Volume 696 Week 64 - Wednesday 12 February 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 696 Week 64 - Wednesday 12 February 2014[Sitting date: 12 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 12 February 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersSocial Development—Salvation Army Report1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “there are more children in poverty than at some point in the past” and if so does he remain concerned about child poverty levels in New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes and I think all New Zealanders would like to see child poverty levels lower. That is why the Government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in helping people to get off welfare benefits and into work because full-time paid work is the best way of lifting children out of poverty. That is why we have borrowed billions of dollars to maintain income support for lower-income families through a very significant recession. And that is why we are doing concrete things to help families—for example through home insulation free after-hours visits to the general practitioner increased funding for early childhood education increased immunisation rheumatic fever prevention and the Children’s Action Plan. This contrasts with the idea that you can simply legislate to stop child poverty which is the Greens’ policy or give well-off families $60 a week which is Labour’s policy.Hon David Cunliffe: Given all of the above does he agree with the Salvation Army which today said: “little has been achieved in reducing the rates and incidence of child poverty and our housing situation appears to have got worse.”; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No and just to quote from the report under the heading “Child poverty” the very first thing it says is “Child poverty rates may be easing”. The second thing it says in the housing area is that a number of the indicators are improving. The third thing is that this is the Government that has actually insulated 320000 homes in New Zealand. This is also the Government I might add that has put in $1.8 billion when it comes to income-related rents and accommodation supplements. By the way the very report that the member is talking about was actually in theNew Zealand Heraldtoday. I myself looked at it and there it was under the headline “Good news on state of our nation”.Hon David Cunliffe: What grade is the Prime Minister used to receiving if he takes the D he got from the Salvation Army for child poverty to be good news or was he talking about the D he got for housing availability the C+ he got for affordability or the C- he got for housing-related debt?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first thing is if we look at the report it has 22 indicators. Eleven of those indicators have actually improved and four have been reasonably flat. Seven in the view of the Salvation Army have got worse. The Government is actually very confident in its record that it is doing a great deal. Of course there is always more that can be done.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with the Salvation Army which today said that “the Skycity convention centre deal has blatantly traded off social harm for economic development”; if not why on earth not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No and I am a little bit surprised the member has asked that because under its indicators in the report on social hazards gambling per capita hasgone down and it gets the nice big green tick up actually under a National-led Government.Hon David Cunliffe: He is grasping at straws. Does the Salvation Army’s finding that housing availability is rated as “no progress or going backwards” concern him or does he think that is good news too?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the author of that report really meant what they said then the author actually needs to get out a bit more because this is a Government that has done in Auckland a housing accord which the Labour Government sat on its hands and did nothing for. This is a Government that has reformed both building practices in New Zealand and planning. This is a Government that has overseen interest rates that are 50 percent of what they were. The Labour Government sat there for year after year after year and did absolutely nothing. By the way the officials who used to advise Helen Clark are some of the same officials who advise me and they spent virtually their entire time in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet giving her advice on housing for which she did absolutely nothing. So if the author does not understand—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is long enough.Hon David Cunliffe: When the Prime Minister gets out more in the leafy suburbs of Parnell and St Stephens Avenue I am sure he will notice that rents have gone up—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The level of interjection is unacceptable but it would be helpful if the Leader of the Opposition could phrase his question slightly differently.Hon David Cunliffe: I am here to help. With rents up 17 percent nationwide 18 percent in Auckland and 37 percent in Christchurch since he took office how does the Prime Minister expect struggling families to afford a roof over their heads?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Two things. The first is that the Government has put $1.8 billion in the last 12 months alone into subsidising housing through income-related rents and the accommodation supplement. The second thing is yes I live in Parnell and I am proud of it. That member lives in Herne Bay. He just does not want his supporters to know he does. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Would the member just proceed with his supplementary question.Hon David Cunliffe: I think it’s the commute to Helensville that’s getting him down Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: And that is not helpful. Would the member just ask his supplementary question.Hon David Cunliffe: Perhaps he just takes the helicopter view.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: In all seriousness how does the Prime Minister with all his worldly experience expect young families to buy their own home when his Government is requiring a minimum 20 percent deposit which Quotable Value data shows reduced the number of first-home buyers to its lowest level in 3 years—its lowest level in 3 years?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the biggest determining factor for people when buying a house is paying the interest rates on their mortgage. They are at a 50-year low and are half the rate they were under a Labour Government. Labour I might add forced those interest rates up. Let us be honest: its programme of mismanaging the economy drove interest rates up and drove people out of their homes. That is the first thing. The second thing is that to actually get into a home people have to be able to pay the mortgage by having a job. Under this Government 1500 people a week are going off welfare and into work. The Greens and Labour are opposed to jobs and growth. That is the truth.Hon David Cunliffe: What does the Prime Minister say to the struggling middle-income families who a major bank predicts if they are on a $500 a week mortgagenow will be paying another $136 a week within 3 years because of the interest rate rises under his Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would say this. First they will be grateful that Labour is not in power because it would have been $1000 a week—[Interruption] Well that is what it was. The exact numbers would have been $1000 a week. It is as simple as this. This is an Opposition that will spend as much money—not its own money by the way; other people’s money—to try to get into office. There is only one impact of that: interest rates will go up faster if Labour gets into office. I say to that family: “Do what you’ve always done. Stick with National and you’ll be doing the right thing.”Economic Growth—Progress and Reports2.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to theMinister of Finance: How is the Government’s economic programme supporting stronger economic growth more jobs and higher incomes?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The steps taken by the Government over the last 5 years are starting to deliver results as we are working alongside New Zealanders to recover from the recession and build a platform for growth. Last week’s household labour force survey and quarterly employment survey exceeded expectations with annual jobs growth to the year to December at 66000. That is 66000 more people were employed at the end of 2013 compared with the end of 2012. Labour force participation increased to 68.9 percent. That is 68.9 percent of the adult population available for work. This is the second-highest level ever recorded. So the decrease in unemployment has occurred at the same time as the number of people available for work is at its second-highest ever level. In respect of the crisis in manufacturing employment and manufacturing suffered yet another blow because employment grew by 3000 to 169000! Incomes are rising. Since 2008 after-tax average wages have increased by 25 percent at a period when the cost of living has increased by 10 percent.Jami-Lee Ross: How has New Zealand’s stronger economic performance benefited New Zealanders by delivering higher incomes?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It has delivered higher incomes although not as rapidly as we would have liked and not yet for every New Zealand household. Last week’s labour market statistics showed that 2013 weekly earnings grew by 2.8 percent in 2013 above the 1.6 percent increase in the cost of living. This is from the quarterly employment survey which is the best measure of wage growth. This measure has been used by successive Governments to adjust New Zealand superannuation and paid parental leave. I would also note the average wages used by the Green Party for its policies on minimum wages and welfare benefits despite arguing here that the quarterly employment survey is not the right measure of wage growth.Hon David Parker: Why does the Government use the Labour Cost Index in its determination of the minimum wage? Is it because the index is the official measure of the change in wage rates?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government does not use the Labour Cost Index to determine the minimum wage. Second the Labour Cost Index does not measure what people get paid. It is an index of the value of labour for specific skill sets and specific industries. What measures what people get paid is the quarterly employment survey and that shows rising real incomes.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the document that shows that the Government uses the Labour Cost Index as the basis—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need the source of the document.Hon David Parker: It is a combination of Statistics New Zealand information and information released by the Government at the time the minimum wage is set.Mr SPEAKER: I think it is a marginal call but on the basis that the House can decide leave is sought to table that documentation. Is there any objection to that being done? There is objection.Jami-Lee Ross: What other reports has he seen on the improving performance of the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a wide range of reports on improvements in the New Zealand economy. The most recent quarterly survey of business opinion shows a near 20-year high in business confidence. The manufacturing crisis can be measured by the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index which has shown growth in manufacturing for 15 consecutive months. The most recent performance of manufacturing index recorded the highest rate of employment growth in manufacturing since 2007—yet another sign of the manufacturing crisis! Recent data from the job site SEEK shows that job ads are up by 13 percent compared with January last year.Jami-Lee Ross: How is the improving economy helping vulnerable families to get ahead?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government believes that the most important way to help vulnerable families is through more jobs and a business environment where they can be paid more. There is no better news for those who are vulnerable and dependent on the State than to see a continued improvement in the jobs market and rising real wages. Those people stuck in long-term welfare dependency will never benefit from a strong economy if they are left in that dependency. The Government is continuing to work with those families through ongoing investment in the welfare system and over the last two Budgets we have invested around half a billion dollars to help people off welfare and into work. In the last 12 months 17000 people have come off a benefit.Child Poverty Abuse and Neglect—Government Measures to Address and Salvation Army Report3.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to theMinister for Social Development: Do her measures of success for vulnerable children include lowering child poverty child abuse and child neglect rates; if not why not?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Yes.Jacinda Ardern: Does she agree with the Salvation Army’s assessment that a D should be awarded for child poverty as “virtually no effort has been spent in actually addressing the underlying causes of this poverty.”; if not what evidence does she have to prove otherwise?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No I do not and I think the Minister of Finance has just given one of the best analyses that I have heard of the difference that we can make for those vulnerable children and their families. So it is about more jobs being on board and 17000 fewer people on benefits in the last 12 months. It is certainly seeing that acknowledgment of food in schools. It is an increase of those in early childhood education. It is the increase that we are seeing for those who are achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement and education results. It is a very long list and not one I am sure you would want me to take the time of the House on.Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister tell the House what percentage of working families are in poverty?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not have that figure with me.Jacinda Ardern: Does she agree with the Salvation Army’s assessment that a C minus should be awarded for lack of progress for children at risk when the number of substantiated child abuse or neglect cases rose 4 percent in the last year and by 41 percent in the last 5 years; if not what evidence does she have that things are getting better for these children?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No I do not and at the end of the day what we have is a higher public awareness. As the member would know in 2008 police changed how they notified to Child Youth and Family. We are now aware of those children who are not being harmed themselves but are perhaps in families where they are witnessing family violence. We take that far more seriously than we ever have. We report on it. It means there has been a dramatic increase in notifications but as a consequence of that—Jacinda Ardern: Substantiated—the question was substantiated.Hon PAULA BENNETT: We also have an increase of substantiated because we are getting into more of those families where we are seeing it. We share information with police more than we ever have. That is why we have the Children’s Action Plan which has more than 30 initiatives addressing the very heart of what is a very complex and intergenerational problem.Jacinda Ardern: Is she satisfied with the current delivery rate of her Children’s Action Plan when based on her answers to written questions at current rates it will take almost 190 years for her Children’s Teams to reach New Zealand’s vulnerable children?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member has made that number up. There is no number like it. What I would say is no I am not satisfied. Five years ago when I came into this job I would have quite liked there to have been a plan for these vulnerable children but I had to start the work from scratch. There was nothing there for them. They were ignored. They were hidden. It was actually easier just to think that it was not happening. I have had to start from scratch and get it going. As I say it is complex and intergenerational and we will make a difference for them.Health Personnel—Recruitment and Retention4.Dr CAM CALDER (National) to theMinister of Health: What is the Government doing to assist areas that face difficulties recruiting and retaining health professionals?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I am pleased to advise the House that registrations of interest for the 2014 Voluntary Bonding Scheme are now open. The scheme works by encouraging health professionals to start their careers in hard-to-staff communities and specialties by offering payments to their student loans after a 3 to 5-year bonded period. There are currently 2700 participants and Vote Health has so far paid out $11 million. Registrations of interest for this year’s intake are open for new general practitioner trainees; graduate doctors nurses and midwives; radiation therapists; and medical physicists until the middle of March.Dr Cam Calder: What other initiatives are aimed at improving health care in higher need communities?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Tony Ryall—I ask the Minister to talk a bit closer to the microphone; it was hard to hear.Hon TONY RYALL: Last September I announced that the Government will invest an extra $16 million to support our high-needs general practices. This included a $1.5 million scholarship fund for 30 graduate nurses. As the Government wants even more graduate nurses working in our high-needs communities we have increased that scholarship fund to $2.4 million which means 48 graduate nurses will now receive $50000 scholarships to work in general practice. This is a considerable investment in helping general practices in some of our most needy communities in New Zealand.Child Poverty—Measurement and Salvation Army Report5.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister for Social Development: What papers or reports if any did her office produce in the last 12 months relating to the measurement of child poverty?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): In respect of the measurement none.Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm for the House that she did not seek any reports on the Children’s Commissioner’s $500000 project to measure and monitor child poverty or even seek advice on whether such a measure was necessary?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have definitely received reports on child poverty. I am part of the Ministerial Committee on Poverty but I have not sought from my department an argument on the measurements. We are more interested in the actions that need to be taken and those are the reports that I expect from my department.Metiria Turei: Upon whose expert advice did the Minister write off the Children’s Commissioner’s child poverty monitor work?Hon PAULA BENNETT: It was certainly discussed at the Ministerial Committee on Poverty. That is where the discussion took place. That is the advice that I sought.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister see then any connection between the Salvation Army’s D ranking of her failure over child poverty with her express refusal to engage with the Children’s Commissioner’s child poverty monitor project?Rt Hon John Key: You mean D as in Dotcom?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have heard it said that it might be D for Dotcom but what I would say is that the Ministry of Social Development household income report comes out. It does an accurate analysis of a number of measures. We report it transparently and publicly. It is certainly what we on this side of the House take notice of. As I say it is very transparent. The member can get a copy of it any time. It is that advice that I take.Metiria Turei: If a parent was given a D for looking after their child would she consider that they were doing a good job or not?Hon PAULA BENNETT: For me this gets to the heart of the actual issue. So the member thinks that it is only the Government’s throwing money around and getting into every household and giving them 60 bucks a week for a newborn baby that is going to make the difference. I actually think it is not about just the Government; it is about the Government community and parents themselves actually putting their children first in many instances. It is about what is happening in the streets. It is about what organisations like the Salvation Army do. So I do not think it is a D for the Government. In fact what the Salvation Army did say was that “as a national community we have made credible and worthwhile social progress. It is important to acknowledge and celebrate this because for the most part it is intentional and hard won. The Government should be applauded for its contribution to this progress.”Metiria Turei: Well then how does the Minister explain that for all her rhetoric and chest-thumping and political bluster the reality remains—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member like to start her question again.Metiria Turei: Thank you Mr Speaker. How then does the Minister explain that for all her rhetoric chest-thumping and political bluster the reality remains that one in every five children in this country remains living in poverty after 5 long years of her Government?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we have seen by every measure is that it has flat-lined. What we have done through the worst global financial crisis—and people might like to write that off and pretend it did not happen but actually what we did was we putmore money more support into those families that really needed it. We are seeing improvements when we look at the number of jobs that are on board and the opportunities for people to take them up. I am very confident that you are going to see the real results of that.Metiria Turei: Is the Minister refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of having one in every five New Zealand children still living in poverty and is she actively snubbing the commissioner’s work on monitoring child poverty because she does not want to be held accountable for her failure to make any improvement in the lives of those one in five New Zealand children?Hon PAULA BENNETT: And that ladies and gentlemen was chest-thumping. Right so what we have here is actually I do not agree with the member. This is the Government that has introduced the Children’s Action Plan. This is the Government that has put more emphasis on early childhood education and that has increased the amount that goes into accommodation help. It has put an emphasis on rheumatic fever which quite frankly we have not seen at all. We have got after-hours for under-6-year-olds now. We have got food in any school that wants to take it for breakfast. More than $500000 is going to KidsCan to actually help those children. I do take it seriously. I want to see every child in this country thriving and achieving and having the best possible start that they can.Pest Control—Aerial Use of 1080 Poison6.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to theMinister of Conservation: Does he stand by all his statements on the use of 1080 poison by the Department of Conservation?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of theMinister of Conservation: Yes. The Minister gave a comprehensive speech on 29 January announcing the Battle for our Birds which clearly sets out why 1080 use is essential for dealing with this year’s beech mast. It is a very good speech and I would encourage the member to read it.Richard Prosser: Is he aware that bird repellents being trialled for use with 1080 poison have been shown to be ineffective and that researchers are unlikely to have an effective bird repellent available in time for his department’s planned increase in the use of aerial 1080 this year?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well what I can tell the member is that the Minister is absolutely aware that this is all about the need to protect New Zealand’s native birds. What we do know is that without the use of 1080 99 percent of kea chicks die; with the use of 1080 100 percent of them survive to 1 year. Without this our native birds are seriously at risk of eradication and there is no question in the mind of any sensible person that this is absolutely necessary.Richard Prosser: Can he assure the House that there will be no increase in the planned use of aerial 1080 until a suitable bird repellent is available to protect our endangered native species such as kea given his department’s own findings that 20 percent of kea in the areas to be poisoned will be killed by 1080?Hon AMY ADAMS: No I absolutely will not give that assurance because what we do know is that if we were to delay the use of 1080 through this year’s beech mast we would face the eradication and loss of more species as happened last time. What we do know is that if we do not use 1080 to protect our native wildlife there is a serious of loss of species or serious degradation of the populations. I do not think that is acceptable to New Zealanders.Richard Prosser: Can the Minister describe to the House the process by which stoats are killed by 1080 given that stoats do not directly eat the cereal-based 1080 baits that are used in aerial poisoning applications?Hon AMY ADAMS: No I cannot give him a detailed biological indication of the impact of 1080 on stoats but what I will repeat for the member’s benefit is that we know that if we do not use 1080 particularly during this significant beech mast event we risk serious loss of our native bird population. The facts are these once more for the member. It does not kill kiwis. Yes there is some damage to some species but without the use of 1080 99 percent of kea chicks risk being lost. I do not think that is acceptable.Richard Prosser: I seek leave to table seven documents. They are—Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to list all seven documents at once if he could do so briefly.Richard Prosser: They are pathology reports prepared for the Department of Conservation about seven radio-tagged kea found dead in north Ōkārito.Mr SPEAKER: All right. Second document?Richard Prosser: They are all the same—seven separate pathology reports.Mr SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to table seven separate pathology reports. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Freshwater Management—Nitrate Pollution7.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to theMinister for the Environment: Why do the Government’s proposals for improving freshwater management allow New Zealand rivers to have higher concentrations of nitrogen pollution than China’s Yangtze River?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): As usual the member is deliberately scaremongering on water quality. Although the Yangtze River indeed has serious pollution issues nitrogen is not the only pollutant there is and even according to the World Wide Fund for Nature it is not the pollutant of particular concern for the Yangtze River where the issue is in fact primarily around industrial and sewage waste and the management of sediments. The Government’s proposals for freshwater management will improve water quality and not allow the degradation of New Zealand rivers something that that member’s party failed to do in 9 years of propping up a Labour Government. Furthermore the nitrate toxicity threshold for the bottom lines is only one of the ways that nitrogen must be managed to meet the national bottom lines and most rivers will need to be more aggressively managed for nitrogen levels to meet periphyton standards a fact that the member either does not understand or deliberately chooses to ignore.Eugenie Sage: Will she review her proposed nitrate toxicity bands and the national bottom lines for rivers which Fish and Game has described as an “abject failure” and effectively a licence to pollute in relation to farm nitrate pollution?Hon AMY ADAMS: The first point I would make in response to that question is that they are not my nitrate toxicity levels; they are the levels that have been devised by an expert panel made up of more than 60 water-quality scientists. They are specific levels that none of my colleagues or I have had any input into. Furthermore as I mentioned in answer to the primary question the nitrate toxicity level is only one of the ways that nitrogen is measured in our rivers.Eugenie Sage: Will she change her proposals given that nitrogen pollution can have significant impacts on river health at much lower levels than her proposed bottom line of nitrate being toxic to fish and aquatic life?Hon AMY ADAMS: The National Objectives Framework levels have been out for consultation. We are now working through the submissions that have come in and no final decisions have been made. But again I would reiterate for the member that the nitrate toxicity level is set which is only one of the ways that nitrogen is controlled at a level where there is full species protection for 80 percent. And for the remaining 20 percent it is the level at which you would start to see some impact on growth. I think it is a very reasonable level and it is the level that was chosen by the expert science panel and the work that it did to come up with these levels.Hon Tariana Turia: Does the Minister agree with Te Wai Māori Trust that if the Government waits to develop additional attributes there is a danger that nothing will happen; if so will she agree that the implementation deadline should be dropped from 2030 to 2020?Hon AMY ADAMS: I do not agree that nothing will happen. There are two aspects to that question. One is around developing additional attributes. I certainly agree and I have been saying for some time that the National Objectives Framework would continue to be a developing tool and there certainly will need to be more work done but we need to start and start now with what we have. In respect of the time line for implementation that is something that we can certainly continue to talk about but I would point out to the member that in actual fact the information that I have suggests that most councils are well on track to having these guidelines in place between 2016 and 2020. There is a review set in 2016 where we can certainly look at it but the indications that I am seeing suggest that councils are actually taking to this with some vigour.Eugenie Sage: Will she strengthen her weak water-quality proposals given that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has described them as “not adequate for protecting water quality to even current levels in New Zealand”?