an opportunity for all Kiwis to represent that diversity in the parliamentary make-up and I accept the outcome. But to say that one vote in this House then shifts the moral mandate of the Government to sell State-owned assets? I would caution: “Think again.”  
In 2 short weeks the Government will be undertaking a consultation round particularly with iwi on this issue. At Waitangi we saw evidence of the fact that there are very strong views amongst Maori and amongst iwi on this particular issue and on removing section 9 from the State-Owned Enterprises Act. I support the opportunity for Maori to contribute to the decision and think about what is on the table but 2 weeks for a consultation? Come on! To call that consultation I think is a big disingenuous. We did hear the Minister for State Owned Enterprises in question time today almost imply that that was ample time for consultation on this very important issue.  
There is probably going to be a lot more water to go under this bridge before decisions can be made with some conviction that the Treaty interests of Maori and of iwi will be protected. But Labour will watch this process very carefully. We will be seeking feedback of our own on the process as we believe and continue to assert that State asset sales will not deliver long-term benefits to the country or to Kiwi families. We are convinced that there is no future in selling State assets. We all own those assets and we do not want to be tenants in our own country. If this is the brighter future that National promised then someone had better shine some more light down the hole it is sitting in.  
Labour believes that there is no greater investment in the future of this country than ensuring that all of our children get the very best from a quality public education system. The Government seems determined to push ahead with national standards even though they were not supported by the sector. They seem determined to increase class sizes for efficiency’s sake but not for the value of the learning outcomes of our children. They want to push ahead with charter schools when the evidence overseas is inconclusive. How it will be applied to the New Zealand context will further lead to greater concern amongst the education professionals; they are saying that now.  
Education is just far too important to push along with blatant ideology. What we need is a high performing education system that invests in all our children and their learning capability. When I went to listen to Sir Paul Callaghan he said that at the foundation of the New Zealand education system we must recognise that we are a unique country and that the language culture and identity of all our people must underpin a strong education system. I believe that is the case—not larger class sizes not charter schools not national standards and certainly not shifting more money into private schools.  
An export-led economy can be guaranteed only if we have a high-skilled population where all our children can thrive not a system where there are winners and losers. National has very few plans on this front. The high rate of underachievement of vulnerable children of children living in poverty and of Maori and Pacific children is something that we should all be concerned about because if this continues in our education system the export-led economy that National is talking about cannot be realised to the full value of every Kiwi living in this country. Far too many of them are missing out. The Government should be very accountable to those who are most in need and those who are vulnerable—not losers as Gerry Brownlee put it but those most in need and most vulnerable. If we can see the benefits of that in education then we will see a great investment in the future of this country. 
Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 I begin my address this afternoon by saying that I am heartened to hear some words from the other side of the House that in fact are words that—[ 
Interruption 
] There are some common ideas here about protecting the vulnerable—that is what we did during the recession—and in fact about improving the ability of those who are vulnerable to actually get a good education. That is what this Government is actually doing. An export-led recovery—we heard that several times. It is just that here in this Parliament this Government is delivering it in a totally different style from the style that was under the Clark Government where I believe that member was a Minister. So on 26 November the people of New Zealand spoke and as in all elections the mood of the day in the months leading up to the election was reflected in the vote. The people of New Zealand voted an increased percentage for this the National Government led by John Key. You know in elections in times gone by it was most unusual for a second-term Government to have an increased percentage of the vote—most unusual indeed. But that in fact is what the people of New Zealand delivered on election day last year. I would like to spend a bit of time rehearsing why I think that happened.  
As a nation we have had a pretty tough time of it. In fact you know the vulnerable of this nation have had the toughest time of it. Unfortunately New Zealand actually beat the gun into recession and that was again because of the policies of the Clark Government. So having settled into the realms of recession with job losses occurring and youth unemployment getting higher and higher and given the fact that the tradable sector had not actually started to shrink since the recession but had started that very early back in 2004 I believe way before the recession the State sector had been allowed—no not allowed perhaps; nay encouraged—to gobble through the healthy surpluses as if there was no tomorrow. But then of course hang on there was no tomorrow for the Clark Government come November 2008. So we added to that toxic mix of tax and spend devastating earthquakes and a raft of other challenges. New Zealand was facing down the barrel of many gloomy tomorrows.  
But John Key his Ministers and MPs were up to the challenge. Really was there a choice? They had to step up to the mark and they did. So after years of tax and spend this Government certainly set out knowing that was not the way to a brighter future in New Zealand. We had the sobering responsibility of managing the economy and the country through tough times protecting those who were the most vulnerable and all the while there were additional vulnerable people being added to that group. That is what happens in a recession. The trust and the goodwill that the public of New Zealand conferred upon us on election day—26 November—was in fact a solemn challenge. Our status as a First World nation has come under threat from the policies of old the policies of the last Government under Clark. Now in order to further protect vulnerable New Zealanders we have to challenge the policy settings. We have to change those policy settings to enduring and sustainable policies so in fact we lessen our vulnerability. Strong continued and stable Government is the way forward but the stability has to be with a purpose—the purpose to grow our economy so we all have a brighter future.  
The plan is a comprehensive one and that action plan was announced in policy prior to the election. It is not a one-liner. It is not about tax and spend; it is about a brighter future. There is a fair heap of work in there that needs to be done. But it is worth working hard for; it is worth striving for. We have four priorities and those priorities lay down the challenges that we must achieve to have a brighter future.  
The finance Minister spoke in the House today about New Zealand earning an income not borrowing it. There has never been a truer word spoken. New Zealand families who are making ends meet at this part of the year when it is so tough for families in the post-Christmas and getting-into-school time are making ends meet with their finances so they are very pleased to hear that our No. 1 priority is to responsibly manage the Government’s finances. You see as I often reassure my constituents it is not the Government’s money. That is the way the Clark Government treated it but it is not the Government’s money. It is taxpayers’ money. They worked hard to earn it and they want us to make very good use of it. Our second priority is about building a more productive and competitive economy and that is a pathway to a brighter future. The third priority is about examining public services under this tight fiscal setting and making our public services better. Lastly and one that resonates very much with me and with the other Canterbury MPs is our priority to rebuild our second-largest city Christchurch. I will say something I have said in speeches over the last year or so: you know I just do not think the majority of New Zealanders even knew it was our second-largest city until we started describing it as that as we identified the magnitude of the task ahead. So I am heartened that the rebuild is amongst the top four. As Canterbury MPs we respect the work that has already been done by the Government. We are very very pleased that there is money in the bank for that rebuild.  
