Volume 703 Week 7 - Thursday 12 February 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 703 Week 7 - Thursday 12 February 2015[Sitting date: 12 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1535. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 12 February 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):My apologies for being late and holding up the House for a minute. I was of course speaking to media outside a phenomenon not known to my opponents on the other side of the House—[Interruption] Unless they are talking about each other then they are pretty good.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 February the Government will look to progress the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement and a number of pieces of legislation on the Order Paper including the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) the Parole Amendment Bill and the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour):Can I just check with the Leader of the House that it is his expectation that there will be a members’ day the week after next?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):Unless there are some unforeseen circumstances that is the plan.Questions to MinistersEconomy—Reports1.CHRIS BISHOP (National)to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received about what progress the Government is making to support more jobs and higher incomes?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance)on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I have seen several reports particularly since this House last sat before Christmas confirming that the growing economy is continuing to support more jobs and higher incomes. For example Statistics New Zealand last week reported that in the past year another 80000 jobs were created across New Zealand. The labour market participation rate increased to a record 69.7 percent and unemployment at 5.7 percent is lower than in most other developed economies. Average weekly wages rose 2.5 percent in the calendar year of 2014 compared with consumer price inflation of just 0.8 percent in the same period and we also now know that mortgage interest rates will stay lower for longer. So the growing economy is helping New Zealanders in many ways but of course there is always more work to do to lock in those gains over the longer term.Chris Bishop: In light of forecasts of further strong economic growth what is the outlook for inflation and interest rates?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Both inflation and interest rate pressures are low and they are expected to remain that way now for the foreseeable future. The Reserve Bank noted in its latest official cash rate review that low global inflation and the impact of sharply lower oil prices will continue to increase New Zealand households’ purchasing power and will lower the cost of doing business. Headline annual inflation is expected to be below the bank’s 1 to 3 percent target band through 2015 and could become negative for a period before moving back towards 2 percent. In the current circumstances the Reserve Bank expects to keep the official cash rate on hold for some time. Of course that will be welcomed by both homeowners and businesses. Future interest rate adjustments will of course depend on the emerging flow of economic data.Chris Bishop: According to the official statistics how do the latest average wage increases compare with inflation and how does this compare with historical movements?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The quarterly employment survey which successive Governments have used to set New Zealand superannuation for example shows that average weekly wages rose 2.5 percent in the 12 months to 31 December. As I mentioned earlier this is above the annual inflation rate of just 0.8 percent. In the past 5 years average wages have increased by 15 percent and they are forecast to keep rising faster than the cost of living. This contrasts with the position in 2008 when wages were struggling to keep pace with consumer price annual inflation of more than 5 percent.Chris Bishop: What policy measures has the Government announced that will distribute dividends from the growing economy to New Zealand families and children?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A number of important changes will take effect in the next few months that will help families and children. For example from 1 April paid parental leave will increase by 2 weeks to 16 weeks and by another 2 weeks from 1 April of next year; the parental tax credit will rise from $150 a week to $220 a week and the entitlement will increase from 8 weeks to 10 weeks; and the Government’s new HomeStart scheme will help around 90000 Kiwis into their first home over the next 5 years. From 1 July children under 13 will have access to free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions and the average ACC levy for a private motor vehicle will fall by around $130 a year. These are just some of the policies this Government is introducing to support families on the back of a strong economy and good fiscal management.Dr David Clark: Can the Minister please tell us by just how much the wage gap with Australia has grown since his Government promised to close it in 2008?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have those numbers to hand but I can tell the member—and this contributes to that explanation for those numbers—that more and more people are moving to this side of the Tasman rather than to Australia. In fact for the first time since 1990—the first time since 1990—more people are moving from Australia to here than from New Zealand—Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific: how much has the wage gap with Australia grown? There was no politics in it. If the Minister does not know he should just sit down.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is my job to adjudicate when an answer goes on for too long. The Minister answered immediately by saying that he did not have the information with him and that is acceptable. He then did give quite a long answer which was not adding information to the question that was asked by the member and I accept that but it is still my job and not Mr Clark’s job to judge the length of an answer.Primary Growth Partnership—Overseas Interests and Intellectual Property2.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he believe the Primary Growth Partnership provides value for money to taxpayers?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries)on behalf of theMinister for Primary Industries: Yes. As the member will be aware last year an independent report by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research estimated that the Primary Growth Partnership will add $6.4 billion per annum to New Zealand’s economy by 2025. The report further concluded that the Primary Growth Partnership has the potential to achieve an additional $4.7 billion per annum by 2025 if all the research and development is successful the aspirational stretch of the Primary Growth Partnership programmes is achieved and the innovations are widely taken up. That is why my answer is yes. This makes a 30-year benefit-cost ratio for Government funding of 1:32. That confirms what great value the Primary Growth Partnership programme is.Richard Prosser: How much of the $322 million of taxpayers’ funds committed to the Primary Growth Partnership by the Crown has gone to overseas-owned companies?Hon JO GOODHEW: I do not have an answer to that question. It has a level of technical detail that I would have preferred to be laid down in the primary question.Richard Prosser: How much has gone to the following partners: PGG Wrightson which is now majority Chinese-owned; the majority Japanese-owned ANZCO Foods; and Norske Skog Tasman owned by Norwegian and other overseas interests?Hon JO GOODHEW: What I can tell the member is that the benefits to New Zealand as have been calculated by the independent report of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research are considerable. This country has many businesses that have some capital input from overseas but it is the New Zealand economy that benefits significantly from the money that is invested into quality programmes that will achieve great benefits in primary industries for New Zealand.Richard Prosser: Who owns the intellectual property of the programmes: the New Zealand taxpayer who funds them through the partnership or the private entities some of which are overseas-owned?Hon JO GOODHEW: The recent report by the Office of the Auditor-General identified to us that intellectual property and the identification of the benefits of that are important parts of the clarification that the Ministry for Primary Industries needs to continue working on. We have taken that feedback from the office on board and that will be the case.Richard Prosser: Given that answer will the Minister now give the House an assurance that changes will be made to the Primary Growth Partnership scheme to ensure that the New Zealand taxpayer will benefit directly from the ownership of intellectual property; if not why not?Hon JO GOODHEW: I reiterate my earlier answer to the member and I also add to that that there have been learnings since the beginning of this significant programme of benefits to primary industries in New Zealand—an exciting programme that looks to deliver great benefits to New Zealand. The Office of the Auditor-General’s report is largely positive but it does point us to some areas where we can improve. That is not a surprise but it is an encouragement to the Ministry for Primary Industries.Skycity Convention Centre—Proposed Government Funding3.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Finance: In light of his comments that a taxpayer bailout is his “least preferred” option how much is he prepared to spend to save the SkyCity deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance)on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I would like to simply point the member to the answer given by my colleague the Minister for Economic Development yesterday to an exceedingly similar question: “I have been clear all the way through that our least preferred option is to provide any funding to Skycity for the convention centre. We are in the process of discussions and I am not prepared to conduct those discussions in the public domain as that would undermine our position.”Hon Annette King: In light of that answer when he said in the House on 12 November 2013 that for a “little if any investment by taxpayers” New Zealanders would get an international-standard convention centre how big did he envisage the “little” investment was going to be and did that also include an international standard that was not an eyesore?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes to the latter part of the question. In terms of the first part I refer the member to the primary answer to the primary question. But the clear position of the Government the Minister for Economic Development the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister is that actually our least preferred option is to provide any funding to Skycity. However there have of course been other positions this week. In fact when asked whether the Government should contribute funds to the convention centre one response was: “You could probably say you know for the overall benefit yes.” and speaking of “little” that was one Andrew Little on Newstalk ZB.Tracey Martin: Can he assure the New Zealand public that any decisions around potentially giving millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to Skycity will not have been affected by the tens of thousands of dollars Skycity has donated to the National Party such as the $60000 donation recorded in 2005?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be some ministerial responsibility the Hon Steven Joyce.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure of the ministerial responsibility but I think the answer would be yes anyway.Hon Annette King: In light of his comments yesterday when did he advise all other Ministers that a taxpayer bailout of Skycity would require a cut to their budgets to stump up for cash for a business that made a $66.6 million profit in the last 6 months?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is actually mischaracterising the Minister’s comments yesterday but nevertheless it is clear that it is the Government’s preference that our least preferred option is to provide any funding to Skycity. No proposal has been received from the Minister for Economic Development to the Minister of Finance at least that I am aware of—and I think I may have been aware of it if it had occurred—and in the meantime we will just see how it goes.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Point of order the Hon Annette King.Hon Annette King: Do not sound so weary Mr Speaker. This is a really good point of order. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am looking forward to it with—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption]Hon Annette King: Well a second point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No well—[Interruption] Order! We will deal with the first point of order first which I am looking forward to with anticipation and excitement.Hon Annette King: Yes Mr Speaker. I have taken your advice in terms of very tight questions. My question asked when the Minister of Finance advised all Ministers that there would need to be a taxpayer bailout if they were required to provide money to Skycity and the Minister did not answer that.Mr SPEAKER: He did. He disputed that he had had those discussions with the Ministers as I understood the answer. In my opinion he definitely addressed that question.Hon Annette King: Will he guarantee today that he will not support further gambling concessions to Skycity to save the deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has confirmed that there will not be further concessions in any further law changes.Hon Annette King: How many hip operations could be undertaken and how many State houses could be built for the $128 million dollars that Skycity is demanding from the taxpayers and would it not be of more benefit to New Zealanders to invest it in them rather than in a multinational company that is making huge profits?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member presumes way too much in her statement and it is highly hypothetical. But if she is concerned about that I would talk to her own leader who actually was on the radio this week saying funds should be contributed to Skycity. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The interjection level coming from both sides is now unacceptable.Hon Annette King: If the Prime Minister will not listen to him—the Minister of Finance—will he listen to the 22000 New Zealanders who in just the past 1 day have signed Labour’s petition opposing a taxpayer bailout of the Skycity deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I need to point out to the member that the Government’s position is entirely consistent. The Prime Minister has made it clear that it is his least preferred option to provide any funding to Skycity. The Minister of Finance has made it clear that our least preferred option is to provide any funding to Skycity. The Minister for Economic Development has been saying since December last year that our least preferred option is to provide any funding to Skycity. I appreciate that on close examination those three statements may sound very different but I have done some analysis in my office by placing them side by side and they are in fact the same.Hon Annette King: Is he prepared to match the contribution to the Skycity bailout raised yesterday from the public who showed what they thought of the Government’s idea by donating $41.20 two bottles of water and a lime Fruit Burst lolly?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would point out that as we have been clear about all the way through negotiations are continuing. Our least preferred option is to provide any funding to Skycity. It is fair to say that the member’s leader is well ahead of her in that he signalled the other day that he would be prepared to give more than the amount of money that the member’s question has just raised.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think that the member heard my question or understood it and I am very happy to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. I am sure he did hear it. It was whether the Minister gave a guarantee that he would match the public contribution. He clearly said he was not prepared to give that guarantee because it is still in the stage of negotiation.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I seek leave to table a transcript of Andrew Little with Larry Williams on Newstalk ZB—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Transcripts are freely available to members if they want to get them.Skycity Convention Centre—Television New Zealand Land4.DENISE ROCHE (Green)to the Minister for Economic Development: What advice did officials provide about how much more valuable to SkyCity the TVNZ land sold to it for the siting of a convention centre was once that land was used as the site of a hotel?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):The first thing I would point out is that the site of course has not yet been used for a hotel. Negotiations are ongoing regarding the final layout cost and size of the convention centre complex. With regard to the plans submitted to Auckland Council by Skycity at the end of last year I am advised that there is a potential benefit to Skycity of a change in location but as the final form of the convention centre is still being negotiated I cannot at this stage provide an estimate of that benefit. But I have been clear to our negotiators that I would expect that anything that gave that benefit to Skycity would be a cost that they would need to take account of.Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was on notice and it specifically asked about the advice that was given about the change in the land value not about any other sort of advice that he has had since. It was about the advice that he received before the deal took place.Mr SPEAKER: Again as I interpreted the Minister’s answer he said there could well be an increased value because of subsequent use but it was impossible at this stage to put a figure on it until the plans were finalised as to what that site would totally be used for. I think that the question has been adequately addressed and I suggest that if the member wants to take the matter further tease it out now with good supplementary questions.Denise Roche: Why did he not work out how much more the deal was worth to Skycity with the hotel on Television New Zealand (TVNZ) land before the deal was signed given that officials said it made the deal much more valuable to Skycity?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure what the member is driving at because actually there has been a proposal for the hotel to be on a different site—and I would stress that Skycity already had its own site for a hotel it is basically proposing to shift from one part of the site to another part of the site—and until that proposal was made it would have been difficult to anticipate the need for putting a value on a proposal of that nature. I have been quite clear to the member in the answer to the primary question that I believe there probably is a value out of that and that that value should be accounted for in any subsequent negotiations.Denise Roche: How is it that his deal allowed Skycity to acquire a prime piece of central Auckland real estate discounted at taxpayer expense and somehow a year later Skycity comes back asking for even more handouts?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; the member is incorrect. I am not sure where she got the idea there was any sort of discount but actually as I understand it Skycity has paid something in the order of—I do not know—$16 million or something which was a commercial valuation on the site firstly. I think TVNZ is currently using the money to renovate its facilities in Auckland so it obviously got the value from it. And in terms of where the hotel goes on the overall site that is something that we would negotiate with them in terms of any value they would obtain from that. So I just do not know what the member sees as the massive issue here.Denise Roche: Did the Minister’s lawyers advise not to include clause 11.47 of the convention centre agreement which effectively allows Skycity to plan a bigger and flasher centre to renegotiate the whole deal; if so why did he include it?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; I think the member is incorrect. There was a deal that was done for a convention centre at the value of $402 million. That is finally confirmed at the time—Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s not what you told the public at the time.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —listen to me—a construction agreement is signed at which point the concessions that are in return for the convention centre would come into force. Prior to that time either party could withdraw from it. What Skycity is saying is that it has got a bit more expensive and it is worried about that and it wants to negotiate with the Crown. What we have said is that we will listen to them and that we will have the discussions but that any money would be our least preferred option. That is the whole of the week I do believe in the media.Denise Roche: Is he embarrassed that he negotiated a deal that allowed Skycity to walk away with a large chunk of prime public land for its own hotel and to completely change the size and cost of the so-called free convention centre.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; much of what the member is saying in her question I just completely disagree with. The simple thing the member needs to understand in this is that that company already had some land set aside for a hotel. It has proposed to shift the location of that hotel as part of its latest proposed facility for the consent so that actually the convention centre works a bit better on the site. We will make a judgment on that and assess the value of that and that will form part of any further discussions.Denise Roche: Why will he not just admit that he and Mr Key have been played by much better gamblers and it is time to fold ‘em and walk away?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that it is news that the Greens oppose a convention centre in Auckland but obviously we will choose to disagree as I think we have since roughly 2009.Dr David Clark: Does he have any absolute and specified negotiating bottom lines beyond which he will walk away from the convention centre deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said to the member yesterday I am not prepared to conduct the negotiations in public because that would actually make the Crown’s position weaker and I would prefer to have a stronger position and have the option of conducting those discussions and then reporting back the result of those discussions to the House.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just asking for your assistance. I think the member has misunderstood my question which was whether he has any—it was a yes or no. I do not want the nature of them—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member’s question was whether there were any bottom lines and the Minister clearly in answering said he was not prepared to reveal his position on a negotiation that is still proceeding.Cricket World Cup 2015—Benefits5.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri)to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: What benefits does he expect to be delivered by the Government’s support for the Cricket World Cup?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister for Sport and Recreation):Tonight’s opening ceremony for the International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup in North Hagley Park Christchurch is the start of a wonderful 6-week festival of international cricket. The global television audience is over 1 billion with an expected 30000 visitors to New Zealand and 239000 visitor nights. It is expected to inject around $50 million into the New Zealand economy. There will be ongoing benefits for New Zealand through the raised international profile that the tournament brings to this country. Three hundred thousand tickets have been sold for games in New Zealand so be in quick.Matt Doocey: What has been planned for the opening ceremony of the tournament?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The opening ceremony will be free to attend with live music and several enormous games of backyard cricket. It is going to be great. The ceremony—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Minister to start his answer again. I cannot hear it because of the level of noise from my left.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The ceremony will be free to attend with live music and several enormous games of backyard cricket. It is going to be a great ceremony. That ceremony and the opening game will help show the world that Christchurch is open for business and provide Cantabrians with a great opportunity to show their support for the Black Caps and the tournament. Frankly it is time the Labour Party backed this tournament.Hon Trevor Mallard: Is it correct that the shot involving the Prime Minister for the opening ceremony had to be reshot six times because he kept on dropping the ball?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may potentially be ministerial responsibility I will ask the Minister.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No; as per usual he hit it out of the park. But what I can say is correct is that although Mr Mallard bags the Cricket World Cup he is quite prepared to accept the invitations and even wear the tie.Matt Doocey: What leverage and legacy benefits will be provided by co-hosting the tournament?