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I think the best way to address that question is to remind the House of what the national bottom line on nitrogen pollution was under the Labour-Greens Government which was: do what you like. There were zero limits from central government. It had no interest in requiring councils to lift their standards. This Government has. This Government is lifting them. Can I remind members also that quite apart from bottom lines we still have an obligation to maintain or enhance. No river quality is allowed to deteriorate under this framework despite the member’s scaremongering.Eugenie Sage: If the Minister is so confident that her proposals will maintain water quality how does she respond to the submission and analysis of the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society the professional body of freshwater scientists which says that her proposals have “the potential for New Zealand rivers to become some of the most nitrogen polluted among OECD countries.”?Hon AMY ADAMS: Very easily. I respond by saying that they are simply wrong.Tertiary Institutions—Governance of Universities and Wānanga8.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What steps is the Government taking to strengthen the governance of New Zealand universities and wānanga?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): Yesterday I announced that the Government will reform the composition of university and wānanga governance councils to create smaller skills-based councils that can respond more quickly and strategically to the challenges of modern-day tertiary education. New Zealand universities face a number of critical challenges such as rapidly changing skills needs in the employment market an increasingly competitive international university environment and rapidly changing technologies in teaching and learning. Although our universities and wānanga have been performing well these reforms will allow them to respond to these and other challenges more quickly and strategically. Similar reforms to our polytechnic sector in 2009 have been very successful and I expect these will be too.Colin King: What are the main components of the reforms?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The main changes are to decrease the size of councils from the current 12 to 20 members down to 8 to 12 members to allow council membership to be more flexible and also requiring council members to have governance capability. One university has already indicated its desire to reduce the size of its council to 12 but has been unable to do so due to the legislative requirements which we are now changing. The changes for wānanga are particularly important. The governance settings for wānanga were not written with them in mind. The changes will allow wānanga much more flexibility to reflect their unique stakeholders on their councils.Andrew Little: It’s a top-down boss-driven politicisation.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: These reforms will not—as some members opposite have asserted and seem to be repeating their assertions now—compromise academic freedom or eliminate the input of students and staff into decision making.Colin King: What other steps is the Government taking to strengthen our tertiary sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This Government has a very good record in terms of the progress it has made with the tertiary sector. Since 2009 it has made a series of incremental reforms to improve performance including the introduction of performance-linked funding educational performance indicators and reducing low-value spending. These reforms have been bearing very good fruit. In 2012 a total of 162000 qualifications were completed in the New Zealand tertiary education system. That is up 23 percent from just 4 years previously. More young people are now moving from school to degree-level study from 13500 students in 2007 to 16500 in 2012 including many more young Māori and Pasifika.Grant Robertson: In light of his view that governing bodies of 20 cannot act quickly or strategically has he approached the Prime Minister to reduce the size of Cabinet to perhaps eight or 12 people?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility the Hon Steven Joyce.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry but that is a little shallow—in fact shallow as a bird bath as is usual from Mr Robertson. In fact it may have escaped the member in his many years of moving back and forth between university and Parliament but fundamentally a university council governs a university which is a single organisation—it can be quite large—while a Cabinet governs an entire country. It is a subtle difference and maybe one day Mr Robertson—in the dim distant future—may get to see it for himself.Schools Partnership—Funding and Contract Arrangements9.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to theMinister of Education: Is she satisfied that all of the funding allocated to Partnership Schools will be spent on educating students; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I am satisfied that all the contract funding to partnership schools will be spent on meeting the contracted outcome for each school which is to deliver educational achievement. In exchange for that partnershipschools get greater flexibility to raise student achievement are subject to a higher degree of scrutiny—as the member has demonstrated—and have greater accountabilities than schools in the mainstream system.Chris Hipkins: Is she satisfied that the taxpayer is getting good value for money from the $1.8 million given to He Puna Marama Trust for its establishment costs given that it has leased facilities at a cost of just $58000 a year and is asking the existing State schools in the area to deliver teaching on its behalf?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Different choices are made between leasing owning and servicing over the life of a property. As I have said these schools are contracted for the term of their contract to deliver educational outcomes. They are free to make those choices but they must deliver the educational outcomes expected of them.Chris Hipkins: If a partnership school were to close before the end of its contract is there any provision in those contracts for the Crown to recover any of the establishment costs that the school has been funded for; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I have answered in response to that question in the House before we will use the usual commercial instruments available to us to recover costs invested by the Government.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was actually a very specific question as to whether there was any provision in the contract allowing the Government to recoup money if a school closed before the end of its contract. She has not actually answered that question.Mr SPEAKER: No I think that on this occasion the Minister has. She said they would use the normal provisions under the contract.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. She talked about the normal provisions under the contract but she has not actually indicated what they are.Mr SPEAKER: Would the member resume his seat. I have accepted that the question has been addressed. The member has further supplementary questions. That is the way it works.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect one has to understand what “usual commercial instruments” might be. That member is asking the question as to whether that commercial instrument is in existence and is a term of the original arrangement. He is not asking what they might do in its absence. That is a subtle difference but it is very important.Mr SPEAKER: I think that the member is raising a point that gives a very good lead to the member to ask his next supplementary question.Chris Hipkins: Are you going to give me an extra supplementary question Mr Speaker?Mr SPEAKER: No I am not at this stage.Chris Hipkins: Oh well! We will move on then. Will partnership schools asking any existing State schools to deliver programmes on their behalf be required to reimburse that school for the full cost of their students’ participation in those programmes; if not what will they have to pay the State school for?Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is completely usual within the education sector for sharing and collaboration of resources. In the case of partnership schools arrangements have been made between them and their local community. In addition they are as other schools are doing using provision from Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu—The Correspondence School—and having relationships in some cases with NorthTec and other tertiary institutions. All of these things which our Government is actively encouraging occur.Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No I can anticipate the point of order so I am going to ask the member to repeat his question.Chris Hipkins: Will partnership schools asking any existing State schools to deliver programmes on their behalf be required to reimburse that school for the full cost of their students’ participation in those programmes; if not what will they have to pay to the State school?Hon HEKIA PARATA: None of the partnership schools are asking mainstream schools to deliver programmes on their behalf. They do partner around particular parts of the curriculum. They have done that prior to partnership schools being established.Hon Annette King: What does that mean?Hon HEKIA PARATA: It means for those who are not aware of it that when a school provides a particular curriculum subject—say in forestry science—then other students might use that. That is a very normal regular and highly desirable practice in the New Zealand education system.Chris Hipkins: If a student from a charter school is participating in a subject offered by a State school what will the partnership school or charter school have to pay the State school for that programme’s delivery?Hon HEKIA PARATA: That is entirely between those two entities. Our schools are governed by boards of trustees who make those decisions every day.Broadband Ultra-fast and Rural—Progress and Confidence in Chorus10.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to theMinister for Communications and Information Technology: What recent reports has she received on the number of end users able to connect to the Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband Initiatives?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): I am pleased to announce that at the end of 2013 more than a quarter of the Government’s ultra-fast broadband project had been completed. At the halfway stage of the Rural Broadband Initiative the build is more than 60 percent finished—360000-plus end-users can now connect to ultra-fast broadband an additional 179000 can connect through the Rural Broadband Initiative’s improved wireless coverage and 60000 can connect through upgrades to fixed line services. In terms of priority users an impressive 80 percent of schools and 84 percent of rural hospitals that are covered by the project are now able to connect to fibre.Jonathan Young: How is uptake of fibre and improved rural broadband coverage tracking?Hon AMY ADAMS: Over the last quarter of 2013 we saw a 40 percent increase in uptake. This is in line with what the Government has repeatedly projected and matches international experience of projects of this nature. As the build advances and the larger retail service providers enter the market there is a rapid increase in level of connections. In terms of rural coverage there are already nearly 50000 rural users seeing the benefits of faster broadband through upgrades under the Rural Broadband Initiative. Faster broadband internet and fibre connectivity are absolutely critical to New Zealand’s prosperity and our ability to participate in the global economy and are estimated to deliver GDP growth of $5.5 billion over 20 years and $33 billion of economic benefits to New Zealand end-users.Clare Curran: Does she still have confidence in Chorus given today’s announcement to the market that it overestimated the number of new copper connections in its quarterly reporting figures following a string of highly public and embarrassing events last year over the copper price leading to two judicial inquiries and the Commerce Commission undertaking two final price determinations—all of whichmean at least another 2 years of uncertainty about broadband prices for Kiwi households?Hon AMY ADAMS: What I can say to this House is that I have far more confidence in Chorus than I do in the Labour Opposition which repeatedly miscalculates the numbers.Internal Affairs Minister—Information Security11.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to thePrime Minister: Is the Hon Peter Dunne a suitable person to hold the position answerable in this House for the security of information held by Government in light of him repeatedly declining to deny in the House yesterday that he made the draft Kitteridge report available to a Fairfax reporter and if so has he received an assurance from Mr Dunne that he did not make the document available to any reporter?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes and no.Hon Trevor Mallard: Is he the Minister responsible to this House for commissioning the Kitteridge report into theGovernment Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) the Henry report into how that report was made available to a Fairfax reporter and the reinstatement of the Hon Peter Dunne to his ministry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he since he received the Henry report received any further information that has helped him to identify the source of the leak of the Kitteridge report into the GCSB?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Hon Trevor Mallard: What if anything has changed with regard to who made the Kitteridge report available since he said on 7 June that he could not accept Mr Dunne’s assurances that he did not leak the draft Kitteridge report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What is true is that I accepted Mr Dunne’s resignation because he failed to comply with the inquiry. What I have also done as I have said to the House before is accepted Mr Dunne’s assurances that he has categorically ruled out playing any part in leaking the report. Another way of saying that would be “I’ve moved on.”—and do not worry Trevor one day David will move on when it comes to you as well.Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Henry report that there is only one conclusion you can take from reading the report; if so does he still believe that Mr Dunne is the person most likely to have made the draft Kitteridge report available to a Fairfax reporter?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to the first part of the question yes. In relation to the second part of the question I accept Mr Dunne’s assurances.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In respect of the Prime Minister’s answer to the second part of the primary question which was “has he received an assurance from Mr Dunne that he did not make the document available to any reporter?” to which he said no preparatory to the reappointment of Mr Dunne did he ask Mr Dunne for his assurance that he did not leak the Kitteridge report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No because I accepted him at his word just as I am sure I will accept that member’s word that he did not discuss untoward things when he went to the Dotcom mansion three times.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have tended to be rather strict about people keeping to the point of the question and not going on for too long. The Prime Minister gets up demonstrates what a hopeless leader he is and then begins to criticise the questioner whereupon you should have shot to your feet consistently to rule that he was out of order.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his input today but on this occasion the question was a bit more convoluted than that. The Prime Minister certainly answered the question but added something that did not help the order of this House.Anzac Day Centenary—Commemorations at Gallipoli12.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to theMinister of Veterans’ Affairs: What progress is being made in planning for Gallipoli 2015 commemorations?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): I can report two significant milestones from last week. As expected there was tremendous interest in the Anzac commemorations at Gallipoli next year. The ballot for tickets to that commemoration has now closed and 10112 applications for the 1000 double passes were received. The process has now started to review registrations remove duplicates and invalid applications and put forward confirmed applications for the ballot. I can also report a very productive meeting last Friday with my Australian counterpart Senator the Hon Michael Ronaldson and I am confident that the 2015 event will be a fitting reflection of the huge sacrifice made by both our countries nearly a century ago.Dr Paul Hutchison: When will ballot results be announced?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Successful applicants will be advised by early April and will then have until the end of October this year to arrange flights and accommodation for the commemorations to confirm their passes. Those who are unsuccessful and who elected to be on the wait list will be notified of any passes that may be available from those who can no longer attend up until about 31 March. Can I just take this opportunity to remind those who are unsuccessful that there will be no other way to go and that will obviously disappoint them but there will be other opportunities to attend commemorations throughout the northern summer and right through the WW100 period.Questions to MembersTrans-Pacific Partnership—Release of Information1.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to theMember in charge of members’ notice of motion No. 1: Why did he lodge the notice of motion requesting Trade Minister Hon Tim Groser to table any final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement at least 28 days before it is approved by the Cabinet?Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Member in charge of members’ notice of motion No. 1): The public of New Zealand and our Parliament deserve the opportunity to scrutinise and critique the Trans-Pacific Partnership before it is signed. Parts of the trade deal being negotiated between the European Union and the United States will be released for public scrutiny. The New Zealand public should have the same opportunity to scrutinise the Trans-Pacific Partnership to see what our negotiators are putting on the table.Dr Kennedy Graham: Why does he consider it important that all members of the House and all New Zealanders have the opportunity to read the final text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement before it is approved by Cabinet?Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: It is important that New Zealanders have the chance to look at this agreement due to the fact that it could impact on the ability of future Governments to protect the environment. Leaked versions have shown that New Zealand has opposed—[Interruption]Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The fact is that this question goes to the sovereignty of this Parliament and I think we are entitled to hear the question being answered with some silence rather than a raft of Cabinet Ministers all shouting out at the same time—and I wonder why.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point about hearing it in reasonable silence is fair enough but throughout question time one of the most vocal members has been the member himself—the member raising the point of order. Would Dr Russel Norman complete his answer please.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that is your view then please raise it at the right time not later.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will leave the Chamber. [Interruption] The member will leave the Chamber.Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.Mr SPEAKER: Would Dr Russel Norman complete his answer.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: I lodged this motion because I believe it is important that New Zealanders have the chance to look at the agreement due to the fact that it could impact on the ability of future Governments to protect the environment. Leaked versions of the agreement have shown that New Zealand has opposed US efforts to have countries within the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement follow existing global environmental treaties. Any agreement that could impact on our ability to fight climate change and protect the environment deserves proper scrutiny.Urgent Debates DeclinedSocial Development—Salvation Army ReportMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received a letter from Jacinda Ardern seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the release ofStriking a Better Balance: A State of the Nation Report from the Salvation Army. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence that involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government and that requires the urgent attention of the House. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible. It must be distinct responsibility for the particular case that is sought to be debated. There is no ministerial responsibility for a report that is released by the Salvation Army. The report undoubtedly addresses issues of importance to which the Government may respond but the urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred. It is not a means of debating matters that might or might not occur in the future. The application is therefore declined.Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementDebate resumed from 11 February.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): What a great time it is to be a member of the National caucus. It is a great time to be a member of this caucus because as we head into the election later this year we have got a leader who is charismatic we have got a leader who is effective and we have got a leader who is on top of his job. We have also got a leader who is one of the most popular Prime Ministers at this stage in the electoral cycle we have seen in the last 50 years. The party of the members opposite is jealous because its leader is tricky. Its leader makes things up on the hoof. Its leader does not have caucus support either. Every single person sitting behind him is questioning right now whether their party made the right decision. We like to say on this side of the House that Labour’s Best Start policy was actually a bad start to the year. I want to take a different spin on it and say that it was not just the worst start to the year for them; actually it was a bit of a best start. It was a best start for the “ABC” club. It was a best start for the “Anyone But Cunliffe” club. It was a best start for those people who knowthat their leader is not up to it and who know that their leader is not fit to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand. New Zealanders around the country know that as well.New Zealand as a country is doing exceptionally well right now. We are doing exceptionally well because New Zealanders are seeing significant growth rates. We are one of the best countries in the OECD at the moment when it comes to growth. Sixty-six thousand jobs in the New Zealand economy were created last year for New Zealanders. When you think about what is happening overseas and when you think about our neighbours in Australia and when you think about the difficult global financial crisis that many countries have gone through seeing 66000 new jobs in the economy created for New Zealanders is a huge achievement.Andrew Little: Not at Goodman Fielder in Hamilton.JAMI-LEE ROSS: Andrew Little over there likes to yell and scream but he is a former union leader and he knows that many of the policies that his group his party and his former clan in the unions want to pursue will actually lead to fewer jobs for New Zealanders. We have the policies that are seeing more jobs for New Zealanders. They do not like to hear it but it is absolutely the truth. In this country business confidence is at a 20-year high. New Zealand businesses are feeling the positive effects in the economy. They are wanting to invest more money and that investment is leading to more jobs.I think one the proudest achievements so far of this Government has been in the welfare area where 17000 Kiwis came off the benefit in the last year and moved into work training or other forms of education. Seventeen thousand people now have a new start to life. Seventeen thousand people are no longer trapped in the welfare trap. We know that the Opposition likes to see them stay there because it actually seems to benefit the Opposition but in the long term the best thing for people on welfare to do is to get into jobs get into training or get into education because that is the key to success. Despite the squawking on the other side of the House about manufacturing in the last year manufacturing is growing in this country too and New Zealanders are really seeing the impacts of that.Hon David Parker: What about exports outside primary?JAMI-LEE ROSS: “Exports” says Mr—what is your name? Mr Parker. “Exports” says Mr Parker. Exports are growing hugely. My colleagues on this side of the House can see exports growing in this country too; New Zealanders can see it as well. When it comes to real after-tax wages despite what the Opposition members want to say after-tax wages are up 25 percent since we have been in office despite the inflation rate being at about 10 percent.I just want to turn a little bit to Australia because we know that our Prime Minister was in Australia recently. We know that the Opposition thinks that nothing came of it. Actually the relationship between New Zealand and Australia has considerably strengthened in the last 2 years so much so that Australia is looking to this country for ideas as to how to improve its economy. Tony Abbott the Prime Minister of Australia gave a speech recently to the Trans-Tasman Business Circle. He said: “When I look at New Zealand I see a country which at this point in its history has much to teach us.” He talked about the fact that the Key Government has seen growth in Government slow. The other side of the House likes to see Government continue to grow and grow. This side of the House actually believes that people should be empowered not so much see Government growth. In this country the Government percentage of GDP has reduced from 35 percent to 30 percent. I think the best quote that I could take from Tony Abbott’s speech was this: “As government gets smaller citizens get bigger and that is what this government wants to achieve in this country—empowered citizens.” That is exactly what the National Party is pursuing—empowered citizens a stronger economylower crime rates more people getting into health and education and New Zealanders succeeding around the country.But Tony Abbott also knows a bit about watching a Green Party in Government because in Australia they had the Green Party participating considerably in the last Labor-Greens Government. When we go to the polls later this year we know that New Zealanders have two options on their hands. They have got the strong stable National Government which is succeeding for New Zealanders or they have got the alternative Labour-Green-Mana-Winston Government which would be an absolute disaster for New Zealand. We know that the Greens are bad for economies because Australia is facing exactly the same types of problems that this country was left with in 2008. Australia is seeing massive growth in debt on its books. It is seeing huge amounts of unemployment facing it. It is seeing growth rates in its economy considerably down as well. Those are the issues that we had to face in this country and we know that if Labour and the Greens got back into office that is exactly what we would face as well.There is another strand to this story about the Green Party that I think we have to explore in this House. As much as the Green Party likes to talk about dodgy deals when it looks at us I think the last 24 hours have shown us that there is one dodgy deal that is brewing in this country that absolutely needs public scrutiny and public examination. We know that Russel Norman has recently been visiting one Kim Dotcom. We also know that one Russel Norman has said publicly to TV3 and other media outlets that he is willing to intervene in any extradition process for Mr Dotcom. We also know that Mr Norman has said on record that he has asked Mr Dotcom to pull back from his political interventions through his Internet Party knowing that the Internet Party would likely take some votes from the Green Party. If there is any dodgy deal in this country whereby politicians are considering intervening in judicial processes where politicians are considering intervening in whether this Government extradites an individual to the United States and asking at the same time that that individual does not do anything to hurt them politically—if there is any party in this country that is entertaining dodgy deals then it is the Green Party and it is Russel Norman.As much as they like to squawk and point fingers at this side of the House and complain about the quite legitimate electorate deals that this party sends to the people there is one party in this country that is corrupting the political process and it is the Green Party and its members should be ashamed of that. Green Party members also used to be against big money in politics. They also used to be against business people getting involved in the political process. But actually the Green Party is completely the one that is doing an about-face and changing its style completely. I am appalled by what I have seen when it comes to the extradition process and the Green Party and New Zealanders should be appalled by it as well.We have got a strong story to tell in this country. We know that the economy is growing. We know that New Zealanders are starting to feel the positive impacts of economic growth. We are seeing more jobs fewer people in unemployment fewer people in the welfare queue and more people getting operations. We are seeing that we are going to get back to surplus next year. We are also going to see this country start to grow even more and continue to be a bright shining star in the world economy. The contrast on the other side is not flash. We know that the policies that that side is coming up with are made on the hoof. The policies do not stack up. We know that the numbers do not stack up either. The Labour Party is tricky. The Green Party is dodgy. This Government has the recipe to see New Zealand continue to grow and that is what we will be putting to the people later this year.