New Zealand’s future economic stability is going to be best served by our being returned to surplus by 2014-15 but it needs a firm and steady hand on the tiller to achieve that. Well there are lots of analogies around the place about making the boat go faster and I would like to remind the House of the spectre of a combination of the parties opposite steering our boat  
“New Zealand” 
. With their combined policies I believe we were looking at a potential  
Costa Concordia 
. Being fiscally responsible is not just about balancing the Government’s books; the flow-on to the people of New Zealand will also mean it will be keeping pressure off interest rates which is the single-biggest cost to our households. We need to reverse as a nation the downward spiral that the Clark Government thrust New Zealand into when the tradable sector was not growing. New Zealand was always going to be living beyond its means and its productive capacity under settings such as that. We want to see an export-focused economy built on a solid base of innovation selling more of what the world wants at a competitive price. That is actually quite a big ask; that is quite a comprehensive goal to be setting.  
Our economic action plan will follow through on the progress we have actually made in the last 3 years. We have prioritised better public services and we have made some good progress already. We have found the phantom trainees in the industry training organisation sector; we have actually found them and we know that money was going to waste. We are reforming Government purchasing of supplies such as vehicles and information technology hardware and you know the first four joint procurement projects alone are expected to save around $115 million over the next 5 years. There are many more examples. The programme of action is comprehensive. Now we are also looking at the State sector right across it at how it is organised. We need to streamline and improve the way it works for New Zealand’s sake.  
Lastly I want to touch again on that fourth priority of rebuilding Christchurch. We are getting on with the challenge. It is a monstrously big challenge. Much of the demolition has taken place and I want to pay tribute to the former Timaru District Council chief executive Warwick Isaacs who is handling some of the overseeing of the demolition projects. Empty spaces create opportunities for rebuilding. There will be grief and there will be loss at what those empty spaces mean—the memories. But Christchurch deserves a Government that is purposefully going to commit to rebuilding it. The people of Canterbury deserve that. We have put in 4500 places for construction-related training in Canterbury and around the country and we have also put a temporary 17000-seat stadium in there for the Cantabrians who love sport. It is a bit like saying “Is the Pope Catholic?”—of course they love sport down in Canterbury. So it is very much one of our high priorities: $5.5 billion committed to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Fund. That is this Government’s share of that money—that is this Government’s share of rebuilding local infrastructure—and to repair Crown-owned assets.  
We have a big challenge ahead of us as a Government. Those four priorities say it all. They are part of a wider economic development plan that will build a stronger economy for New Zealand. It is a big challenge but this Government is up to it. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 In December last year in the Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor General the Prime Minister did two things: he identified what he called the “driving goal” of his Government and he laid out what he called a “comprehensive agenda” and a substantive legislative programme to accomplish that goal. I thank the Prime Minister for setting out a rational and systematic if rather visionless exploration of the Government’s approach to the 50th Parliament. His comments were repeated today by the Minister of Finance and just most recently by Jo Goodhew. They summarise it in terms of four priorities as they see it: returning to surplus ensuring a competitive economy cutting the Public Service and making it efficient and rebuilding Christchurch. As she said and they said that is part of a broader programme for the redemption—the economic redemption—of this country.  
So let me assess the Prime Minister’s driving goal that underlies his Government’s political agenda and legislative programme and then I shall offer on the same basis an alternative goal agenda and legislative programme of a Green Government. The Prime Minister explained that the driving goal of this Government is “to build a more competitive and internationally-focused economy with less debt more jobs and higher incomes.” This was to be pursued he said within the challenging context of an ongoing global financial crisis; the euro debt crisis; recovery from a series of devastating earthquakes in Canterbury; and a difficult recovery from a major national recession.  
The Prime Minister then outlined a comprehensive policy agenda: a blow-by-blow account of oft-repeated lines of around 20 items. The environment and climate change did not make the agenda until over halfway through. His comprehensive policy agenda is a rational if rather pedestrian plan by a practical if rather visionless Government. Where for example is this Government’s vision for a brighter future for the people—for a more inclusive and harmonious New Zealand society? Where is this Government’s vision to make New Zealand a responsible global citizen? A strong economy certainly enables financial resources with a view to returning to surplus but it does not on its own buy social and environmental justice and responsibility. These must be envisioned and enacted.  
So what is to be found in the political agenda and the legislative programme of the Government? As I said we can count 20 in the Speech from the Throne. First and presumably most important it seeks to return into operating surplus by 2014-15. Of course that is laudable enough although there is huge scepticism over the prospects of this occurring. Secondly it plans to ensure a lower cap on core Government staff. This is of course an ideological twitch on the part of a National Government. Brilliantly the Prime Minister says that his Government will be focused on achieving results! Now there is a statement and vision and practical determination! There is not a Government in the 155 years of responsible government in this country that has not assured the voting public that it is intent on the Public Service achieving results. It simply begs the question of how we go about doing that.  
Then there is the policy for what is mellifluously known as the mixed-ownership model. What that means is selling off our State assets overseas. It means the socialisation of the losses and the privatisation of the profits as we saw during the financial crisis the Prime Minister cited as one of the problems his Government is encountering. There are other policies on welfare on education on innovation for entrepreneurship and on strengthening infrastructure through building roads of national insignificance. There are changes ahead for housing and health the ACC and tougher law and order policies. There is a stray reference to the so-called constitutional review.  
Then the Government purports to cover foreign policy defence and trade. It will focus on Pacific aid and run for a seat on the UN Security Council. It will maintain a bipartisan foreign policy. It will implement the Defence Capability Plan and continue to pursue high-quality trade agreements. This Government’s chances of securing a seat on the Security Council will be enhanced if it acts as a responsible global citizen through genuine multilateralism rather than crabbing its way back to the mid - 20th century searching for military security through being very good friends with selected powers—panting tongue hanging out.  
The Government trumpets a bipartisan foreign policy thereby displaying its ignorance of the multiparty nature of MMP which has been in force for nearly two decades or it betrays a subliminal preference for first past the post. Because the foreign policy of this Government cannot be described as globally responsible it is not bipartisanly shared by the Green Party.  
We need an alternative vision of how this country can develop—how it can act in the wider world. Let me describe today a Green vision for a sustainable richer New Zealand—a New Zealand that is a responsible global citizen that recognises the need to be integrated globally not just in economic terms but in environmental and social terms as well. The Green vision for a strong economy is one that is fully entwined with environmental sustainability and social responsibility. It is a vision that lives within our means and lives up to our clear clean green image. The Green economic vision has an expanded and more comprehensive measure of what success is. A Green Government would draw on measures such as the genuine progress indicator which would benefit those who must inherit this economy from us. In political terms in New Zealand the distinction is this: National believes that economic growth has a horizon and that that horizon can be progressively pushed back through human ingenuity provided a decent respect is paid to the environment. Labour has bought into that belief though not without some anxiety. The Green belief is that economic growth has a limit and that that limit is natural immutable and non-negotiable requiring humanity to live harmoniously within its parameters and at a certain material point to develop along cultural and spiritual lines rather than through simply further economic growth. There is a natural end point to economic growth.  
