Hughes Gareth; Borrows ChesterGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In this debate we have actually touched on some pretty interesting ideas concepts philosophies and history and I would like to touch on that in this last contribution of the session this week.The contribution I want to talk about is what Chris Bishop talked about because it is rare that we actually talk about things like history and ideology in this House. He was talking about neo-liberalism and he was talking about issues like globalisation. These are really important because they are live issues in terms of the debate of what has happened in our history but they are also critically important around how we go forward as a nation and what are the values we take in terms of our governance our institutions and our economies so I think it is important that we spend a little bit of time debating it in this House.Mr Bishop was trying to frame it as a choice between the current ideology which is neo-liberalism—which you can characterise around the primacy of markets powers for corporates rent-seeking behaviours ignoring some of the externalities and a lesser role for the State. We see this classically in the housing market at the moment where at a time of a housing crisis and when people are sleeping in cars and on the streets the Government is literally still selling its traditional role which is providing housing for those who needed it with State houses. So those are some of the factors and he tried to portray it as a simple choice between the status quo which is this economic and governmental philosophy or Fortress New Zealand of the 1970s. It is not that cut and dried and it is actually a false dichotomy to try to present it like that because it is not a choice like that. In fact we live in a complex world where we can make choices—and do make choices every day—about the values we bring.The same dichotomy was brought in when it came to globalisation. It was a choice between either globalisation or a head in the sand isolationism which of course is not a true choice. We can have a more globalised world without some of the more negative impacts—what big G" globalisation means. Basically in the last 30 years it has been about growing powers for corporates to dictate rules and laws and take judicial cases to international tribunals which we see once again in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. We see laws that are favouring capital mobility but not the mobility of individuals. There was a theory that everyone would be brought to the same standard but in fact what we have seen is a global 1 percent now that owns as much wealth as the other 99 percent—1 percent owns as much wealth as the other 99 percent.Mr Bishop tried to argue that there were only the choices between neo-liberalism or Fortress New Zealand and between globalisation or isolationism and then he tried to argue that in fact it was a good choice that had been made because we had brought everyone with us. I do not know whether Government members are seeing what is happening outside as they speed by in their Crown limos or hang around in the Koru lounge or at glitzy events with the mates who donate but when you look at New Zealand we have not brought everyone with us. In fact what we see is that the richest 10 percent now own 60 percent. We were one of the most equal and egalitarian countries in the world but we have seen the fastest growth in inequality. We are literally seeing people begging on our streets. We clearly are not bringing everyone with us. We are not bringing everyone with us when we have got 15 kids dying every year and 42000 kids hospitalised every year as a result of cold damp unhealthy housing. What we have seen is wage growth stagnating in real terms over that period that Mr Bishop was trying to defend yet productivity is growing magnitudes more. What we have seen are the gains of that globalised market-driven corporate rule - driven world going to a minority. We have not brought everyone with us. In fact we have left a huge number of people behind.Mr Bishop also said that you cannot subsidise yourself to prosperity. We do not have to look to the past for inspiration. I think we can look to some of those values and set a bit of an exemplar. But no one is talking about going back to the 1970s and republishing all the old laws and regulations and having price freezes that the National Government brought in in the early 1980s. It is ironic because this Government is one that is the most political that we have seen in a long time and the most short-term - focused we have seen in a long time. It is a Government that makes these vacuous empty long-distance promises that we see—of being pest free or having a 50 percent reduction in emissions while our emissions go up. It is ironic because in fact this Government has been the most interventionist—interventionist of course with its friends be they Skycity or the oil industry or Saudi sheiks.What we have seen as a result is that we have left people behind. We have seen fragmented communities and a reduction in democratic trust and engagement. We have seen a country that has given up on the idea that everyone in this country deserves a fair go on egalitarianism and on the old concept that jack was as good as his master. We are seeing a more stratified New Zealand—a different New Zealand where some kids never get to see the sea where kids do not learn how to swim where kids do not learn how to read and where they are sleeping in cars or in garages. We are also seeing a concept where we are putting the environment in conflict with economic growth—as if that was a true choice because we know we cannot mine or pollute ourselves to prosperity. The result has been a whole generation locked out of homeownership.I talk about these issues because my generation has grown up with these concepts and has not known anything else. We cannot remember those old reforms. New Zealand has had a number of these periods of change and this is why I am interested in talking about them. In the 1890s we saw the first revolution with the Seddon Government with the old-age pension and universal suffrage. In the 1930s of course was the first Labour Government and then in the 1980s we had the fourth Labour Government dismantling it. New Zealand operates from these 40-year periods of transformational change. My generation has grown up entirely within it. When you look at this generation it could be the first generation in a couple of hundred years that is poorer than their parents were at this stage. This is a generation indebted with $15 billion of student debt and a generation that cannot get into housing.The difference is that for my parents an affordable education a job for life and State support to get into a house were just considered the norms under that values set. Today they are considered luxuries for my generation—a job a house and an affordable education. We are seeing a population that is sicker poorer less equal more isolated more marginalised less participatory in our democracy less happy more medicated and living in crowded dirtier cities and there are people begging on the streets.It is something I think we need to debate more instead of the point-scoring to and fro. Let us talk about history because there were benefits from the reforms. But let us also honestly look at the costs and wonder what could be the next change for this country. Could it be one where we incorporate those old values of looking after people of not leaving people behind of actually working together and designing more modern open democratic institutions—perhaps using digital technology? There is a host of exciting changes—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m."