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Government has been focused on a coordinated leverage and legacy programme including helping New Zealand businesses develop international connections and showcasing New Zealand industry culture and expertise to further drive trade and visitation opportunities. There is also an educational programme for primary and intermediate schools called Cricket Smart. The Cricket World Cup is a huge opportunity for all New Zealanders.Clayton Mitchell: Does he believe that Kiwis without Sky TV should get to see all of the Cricket World Cup matches live considering that $5 million of taxpayers’ money has gone into funding the event yet only a selection of games will be available free to air; if not why not?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have not had a single email on that issue and I think New Zealanders are just really thrilled that we have got this tournament coming to New Zealand. There are still tickets available and there are going to be key games shown on Prime Television free to air.David Seymour: In view of all this can the Minister think of any sporting tournaments or ceremonies where it is not the role of the Government to fund with taxpayer money?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am sure there are some but I am not going to get into it here.Primary Growth Partnership—Growth6.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman)to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he have confidence in his department?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries):on behalf of theMinister for Primary Industries: Yes. In particular I have confidence in the support that the Ministry for Primary Industries provides to all in the primary sector. As an example today a medium-scale adverse event has been declared across most of the east coast of the South Island. There are still tough times ahead for many farmers but farmers are resilient and today’s announcement confirms that this Government and the Ministry for Primary Industries will back them through this.Hon Damien O’Connor: How can he have confidence in his department when the Auditor-General has found that his officials could not yet show what the $322 million committed and the $129 million spent so far on the Primary Growth Partnership have achieved; and of the six programmes fully audited it said “It is too soon to observe any economic benefit.”?Hon JO GOODHEW: Well the Minister has confidence in the Primary Growth Partnership but also in understanding that this is a long process. The Auditor-General’s report showed that the reporting that is currently under way could be made more simple for the average reader in the street and we have certainly taken that on board. But I remind the member that there are not only detailed websites quarterly reports a regular newsletter an annual expo presence at the Fieldays programme steering groups quarterly progress reporting and annual plans and audits to show the public of New Zealand what they will get over the long term. As I have already explained today the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report out to 2025 shows the billions of dollars that will actually be available to the economy of New Zealand but this is a long-term game not a short-term political game.Hon Damien O’Connor: Does he still consider the Primary Growth Partnership to be his “flagship policy” to double the value of exports by 2025 given that halfway through the programme his ministry cannot show what has been achieved?Hon JO GOODHEW: The Primary Growth Partnership is but one of the things that this Government is working on to achieve our export double. The member is remiss in thinking that it is as simple as just one project. In fact under the Ministry for Primary Industries and also the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the development of export markets the development of food safety security—all of these play into the ability of New Zealand to meet that export double. We also know that the research and development that is going on in the primary industry sector will help us achieve that. I am sure that during the fullness of time and with all of the monitoring and reports that I have already outlined to the member progress will be seen. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research was an independent report and it predicted what we would gain from this.Hon Damien O’Connor: What other areas of Government funding would allow the spend of $129 million without any identifiable economic benefits and in the words of the Auditor-General “No ability to show what PGP as a whole has achieved.”?Hon JO GOODHEW: There were some learnings in the Office of the Auditor-General report but it was largely a positive report and it acknowledged that in the fullness of time the independent auditing of these projects which in fact is made available will show the gains we have already had. There are 16 projects under way two projects have completed successfully—Hon Damien O’Connor: Not successfully.Hon JO GOODHEW: Yes successfully. I can certainly assure the member that the STIMBR project was completed successfully. The member should spend a little bit more time reading all of the documented evidence that these projects are going well.Hon Damien O’Connor: Is it not true that the Primary Growth Partnership programme is nothing more than corporate welfare on a massive scale and why should taxpayers have any confidence that their money is being spent responsibly when shonky deals like this and the Skycity convention centre deal are now nothing more than standard National policy?Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Jo Goodhew—either of those two supplementary questions.Hon JO GOODHEW: I think when the public of New Zealand look at Precision Seafood Harvesting—a sustainable fishing programme that has won three different innovation awards and the people’s choice award for its technology because it catches fish alive and unharmed—they will see it is just one example of how important and how successful the Primary Growth Partnership project has been for New Zealand and will continue to be. Only the member seems to be completely lacking in confidence.Social Housing—Reform7.ALFRED NGARO (National)to the Minister for Social Housing: What recent commitments has the Government made to improving social housing?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing):The Prime Minister recently announced a comprehensive social housing reform package that will ensure that more people in need get access to social housing. For too long Governments have focused on the number of houses they owned rather than how many people they are housing and what kinds of lives they are leading. We will ensure there are more social housing places than there are now and that is starting with an extra 3000 income-related rent subsidies over the next 3 years.Alfred Ngaro: Why is the Government focusing on tenants rather than the number of houses Housing New Zealand owns?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because tenants care about having a roof over their heads and accessing the services that they need rather than who owns their house. Community housing providers are well established and already provide around 5000 social houses around the country. We will grow the community housing sector by selling 1000 to 2000 Housing New Zealand properties over the next year. This builds on the changes that we made last year to give the sector access to income-related rent subsidies. That change means that community housing providers now have a guaranteed income stream from the Government that will help them grow and gives their tenants access to housing help previously given only exclusively to State housing tenants.Alfred Ngaro: What statements of support has she seen for the Government’s social housing reforms?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have seen support and that is always good to see out there. It was at the Community Housing Aotearoa conference. A speaker talked at length about this. He said: “Tenants with high and complex needs may be better off being transferred to a community housing provider …” and also: “We are committed to … [community providers] having access to the Income Related Rent Subsidy to capital grants and stock transfer.” Ironically that is exactly this Government’s policy; however that was from Phil Twyford last year as the housing spokesman.Defence Minister—Deployment of Troops to Iraq8.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green)to the Minister of Defence: Will he assure the House that no New Zealand troops will be engaged in active military combat in Iraq during the term of this Government?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence):I can do no better than to quote from the Prime Minister’s speech given to a national security forum on 5 November 2014 where he said: “Today I’m ruling out [New Zealand] sending SAS or any troops into combat roles in Iraq”.Dr Kennedy Graham: Despite the Prime Minister’s assurance of 5 November 2014 how can he give us an assurance that our people will not be engaged in active combat when the Canadian troops who are already in Iraq in a training capacity have been forced to engage in two combats this year alone?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would caution the member about making a lack of distinction between the activities that the Canadians are undertaking at the moment. They do have people there who are in assist missions. We have no intention of being in those.Dr Kennedy Graham: Will his Government be criticising Iraq when its Foreign Minister visits tomorrow for the ethnic cleansing of Sunni civilians in Iraq which Human Rights Watch explains has led to the rise of militant groups such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or will New Zealand not be standing up for that kind of human rights tomorrow?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government in Iraq at the moment is still relatively new and the efforts that we note from Mr al-Abadi the Prime Minister and his colleagues are those of trying to bring interests of both Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims together and we would support them in that. There is no point in looking back at atrocities that may have been committed by past Governments going back well beyond the Saddam Hussein regime.Dr Kennedy Graham: If the criterion for possible military engagement in Iraq is to “nip in the bud organisations that appear to be funding ratbags around the world” when will the Minister be getting advice on military engagement against the Saudi regime which appears to be funding them?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This is once again a case of the Green Party members not reading everything that is said in the context in which it is said but selectively taking it out to suit their particular view of the world. What I said yesterday was that if we were to make a contribution—and it remains an “if”—it would be to training Iraqi security forces because they want to take on that fight to as I said nip right in the bud the ISIL-Daesh phenomenon in that part of the world. I think that if you look even at what happened in Australia yesterday afternoon some of the head in the sand positions being taken by the Green Party are frightening for New Zealanders.Dr Kennedy Graham: Is this the day before New Zealand goes to war; if so should the matter not be debated in this Parliament to assure the New Zealand people that our use of armed force is internationally lawful and politically wise?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If the flag the member waved at the front of that question is one that he wants to take to the streets he is going to find very few people following.National Library—Curriculum Topic Loan Service9.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What are the expected savings per year as a result of the changes to the National Library curriculum topic loan service?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information)on behalf of theMinister of Internal Affairs: I am advised that the improved service that will be offered by the National Library is not about saving money; it is about delivering more books and more information into more schools for more students. The National Library has 622500 books available to schools and these books will continue to be available. Savings specific to the curriculum topic loan service have not been finalised as operational implementation decisions are still being worked through. However the Department of Internal Affairs’ 2014 4-year plan has signalled a preliminary estimate of savings from the new National Library Services to Schools strategy of $0.392 million per annum.Jacinda Ardern: Did the Minister or the Department of Internal Affairs specifically consult on this change with teachers or with the School Library Association whose president recently stated that “These cuts are going to have detrimental effects on the learning of children.”; if not why not?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I can confirm that the review that was undertaken in 2012 included at least 59 teachers school librarians the education sector as well as Government experts who were engaged in a series of external focus reviews and interviews undertaken as part of that review. I do want to put on record that this is not a cut to the service; this is the ability for the National Library to deliver more information and more books in more schools and that will provide better learning opportunities for more of our children.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of chatter in the House is unacceptably high.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister referenced a proposal document put before 59 teachers in 2012. Would it be—Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?Jacinda Ardern: I am seeking that she table the document she referenced.Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister quoted from an official document a request has been made to table it.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I spoke about the review that was undertaken in 2012.Mr SPEAKER: There was no official document quoted in the answer.Jacinda Ardern: Can she guarantee that every school will have equal access to the online resources the Minister claims will replace this service given that the School Library Association has said in an open letter that the “new online initiative does not take into consideration those schools that have limited access to computers and poor internet connections.” including rural and low-decile schools?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I want to confirm that the National Library is providing targeted programmes to support priority school communities around access to not only the existing books that they have. Additional information will be provided as a result of the service. I want to give an example of one of the pieces of information that is not available currently but will be available through the additional services from the National Library. The Alexander Turnbull Library resources are currently being digitised. One example of information that will be available to all schools across New Zealand is the diary of a soldier who served at the front line in World War I. That will be in addition—there is no cut. There is no cut to the books being available.Jacinda Ardern: If the current curriculum topic loan service—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am again having trouble hearing the question. I ask Jacinda Ardern to start again.Jacinda Ardern: If the current curriculum topic loan service is so out of date that it is being replaced why according to the National Library’s own annual report did the service lend close to one million items in the last year alone which was an increase on the year before for a service that the Minister is proposing will no longer be available to teachers?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I do want to make it very clear that this is an enhancement to the services that are available to students. Our children learn in very different ways and through many different mediums from those we learnt through. In addition to the books that they currently receive—in addition—they will have access to a much broader range of material and information that support our children in the way they learn and their thirst for knowledge will be provided for in a way that is not currently provided.Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table a petition of 18196 New Zealanders calling on Peter Dunne to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a process for the tabling of petitions in this House. [Interruption] Order! I am advised by the Clerk that leave can be sought to do what the member is asking so I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this petition signed by some 18000 people. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.Broadband Ultra-fast and Rural—Progress10.MELISSA LEE (National)to the Minister for Communications: What is the current status of the rollout of the Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband initiatives?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications):Yesterday I was pleased to announce that as at the end of 2014 the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative project is 43 percent complete—7 percent ahead of schedule—and 570000 end-users are now able to connect. Connections have quadrupled in the last 2 years and now sit above 11 percent well ahead of expectations for this stage. For the rural programme the build is also progressing well with approximately 250000 rural households now able to benefit from faster broadband.Melissa Lee: How is rural New Zealand benefitting from the upgrade of the fixed-line network occurring as part of the Rural Broadband Initiative?Hon AMY ADAMS: The largest part of the Rural Broadband Initiative is the upgrade to fixed-line services and cabinets which make up around 80 percent of the Rural Broadband Initiative spend and give speeds of up to 30 megabits a second. On average 500 rural households every week are having their copper broadband upgraded. In addition more than half a million New Zealanders every month are now able to make mobile calls in rural New Zealand that would not have been possible without this programme.Question No. 11 to MinisterHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I seek leave for my question to the Minister of Police to be held over until a day when he is here.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should not refer to the absence of another member but he can certainly seek leave for the question to be held over. Leave is sought for question No. 11 to be held over to another day. Is there any objection? There is objection.Police Minister—Briefings11.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour)to the Minister of Police: On how many occasions if any has he alerted the Prime Minister or his Office to a matter of significant public interest which he has been briefed on by his officials since his appointment?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery)on behalf of theMinister of Police: The Minister has spoken to the Prime Minister in his office a number of times about important police matters including on how police continue to help bring about further reductions in crime which of course is of prime public importance.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday we had the Minister of Police claiming that significant public interest meant that he ought not to have to answer questions. Unless we from the Opposition are able to ascertain how broad this somewhat ill-defined concept is how do we hold the Government to account in respect of whether it is being open with the public?Mr SPEAKER: It was a question on notice. I would have hoped for a more specific answer. The answer was—[Interruption] Order! The answer was given that it was a number of times so the question has certainly been addressed—I accept not to the satisfaction of the member asking the questions. The way forward now is for the member to ask incisive supplementary questions and in view of the circumstances I will allow the member an additional supplementary question.Hon David Parker: Thank you Mr Speaker. On how many occasions has he alerted the Prime Minister or his office to a matter of significant public interest on which he has been briefed by his officials since his appointment?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister receives briefings from his officials on a weekly basis and as issues come up that are of prime public importance of course he discusses them with the Prime Minister.Hon David Parker: Does the Minister not know how many times he has advised the Prime Minister of issues of significant public importance since his appointment as Minister?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In our organisation of Government Ministers speak with the Prime Minister very frequently something I know that would not be the norm for our opponents. The other point I would make is that it is abundantly clear to anyone reading this that the member is trying to get around to asking questions that he knows answers cannot be given to and therefore I would simply say to him again that when matters of prime public importance do come up that are able to discussed then of course they are discussed with the Prime Minister.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not my question; my question was whether he knew how often he had raised matters of significant public interest since being appointed.Mr SPEAKER: And as I recall the answer it was effectively on numerous occasions so they are not calculated or collated in a way that he can give a specific answer.Hon David Parker: Did any of those instances relate to Mr Sabin; if so on what dates did those occur?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I refer the member to the answer given to a question that related to this matter in fact yesterday in the House.Hon David Parker: What public interest is being benefited from the Minister refusing to provide the dates on which he or the Prime Minister was briefed?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It may surprise the member over there that we consider a number of things that the police are doing to be of prime public importance. It may be speed reduction on our roads. It might be the increase of blood-alcohol testing. It could be apprehensions for various levels of crime. It could be all sorts of new initiatives that the police want to bring in in order to reduce crime. Of course they are discussed. On numerous numerous occasions those matters are discussed.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is now evident that the Minister is not addressing the question that I raised which asked what public interest is being benefited from his refusal to advise the dates on which he advised the Prime Minister.Mr SPEAKER: I disagree with the member. The Minister was giving an answer to that. It was interrupted certainly by the member taking a point of order. I do not know whether the Minister wanted to complete his answer but he was addressing the question that was asked.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I would ask you to review the answer that was given when you have the opportunity later because with respect that is not what he was doing.Mr SPEAKER: I accept the invitation from the member. I will certainly review the question and the answer that was given. I always do. But on this occasion I have ruled and the member needs to proceed with a supplementary question.Hon David Parker: When did he or his predecessor Minister Tolley first learn that the MP being investigated was a National MP?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not able to answer that. I can answer in my own capacity and that was when it was in the newspaper in December.Cycling—Urban Cycleways Programme12.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth)to the Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to support the development of urban cycleways across New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):A lot. We are investing $100 million across 4 years in the Urban Cycleways Programme—the biggest investment any Government has ever made in urban cycleways. The programme leverages a range of funding sources meaning that high-quality projects are getting under way much sooner than would otherwise have been the case. When completed the Urban Cycleways Programme will have supported the investment of up to $320 million to create a safe user-friendly cycleway network across New Zealand’s urban centres.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table advice that was provided to the Minister by his officials that they should be investing $260 million into urban cycleways—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. The source of the document please.Julie Anne Genter: It is from the New Zealand Transport Agency. It was released under the Official Information Act to the Green Party.Mr SPEAKER: So it is not publicly available on a website?Julie Anne Genter: No.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there is any objection? It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Jonathan Young: What recent announcements has he made on the Government’s investment in urban cycleways?