David Bennett 
: When?  
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: The member says “When?”. When there is a Green Government; you are invited to vote accordingly. There are qualitatively different world views here. There is no deeper distinction between National and Labour thought and Green thought than this: the Green social vision is compassionate. Economic growth is not progressed if it occurs at the expense of social equality. The Green vision recognises that research and development are integral to progress. Where the Prime Minister repeats again that his Government intends to build more roads and get ultra-fast broadband the Green vision sees research as invaluable to realising an innovative and sustainable future that does not further our reliance on finite and harmful fossil fuels. I call on this Government to review its own Speech from the Throne and introduce into its driving goal its agenda and its legislative programme at least part of the Green vision. The people may have voted this Government in—just—but the people also want the Green vision that I have described.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I want to spend my time in this Address in Reply debate addressing just the one issue and that is to do with the sale of land to foreigners. I want to start by just putting a bit of my personal credentials on the table. I am a sixth-generation New Zealander. The Williamson family came here in the mid-1800s from Scotland and settled and have been farmers along the way. So I do not think that anyone could say I am some great desirer of new foreigners taking over because I have a family history of being from this country. My 89-year-old mother lives peacefully in Matamata where I was brought up in a dairy-farming town and I must say that I think probably 97 percent of the people there will disagree with the decision that I have taken recently. I think I said to her that I have now got 97 percent of New Zealanders who hate me and she said: “Is that down from 98 beforehand?” so who knows? 
What I want to make clear in this debate is that Ministers have some discretion when there are issues of doubt but it is very clear from the Act and it was very clear from the advice that was given to Ministers from Crown Law that no discretion exists if the applicant meets every one of the criteria that are in the current Overseas Investment Act 2005 passed by the Labour Government and the corresponding regulations that go with it. Ministers cannot just say: “Well I don’t care what the law says; I’m just going to exercise discretion and say no.” I have to tell members that there is such a thing as a judicial review and you would simply lose the case. If the Minister was taken to judicial review he or she would lose the case if they were not able to say: “Mr Judge I declined this because…”. Now in the case of the Natural Dairy bid to buy these Crafar farms I am happy to say that I put my signature to the decline. It failed to meet a number of the criteria under the Act. Some members of this House have claimed: “Oh yeah Williamson just rubber-stamps them.” I did not rubber-stamp that application. I declined it because it did not meet the requirements. 
In the case of Kim Dotcom wanting to buy the Coatesville mansion again it got a decline. It got a decline that was able to be substantiated based on character and as members will have seen from what has been playing out in the media in recent days there may have been quite a good decision taken. But in the case of Shanghai Pengxin looking to buy these farms it met every one of the criteria that are laid down in the Act passed by the Labour Government and it met every one of the criteria laid out in the regulations—and remember that National even added two more criteria to try to strengthen the Act and the regulations so that we did have a little bit more say and all of those were met as well. So my frustration first today is with any one of the members of this House or of the public who say: “Oh you just should have said no.” When David Shearer and David Parker from the Labour Party said that they would have said no my very first question to them is on what grounds they would have said no. Remember you do not just have the final say in this; there are courts and Governments have been found by the courts to have acted inappropriately on a number of things and they have overturned Ministers’ decisions. Take Chris Carter and the Whitianga waterways— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: Whangamata.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —or the Whangamata whatever it is. The Minister got overturned by the courts because he did not follow the proper procedure.  
The next thing that I find really difficult—because I do know there are some absolutely genuine people who do not want foreigners buying land in this country. I do understand that. I do not think there are many but I actually fully respect those individuals who truly are consistent all along the way and say: “I do not want foreign ownership of our land.” But I think they are few and far between. The first one I do not understand is from those who were born in another country and spent the vast bulk of their life in another country. Russel Norman for example was born in Brisbane grew up in Australia and was an Australian all his life until he came here to write his PhD on the Alliance yet he is getting up in this House and saying he does not want foreigners to buy land and he is going on  
Breakfast 
 saying he does not want foreigners to buy land. I first of all want to question his definition of what a foreigner is because if he says it is as long as people come here to live what about those ones like Shania Twain who came here bought a huge high-country estate and had the Prime Minister Helen Clark walking with her across it for the photo opportunity? New Zealanders celebrated that. We celebrated Shania Twain’s purchase of this beautiful big South Island high-country estate saying: “Wasn’t it wonderful?”. I never heard a mutter not a murmur not a whisper from anybody about how dreadful that was—not one and I have checked all of the newspaper articles. I have checked all of the speeches in this House— 
Chris Hipkins 
: All the newspapers? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I am sorry; I got the research unit to go through them and I have found not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper of how evil that was.  
There have been lots and lots of others to the point and let me give you some figures. First of all I want to give a stern warning to the news media which used so many figures during this debate that were wrong. And I will tell you why. There is a whole range of different numbers that you can use. For example there is gross sale to foreigners or there is net. Now gross in my view does not matter because gross is where a German sells the land to a Swiss a Swiss sells it to a French person and a French person sells it to an American. Those do not really matter because they were already owned by foreigners; they were already in foreign ownership. For me the number that I think does matter is net because net is where the land has been transferred from the ownership of a New Zealand entity to that of a foreigner. That I think matters because it makes a difference; the other one did not. You may think there is a difference between a Swiss and a German owning the same piece of land but I do not think there really is. Here are the numbers. During Labour’s 9 years in office it approved the sale—and this is net; I will stick with net figures for the rest of this debate—of 660000 hectares of land net to foreigners.  
 One of my favourite years was the year 2006 when Winston Peters was the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the then Government. He was the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the then Government and it approved the sale of 375000 hectares of land to foreigners that year and not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper. So I have to say there is something funny going on here. It is one of these sorts of “Mahareyisms”: “Oh that was then but this is now. It is all right when we did it but it is all wrong now.” I have to say the public have woken up to that sort of dual view of the world—I think I can call it that; I cannot call it the “h” word—of “When we were doing it it was all right.” 