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Greetings in the year 2014. This is the first time that I have stood as a parliamentarian and thoroughly appreciated the value of absoluteprivilege because today I am going to fulfil my duties as a member of the House of Representatives and I am going to bring to the attention of the House and my fellow New Zealanders a quality of conduct being visited upon New Zealand firms selling products produce and stock to an Australian-owned supermarket called Countdown in New Zealand. The people who have requested that I publicise this issue live in fear. They live in a climate of threat intimidation and menace. It is without a sliver of doubt I believe that in this speech I am fulfilling my duties as a parliamentarian to alert us to a level of extortion that is going unchallenged in our food and grocery sector.It was galling enough for us as New Zealanders to watch the violation of the CER. It was disgraceful for us to see our New Zealand exporters blacklisted by Woolworths and the other Australian supermarkets. We have come to understand that the Aussie corporate culture in that sector is akin to a dingo culture but we never thought that our Prime Minister would go there be confronted by the dingo culture and come back as Abbott’s poodle. Well I want this Prime Minister and I want us as parliamentarians to challenge a more repugnant story of supermarket behaviour of monopolistic malice and of extortion. Once I have laid out the sequence of events I have got no doubt that members of this House will regard this episode as the “Countdown shakedown”.Let me elaborate without any ambiguity on what is happening to Kiwi firms that are employing thousands of New Zealanders up and down the country as they seek to secure business opportunity with the Countdown supermarket chain which is run by a corporate culture that can be described only as something that Tony Soprano would be very proud of—something of racketeering something of extortion and certainly something imported from Australia that corrupts established commercial practice in New Zealand. A number of firms have contacted me. They have however sworn me not to reveal their identities. They have been ordered to meetings with managers of the Countdown supermarket chain they are taken into a meeting room and the following is happening to our fellow New Zealand employers and businesses and indirectly employees. They are being told by the Australian-owned supermarket that “Our profit margin did not suit the shareholders’ expectations last year. We want more profit out of you.” Naturally our Kiwi suppliers say: “It’s not flash on our side either. What can we do to assist?”. The Aussie managers are saying to our Kiwi employers and our Kiwi firms that “We’re not here to talk nursery rhymes.” They are demanding of Kiwi businesses payments backdated cheques and recompense for the losses the supermarkets assert they suffered last year. If they do not pay these cheques they are being told they will have no shelf space into the future.In any other sort of country that is blackmail. That is extortion. Why should we as New Zealanders allow the Australian shareholders and the Australian supermarket chains to treat our fellow citizens our fellow taxpayers and our fellow businessmen and businesswomen in that fashion? It is an offence. OK in Australia it may be the corporate culture that extortion is some sort of casual liaison between consenting adults. That type of extortion that I have outlined is an offence in our country. Now let me be very clear. A number of firms have been told their products will not be placed on the shelves of our supermarkets unless they make backdated payments and offer remuneration for losses sustained by the supermarket. It is not the fault of New Zealand producers that an Aussie-owned supermarket could not compete with our New Zealand - owned cooperative supermarket chain. Not only is that anti-competitive that is a type of commercial culture repugnant to most New Zealanders. This is how it works. The Aussie-driven owners and managers of the supermarket chain—and I know their names because I have been contacted by the people who were in the room—are saying to our Kiwi managers and our Kiwi firms: “You will hand over a cheque for my historic losses or you will never gain shelf space in the supermarkets. If you breathe one word of thiswe will blacklist you permanently.” That is not extortion; that must be approaching a crime. What better place than to use the highest court in the land to outline and air their grievances?Without a doubt the first thing that I am going to do after delivering this speech is deliver an official letter of complaint to the Commerce Commission because this monopolistic abuse these threats and this intimidation are driving our fellow Kiwis to their wits’ end. They begin to fear now whether their businesses are viable and they have told me that if they are forced to make these retrospective backdated cheque payments they will start laying off workers. This is the feral culture in this Australian-owned supermarket chain that saw them bring a Tasmanian devil out 6 years ago to smash the union movement. They sought to smash the union movement in that particular supermarket chain. Eventually consumers turned and supported the workers. I only hope my fellow citizens and consumers from all around the country say they will not acquiesce with the importation of this corrupt culture from the Australian shareholders into our business environment.Let me be absolutely explicit. This covers a whole host of sectors in the New Zealand economy. Let me be absolutely explicit. This type of behaviour is causing God-fearing Kiwi businesses to live in abject fear. Indeed they have sought legal advice as to whether they should even have spoken to me. But I feel that we as parliamentarians ought to stand up for our fellow Kiwis in the face of this type of supermarket fascism. What possessed the Government the Ministers and apparently the richest man in Parliament our Prime Minister to come back after a brief discussion with Ralph Waters—a man who chairs Woolworths made a handsome fortune out of New Zealand and has done nothing to lift his finger or to change this operational corporate culture and obviously convinced our Prime Minister because he is from the big end of town—to let it slide?Well it might be slippery enough for him but on this side of the House let us stand up against this monopolistic extortionate and menacing behaviour because once these people start to lay off workers the employment rate will only worsen in the regions. We should not be intimidated by their corporate lawyers. We should not be intimidated by their lobbyists. We should say as I am today to the Countdown management: stop threatening. Stop your Mafioso tactics against Kiwi businesses. Treat them with a decent shot. Give them a fair go. Stop threatening that they will be bankrupted or blacklisted if they squeak about this extortionary behaviour. This verges on corruption. It has been imported into our business culture by the Australian-owned supermarkets. I will go to Pak ’N Save because the Aussies should pack up and go home. Kia ora tātou.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): It is my delight to rise to support wholeheartedly the Prime Minister’s motion that this House have confidence in the National-led Government. Why would it not? Why would it not when we are heading into 2014 into another election year and the record of this country under the leadership of John Key and this Government is the envy of so many in the rest of the world? They look at New Zealand—and we have seen this just this last week with the visit to Australia—and they wonder how we have done it. How has this Government led us through the toughest of times protected its people and put us on a path to prosperity? Take a moment to look back as I am sure the country will as we head into the election. Despite all of the bombastic table-thumping obfuscation we are seeing from the Opposition and despite the shady deals and desperate horse-trading of some of the minor parties which are desperate to do whatever they can at whatever cost to get back on to the Treasury benches—they do not care how much of your money they blow. They do not care how much debt they lay on our future generations. Now we have aserious question as to whether they even care about our justice system. They are prepared to horse-trade to get back in.But here is the reality. This is what New Zealanders are going to know when they head into this election. They know that in November 2008 we picked up a country where Treasury had forecast that after 9 years of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen’s leadership we were facing never-ending deficits. We had a manufacturing and a productive sector that had been in decline for the last 5 years despite the best international conditions we knew. Government spending had blown out by 50 percent in just a few years with very little to show for it actually other than a very bloated union sector. That Labour-Greens Government was thrown out quite rightly by the people of New Zealand for economic sabotage; for its high-handed nanny State ways; and for its innate belief that it knew better what to do with the average Kiwi’s money than the Kiwi family did. New Zealand rejected that. It rejected it comprehensively and it did it again in 2011.Even after taking on the economic shambles that Labour and the Greens left us we faced the global financial crisis which actually turned out far worse than was predicted even at those early stages and of course we had the tremendous devastation of the Canterbury earthquakes the total cost of which is now approaching somewhere north of 20 percent of New Zealand’s GDP. These are significant hits that this Government has had to deal with and yet where are we now? Well unemployment is at 6 percent even though we have participation rates at some of their highest levels and they are falling. We have crime at a 30-year low with more foot patrols thanks to the work of my colleague Minister Tolley. We are getting more elective surgery and more access to medicines. For the first time we have decent rheumatic fever treatment. We are getting more children being immunised more children in early childhood education and more children getting National Certificate of Educational Achievement results.We have one of the best growth rates in the OECD and it is the envy of many countries. Confidence is at an all-time high. For the first time we are going to have New Zealand - wide frameworks to address serious issues that were neglected under the last Government like our water quality and like the environmental protection of our exclusive economic zone. Those members talk a big game in the environment but look at the record. This National Government has done more for environmental protection than Labour and the Greens ever have.Let us look at the issue of Treaty settlements. Labour and the Greens talked a big game there but let us look at the reality. Since the Treaty settlement process started which was under a National Government there have been 60-odd Treaty settlements completed with more than 40 of those in the last 5 years under the very successful leadership of the Hon Christopher Finlayson. That is the biggest single thing that we can do to advance the Māori economy and to help Māori communities take their place as they should in our society and in our economy.We have in my portfolios the very successful roll-out of the ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband projects which is going to improve connectivity for 97.8 percent of New Zealand. Let us just remember that all of these things that I am talking about—ultra-fast broadband the Rural Broadband Initiative exclusive economic zone protection water quality frameworks water quality clean-up—were all voted against by Labour and the Greens. They voted against them. So now those members stand up and bleat and moan but the reality is that Labour and the Greens opposed our improving internet connectivity for 97.8 percent of New Zealand. Not only are we doing that but as the figures I announced today show we are well on track—in fact ahead of our build. We are doing it in a way that frankly is the envy of many other countries that are rolling it out.We have also improved cellular connectivity. We have completed obviously the digital switch-over and we are working through the auction of the spectrum that will be used for fourth-generation mobile services. I can tell you that the requirements that we have put into that auction mean that within 5 years more than 90 percent of New Zealanders will have access to fourth-generation mobile cellular connectivity giving them download speeds on their mobile devices of up to 100 megabits a second. That is world leading—well certainly it is leading for this part of the world—and it is something that New Zealanders can be very very proud of. In this year we are going to complete as the Prime Minister said in his statement our work on trans-Tasman mobile roaming to make sure that New Zealanders do not pay more for their roaming than they need to. Again this issue was completely neglected under previous Governments.In the environmental portfolio I will be very proud to be introducing into this House shortly a bill that will for the first time ever mandate independent arm’s-length statutorily required environmental reporting—something that this House this Parliament and this country have never had. This is the Government that has the courage of its convictions and is prepared to say that we are not going to screw the scrum if we get numbers we do not like. We saw that in 2007 when Labour deleted a chapter of a report that did not work for it. We have the courage and the principles to say that no New Zealand deserves environmental reporting that is honest that is arm’s length that is completed to the highest standard that is independently reviewed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and that will give New Zealanders for the first time an honest analysis of what is going on in their environment.Can I say in that regard that I find it absolutely outrageous that we have members of this Parliament who would look to beat up our international reputation and all of the good work that our agricultural sector that our councils and that our stakeholders are doing around water management. They would absolutely go out and trash New Zealand’s reputation in the media and in the international fora simply to push an agenda. I can only surmise that either they do not know what is going on or they are deliberately throwing New Zealand’s reputation to the wolves to score cheap points. For a party that prides itself on protecting the environment that is outrageous. Were that party to ever gain Government I think we should all have reason to be very very nervous about what it would do to this country’s economy and what it would do to the standard of living of New Zealanders. We already know that it would print money and that it thinks that is a solution to everything. We know that Labour will come in and throw money around—never mind the debt; never mind the fact that my grandchildren and my children will have to be paying for those promises and that spending extravagance.What we have learnt of course is that we cannot trust what those members tell us anyway. We have learnt that every word that comes out of David Cunliffe’s mouth has to be checked very very carefully. Then it pays to also check with Phil Goff to see whether he has got a different position and then of course we would need to just double back and see whether Kim Dotcom has put a rider on anything that those members have to cross-check against.Tim Macindoe: And is Trevor Mallard prepared to support it?Hon AMY ADAMS: That is right. Well Trevor Mallard is a law unto himself. We know this of course. But what we have on the Opposition benches is a party of desperation a party that is prepared and has shown itself willing to mislead to throw this country to the wolves and to run down all of the good work that this Government has done to get New Zealand into a strong state.There is one way that we can provide for New Zealanders and that is to ensure that we have the wealth that this country deserves to have to ensure that we can providethem with schools the education the lifestyle the standard of living and the opportunities that they deserve. This is the Government that is delivering on it. This is the Government that has a track record that the rest of the world looks at and marvels at. This is a year when we will be saying to the New Zealand public that we cannot afford to put that at risk. We are on a fantastic path. We are on a path that is frankly remarkable considering the challenges that we have come through. New Zealand has every reason to be very proud of the position that it finds itself in and I have no doubt that New Zealanders will continue to support this John Key - led Government through 2014. That is why I absolutely support the Prime Minister’s motion.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I rise to take a call in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement which welcomed the New Year and invited the nation and this House to have confidence in him and his Government. We politely decline this invitation. We decline because confidence in this Government is not warranted as is evidenced by its quite woeful track record with regard to law and order and the parlous state of our beleaguered police force. Flat budgets undermanning under-resourcing and diminishing morale—that is what this John Key - led Government has brought to the thin blue line.Our boys and girls in blue are being asked to do ever more and more with ever less and less. Crime is falling they proclaim from the benches opposite. The reality as we all know is that crime is rising but reporting is falling. People are simply not bothering to report crimes because they know that the police do not have the resources to be able to respond. Back-office staff are being cut and real numbers of officers on the front line are falling away. People are leaving the police in droves demoralised and lured by the promise of actual decent money across the Tasman. Good police officers are heading for Australia while crime rates on this side of the Ditch soar unreported and New Zealanders live in fear in their own homes and on their own streets.It is not good enough. We need to be spending more on the police not less. We need to be recruiting more officers not fewer and we need to be paying them decent money not the insulting pittance that this miserly Government with its warped sense of priorities appears to believe is somehow adequate. And we are invited to have confidence in the Government at the same time—confidence! You can have confidence in John Key’s Government—Tui billboard!The current trial of a man charged with the murder of Christchurch woman Mellory Manning is deeply disturbing. It has exposed a dark underbelly of criminality and gang culture in Christchurch. How has this been allowed to fester and spread? Although this case dates back to 2008 the brutality of the killing has shocked the New Zealand public. What the public wants to know is this: do we have the police numbers and resources to deal effectively with the menace of gang culture? Well we do not. Years of underfunding and diminishing morale have seen to that. But need them we do because gangs do pose a serious threat to ordinary law-abiding citizens. They present a clear and present danger to the authority of the law because of their connection to prostitution drugs and criminality in general.There are no grounds for complacency. This problem is not going to go away all by itself. Gangs are a corrosive influence and they attract vulnerable young people into their net. And as the economy continues to shrivel and die under the mismanagement of this Government this problem will only continue to get worse. This would be an opportune time for the Government to reassure the public that it regards gang criminality as a high priority and that it will ensure that the police have all they need in order to tackle the problem. The Minister of Police should give a clear and direct statement of what steps are being taken now in regard to dealing to gangs. The public is waiting for action not indifference or weasel words.We have taken the step in this House of passing a law banning gang patches in Government buildings. It was a fine member’s bill which we were very pleased to assist the Government in carrying over the line but it was only a beginning. This Government still dallies with being soft on crime and it still requires our encouragement.A New Zealand First Government will rid this country of gangs altogether. We are strong on law and order and we will resource the police properly in order to enable them to do the job that we all expect of them. State Governments in South Australia Western Australia Queensland Victoria and New South Wales have shown us that outlaw gangs can be banned outright and our own gang patch bill has given us a template by which such gangs can be identified and classified. Banning the gangs will not be in the too-hard basket for a New Zealand First Government. A New Zealand First Government will be a Government in which people can have confidence unlike this sorry bunch across the Chamber whose days are surely numbered.We applaud the greater use of advanced technology such as smartphones and network devices that allow officers on the front line to work more quickly and more effectively but we do not accept that more technology can be a substitute for boots on the ground. Only this week we heard that the Government is considering trialling the use of body-mounted video cameras for front-line police such as police in the United Kingdom are already using. These may be a valuable tool but we have to question whether at $1300 apiece the millions of dollars involved might not be better spent on more patrol cars more ammunition for live firing training or simply more sworn officers available to the front line. Cameras to help secure convictions will be of little use if there are not enough officers to respond to call-outs or if there are no available patrol cars to enable them to get to those call-outs.The priorities of a Government in which people can have confidence must reflect the realities of our modern world and address the concerns of ordinary people. A New Zealand First Government will provide proper and adequate funding and resourcing to the police. We will bring an end to sole-charge police stations. We will bring an end to the single manning of patrol cars. We will address the concerns of the people and allow the police to do their job and protect us all. We will end the gang menace and make people safe again in their own homes and on the streets of our towns and cities. That is what a Government must do if it desires people to have confidence in it. In this Government we do not. Thank you.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased and privileged to stand in support of the Prime Minister’s statement and his motion that we continue to have confidence in this Government. New Zealanders are a lot smarter than the Labour Party and the Green Party think. That is quite obvious.The facts show that what this Government has achieved in the last 5 years is quite outstanding. The current account deficit was almost 9 percent of GDP when we took office; now it is 4.3 percent. Net external debt had blown out to 84 percent of GDP; net external debt has dropped down to 71 percent. Inflation was running at 5.1 percent; inflation is now only 1.6 percent. This is what New Zealanders need to hear. Mortgage interest rates averaged 10.9 percent; mortgage interest rates now average 5.9 percent. That makes a big difference to households out there. Food prices went up 11 percent in Labour’s last year in Government; food prices have gone up only 1.5 percent in this last year.These facts give comparisons between the previous Government which really did not achieve anything for New Zealanders and what this Government has achieved through the most difficult financial time that we have experienced in the last 70 years. And by the way in 5 years the spending of the previous Government went up by 50percent. That was an irresponsible use of taxpayers’ money making the Government so big that New Zealanders were going to be always encumbered with that incredible cost of running this nation.During this series of speeches on the Prime Minister’s statement we have heard some wide-ranging opinions and points of view. Following the Prime Minister’s excellent speech the Attorney-General got up yesterday to speak. I would have to say that it was a superb speech outlining in plain English the simple conclusion that the National-led Government offers the best and the brightest future for New Zealanders.Perhaps the most ludicrous statement in this Parliament this year was made by the Leader of the Opposition in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement when he said “The Labour-led Government is waiting to take New Zealand forward.” Well we know what a statement of utter arrogance that is. What an overstretch what an overreach what an overstatement that is. Obviously we need to pop his bubble because as you may see there is not a Labour-led Government and thank goodness for that. There is not likely to be one soon.I am not sure what planet he is on but it is not Earth. It is not Earth this alternative universe that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to create with rhetoric. By rolling out statements such as that and by saying such things he is assuming that if New Zealanders hear them enough they will believe them. I think that is an attitude of arrogance. He is assuming or believing that New Zealanders are not smart and do not know the facts I read out. We need to be debating the real differences between Governments not trying to put suggestions into people’s minds.It is a world of smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand. I think we saw another example of that with the baby bonus bungle. One can see that it was just plain trickiness or perhaps it was incompetence or maybe it was both. In fact let me just read out the comments that came out from the Leader of the Opposition back in Taranaki in mid-October last year. What he said—Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s delivering the same speech. Do tedious repetition rules still apply?JONATHAN YOUNG: What he said Mr Mallard was that people were leaving Taranaki. That is what he said the day that Statistics New Zealand rolled out all the figures about what is happening around the country. He said that over that period of 5 years there were 1000 more people out of work in the region with the real median weekly incomes for Taranaki dropping $24 a week. Even theTaranaki Daily News came out the next day and refuted his comments. That is amazing is it not? Steven Joyce and I came out and rubbished his claims. We said that he was making stuff up.I think New Zealanders out there need to be aware that there is the truth and then there are stories. There are facts and there are fallacies. So often we have seen things being made up stuff being made up. In fact let me just read out what theTaranaki Daily News wrote. It said: “Census figures showed the new Labour boss was wrong. Statistics released yesterday show the region’s population had actually increased.” I was quoted as saying that “the figures contradicted Mr Cunliffe claims. ‘Since the 2006 income survey real after-tax weekly incomes in Taranaki have increased by $85.’ ” He said incomes went down by $24; the real information is that they went up by $85.Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s not quoting himself. You’re meant to quote authoritative sources.JONATHAN YOUNG: Listen. Through what he is saying out there he is trying to create the impression that under a National-led Government things are going backwards. If people hear it enough they might believe it but the facts are different and people in New Zealand are smart enough to get the facts on the issue. So I am of the opinion that Labour’s latest leader makes stuff up. Whether it is his distorted view of Taranaki’seconomy or whether it is the baby bonus bungle that tries to make his party look progressive and generous it is either trickery or incompetence—it is either trickery or incompetence.Hon Annette King: Who wrote this for you? Who wrote it for you?JONATHAN YOUNG: I wrote it—I wrote it.Hon Annette King: Research unit.JONATHAN YOUNG: No not at all. It is either trickery or incompetence. And guess what? OnNew Zealand’s Got Talent you need to get only one cross and you are out but Mr Cunliffe has already got two.So let me talk about an upfront competent Government: this John Key - led Government which has worked hard and continues to work hard on things that matter to New Zealanders to everyday people. We are firmly focused in this election year on carrying on the work programme that we started—not a big huge lolly scramble a sugar rush for the voters but some real economic policies. They are going to continue to make a difference for New Zealanders undergird our aspirations give us the ability to do what we want to do and enable us to substantially create jobs involved in export and in the real economy rather than the Government just creating them.New Zealand streets are safer. We know that. We are seeing higher achievement in our schools. Interest rates have stayed lower for longer. We are seeing more people come off long-term welfare and get into work. More patients are getting the treatment they need and sooner. We are seeing patients getting elective surgery faster with the number of procedures up 34 percent in 5 years. They are the facts. Delivery has increased from 118000 patients treated in 2008 when we came in to 158000 in this last financial year.Here in New Zealand providing better public services with constrained funding has been a huge challenge. Despite the toughest of our times our Government has invested on average an extra $500 million a year into the public health service. That is without counting capital. If you were to look overseas into the other hemisphere in September 2012 the Irish health ministry announced a $200 million cost reduction package in an attempt to reduce its deficit which was expected to reach $800 million by the end of the year. It planned to make significant cuts to services and staff numbers. That is what is happening on the other side of the world. Here in this small nation faced with incredible financial constraints we increased our health spend by $500 million a year.You have got to say that New Zealanders look at that—and of course we can do better of course there are more elective surgeries that are needed—and they can see a Government that has worked hard to deliver for them. We have spent more money on the front line than on the back office and that has been an important thing to do. We went to the polls in 2008 with that promise and I believe that we have achieved it.As I said I am very proud and privileged to stand in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. I believe that he is the best Prime Minister this nation has seen for many a year and I believe that New Zealanders will reflect that in 2014 when we come to the polls. Thank you.Mr SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I call Gareth Hughes—5 minutes.