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I was excited to announce recently that the Urban Cycleways Programme will see $37 million worth of projects get under way in Auckland Hamilton Palmerston North Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin. The first 13 cycleway projects across these centres were prioritised because of their value to commuter cyclists and their additional benefits to recreational riders. With the first set of projects under way this year the Government is getting started on changing the face of cycling in New Zealand.Denis O’Rourke: When will the Minister give some genuine priority to replacing the hundreds of dangerous one-way bridges on State highways throughout provincial New Zealand?Mr SPEAKER: That is some distance from the original question but it is Thursday afternoon and I will be generous. I will allow the Minister to answer it.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is always a pleasure to get a question from the member. Unlike the Labour Party and the Green Party—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I can tell the member that with a Government policy statement investing more money in transport and land traffic than ever before we will certainly be making improvements over the next 3 years in that area.Jonathan Young: What are the benefits of the Government’s investment in urban cycleways?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They are manifold and that is why this Government is committed to investing $100 million to accelerate the development of urban cycleways across the country. The Government recognises that commuting by bike has health benefits and it takes pressure off other transport networks. Many people also consider safety concerns so we are building cycleways to a standard that is safe and provides real incentives for commuters to get out of their cars and on to their bikes.VotingCorrection—Parole Amendment BillMr SPEAKER: Yesterday the result of the vote in Committee on the question that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 of the Parole Amendment Bill stand part was incorrectly calculated as Ayes 94 Noes 16. The correct result is Ayes 104 Noes 16. The record will be corrected accordingly.Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementDebate resumed from 11 February.Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government):What a fantastic country we live in and what a fantastic bunch of New Zealanders we have got in it. We have just had a fantastic summer. We have got so many things on track. We have more work to do but we are heading in the right direction.Let us look at the fact that we have got one of the highest economic growth rates in the OECD. Employment is growing with 80000 new jobs created last year. Fewer people are dependent on welfare. The 2014 December quarter shows that benefit numbers are at a 6-year low. We have fewer teens having babies than we have had in the last 42 years. We are seeing our roads being upgraded. More New Zealanders are getting the operations they need. We are seeing our construction centre booming. More houses are getting built. That is the reality of the direction this country is going in.However if you listen to the Opposition you would think it is all doom and gloom. It might be in their lives—it might be in their lives. That might be how it is for Labour. I mean if you do not like the person you are sitting next to and if only four of you actually voted for the leader that you have got then it might be that it is a bit doom and gloom. But that is not the reality of the New Zealand that we are living in today. It is not the reality of what we are seeing in the lives that people are living in the optimism they have and in the belief not only that through their own hard work things are getting better but also that the future looks pretty damned bright.This year we have announced though a fundamental policy within the housing and social housing sector so that we can continue to make sure we are addressing the needs of New Zealanders who really need help the most. For years we have seen Labour trying to define whether or not New Zealanders are getting their housing needs met by counting the number of houses that the State owns—full stop. There is no consideration given to the lives that those people are leading and the support services that they might actually need. There is no consideration given to whether or not there might actually be someone better than the State who could do a better job for them. Let us just count the houses tick that box and we have done our job which by the way would get kind of interesting in itself if we did decide to go down that track because Labour had only 59000 houses back in 2004 and we now lease up to 69000—but we will not let the facts get in the way of Labour’s doom and gloom story.So we announced changes that mean fundamentally that New Zealanders will have more choice more availability of social housing and better services wrapped around them as individuals and we are growing a community housing sector that is quite frankly awesome—awesome; absolutely incredible. There is someone in this House who agrees with me. You heard me in question time today. It is quite exciting. Phil Twyford himself—yes Phil Twyford himself—goes out there and says to the community housing sector: “We are committed to your members having access to the income-related rents subsidy to capital grants and to stock transfer.” Well tick tick tick—that is actually Government policy. Thanks for the support Phil Twyford. Good on you! But members you would be mistaken if you thought that he was actually being consistent and that what he said to them is what he actually believed. That is not true.Just this week—in fact just today—we got a crowdfunding email to Labour supporters. It says: “Can you imagine John Key’s face if he opened the newspaper next week and saw a full page ad highlighting how many New Zealanders are against State house sell-offs? He would be straight on the phone to his Ministers. Through the power of crowdfunding we can make that happen. We can put an ad in the paper—if only you can all give us a couple of pennies because we do not even actually have the money to put an ad in the paper.” So poor Labour guys—it is heading for a by-election it cannot afford; it is flip-flopping on policy. It goes out to the community sector saying one thing because it wants them onside but then it actually goes out with its little bucket because it cannot even afford an ad in the newspaper which it thinks is going to make John Key sit up and take notice. What Labour does not get though ladies and gentlemen is that this is actually about people. So it is people who have often been stuck in pretty dysfunctional situations in pretty lousy housing. Let us all remember what Labour has turned around and said repeatedly: “As long as we can tick the box of the number of houses that the State owns then we are doing a good enough job by those people.” We do not think we are.When I look at organisations that take women and their children who have come out of pretty hideous domestic violence circumstances they can put them in a safe house; get them temporarily set up; move them somewhere where they can stay longer term—where they will need to spend quite a bit of time to get through the trauma they have been in; work with them to help them into jobs; keep their kids in school which is what is actually needed to put the sort of safety and security around them they need; give them hope and ambition so they can save and can get our fantastic home loan starts which are coming up very shortly; and then see them actually get into affordable housing. It is called being ambitious. It is called actually believing in people and their ability and more so in those organisations that can wrap that kind of support around them for a long period of time.Do not underestimate the effects of having the income-related rents subsidies going to community housing providers. It gives them a certainty of income for the year. It gives them the ability to partner with others who have equity so that they can borrow off it. It means they can look at homeownership for some of those who are at the tougher end of the scale because they can actually walk them through the housing continuum which can be pretty tough as we know for people who are just trying to get a foot on the property ladder. Having that income-related rent subsidy—which in my opinion was so arrogantly designed only for those in State houses—opened up to a much wider and diverse sector makes a huge difference.Think of those with drug and alcohol addictions who do get into programmes for long periods of time. They leave those rehabilitation programmes and they need somewhere safe and secure to live that will give them the bridge that will then take them through and into their own security whether that be into a rental or actually into buying their own home. It makes sense that they have the support of an organisation that is community-based and that knows them knows the place they live in and is able to work with them over a period of time. And we are in favour of that—we want to support that. I make no apologies. In fact I stand here proudly to say that we will support the community housing sector to grow and we will sell some of our houses to it so that it actually has another kind of base to work from. I think it could do it at the very least as well as the Government—and certainly Housing New Zealand does—and in some cases it could do it a lot better because those providers can really get in and work over a long period of time.The other thing about the income-related rent subsidies is that there will be times—as the Ministry of Social Development now does with that structure of whom they give it to—when they will say: “Here is a mum and her children who have come out of a domestic violence place or with alcohol or drug issues who actually need some certainty of tenure. We want her to be in the same house for a minimum of 12 years and we will go out there and bid accordingly—and actually pay the cost—to ensure that she has certainty of tenure.” Yes? So we will pay extra. We will pay for more support around her to make sure that she is in a home where the kids can get into school. We will put the right kind of social work and services around her and actually see a certainty of tenure.You know these are the kinds of innovative things that we can do in a true partnership with community housing providers not the rubbish we have heard and the lip service of a member who stands up and says one thing to the community housing sector and then turns around and says another thing to the media about what he truly believes its capability is to service people in their own communities which they are the specialists to do.So we back community housing providers. We believe in them. We know that there is a long way to go for us to see them playing a larger part but we will put the money behind them we will back them in both our contracts with them and we will also make sure that they are serviced and can keep an absolute focus on the tenants and the people who need it most.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour):Kia ora tātou and welcome back everybody for the Parliament of 2015 and I just want to say that it has been a wonderful long hot summer break. In fact it has been an “f” of a summer break for me and the Labour Party: it has been family it has been fun and it has been food—food for the body and food for the mind. And I have to tell the members opposite that the “f” story continues because Labour has come back and we are fighting fit. We are full of fortitude and the winds of good fortune are now blowing our way.You know when you have got the Government on the run and you know it because the Prime Minister’s speech was more about the Leader of the Opposition than it was about his own achievements his own vision or his goals. He spent 10 minutes slagging off Andrew Little with a whole series of prepared jokes and pathetic little insults combined I have to say with a number of malicious fabrications. Well Andrew Little scares the hell out of John Key and he is also scaring the hell out of the National Party and I can tell you why. It is because its polling will be telling it the same thing as ours is the same as TV3’s is and the same as the New Zealand Herald’s is. It is saying that Andrew Little is making Labour relevant again. He is connecting with New Zealanders. His favourability is rising rapidly. Yes those members are afraid. They have had it too easy for too long.His message is one of straight talking—his no-frills approach of going to the heart of the problem and having the guts to talk about the real issues. It is not hiding behind the window dressing and the candyfloss that you get from the Prime Minister. Andrew Little is talking about jobs and housing unfairness and the Government’s double-speak and its arrogance. You know New Zealanders like the cut of his jib. They like the cut of his jib and increasingly they are comparing it with the jibber-jabber of John Key—the jibber-jabber that we get daily in this House that does not make sense. I am having great difficulty understanding anything the man says these days. Well John Key we are coming after you because we are going right to your heartland. Andrew Little combined with a number of our members is right out there amongst the businesses of New Zealand. You know what they are saying? They are saying that this is a breath of fresh air. We have got politicians willing to listen. They are willing to engage and businesses are saying: “We want to engage with Labour because this is a tired Government we have now got.”When I came back into the House for the first day on Tuesday all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed wanting to be back in here debating with the members opposite what did I see? I saw some dull eyes some weary uninterested Ministers and some very bored backbenchers. They were far too important to be wasting their time sitting around in this Parliament. We get dismissive answers. We get evasive behaviour. It is a third-term Government and it has got “third-term-itis”.I went through the Prime Minister’s statement. I was looking to be uplifted by the power of his words. I was looking for his vision and a programme and an agenda that would take New Zealand forward to address some of those issues that are closing in on us rapidly. What did I find? I found a skite sheet from a dirty flash Government. That is what my mother would call it—a dirty flash Government. You see the members are flash on the outside. There are plenty of photos of them selfies at every occasion wearing the appropriate clothes for whatever it is whether they are at the cricket or the rugby or the Big Gay Out. Appearances schmoozing and endless reports and committees—that is the dirty flash Government. It is flash on the outside but just look inside this Government. It is enmeshed in sleazy deals cover-ups poor standards of governance and the shallow leadership of John Key.He now fronts up only if he looks good. Otherwise it has to be the faceless Mr Eagleson the chief executive officer of the Prime Minister’s office the guy who is the fall guy for every mistake the Prime Minister makes. I have to wonder how this poor man has ever kept his job because he has been blamed for so many cock-ups that he ought not to still be in the job. Whenever the Prime Minister fails to know about something we hear: “Oh his CEO forgot to tell him. He did not tell him on time. He waited 2 weeks. It slipped his mind.” Well I think that the truth is going to come out. A different version is going to come out in the future. I think that the truth will come out when Mr Eagleson takes up his new job in the business sector. Then we will find out how he became the fall guy for a Prime Minister who would not front up to his own foibles.For years the National Party has banged on about a divided Labour Party. Well I have got bad news for the Government. We have got our act together. We are a united team behind Andrew Little and some very talented members of Parliament who are determined to take this Government on. But you know what I am observing? It happens over time with a Government that has been around for a while and has got too cocky. The instability starts to rise in its own party. Some of us have been around long enough. We have seen it all—the instability in our party and the growing instability in its own party. You only have to look at Judith Collins. Judith Collins was the fall guy for the Prime Minister during the election campaign. You know what she is doing now? She is talking to the ACT Party about joining it. She is talking to the ACT Party about joining it because she knows she will never be the leader of the National Party. I have to say I stopped for a moment when I heard that. I was told by a very reliable source. I had to stop for a minute and I thought: “My God. Imagine the co-leadership of that party when Judith is on board. You would have the captain and the cabin boy together.” That would be the leadership of the ACT Party.What we are seeing is a widening rift between Bill English and the Prime Minister. Bill English is a hard-working decent man with principles. I have always admired Bill English because I know he lives his principles and he believes them. He now has to deal with a Prime Minister he once said bounces from cloud to cloud. But unfortunately for Bill English and his colleagues John Key now bounces from cloud-cuckoo-land to cloud-cuckoo-land. That is what is happening to the Prime Minister. You cannot believe what he says any longer. Then we have Nick Smith. Government members put him up to front their inadequacies in housing policy. They think if he talks long and loud enough we will not remember what the message was. Poor old Nick Smith—totally isolated in his own party scoffed at by his own colleagues.Then we get to Steven Joyce the most talked-about man—behind his back—in the caucus. He is widely disliked for his arrogance and his bullying. You see I actually quite like him but then I do not have to share the Cabinet room with him. But members opposite with the widening rift between them can see that this man wants the top job. But others have got their eye on it. The woman who has just sat down Paula Bennett is so puffed up now because some bloggers wrote that she has taken over from Judith as the next leader of the National Party. Well of course she is eyeing Steven Joyce. They are nudging each other out of the way trying to find their place as the next leader of the National Party. What we have seen over these last 6 years is a passing parade of Ministers who have left who were incompetent and who were involved in underhand activities and cover-ups. Mr Deputy Speaker I am very disappointed that you are not still in a ministerial role—a man of integrity and hard work. I cannot say the same for those who have come and gone.This Government does not have any solutions. What it has is just jibber-jabber. That is what we will call it—the “Jibber-Jabber Government”. We are going to see plenty more of it. Every speech I have listened to in this debate has been nothing more than a whole lot of slogans that do not address the issues facing us. Where are the real solutions to the problem in Iraq? All we are doing is putting up our hands and saying: “Wherever the US goes we go.” Why not put down some real concrete things we could do to help the people in Iraq those who need humanitarian aid those who need medical assistance those who need refuge from that country? What do we get? “Yes if America invites us we will go.” Well let us be honest and open with the public of New Zealand. Real policies and real debate—I am not expecting that from this Government.Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector):As I rise and stand in the House and address it for the first time in this year I am going to do something that might cause alarm for those who are listening. I am going to tell a story from our 1-day caucus. I want to assure the members of this House that at our 1-day caucus about 10 days ago the mood of the members present was relaxed refreshed excited and ready to get on with the job of being in Government. Far be it from anyone listening in the House this afternoon to believe the rhetoric that we have just heard from the member opposite that there were any dull eyes at all because that was so far from the truth.As the Government prepares itself for the year ahead—a year after an overwhelming mandate on election day from the public of New Zealand a year in which we will need to get a lot of work done which is the nature of the year after an election—we will continue with the very four main priorities that we have set. They are the things that the public of New Zealand tell us are important to them. The people of Rangitata tell me that they want our economy to be stronger and more prosperous. They want the Government to responsibly manage the money we take off them in taxes. They want us to look at every single way we spend their taxpayer funding and make sure we are getting the best bang for every single buck because they could use it well themselves if we left it in their pocket.They want to know that we are using new ways to build a more competitive and productive economy. They know that the signs are good because we have told them that 80000 new jobs have been created in the last year. They know that the desire for employment reflects the confidence the people of New Zealand have in getting a job. They are seeking a job in ever-increasing numbers so we have engagement in the workforce that has never been seen before. That is a very good sign of confidence in New Zealand. We are delivering better public services and we have so many examples of that. We have examples where we have actually changed the goalposts because we have achieved them sooner than we thought we would.So far be it from there being any dull eyes on this side of the House—in fact there is an air of excitement. It is a tough job to get on and deliver to the public of New Zealand. I want to go through some things. Members may have heard these before but that is one thing about this side of the House: we have all got the same message for the public of New Zealand. We do not shy from that. If the public or the members of this House have heard it all before—that is just because we agree with each other. We like each other. And that is what makes this a strong National Government.The last of our four priorities I want to touch on is rebuilding Christchurch—a tough job. And still for many Christchurch residents there is a long way to go. But the National Government is not shirking from that. Tonight the people of Christchurch will celebrate with up to 1 billion viewers around the world the opening of the Cricket World Cup. What an honour to have that happening on the Mainland in Christchurch. After the House rises tonight I hope to make my way to Christchurch and enjoy that free event along with many other New Zealanders.I want to touch now on our economic plan and the way that that is actually influencing the lives of New Zealanders or Kiwis. The economy has grown by 3.2 percent in the year to September last year. That is one of the highest growth rates in the developed world. We do see headlines in papers around the world that tell us that others are envious of that and are asking how we are managing to achieve that. Average wages have increased by 15 percent over the past 5 years and they are forecast to continue to increase. Employment is growing. I have already touched on the 80000 new jobs over the last year and 217000 more people are employed than 5 years ago. It would be fair to say we had a real low as a nation with the global financial crisis the earthquakes and other disasters befalling the people of New Zealand but there are 217000 more jobs than 5 years ago.Brett Hudson: Strong recovery.Hon JO GOODHEW: That is a strong recovery. The cost of living increases are very low right now. Inflation is at just 0.8 percent for the 2014 calendar year. That is alongside the average weekly wage growth of 2.5 percent.Brett Hudson: So wages are growing faster than inflation.Hon JO GOODHEW: I know! It is funny—that does not seem to get discussed by the Opposition. Unemployment still remains lower than most other countries and we seem to be heading in the right direction in terms of the growth in jobs. The balance of payments deficit—well the difference between what New Zealand earns and spends around the world has narrowed to 2.6 percent of GDP. That is about a third of the deficit of 6 years ago—on track again. We are on track and working towards achieving a Budget surplus this year.Net Crown debt is going to fall to 20 percent of GDP by 2020 but we need to stick to the plan. That plan is to make sure we are careful with the public purse careful with the money the taxpayers of New Zealand pay into the Crown accounts and careful like a previous Government would not know how to be clearly from the way we have had to change things. Mortgage interest rates are now expected to stay lower for longer and more Kiwis than way way back are flocking back to New Zealand from Australia. Certainly what we saw under the previous Government was a flood of New Zealanders leaving. The seats of the whole of the Cake Tin would have been filled by the people who were going to Australia. New Zealand is in good shape and getting to be in better shape.I want to touch now on an announcement that my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy made today because there are still challenges here in New Zealand. Yes the milk payout is quite low and that has challenged dairy farmers to think about their budgets and to think about their inputs. Then we have today the declaration of a medium-scale adverse event due to the drought conditions on the East Coast of the South Island. Some people will say we have declared drought. We have not. I live there and the drought has been there for a while. In fact if we were going to declare drought we would have done it last year. To some in the Opposition apparently that is all you had to do to make it rain. Some people say all you have to do is have a cricket match locally and that will make it rain.The reality is that there has been already the rural support trust actively involved in supporting the farmers in the Rangitata and in the whole of the area affected by the dry. There has also always been the ability for people whose financial circumstances and income change to go to Work and Income and to apply for grants if need be. There has always been the ability for them to discuss with their accountant the change in circumstances and to negotiate changes to their Inland Revenue taxation. So what we have done now in declaring this is to give more money to the rural support trusts to assist the people who require it and also so that the people who are in really straitened circumstances have in their back pocket the ability to approach the Government for more help. So it is really a bit psychological in terms of its support of farmers. They will appreciate it. They do not have their hands out to the taxpayers of New Zealand saying “Help us out.” willy-nilly. We are having a rough year. It is a very hard thing for farming families to ask for help—a very hard thing indeed—but the Minister for Primary Industries has made the right call today.I want to finish on an issue that is close to my heart. My colleague the Hon Jonathan Coleman is taking obesity very very seriously. In my role as the Minister for Food Safety I can say that we are doing our bit as well. Back in July last year New Zealand adopted voluntary labelling by food companies with the Health Star Rating system. That allows the public of New Zealand when they see one of these Health Star Rating labels to identify the nutritional value of packaged foods.David Shearer: How many companies do it?Hon JO GOODHEW: Eight companies have already—Iain Lees-Galloway: Eight—eight! Oh my goodness!Hon JO GOODHEW: It may shock those opposite that Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises are pretty big. The members opposite were complaining about it not too long ago. Those companies have said that 500 products of theirs will be on the shelf with their new labels having finished with their old labels by the end of this year. So members opposite may be very surprised to know that this is a good news story. This is good news. This is actually this Government addressing obesity.Iain Lees-Galloway: Do you get a manual? You need a manual just to read the flaming label you’ve made it so complicated.Hon JO GOODHEW: It is not complex at all but it may be for the members opposite. I am happy to give the members opposite a briefing about how simple it is if they need some help. But the industry uptake has been excellent. This is something with Australia and New Zealand working together and it is an exciting way of addressing obesity. Thank you.