Then the next one is the fact that if they were Canadian Swiss or German—or the United States is a big buyer of land here—again there was not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper. Not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper. And I have checked again through the news media. They have been happening on a regular basis. I do two or three of these a week and suddenly it is the Chinese. If you think it is so wrong—if you think it is so wrong—why did the Labour Party not make such a hue and cry? Why did Helen Clark walk the track with Shania Twain and look at the beautiful high-country estate that was sold to— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Nothing was sold he said. No sale was stopped he said.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: We are actually talking about farmlands here Mr Goff. We are talking about farmlands and Labour did not have a problem with it. Labour did not— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why doesn’t the member tell the full story? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am telling the full story; I am most certainly. I will tell the full story again for the benefit of this House. Under Labour 660000 hectares were approved for sale—that is of land to foreigners—and the Crafar farms with 7000 hectares. So let me give the figure again—I will try to do it graphically—there were 660000 hectares under Labour and 7000 with the Crafar farms.  
Michael Woodhouse 
: You’re being generous mate. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well no I cannot get my fingers close enough to get the graphics looking good. I want to make it clear: I would much prefer that New Zealanders had bought those farms. I would much prefer it. It is everybody’s preference I would have thought but in the end the Government has to abide by the law of the land. And did Labour campaign at the last election on changing the Overseas Investment Act to block foreigners from buying?  
Hon Phil Goff 
: Yes. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No it did not. No it did not.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: Oh yes they did. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No it did not. No it did not—not a mutter not a murmur in their policies of blocking foreigners from buying land in New Zealand. No it did not. No it did not. So I want to send a clear message to everybody that we should welcome the investment that comes from foreign investors and the growth that they can create for our economy. We should welcome it as long as they are quality investors of high character who are going to benefit this country. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to go back to a comment that Bill English made because I think it bears repeating. It was just one of those off-the-cuff comments that he made when he was doing his little routine after my colleague Grant Robertson’s very good speech. He said that Grant Robertson had spent all his speech talking about issues that “don’t matter to New Zealanders”. Now what did Grant Robertson spend most of his speech talking about? Child poverty—child poverty. What a telling statement from the Minister of Finance that the National Government thinks that child poverty is an issue that does not matter to New Zealanders.  
Then we had the new Minister Jo Goodhew. She spent a large part of her speech talking about how National spent the last 3 years protecting the vulnerable. Well I would like to know what Jo Goodhew’s definition of “vulnerable” is because I cannot think of any vulnerable New Zealanders who were better off at the end of the last National Government than when National was elected in 2008. Maybe she was talking about vulnerable National Party donors because they were certainly looked after in the last 3 years of the National Government. Maybe she was talking about all those vulnerable foreign multinational companies because they certainly were looked after under the last 3 years of a National Government. Maybe she was talking about those poor vulnerable Australian insurance companies that are about to benefit from the privatisation of accident compensation. National is certainly doing a good job of protecting them over the next 3 years. They also fall into the category I suspect of vulnerable National Party donors but we will never know because the National Party refuses to disclose who donates to its election campaigns.  
When you look at what National did in the last 3 years you see unaffordable tax cuts that overwhelmingly went to those who did not need them—those who needed them the least. How can the Minister Jo Goodhew stand up in this House and say that National protected the vulnerable when to pay for those tax cuts the Government cut funding for Women’s Refuge? Mr Ardern is a very sensible member. How is cutting the funding for Women’s Refuge protecting vulnerable New Zealanders? It was all to pay for tax cuts that went to the least vulnerable New Zealanders. How are cuts to early childhood education protecting vulnerable New Zealanders? How is it good for children in this country that National has now told us it will increase class sizes? How is that protecting the most vulnerable New Zealanders? How does rising child poverty in this country fit with National’s claim that it has protected vulnerable New Zealanders?  
Is it not interesting that the reaction from the National Party to a TV3 documentary on child poverty was not “Oh my God we should do something about child poverty.”; it was “Oh my God we should stop New Zealand On Air from funding documentaries about child poverty and we should not let them be played in the week of an election campaign.”? God forbid that we talk about an issue like child poverty in an election campaign! It is very telling that their reaction to that documentary was not “Let’s do something about child poverty.”; it was “Let’s shut down talking about child poverty because we know it’s worse under our watch and we know we have absolutely no plan to deal with it.”  
I remember John Key’s Speech from the Throne after the 2008 election. This was when he was aspirational for New Zealand he was going to be turbocharging the New Zealand economy and we were going to be aggressively coming out of recession very very soon—of course failing to mention the fact that in large part he would have been able to do that because Labour left the books in a good state. The International Monetary Fund said that if it had not been for Labour paying off our Government debt and saving that money for a rainy day New Zealand would not have been in the good situation that it was in to deal with the global recession. The National Party likes to say that you know New Zealand went into recession before the rest of the world. Yes we did because we had droughts—because we had droughts. That is why we went into recession early.  
In fact New Zealand was in a very good position after the 2008 election because of the resilience that Labour had built into the economy. Unfortunately that was squandered by a Government that had no plan to deal with the major issues facing our country over its 3 years in Government. But that was the idea: John Key was going to deal to unemployment close the gap with Australia and bring New Zealand aggressively out of recession and back into surplus. He was going to be straight up with voters; he was not going to mince his words.  
What happened? Well he failed on every single count—every single count. He is almost like a child waiting for Santa Claus at Christmas. I suspect he woke up every morning just hoping that the free market had fixed the problems overnight and he would not have to do anything because a free market fixes everything. Well it has not and we have gone backwards comparatively in the world because we have had a do-nothing Government for 3 years. The only thing it has done is protect those people who support it—protect its mates and its cronies. They are the only people who were protected under the National Government over the last 3 years.  
Instead of being straight up with voters John Key now says that we have to accept that we live in a dynamic environment—we live in a dynamic environment. He is not straight up with voters any more. In terms of Australia last year saw the highest ever net migration to Australia. Unemployment is up by 50 percent; 157000 New Zealanders are now out of work. And for the first time in 13 years not only did we get a credit downgrade but we got a double downgrade—a double downgrade. So much for turbocharging the economy so much for being aspirational and so much for aggressively coming out of recession.  
In last year’s Speech from the Throne after the recent election what I could see was that the Prime Minister had learnt the lesson of making these commitments and then actually being held to account for them. What he did in this one was not make any commitments. He did not make any commitments and did not make any kinds of promises that he could actually be held to account against. There is still no plan for the economy; that was evident in the Speech from the Throne. If you consider today we had the very first question time since the election—the very first question time. The Government had the opportunity to ask itself lots of questions that highlight all the great policies and plans and exciting new ideas that it has because it is recharged and ready for the next 3 years. What did we have? Another question for Maurice Williamson on SmartGate. That is normally a question that we get in the third week of a sitting session when the Government is struggling to come up with questions. The first question time of this new Parliament and already they have to bring out the Maurice Williamson SmartGate question. That tells you something.  