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In this speech I want to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement. What I heard was a negative attacking aggressive speech that focused more on the Labour Party and the Green Party than on National and its ideas. I believe that New Zealanders want to hear about parties’ policies. They want to hear about positive solutions. I believe that the people of New Zealand are sick and tired of the negative attack politics the petty partisanship and the dirty electorate deals. After too many years of putting the spies the casinos the polluters and the oil companies first New Zealanders know that it is timefor a change. After 5 years of National selling out our assets and selling out to the corporates it is time to put people and the planet first.This year New Zealand can make history with another first. In 8 months’ time New Zealand could have its first good green Government. In 2014 New Zealand can make history by electing the most progressive Government this country has seen in a generation. If the Prime Minister is going to go negative the Greens are going to stay positive and that is the Greens’ message this election. A green Government will invest in its people will protect its environment and will build an economy that works for everyone. Key’s speech was all about sowing fear and saying that the economy is at risk. Conditions are improving but Key is simply papering over the serious cracks facing us. We need a Government that is going to put the books in order and is going to address those pressing economic challenges like massive overseas debt and like the loss of control of our productive assets. We need an economic plan that is more than just cramming more cows on our paddocks and hoping that foreign oil companies find something in the depths of the ocean and do not leave too much of a mess trying to get it out.Coming out of the recession it is time to look forward to a prosperous future a richer New Zealand. We need to invest in infrastructure like a second internet cable support our smart IT sector and take advantage of the $6 trillion clean-energy greentech sector. For 30 years we have been told that there is no alternative to Rogernomics—by both his red and blue right-wing successors. Neo-liberal economics plainly has failed New Zealand on its own terms. We have dropped from fifth in the OECD economic performance rankings in 1951 to 23rd today. We are more dependent on dairy than ever and we work some of the longest hours for some of the lowest wages and pay some of the highest cost-of-living costs in the OECD. The neo-liberal economic experiment has seriously cost the country but this year we can make history and embark on a new direction that works for us not just for the corporate elites.Likewise after 30 years of growing poverty and widening inequality it is time to focus on real people not just the Tīwais the Choruses the Skycities the Anadarkos. It used to be said that the Prime Minister of New Zealand knew all the unemployed in the country and that we did not have poverty. Well that is far from the case now and we all know it. In a land that exports food that feeds 20 million people it is an absolute travesty that our kids are still going to school without food in their bellies. Whole families are deprived of work and we have got 270000 Kiwi kids growing up in poverty. We all know that it is highly unlikely that those young unemployed Kiwis are going to be working on Anadarko’s deep-sea drilling rigs.What we can see and what the statistics show is tens of thousands of people employed in high-earning sectors like IT. They can be people building good homes for New Zealanders insulating under the roofs and putting solar panels on the top. Cheaper power from NZ Power affordable housing from our Home for Life package and lifting our kids out of poverty put New Zealanders people first. A fair go for all may sound like something from distant history but this year we can make history by returning it front and centre to our politics and we can tackle inequality and poverty.Thirdly we need to protect what we love and what is the foundation for our prosperity: our environment. Under National two-thirds of our rivers are unsafe for swimming and as we heard today the nitrogen pollution levels are greater than in the Yangtze River. We can grow jobs by cleaning up our rivers and reclaim our birthright to safely swim in any New Zealand river or stream. We can do our fair share for a stable climate and grow jobs in climate-friendly industries like public transport. We can take advantage of the $20 billion annual economic opportunity that comes from clean-energy sources like solar geothermal and wave.In conclusion what we are doing is offering New Zealanders a positive alternative to the Prime Minister’s negativity. In this election every single vote is going to count and the question facing our country is over our direction. In less than a year’s time we can make history with our most progressive Government—a Government that is fairer a cleaner New Zealand a richer New Zealand.DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kia ora koutou katoa. Some of the most interesting and some of the most revealing parts of the Prime Minister’s statement were in the things that he left out—in that which was missing from that commentary about the state of the nation public affairs the economy and so on. Issues like climate change did not rate a mention. Environmental protection features scarcely at all in the statement—and I have searched it. The word “sustainable” appears in the long statement only once in a rather dubious and questionable link to describe the state of our fishing industry. The Prime Minister’s primary focus was on the economy. That is unsurprising. But he talked about the economy in a way that reveals his and indeed his Government’s lack of deep understanding about the ideal relationship between the natural environment healthy communities and a robust and resilient economy suitable for the 21st century.There was one very important sector of the economy that was scarcely mentioned at all. It was completely overlooked by the Prime Minister despite the fact that that sector of the economy employs something like 30 percent of New Zealanders it generates a similar percentage of our GDP—about 30 percent—and it constitutes a remarkable 97 percent of all of our businesses within New Zealand. I talk of course about the small business sector—the small to medium sized enterprises which were once and indeed continue to be one of the mainstays of our economy. This scarcely got a mention at all in the Prime Minister’s economic rhetoric or that of his Government. This is unsurprising. It just continues a pattern of behaviour that has been very readily observed over some time not least of all by the very hard-working people who are in that economy which contributes 30 percent of our GDP and employs about 30 percent of our New Zealand workers. This sector is important in our towns and our cities and critically important in our provincial and rural areas but that is where it is being most overlooked.At one time National Governments could fairly have been described as the champions of small business. Those days are long since gone. The Government’s single-minded focus on dancing to the tune of large corporates talking boldly about macroeconomic issues and so on has distracted it from the daily challenges and opportunities that confront the small to medium sized enterprises the people working in them the owners and operators and the many thousands of New Zealanders whom they employ. National has stepped away from engagement with small to medium sized enterprises. It has made only token gestures of support towards this critical sector.Fortunately the Green Party is here and we are willing and able to step into that space to take on that role as the champions the advocates for small business in this country. I myself come from a long career in business. I have run my own businesses and I have managed other people’s businesses. Immediately before coming to Parliament I was a business adviser for those companies wanting to put their business on a more sustainable footing and to be prepared for the transition to a 21st century low-carbon economy. I have maintained those links. Critically we in the Greens listen routinely to businesses and to business organisations and we hear what their problems and opportunities are. They are definitely not feeling the love from this Government. They know that they are on the outer that they are being overlooked and neglected. They know that they need to see a good change in Government to a more progressive Government before they will get the support and the advocacy that they really do merit in terms of the wider economy.It continues to amuse me to ask business audiences who their champion is in Parliament. Many of them do not even know that there is a Minister for Small Business. Even fewer know who that might be. I think that reflects the lack of attention that this Government has shown to this sector. There have been one or two useful initiatives such as RealMe which uses the idea of one-stop engagement for small businesses—that is a good thing. The business.govt.nz website is a useful initiative but it is undersold. Business people do not know it is there because this Government is not putting that message out there. There is no real drive to build the sector or to assist it. Sometimes the best thing the Government can do for small businesses is to keep out of their way give them a clear run and let them get on with it. But there is also policy setting and Government practices behaviours and attitudes that can actually reinforce the sector help consolidate it and help serve it. The Greens look forward to being the party that will do that. Kia ora.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): New Zealand is a country that has huge potential. We have got extraordinary natural beauty. We have got water mostly where and when we need it. We have got a very strong base of agricultural production. We have got a proud history of people with a can-do attitude. We perform extremely well in the global community in science in sport and in culture. We rate highly with our strong and stable economic performance and have done so under this Government for the past 5 difficult years. The New Zealand economy continues to stand out amongst developed countries growing by at least 3.5 percent in the last year with Treasury forecasts showing growth to be at a similar rate in 2014. This recovery and growth has not been by accident nor can it be put down to luck nor can it be put down to improving and variable global fortunes. It is because this Government is continuing to implement its plan to build a faster-growing economy with more jobs and also to support New Zealand families and all New Zealanders.Over the past 5 years we have not wavered from our four key priorities. Firstly we are responsibly managing the Government’s finances just like New Zealanders expect us to do. Secondly we are building a more productive and a more competitive economy because that is what is creating more jobs and increasing wages. It is the economy that creates jobs not Governments. That is something that I believe Labour does not quite get yet.Thirdly we are delivering better public services within tight budgets because it is taxpayers’ money that we are spending and people are entitled to know that we respect every dollar of it. Fourthly we are supporting the rebuilding of Christchurch because we pledged on day one that we would stand with the city and we are. I well remember former mayor Bob Parker saying: “Don’t forget us.” Well we have not. The economy is growing. More jobs are being created. Family incomes are rising. Crime is falling. More elective surgery is being done in public hospitals. Long-term welfare dependency is falling and we are continuing to help families and older New Zealanders with generous income support.You know I have sat through much of the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement and I see some stark differences across the House. The John Key - led Government enters election year focused on the issues that matter to all of us: a stronger economy more jobs better front-line health services and education a safer New Zealand and rebuilding Christchurch. Across the House it is interesting. I have seen anger from a pretty rudderless Opposition whose members are quickly reverting to their tax and spend policies and who just know in their heart of hearts that an election year lolly scramble is not going to cut it with the New Zealand public. I reckon that they are angry with themselves and I reckon that they are angry with their leadership. They arethinking: “OK so we are in an election year. Is this really the best we can do?”. I think it cannot be a very good place to be.Labour’s last time in Government increased the deficit increased interest costs and put the economy into recession. Deep down what Labour knows is that it does not have an answer because all the economic and social indicators are heading in an upwards direction. You know it is impossible for Labour and the Greens to talk the country down. They try goodness knows they try when all the facts around the economy say it is growing. More jobs are being created. Family income is rising. Crime is falling. We have increased the number of elective surgeries. We have reduced waiting times for cancer treatments. Long-term welfare dependency is falling.Ruth Dyson stood up in the House last night all angry faced and said: “National has done nothing for the environment.” Really? Let us just take a look at our record. We have tackled the issue of water quality. Where the Greens and Labour ran a mile in the last term of their Government with their water plan of inaction—their term not ours—our Land and Water Forum is providing collaborative solutions to some pretty testing situations. Our emissions trading scheme settings provide the Government with flexibility to balance our fair contribution to global climate change efforts against the costs imposed on New Zealand’s households and on business. We passed the exclusive economic zone protections where there were absolutely none under the previous Labour Government and it was quite happy with that state of affairs. We continued to develop marine reserves. We have invested more research and rehabilitation on our worst-polluted water bodies than the Green-Labour Government ever—ever—did. And our Resource Management Act reform programme has set about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act processes providing stronger central government direction and stronger environmental reporting. Where was Labour in that space? Nowhere.Phil Goff got so angry about some kiosks being closed in Mount Roskill. Well we want our cops out on the street not sitting behind desks. We are a Government that has overseen recorded crime per person down to the lowest level in 33 years. We are a Government that has set a target to reduce overall crime rates by 15 percent—Hon Trevor Mallard: We’ve heard this speech before. Jonathan Young gave it.JACQUI DEAN: —the statistics do not lie Mr Mallard—violent crime by 20 percent and by the way thank you for noticing and youth crime by 25 percent by 2017. And we are already exceeding those targets. We are a Government that has 600 extra police on the front line and 34 neighbourhood policing teams not sat behind desks in kiosks but out there in the most troubled neighbourhoods tackling the causes of crime. We have provided Tasers rolled out smartphones and tablets provided lock boxes for firearms and a Prevention First strategy that is working. We have clamped down on gangs organised crime and P.Our trade training numeracy and literacy and Out of Gate strategies are supporting prisoners before they leave prison and immediately after. We want to give every prison inmate the opportunity to turn their lives round and we have released a new Youth Crime Action Plan which aims to reduce youth offending over the next 10 years. It is one of the most critical aspects of our justice programme. National is completely focused on making our communities even safer and that is thanks to our justice team.Then Phil Twyford got up and got all angry about local government. Well let us have a look at our record. We have unified Auckland by establishing one council for the whole region substantially reducing red tape and bureaucracy. We have allocated $1 billion to repairs on leaky buildings so that homeowners can get on with their lives. That was in the too-hard basket for the previous Government. We have provided $5.5 billion to support Canterbury’s local councils to rebuild. We have focused on localgovernment on supporting economic growth and job creation. And we have implemented our Better Local Government reforms to focus councils on stronger governance improved efficiency and responsible management. We have made progress on Better Local Government reforms.Meka Whaitiri questioned the wisdom of water storage and the building of new dams. Well she is a new member. We know that Labour hates farmers and there is another member who continues in that sorry tradition. But how about these facts? The Ōpuha Dam in South Canterbury irrigates 16000 hectares and in a 2-year study the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment found that the dam added an impressive $124 million to the South Canterbury economy every year and added 500 full-time jobs. That is regional development. That is regional development based on agriculture. Meka Whaitiri also questioned the impact of cycle trails. She is not the first; she probably will not be the last. They just do not get it. Well let me tell you that one of the first cycle trails the Otago Central Rail Trail puts over $8 million and 96 extra full-time jobs into the local economy and that is in rural New Zealand.Despite the improvements in the Government’s books the better economic outlook and the focus on better public services there will not be a big lolly scramble from National in election year. National will continue our steady as you go approach—that is about getting better public services to deliver better results for communities getting debt under control and ensuring we can weather uncertain global economic conditions. This Government will have fresh ideas to put to New Zealanders across a range of areas this year. Labour and the Greens will promise the earth of course. We are only in February and they are already promising to spend the thick end of an extra three-quarters of a billion dollars this year. We are not going to do that. I am proud to support the Prime Minister’s statement.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): May I wish you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson the very best for this year. Thank you for the work that you have done for the country and in this Parliament over a long career. It is my pleasure to speak to this debate that we are having on the Prime Minister’s statement.I look back over the summer. I took my family down to the South Island on a road trip. Since it was wet and freezing most of the time I spent a great deal of time reading. I came across an article inThe Spectator magazine entitled “Joy to the World”. That cheered me up when the rain was coming in horizontally. It made the point that although pessimism sells in the media which deluges us with tales of woe and Armageddon in many ways 2013 was the best year in human history.More wealth is being created than ever before with global GDP rising to around $73 trillion this year and thanks to increasing global trade and surging economies in Asia that wealth globally has never been shared more evenly. So the UN’s 2000 Millennium Development Goal you might recall of halving the number of people living on $1 a day by 2015 was achieved 5 years early. The goal of halving the number of people without access to drinking water by 2015 was achieved last year. China which is home to a fifth of the world’s population has steadily opened its markets to capitalism and international trade over the past three or four decades and it has reduced the number of its people living in poverty from 84 percent to 10 percent today.Yes there are dreadful wars going on in Syria and places like that there are millions still living in poverty and there are economic and environmental challenges but when we step back and take a global view we are living in a remarkable era with the prospect of seeing the end of famine and extreme poverty in the next few decades.What has lain behind that transformation has been the spread of global trade which has followed the progressive opening up of previously closed or heavily protected economies such as India and China. That is why I struggle to understand the logic ofthose particularly amongst the Greens who dedicate themselves to opposing further progress in trade liberalisation such as that being attempted through the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is indeed international trade that is lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty as we speak. As a trading nation New Zealand has been a beneficiary of globalisation and stands to benefit much more if current trade talks succeed. In the meantime millions of people have a chance to raise their living standards as they are drawn into the global economy.But of course global competition is always challenging. If we are to continue to prosper in a dynamic and competitive world the next generation of New Zealanders will have to shake off the entitlement mentality that has been allowed to develop over the past few decades in New Zealand. That is a real challenge for us. Will New Zealand and the so-called developed countries be overtaken and left behind? Well we may well be unless we recognise that we do have to continue to work hard and value education and the importance of entrepreneurship and business in our country and in our economy.I thought that the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott put it pretty well in his speech at Davos a few weeks ago. He said that the global financial crisis “has not changed any of the basic laws of economics … You can’t spend what you haven’t got. No country has ever taxed or subsidised its way to prosperity. You don’t address debt and deficit with yet more debt and deficit. And profit is not a dirty word because success in business is something to be proud of. After all you can’t have strong communities without strong economies to sustain them and you can’t have strong economies without profitable private businesses.” As government gets smaller citizens get bigger and that is what we want. We want empowered citizens. So I wish Mr Abbott and his Government every success in translating those ideas into reality in Australia a country that has done incredibly well over the past few decades but has got its own challenges right now.As our Prime Minister has indicated New Zealand has had 5 years of strong stable sensible government and we have made remarkable progress over that period. The Prime Minister alluded to a lot of those things in his statement. Let us not forget that the current account deficit was almost 9 percent of GDP when we came into office 2008; it is now 4.3 percent. The net external debt had blown out to 84 percent of GDP back in 2008; it is now down to 71 percent. Inflation—Dr David Clark: Worst economic record in 50 years.PAUL GOLDSMITH: —that great theft of the savings of the people who are struggling whom David Clark seeks to represent—was running at 5 percent when Labour was in power; it is now only 1.6 percent and people can trust the value of their money. Mortgage interest rates were averaging 10.9 percent in 2008 and now they are averaging 5.9 percent. Yes they may be going up a little bit this year but they are still a hang of a lot cheaper than they were only 5 years ago when we came into power and that makes a real difference to the living standards and the money that people have in their pockets not just in Epsom where I come from but all around the country.Food prices were going up by 11 percent a year when Labour was last in power; now that figure is only 1.5 percent. Government spending had gone up 50 percent over the 5 years until 2008. It was a runaway train. Now Government spending is under control. The economy had been going backwards for four quarters in 2008. We were at 3.5 percent last year one of the highest rates of growth in the OECD. Most important Treasury was predicting endless years of Government deficits when we came into power. There was no track to getting back to surplus. In 2014-15 we will be back to surplus.This Government has not wavered from its four priorities that were outlined at the start. We are about responsibly managing the Government finances just like New Zealanders expect us to. And there are risks. Why do we have to be cautious? Because internationally the world still remains in economically uncharted waters. Nobody is quite sure what is going to come from tapering and trying to stop the printing of money that has been going on around the world and what that will mean over the next few years. So there are risks and we need to be careful.Secondly we have been concentrating on building a more competitive and productive economy because that is what we need to create jobs and to increase wages. The Business Growth Agenda which the Government has talked about consistently over the last few years is about rebuilding the growth capacity of the economy—lots of little reforms carried out consistently. Steven Joyce and Bill English in particular have been leading that charge. It is about steadily removing the roadblocks that discourage investment in New Zealand.I will run through those six areas again just so people can be reminded of them. It is about keeping open our markets and building strong relationships in order to trade with the world. The free-trade agreement with China which we do congratulate the Labour Government on being involved with—I just hope Labour has not given up on free trade—has been a really great deal for New Zealand. Where would we be without that China trade? I have no idea. The second thing is innovation. The National-led Government is putting a lot of resources into assisting research and development in innovation throughout the private sector and we need to continue to increase private sector investment in research and development to reach international norms if we are going to be a successful economy.Thirdly we need to keep the skills that we need for a successful and innovative trading nation encouraging more of our people into areas like engineeringinformation and communicationstechnology science history and other such subjects such as I discovered. Encouraging more capital to invest in New Zealand is the fourth area. The mixed-ownership programme has been a great success in terms of giving a shot of life to the stock exchange in New Zealand. We need to build on that. Capital investment is core to building competitive industries and sustaining jobs.Fifthly we are about removing red tape and providing certainty to investors particularly in the resources industries which could be so important to the New Zealand economy in the future. And sixthly we need to keep building infrastructure towards a growth-orientated country. In Auckland we are seeing the results of that with very significant investment in the roading infrastructure. We are very much looking forward to the Waterview tunnel opening and that second bypass in the Auckland motorway system which will make a big difference to how we get around.So the first area is getting back to surplus the second is building a productive economy and the third is getting better public services within tight budgets. I think the Government has been very successful at making sure that taxpayers’ money is spent well and actually getting something out of it. I think Bill English was right when he talked about how in the past centre-right Governments have tended to think about smaller government as about just slicing bits off when what we actually need is a bit more demanding than that. It is about community expecting Governments to actually solve a few problems and then move on rather than just continuing to live off that.Finally rebuilding Christchurch is the fourth area that we are focused on. On that basis I am very pleased to be part of this debate. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): A woman came into my electorate office today. Her landlord has ended her tenancy of 4 years because he wants to renovate and sell and she has not been able to find another house that she can affordnear the school that her two boys go to. In order to keep her children at their local school her children are boarding with a friend but there is no room for their mum so she is staying with another friend on the other side of the city. She came into my office this morning to say that she had visited the children at the school and was walking back across to the other side of the city. She had no coat and it was raining. She is trying to do her best for her kids. She is waiting for Housing New Zealand to even accept an application for a house and even if it does it is likely to tell her that it has no houses available and to try the rental market. This is what is consistently happening to people in my electorate and in electorates all around the country—people who earn incomes but whose incomes are not high enough to feed a family and pay market rents.This Government continues to ignore the calls for action on child poverty youth unemployment and the shortage of affordable housing. It talks about wealth creation but where is the evidence that the people who deserve a fair share of that wealth are getting it? Instead the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report released today shows once again that many New Zealanders are increasingly being locked out of a fair and just society. That report shows that there are some signs of improvement in some social indicators but while at the top end of town the privileged few continue to do well under this Government child poverty and the lack of affordable housing are the time bomb issues for our country. The report repeats calls for action to address these matters as well as rising living costs and the number of families that are struggling to pay their bills. This is this Government’s failure. John Key and National have been focusing on those few at the top while hundreds and thousands of kids are in poverty and many young families cannot afford a home.Labour’s Best Start package which was announced a couple of weeks ago is the first in that series of practical and affordable policies that are going to make a real difference to the fight against child poverty in this country. It is about improving antenatal care extending paid parental leave making sure that families have more financial support when they need it when they have a new baby and increasing the range and the scope of early childhood education. Those are very practical very targeted very important steps that will make a real difference. All of the experts agree that the first 5 years of a child’s life are critical to getting that best start.We have already taken some steps to address the housing shortage with our policy KiwiBuild. We will have a range of proactive policies to create jobs and increase wages in our cities and our regions for young people along with ensuring that they are going to have the educational opportunities that give them the skills to contribute to building a better and more modern society and ensuring that there is affordable health-care when they get sick. These are tough times. Despite what this Government says these are very tough times for many New Zealand families. The Best Start package will make a real difference in our programme of reform which includes health education housing and economic development.In the last 5 years this Government has treated our country as a corporation and not a country. One of the worst outcomes of that is that our regions are going backwards. In the last 5 years this National Government has closed eight schools—eight schools—in the Dunedin South electorate. Our city is losing daily commuter flights to Auckland because Air New Zealand has admitted that it made a scheduling cut based on a demand curve for the city which is code that Dunedin is not on a growth trajectory. This Government is responsible for the closure of Hillside Engineering which is the heart of our manufacturing sector because it decided that cheap poor-quality railway wagons and engines were better than keeping and building a thriving skilled manufacturing base in an important regional centre. We have lost skilled tradespeople with families whocould not find decent work in our city. They have had to move away and take their families with them. That has had a flow-on effect throughout our city.Steven Joyce is now backing a decision by AgResearch to shift the Invermay Agricultural Centre campus in Mosgiel out of our city. It should be grown not shrunk. It is a world-class centre for important research. We have launched a petition on this. My colleague David Clark has this week launched a petition on this very matter and I urge anyone who knows how important that facility is to Otago and Southland to sign it. I urge them to go and visit the website which is www.saveinvermay.co.nz. Is that right? That is right. I urge people to go to that website and to sign that petition.The number of young people out of work in our city is one of the highest in the country. A report in 2012 had it at 34 percent. Everyone knows that this is a huge issue but what does Paula Bennett do? She shuts down the only teen parent course in the city which offers National Certificate of Educational Achievement credits and much-needed second-chance training for teen mums who have no confidence no skills and now no hope. We have got a pressure cooker situation building in Otago and Southland health services with work pressure from funding cuts and a growing climate of fear in the sector. We are seeing surgeons speaking out against the unacceptable situation for many people needing surgery who are being bumped off waiting lists and put on Active Review which delays their surgery indefinitely. Health professionals are under huge pressure due to inadequate funding and some fear retribution if they report mistakes which means that adverse events in the sector are not being reported and our standards of care are slipping.There are suburbs in Dunedin such as Corstorphine with zero or inadequate access to any health services. We are seeing more and more services such as breast screening fertility services and home support being contracted out to organisations with no local knowledge and for whom profit is the primary driver. Mental health hospital care is being halved with inadequate community care available. I and my Dunedin North colleague David Clark will hold a public meeting on Friday 28 February at Dunedin Hospital led by our very able health spokesperson the Hon Annette King to seek public input into the health service crisis in our region. The underlying causes and possible solutions must be addressed now before things get any worse.This Government does not care about our regions. It does not care about those who are struggling to pay their bills. Many of these people have jobs or had jobs until they were made redundant because of this Government’s policies. They are the struggling middle as well as the lower-income people and this Government has deserted them. This Government is arrogant it is out of touch and it is for the few at the top. It has stopped listening to New Zealanders and is continuing to look after itself and the privileged few at the expense of Kiwis. This Government will ensure that any economic recovery will benefit only the top few. We stand for opportunity for every New Zealander regardless of their background their income or where they live.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I would really like to stand up and support the Prime Minister’s statement for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is this: it annoyed the Labour Party so much and it also annoyed the Greens so much. That is a reason to support it in the first place.Let us start by talking about why we should support it. The economy has grown by 3.5 percent from September 2012 to September 2013 and has been forecast to continue to grow in that light. When you compare that with what is happening internationally it is now being described as an economy that other people should take note of. You need to ask the question why that might be. There have been 66000 new jobs. More people are employed now than there were. The growth in young employment that is thosewho are either studying or in some kind of educational activity or in employment is 89 percent. That is an amazing increase from where it was.When you start asking the question why all of these things are happening you start to look at what the drivers are in the economy. Obviously in Taranaki where I come from the Taranaki - King Country electorate things like energy have had enormous growth in the life of this Government—in the very recent life of this Government I would have to add if you take the kind of gestation period these kinds of industries need to get going and start to get established. When you look at what an alternative Government might look like it is a Government that would put a handbrake on all of these developments. It would bring all of these developments to their knees.I know that colleagues in the House will not be surprised by the fact that I am now going to mention the primary sector. If you look at the biggest driver of the New Zealand economy now and into the future you will find that it is the primary sector. I know that surprises the Labour Party and certainly surprises the Green Party. In fact they go almost into meltdown when they learn that when they hear that. The fact is that the growth in the New Zealand economy now and some time into the future will most likely come from the primary sector and in particular the dairy industry which is the biggest part of it.What have our opponents had to say about these sectors? What are the comments from the Labour-Green Opposition? Well they have said that the sector is based on bulk commodities that they export in huge volumes with no added value and very very poor investment in manufacturing. How wrong could you be? The comment they add to that the one they continually add to that is that it is at the expense of the environment—it is at the expense of the environment. So let us run through those boxes because perception can often be greater than fact.The perception of course is that the Green Party is made up of a bunch of hippies who smoke marijuana wear sandals and are sackcloth-wearing morris dancers. Most of us know that is not actually true. There is at least 1 percent of them—at least 1 percent of them—who do not fit into that category. I mean they may wear jackets but they do not wear sandals—1 percent of them. They certainly wear jackets but not sandals. So the perception of the Green Party is actually not right. In fact when you look the supporters of the Green Party you will find that a lot of them are urban professionals. One of the real ironies I guess of the Green Party is that the members themselves come from urban New Zealand. Most Green Party members come from urban New Zealand. They do not come from rural New Zealand; they come from urban New Zealand.The Green Party perpetuates the rant that the agricultural sector is a sunset industry and will not have a future going forward. How wrong is that? When you look at the amount of investment in manufacturing in New Zealand you find that actually the biggest investment in recent times has been a new powder plant a new development in Darfield in Canterbury—a big powder plant built by the dairy industry. It is not producing bulk commodities as the Opposition would have us believe. It is producing very sophisticated food ingredients and sometimes nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals at the very high end of the production chain.Let us have a look at what the Green Party also says. There is an old saying that has been around for a long long time and it goes “Physician heal thyself.” The Green Party members live in urban New Zealand and we know that some of the most polluted waterways in the country are in urban New Zealand. We know that; the science backs that up. The facts are that that is the case. So why do they not start at their own back door? Actually I know one or two greenies who do not even recycle. How bad is that? They do not recycle. So the reality is: go and fix your own backyard before you marginalise and pick on what is a minority group—that is the agricultural sector—inthe way that you do and totally denigrate them in the way that you do because you are factually wrong and it is time someone challenged you over it.Let us have a look at the combination of the Green-Labour Opposition and what it would do if it were in power. Well the first thing it would do is introduce a capital gains tax. The Opposition members have told us that. They have said that they are going to do that. The second thing is a methane emissions tax. The third thing is a higher personal tax. The fourth thing is a higher company tax. The fifth thing they will do is they are going to reverse the 90-day trial period on employment. Then they are going to put in place restrictions on nitrogen use. Then they are going to put in place restrictions on water use.Iain Lees-Galloway: He’s making it up as he goes along.SHANE ARDERN: No no. All of these things are absolutely what the Labour-Green Opposition has said over the last 3 years that it intends to do. It will do that.Let us have a look at what the flow-on effects of that will be. The flow-on effects of that will be that those young aspirational want to be average New Zealand dairy farmers will not achieve their goal. They will not get there. And if they do not get there then what happens? What happens then? What happens if they do not achieve their goal? What happens then? First of all the economy starts to fail. Secondly what you end up with is overseas corporates that are more interested in buying New Zealand land because young New Zealanders cannot compete with them. So what is going to be the response from the Opposition to that? What is it going to do about that? What will its policy be?Let us come back to what this Government has done. What this Government is doing is actually making that dream much more of a reality. So the young people who are aspirational and who are coming through these industries—and these people are not unique to dairy; they could be from any one of the primary sector industries such as wine horticulture viticulture or meat and wool—can now see an opportunity and a pathway to achieve their goal which is to own the average New Zealand farm or business as it may be.What would our opponents do about those people? The first thing they would say to them is that to have the $4.5 million that they must have to be able to get a 50 percent equity basis in the average New Zealand dairy farm which now costs $9 million they are going to tax those people. They say that those people are greedy capitalists. They will do what they can to put as many hurdles as they can in those people’s way. In doing that the Opposition will achieve the exact opposite of what they hope to achieve which is economic growth for the low socio-economic areas of New Zealand because the only way you can lift low socio-economic areas out of poverty and do those things that the Green Party and the Labour Party campaign on all the time is to have an economy that can sustain jobs growth and opportunities for those people. That is something the Opposition Labour Party cannot and has never been able to understand. That is without jobs through growth business investment and opportunity you will never achieve your goal.The real irony of that is that the environment ultimately suffers as well because without money you do not get investment in environmental outcomes such as the riparian margin planting that is going on in Taranaki and such as the science and investment that is now going into our global alliances—greenhouse gas emission alliances etc. That kind of investment dries up as well. That type of philanthropic activity that goes on in society does not exist and you get environmental degradation as well. So what we have is a black and white comparison this time round—that is growth prosperity jobs progress and good environmental outcomes versus deterioration in everything.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to talk on the Prime Minister’s statement. I say to the member Shane Ardern who has just resumed his seat: I wonder whether these jobs that he talks about which this great National Government has produced include the 120 jobs that are going in a few weeks’ time out of Fitzroy Yachts in New Plymouth or the 125 jobs going from Goodman Fielder in Hamilton just last week or the 19 heavy engineering jobs also going from New Plymouth announced just 2 weeks ago or the dozens of subcontractors who have lost work because of the collapse of Abode Design and Build in New Plymouth just a couple of weeks ago as well. What a great record this Government has shown in Taranaki—what a great record!That member is partly from Taranaki—Taranaki - King Country. I have to say that that speech is the most statistic-ridden and energetic speech that I have seen that member give. I have to say that it is a great disappointment that at the tail end of his career—the twilight end of his career or I would say at the very rainy dusk of his career—he should give a speech like that and illuminate us all with just his talents. What a pity that this House is going to lose them and what a pity for the people of Taranaki - King Country. Perhaps he will make way for someone who understands what the modern economy looks like and what the future of jobs needs to look like—high-value production high-value jobs highly skilled—all of the things that this country needs and that this Government is failing to deliver on. Since 1 January this year this Government has been desperate to convince New Zealanders that it is all right here. New Zealanders know because they are living it that it is not.I can tell you now that people in Taranaki have been shaken to the core by what has happened in the last few weeks in their fair region. They cannot understand why with a Government that has boasted great economic growth—creating so many jobs lifting the wages so finely—suddenly all of them are losing it. They cannot understand what has gone so wrong. Well we know—we know. They are learning very quickly not to listen to what members of this Government have to say. They are looking at the facts. They are looking at what is actually happening. They are looking at their lives and are seeing that it ain’t that flash after all. The truth is that New Zealanders are in a desperate search for their fair share because they ain’t getting it. They have not had it for some time and they are wondering where it is going to come from. It is not going to come from this Government.This National Government talks about the wealth it has generated and the growth that it has encouraged but it does not see the lives that people are actually living. They are the people who are losing their jobs at the moment—good jobs well-paid jobs and jobs in the very enterprises and industries that we actually need more of. The Government can harp on about the wonders of farming and the great work that the farming community does but that is an industry that actually demonstrates what we can achieve but need to do elsewhere. The Government has lifted productivity but it has not shared it with the workforce I might add. It has not shared it evenly with the workforce in that industry. It has lifted productivity but that is not going to be enough to pay the bills that this country faces well into the future. That is why the Labour Party is the only party talking about real investment in the next phase of economic development in this country. It is long overdue—it is long overdue.Ever since the start of this year we have had a National Government desperate to persuade New Zealanders trying to convince New Zealanders that wages have been going up that you know we have this outbreak of egalitarianism from this Government—Yeah right—and that public debt is under control. Definitely not. The Government has spent the last 6 years convincing New Zealanders that even on the back of a worldwide recession the decline in interest rates is all its work. But you watch when they start going up. You watch from March this year when those interest ratesstart their gradual upwards climb the Government will not be talking about what it has done; it will be going back to the Government of 6 years ago and blaming it all on it because this Government cannot face facts. This Government does not face reality. It cannot look New Zealanders in the eye and say “Actually you know what? Our economic programme? We’ve got it wrong. It’s unbalanced. Not everybody is sharing in the gains that we’ve made. Not everybody is getting their fair share. We are getting an unbalanced economy and because of the Government’s level of borrowing interest rates are going to go up.”Those members know it which is why they all look down at their iPods and iPads because they do not want to face the truth and they do not want to look New Zealanders in the eye and say “We did this. We have suppressed your wages. We are going to make life harder for you by the end of this year because your interest rates on your mortgage are about to go up.” They will not tell New Zealanders that and they will not tell them that the Government is to blame. The Government is living in a fantasyland. It is living inAlice in Wonderland.The truth is this: every independent statistic tells you that wages in this country for most people are stagnant or barely moving. You have only got to look at the labour cost index which shows that it has barely moved. It has moved in sync with price inflation. I will tell you what the other triangulation point is: it is the census data that came out last week. That is the biggest data set you can imagine. That has also shown that although inflation has gone up by about 1.6 percent in the last year wages have moved the same way.Here is the contradiction that the National Government faces. Having convinced everybody that average wages are going up and we are all living a life of great riches Bill English 2 weeks ago said it was time for employers to put wages up. But why if we are enjoying these bounteous wage increases under this Government would the Minister of Finance be urging employers to put wages up? Because the truth is that he knows. He has seen the figures and he knows they have not been going up.The sad thing for this National Government and why it is so out of touch is that it knows that its bedfellows in the rest of the community do not agree with it. So within a day of Bill English saying—urging employers begging them—“Please lift wages. We’ve got an election to fight this year and far too many New Zealanders know they cannot get ahead under this Government. Please put wages up.” what did the business community say? What did they say? Our dear old friend Michael Barnett chief executive of the Auckland chamber of commerce said: “I think it’s a nice sentiment from a politician that there is probably going to be room for pay increases but that’s going to be the role of the employer.” He was very clear: “Don’t come to us asking for pay increases. We’ll decide.” They know they can do that. They know they can do that because this command-and-control Government knows that the bosses in this country hold the whip hand. They decide. So it did not stop Michael Barnett oh no.The other great National Party friend the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern)—that would be my good friend Kim Campbell. He was a good employer in his day. He is now the chief executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern). He came out and said: “Oh. The labour market is starting to have movement but it’s still a long way from being red hot. It’s still a long way from being red hot. And in terms of wage rises you’ve got to get productivity to match the wage gains.”Here is the message to employers in New Zealand: we have had productivity gains in this country for the last 20 years. Productivity has gone up 50 percent. Wages have barely moved as a consequence. And actually the productivity gains have all been captured by business owners and barely passed on to workers. That has got to changebecause we are out of balance and we are out of sync and something needs to change. Something needs to change—Iain Lees-Galloway: You need to get out more Shane.ANDREW LITTLE: Something needs to change and if there is anybody who needs to get out more it is not the Salvation Army. The problem with the Salvation Army is that of course it does not set up its soup kitchens in Parnell or in Fendalton or in Ilam—Mike Sabin: Or Herne Bay.ANDREW LITTLE: Or in the wealthy areas occupied by National Party MPs. The Salvation Army is there with the people who are doing it hard. It is there on the streets with people who are doing it real hard. So John Key might not have seen the Salvation Army caravan but there are people who are dependent on it and the Salvation Army has confirmed that the number of people drawing on its food banks has risen. I know from getting around the food banks in Taranaki at the end of last year that they could not explain why the number of food parcels they are handing out has gone up. They could not explain it because all the messages they heard were that things have got better.This Government has run out of time and run out of ideas and it is time for a change. Those members arrogantly parade around saying that things are good but real working people know that it is not. It is time for a change and that change is coming. It is time for New Zealanders. They know they are on board they want to see something different and they want to share in the wealth and the gains that they know this great country can deliver.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I am delighted to speak today on the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament. Today I could talk to you about the Government’s expert management of the economy and how John Key and Bill English together through economic smarts and hard work have successfully guided this country through the toughest economic times safely and well. But everyone knows that. National is known and respected for its ability to manage our resources and to look after our economic interests.Less well known but equally as important to all New Zealanders is National’s ability to manage our natural resources and to look after our environmental interests and we are doing that equally as well as we have managed the economy in the last 5 years. The Prime Minister and the National Government have faced up to our environmental challenges just as they have faced up to our economic ones. We are making real progress in cleaning up New Zealand’s environmental act. Our country is far better now economically and environmentally than it was when we took it over 5 years ago.All New Zealanders closely identify with the natural environment and the National Government understands that the emotional and economic well-being of New Zealand is absolutely predicated on our clean green natural environment. That is the conviction that underpins the Bluegreens philosophy. I quote the Prime Minister who says: “Bluegreens are part of a new generation of thinkers who believe that successful economic and environmental policy can and must go hand in hand in order to provide a cleaner greener brighter future for all New Zealanders.” Nobody can argue with that.To prove that this National Government is working hard and smart on environmental issues here are our top 10 environmental achievements from the last 5 years. No. 1 is water. It is New Zealand’s biggest challenge and the National Government is up for it. Managing water well is a long-term commitment and we have started by investing in clean-ups from the past. Over $450 million is going out to clean up our iconic waterways and to introduce a legislative framework for the future. As environmental commentator Rod Oram explains New Zealand is on the verge of a historicalbreakthrough in freshwater management because of a fundamental shift in the understanding the principles and the practices by farmers by other water users and by this Government with the setting of bottom lines on water quality allocation and nutrient levels in every river in New Zealand. It is true.The combination of the Land and Water Forum the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the new National Objectives Framework on freshwater provides for the very first time a methodology to improve our water management our water allocation and the water quality in our rivers and streams and that is real progress. We know it will take time but the stakeholders are working together and that is going to be a process that works.No. 2 is climate change. The other huge global environmental challenge is climate change and as a small country far away from the rest of the world we are responding to that challenge in an innovative and nimble way. Yes we have our emissions trading scheme but we are also cutting emissions in very practical ways. For example we are promoting very successfully renewable energy in all its forms—wind solar geothermal. For example Genesis is no longer generating energy using fossil fuels. Our level of renewable energy generation is the highest it has ever been.We have also invested in the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme. That is a scheme that has insulated 235000 private homes. We are now completing the project for 69000 State houses. Insulation of course reduces demand for energy and it cuts emissions and pollution as well as improving the health of thousands of New Zealanders so the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme has huge benefits.But where we can make our greatest contribution to climate change where we can really punch above our weight is in the role that we are playing globally in climate change science policy and aid. Through our leadership in the Global Research Alliance the work of the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and the Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Plan of Action we are developing innovative and technical solutions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture which can be applied worldwide.We have invested $80 million in our Pacific neighbours to help them develop sustainable technologies to adapt to climate change. Finally we have taken a valuable lead role in international negotiations to cut subsidies on oil and to achieve a global binding agreement to cut emissions. All in all it is a pretty good contribution from a small country like ours.No. 3 is air quality. As everything is linked in the environment our focus on renewables plus new emission rules and pollution regulations has meant that New Zealand has now got the cleanest air on record.No. 4 is the Environmental Protection Authority. Looking to create a sustainable future we have created new institutions to regulate and protect the environment. The Environmental Protection Authority was established in 2011 as an environmental regulator and watchdog and it is doing a great job.No. 5 is protecting our oceans. Our oceans are the last of the untamed frontiers. Until we passed the exclusive economic zone legislation last year there were absolutely no rules to protect the marine environment. Now all activities need to comply with the regulatory framework. The exclusive economic zone legislation means that any kind of exploration or production has to go through international standards. Believe it or not although we had no legislation and no rules before this bill Labour and the Greens voted against it. The National Party understands that there are people who are concerned about the impacts of oil and gas exploration and production but now because of the exclusive economic zone legislation for the very first time in history the industry isrequired to meet international best practice standards to operate safely and to take care of the marine environment.We have increased protection in our very special marine areas. National has always been interested in marine protection. We passed the very first marine reserves legislation and created the first marine reserve back in the 1970s. Last night we passed the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserves Bill which now means that a huge area 9.7 percent of our territorial waters has no-take marine reserve protection.No. 6 is expanding the conservation estate. We have invested in the conservation estate. We have added another 12400 hectares to schedule 4 which contains our highest conservation areas and 36000 hectares is under the protection of the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust. We have created a new conservation park for Auckland on Great Barrier Island and are working towards a new kauri national park in Northland’s Waipoua Forest.No. 7—we are battling for our birds. We have just begun the biggest and most ambitious pest eradication project in our history. We are committed to destroying the rats mice stoats and possums that are killing our birds and we are absolutely focused on protecting our most beloved and endangered species: the kiwi the kākā the kea and the mohua. Thank you.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): Kia ora. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to see you again Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Can I just take this opportunity to wish you all the best in your life and career ahead of this place and thank you for the service that you have provided to New Zealand in your role.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Kei te pai.MIKE SABIN: Now that I have got that out of the way I will move on. I am not going to give out too many bouquets.I am very happy to stand here as a National member of Government to support the Prime Minister’s statement and his motion.