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):It is a pleasure to be back in the House for 2015 and I have to say that it has never been more enjoyable to be a member of the Labour caucus. Like my colleagues I went away and had a fantastic summer. I enjoyed a lot of time with my family I enjoyed a few barbecues and I can tell you what at those barbecues I heard one refrain over and over again: “Oh I like that Mr Little. We like that Mr Little.” That is what I was hearing all summer long from people around my electorate and around the country because New Zealanders really like Andrew Little. They see him as a straight shooter a straight talker and they compare him with John Key—that slippery Mr Key the man whom you just have to look at and you know when he is not being completely honest. You know from his body language when he starts to shift a little bit from side to side and from the old hissing sound. We all know about that. New Zealanders instinctively know that John Key is getting shiftier and shiftier and they now have a Leader of the Opposition who is an absolute straight talker and who is taking it to John Key.I will tell you what: it feels fantastic in the Labour caucus. I have gone away and I am a little bit thinner I am a little bit hairier but I am ready to come back and take the fight to the National Government. I listened very closely to what the Prime Minister had to say in his statement. I listened very closely and I wanted to hear particularly what he had to say about employment relations and it was not much. I was listening very closely to hear whether this Government is prepared to take action on one of the most insidious issues in employment relations right now—not just here in New Zealand but in other countries like us—and that is the issue of zero-hour contracts.Zero-hour contracts are something that we have seen proliferate in the wake of the financial crisis and in the wake of the unmitigated attack on workers’ rights that we have seen year after year from this National Government. There are now thousands of New Zealanders who are stuck on these zero-hour contracts. What is a zero-hour contract? It is a contract where the worker has to make themselves available for work at all times but there is no requirement whatsoever on the employer to provide that worker with work. They are therefore very different from casual contracts. Casual contracts can provide flexibility both for the employer and the employee but it is an absolutely one-sided relationship with these zero-hour contracts and we see more and more of them every day particularly in the fast-food industry but also increasingly in supermarkets and in the retail industry. We know that we are just going to see more and more of them if the Government does not take action.So that is what I was listening for in the Prime Minister’s speech—what was he going to do about zero-hour contracts? The answer was nothing. There was not a mention of it—not one. So today I lodged my Employment Relations (Certainty at Work) Amendment Bill which takes aim at zero-hour contracts and seeks to rule them out from our employment relations framework. So what will have to happen is that employers will have to give an indication of how many hours a worker can expect to get if they have to be available for work at all times. It still allows flexibility—of course we have to strike a balance between flexibility and certainty at work—but it gives workers an idea of how much work they can expect to get from one week to the next so that they can plan so that they can put food on the table for their children every single week so that they can go to the bank and talk about getting a loan or a mortgage and so that they can do things that we used to take for granted. We used to believe that if you got a job you would be able to make ends meet provide for your family and get ahead. But these zero-hour contracts make life utterly insecure for ordinary working people and we are seeing them used more and more every day. This Government has completely ignored that issue.On this side of the House we are prepared to take action. We are prepared to do what is required to ensure that our Employment Relations Act ceases the use of these zero-hour contracts and gives workers certainty whilst also ensuring that employers have flexibility. Brett Patterson works for Burger King in Hamilton. He is one of thousands of employees who are in the fast-food industry on zero-hour contracts. He says it is incredibly hard to make a living. He says he always finds himself having to fight to get the hours he needs. He says it is even worse when you are sick because if you are sick you cannot be there to fight for the hours that you need to make ends meet. How many hours a worker on a zero-hour contract gets can be everything from zero to 20 to 40 to 5 to 60 hours and it often depends on how good a relationship you have with the person who does the rosters. If you have a falling-out with the person who does the rosters you can quickly find yourself getting fewer and fewer hours maybe even not being asked to come to work at all. That is the reality for ordinary working people.So I looked for a response from John Key. I looked to see what the Prime Minister thought about this issue that affects so many ordinary New Zealanders and I found one. I was surprised but I found one. The Prime Minister’s answer to workers on zero-hour contracts: get advice. Go and get some legal advice before you sign up to one of these things. Well that sounds all fine and dandy but it just shows you how utterly out of touch with reality John Key is. If a worker turns down a zero-hour contract at Burger King Wendy’s McDonalds Glassons or Hallensteins then there will 10 20 or 30 other people lining up to take that job instead of them.Brett Hudson: These things are nothing new. What’s new about this Mr Lees-Galloway?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is the reality—that is the reality. Brett Hudson asks what is new about it. What is new about it is that unemployment has gone up under this National Government so far more people are competing for jobs than ever had to compete for jobs before. So every time a worker goes along and is offered a zero-hour contract if they take advice or if they try to bargain with the employer then it is down the road my friend; there is the door. The employer will take one of the 50 other people who applied for that job.So John Key is absolutely out of touch on this issue and he has broken so many promises to workers. I remember that when National came to office its big goal for workers was to close the wage gap with Australia. When National came to office the average wage gap with Australia was $121.76 a week; today it is $170.28 a week. National has demonstrably failed on one of the key tasks it set itself and it has broken a promise to ordinary workers. I hear the National members talking about how average wages are going up in New Zealand. Well whoop-de-doo! We know how the average wage is going up in New Zealand. It is the rich getting richer. The people on high incomes on high wages are seeing their wages going up and everybody else is being left behind. That is how average wages go up in this country.Take a look at median incomes. If you are serious about getting things sorted for ordinary working people take a look at median incomes and you will see that in real terms they have fallen year on year—Brett Hudson: Wages are rising faster than inflation.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —under this National Government. Average wages are rising Mr Hudson. I know you cannot get your head around this. I know it is a bit of a complicated thing that you have to understand. Average wages may be rising but that is a result of people on high wages getting richer—the National Party’s mates getting richer—and everybody else being left behind.On this side of the House we know that it takes more than productivity gains it takes more than a strong economy. Those things are important but we need to make sure that we have our legislation right that we have our regulations right and that we enforce minimum standards so that workers can get a fair share of a growing economy. Right now workers are not getting a fair share and that is National’s legacy.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information):It is really an honour to speak in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement today. It is somewhat confusing because if you were to listen to the speeches of the Opposition members you would think that New Zealanders up and down this country are in a mood of doom and gloom and there is nothing positive on our horizon. I can say only that if you reflect on the mood at Waitangi this year there was a bit of hype and conversation about how combative it might be. But I actually think Waitangi Day is a really good illustration of the mood of the nation. It was quiet. It was peaceful. There were not protests. There was not frustration.It is really interesting because the speaker before me Iain Lees-Galloway talked about the fact that the leader of the country should be in touch with ordinary New Zealanders. There is no way that the National Party would have got close to 50 percent of the support of all New Zealanders in the election last year if we had a leader who was not in touch with ordinary hard-working New Zealanders. Of course what are they interested in? They are interested in having more jobs available. They are interested in their wages going up. They are interested in interest rates remaining low. They are interested in unemployment rates falling. That is exactly the results that the first two terms of the National Government led by Prime Minister John Key have delivered and we are keeping our promises to hard-working New Zealanders. We are focusing on the issues that matter to them: raising education standards lowering crime providing better access to health services and genuinely and generally improving the lives of ordinary New Zealanders and their families.I think it is quite the opposite of Annette King’s suggestion that this side of the House is not energised and excited. I can tell you this Government is raring to go enthusiastic and energetic about what we have in front of us which is quite different from the mood if you were watching when Andrew Little delivered his first speech in the House this year. It felt awkward and awful and the Opposition benches were trying to be enthused about the kick-off of their leader this year.I want to focus on a couple of specific areas. The previous speaker Iain Lees-Galloway talked about the employment market. He talked about the workforce in quite a lot of detail. What he did not say is that in terms of the latest household labour force survey women’s participation in the labour market and women’s employment are at record highs. He did not mention that. He was not excited about that. It must have been a bit disturbing for his female caucus members who I would have thought should have been quite excited about those sorts of statistics. I know I am. The participation rate for women is 64.6 percent and the employment rate is 60.4 percent. They are the highest since the survey began in 1986. So that is what this Government is delivering: great news for women up and down New Zealand. I want to cut into it in more detail: 7300 more Māori women and 1800 more Pasifika women are in employment than in December 2013. Again they are results we should be celebrating and I am not hearing the celebrations from the other side of the House.We are relevant. This side of the House focuses on the issues that matter to New Zealanders. Prime Minister John Key in his very first speech said he would lead a Government for all New Zealanders and that is exactly what he is doing. If you look at where some of this growth in women’s employment is occurring Canterbury is a great example. Women are playing a really critical part in the rebuilding of Canterbury. An example is that there are 7700 more women employed in Canterbury than at the same time in 2013. Part of that is because of the consideration of girls and women looking at what were considered non-traditional employment opportunities. That is where the growth is. So as Minister for Women I have committed to having some courageous conversations with business with community and with families about what some of the biases are that exist for girls and women that restrict their opportunities and their opportunities for economic independence in New Zealand.One aspect of this is the current gender pay gap. You know I have had a number of people who have asked me why we even have a Minister for Women. Well it is incredibly clear to me that while we have a gender pay gap of 9.9 percent there is work for the Ministry for Women. But it is not just women in the workforce that I want to focus on because if you look at other areas that are critical to them some of them are very clearly around their families. When we talk about employment relations legislation—the speaker before me did not say anything about the Act that we have just passed. He did not say anything about the fact that part of that legislation was for flexible workplaces and flexible work practices. So no longer is it just the fact that somebody has caregiving responsibilities that means they can ask their employer for flexible work arrangements. I think that in terms of women in the workforce it is an incredible advantage and I have been waiting to hear the Opposition members who pride themselves on being the champions for the workers to celebrate this incredible result for women in our workplaces. But no they tend to be fairly silent on that one. This is a Government that recognises the diverse and very different needs of workers. This is a Government that is delivering for workers and that is just one example.I want to give you another example: paid parental leave. This is a Government that is focusing on making sure that our paid parental leave and our parental tax credits are actually accessible and available to more New Zealand families and that is something I am incredibly proud of because when we have families where women or men choose to be in the workplace we want to provide the opportunities and provide the support that they need to get ahead.One of the clear areas that I as the Minister for Women will continue to focus on is reducing violence. We have already made some good inroads in terms of reducing crime rates in this country and reducing reoffending. But I am very clear that our homes and our communities should be the safest places for New Zealanders and particularly for our young girls and our women. That is why working with my ministerial colleagues on this area of domestic violence we will be finding more ways and broader ways of reaching out and working with others to ensure that that level of violence is decreasing and looking at unique solutions that actually work for families and work in communities.The other clear area that I am responsible for is the area of land information and this is an area where not many people are actually aware of the contribution that this makes to our economy. We have a system of property rights in New Zealand that is very robust and very strong and that really underpins a lot of information and a lot of decisions that we make in central government and also across businesses. Just recently the 2014-15 Open Data Barometer global report showed that New Zealand continues to be one of the best countries in the world at allowing open access to Government data—and of course open data is a key indicator of a country’s innovation transparency and lack of corruption. If you were fortunate to attend the New Zealand Spatial Excellence Awards like I did last year you would realise the wizardry of some of our New Zealanders in terms of using location information to solve some of the very large challenges that we face as a country and it is underpinning an important part of our economic recovery.In closing I want to say that we really are living in exciting times. We have a country that is growing and expanding and where we are reducing things like crime and raising educational achievement. This is a Government that is raring to go. This is not a Government that is anywhere near having completed our work and our plan. We are in this together and we are fortunately led by a Prime Minister who has said very clearly that we are not here to fill the green seats; we are here to do a lot for New Zealand. We have done a lot there is still a lot more to go and it is great to know that nearly one in every two New Zealanders is backing us. Thank you.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert):The speaker who has just sat down Louise Upston did not address the issue that many New Zealanders are thinking about at the moment and that is sending our troops and our forces into harm’s way into Iraq. If you look at what has happened over the last months the months of being able to respond to this it is an utter muddle. What we know is that the Government has already taken a decision on this issue and is arrogantly allowing New Zealanders to think that somehow it is still considering its options. Training has been going on for months and this week Gerry Brownlee rather arrogantly said that somehow there was going to be some preliminary training for a possible deployment in Iraq. His office told us that in December last year. Last year we knew what the training was for and this week we get told by Gerry Brownlee that actually he has made a decision around that.The Government cannot continue to fool the country on an issue as serious as that. But to beat that were Murray McCully’s comments today on radio and what he was actually saying about our deploying into Iraq. There have been no Government-to-Government discussions about deployment in Iraq up until now. We have been training for 3 months but there has been no discussion with the Iraqis about putting our troops on their soil helping them out or even asking them whether they actually want New Zealand forces to be there. In fact he went on to say to journalists that that has actually been done by the US and Australia on our behalf. This is really about what John Key admitted to a BBC interviewer—it is about being part of the club. This is not about making a real difference. It is being part of that club a club of the willing that wants to go in there. Of course the US and Australia who are already there want us to be part of their club—and the UK. The Foreign Secretary of the UK was here last week and he too wanted New Zealand to be part of that club. When I asked the UK Foreign Secretary how many troops the UK has on the ground and how many troops it is planning to deploy the answer was none—zero. The British Government does not want to put troops on the ground because it believes it is politically untenable in Britain. Why? Because it realises after 10 years of putting troops on the ground there that people in Britain do not want to go down the same route again.When you look at the legacy the history of Western involvement in the Middle East it turns out to be not a pretty history. Yet we are making a decision on behalf of New Zealanders. We have already made it—it has been done. It has all been wrapped up. We have had our meetings with our particular club and we will be putting in troops on the ground as a result of that. What has changed because John Key realises that the club conversation is not working is that for the first time I have heard John Key address human rights. Suddenly human rights are being pulled out of the drawer and human rights are being used as the justification of why we need to be in Iraq. Well human rights violations are occurring right across the world—certainly in Iraq; what has been done by the Islamic State is barbaric and horrible. But they are also happening with Boko Haram and oddly enough they are also happening in Sri Lanka a country we learnt this week whose former president Mr Rajapaksa has been invited by John Key to come to New Zealand on a formal visit. This is a man who presided over 50000 Tamils being killed and has not done any investigation into that issue and yet John Key standing up for human rights in one situation is conveniently ignoring human rights in another.What New Zealanders want when the Government is thinking about going into a war zone and a conflict zone—and do not believe that we will be operating behind the wire and therefore everything will be OK and will be risk-free. That is not the case and it is not the situation that has been experienced by any trainer in the Middle East or Afghanistan. Many casualties have occurred behind the so-called wire whatever that wire might be. What we expect what New Zealand expects and what the Labour Party expects—and a Labour Government has committed troops into conflicts before—is a sound analysis and a sound rationale for why we want to be there. I do not believe that this Government has answered the hard questions we expect to be answered. What is going to happen is that 2 years down the track we are going to be asking why we are there and what the purpose is.Here are some of the questions. Can we make a difference? Surely that is a question that we have to ask ourselves—can we make a difference? The United States spent $25 billion over 10 years at the cost of scores if not hundreds of its soldiers training the Iraqi Army only to find that it did not succeed and that the army did not stand up the first time it went into battle. Much of that problem was not to do with the training. Much of that problem was to do with fact that the political environment had undermined and hollowed out that military. But that is what I mean. What can we do—putting a band-aid over something like that—that will make a real difference to the Iraqis and to the Iraqi armed forces. What is the risk? What is the assessment of that risk to New Zealand? I do not believe that we have done that. We are gung-ho about going in. The Australians went in without being asked actually. They positioned their forces outside of Iraq without being asked then tried to ask their way in. Of course they want us to be there. They want another flag up the pole. The question is what the risk is to our soldiers and I do not believe that has been answered. What is the exit strategy? How do we know when this mission is complete? We sent troops into Bamian with a very clear set of instructions. This Government eventually pulled them out after believing that what we had done and the mission that we had set out to achieve had been completed as far as it could. That is not the case in this situation. The US is asking for just a 3-year commitment to put more troops on the ground. That looks to me like a slippery slope that we are embarking on without an exit strategy.What is the risk to ordinary New Zealanders to Kiwis right across this country of Islamic State and the radicalisation that is happening by becoming engaged in a conflict like Iraq? That has not been assessed. That has certainly not been assessed. What is the risk to New Zealanders here and abroad from our being more involved in this conflict and what is the cost? Another question: what is the cost of that involvement by putting 100-odd New Zealand troops on the ground? And how could we better use that money? What are the opportunity costs? What are the opportunities in humanitarian assistance—in standing beside some of the organisations and the local authorities and Governments that are desperately trying to address the real underlying issues that are causing the conflict in Iraq to start with? The economic issues the capacity issues within the Government that have allowed that military to fall apart—those are issues where we can actually really make a difference I believe and we have not been able to address those at all.Lastly here at home what are we doing to address the possible radicalisation of young Muslims in particular on the ground? Everybody whom I have met has told me that that simply is not happening. Yet when we look at risks to New Zealand those are the risks that we need to address which we are simply not doing. Instead we are going and embarking on a military adventure to join a club.