Alfred Ngaro 
: It was impressive. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well he did have a new angle on it this time which was adolescent facial features. It was a new angle. I am not saying it was not interesting. But the reality is—with all due respect to the wonderful people at the Customs Service—that there are slightly more pressing issues facing this country than whether 16-year-olds’ faces are still developing and whether we can let them use SmartGate at our international airports. 
This was an opportunity for the Government to tell us what it is going to do over the course of this year and to highlight its plans. But of course it does not have a plan. 
 The reality is that the opportunities are there. The opportunities are there for the Government to do what it said it was going to do 3 years ago but has failed to do: to aggressively bring our economy out of recession to get people back into work and to improve our education system—not destroy it which is quite frankly where this Government’s policies are going. But again in the Speech from the Throne there was nothing. There was no plan and—this time the Prime Minister has learnt—no commitments that he could actually be held accountable for at the time of the next election. He failed to meet any of the commitments he made in his last 3 years of Government so this time we heard absolutely no commitments.  
I invite members to look at the plan that Labour put forward at the last election because our tax package would get New Zealand back to surplus at the same time as the National Party was promising without selling our assets—without selling our assets. But it requires tough choices to be made.  
The Government says it has a mandate on asset sales; it actually does not. When you add up the percentage of the vote that was gained by all those parties that opposed asset sales including those that did not make it into this Parliament because they failed to reach the 5 percent threshold more than 50 percent of New Zealanders voted for parties that had policies opposing asset sales—opposing assets sales—so there is no mandate for it.  
The Government talks about its Future Investment Fund. I had a school principal in Gisborne say to me that 21st century education is not a one-off cost. Saying that we are going to sell off our assets to put a bit of money into schools on a one-off basis just shows how little the Government understands about education because 21st century education is an ongoing cost and you can sell those assets only once. Once they are gone they are gone. Assets built up by generations of New Zealanders which this Government has no mandate to sell—once they are gone they are gone. Particularly in the case of the power companies we will see power prices going up. People are already struggling to pay the power bill and we will see power prices going up when those assets are privatised.  
It is short-changing future generations. Future generations are asking where the National Government’s plan is to deal with the cost of an ageing population. Where was that plan in the Speech from the Throne? The fact is we cannot keep putting it off. It is all right for John Key—he will get his superannuation—but what about younger New Zealanders now who are looking and thinking that there is no way given the ageing population that New Zealand superannuation at its current level is sustainable if we do not make those tough choices? There were no tough choices made about that about child poverty or about any of the other issues facing New Zealand. It is about time the National Party members when they get up actually started outlining what their plan is for New Zealand.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. That is a very wise call. Can I congratulate you also on your reappointment to the job. This is my first opportunity to do so. Can I say that in my time in this place I think it would be fair to say there has never been a more qualified team—that is all of the Speakers that occupy the role you do—in regard to knowledge of the Standing Orders and process in the House. I am sure you will maintain the standards that we have become accustomed to from you. Congratulations on that.  
It is always a privilege to follow my fellow Commonwealth Parliamentary Association group co-chair in one of these Address in Reply debates. She touched on a range of child poverty and social issues. I was once asked what I would consider it to be if I were considered as rich. My answer to that—and to her—is that providing I have three reasonably nutritious feeds a day have a dry bed to sleep in am able to pay the phone and power bills and the rent and have a car that will pass the warrant of fitness every 6 months I would consider myself to be rich. Of course if you look at our colleagues on the other side of the House by comparison that is not what they consider. Those things that I spoke of which are basic needs they see as the minimum or poverty. Actually if you do not have Sky TV now something needs to be done about it and social welfare should stump up!  
Let us have a look at the comparison under the National Government led by John Key. In the last term of Parliament we faced more crises I think you could say than any Government in modern history when you look at everything that went wrong during that period. The one that is I guess the most understated—and certainly completely ignored by the Opposition—is that fact that we have gone through what has been termed by international commentators the biggest economic meltdown or depression since the 1930s. I think we should reflect on that. Back at home sure there have been some companies and some individuals that have suffered during these economic times but overwhelmingly we are in a better position economically than most of our trading or competing nation colleagues. When you ask the question of why that is there is only one conclusion: because of the solid sensible considered economic policies of the Key Government. The Key Government intends to have New Zealand back in surplus by 2014. That is no mean feat. In fact some would say it is an unrealistic goal but all of the forecasts at this stage suggest that that is possible.  
I want to touch on something I think has been the No. 1 driver in that and that is the outstanding achievements within our agricultural industries. It is often overlooked I have to say—by economic commentators political commentators and our Opposition—just what role the agricultural sector plays in the New Zealand economy. What has happened in the agricultural sector? At a time when markets have shrunk when discretionary spending has shrunk and when we have faced some of the toughest economic circumstances internationally our market exports have continued to grow particularly in the dairy industry. I want to congratulate the Hon Tim Groser on the work that he and others have done in making that possible in opening up markets where markets did not exist and in doing trade deals with countries we have historically had difficulty trading with. When you look at that you see that the Key-led Government has achieved more in the previous 3 years and has a programme going forward to achieve more than anything we have seen before.  
New Zealand has always been a proud exporter of agricultural products. I have heard comment from the new Labour leader recently—quite recently actually—about how we need to spread our horizons and expand into non-commodity trading. I could not agree more. I think the Leader of the Opposition has absolutely nailed it with that comment. We must do that. But what that does not mention is the fact that about 60 percent of what Fonterra exported last year did not exist 5 years ago. Those who are suffering from asthma use inhalers. To suggest that that inhaling product if you like or carrier for those inhalers—it is a lactose-based product developed in the New Zealand dairy industry—is a bulk commodity is simplistic and childish in the extreme. We need to look at where our opportunities exist.  
If you go through the basket of products we export from that industry you will find that we have nutraceuticals pharmaceuticals high tech protein-based capsules for pharmaceuticals—the list goes on. As I said 60 percent of what was exported from our biggest company last year did not exist 5 years ago and I challenge the Opposition to have a look at some of that stuff.  
What are the big issues facing the Government going forward and what does this new National Government need to address in partnership with its support parties? The first thing that we need to address is responsibly managing the Government’s finances. If you look at the growth in the public sector through the whole 9 years of the previous Government at how sustainable that is in the current economic environment and at what the National Government has done to achieve a higher level of service from our public sector with the same level of finance then you would have to conclude as would the rest of New Zealand that that has been managed reasonably well.  