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Where did you get that tie from?MIKE SABIN: Mr Cosgrove my tie is a stunning ensemble as opposed to—what is that? Is that a dark blue tie? Yes it is almost a National-blue tie Mr Cosgrove. Thank you.The last 5 years have been very very challenging years for New Zealand. I think that there has been a very significant change in the fiscal landscape and the political landscape in New Zealand. I would like to inform members as to why. Obviously the global financial crisis is something that we really have not seen in generations. It is a landmark event in terms of the global economy and the global economy is still struggling with the implications of the global financial crisis.The Canterbury earthquakes made a significant dent in New Zealand’s GDP. We have seen some significant challenges as a result of that particular event. Interestingly enough the Labour Party did not want to know about it a couple of years back but now that there is starting to be growth and industry generated out of the rebuild suddenly it is all because of the Canterbury earthquakes. So we can take it on the one hand but not on the other—but we are used to that with the Labour Party.The National Government has been totally focused over this time on re-engineering the New Zealand economy not only to deal with those two significant fiscal events—very very challenging events—but to ensure that we have a disciplined structured process and a programme of policy to ensure that we invest for growth while getting debt under control and ensuring that we get absolute best value for services. This is because this Government ultimately is spending taxpayers’ money and unlike the Greens we understand that there is not a magic ATM somewhere that just prints out dollar bills.We have responsibly managed this economy and we will be back in surplus. Budget 2014 will be a significant landmark of the tenure of this National Government. We are building a more competitive and productive economy. The New Zealand economy is now recognised as a global standout. We know that because the Opposition is no longer talking about the manufacturing crisis or what have you. The reason it is not doing that is that the economy is performing—a 20-year high in terms of business confidence. So now Labour is talking about: “Oh it is all for their mates and there’s nothing for the poor and those who are more challenged.” It is that same old Labour rhetoric.Unemployment is tracking down. There are 66000 people in employment now who were not in employment 12 months ago. There is a 6 percent unemployment rate and it is tracking downward. The member to my left Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has led so valiantly some of the most significant changes in welfare since welfare was introduced and it has happened virtually without a splash. I want to commend the member for his leadership in that.We have been rebuilding Christchurch. Is it not a pleasure to see the activity the opportunity and the excitement down there after the very very challenging times that the Canterbury community have had? Can I commend Gerry Brownlee and the other Ministers and members of Parliament down there—Nicky Wagner and co.—who have done such an outstanding job for that part of New Zealand.We are ensuring that better public services exist in this country. Reported crime is at a 30-year low. I mean that is just an unprecedented result in times when financially things have been such a challenge. We see more elective surgery. We see people in cancer treatment far faster. Right across the spectrum of our Government departments what we see is greater efficiency because this Government has set targets and expectations. What we know when we set targets and expectations and we demand some accountability is that we get results and that is exactly what we are getting. I want to commend those Government departments and their employees for the hard work that they have done for a number of years now which is starting to deliver results across all areas of Government.We have been a very very disciplined Government and we have stuck religiously to those four core priorities. The recovery is happening and it is well on the way. The economy is well advanced in growth as quarter upon quarter results have shown but it is a fragile recovery. That is something that I think New Zealanders get. They understand. They understand that actually what was acceptable 10 years ago no longer fits in the New Zealand economic environment—from a family point of view from a Government point of view and from a business point of view. There has been a shift in people’s thinking. The Labour Party has not woken up to that.But one of the fundamental things and the difference between this Government and Labour and the Opposition parties which would like to be in this position is credibility and that is not something that is issued on a business card. You know you cannot just—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh this’ll be good.MIKE SABIN: That is right Mr Cosgrove listen up—listen up Mr Cosgrove. Credibility cannot be just issued on a business card. Credibility comes about because people know what they are doing. They do what they know and they do what they say. Credibility comes as a result of a reciprocal relationship between those who lead and those who follow because credibility can be given only by the followers. It can be given only by the followers.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: “Willing buyer willing seller”—that’s what Peter Dunne said.MIKE SABIN: Of course that party would know all about the lack of credibility in terms of their leader and following because only one-third of that caucus supports thecurrent leader. We know that. But credibility is a reciprocal arrangement—a reciprocal relationship—and it can be given only by the follower. But for the follower to give that they have to have belief that the leader can do what they say and say what they do and that is where David Cunliffe has a major problem. Sir Peter Blake really summed it up when he talked about leadership. He said: “Having vision is not enough. Change comes through realising the vision and turning it into a reality.” It is easy to espouse worthy goals values and policies; the hard part is the implementation. Implementation is very hard when only a third of your caucus supports you and the public actually know that.When people cannot trust what people are saying that also erodes any hope of credibility. We have seen that today in the most glaring example of why all New Zealanders should be worried about a Labour-Greens Government. We have seen that in the form of the Best Start policy or what has now become known as the “Worst Start” policy. David Cunliffe either did not know his figures or wanted to fudge them. He then turned round and blamed his staff for what was being said and then eventually when he realised that there was no other way it was a mea culpa and he fell on his sword. But by then the damage was done.Another layer to eroding that credibility comes with how David Cunliffe intended to pay for it. He said: “Oh well we’ll get rid of that idea of taking GST off fruit and vegetables. We won’t do that. By crikey look at that! We’ve saved ourselves $1 billion or $2 billion and we’ll take that $1 billion or $2 billion and we’ll use that to do the good old Labour bribing for the election coming up.” as those members have become so accustomed to doing. But that is like me walking into a car dealership and saying “Do you know what? I want to buy that Ferrari.” and then having a second thought and thinking “No I am more of a Holden man. No I won’t buy that Ferrari. Goodness me I’ve now got $250000 in my pocket.” Hello? Does anyone else see anything wrong with that?Credibility is an enormous issue for David Cunliffe and the issue is what happens when David Cunliffe is gone. He is hanging on and he will say and do whatever he has to do including hauling waka Robinson Crusoe - like from the shores of Waitangi in the pouring rain. It just happens to be a nice photo opportunity there of course. He will do whatever it takes. He will sing preacher-like from the top of a bus because he knows that if he loses this election—or when he loses this election—he is gone and Trevor Mallard is promoted back to his rightful place as Parliament’s troublemaker.So he will do and say whatever he needs to do and that includes doing a deal with those guys over there the Green Party. Steffan Browning should be paying attention because that guy wants to destroy the New Zealand agricultural sector. This is the first time in New Zealand’s history when what we actually see is not a case of either a Labour Government or a National Government as most people perceive it. Coalition agreements and MMP is a difficult and unstable form of Government in my view. What they see is a deal that has been cut to give one-third or a proportionate share of Cabinet seats to the Green Party. For the first time in this country’s history if that were to be the case what we would see is a Green Party that would be the tail wagging the dog. It would be. And if anyone wants to know what sort of danger that presents have a look at what happened in Australia. I can see from the look on Mr Cosgrove’s face that when you lie down with dogs you are going to get fleas. Boy that is going to get real itchy and the New Zealand public know that.Credibility is fundamental but what they know is that here they have stability and they have people who have proven their way and who have served us through the toughest times that this country has known in generations. On the other side they see people who will do anything to get power and say anything—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): On this side of the House we cannot have any confidence in a Government that favours the few we cannot have any confidence in a Government that is out of touch and we cannot have any confidence in a Government that is so arrogant that it does not listen to the people.This morning the Salvation Army released its state of the nation report and there was a lot more reality in that state of the nation report than we have had in the Prime Minister’s state of the nation speech. There was a lot more reality about what is happening in New Zealanders’ lives in that report than the Prime Minister has any knowledge of at all. In that report the Prime Minister was given a D for efforts on child poverty. He was also given a D for housing affordability but I will come back to that one shortly. The D for efforts on child poverty is an indictment on this Government’s policies and on where it has been going for the last 5 years. When the Government looks after only the few at the top and still continues to believe in that old discredited outdated irrelevant trickle-down theory which never worked in the first place then its only possible mark is a D—is a failure. For those who do not remember what a D stood for it was an epic fail in anybody’s terms. That is how the Salvation Army rated this Government for its efforts on child poverty. So that is what the people of New Zealand are looking at right now.The Salvation Army sent a very clear message to all political parties. It said that bold policies are needed to address child poverty; to address things that come out of that that are related to it such as domestic violence and violent crime; and also to address housing. Bold policies are required and we see none of that coming out of the Government. If the economy is improving as the Government would have us believe how is it that there are so many people so many families locked out of any of the benefits or potential benefits of that improvement? How is it that there are so many people who are feeling that they are locked out of a fair and a just society?I would like to pick up on some of the Salvation Army’s work as it relates to Nelson where I live and work. Major Jill Knight who is the head of the Salvation Army in Nelson and who was the one who fronted the Salvation Army’s state of the nation report in Nelson said that more was needed to be done to combat problems such as child poverty. She said that “Stresses from low wages and seasonal work can lead to domestic violence and child poverty” and others agreed with her. This was the front-page story on theNelson Mailtoday. This was the front-page story.The Government is so out of touch that its member for Nelson has no idea of the level of poverty the level of deprivation that exists in Nelson. Everybody thinks that Nelson is a wonderful place to live in and so it is—and so it is. But it is a hard place to survive in. It is a hard place to survive in because it has that double whammy of low seasonal wages and extremely high house prices because of its desirability because of its physical environment. Yet it is incredibly difficult for young families to get by in Nelson.The common claim about Nelson is that it lives on sunshine wages. There are two definitions of sunshine wages. One is that low wages plus sunshine are meant to be the things that help you get by. So it does not matter that people earn low wages; they have the sunshine to compensate. That is one interpretation. The realistic interpretation however is that because of the seasonal work in many instances people can work only when the sun shines. They do not get paid for the days when it rains and they cannot get out they cannot harvest the crops and they cannot contribute to the primary production for which the Nelson region is famous. So seasonal work and sunshine wages mean thatworkers get to make money only when the sun shines. If it rains the workers do not get paid.I just want to quote from Jill Knight who is as I say the Salvation Army Nelson Tasman Bays Community Ministries manager. She said the Salvation Army report was reflective of problems in Nelson. She said she saw people “at crisis point” and she put a lot of this down to low wages and a reliance on seasonal work. What she said was this as quoted in theNelson Mail: “Families that have regular income may be sort of okay it might be sunshine wages but it’s regular; but for seasonal work if it’s a wet day people don’t get paid and because it’s seasonal work they only earn on the day they work it’s not an easy situation”. She said most of the families they see are trying to do the right thing but they are spending more than half of their income on rent and then there is the power bill.The Prime Minister had the nerve to get up in this House today and say the Salvation Army ought to get out more. I have never heard a more arrogant dismissive statement applied to that body of people who are famous for working for the underprivileged who are the ones who unlike this Government get out and do the hard yards with the people who need assistance. This Government’s idea of assistance is money for Rio Tinto is money for Skycity and is money for Chorus. That is this Government’s idea of assistance. To get out and help the people in need it will give $30 million to Rio Tinto it will sell problem gambling and the downstream social consequences of that to Skycity and it will make sure that the ailing Chorus will roll out broadband at a price that families cannot afford—but it will make sure the company does not fall over.What happened to competition? What happened to the survival of the fittest which the National Party is so famous for representing? This Government is doing harm. Its purpose is not to do harm. Its purpose is to assist the growth and the development of this country but it is not doing that. It is locking out the majority of people—including families in Nelson who are doing it hard—from the results of any improvement in the economy locking them out of any hope for their families and locking them out of any security going forward.When the number of food parcels that are given out in the Nelson area is nearly twice as high two-thirds higher than it was before—and in fact in a 10-day period in January there were certainly some 70 food parcels given out to just over 200 people—there is something wrong in the State of New Zealand. This Government is leading the rottenness in the State of New Zealand. It has run out of ideas it has run out of energy and now it needs to be run out. Thank you.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): The previous speaker is normally really interesting to listen to and covers a fair range of topics but the conclusion of that speech was a disappointment to hear from the Hon Maryan Street. She can do so much better than that—than throwing that little bit of rhetoric around.In the Prime Minister’s state of the nation statement he stated that the Government will remain focused on the opportunities to use New Zealand’s natural resources productively while maintaining the environmental standards that preserve and enhance the quality of our environment. I would like to concentrate on that topic and the Opposition’s attitude towards the use of natural resources or its perceived attitude which could be damaging to the future of New Zealand’s economy. The oil the coal the gas and the water are mentioned. We need to earn the money that we require to progress as a nation.Mrs Thatcher once said—and it has been repeated more than once in this party—“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” and that is so true. But interestingly in this country we have one party—and I am sure it will not mind me mentioning it; indeed it will probably be pleased—that has asolution for that. The Green Party has a solution for that. The Green Party as I say is made up of nice individual MPs but it is often associated in the public perception with recreational illegal and currently unregulated drugs. It would take a leaf from the fairytale character who spun gold out of straw—spun gold out of straw—because what it intends to do would simply be to print more money.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What’s that?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well it wants to print money but there is an irony attached to that—an irony. This is a $20 note—a New Zealand $20 note. You cannot tear it in half. You cannot tear a bit off it. Why is that? It is because it is made of polymer. And if the Green Party prints more money and at the same time it restricts the use of oil and things that are used to manufacture the plastic polymers it will not have the notes to print because of its lack of support for the mining industry in New Zealand.So one does have to wonder about the raison d’être of a party that is happy to share the association with other natural resources in New Zealand—basically marijuana an underground economy that is riddled with criminality the exploitation of the vulnerable and the young the glamorisation of guns drugs and dreadlocks and the unfettered continuity of an un-taxable parasitic industry destroying the livelihood and lives of many in New Zealand neighbourhoods and communities. If that sounds a little rugged or tough I make no apology for it. I make no apology for it because the Greens have claimed that if marijuana were legalised the industry would become viable and taxable. I have had enough exposure to some of the things that Mike Sabin has experienced in his career and in his constant fight against drug use to convince me that the chances of that happening—trying to organise it on a legal basis—are pretty low.In the ongoing work of creating New Zealand’s narrative National seeks to work with resources that are already available like water minerals oil gas and precious metals. Of course like all things precious and unique these resources are often well hidden they are in fragile environments and they have been this way for a number of centuries.In an effort to release the wealth locked up in the natural currency we must seize and use the strengths of the other valuable natural resource available to us which is ourselves—ourselves. New Zealanders have a tremendous capacity and an international reputation for being problem solvers. It is almost a mythical level that they are credited with having in terms of solving problems. I guess it is a consequence of moving on from the tough and ready pioneering outlook that has carried this nation so far: making the most of what was readily available and light to carry and choosing our bravest to carry out the job with whatever protection was available. Our legislation reflects a growing maturity as we have warmed to a position as a First World country in a world desperately looking for responsible enlightened leadership and well-considered sustainable industry and that is what this Government particularly under the leadership of this Prime Minister is providing.Anyone visiting the West Coast which is something of a favourite area of mine cannot miss the memorial at the Brunner Mine where on Thursday 26 March 1896 an explosion killed all 65 miners below the ground. To deepen the tragedy the widows received no compensation and mostly had to leave town and the men were buried in a mass grave at Stillwater. I pass that on most days when I am at home. The days of old? Well the 1970s were a time when songs like Pete Seeger’s “God’s Counting on Me God’s Counting on You” using the famous lines “… drill baby drill leads to spill baby spill” were written to shine a critical light on sloppy and dangerous mining practices and the people in the mining industry also listened. Pike River where an explosion occurred on Friday 19 November 2010 when 29 men died is still in veryvery recent memory. There are many commemorative sites in Greymouth as well as continuing work to assist the families.The New Zealand mining industry has learnt from this as has the New Zealand legislature. Millions of dollars a lot of expert opinion as well as research and experience from overseas have created an industry that is self-aware self-motivated well regulated and ready to earn for New Zealand. It is an industry that we can be well proud of—worth $1.1 billion of mineral exports according to the Government’sPetroleum and Minerals Sector Report 2013. There are 8000 direct and indirect jobs in the mineral industry as quoted in the 2011 reports of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Business and Economic Research Ltd. The minerals industry believes that if properly encouraged and managed growth in the New Zealand minerals sector could treble in on-the-ground investment and output over time. The average wage for a miner is $105000 which is around double the national average wage—that is also from the sector report. Mining is therefore a good job to have. All the figures have come from the appropriate bodies that have these figures available.Mining supports regions. For example mining on the West Coast earns around one-third of the region’s household income off a footprint of—wait for it—14 square kilometres as compared with the total area of the region of 23000 square kilometres. Therefore mining earns a very high wealth off a very small footprint. No other land use in New Zealand earns anywhere near that amount—none. OceanaGold has calculated that it would take 700 years of farming at Macraes Flat to earn the same wealth as that expected during the life of its East Otago goldmine. And the profits do not just go offshore. Up to 86 percent of mining output stays in New Zealand as salaries taxes rates and other charges and payments to suppliers and contractors. That figure comes from Newmont WaihīGold. The fact is that mining today is a high-tech industry employing skilled people and producing essential materials for New Zealand and overseas markets safely and responsibly.But let us examine the possibility of what might happen if we were to get a Greens-Labour Government. I cannot see how Labour can say that it would not change things. I think it would because it would have to incorporate the Greens into its mix. And good good Labour thinkers—people who have been associated with the party for a long time; I can look across the House and see some of the prominent people—would they be included? Would they be bypassed? “WWGD”—what would the Greens do? Would they be like an overly cautious curator of an art gallery or museum exhibit where they shout: “Don’t touch. Don’t change anything. Leave things for the children.”? Well to put it into a musical context as Matt Bird the underestimated musical genius and ex-Green smoker mentioned in one of his poem rhymes we are the children—we are the children. It is up to us to decide the future that our parents and grandparents bequeath to us.To conclude the thing is that the National Government has plans. We are prepared to back them with well-considered fiscal strategy; not just to spend money not just to make money and not just to try to turn everything back to a pre-currency economy. National has plans that include us the residents of these beautiful islands these jewels of the South Pacific. A Government—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to take a call in this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. It is particularly a pleasure to follow my friend and colleague Chris Auchinvole from the West Coast who is such a staunch champion and advocate for all things on the Coast including economic growth and hard work and determination. He has been and continues to be one of the Coast’s greatadvocates in this House. When he retires at the election this year we are going to miss him. So Chris it is a pleasure to follow you in this debate. He is a member who understands basic economics. He pulled out a $20 bill and for a Scotsman that can sometimes be quite an unusual thing—a $20 bill—and tried to rip it in half. I am sure he has never tried that before but it was a good thing.I rise to support the Prime Minister’s very excellent statement to Parliament from a week or two ago. As we enter this election year we on this side of the House as the Government are firmly focused on achieving a strong economy more jobs better health and education services a safer New Zealand for all New Zealanders and of course we remain completely committed to the rebuilding of Christchurch. As we enter this election year New Zealanders will be faced with a stark contrast in their decision making when it comes to the ballot. They will be making a decision as to whether they wish to continue with a National Government—whether they trust John Key to lead them again into a third term and whether they trust this National Government—or they want to put it all at risk with a type of coalition arrangement involving Labour the Greens New Zealand First Hone Harawira and Kim Dotcom. I am absolutely sure of the news that the people of Coromandel are telling me and that is that in fact they will not want to put it at risk with that hotchpotch bunch on the Opposition side because the risk is too great and it is also a risk that they will not want to take.Although I am a relatively new member in this House I have been involved and interested in politics for a very long time. I am old enough to remember being told about a fellow by the name of Bill Rowling back in 1975. At that stage there was a guy called Mike Moore who was the Labour member for Eden and I was going to school and being raised in Eden. I remember at that time my parents being involved in that election campaign and that guy Bill Rowling offered—surprise surprise—a baby-bonus bribe not at all unlike the baby-bonus bribe offered by the current leader of the Labour Party one David Cunliffe. So I am very confident that New Zealanders will not be bribed with their own money by this most recent iteration of a Labour leader just as they were not bribed by Bill Rowling.But there is one similarity which I think I would like to draw to the attention of the House between Bill Rowling’s short time in 1975 as leader of the Labour Party and the current Labour leader here in Parliament David Cunliffe. I heard a speech from my friend and colleague Jami-Lee Ross earlier today and it struck me then that Jami-Lee Ross was not born when Annette King and Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard entered this House. Jami-Lee Ross was not yet born. However there are some similarities as I say.Hon Nikki Kaye: I was one.SCOTT SIMPSON: You were one? Nikki Kaye the member for Auckland Central was aged one. But I tell you what. The similarities between Bill Rowling and David Cunliffe are these: Bill Rowling in 1975 saw and David Cunliffe in 2014 sees Annette King Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard as young up and rising stars in a future Labour Government. And now David Cunliffe wants to bring people who are entering their fourth decade of Parliament into this future—it is scary it is absolutely scary. He sees them as up-and-comers.I want to spend a minute talking about the Green Party and its current problems with being donkey deep in dodgy doings all around our mate Kim Dotcom and the Kim Dotcom mansion. I am now keen to know how many visits Russel Norman made to the Kim Dotcom mansion. He has admitted to two secret visits but he now seems to be unsure whether there were phone calls what was discussed at those meetings and who was there. What I am keen to know is whether there was some kind of discussion about campaign funding. I am keen to know whether there was some kind of discussion—well we know that there was a discussion because it is a matter of public record—aboutKim Dotcom not having a party because it is going to impact on the Green Party vote. So I want to know what else was discussed—what other dodgy dirty deals were done at the Kim Dotcom mansion?We have also heard that Winston Peters has also been a recent visitor to the Kim Dotcom mansion. He has not been answering questions about how many times he has been there but he admits that he has been there. He admits that he has been to dinner there and that he had a pleasant evening. I see that that has been confirmed on a wonderful thing called the Twittersphere this afternoon. What is also happening on the Twittersphere this afternoon is that one Jacinda Ardern seems to be very reluctant to answer questions about her involvement and connections with Kim Dotcom.Maggie Barry: I wonder why.SCOTT SIMPSON: Maggie Barry says: “I wonder why.” How many visits to the Kim Dotcom mansion has Jacinda Ardern made? How many other meetings have taken place between that front-bench Labour MP and Kim Dotcom? What was discussed? What was promised? What was offered? These are questions that the New Zealand public and this House really need answers to.Maggie Barry: Has she fronted up?SCOTT SIMPSON: No as far as I am aware Maggie Barry she has not fronted up but I am sure that she will in the fullness of time because the public wants to know the answers to those questions. As we ask questions about how many phone calls how many meetings and how many dodgy doings have been done the good people of Coromandel have had a very pleasant summer.What I have been hearing from the good people of Coromandel is that they like the new Kōpū Bridge. We no longer get news reports every Friday evening on a long weekend that traffic is building up on the Kōpū Bridge. We no longer get news reports on a Monday evening after a long weekend that traffic is building up on the Kōpū Bridge. That is largely due to the foresight imagination and hard work of this National Government. What that has done is build a bridge to a brighter future for Coromandel. I am very pleased that in the Coromandel people are reaping the rewards of it. It means a smooth summer for the literally hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who holiday in my part of the world.This summer people have also been enjoying the Hauraki Rail Trail in record numbers. Part of the New Zealand Cycle Trail the new Hauraki Rail Trail is breathing new life into places like Te Aroha Paeroa Waihī and Thames. Just last week I went to the opening of a new chalet motel accommodation facility in Te Aroha. I can assure members in the House that it has been a very long time since any new accommodation facility has been built in Te Aroha.In conclusion I just want to mention the very good work that is being done by the National Party’s justice team made up of the Minister of Justice Judith Collins; the Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson; the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley; and of course the Minister for Courts and Associate Minister of Justice Chester Borrows. This is a team that is putting order into the chaos that was the legacy Labour left behind 5 and a bit years ago. We are bringing some order to that disarray. We have got a record low level of crime. We have got a modernisation of the court system. We have got new policies that are ensuring that access to justice is open fair and easy for all New Zealanders. Ultimately the most important thing is that in our justice system—in the new justice system—victims are put first. I think that is exactly as it should be.So this year there is a stark choice for New Zealand voters. I am confident and I know that they will make the right choice and re-elect John Key and this National Government at the election this year.