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Ian McKelvie—5 minutes.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei):I am fortunate to have the opportunity to be a National Party member of Parliament representing the Rangitīkei electorate in a unique time in New Zealand’s history. My electorate has been part of this House for the entire 153 years of its existence and I do not think that ever in that time has this country been led by a more talented team of Ministers and in turn a great Prime Minister. Never in that time have we been more respected in the world of politics with a seat on the UN Security Council to boot. Never in that time has our economy performed as well as it is doing now at a time of comparative difficulty in the rest of the Western World. Never have we had such an opportunity to capitalise on the hard work of our forefathers and mothers in setting up a country with such magnificent potential. And on the doorstep we have the biggest market we have probably ever seen in our lifetime. It is a far cry from 150 years ago this weekend when the first shipment of lambs set off for the old mother country—for some of you England; not for me I might add. It is of course the year of the sheep in China and that bodes well for our sheep industry in this country as you can tell.Last September after what can only be described as a testing election campaign this John Key - led Government was returned to the Treasury benches with the largest public vote in history. It was a just reward for some very hard work and great support from so many New Zealanders who knew they were doing better than they could possibly do under the alternatives on offer.I wish to pick up on a couple of themes from the Prime Minister’s statement. The first and the most critical to our futures is the proposal to amend the Resource Management Act to help ease costs on businesses wishing to grow the New Zealand pie. I am confident this can be achieved without threat to our environment. You see that confidence is well placed. As this Government knows the tourism and agriculture sectors rely heavily on our pristine environment to grow and prosper in the future. Agriculture makes a massive contribution to our economy and right now is being tested a little by the dry.I want to make the point that farms are businesses. This is summer and we like any other businesses protect ourselves and understand our risks. We make allowance for storms droughts and even disease. However like all other sectors some will always need a hand in adversity. The Minister for Primary Industries well recognises that fact and has acted today in South Canterbury and North Otago. The real downside of drought of course is the drop in production and that affects the income this country gets. It cuts the amount of money going around in the economy. It cuts the amount of revenue the Government collects and consequently the amount we can spend on our programmes on achieving the things we want to achieve as a Government.Many of those other things we want to achieve are very relevant to the Rangitīkei and include the following. I want to talk briefly about freshwater reform. This will continue through the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum as will the investment in regional water infrastructure and storage. Water storage is a very exciting opportunity for this country as it creates the opportunity when managed and planned properly to assist our rivers help our environmental challenge and generate income—both recreational and agricultural. It is one of the most important things we can concentrate on as a country.Workplace safety is crucial to the Rangitīkei electorate. Forestry and agriculture both have some significant issues to deal with here which we must pay close attention to and our sectors must work closely with WorkSafe New Zealand to make some very quick improvements in this area. The Rural Broadband Initiative has made good progress under this Government and will continue through the initiative to improve mobile coverage and broadband connectivity in rural and remote areas. Another very important factor for our rural areas is that it builds our population potential. The Government’s new housing initiative fits beautifully into my electorate. An outstanding example of how well it works exists in the Manawatū Community Trust set up by the Manawatū District Council to own its 208 community houses. Those residents now have an entity that cares for them and warm comfortable appropriately sized houses and I very much hope they will get the opportunity to participate in this latest offering.The people of my electorate significantly benefit from Whānau Ora one of the legacies of the Hon Dame Tariana Turia and one I am very pleased about continuing to support. The Treaty process is also having a very positive effect on rural New Zealand and we look forward to the completion of that process. My electorate contains the bulk of the New Zealand defence forces at Linton Ōhākea and Waiōuru and our decisions in respect of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant will have an effect here as will the activities as we continue to celebrate World War I. There is so much being undertaken by this very busy Government but I must leave it here. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Jami-Lee Ross—5 minutes.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):It is very good to be back in the House after the summer adjournment. It is good to be back with my caucus colleagues who are right behind our leader the Prime Minister of New Zealand a Prime Minister who is achieving good things for New Zealanders and is seeing a country that is much better off than it was 6 years ago after 9 years of a dreadful period of Government led by the Labour Party.If anyone was listening to the debate this afternoon on the Prime Minister’s statement they could be led to believe that Labour was sitting there just before an election ready to take over rejuvenated and united behind its leader. Those of us who have been watching politics for more than just the last hour realise that that is not the case at all. We heard Annette King talking about a tired Government that needed to rejuvenate and was a bit arrogant in her view. The thing about Annette King is that she has seen that many times before—and not just at the end of the 2008 period of the Labour Government. She also saw that back in the 1980s when the Labour Party during her first time around was at exactly the same point. Annette King likes to talk about a tired Government because she has been part of so many tired Governments. So I think she is talking about her own team when she talks about a tired set of members of Parliament.Then we heard from Mr Lees-Galloway. Mr Lees-Galloway was telling us that Labour has been having another barbecue season. He was quite open about it very open about it—another barbecue season. The interesting thing about the barbecue season he spoke about was that he talked to only four people at the barbecue. The four people he talked to at the barbecue were the four people who think Andrew Little is a good leader of the Labour Party. We know—we know for a fact—that Andrew Little has only four members of his party in his caucus supporting him. Tony Abbott is actually more popular than that in his party at the moment. Andrew Little is struggling for support. Mr Lees-Galloway was also sporting a beard. The last person who went away over summer and came back with a beard was David Cunliffe. I know that Mr Lees-Galloway was a sycophant of David Cunliffe so maybe there is another leadership coup coming round the corner.Then we heard David Shearer the man who came from the UN with strong human rights credentials standing up in the House and arguing about John Key’s desire to see New Zealand potentially help those who are facing human rights grievances around the world. David Shearer has now abandoned his human rights credentials. He no longer believes that New Zealand has a part to play. I actually used to have a lot of respect for David Shearer and I am starting to question whether that respect was properly founded.I am part of the National Party because I believe we need to grow wages in this country and we need to get more people into jobs in this country. I believe that more children need access to education and I believe that more children and older people should get access to the operations and the health services they need. We also need to see more people getting access to housing in this country. Those are the things that this Government is delivering for New Zealanders.I found it very interesting that the Labour leader liked to talk in his state of the nation speech just after the summer period about jobs and wages—something that Labour has apparently woken up to. The interesting thing about that is that National is delivering more jobs for New Zealanders. National is delivering higher wages for New Zealanders. In the last year 80000 New Zealanders got into work. They came off the dole queue came out of unemployment came out of training and got jobs—80000 more people. Average wages are also up and going faster than inflation. New Zealanders are wealthier. More New Zealanders are in jobs.We are delivering on exactly the things that Andrew Little thinks Governments should be delivering on. In fact I saw his speech as a bit of a vote of confidence apart from the fact that he has created a job for Mr Grant Robertson to go around and set up a commission because he is looking a bit bored at the moment. You have got to give your leadership opponents an opportunity to do something else and that is what is happening with Mr Robertson. But we are delivering. We are doing what New Zealanders want. We have the support of New Zealanders. When Labour talks about the National Party looking after its mates the thing about it is that we have got so many mates around the country. We are looking after them. We are looking after all New Zealanders. That is why I am proud to be on this side of the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Jo Hayes—5 minutes.JOANNE HAYES (National):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. As this is my first call for the year I want to wish you a happy New Year. To all the members of the House and parliamentary staff a happy New Year to you too. I am so pleased to be back in the House. It beats running around after 1500 ewes trying to move them with a dog that will not listen.As I stand and reflect on the years since National became Government I am reminded of the challenges that this Government faced when first taking office in 2008. I am astounded—yes astounded—that the members opposite me can stand and take a crack at this Government over the way we have managed the financial situation of this country to date. What a cheek—what a cheek. In 2008—and I have said this in past speeches because the memories of the left seem to be a little bit wanting—Hon Louise Upston: More than a little.JOANNE HAYES: Yes more than that. Yes in 2008 this Government found the country’s coffers were bare. The breeze was blowing through from one side of the safe to the other and the country was in deficit a deficit that should not have been there especially when the left had been boasting of surpluses. Surpluses my foot—no evidence; it did not happen. We all know now so you are caught out the left. To members on the left I say: stop harping on about all the good old days. I can tell you now—Dr Megan Woods: The good old days when we were in Government.JOANNE HAYES: —it was an untruth Megan. It was an untruth. You fooled the country. Then of course while I am on a roll here what about the Labour leadership? A lot like the meteor last night: it builds up gathers rubbish burns out and fizzles out.So from bare coffers and a growing deficit this National-led Government took over. We took over just when the global financial crisis hit and there was the collapse of financial companies. We came with a plan and we were determined that we were going to be pushing it through. Then came our two major tragedies—the Christchurch earthquakes and the Pike River mine disaster. We needed support and we got it. Yes we got that support because we have the right plan with the right people and of course the right leader. This is a stable and proven Government that delivers on what we say. You will hear that many times from this side of the House because we do deliver on what we say. Essentially we are and will continue to be a can-do National-led Government and everybody knows it in partnership with the Māori Party United Future and ACT. We are here for all New Zealanders.As I turn to the year ahead one of the Government’s key policies is housing. How fortuitous is that? During the 2014 campaign I along with other candidates in the Christchurch East electorate was interviewed on a meet the candidates - style CTV programme. We were asked: “What keeps you up at night?”. My response was housing—housing in an electorate where a number of people and families either lost their homes or required repairs.During that time this Government opened its first social housing project in Aranui. With the sod turned and the first homes built and occupied the plan is to ensure more homes will be available through our social housing policy which has been launched and is well under way. Just the other week I was taken on tour of a Housing New Zealand social housing project in Christchurch East. I am happy to report that I am looking forward to seeing a number of housing projects completed before the year is out especially in Aranui.I cannot extol enough the virtues of this Government’s policies when it comes to housing and the rebuild of Christchurch especially Christchurch East. From increased housing comes employment; from employment comes growth; and from growth comes wealth—wealth that benefits everyone as the economy continues to grow. This National-led Government has a well-crafted financial plan with its sights set on making everything right in God’s own. This is something that I am sure the members on the left have no idea of or where to start. Really it is “TL TL GBL”—too little too late and goodbye to the left. Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Todd Barclay—5 minutes.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland):I want to start by welcoming everybody back after the New Year break and say what a pleasure it is to be part of a united excited strong National caucus that supports our leader and our deputy leader. It is a shame that the same cannot be said for the other side of the House and it is a shame that those members cannot unite themselves in the same way that we have.Today I want to focus a little bit on education and the importance of a good education in giving kids the best start in life. I particularly want to remind New Zealanders of the mess that the previous Labour Government left the portfolio in when we inherited it 6 years ago. Since we have entered Government we have increased spending on education by 45 percent. We now spend more on education than on the Ministry of Social Development and the Police combined. Unlike the previous Labour Government we are looking at having all components of the education system in the pipeline.Since we have entered into Government we have more than doubled spending on early childhood education. That equals what we spend on the Police budget. When we took over 93.6 percent of school starters had participated in early childhood education. We have increased that to 96.1 percent and we have got a target of 98 percent. That is six and a half thousand more kids entering early childhood education before they start school. In the primary sector we have set targets through the introduction of national standards. We want 85 percent of kids achieving a level of reading writing and maths before they exit out into the secondary sector. Currently we are at 77.9 percent for reading 70.6 percent for writing and 74.6 percent for maths.Moving on to the secondary sector we have made great gains in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Sure Labour may have introduced NCEA but after Labour introduced it it did nothing with it. There was a 68 percent achievement rate in NCEA level 2 when we took over. We have increased that to 79 percent. We have got a target of 85 percent so we are well on track. Moving on to level 4—post-school qualifications—when we came into Government there were 53.3 percent of 25 to 35-year-olds who held New Zealand Qualifications Framework level 4 or equivalent. We have increased that to 54.7 percent and we have almost met our target of 55 percent 1 year early.Since we came into Government we have been focused on implementing a seamless transition throughout each sector of the education pipeline. That leads on to the investment approach that we are taking in the social sector more generally. I want to use two examples that Bill English cited during the campaign last year. The first is in relation to teen sole parents on benefits. We have 2600 of these people in our country. They are all classified as being under the age of 20. If you are in this category the average expected time that you will spend on a benefit is 20 years with a present net cost to the taxpayer of $250000 per person. Instead we are choosing to spend $7000 a year on each of these people through implementing a supervising adult into their lives and making sure that these people are getting re-engaged into education learning a tolerance level around budgeting and being provided with other services that well equip them for living in modern society. If we achieve that and if they achieve a post-school qualification the average expected time they will spend on a benefit reduces from 20 years down to 7 years. That saves the taxpayer millions of dollars.The second group is the group of 2000 kids who are currently in the toughest client group if you like of the Government going forward. There was an analysis done of 30 years of their previous family records based on their parents’ interaction with the Government and their current interaction with the Government. We have valued the projected expenditure on them over their lifetime through prison costs alone at $750 million. What we are deciding to do instead is re-engage them back in education and ensure they complete their education and then enter the workforce with the ability to get a job and not have to go on to a benefit. This is so that they do not fall into the justice trap and offend and enter the justice system. These sole parents on benefits and the toughest clients who are male children who are currently in the school sector—if we can re-engage them get them back on track through education we will be doing them and New Zealand a great service. Thank you.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):The Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday was steady as she goes. Setting aside the ribald and irrelevant commentary that peppers his deliveries to the House these days Mr Key strove to provide the usual reassurances to the New Zealand people: sound fiscal management support for business entrepreneurship State sector reform and earthquake recovery. We have been on the receiving end of this for 5 years now. It has become a mantra; a form of hypnopaedia—a National lullaby for those who wish to be reassured to retire to bed secure in the knowledge that our nation is in good hands.There was no penetrating and insightful comment on the global situation. Let us consider what the Prime Minister had to say about the world out there. First our tenure on the Security Council places us he observed “at the heart of international decision making.” New Zealand is determined he said to “effect real change” on the council. “We have” he said “already demonstrated our willingness to be a strong independent voice”. This comes a week after he advised the BBC and thus the world that contributing military training to Iraq is the price of the club. “Ultimately” he told the world “are we going to say we are going to be part of a club like [we] are with the Five Eyes intelligence? Are we ultimately going to be able to rely on members of those clubs to support us in our moment of need?”. Unless there be any uncertainly as to the nature of the club the Prime Minister drawing himself up to the full height of responsible global citizenship added: “And we do know that when it comes to the United States and Canada and Australia and Great Britain and others that we can rely on them.” And what can we contribute? Well not much but a bit. He said: “Even if the contribution is small—of course it will be proportional—there has to be some contribution. It is the price of the club.”The Prime Minister merged his BBC interview in London with a side trip to Davos where his favourite club of clubs—the global business elite—tolerated his presence. He was accompanied there by his “Minister for Trade and Dangerous Climate Change” Tim Groser who said in the House last year that New Zealand was now being accepted in “the big boys’ club” through his personal participation in the G20 and the World Economic Forum. This kind of diplomacy titillates our national leader fresh from Christchurch aspiration and London currency markets where club membership is indeed the passport to financial and political power. As a result 6 years into the John Key Government the nation’s foreign policy is characterised by a certain “clubbiness”. Congratulations and prizes to the nation’s two top club members.There is a self-evident contradiction—a logical mistake—being made here. We cannot say there has to be a contribution as the price of the club and then say we are independent. Not even my 10-year-old granddaughter would buy that line nor her 8-year-old sister. They were not born yesterday. I am not sure about their 3-year-old cousin but I would not want to subject the Prime Minister to his wrath so I would advise him to think carefully before double-speaking to the sons and daughters of this country. The price of the club is the price of the club. That price is providing troops to war-torn and weary places in response to pressure from the leaders of the club even when we are privately in doubt—even when we say they are there for training. This is how the Americans kicked off in Viet Nam 50 years ago. And if we are frantically shoring up Iraq’s army today has any club member asked the grand leader why it saw such wisdom and vision 12 years ago in dismantling it?I say to the Prime Minister that if you are an independent nation you are not beholden to a club—never. You abide by binding decisions of the United Nations. That is being part of the human family. The so-called club whose membership you value so highly and hold in such personal esteem illegally invaded the very country you are sending our troops to again. The US the UK and Australia illegally invaded Iraq in 2003. Some club! What to call it—the lawbreakers? And we did it ourselves once before that. Back in 1956 we were torn between two members of our club: Britain and Australia on the one hand and the leading club member the United States on the other.We sided with our closer cousins and invaded Egypt—also illegally. We got censured and condemned by the Security Council on behalf of the larger human family. We had to withdraw. It was a humiliating moment for the UK especially signifying the end of its global leadership. So we have a bit of a track record in sloping along inside the club into military misadventure. At least we had the wisdom back in 2003 not to follow the club into Iraq. There had not been an authorising Security Council resolution. A majority on the council including three permanent members opposed military intervention. Did this influence the leading club-ites? Not on your life—in they went. But today the club is fractured. Britain is not sending troops; just bombing from a height.Where is the authorising resolution for this military action in Iraq in 2015? Is it Resolution 2170? One permanent member says that that is not a basis for military action. Is it collective self-defence under article 51? A bit of a long shot. We are a member of the council now. We cannot do our usual thing and duck for cover. As a new member we are obliged to respect the council’s integrity. The Security Council is the ultimate club when it comes to this sort of thing not “Five Eyes”. Which club means the most to us—the “Five Eyes” espionage network or the 15-member Security Council whose primary job it is to ensure international peace and security? Let us get our club memberships sorted in order of priority having regard to the standards of global legitimacy.About 1000 years ago our first settlers arrived here. They were not members of John Key’s club. Almost two centuries ago our European forebears came here to leave the Victorian club back in the motherland. We are no longer members of the Anglo-Saxon club that illegally invaded Egypt 50 years ago. We are no longer members of the Pacific ANZUS club that got mired in Viet Nam raining napalm down on villages. We were never members of the trilateral club that invaded Iraq illegally 12 years ago. We are in fact or need to be an independent nation—considering the idea of a new flag to prove the point—that is never beholden to a club.If we are truly concerned by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—and we should be—then we might ask ourselves a few club questions of a broader kind. Are there any member States of the United Nations funding ISIL? If so do they include Saudi Arabia and Qatar? If so what might be the club’s response? What about the Security Council’s resolutions and its sanctions committees imposing obligations and penalties on member States financing terror groups? Why is the legal integrity of the intervention in Iraq not made clear by the UN Secretary-General based on the advice of his chief legal officer? Why does this Prime Minister not get a written opinion from his Attorney-General on the legality of any decision involving New Zealand troops in Iraq and table it in this Parliament so that the question can be debated?This is the time to remind people of the horrors of war and to outline a better path. Are our sons and daughters going into armed conflict so that this Prime Minister can be part of a club of some dubious legal distinction? Now is the time for New Zealand to show some courage of a new kind. We are on the Security Council. What are we doing there? Why are we not making the most of our membership there? Why are we not displaying our parliamentary interest in this by holding a debate specifically on the subject of sending troops to Iraq?