Building a more competitive and productive economy does not mean throwing up a whole lot of cost of compliance and regulation whether it be under the guise of environmental protection or whether it be under the guise of fairness and equality in terms of who pays what tax where and in terms of depreciation. Wherever you look the rhetoric that came out of the Opposition in the last term of Parliament and prior to that was to place more costs. In fact in the last term of Parliament it was suggested that dairy farmers in New Zealand do not pay enough tax and something should be done about that. Well I have some dairy-farming colleagues this year who are not that happy that they are paying you know six and seven figures in tax in some cases. I challenge others in the House or in the economy to step forward and demonstrate how they believe that dairy farmers paying a higher tax burden than they are already would be beneficial for New Zealand.  
I heard the previous speaker say that giving tax cuts to the rich is not the way forward in a struggling environment. I could not agree more if that is in fact what happened. But it is actually middle-class New Zealand that benefited the most from the last Government’s tax cuts and I would have to suggest to you that there are large cross-sections of New Zealanders now who do not pay any tax at all if they have a family given the tax rebates that they get.  
Delivering and rebuilding on the Christchurch circumstance that we find ourselves in is something that no Government would ever want or could plan for. It is the No. 1 priority for this Government and huge amounts of capital are committed to that. I do not think there is a single person in Parliament who would get up and claim that we should not be doing that. It is a question of how quickly we can do it how we fund it how New Zealand can benefit from that and going forward once that has happened how we can sustain the economy in the area.  
Introducing irrigation to the Canterbury Plains—and across the rest of New Zealand where that is possible where it is feasible and where it will give an economic return—is one of the key platforms that the Key-led Government has announced as a policy going forward. This will be hugely beneficial to the New Zealand economy. It does not mean 100 percent conversion of the Canterbury Plains to dairy. What it could mean is that we diversify the land use into a range of other developments. In fact right at the moment lamb fattening would return a higher return on investment than conversion to dairy. Markets internationally are opening up for that as well along with everything else.  
The Key-led Government has a dynamic plan going forward has shown strong leadership up to this point and will manage the New Zealand economy I think better than any other group or combination in the future. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to speak in the Address in Reply debate this afternoon. I would just like to follow on from the previous speaker who made a very good point about New Zealand agriculture and the strength that New Zealand agriculture displays as the main income producer for New Zealand. Following on from that I think not only do we have to be proud of the industries that are involved there and the history of investment and hard work that has gone into making those industries so successful but we also need to look at the attitude I think that those industries display. It is an attitude of hard work resilience backing themselves being prepared to take risks and also looking for challenges and meeting those challenges and accepting them. Those are common fundamental principles of any economy where there is success. If you look at the industrial growth of China for example you see that they have a very similar success story. They have met the challenges of producing products and have done it in a way that has exceeded their competition and many other countries have failed to keep up with them and paid a dear price economically. 
That leads on to the situation that New Zealand faced and most of the Western World faced in the last few years. There is a deep recession in Europe. New Zealand was in recession before the rest of the world thanks to our previous Labour administration and the US is struggling to get through the recessionary pressures that are in the world at the moment. I challenge this Parliament to look at it in terms of an East-West divide. Maybe on the Eastern side of the political equation or the world they may have actually looked at things in a more long-term and reflective manner than the West has. Maybe the East has got something that the West needs to learn and that is that government is not about promises for one election to the next. Government is about building futures and futures are long term. We in the West tend to think an election is a time when we can go and buy votes. You have parties going out there promising all these things—promising to people who may be seen as vulnerable that they will change that; promising that their policies are the way to solve the problems—when maybe just maybe we need to take a more Eastern perspective and look at it with a long-term vision and actually look at government as a long-term driver and look not at our individual gain per election but at our long-term gain over time. 
That I think is the thing that the European countries have not done. They still face countries that go from election to election and from promise to promise. Can we buy the votes of those voters to stay in power? This is something the Labour Party was very good at doing in the previous administration. But the world has moved on. The world needs stable government the world needs government that is long term in focus and the world needs government that has a strong economic base. Those economic fundamentals are something that we as a country may not pick up explicitly but implicitly the people of our country know that. In their day-to-day lives they know that they can lose their job if the company they are working for does not perform. They know that the services they will get from the Government depend on the ability of the Government to earn revenue and deliver those services. The days of borrowing just to deliver services are gone. The days of a country having to earn its way are the future. That is a very strong driver that our people understand but often our politicians do not understand and the Labour Party did not understand it at the last election. It did not understand what people were actually going through on the street and that is why it did not connect with the people on the street. We as a Government and as a country need to have a much longer-term vision. We need to look forward at what our country needs to deliver. I see the Green members shaking their heads— 
Phil Twyford 
: In disbelief. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: No in support. They understand and they advocate that in an environmental context. It is a shame they do not do it in an economic context and also a social context. But in an economic context which is one of the major issues that we as a country have to deal with at the moment—environmental as well but economic as well—that requires long-term planning that invests in infrastructure that makes the right commercial decisions so that New Zealanders can grow their economy grow their businesses provide those jobs and provide the environment for us as a country to then afford to deliver the social services we all treasure and want to see enhanced. That is the challenge for this Government and for future Governments. The challenge of the past has been in terms of what we can promise for a 3-year cycle; the challenge of the future is to look forward to what we need to do to deliver a stronger economy and a country and environment going forward. The National Party is committed to long-term growth we are committed to long-term planning and we are committed to making sure this country takes advantage of its opportunities. That is the difference between us and the Opposition. 
The Opposition I bet will stand in this room for the next 3 years looking at short-term things. It will be looking at short-term issues with a short-term vision. We do not have a short-term vision; we have a vision that is the right vision in the current economic environment. It is one where we are investing in the infrastructure that this country needs. We are building the roads we are putting the broadband in and we are giving those assets to our people so that long term they can grow. That is very much the economic model you see in successful countries. Whereas the Chinese at the moment are building roads and building infrastructure the Russians are building roads and building infrastructure and the Indians are building roads and infrastructure the European countries of Italy and Spain are talking about how they can manage their debt. They are not looking at the economic fundamentals they need to and until the day they measure themselves and look at those long-term interests they will not compete in the modern world and they will fall further down. 