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): It is my privilege and honour to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. I would like to congratulate Scott Simpson the hard-working member for Coromandel on his excellent contribution. I hope that he will continue to serve this House for a long time. I begin by congratulating my Government on playing its role in ensuring that New Zealand—to borrow an analogy—is the rock star economy of the world. Can I just take this opportunity to remind my fellow parliamentarians that you do not get called a rock star economy by chance. It happens only when the people who are given the responsibility of steering the country do so responsibly and do not lose sight of their goal no matter how tough the conditions may be.We made a commitment to New Zealanders when we got re-elected in 2011. It is with a lot of pride that I can share that our Government is continuing to implement its commitment. Every day we are working to ensure that New Zealand remains a competitive economy where our incomes and our level of lifestyle rise. Unlike our friends in the Opposition we have a plan that we have seen work. We are also working tirelessly on getting the public accounts back in surplus and reducing debt. We want to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently on the services required by the taxpayers such as better healthcare facilities reduced waiting time for surgeries and more police on the roads to ensure the safety of our citizens. We are building infrastructure that contributes to the development of the New Zealand economy be it in Christchurch State highways or even ultra-fast broadband.The economy has grown at a wonderful rate of 3.5 percent which has earned New Zealand the title of rock star economy. The latest projections by Treasury advise that our country should be in surplus by next year. This is in my opinion an achievement of significance considering the projections of high debt levels given to us when we started 5 years ago. I congratulate the Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key and the Minister of Finance Bill English on their leadership in achieving this.I would like to add that the ethnic community has played a very effective role in contributing to this economy. In Manukau East most of the migrants I know are engaged in employment or are entrepreneurs. The purpose of their moving here—Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: That’s not what I heard.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I am talking of the migrants. You are not aware of those people; you are just trying to earn your own patch. The purpose of their moving to New Zealand is not to rely on the State but to work smart and hard. Ethnic communities want to ensure the economic success of themselves and their families. They also contribute to the economy by generating jobs and paying taxes.There is little surprise that the number of people moving to New Zealand continues to grow. With the growth of these numbers we can be hopeful that New Zealand will remain an attractive destination for investment tourism and the settlement of skilled migrants. This will also ensure that we can address the labour shortage in critical areas such as information technology science and research. Research from Treasury and a number of other Government agencies and private entities provides consistent evidence of the positive contribution that migrants and ethnic communities have made to the New Zealand economy. Apart from their economic contribution ethnic and migrant communities have added to New Zealand’s culture cuisine and languages. Hindi is the fourth-most spoken language in our country. We seem to enjoy more multicultural food than any other part of the world.Once again the success of all New Zealanders including the ethnic community is attributed to the policies and the programmes run by a National Government. I as a migrant thank our Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key and the Minister for Ethnic Affairs the Hon Judith Collins for their effort in promoting New Zealand tocontributing and skilled migrants. [Interruption] That is the problem “Mr Whip”. You are yawning. You are not listening to people and you are sleeping. You need to wake up—you need to wake up.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I feel duty bound to come clean. It was not the senior whip who was yawning; it was me. I was yawning at that speech.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: My apologies Mr Cosgrove. You are the one who was yawning. You need to wake up.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fairness to my colleague he is putting us all to sleep.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member keeps saying “you” which refers to the Speaker. From now on—[Interruption] All right all right—I am on my feet. I just ask the member to not bring the presiding officer into the debate.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: My apologies Mr Assistant Speaker. The Prime Minister takes time out from his busy schedule to participate in as many of the ethnic events as possible. I have accompanied him to Diwali Holi the Chinese New Year and many other celebrations. Our Minister for Ethnic Affairs has taken a number of initiatives to encourage the ethnic community of New Zealand. In 2013 her office organised the Muslim World Forum. The forum was organised for all those who have an interest in the contemporary issues relating to New Zealand’s relationship with the Muslim world and the New Zealand Muslim community. The Minister for Ethnic Affairs also organised a working group drawing together New Zealand’s corporate leaders. The purpose was to support the entrepreneurial spirit of the ethnic community the diversity of New Zealand corporations and the collaboration of some of this country’s biggest and brightest business minds. The platform’s aim is to galvanise businesses to harness the economic benefits the business gain and the GDP uplift that results from diverse leadership and diversity of thought.This National Party leadership believes in an open and transparent forum of Governments. We believe in clarity—the sharing of our vision with New Zealanders with our citizens. Our goal is to make this country a better place for New Zealand and its families. Our intention is to continue to make progress on the work and effort that we have put in during all of the past 5 years. Our leader John Key has a comprehensive policy agenda and legislative programme to share with the House at the appropriate time. Our policy agenda and legislative programme are based on our four priorities: to responsibly manage the Government’s finances; to build a more competitive and productive economy; to deliver better public services to New Zealanders; and to support the rebuild of Christchurch. The last 5 years of governance provided by National’s Government under John Key is evidence of stable leadership that has put our country on a positive trajectory. I have little doubt that we will continue to make progress and I support the Prime Minister’s statement. Thank you.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It is a great pleasure to support Prime Minister John Key’s motion that this House has confidence in the National-led Government. I have just been travelling around the wonderful electorate of Hunua doing my annual general meetings—about 14 of them—and it is a great pleasure. They are real people.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Annual visit? Once a year he visits his patch.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I am there all the time Mr Cosgrove I assure you. But the good news is this: that I am able to tell those people about the fact that economic growth under this magnificent National Government is 3.5 percent that unemployment is coming down 6 percent and going lower than that and that interest rates have been the lowest ever in the last 50 years. I must say that those hard-working people of Hunuawho work on the farms who live in the towns and hamlets of our provincial New Zealand echo their support for this National Government.But what is really important is to understand where we came from over these last 5 years because the contrast is stark. We inherited an economy from that dismal former Labour Government back in 2008 when the current account deficit was 9 percent. Today of course I am able to tell the people in the provinces that it is 4.3 percent.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Once a year you tell them.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I tell them on a weekly basis. I would tell them every day if I could Clayton Cosgrove. This man is no longer an electorate MP. We never hear from him these days let alone the people of Rangiora. Do they even know his name?The net external debt back in 2008 after that Labour Government had blown it out to 84 percent is now of course trimmed down very successfully to 71 percent. Inflation was running under Labour at 5.1 percent only 5 years ago. Now of course it is down to 1.6 percent. But more important the interest rate 5 years ago under Labour was 10.9 percent. We hear Mr Twyford over there talking about houses until his head comes off. Every New Zealander knows that interest rates are all important and that under this National Government they have come down to 5.9 percent. Food prices under Labour in the year previous to 2008 had gone up 11 percent—gone up 11 percent. In the last year food prices have gone up no more than 1.6 percent. What a huge change—what a huge change. And I can tell you that everyone in the provinces everyone in the towns and cities of New Zealand realises very much that under a National Government there has been major improvement.But let us go on. What about Government spending under Labour for those last 5 years? Government spending increased 50 percent—50 percent—and in health of course there was no extra productivity. In fact productivity had declined. Of course there was that huge increase in bureaucracy that we all know about which happened under that dismal Labour Government. Now Government spending has been very much curtailed. It is under control and of course we have a forecast of a surplus in the—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: So the first one; we had nine.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON:—2014-15 books. Clayton Cosgrove let me just remind you what Treasury was forecasting back in 2008: never-ending deficits and debt looking likely to get to 60 percent of GDP and never coming down. That Labour Government had 9 long years of profligate spending—of profligate spending.But what else am I able to tell the good people of Hunua about the recipe that Labour and the Greens would have in store for them? They of course would bring in a capital gains tax. What that would do is punish every business and every farmer in New Zealand. I can see the whites of the members’ eyes over there. They know it. They would be doing everything negative for our businesses and our farmers in New Zealand and those businesses and farmers should be very worried about the prospect of Labour and the Greens getting together. Of course they would be increasing the gap between personal income tax and company tax. Mr Brownlee is not with us today but he would tell us that a huge huge number of tax-avoiding entities mushroomed under Labour during that time. What we need in this country is a low broad-based simple tax that people can understand that has clear incentives of reward for effort. That we will get under a National Government. We will get the opposite under a dismal Labour-Green alliance.One other thing that deeply concerns the good people of Hunua is the sorts of impositions that the Labour-Green new emissions trading system would place on the businesses and the farmers of New Zealand. In Hunua our biggest single employer happens to be New Zealand Steel. It would find it extremely extremely difficult toremain viable under the Labour-Green recipe. Might I tell you it is a company that cogenerates 70 percent—Iain Lees-Galloway: Tell us about LanzaTech.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: —of its power. Yes let us talk about LanzaTech. There is a pilot programme at New Zealand Steel where it is indeed converting exhaust emissions into alcohol. This is being piloted in some of the major countries of this world including China and it has expanded to North America. This is great innovation and this is the sort of company that Labour and the Greens would gladly destroy. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You cannot say that.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Let us go back and have a look at the other plan Labour and the Greens have got—the plan to nationalise the power industry. That sends shudders up and down the spine of every businessman and farmer in this country. What is more they are planning on setting up the 97th insurer in New Zealand. They just do not understand how business works how we have to work really hard to get an efficient effective New Zealand.I would like to turn to Labour’s glorious leader—the one at the moment—Mr Cunliffe whose veracity has certainly been so deeply tested recently with the $60-a-week lolly scramble for every child. I am hugely interested in making sure that every child in New Zealand has the chance to achieve their full potential. But we in the Health Committee heard from Professor David Fergusson an expert on children and an expert on social development. What he told us was that if we put money in the hands of dysfunctional families it is likely to be totally blown unless it is very very carefully worked out how that money is to be spent. We have a Labour Government-in-waiting that is prepared to blow an untargeted half a billion dollars when it should be spending that money in a very very carefully directed manner in order to ensure that every child in New Zealand has a very good start. That was one of the saddest things I have seen at the beginning of the year coming from Mr Cunliffe.I would just like to finish this speech on a high note by talking for one moment about the wonderful achievements in health over the last 5 years. Immunisation is one of the classics. Five years ago only 67 percent of New Zealand children—2-year-olds—completed their immunisation. Today it is over 90 percent and Māori children in something like 12 district health boards have even higher rates than non-Māori. Under the National Government we have a very bright future.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): We have heard a number of speeches from our opponents such as Jami-Lee Ross Mr Auchinvole and the last one Paul Hutchison who used words like “integrity” and “respect” and who talked about what a lack of integrity and a lack of credibility others have. But it is really interesting I have got to say especially from Mr Jami-Lee Ross over there who talked about all sorts of things but forgot those two magical words “John Banks”. He forgot those two magical words “John Banks” and then the other two magical words “Peter Dunne”. They are the two piles that prop up this rotten Government—a Government and a Prime Minister who will say and do anything in order to cling to power.You have Peter Dunne who is the Maxwell Smart in intelligence and spy terms of Parliament. In fact Maxwell Smart would look a bit smarter than Mr Dunne given that if he leaked documents he would probably be able to cover his own tracks. This is a man in an indictment on Peter Dunne—[Interruption] No no this is serious. This is a man Peter Dunne who went quietly. He could not front up to the Prime Minister and went quietly. And because he went quietly by his own admission—having resigned—he admitted that he was unworthy to hold a ministerial warrant. He was unworthy and untrustworthy to hold a ministerial warrant because he resigned. Yet the Prime Ministera couple of months later when he thinks the heat is off—and we are talking about national security here. We are not talking about some peripheral offence; we are talking about breaching national security. But the Prime Minister is so desperate that he will bend any rule and break any moral authority he has because apparently Mr Dunne is now trustworthy. He is worthy to hold a ministerial warrant even though day after day in this House he cannot confirm or deny and he will not comment as to whether he was the leaker of the Kitteridge report on theGovernment Communications Security Bureau.I would have thought that in any Westminster Parliament that would be the test that would break a Minister and you would never get inside or outside a Cabinet if you could not say categorically that you had not leaked an intelligence security document to a journalist or any external person. In any other Westminster Parliament in the world I say to Mr Ross you are gone you are history you have no credibility and you have no integrity. But oh no the genius out the back of course has got amnesia.Then we move on to Mr Banks of course—the other rotten pile in this Government. Last night I saw Mr Banks supporting the tobacco lobby on the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill. I thought about this and I thought: “Let’s work this through.” Maybe if there had been a sort of political health warning on the plain brown paper bag that John Banks picked up with the cash in it that said: “This is political death to you Mr Banks. If you pick this up it is political death. This bag plain packaged as it is will be hazardous to your political health.” that might have helped old Johnny the Hon John Archibald Banks who now is facing the court after being convicted of two crimes before this—a criminal regardless—and he now goes to court for a third time. But we cannot go much into that.That Mr Ross is about integrity and credibility is it not? The two magic words “John Banks” and the two magic words “Peter Dunne”—eminent New Zealanders of course accused of exceptionally serious offences. One cannot lie straight in his bed because he cannot admit whether he did it or not but he is good enough to be in John Key’s Cabinet and the other—if you line John Banks up with Colin Craig it is lunar and lunatic. The mad the bad and the sad—that is what National relies on to prop up this Government. So let us not have any high-handed lectures from that mob over there about credibility and integrity Mr Ross unless you are prepared to get up and formally give us your opinion of your Cabinet colleagues Mr Banks and Mr Dunne.Jami-Lee Ross: Ask Mr Russel Norman.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE:Ask Mr Dunne Mr Ross whether he did it or not. Did he do it or not? The man talks about corruption. That is a very very heavy word—a very very heavy word—to level in this House me old mate. Maybe you should go and ask John Banks about corruption and ask him why he is facing court action and then come back and give us a wee lecture young man about integrity and credibility because your Government that Government and the Prime Minister stand accused of being propped up by rotten piles.Then of course these guys talk about potential coalition partners on our side. Well I have got to tell you when I was overseas at Christmas I went to a place called Cape Canaveral. I did. I went there not because I believe that the earth is flat or round or whatever as Mr Craig was asked by Mary Wilson. He was asked that onRadio New Zealand National. I never thought I would hear a prospective politician have the indignity of having to face that question. Mary Wilson asked Mr Craig: “Do you believe that the world is round?” and he hesitated. He hesitated. I have got to say that that is a cracker going beyond of course the fact—I will have to pick this up after tea of course—that the man actually questions the moon landing. But after the dinner break I will present evidence that may help him.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Before we rose for the dinner break I was recounting the wonderful speeches from certain members. They were interesting speeches in which National Party members talked about the credibility and integrity of their Government. I was rehearsing the fact that this Government is now propped up of course by two rotten piles: John Archibald Banks twice convicted in a court of law and up for a third strike; and of course the Maxwell Smart of Parliament who outsmarted himself Peter Dunne who cannot confirm whether or not he leaked national security secrets to a Fairfax journalist and who now resides back in Cabinet.Where I think I concluded just before the dinner break was saying that of course there has been a lot of talk about coalition partners and their veracity or lack of it. I have got to say that on a recent trip to the States I went to Cape Canaveral—I did. I have got to tell you that it is a very interesting place. I saw a number of the Apollo spacecrafts. I saw the space shuttle. I even saw the piece of kit that they are now putting together to head to Mars. I say to that Conservative Party leader and prospective coalition leader who is galvanised and pot-riveted to the National Party Colin Craig: “You’ve got to go there.” It reinforces that the moon landing did indeed take place.Hon Ruth Dyson: Did you see if he was there?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No he was not there but there was an astronaut there who was talking to some kids who did verify it. So I say to Colin Craig: “If you’re out there take a trip. Go and have a look.” He said you need evidence. This is the man who says he does not believe in unisex toilets—which begs the question around what one does at home—vapour trails and other conspiracies that are happening. This is the person of course whom the National Party has wrapped its arms round—a great person of credibility and integrity I would have thought. As I said before the dinner break he is the only politician or prospective politician in New Zealand whom Mary Wilson actually had to ask on national radio onCheckpoint: “Do you believe the Earth is round?”. Mr Craig hesitated.So this is the sort of quality human being whom this National Party has wrapped its arms round along with the two rotten rotting insect-ridden—in political terms—piles or apples that reside down the other end of the Chamber Mr Dunne and John Archibald Banks. So I do not want to hear any more lectures from that side about credibility and integrity because day after day in this House there will be questions to that Prime Minister. For instance Mr Dunne went quietly and resigned and by his own admission believed that he was unworthy and untrustworthy to hold a ministerial warrant but now the Prime Minister believes he is trustworthy but has failed to ask for an explanation as to why he leaked national security documents. Did he do it or did he not? The moral height bar for getting into Cabinet from the Prime Minister’s point of view is: “Don’t tell me whether you did it or not. I’ll just see no evil hear no evil and you’re back in.” Why? Because there is another little deal to save his political scalp and Mr Dunne’s in Ōhariu.I have got to say that when it comes to integrity and credibility those men and women over there take the biscuit whether it be the deal with Rio Tinto whether it be the deal with the casino whether it be ignoring in an arrogant way people in respect of the asset sales referendum or whether it be—as Maryan Street said tonight before the dinner break—the Prime Minister telling the Salvation Army basically that it should get a life get around a bit and see what is happening in the real world. I would bet London to a brick that the Salvation Army and Campbell Roberts the good people in that organisation who I think for beyond a century have been doing good work in the welfare area would be far more in touch with people than this Prime Minister. Let ushear another speech about credibility and integrity and the next one should talk about “Brown Bag Banks” and Peter Dunne.IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I was going to start off talking about credibility and integrity but the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove has done it for us. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak tonight on the good news of the state of our nation. But first and foremost I am here tonight to speak in support of our Prime Minister’s statement in which he outlined the great performance of this Government to date. He cemented National’s intention as we lead up to the next election. This is a Government of aspiration independence and inspiration and I could add integrity and credibility as well. All we do and all we have attempted to do in the time we have been in Government is aimed at giving people the opportunity to grow and thrive and giving our economy the opportunity to grow and thrive. Over there is a gaggle of people whose policies create dependence stifle growth in the private sector and in the case of the Greens stop everything.One of the great achievements of this Government has been the ability to reprioritise Government spending under that outstanding Treasurer Bill English dramatically changing the trends of gross expenditure and ineffective public services promulgated under the Labour Government of Helen Clark. It has worked. We have been able to re-incentivise business education Government services and our producers to the extent that we are now seeing more jobs created daily more houses built than for many years a health system that is catering for more and more people on a daily basis—better than ever before in fact—and more exports leaving these shores than ever before. This has all been made possible by the Business Growth Agenda of this Government.I will detail a few of these initiatives that have had a particular impact in the Rangitīkei. The promotion of our export markets since we have built a more competitive and productive economy the development of free-trade agreements and the potential for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and those types of agreements have certainly incentivised the producers of my electorate to perform to new levels of effectiveness. Farmers have new levels of confidence in the future and enthusiasm for now with intentions of improving environmental systems and sustaining productive systems that have never been stronger. We have an opportunity because of the activities of this Government to lead the world again in this field. This is something we have struggled with.I want to speak for a minute about innovation. Massey University many of the Crown research institutes and the Riddet Institute are all in my electorate and are all thriving in the new environment that this Government has created for them to operate in as they play their part in the scientific contribution to the Government’s growth aspirations. Only tonight we saw a remarkable presentation—I thought it was beyond belief frankly—across the corridor in the Speaker’s Science Forum where we saw the use of nanotechnology. I think it is too late to replace my teeth but certainly it will replace the teeth of many of our younger members of Parliament in the future. All they do is poke it into a printer and it comes out the other end and you have got a new set of teeth. I could not believe it frankly but it will make a massive difference to the way the world sees a lot of things. One of the slogans they had up there tonight was “I have seen the future and it works”. It was a quote from Lincoln Steffens. Actually I guess this Government has seen the future to some extent and it is working.I want to speak for a while about tourism. The northern Rangitīkei has been watching for a number of years as people have left jobs have disappeared and businesses have struggled. Under this Government and partly due to the Prime Minister’s brilliant and innovative cycle trail development idea the number of new job opportunities and things for young people to do in our electorate has increased significantly. The touristactivities in the north of my electorate and I am sure in many other electorates are significant—notably the Forgotten World Adventures initiative which uses golf carts and the old railway line from Taumarunui to Stratford. There is something like between 40 and 80 of those a day being picked up on a good day and using that railway line all the way to Stratford creating new business opportunities along the way. It is much like the Otago Rail Trail actually. It is creating new businesses along the way creating new jobs and giving people new hope and a different way of life from they have had before. I think the tourism initiative is amazing and in an electorate like mine it has just made such a difference. That will undoubtedly be our future.The positive bullet points being generated by this Government are more prolific than Kane Williamson’s bat and you would not often have been able to say that about a cricketer but they are. Like BJ Watling we scarcely let a chance go by. Having said that there are some challenges for us in rural New Zealand. The maintenance of infrastructure in areas of static or little growth is a challenge for those communities but we need to ensure that it continues. Roads electrical reticulation and communication are all big challenges for us in rural New Zealand and are all big challenges for Governments as we strive to I guess provide those services. As we leave the global financial crisis behind these matters will be addressed in the future. They are being addressed now but it is a challenge for us and it is something that we must bear in mind as we move forward in New Zealand. The great investment in cycleways walkways our environment and agriculture is doing a lot to contribute to that.The Green-Labour coalition that we see across the House today has already commenced the lolly scramble that election year is for those members. It is a typically irresponsible attempt to bribe the electorate by using taxpayers’ funds irresponsibly. The damage these policies do is evidenced by some of the challenges this Government has had in arresting the dramatic growth of the public sector and of course managing the challenges that the student loan scheme has provided for us as a country.I had the privilege of attending the Waitangi celebrations last week. It was the first time I have ever been there. I went there I guess with an expectation probably created by the press in New Zealand—Iain Lees-Galloway: And the Prime Minister.IAN McKELVIE: —and when I got there I found something very different. The celebrations I attended did not remotely resemble anything I had seen in my time by reading the press and watching it on television. As the Opposition members have raised the subject of the Prime Minister I have to say that I think the Prime Minister has an enormous amount to do with the fact that Waitangi is what it is today as opposed to what it was some 8 years ago. I thought it was a special occasion. When you think about it we were welcomed by a proud people to their place. When you go to someone’s house for the night you expect to be told what they expect of you. You expect to have the right to answer them back. It is exactly how it worked for me and it certainly worked like that for the Prime Minister. I was most impressed with Waitangi. I think that as a country we have a whole lot to protect around the celebration of Waitangi Day. I think that it is a very special occasion for anyone who is able to go to Waitangi and celebrate that day and something that should be taken up at every opportunity.I want to speak briefly tonight about some of the activities that are happening in our primary sector. Of course the Primary Production Committee in this House has a lot to do with that. When you think that we have the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and the Food Bill before that committee at the moment one realises the importance of those two pieces of legislation when you think that they prop up some $30 billion worth of exports. They not only prop them up but they support and guarantee the future of that $30 billion worth of exports.The other leg of the triumvirate I guess for our primary production sector is the environment. I want to talk very briefly about the contribution that this Government has made to environmental improvement in New Zealand. We have led the way in this field. The Land and Water Forum the work of our regional councils and of course the work of the Ministry for the Environment are significant. I think that we can be very proud as a Government and as a country of the repair and the work that is going on in our environment to improve our opportunities in the future. After all our tourism and agriculture sectors rely entirely on the environment for their futures.I am very proud to be a part of this Government. I think we are doing pretty well I think we have had some difficult times and I look forward to the future with confidence. I want to conclude tonight by supporting the activities of this Government and the great work of our Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Tim Macindoe.