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs):It is very good to be back in the House after a great summer and to be part of a rejuvenated and energetic team determined to do our best for New Zealand. We are determined to carry on the strong stable Government of the past 6 years that we have enjoyed and that has steadily increased levels of confidence in this country.Confidence lies at the core of so much progress. It is confidence that encourages people to invest. It is confidence that encourages people to start a new business and to hire new workers. Many of the people in my neighbourhood in the Epsom electorate are doing just that and many other people around the country have had the confidence to start new businesses and employ new people this year and over the past few years. Confidence allows you to take the plunge from being on a benefit to going into a job trying a job and tens of thousands of people have been doing that over the past year. It is confidence that underpins higher aspirations. People ask: “Is it possible for me to do further training and go for a promotion?”. You need confidence and that is what this country has enjoyed in increasing levels over the past 6 years of this Government. My goal is that we have at least another 6 years of this Government in this country and this country will really sing.There are a lot of new faces in this Chamber since the last election. The curious thing is that most of the new faces are on this side of the Chamber. I suppose New Zealand First has a number of new people from an interesting range of backgrounds and I hope that they will have the opportunity to make some positive contribution to New Zealand over the years. There are 14 excellent new MPs on this side of the House from a wide range of backgrounds—business people doctors farmers and mayors of towns who have lots of new ideas and plenty of energy and are grounded in the communities from which they come. We have also seen a renewal in the executive and I am pleased to be part of that. There will be more about that later.So at the start of National’s 7th year in Government we have got a combination of proven capability and experience with fresh determination and rejuvenation and that is a good place for any party to be. We need it because the challenges facing this country have not gone away. The fundamental economic challenge for New Zealand is about continuing to become more internationally competitive in a world that never stands still. That challenge is a huge one. It requires relentless effort thought and questioning of the way we do things—from the quality of our education system to the impact of regulation on the price of land and housing the way we attract capital the competitiveness of domestic markets and to so many other things. That international competitiveness is absolutely one focus of this Government. It has been for the last 6 years and will continue to be. It is that international competitiveness that leads to higher incomes. We all know that this is an expensive time of the year as kids are going back to school. It is tough for families and it is higher incomes that make life much more enjoyable and that open up more opportunities for families in New Zealand. That is why we work so hard to improve that international competitiveness.Other fundamental challenges we face are making sure we remain plugged in to international markets. That is why Tim Groser and the Government are working so hard to continue to expand our trade relationships. The challenge remains also to continue to do everything we can as a small country to bolster the rules-based international system upon which we depend for our security and access to trade. We cannot take it for granted that we will continue to operate in an essentially benign environment like we have for so many decades. We have to continue to work hard to maintain old friendships and to develop new ones. New Zealand has a great opportunity ahead of us on the Security Council.We have also got the challenge of the growing pains of Auckland. Particularly in Auckland we need to continue to invest in infrastructure and to work hard to increase the supply of land so that housing is affordable for people who live in that beautiful city. We also have huge challenges that remain in the social sphere and I am thrilled that we have made so much progress in that area. I never thought that I would live to see the day when I would see a New Zealand Herald article that said: “State of the nation: Life getting better on most indicators”. Was that not a wonderful headline in the New Zealand Herald yesterday? That was looking at the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report where it said we have been making significant progress in 14 out of the 22 social indicators and actually progress in a whole lot more. Child poverty is down child abuse is falling early childhood education is going well and teenage pregnancy has dropped enormously over the last 5 years—down 15 percent in this year. That is so important because we know that that group of teenage parents if the resources are not thrown into them can remain on welfare for a very long time. So we are making great progress in that area.Crime is falling—serious crime is falling—the prison rate is falling reoffending is falling real incomes are growing employment is growing and benefit numbers are falling. So much progress is being made. But the point I would make is that this Government is one that is proud of the progress that we have made so far over the past 6 years but it is also keenly aware that there is so much more we can do. We are hungry to get out and do that so we can continue to drive down crime rates in this country so we can continue to raise employment and get more and more people having the opportunity to make a life for their families that is prosperous and good so continue to give people the opportunity to get off welfare and free themselves from the welfare dependency that they have had for so long and so we can continue to do the many sorts of things that this Government has done over the past 6 years.I want to talk briefly about some of the areas in the commerce and consumer affairs portfolio. I am conscious particularly in the financial markets area that we have had a very comprehensive set of reforms in the Financial Markets Conduct Act that have come into place at the end of last year and that are aimed at increasing investor confidence and improving access to capital so that businesses can get that capital that they need to grow. It has been a very very significant change and lots of companies have had to do a lot of work and will be doing a lot of work over the next couple of years as we transition into the new regulatory regime. I will be making sure that the Financial Markets Authority continues to work in a positive and open relationship with the markets as it does very successfully now so that they can all work together effectively under this new regime. We are also going to be looking at the financial advisers review over the next 18 months which we have signalled. We know that there are a number of areas under the current legislation that could be working better and I am looking forward to hearing from the sector on this important issue so that we can look at all the options to improve that area.On the consumer side we are working hard on putting the finishing touches together on the Responsible Lending Code document that will provide high-level guidance to help lenders adhere to regulations set out in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. We know that most lenders are already following responsible lending practices with their customers and we encourage and support them but we know that there is a group—particularly loan sharks and some of the less responsible pay-day lenders—that is not and we want to make sure that we are doing all we can to protect those most vulnerable members of society from being ripped off by some of the more unscrupulous practitioners. But we are also conscious that we do not want to put too much extra burden of red tape and overly prescriptive requirements on responsible lenders. So that is a balancing act that we are working very hard to get right.Both of those areas do touch on the wider issue of the effort that we are making across the Government to raise levels of financial capability across the community because we want to create a nation of investors. We have got 2.4 million people enrolled in KiwiSaver. We encourage them to grow their wealth and we want them to have access to good advice when they need it. So the financial advisers review is considering the practice at the moment and seeing whether we can improve that. We also recognise that that absence of basic money skills is one that can really compound problems that the poorest families in New Zealand have. So the Responsible Lending Code is one part of designing legislation to protect the most vulnerable but there is also a huge effort right across the Government in terms of educating and trying to lift levels of financial literacy and that will be very much a focus of this Government over the next 3 years. Thank you.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):There are many issues that could be discussed during this debate—the housing crisis in Auckland or the Government’s willingness to put $130 million into a profit-making casino but not into providing a decent public transport system—but today I want to focus on foreign affairs. I want to do so because tomorrow the Iraqi Foreign Minister Dr Ibrahim al-Jaafari visits New Zealand. There is no doubt this is a carefully stage-managed event. Dr al-Jaafari is coming here because he has been asked to come here to formally request the assistance by way of boots on the ground of New Zealand troops in Iraq. It will be so carefully stage-managed that I can tell you now what the response of the Prime Minister will be: “We have listened to his request and we will consider it carefully.” It will come as a surprise to no New Zealander that this is simply designed to soften up public opinion for the deployment of New Zealand soldiers to Iraq which most New Zealanders over a period of time will come strongly to oppose.You see it really is a charade because we know that the decision has already been taken by the Key Government to deploy New Zealand soldiers in Iraq. We know that notwithstanding the promise made by Mr Key before the election that there would be no New Zealand ground troops in Iraq—a promise made and not reversed until safely after the election. How do we know that the Government has already made the decision? We know it because John Key told Tony Abbott. He told him that we would have 40 to 100 New Zealand troops committed to Iraq. At the same time he was telling New Zealanders that no decision was made. That is dishonest. He told the Australians he told the Americans and Gerry Brownlee went and said it to the then Secretary of Defence. John Key told the British but he did not tell New Zealanders.John Key is treating New Zealanders with contempt. You know I watched yesterday during question time when he had a hard question to answer about differences of opinion between Mr Joyce and Mr English and he said that he would listen to both the children. That was very patronising and you could see the looks on the faces of his senior colleagues but that is exactly what he is treating New Zealanders like—children. They are not adult enough to know. We will tell them when they need to know when we actually have no time for debate and the decision is already taken. In the United Kingdom of course John Key went further. He was in a BBC interview—actually being done by one of my former students Lucy Hockings—and he was very upfront in a way that he is not in New Zealand. He said yes we will be sending troops there notwithstanding the human costs because that is the price of the club. For the first time we got the real reason why we will be deploying New Zealand troops to Iraq and putting them in harm’s way. It is not for human rights reasons not even for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) but because that is the price of being in the club.That is the same club that John Key and Bill English wanted us to join in 2003 when the United States launched the invasion of Iraq. I remember it well; I was Minister of Foreign Affairs. I had Bill English ask me questions about why we were not supporting the invasion why we were not part of it why we were not working with our friends and allies and John Key said exactly the same. I wonder whether they now think back with shame about their comments because history has proven that that invasion was not simply a disaster that cost tens of thousands of human lives but a disaster based on a lie. Colin Powell said to me when I was Minister of Foreign Affairs that the worst thing that he ever did was to go to the UN Security Council and say that the United States invaded because of weapons of mass destruction. I believe him; he was a decent and honourable man. But that disaster spawned the existence of and support for ISIS today. Without the 2003 invasion there would be no basis for ISIS to exist in Iraq. That was the price of a decision made without thinking through the consequences gung-ho—maybe for all the right intentions; I do not know but it was the wrong decision.Every Western intervention in that region has ended up achieving the opposite of what the objective was whether it was Iraq or Libya. Libya is in absolute chaos at the moment. Yes it was easy to get rid of and easy to hate Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. They were evil bad people. But what are the consequences of your actions? The West has never learnt how to achieve good results other than by going in with guns blazing and ending up achieving exactly the opposite after enormous loss of human—and mainly civilian—lives. John Key and Bill English were wrong in 2003 and they are wrong now. They are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason.You know New Zealanders do understand sacrifice. They understand that there are times when we have to put ourselves on the line and that there are sometimes costs that we have to pay for the preservation of our society and our democracy. But what they demand quite rightfully is to know that we are doing the right thing for the right reason that we have thought it through and that there are achievable objectives that will flow from the sacrifice that might be made. We are not doing this for the right reason. Gerry Brownlee was absolutely right in condemning as unfortunate his own Prime Minister’s statement about being part of the club—very courageous Minister very courageous. He backtracked very quickly and maybe that was not a show of courage. But the fact of the matter is that it is not the right thing to do it is not for the right reason and sadly it will not achieve the objectives that we are looking for.I heard the Prime Minister sounding quite passionate about human rights in the House this week. That is the first time ever I have heard him speak in that manner. But I wonder where the Prime Minister was when it came to condemning the actions of Bashar al-Assad who has slaughtered more than 100000 of his own people and again created the foundation for the existence and the creation of ISIS in Syria. I wonder where the National Government is on Boko Haram and condemnation of that. When I hear the Prime Minister talking about beheadings I wonder why he said not a word about the routine stonings and beheadings under sharia law by Saudi Arabia. We condemn rightly ISIS for beheadings—and we run the flag at half-mast for the King of Saudi Arabia who presides over a regime that kills in a brutal way hundreds of people for reasons and causes that would not even be against the law in our country.There are some questions that should be put to Dr al-Jaafari and they are these—and I hope that the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister ask these questions. Why should we have confidence in putting New Zealanders at risk to go to Iraq when the Iraqi army has performed so poorly? Why should we believe that we can make a difference when the United States has invested $25 billion and thousands of American trainers—to produce an army that remains corrupt incompetent and poorly led? Why is it that the first time the Iraqi army went up against ISIS it collapsed and passed its advanced American weapons to ISIS? Why is it that the Peshmerga have defeated ISIS in Kobani with a fraction of the support that the Iraqi army has been given? Why is it that American money is being spent to fund 50000 soldiers in Iraq who do not exist? The money is being put into the pockets of the elite in Iraq. Why is it that they expect us to do for the Iraqi army what the Iraqi army cannot and will not do for itself? Those are the questions that John Key Murray McCully and Gerry Brownlee ought to be asking Dr al-Jaafari tomorrow and if there are not good answers to those questions we should not be putting New Zealand lives at risk for a futile purpose. Let us help with humanitarian aid. The $30 million we will be spending on troops can do a lot for the 13 million refugees from not only ISIS but also al-Assad and the Shi’a and Sunni militias.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Sarah Dowie—5 minutes.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill):What an opportunity it is to take this call in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. I am so proud to be part of this John Key and National - led Government that has delivered on its promises to New Zealanders. It is a Government that has navigated this country through the global financial crisis all the while supporting the vulnerable and still within its third term has an ambitious programme to lock in the gains we have made and continue to grow this country’s economy to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy to deliver better public services and to support ordinary Kiwis to achieve their hopes and dreams. New Zealand the country that we live in and we thrive in will continue to be the envy of the rest of the world.I want to take this time to talk about our competitive economy which is creating more jobs which is raising incomes and providing more opportunities for our people. What better way to highlight this than to talk about Southland—sensational Southland sunny Southland Sarah’s Southland. Did you know that according to the Business and Economic Research Ltd report of November 2014 that as a region Southland produces 15 percent of New Zealand’s total exports including value-added products?Stuart Smith: How much?SARAH DOWIE: 15 percent. One of the goals of the Business Growth Agenda is for all New Zealand regions to apply a 40 percent ratio of GDP to exports. Southland already has a ratio of 70 percent of our GDP to exports predominantly in the primary value-added industry. That makes Southland the food bowl of New Zealand. Through the opening of markets with our free-trade agreements largely in China we can sell more of our goods. Production is high and we can increase. We have jobs—3.2 percent unemployment.Stuart Smith: How much?SARAH DOWIE: 3.2 percent. In fact local economic agencies are forecasting ongoing demand in the trades technology and service sectors so there will be jobs in the future. The median house price in Invercargill is $186000 against the New Zealand median of $450000—come on down. Southland produces nearly $53000 of GDP per head the third highest in the country behind Taranaki’s oil and gas production and Wellington’s policy production according to the regional economic activity report of 2014 from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. Southland is the best in the country when it comes to affordable house rentals. And guess what! In Invercargill we do not have traffic jams. We officially have a rush minute.But we will not rest there. We are ambitious as we move into the future. Diversifying our economy is important to building resilience in an export-driven economy. We have opportunities thanks to the potential of platinum and silica—sensible resource development supported by a John Key – led Government. We have the Southern Institute of Technology offering everything from free trade courses to a Bachelor of Commerce and of course zero fees.There are plenty of reasons to live in Southland. One of them is that Southland responds well to responsible fiscally savvy and forward-thinking Governments like this National-led one. We will create policy and macroeconomic tools to ensure Southland Invercargill and any other parts of New Zealand that want to work as hard as us Southlanders will have the opportunities to do so and to create more wealth jobs and chances.This team on the centre to centre-right is a united one. Our Prime Minister is inspiring our Ministers are brilliant and our members are passionate about the regions they represent and this country. We will work together and we will continue to deliver for the people of New Zealand now and in the future.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Barbara Kuriger—5 minutes.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country):What a privilege it is to be in the House at the start of what is shaping up to be a fantastic 2015. The Government is one that is constantly making leaps and bounds in all sectors. We are working for families across the board in business health care social welfare housing affordability and unemployment all with the end goal of a more prosperous future for everyone in New Zealand.It is pleasing to see that the world-class broadband network is kicking off to a great start this year. Ultra-fast broadband targets are well ahead of schedule with 40 percent of planned infrastructure projects now complete. More than half a million New Zealand homes are now connected to fibre broadband with over 2000 schools able to connect to ultra-fast broadband.Yesterday it was announced that 14 new Rural Broadband Initiative towers have been completed which means extended cellphone coverage for the remote areas of New Zealand making it easier to deal with emergencies transport logistics and road safety issues. The Government is investing $300 million in the Rural Broadband Initiative with the same level of investment from partners meaning high-speed wireless broadband to enhance communities in some of our remotest parts of the country.One of the biggest jump-starts to come from the implementation of these broadband towers is the boost to New Zealand’s rural economy. That will occur by enabling those in our community the use of the latest farming technology and agri-innovation. As a farmer I know how important it is to be able to track fertiliser irrigation and rainfall. Digital communication enhanced by good internet enables this to happen. Reliable access to the network at home and at work on these high-speed networks means more employment more study options for young people higher business productivity with access to online services and the ability for rural businesses to connect with markets and customers in other parts of New Zealand and overseas. One of the essential benefits of faster broadband is the better access to health care that comes with it which I know many New Zealanders in rural communities will be thrilled about.Rural broadband highlights the Government’s continual commitment to connecting the rural to the urban and helping to close the divide that has been a little bit separated over recent years. It will provide faster broadband to 90 percent of our homes. I recently visited a programme where children in a North Island rural school—really remote—have a programme now whereby they are Skypeing children in the South Island. It is seeing results like this that reinforces the message of what the Government is doing.Our Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday identified a key point in the Government’s policy agenda for this year and that is to build a more competitive and productive economy and this is happening and it is happening now. New Zealand is doing well compared with other countries. Our economy is growing employment is increasing and wages are rising. Investment and exports make a stable basis for the expanding economy that our nation has. At the forefront of our measures for a competitive and productive economy are our game-changing trade agreements including negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership where we can rest assured that the Government is ensuring that the total best interests of New Zealand are being served.This Government was recently elected again by the people of New Zealand for many reasons and one of these was to ensure a better future for all Kiwis. New Zealanders elected us because they know we have a track record of delivering results. No matter how many disparaging comments the other side of the House throws at us Kiwis know that this Government is implementing measures that are putting New Zealand on the map in the international trade market. We are increasing exports and subsequently increasing the quality of capital for those Kiwi-owned family businesses that are now open to more channels of exports.In rural regions such as Taranaki - King Country roading projects are welcome news and will lead to greater accessibility and safer roads to travel on reducing the number of accidents. Awakino Gorge has been prioritised as a focus for the Government to improve safety in this area and as an MP I am really excited about this. So we are delivering outstanding results in 2015 and beyond and I am looking forward to the future. Thank you.