But New Zealand has the ability to compete. As Mr Ardern said we have got an agricultural economy that is poised to be in the right place at the right time. We are beside the major economic markets that this world will have for the next generation or so. We are close to them. We have never been close to them before. We made our money in the 50s but we made it by being far away from those economic markets. Now they are close so we have to take advantage of that. We also have to be able to look at the transfer of skills and the ability to be part of that neighbourhood. We cannot look at ourselves in isolation. If you want to have an isolated New Zealand that does not grow and does not achieve well then you are going to hold your people back and we cannot afford to do that. New Zealanders need to be able to invest in things and get that technology so that they can grow and have the standard of living that they desire. And this Government will deliver that through our plan because we will responsibly manage the Government finance we will build a stronger economy we will look at the delivery of public services and also we will rebuild Christchurch so that it is an integral part of the New Zealand plan. And that is a long-term focus which is something most Western economies do not realise and do not accept at the moment. That is what is needed for this country to grow. It is the success of us going forward and with good leadership we will achieve that. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Now I have heard everything! Now I have really heard everything! I never ever thought I would come to this House and hear David Bennett invoking the great Eastern philosophers in support of National’s economic policy which the rest of us have come to think of as cut cut public services; sell sell our assets; and hope. I never ever thought I would hear this but every day is a new day and that always makes it exciting to come to the House. You never know what you are going to hear from members on that side of the House.  
Where is the bold rhetoric? Where is the brighter future that we heard so much about? Where is it now? Like a fake suntan that has worn off the perennially relaxed Prime Minister is no longer wearing his permanent smile. In fact in recent weeks he has looked decidedly tired and grumpy. And the reason is that National has run out of ideas. It is all getting a bit hard for the Prime Minister and members on that side of the House.  
I looked in vain during the election campaign for National’s campaign advertisements showing Mr Key in the Westpac Stadium talking about all the New Zealanders who are heading to Australia. Do you know why we did not see images of Mr Key in the Westpac Stadium? Why? Because there is not a stadium big enough in this country to signify the sheer volume of New Zealanders who are leaving permanently for Australia: 113000—113000—New Zealanders have left this country permanently to go to Australia since this Government first took office. Last year 36900 New Zealanders made up the net migration to Australia—the highest ever recorded. Why did they leave? They left and they are leaving because they have lost hope in this Government. The world has changed but National’s thinking National’s policies and its answers has not changed. This Government has run out of ideas. Just like the definition of a psychotic who keeps on trying the same old thing National keeps on hoping that the results will be different.  
I want to give the House a couple of examples of how National has run out of ideas—how it has run out of steam and it just keeps on trying the same old things. Last week the Ministry of Transport released its briefing to the incoming Ministers and it made very interesting reading. What those officials in the Ministry of Transport told us—their analysis and their data made it very clear—is that the centrepiece of this Government’s transport policy for the last 3 years the roads of significance to National otherwise known as the RONZ is tipped to become increasingly insignificant because the world is changing and National has not woken up to that fact. What the briefing showed us was that this Government is going to be increasingly unable to fund the commitments that it has made to build the roads of national significance. There is a divergence in the budgeted cost of these seven gold-plated motorway projects and the other four that the Government proposes to add to the list. The divergence is between the budgeted cost and the Government’s ability to fund the construction of those motorways from the normal sources of transport revenue.  
The fact is that with a flat economy and rising oil prices people are driving less. They are choosing to take public transport increasingly and because they are driving less the Government’s transport revenue through road-user charges and through the petrol excise is falling proportionately to the size of the economy and the commitments that this Government has made to build the roads of national significance. So on one hand you have got a growing divergence between the Government’s commitments and its ability to pay for them and on the other hand no one can afford to drive on these motorways because of the cost of petrol. It is bizarre that at the very time when New Zealanders are choosing to drive less and demand for public transport is growing this Government has redoubled its commitment to the so-called roads of national significance. It shows no sign of wavering from its total obsession with building gold-plated motorway projects which rob every other major category in the transport budget including local roads rural roads road safety and urban public transport. They have no qualms—the members on that side of the House—about robbing every other budget category to fund their roads of National Government significance.  
Now you would think at a time of rising oil prices that it might be a good thing to think about the long-term resilience of our transport sector over the next 10 20 30 years. But what this Government is doing is precisely the opposite. By refusing to support Auckland’s plans and aspirations for a modern public transport system by refusing to stump up with its share of the funding needed for the city rail link in Auckland and by insisting on going ahead with the discredited Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” this Government is making the country more and more dependent on imported oil at the very time that we should be thinking about making our transport sector more resilient and having a more balanced transport policy that invests in public transport in rail and in coastal shipping. But the Government sadly does not see the logic of that; it is building roads like there is no tomorrow. Even though traffic demand traffic volume has been more or less static for the last 4 or 5 years it refuses to recognise the demand for public transport at a time when more and more people are getting buses and trains to work.  
The second example that I want to give also relates to transport and it is specifically about Auckland. It has been really instructive in the last few weeks. The  
New Zealand Herald  
has run an interesting series of stories about some of the big challenges facing our country’s biggest city. I hope members on that side of the House have read over the last couple of days what the  
New Zealand Herald  
has said about our unfair tax system and how it is driving ever-higher levels of social inequality. But one of the other really interesting articles that the  
New Zealand Herald  
has had in the last week or two highlighted last week that Auckland our country’s largest city will face midday traffic jams in the next 20 years—midday traffic jams—because the programme of road building that had been carried out by Labour when we were in Government and that has been continued under this Government simply will not on its own solve the problem of traffic congestion. The changes the effect of the road-building programme over the last couple of years are expected according to the Ministry of Transport to reduce congestion by only 14 percent by 2021. Congestion will be reduced by only 14 percent by 2021.  
If there was ever a wake-up call that the National Government’s mantra of roads and suburban sprawl will not deliver a workable future for our country’s biggest city this is it. But National is blind to the demands and deaf to the aspirations of Aucklanders who want to live in a livable city. They want to be able to move around their city. National’s only recipe is to build more and more motorways and add more and more lanes to the existing motorway. It will not take on board the idea that we have to build a more balanced integrated intermodal transport system that actually gives people the real opportunity to leave their cars at home and free up the roads for the rest of us. Spaghetti Junction the single-biggest motorway interchange in the southern hemisphere completed only a few years ago is already at full capacity in peak hour at both times of the day—and the National Government wants to build more and more motorways across the city most of them heading into the central city. Well you do not need to be a rocket scientist to know that that simply will not work. We have to invest heavily in public transport to ease congestion and provide a more balanced transport system. Unfortunately National has run out of ideas and all it wants to do is do the same thing over and over again. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Thank you for the call and a very happy New Year to you. It is a pleasure as always to follow Mr Twyford but I would have thought now that he is an electorate member for Auckland—and with his transport role in the diminished Labour Party caucus—he would be particularly aware that this Government has made a very significant investment in rail in his area. It is a very important investment. I would have thought he would welcome that not ignore it in his contribution.  
I also want to say as a Waikato member how thrilled I am as we speak about that roading development that the Waikato Expressway is on track. It is going to deliver more for our region—and I am sure my colleague the member for Hamilton East will agree with me—than anything else in recent times. It is the single most important thing we can do for the economic development and the social development of our region. It will get people moving it will get businesses moving and it will create employment. It is a great development. Yes it is important and that is why we as a Government have been putting so much emphasis on the roads of national significance. I look forward to Mr Twyford coming up to speed getting to understand what it is all about and throwing his wholehearted support behind it.  
Mr Assistant Speaker could I at the outset congratulate you on your reappointment to your position and also Mr Speaker the Deputy Speaker and the other Assistant Speaker. We are well served by our presiding officers in Parliament and I wish you well. I would also like to thank the electors of Hamilton West for the great honour that they have done me by returning me with an increased majority. I was very proud to achieve that result and I am very conscious of the honour and the responsibility that I have. I will be doing my best to justify the faith that they have again placed in me and will be working as hard as I can for the benefit of our exciting city and our vitally important region.  
On this day as we marked in Parliament the diamond anniversary of our Sovereign I would like to pay my respects to Her Majesty the Queen. I am personally a very strong supporter of our current constitutional arrangements. I believe that she in her role as head of the Commonwealth has shown a devotion to duty and a lifetime of service that are admirable and really worth acknowledging. I do thank her for that. I also pay my respects to His Excellency and Lady Mateparae as they settle into their new viceregal responsibilities. I believe that they are off to a very good start and that they will serve us well over the next 4½ years.  
The Address in Reply debate of course focuses on what we heard from the Crown through the Governor-General at the opening of the Parliament. There were no surprises in it because it is essentially a reflection of the issues that were very well canvassed in last year’s general election. What did that election result give us? It gave a Government that for one of the few times in my lifetime actually saw its share of the party vote go up and its numbers go up. It saw an Opposition that could not really work out where it stood on the issues and did not have any credible policy pay the price for that disarray and substantially go down. And it saw the return of one party the enlargement of another and a little bit of moving around. But essentially the most important thing is that it gave us another strong John Key - led Government and a very clear mandate to press on with the issues and the policies that the electorate unquestionably endorsed at the ballot box.  
I want to welcome all new members of this House and congratulate them. It is a very significant honour; I wish you well. I know that there are very talented people who have come into the House. You come in of course at a time of very considerable challenges to us as a country and to the whole world. We are still in the grip of a global economic downturn that has really had a significant impact—there is no question. For instance we need only look at the fact that in last year’s election we were defending a zero Budget. If you had told me as I was defending one of the marginal seats in the country that I would have to go into an election defending a zero Budget I think I would have gone pretty white. Some say I have gone pretty white! Nevertheless it was what the public understood we needed to do. So I wish the new members the very best of luck as you join us to discharge your responsibilities. I look forward to constructive contributions and I particularly look forward to hearing your maiden statements over the next few weeks.  
Because of those challenges that I have just mentioned the critical importance of having an economic plan that is appropriate and is going to achieve what we need to do is patently apparent. There are of course no easy answers to the position we are in. Borrow and hope is clearly not an option. We need only look at what has been happening in Europe in recent times to realise how dire the position of some previously admired economies is; we do not want to go down that path. New Zealand is doing everything it can under the John Key - led Government to get our borrowing under control and to ensure that we are back in surplus by 2014-15. Notwithstanding all those major challenges particularly the devastation in the Canterbury region in the last 18 months or so we remain on our path to doing that. I salute Bill English and the team working with him for that significant achievement.  
When we are not borrowing when we are back in surplus we have choices. We can continue to invest in the things we want to rather than simply being constrained and having to spend quite a bit of what we earn on interest repayments. We were forced into that borrowing option by the previous Government and let us never forget that. Wasteful expenditure—incredibly wasteful expenditure—on a whole range of things meant that this Government came into office already in a recession having to rein it in and get our spending back under control because you cannot continue spending what you do not earn without imperilling future generations. That is what the last Labour Government did that is why New Zealanders threw it out of office and that is why they are saying to us: “For the sake of future generations do what you are doing National-led Government because there is no alternative.”  
Tax and spend is not an option. Tax and spend is not an option because—[ 
Interruption 
] I did enjoy seeing  
The Iron Lady 
 or “ 
The Iron Maiden 
” or whatever it is called. What a wonderful film—a fine performance by Meryl Streep. I have to say that I think Margaret Thatcher was a pretty impressive person. She faced similar challenges. She rose to that. She rose to that challenge as well and good on her. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Labour is an alternative—not a good one but it is an alternative. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Fortunately it is not one Mr Williamson that New Zealanders are showing any enthusiasm for opting for at the moment.  
What did those members want to offer? More tax and spend—a failed philosophy that simply stifles investment and productivity and drives anyone of an entrepreneurial spirit who can do so offshore in search of greener pastures. That is the last thing we want. We know that some New Zealanders have gone. We are a very nomadic country; we have a very large expatriate population living offshore. That is not altogether bad because they pick up skills and as long as they come back eventually we benefit from that. But we must ensure that this is an attractive country with an economy that welcomes them home and that attracts them to invest here because that is what we need for our long-term prosperity.  
As a Government we are naturally very focused on the need to care for all our citizens. There are many who are struggling through the recession and there are many who need the assistance of the State and we are committed to providing that. But we cannot do it if we do not have the economy under control.  
We are of course committed to promoting sustainability of our environment. It is a topic that has certainly become far more popular to talk about in recent times. We are dedicated to doing it. We are very much focused on lifting educational achievement—no apologies about that. We are passionate about achieving that and our dynamic new Minister of Education is determined to do it. I wish her well. I know that she is off to an excellent start and she is earning the respect of people in that area and I wish them all well as they lift educational achievement for the good of our country and particularly for our young people.  
Welfare reform is crucial and as a member of the Social Services Committee in the last Parliament—we began to look at this—I am delighted that we will be working on this. If we are going to have a social security system that is responsive and is appropriate it must not trap people in long-term dependency it must ensure that everybody who can work is working and it must ensure that all the right incentives are there. Those incentives have been whacked off balance in recent times; we are going to get them back on track. There are some important challenges there.  
I mentioned Christchurch and Canterbury a short time ago. Time moves on and the media sometimes shifts its focus but we are conscious of the fact that Cantabrians have now faced over 10000 aftershocks. They had those terribly big ones devastating as they were just before Christmas. We remain focused on doing the job. As Mr Bennett mentioned a minute ago that is a long-term commitment and we will ensure that we do not let them down.  
These are exciting times. These are going to be challenging times and they will be difficult times for us as a Government. I am really excited however by the plan that we have got on offer. I know that the country has huge confidence in what we are delivering. Let us get on with it—there is no time to lose. 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the debate be now adjourned 
.  
Motion agreed to.