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):I want to start by congratulating the leader and the deputy leader of the Labour Party on a fabulous job that they have done since the end of last year. Does my team not agree that they have done a great job? I want to say this to members on the other side. Prepare for that day after election day in 2017 because we know what the headline will be. The day after the election in 2017 it will be “A Little goes a long way”. I guarantee you that on that day after the election you will be staring down the barrel of a Labour Government so please be prepared. We are excited. You should be too because I am sure the rest of New Zealand is as well.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!CARMEL SEPULONI: I am sorry. I am not saying that you will be excited Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I may well be but you are not allowed to bring me into the debate. Thank you.CARMEL SEPULONI: Sure.From so many members on the other side of the House we have heard about the economic management credentials of the National Government. I just want to say that actually it is not economic management that the National Government members are good at; it is the creation of the perception that they are great economic managers that they are good at. There was an interesting question put to the Government earlier today and it brought up the fact that the Prime Minister dropped the ball six times when getting filmed for a Cricket World Cup promo. Dropping the ball six times—that is quite a good image because I was thinking about the fact that that Government has dropped the ball more than six times with regard to its economic management and financial management of this country.Let me just give you six examples of where the National Government has failed New Zealand in terms of its economic management and financial decision-making. Let us start just with a fairly recent one and that would be the Skycity convention centre. What did the Government tell us? It told us and it told New Zealand that this would not cost us a cent. And what are we looking at now—$130 million on the taxpayer. That is not the promise that is not the assurance that the National Government gave to the country when the deal was done and signed. But here we are with the financial gurus over there costing the taxpayers $130 million that was not budgeted for.No. 2 in terms of examples of the great financial management of the National Government is that we were told when National first got into office that it would close the wage gap with Australia. And what was the wage gap at that time—$121.76. Did it manage to close that wage gap with Australia? Well actually no. The wage gap is now $170.28. Is that a good example of good economic management by the National Government?Dr David Clark: They’ve dropped the ball.CARMEL SEPULONI: National has dropped the ball twice. Two examples of where it has dropped the ball.Another good example is a case that all New Zealanders are very aware of and that is Novopay. How much did Novopay cost us? Well it cost us $110 million just to set up and run and then it cost us an additional $45 million to fix. Then on top of that Steven Joyce made the decision not only to maintain the flawed system but then to buy the flawed system on behalf of the taxpayer. I am sure New Zealanders are looking at the National Government and thinking “Great economic managers.” That is the third example of dropping the ball.The fourth example I would like to share with the House goes to exports. We heard some of the members on that side of the House talking about how great the National Government has done in terms of exports. Now let us look at the facts. National members said they would increase exports from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP but instead now the figure is down under 30 percent and still going down. They are four examples of where the National Government like its Prime Minister—with its Prime Minister—has dropped the ball.No. 5 a great example of the financial management of the gurus on the other side of the House is that the National Government flogged off our State assets and did not get the money it expected including from the sale of Meridian Energy which it sold for $1 per share to 2 percent of New Zealanders and now those shares are trading for $2 per share. Is that a good example of great management? That is the fifth example of dropping the ball. The sixth one I would like to share is the surplus that that Government was anticipating making but now what we have is Treasury forecasting that National will be $572 million short of the surplus that it told New Zealand it would reach.So unfortunately for New Zealand it is not that National members are great economic managers and good with our economy; it is the fact that they have been so good at pulling the wool over New Zealand’s eyes and creating the perception that they are good economic managers. The six examples I have just shared with you where National has dropped the ball paint a pretty clear picture that it is irresponsible with taxpayers’ money and actually it is completely incompetent when it comes to financial management of any sort. So I think that over the next 2½ years New Zealand is going to become more aware of these examples of where National has dropped the ball. There are going to be more places—because National members cannot help themselves—where they will drop the ball. Actually what we are increasingly seeing when we go out and about and meet the public is that people are becoming increasingly concerned. So National members please do not get too comfortable in those seats and maintain the level of arrogance we are seeing too often as we are out and about and even here in the House because what we do know is that politics goes in cycles and that New Zealanders are becoming increasingly aware of the National Government’s shortfalls.I want to refer to another thing that I am really concerned about and that is the banter that we have had from the other side of the House towards our leader about his desire to focus on the future of work in New Zealand. One thing that has been apparent for many years is that Labour actually does look to the future. Labour actually does plan for the future. Labour looks down the track and thinks about what we need to do to prepare our country for the future. There are some very clear examples of where National has dropped the ball with regard to preparation and I just want to point out a couple of those. One of those—because we have heard so much about the rebuild in Christchurch—is that when National first got into office in 2008 one of the first decisions it made was to cut funding from trades training. Now we have National members constantly talking about the fact that we have a shortfall of skilled tradespeople to undertake the work. National members are so quick to forget that actually one of the first places they made cuts was in trades training.The second point I would like to make in respect of where National did not look to the future and made irresponsible decisions was with regard to some of the decisions it made in our schools. Today I looked in the newspaper and I saw one of the Ministers reporting on the fact that National wants to put a focus on the obesity problem that we have in this country. Yes that is a very important issue to focus on and a place to put some resource but actually when National first got into office what did it do? It actually cut out—I do not know why—the healthy food in schools policy. So I think that National needs to spend some time reflecting on the irresponsible decisions that have been made. I guarantee that New Zealanders are looking at some of the decisions that have been made looking at some of the statements that have been made now and finding it really difficult to reconcile the actions it has taken in the past and the statements it is making at present.If I go back to the future of work stuff I totally get behind like everyone else here our leader with the need to focus on the future of work. We have so many issues in terms of unemployment. The figure for the last quarter was 5.4 percent and now we are at 5.7 percent. Unemployment is not going down under this Government. This Government is irresponsible in terms of our economic management and New Zealanders are suffering because of it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I understand that it is the intention of the National Party to split the next two calls.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri):Happy New Year Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard and happy New Year to my parliamentary colleagues. I am looking forward to a great year in 2015: a great year in the House a great year in the region of Canterbury and a great year in my electorate of Waimakariri.The Prime Minister started his excellent speech on Tuesday morning by talking about jobs. He talked about incomes and he talked about supporting families. I went to hear the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report yesterday morning and I was interested in the fact that during the presentation the organisation showed a line graph that was tracking downwards and that was child poverty. So as the curious new young MP I am I put my hand up and I asked Alan Johnson who wrote the report why child poverty is tracking down. His response was: “Job creation.” There you go—job creation reduces child poverty and this National Government has created 80000 new jobs in the last year and will create 150000 new jobs in the next 2 years. Can I remind the Opposition members that the last state of the nation report by the Salvation Army when they were in Government in 2008 said that for all their increased expenditure they did not increase social progress by 1 percent.The Prime Minister also spoke on Tuesday about the Canterbury earthquake recovery. The earthquake recovery is a big and key focus of mine as I have a background in health specifically in mental health. I am not talking just about bricks and mortar when I talk about recovery. International research will show us that years 3 to 5 are the most problematic for psychological and social recovery and I think we need to remind ourselves that it is not the Christchurch earthquake and rebuild; it is the Canterbury earthquakes and rebuild. A town in my electorate Kaiapoi was hit severely by the first earthquakes in September 2010. So I would like to remind people about the Canterbury District Health Board’s All Right? campaign. It is worth repeating that it is all right to ask for help and I would ask my parliamentary colleagues to ensure we continue to focus on the Canterbury earthquake recovery in 2015 and provide the support that Cantabrians need.The year 2015 is going to be a great year of milestones and new beginnings in Canterbury. I opened last month with the Mayor of Waimakariri David Ayers the Ruataniwha Kaiapoi Civic Centre which has a new library of 30000 books a museum and an art space. It was built using technology that will see the building last well into the future. It is a good example of local and central government working together with the local community to build an anchor project that is a symbol of recovery and a symbol of the way we are heading in the future. I am proud to be part of a Government that believes in community facilities strong families and caring communities. The Government gave a grant to the Waimakariri District Council of $7 million and $1.5 million of that was used towards this new library development. The year 2015 is going to be a great year of milestones and new beginnings in the Canterbury earthquake recovery. In the next month we will open the Rangiora and Oxford town halls. We will open the Ashley Bridge. The North Canterbury Health Hub will open up in the middle of the year and my constituents are looking forward to first-class health care facilities on their doorstep. We will be starting $300 million of roading projects which will reduce commuter congestion and the future use of red-zoned land will be decided.But tonight the eyes of the world will be on Christchurch with the International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup opening. At the start of the year I watched the Black Caps beat Sri Lanka at the new Hagley Oval and it was impressive as I watched the crowd—because Cantabrians love their sport. It was a hot nor’wester day and they were enjoying this new sporting facility. It was great to see one of the Canterbury anchor recovery projects being so successful and now we have arguably the best cricket ground in New Zealand.Can I say that the Government is continuing to stand beside the people of Canterbury as good progress is made on the earthquake rebuild. The year 2015 is going to be a year of milestones and new beginnings in the Canterbury recovery. Thank you.NUK KORAKO (National):Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. I rise to support the motion but firstly I want to acknowledge the passing of two great leaders of Māoridom: Apirana Mahuika of Ngati Porou and Tama Huata of Ngāti Kahungunu. Nō reira e ngā rakatira haere atu rā haere atu rā. Haere atu rā ki te pao o te whakawairua takoto mai takoto. [And so to the esteemed elders go forth; farewell. Depart to the spiritual beat. Lie there rest.] Let the dead be the dead and the living be the living.I want to highlight one thing that the Prime Minister said in his speech: National is a Government doing something for Māori. One of the reasons I sought to enter Parliament as a National MP was to advance the cause of Māori. Some of my people have expressed scepticism and asked how I could join National. These are the people who buy in to the widespread perception that the party opposite is the one that can do the most for our people. Let me be clear. I joined the National Party because it is the party that has done the most for Māori in the past and will do the most for Māori in the future. It is indeed about aspirations. For too long Māori have been at the bottom of many major social indicators—in particular education and welfare dependency. For too long Māori have looked for Labour to turn things round. For too long Labour has let our people down.Labour is full of rhetoric on the importance of education. From what I have seen and heard the Māori MPs on the other side of the House really care about our people and the importance of a good education. They talk a good game but when it comes time to stand up and do something about the problems that exist it is the teachers unions that get the final say. Labour’s answers to educational underachievement have been to ignore the failing schools to oppose telling parents how their children are doing and to fight against innovation in our education system. Our whānau want their kids to succeed. So when National says we should help parents to be more involved in their child’s learning they welcome that. They welcome being told in plain language how their children are doing. They welcome having data available that shows how their children’s school is performing. They agree with the Government that schools should be operating in the interests of their students and not those of the teachers union bosses.The fact that National is good for Māori is evident from the settlement of historic Treaty claims. As the Prime Minister said in his speech Labour signed only one or two deeds of settlement per year. But now just after over 6 years of a National Government we have signed 46 deeds of settlement. That is fantastic progress and it makes me proud to represent National.I want to acknowledge our relationship with the Māori Party. Together we have improved social outcomes for Māori through Whānau Ora and we have repealed Helen Clark’s land-grab of the foreshore and seabed. This Government remains relentlessly focused on lifting the living standards of Māori along with every other New Zealander through economic growth. Labour’s approach to Māori in poverty has been to keep them there. Labour talks about jobs and lifting our people out of poverty and when the time has come to act it has done nothing. On this side of the House we know what it takes to lift people out of poverty. It is not sitting around talking about what a job is. It is not voting against every single job-creating measure this Government has put in place. It is not burdening small businesses with red tape and higher taxes and still expecting them to take on one more staff member.National has restored confidence in our economy which was crippled by the global recession and a Labour Government. Businesses now have the confidence to take on new workers thanks to the 90-day trial period. As I said at the beginning of my speech this is about aspirations.I live on a papatupu or an ancestral community. This is the Māori heartland. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that most Māori do not want to talk about self-governance. Our aspirations as a people are much higher than that. Like everyone else Māori care about education we care about jobs and we care about the welfare of our children. We are not interested in the sort of separatism that is around the self-governance talk from the other side. What we are interested in is an ongoing partnership with the Crown that will enable us as a people to fulfil our aspirations. The Opposition parties will say anything to get into Government but empowering our people to reach the future they aspire to is again about walking the talk. If I could sum up Labour’s achievements for Māori in one sentence it would be this: after all that was said and done there was more said than done. Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before I call the next member and I think we have just had a fairly egregious example of it I do want to warn members that in this debate it is not appropriate to read speeches.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National):It is with pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. I am really proud to be part of this team in Government because when the National-led Government presented its first Budget in 2009 it did so against the backdrop of a sharp recession that began in early 2008 and the impact of the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s. In the absence of policy change the outlook was going to be endless debt and exploding levels of Government debt. On top of this New Zealand experienced the Canterbury earthquakes and a series of finance company failures.So the Government’s plan throughout this period was to support the economy in the short term by running operating deficits reflecting lower tax revenue and higher spending on items such as benefits. This approach of the Government provided that extra support to the economy when it was needed the most and cushioned New Zealanders and their families in the recession when this was required. However the Government did so within a clear framework of helping Kiwis get ahead and getting net Government debt below 20 percent by 2020. Now our GDP growth is among the highest in the OECD and is expected to average almost 3 percent over the next 5 years.New Zealand is doing well compared with most other countries. Interest rates are staying lower for longer. Household disposable income is rising faster than inflation rising by 9 percent in real terms in the last 4 years and is forecast to increase by another 9 percent over the next 4 years. Unemployment is forecast to drop to 4.5 percent by 2018. Employment is growing. Yes employment is growing. Eighty thousand more people are employed than a year ago and 217000 more people are employed than 5 years ago. This Government knows how to create the environment where businesses can prosper and have the confidence of investing more in their businesses and employing more staff. New Zealand recorded 3.9 percent economic growth over the year to June which was one of the higher rates among developed countries.The New Zealand economy provides an amazing opportunity for businesses and investments. The investment opportunities are endless. New Zealand is recognised globally as being a safe place to invest and do business. We are growing new industries such as information and communications technology and high-tech manufacturing and strengthening existing ones such as the food industry tourism and international education. And we are making strides in areas such as welfare education health and law and order to help improve the lives of New Zealanders and their families. I cannot express how thrilled the communities in Mount Roskill and around Auckland get when I tell them about the National Government’s HomeStart package which will be up and running from 1 April this year. It will help around 90000 homebuyers into their first house over the next 5 years. What I hear from wider communities when I am out and about is that the National-led Government is a Government that delivers what we said we would. Yes the National-led Government is a Government that delivers what we said we would.My own very recent experience—I am still in the process of looking for a suitable space to lease out and set up my out-of-Parliament office but there is a very small number of vacant commercial properties and then they are not available in the area I am keen on. Despite this being a little time-consuming it does provide a perspective of how good our economy is doing at the moment. This is because nearly all commercial buildings are occupied by businesses that are finding a high level of success. Such a high occupancy of commercial buildings is a practical sign of a brilliant economy.This Government under the leadership of the Rt Hon John Key is working in the interests of every New Zealander. Under a National Government New Zealand is in good shape and is getting better. This is due to the hard work and positive attitude of New Zealanders. It is also because of the stability and confidence that have come from 6 years of a strong and stable Government. We are taking the next steps to lock in the gains of the last 6 years to create a long-term lift in New Zealand’s prosperity. There is much to do as we have heard from the Prime Minister and Ministers and we have 3 busy years ahead of us. Thank you.JONO NAYLOR (National):Can I say that it is exciting to be associated with a Government that is getting on and getting things done. I found it kind of interesting to hear from the last speaker from the opposite benches who decided she would try to accuse us of dropping the ball yet at the last election ours was not the party that dropped a seat. In fact ours was a party that actually grew. And why did we grow? Well we grew in terms of the majority that we had because New Zealanders liked what they saw over the last 6 years. They liked what this Government was doing and they wanted more of it. They saw that there was something that they could be confident in and so they returned this National Government to the Treasury benches.And why did they do it? Well I can tell you that the people I speak to on the streets every day in Palmerston North have told me that it is because they have got confidence in this Government and they have got confidence in this Prime Minister and in the Minister of Finance. They have proved themselves worthy of the trust of the people of New Zealand because they are getting things moving and New Zealand is improving. But our work here is not finished. There is more for us to do. Although we are not making Mainland cheese good things do take some time so we will continue to work hard to continue to progress to ensure that New Zealand is moving forward.There have been calls from the opposite side as we have been talking about social housing that we should simply leave it alone. Well I want to tell you a story from my experiences in Palmerston North to explain just exactly why we should not leave social housing alone. Last year while campaigning during the campaign I was speaking to somebody down at the markets—at the Albert Street Market in fact—who told me that she was a Housing New Zealand tenant and had been in her house for about 30 years. I thought “Well that’s good.” She clearly needed the assistance of the New Zealand people to be able to remain in that house. She said that she was income tested and so she had to pay only $80 a week for her house. I thought “Well if that’s her situation and what she can afford then perhaps it’s appropriate that that’s what she pays.” She told me that her children had left home and that she was now living in her four-bedroom house. But do not worry; those rooms were not going to waste because those rooms were being occupied by overseas students who were paying board to this person.It was all above board to be honest because if you have two boarders you do not have to declare the income. In fact you could argue that it was very entrepreneurial on her part. But actually as I was talking to her I could not help but think of the stories that we are all told and we hear about and have come across of families with three or more children who are perhaps living in overcrowded conditions because there is not enough housing for them or appropriate housing for them to occupy. I thought perhaps they would make better use of that house than international students lining the pockets of somebody who was to be fair making a profit on the back of hard-working New Zealanders who are paying taxes and who are perhaps more deserving of that house. Although I am not saying that we should just simply evict people from those houses we do need to engage more with them and ensure that we are monitoring them and looking to ensure that the resources that we have for our social housing in New Zealand are actually being used in the most appropriate way.Yesterday Housing New Zealand came to the Social Services Committee to talk about the year in review. It is very clear that we have got greater demand for certain types of housing in certain places around New Zealand and less demand in other places. Therefore it is time something was done to rectify to that. So that is what we are doing. That is what our Minister for Social Housing is doing. She has outlined her plans to do that. She has outlined that we are not simply going to put people in houses and leave them alone for 30 years. We are going to look for new ways to manage this. We are going to engage with community organisations which might perhaps for this person have moved her on to a point where she did not need social housing any more.So we have a plan. We are going to support more New Zealanders into housing that meets their needs. We are going to ensure that they can start to move towards independence. We are going to increase the affordable housing supply particularly in Auckland. We have got a plan. We are working towards it. New Zealand will be the better for another 3 years of this National Government.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru):Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te W’are e tū ake nei otirā tika ana kia huri atu ki a rātau ā ki a rāua ta’i kua wehe atu ki tua o te ārai. Nō reira e te rangatira Api Mahuika e te rangatira Tama Huata tēnei a’au e tuku mi’i poroporoaki ki a kōrua haere atu rā. Nō reira huri atu au ki Te Whare nei tēnā koutou tēnā tātau.[Greetings to you Mr Speaker of this House standing before us but at the same time it is fitting that I turn to the departed and to the two who have gone beyond the divide. So to you both esteemed elders Api Mahuika and Tama Huata I bid you farewell and goodbye. I turn now to you in this House to acknowledge you and us collectively.]It is a great privilege and pleasure for me to stand up today and join in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement to this House. I am speaking against the motion and for the amendment moved by the leader of the Labour Party Andrew Little. Sometimes I am told that I drop Māori words into my speeches and it is too quick before people can get a translation—one or two words. The three or four words that I am going to use in my speech today—one is tino which means very or really; rawa atu which means beyond or to the extremities of the word that precedes it; and the third word that I am going to use is hōhā which means tiresome bothersome or fed up. Before I get into my speech those are the three words that I am going to use in this speech.It was a great pleasure for me to stand and welcome all of the political parties to Rātana Pā on 23 January this year. Everyone looked refreshed. I kept it fairly non-partisan because that is what the kaupapa of our marae there is; but in this House not so much. I am going to address some of the issues that I have heard in the House today. But before I do I want to touch on our visit to Waitangi. At Waitangi our Labour caucus went on to Te Tii Marae and we were warmly welcomed there. Interestingly enough we went on to the marae after the Government parties. It was really unusual because I have been to a lot of maraes and I have attended many many pōwhiri and I know when the local people are happy and when they are not happy. I know that the people who welcomed us there on to that marae genuinely and sincerely expressed their affection towards Andrew Little the leader of the Labour Party. That is a fact. I also heard the word “arrogant” three times from three different speakers on the home side and they were all referring to the Prime Minister—each and every one of them. They were not happy with what he had said and the way he had said it. In fact they were hōhā. They were tino hōhā. Actually they were tino hōhā rawa atu. That is a fact. They said to us quite clearly on the marae when welcoming us that they were sick and tired of the way that this Government has been talking to them and treating them. I think it is really important that we say it in this House so that members on the Government benches can hear it quite clearly. That is my message to the Government.I will tell you something else. Flippant answers are being given in this House or actually not being given—a case in point was yesterday when a Minister was on his feet not answering the question. On the cross benches every single National MP had their head down. Indeed I would say they were hōhā and quite rightly so. I expect that perhaps the senior Government whip might be sending out an email next week because during question time I think they will have their heads up this time. But that is an indication that within the National Party members the National Government there are probably new members sitting there who know very well that those questions are not being addressed in a way that is expected by the wider community who are watching. I think our people who are watching here tonight and listening to the answers at question time deserve an answer. Those answers are not coming. That is adding to their “hōhā-ness” if I can add an English ending to that word—their “hōhā-ness”. They are very hōhā. They are also hōhā with the Māori Party. That is why Labour doubled its number of Māori electorate seats. That is a fact—that is a fact. And I encourage the National MPs because they do it all the time to continue to tell the whole world how good a relationship they have with the Māori Party because guess what? Every time they do it we get more votes. So I encourage the National MPs to continue doing that. Probably I should not have said that because they might actually stop but I do not think that they will. I think they will carry on because they need the Māori Party votes to do things like end debates. So those sorts of motions where they might be against the bill but they vote for the procedural motion to stop the debate are the things that our people—my people out in the electorate—are telling me they do not like. So my message is you know—sorry Mr Assistant Speaker—that one—Hon Maurice Williamson: Ha ha! He’s forgotten the message.ADRIAN RURAWHE: No I used the word “you” and I should not have. Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): He was naughty even if the member did not recognise it. All right?ADRIAN RURAWHE: So our people are telling me that they are sick and tired of that kind of behaviour.The important thing for me and for my Labour Party colleagues and indeed our Māori caucus colleagues—we have a strong Māori voice within the Labour Party—is that Andrew Little our leader and others within the party have acknowledged the huge responsibility and confidence that Māori have given back to Labour. We will stand up to be a strong voice within this House and within this Parliament despite what people on the opposite side have said during this debate. Indeed I was a bit taken aback by one Nuk Korako who seemed to be telling us that National knows how to deal with poverty. Really? Our people are really hōhā with that because actually the number of our people living in poverty has grown not reduced—grown. And there is all of the rhetoric coming from that side of the House and from within the Prime Minister’s statement—another example would be that the average income has increased. Well if you actually have a look at the statistics those people earning over $1300 per week certainly their incomes have increased significantly but the incomes of the ones earning in the middle between $480 and $720 per week have gone up by hardly anything. And for the ones on the lowest income there have been very modest increases. So that tells us that the rich are continuing to get richer and the poor are staying where they are. My message to the constituency across this nation is that we have the ideas we have the team we have the leader and I believe that at the next election we will be the Government and the hōhā that exists today amongst our people will come to an end. Nō reira tēnā koutou katoa.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura):Can I start the year by saying happy New Year to everyone—all our parliamentary colleagues and yourself Mr Assistant Speaker.Su’a William Sio: Happy New Year Judith.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you very much. I have to say that after that blistering attack from the member who has just resumed his seat I should be feeling some trepidation but I am going to overcome that in the spirit of Parliament.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I regret that I am interrupting the member—and I will start her time again—but I am meant to say that this is a split call. It is a 5-minute speech.Hon Maurice Williamson: We’re a split personality.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Ha ha! Yes we are splitting this with my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson which I think is so appropriate.Well we have started the year quite interestingly. I think one of the great things in the speeches from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition was the tone. Actually Mr Andrew Little has been leader of the Labour Party for a matter of a few months and he was actually doing OK before Christmas. He was doing so OK that many in the media were writing him up as the next best thing and I am sure Labour thought that it had finally found someone it could support. [Interruption] Well he was pretty much the only other person standing who had not put their name up for some sort of role and the real leader of the Labour Party the Hon Annette King was not available to take on the title.But having said that what happened to him? He got a rush of blood to the head and I have been wondering why he would have started talking about Māori sovereignty and getting everybody excited. Certainly in Papakura people are concerned about this new separatist movement that he seems to be wanting to promote. I thought: “What has gone wrong with Andrew Little?” because I am actually quite fond of him—no I really am; I am always fond of leaders of the Opposition because I think it is a good opportunity for them to show their stripes and it is good to do that—and I have worked it out: it is the circadian rhythms. I did not know about circadian rhythms until Mr Little gave his first media interview after he became the Leader of the Opposition and he was late. He was late because he does not believe in alarm clocks because of his circadian rhythms. So I guess on Waitangi Day his circadian rhythms were a bit out because he had to get up early.I have got a bit of news for him and it is that if he wants to be the leader of this country he is going to have to work out his circadian rhythms because you cannot get up at 5 o’clock in the morning and then go and talk about Māori sovereignty and separatism and think that the people of New Zealand are going to think that that is a good idea. I can tell you that Papakura is just all agog with it. I have to say that I am going to talk a bit more about that in Papakura over the next 3 years and I think quite a few people on this side of the House are going to help Mr Little remember the circadian rhythms and why he should be focused on the things that are actually important for Kiwis.One of the things that is really important—which the Prime Minister spoke about and I have ad nauseam spoken and written about—is the need for Resource Management Act reform. When I was practising law before the Resource Management Act even came in—oh I know I was a child genius! I know Mr Assistant Speaker that you do not believe for a moment that I could be that old. But yes I was practising law even when you were first an MP. I remember when the Resource Management Act came in. It was almost like a light had come on. What happened is all these town planners—who were then town planners—these fabulously experienced people seemed to leave Auckland City and go out as consultants. That is what I was dealing with a lot. That is when we should always get concerned—when legislation leads a lot of very experienced good hard-working skilled people to suddenly leave their jobs to become consultants. That tells us there is something going on. So when we try to set up these sorts of systems—I think with all the best of intentions—it unfortunately becomes a real muddle.I had that experience just last year when getting some work done at our home in Maraetai. Many people will know about it; it has been on Campbell Live. They had a good look through my wardrobe which I felt was mildly invasive but there you go. What we found was that with our little bridge our walkway we spent more money on resource consent than we did on building the bridge. I think unfortunately that that is just a little tale but actually that is what is happening. We need to free up land we need to free up people to make good decisions and we actually need to be able to have faith in our builders and in the people who are developing land. One of the things in Auckland in particular—because that is where most of the issues are around housing—is that it is really about this metropolitan urban limit which was put in place about 15 years ago. It has made it very expensive and difficult to actually get any new land brought in for housing and it has been like that for about 10 or 15 years. This is what the developers are saying to me: “Sort this stuff out. Stop trying to impose limits on people and actually have some faith in them.” Thank you.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga):I first want to say a great big thankyou to our party whips for having let me get a speaking slot at this time of day. My adoring drive time audience in Auckland who will be crawling home at a snail’s pace and taking an hour or an hour and a half to go only 15 to 20 kilometres will all be listening with bated breath. But I have got only a short slot and in a short slot it is wise to stick to only one subject. I was going to get into the rhythm method that Judith Collins has been talking about. I think that the rhythm method is obviously what Labour has been applying for some time. It is not working and Labour needs to look for something else.I want to give Labour some advice. I have done this before during drive time on Radio Live and so on and Labour does not seem to listen to that but I am going to do it again. It is really simple—it is really simple. The voting public actually vote on only one thing in the end. They do not vote on whether you knew Kim Dotcom before or after a certain date—they do not vote on this. They actually vote on one simple thing: “Is this Government taking the place in the right direction and will my family and so on be better off with it or is it tired bored arrogant and out of touch and it is time to kick it out?”.When the time for a change comes you cannot withstand it. I have been on either side of it. In 1990 National had only to show up to win. In fact sadly we won a whole lot of seats we really should not have won and we ended up with a few people who were probably more trouble than they were worth. I think I am actually sadly on record as calling them in this Chamber a bunch of dingbats dipsticks and dorks and I regret that—I regret it immensely. But we did have a huge win in 1990 and we did not need to promise anything; we just had to show up because the Labour Party in 1990 was in complete freefall imploding and gone. But I have been on the other side of it. I can tell you that in 1999 I used to go up to Premier House and sit with Jenny Shipley at night thinking about what we would try to do as part of the campaign to reinvigorate where we were. And guess what! Every day we announced the next thing thinking that would be it and the next night we found we had dropped two more points in the polls because the time for a change had come and you just cannot fight against that tsunami as it comes.That is how simple it is. What attracts the public to whether it is time for this lot to be swiped out or not is their own self-interest. It is the things they talk about around the breakfast table. So Andrew Little is quite right to focus on whether taxpayers’ money should be going off to Skycity to give it a big subsidy to run some massive convention centre because that matters. Your ordinary members of the public will say “I don’t actually like the idea of that.” I do not think that Steven Joyce Bill English or John Key like the idea of it based on the comments I have heard.But if you want to stick to your knitting about things that matter do not just suddenly throw a grenade in there about Māori sovereignty. Because I can tell you—and I want any other member in this House to tell me whether I am wrong. How many people have raised that with them in their electorate over the last 3 years? How many people have walked up to me in the Pakuranga shopping centre and said: “Until I hear you guys firmly on the ground of some Māori sovereignty so they can have some more control over their rules and their laws and so on I’m not voting for you again.”? Not one. Not a sausage not a mutter not a murmur. So he just blew all of his good work and it was not actually that good. He was a better leader than anybody else Labour has had because he was not making mistakes or slipping up but my message to the Labour Party is that when your time comes it comes and when it does not you are wasting your time.Think about big brands. Microsoft controlled the world for about 15 years and no one could touch it. When Steve Jobs came back to Apple it was 90 days away from insolvency and being put into bankruptcy—just about gone. And now it is poor old Microsoft that cannot come up with a new product that anyone wants. Vista was a disaster Windows 8 did not work or Windows 8.1. It has even scrapped Windows 9. It is going to go straight to Windows 10 and it still cannot make it and the company that was insolvent called Apple is now booming and it is the richest company in the world. Because the public like the brand they like where it is going and they are not going to change.So my message to the Labour Party is simply this—and this is really aimed at a couple of people. First of all Andrew Little and his Māori sovereignty—but to hear Jacinda Ardern today using question time to talk about the National Library changing from the book-based system to an internet-based system and making more stuff available online. I mean for God’s sake this is like the candle industry being upset when electricity and lightbulbs were starting to come in. The National Library needs changing like you would not believe to come into the 21st century and maybe stop off at the 19th and 20th along the way. And here she is using question time to raise an issue that not one person has raised.So the message to Labour is this. This Government has taken the country in the right direction for 6 years the public like it but we must never take that for granted because they could easily easily decide within no time at all you lot are gone. But right now Labour had better get its act together because it looks so dishevelled and is pointing in so many different directions. There is a word for it emanating from the centre pointing in all directions: quaquaversal.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First):First I will have to welcome all of my esteemed colleagues back for 2015. Congratulations Mr Assistant Speaker to you as well. In New Zealand First we are really looking forward to this year when the people of New Zealand are going to be put first. We are in this circadian rhythm that Maurice Williamson was talking about—raring to go raring to go. However when we were listening to the Prime Minister’s statement we were quite surprised to hear that there was not a mention of health. Where is the importance that is being given to health? The only mention that we heard was free health care for the under-13s. Well I will have to inform the House that that happens to have been a New Zealand First policy. We know that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery and particularly in this House. That happens to have been a New Zealand First policy that is going to be implemented so we welcome the Government looking through our other policies and actually putting those into practice as well.The policy that we are really hoping the Government is going to pick up on—and we actually know it will—is three free doctors’ visits for all SuperGold cardholders. Well that will really save the Government some money. We will pick up illnesses at a very early stage and before people go into hospital they will have been cured by their GP. We know on this side of the House that many SuperGold cardholders have great trouble going to the doctor and paying for the doctor. This would be one way of getting them there. We get many complaints about people going to hospital in an ambulance—although their going to hospital is a good thing—and when they are told to go at 1 o’clock or 2 o’clock in the morning they cannot get home. This is a big issue when it comes to senior citizens so that is a great initiative and we look forward to that initiative being implemented this year too. I think it is rather odd that the Prime Minister did not talk about the health of New Zealanders so we will be listening very carefully again when it comes to the Budget because on this side of the House we know it is important.We were very pleased to hear the Prime Minister talking about jobs and job creation. We know that is quite fantastic but the reality is that there are a lot of people out there who are having great difficulties even getting out of bed to find these jobs because of illness or disability and consequently they are living on the poverty line. Although we have the Prime Minister wanting us to believe that the health of all New Zealanders is rosy we know that it is really anything but. We need to focus in this area.We have many New Zealanders who have fronted up to the hospital to have their operations cancelled time and time again. They are on the waiting list they go in and they are sent home again. That is not helping them one scrap. We know it is happening; we are told of many instances of this. Why are so many Kiwis struggling with pain and discomfort? We know that the number of cancelled elective surgeries has reduced since 2008. It is absolutely disgraceful and it is not how it should be. We look at the loss of their earnings we look at their mental fatigue and it is something that needs addressing. We are keen on this side of the House particularly in New Zealand First to see some action in this particular area.Another issue that Kiwis have is cancer. We all wonder how on earth we can deal best with this terrible disease. The New Zealand Breast Cancer Foundation has called for an increase in free mammograms for females until the age of 74. It is presently 69 and we would like to see it increased to 74. We know that the risk of breast cancer increases quite markedly as people age and we all want something done. Screening does save lives. Over in Australia they have screening until the age of 74 so why can we not have it here? But there is good news. We have been carefully following the bowel cancer screening programme that is currently being carried out in Waitematā. It is very successful and we had the Hon Jo Goodhew say:“ … results for the first two years of the programme show that most of the cancers were found at an early stage when they can often be cured”.So why is the Government waiting until 2016 before even thinking about implementing a national screening programme? How many more lives are going to be needlessly lost when bowel cancer can be cured if it is caught at an early stage? The trial says unequivocally that it works and we heard that at an annual review this week when we looked at the Waitematā District Health Board. It works in Australia it works up in Waitematā it works in the United Kingdom—why can it not work in the rest of New Zealand? I believe it can. Instead we are going to have to wait for more people to die before the Government is actually going to make this cancer a priority issue.Another cancer that is really sort of a challenge is skin cancer and melanoma. Overseas over in Australia although the skin cancer rate may be higher the survival rate is far higher from melanoma and skin cancer. We know that using sunbeds actually increases the risk of skin cancer by 41 percent. Fortunately we have now got some legislation to regulate this particular issue to have a look at and to put through the House through the Health Committee. We know that the voluntary guidelines are being dragged out and are not really being followed through by many of the tanning clinics and there is no wish to do anything else. Why have we not got the under-18s banned from actually using these facilities? This is not putting the lives of New Zealanders first.Another issue that we are increasingly concerned about is that of obesity. Unfortunately New Zealanders are getting bigger and bigger and their waistlines are expanding—this is not the most healthy development. It actually puts stress and pressure on the health system. I have got some figures here.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that I do have to interrupt the member. She has 2 minutes to go. The debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption the next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.