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker—what an excellent choice. I would like to begin tonight by acknowledging and congratulating you Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to acknowledge you because over the Christmas recess you along with other colleagues announced that you would not be returning to this House later in the year. You have given great service to this Parliament and to your electorate of Invercargill and you have been a great friend and mentor to many of us so I acknowledge you. I also want to congratulate you—and I am pleased to see that smile on your face. Members of this House may not know that in the early hours of this morning the member for Invercargill welcomed another granddaughter into the world. Ultimately we are all here because we want to leave this country in better shape for future generations. I believe that you have made a great contribution and that you will be able to have your granddaughter proudly on your knee in years to come and tell her about the country that you knew and that she is going to inherit and in which she will no doubt make her mark.I would also like to say xin nian kuai le to all who are celebrating the Chinese New Year at this time. In honour of this event I am wearing a tie that I purchased 3 years ago when I passed through Shanghai. Those viewers with good eyesight watching on television may think that I am confused into thinking it is the “Year of the Panda”. I do know that it is the Year of the Horse.Hon Todd McClay: I thought it was a birthday present.TIM MACINDOE: To all of them may I say gong xi fa cai. No I am still waiting for your birthday present Mr McClay but I know you will be delivering it in the very near future.Of course the Chinese New Year is not just for Chinese people. My very good friend Melissa Lee tells me that for Koreans this is a particularly auspicious year. It is the year of the blue horse for Koreans. So ahn nyung ha se yo to all our Korean constituents and especially the fine Korean community up in Hamilton West and best wishes to you as well for this New Year. I hope that my Korean constituents and my Chinese constituents and others are as encouraged as I am by this exciting omen—the year of the blue horse—as we commence this election year in 2014. May we enjoy the blue horse plenty of blue sky and most important another blue Government to keep the great progress that the John Key - led Government has been delivering over the last 5 and a bit years going in New Zealand for many many years to come.In many respects 2014 has got off to the best start that many of us can remember for quite some time. Whereas there was a steady diet of bad news from the start of 2008 when the combination of the global financial crisis and Labour’s reckless and uncontrolled spending plunged us into recession and then those difficulties were compounded so dramatically by the Canterbury earthquakes in the years that followedit now seems that almost every day there is a little glimmer of hope; a little bit of announcement of something good that is happening. Whether it is in extra jobs being created extra people gaining access to education—from early childhood right through to tertiary level—or signs of growth in the economy there is all sorts of good news that is really encouraging. Of course we are all very relieved to see it.But the important thing is that we are not out of the woods yet. Those who think that we are are ignoring some significant challenges that we still face. As the Minister of Finance is prone to say we are experiencing grumpy growth. If I could leave one message from my contribution tonight it is that at the end of this year and beyond we must not jeopardise the significant but fragile signs of recovery that we are enjoying at this point. We must ensure that we stay the course that we make sensible decisions and that we continue to work for growth and for real engagement in the economy and not try to have some sort of election year lolly scramble that is totally irresponsible and that will set us back from all the great gains we have made.In my view—and most crucial—the frightening level of Crown debt that we face is the No. 1 challenge that we must continue to face up to to confront and to overcome in the years ahead. At one stage Treasury was tipping that that debt would be in the region of $74 billion. In a country of 4.3 million where many people are not in paid employment where people are living longer and where a large number of people are young students there is a relatively small taxpayer base. We were on target at one stage for core Crown debt to reach $74 billion. I am very proud of the fact that under Bill English’s outstanding stewardship that debt is already down to around about $65 billion but that is still a really horrific challenge.We must ensure that we get into surplus as soon as possible so that we can start to repay that debt. That is one of this Government’s core focuses and core aims. I do not want to be leaving that debt as an absolute albatross around the necks of your granddaughter Mr Deputy Speaker of my children and of their children to come. We have got to be realistic about that so this year must not be an election year lolly scramble.The previous Government proudly boasted that it left the coffers bare. Despite governing through the most auspicious and prosperous times in the first years of this century it spent the lot as Michael Cullen proudly boasted and left the incoming Government—and we were already in recession when the Labour Government went out of office—with a situation where for 5 years the previous Labour Government had allowed public spending to increase at twice the rate of revenue. No household could operate a budget like that. People would be defaulting on their mortgages and they would be hugely in trouble. No Government should operate like that and shame on the previous Labour Government for the fact that it did so.But the really sad thing is that more than 5 years later the Labour members appear to have learnt nothing. They still seem to think that they can convince the voters—that if they bribed them sufficiently with the voters’ own money they might just be able to buy their way back into office. Well that will not do. It would be absolutely reckless. I do not believe that the New Zealand public will fall for that. It is really important that they keep in mind that worrying Crown debt that we collectively have all got to repay when they cast their votes at the end of this year. Nothing that our opponents have announced—and they have opposed almost without exception the initiatives that we have implemented—shows that they have learnt any lessons at all in the last 5 years. Nothing shows that they are fit to be considered as an alternative Government any more today than they were 5 years ago when they were thrown out of office so comprehensively.Our opponents have opposed initiatives designed to create real and sustainable jobs. They have opposed welfare reforms designed to encourage and assist people to become self-reliant rather than dependent on the State for a lifetime—in many cases through cyclical intergenerational welfare dependency. They have opposed education initiatives designed to help those who need it most to raise their levels of achievement. We know that that is the most important thing we can do to assist many to have a better chance at securing a job breaking out of the cycle of welfare dependency becoming self-reliant and being able to enjoy the quality of life with their families that they aspire to as much as we do. They continue to believe that huge bribes using voters’ own taxes is the recipe for success in election year. Well the people of Hamilton West are not fooled by this and they know that the smug nasty attacks from some of the speakers we have heard in recent times are no substitute for coherent and intelligent policies. They know we cannot continue spending money we have not earned and they share my determination to repay debt.New Zealanders are coming home from Australia and elsewhere in record numbers. For the first time in a long time the situation on this side of the divide looks considerably more attractive than it does on the other side of the Tasman. That is something that we can celebrate but it also shows just how fragile certain stances are internationally and we must not be complacent for a moment. New Zealanders are gaining qualifications and increasingly these are leading into good solid jobs in record numbers. Our commitment to the people of Canterbury is unwavering because they have been through a lot and they need a Government that stands shoulder to shoulder with them and this year will be a very important year in the Canterbury rebuild.I will be campaigning proudly on my record. I am very proud of the improvements we are seeing like tangible gains in the delivery of public services. We have set measurable targets and we are delivering on them whether they be in health education law and order or so much more. That is a crucial aspect of government. Could I close just by saying a warm congratulations to those who have been working on the Waikato Expressway up my way. I can now travel from Taupiri to my home in Hamilton West in about 20 minutes—6 months ago it took nearly twice that length of time. I look forward to the opening of the other stages of the Waikato Expressway in the years to come. It is a huge commitment to the people of Waikato. We must not drop the ball on it. This Government is delivering on its promises in all sorts of ways. I will be proud to campaign on that record and hope it will be rewarded with re-election.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I am an MP for the Green Party because I love New Zealand. I want to protect our precious places for the long term and I want our country to be a place where everyone has a fair go and is looked after when they need help. We in the Green Party have a vision of New Zealand where every river is safe to swim in where every child grows up in a warm healthy home and has enough to eat and has good access to a good public education and where there are good green job opportunities—jobs that will help us meet the challenges posed by climate change and jobs that will enrich our planet and our civilisation rather than destroy it. That is entirely possible.It is entirely possible to create an economy that looks after our people and our planet. How are we going to do it? It is not rocket science. We in New Zealand are innovators. We have been pioneers. We do not need to wait for bigger countries like the United States or Australia to tackle the most pressing issues of our time which are basically climate change and inequality. We can lead the way. The Green Party I think has the best policy platform to achieve that. That is why I became an MP for the Green Party.I am a highly educated person who had a successful professional career and I decided to stand for the Green Party because our policies are the ones that are the mostlikely to achieve the good green change that I know most New Zealanders want. How are we going to do it? Well we start by recognising that it is not as easy as getting rich quick by selling off public assets and opening our waters to risky deep-sea oil drilling. We cannot get rich by exponentially increasing the number of dairy cows because that will inevitably mean that we will be increasing the pollution in our rivers.Our competitive advantage in New Zealand is that we have a “clean green” brand. That is part of how we sell ourselves overseas. It is how we sell our agricultural products. It is how we sell our tourism. Those are two of our biggest exports. The best way to build long-term prosperity is to protect our beaches and our rivers our natural environment because doing so not only benefits the industries that we are selling overseas our products that we are selling but it also benefits New Zealanders who want their children to be able to swim in clean rivers.One of the keys to achieving this good green future that is entirely within reach is to do things smarter. Unfortunately the National Government is not doing that. We could invest in infrastructure that makes it cheaper and easier for people to get where they need to go without increasing our current account deficit or our carbon emissions but the National Government is not providing leadership in this area. John Key has decided to put the interests of big overseas extractive companies ahead of everyday New Zealanders. In his statement the Prime Minister clearly outlined this Government’s priorities which do not take us towards a smart green fair future; in fact they take us backwards.So Key says in his statement that he is very proud that the Government is going to be continuing its multibillion-dollar programme of investment in infrastructure including the construction of Transmission Gully through a public-private partnership. Construction is going to begin this year. What Key does not say is that a public-private partnership is actually a long-term expensive loan. So although members on the Government side might be saying that their goal is to get debt down in fact they are taking on enormous debt—which is going to need to be paid back for a quarter of a century—for infrastructure that is going to be completely redundant or is already redundant.A public-private partnership for those at home who might not know about it is a long-term loan from the private sector. The private sector cannot access capital as cheaply as the public sector can so part of our repayments to the investors are going to include higher rates of return because they have to spend more money to access the capital. So if the Government was going to borrow directly to pay for Transmission Gully it would cost less than doing it as a public-private partnership. But the trick is that if we do it as a public-private partnership first the Government does not need to admit that it is taking on this debt and second its friends—rich overseas investors—get a guaranteed return from New Zealand taxpayers for 25 years.Let us put this in context. Transmission Gully is a project that is forecast at its peak to carry 20000 vehicles. The Prime Minister in his statement says that somehow this is going to vastly improve the daily commute. Well 10000 commuters might benefit from this project. That is 2 percent of the Wellington region’s population—2 percent. If we look at the daily vehicle trips that are going to benefit from Transmission Gully it is 0.02 percent. The petrol taxes of the average person who is driving a car in Auckland—and is stuck in traffic—are going to pay for Transmission Gully which is going to help maybe 2 percent of commuters in the Wellington region. It is just not a smart use of our resources if we want to get the best outcome for our transport system and for our economy. It makes even less sense to borrow from overseas private investors and have to pay them back.So the project which will potentially have $500 million in economic benefits is going to cost $1 billion to build but it is going to cost the New Zealand taxpayer $3 billion by the time we pay back interest over 25 years. Future Governments are going to have less money to spend on important infrastructure looking after our roads maintaining our roads paying for our police services and paying for public transport services which help us deal with congestion. We are going to have less money to pay for that because we are going to be stuck paying $120 million to $150 million every year for 25 years to these private investors for a project that benefits only 2 percent of Wellington’s commuters. How can that be sound prudent fiscal management? It is not.The worst part of it is that it does not provide the infrastructure that is actually going to give New Zealanders real choices and create vibrant communities for them to live in. I have a vision of New Zealand where kids feel safe walking and cycling to school. That is a major win-win. Not only is it good for the kids themselves—they can be independent and they can learn better. There are a lot of studies that show that when kids walk and cycle to school they actually are more focused and able to concentrate at school. It is good for their health outcomes. And it decongests the roads. The vast majority of peak-hour trips are very short distances and everybody knows that during school holidays the roads are not congested.So here is an opportunity to invest a small amount of money in looking after our kids which is also going to get enormous economic benefits in terms of decongesting our roads. It is going to get enormous benefits in terms of the health independence and learning capacity of our children. Yet this Government is not prioritising that. Instead it is prioritising a project that is going to carry less than 2 percent of the Wellington region’s commuters. It is going to carry less than 0.02 percent of all daily vehicle trips. Taxpayers and motorists in New Zealand will be paying for it 20 years from now because of this National Government. I think it is a real lost opportunity.I think New Zealanders want it to be easy to get around. They want to be able to get where they need to go without having to spend a fortune on petrol and without having to own three or four cars per household and it is entirely within our reach to create communities that are friendly and safe for our kids so they can walk and cycle learn better and have great health outcomes. That is the sort of New Zealand that the Green Party is working towards and that we absolutely can achieve.Whatever the Government says about us being crazy I know that New Zealanders at home listening to me right now know that what I am saying makes a lot of sense. It is entirely achievable and it is important to ask why the Government would need to call us crazy. Why would it not actually address the arguments that we are putting forward? Why will it not debate the real issues with us and say: “Yeah actually that is a pretty good idea. We could put more money into safe walking and cycling to schools because it would be good for our kids good for congestion good for our cities and create people-friendly places.”? This is going to be the choice that New Zealanders have later this year: whether they want a good green fair future for their kids or whether they want more of the status quo more debt and more mates—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise and take a call. Unlike the previous speaker Julie Anne Genter who has a dream I have a reality. I have four children and I have two grandchildren—my first grandson 4 months ago—so I join with you Mr Deputy Speaker and celebrate the aspect of having grandchildren. It is great because what it does remind us of is that rather than having dreams that sound like nightmares we have realities. We have responsibilities to the ones whom we love the ones whom we know the ones with whom we walk to school the ones whose parents evenings we go to andthe ones whose sports fields we go to and stand on the side of on Saturday mornings. We live in a world of reality and in a world of responsibility.I stand to speak of the confidence in the John Key National Government. I do that because of this: 3 weeks ago at the Trusts Stadium over in west Auckland the Prime Minister gave his state of the nation speech. When he did he got up and he gave a speech that was impassioned. He gave a sense of a vision and of some values that were important to this nation. What was important is that although you can have the speech the test of the pudding is to check to see what the reception of that speech was afterwards. There was a room with about 500 people. I went around and I asked people—particularly there was a group of about four or five women—what it was about the Prime Minister’s speech that they found interesting and what they felt about it. They said this: “One word: trust.” I said: “Trust. Well explain. Why ‘trust’ ”?.Here is the reason they said that. You see when the Prime Minister got up and spoke about this he told the story of how he was the son of a migrant mother who came over to New Zealand. At the age of 6 his father passed away. In that circumstance when they had had a business and they had had difficulty the accountant came and said this: “There is good news and there is bad news. The bad news is this: you have no more money. You are bankrupt. The good news is that I am a good accountant. In other words I could probably find a way to get you out of it—maybe pay 10c or 15c in the dollar—and somehow along the way you would still have enough for you and your family.” And here is the part of the story that was important to these women and to the people that were in that room. They said this. His mother turned round and said: “No. Make sure that everyone is paid out as much as possible because”—what do they say—“it is people before profits.” The story has been told about the Prime Minister and about the National Party that we are for the rich and not for the poor.This is a story about how we have a leader as a part of this nation as a part of this National Party the son of a migrant mother who knows what it means that when push comes to shove it is about people and that it is what we do for people that makes a difference. So I have confidence in the Prime Minister and in his party.I also want to acknowledge the part of that confidence that he has also bestowed upon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga our first Pacific National Minister in Government. It is a great day to celebrate. In fact I think it is absolutely important for him and for our Pasifika community as well because he is not only competent and capable but also confident to be able to serve. However along the way I have had different people—in fact other people who were there from the Labour side—say: “Wouldn’t it be great for us to have a Pacific person in that position?”. The day that we did those very people who were in the Opposition began to attack and began to criticise that position. I am glad that the honourable member over there Su’a William Sio is here because he wrote a blog that said this. He turned round and said “Pacific people say National out of touch”. In other words he criticised the fact that Peseta had been given an Associate Minister portfolio and that the portfolio was outside Cabinet. But see the thing is that his memory fades because when Luamanuvao Winnie Laban was given and bestowed that title it was outside Cabinet. The Pacific community asked why that was. So he misses the point altogether: the importance of what has been given—the confidence in Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and the message to our Pasifika community. We now have a Pasifika person a Kiwi of Pacific descent who is focused on the issues of Pacific communities as a designated position as well. That becomes absolutely important to us. So I think that it is a shame that that had to happen as well.Alongside that we will talk about some other things about the other side. There is something in particular that I want to talk about. Last Friday it was a proud day. We went over to Māngere and my honourable parliamentary colleague over there Su’aWilliam Sio was with me. We were there at The Rise UP Academy. What a great occasion. What a great occasion because here was the first primary partnership school that was established. Where was it? It was at 22 Rosella Road in Māngere. It was the only Pacific partnership school that was established and that was granted out of the five and there it was. It was a proud day. Sita Selupe was there. Sally Ikinofo and the board were there. What a great day of celebration. There is something I cannot quite figure out though and here is where the conflict and the tension will come for Su’a and for the Labour Party. Sally Ikinofo as the chairperson stood up and said this: “Today I take off my political hat and instead I put on my community hat and I say this: may it not be a political debate a decision that turns away because we need this.” As a community the Māngere Pasifika community said: “We need this.”But here is the challenge that Sally the chairperson of Su’a William Sio’s electoral community is going to find. Old Chris Hipkins wrote on 21 November 2013 “Charter school applicants put on notice”. That is what he said: “Labour stands firmly opposed to the National Government’s agenda of carving up and privatising our excellent public education system.” And here is the part that is going to hurt: “Anyone seeking to establish a charter school will be doing so in the knowledge that charter schools have no future under Labour.”—have no future under Labour. So what is going to happen here? There is going to be tension in the House. There is going to be difficulty. Why? Because in those members’ very ranks in the grassroots in the place where it hurts the most while they are out there doing all the hard work promoting all the things that are absolutely important there is going to be tension in the House. Why? Because here we have the people of that community saying: “We want this. We need this. Give this to us.” but really we are going to have to say this: “It has been taken away. It has been taken away.”You know it just sort of confuses me a little bit. When I look on the Labour Party website I read the Labour Party principles. This is what it says is principle No. 1 of the Labour Party: “All political authority comes from the people by democratic means …”. Guess what? Where is the democracy here with regard to the very people who are part of your party—the very people who are saying: “We need this.”? Where is their democratic right going to be? Are they going to be able to say: “Hey we want this we need this.” but guess what? Your party has already said that you will not support this happening.But look let us talk about the things that are really important—about education. You see in that state of the nation speech the Prime Minister talked about National’s education changes to raise achievement—to absolutely raise achievement—and right across the board we started seeing the support that was coming. We are seeing executive principals—250 executive principals. That will be rolled out right up and down the country. The key principals the executive principals will be top principals around the country with proven track records. In what? In raising achievement. Expert teachers—1000 expert teachers right up and down the country. Expert teachers will have a proven track record in raising achievement. Lead teachers—5000 lead teachers. We want the best teachers to be recognised for improving student achievement. Change principals with a proven track record in improving student achievement. This is great because you know it is like some of the great leaders of old. Sir Peter Blake when we were winning the America’s Cup simply said this: “Will it make the boat go faster?”. So if you want to measure what education is doing and what National is doing in education you simply have to say this. We have set out our clear vision. We have set out a clear benchmark on which you want to measure raising achievement. Well here is the pragmatism of it. Here are the principles that truly do make a difference.I just want to finish my comments on this. We had the state of the nation report that was released by the Salvation Army. One thing that I think is really important is that Labour Party members do not often read. Jacinda Ardern tried to put a motion that we should have an urgent debate on this particular topic because those members felt that this was something that they could use as a footstool to talk about the things that they could hold the Government to account on. But if they had read what the report actually says they would see that it clearly says this. It says that this is not “a comprehensive and complete assessment of all relevant indicators. [It is] a procession of glimpses into a number of areas of public interest …”. But the part that I want to talk about is where Major Campbell Roberts said that the “State of the Nation report should not necessarily be seen as a condemnation or acclamation of our present government but rather as a condemnation or acclamation of all of us as New Zealanders.” We heard the honourable Minister Paula Bennett get up and say that this issue of poverty this issue that we are facing as a country and as a nation is not something to be blamed on the Government yet all we keep hearing from the other side is that it blames the Government.I want to just finish with a couple of final comments and they come from this. We talked about the Child Poverty Action Group which has gone around and talked about our communities which are raising this issue of holding the Government to account. Dr Airini down in Hastings was there with a community meeting. A number of old Cook Island mamas stood up and said this: “You tell those people to stop using us. Stop using us as their statistics to make them feel good. They do not need people to make them feel good but instead we want to have aspiration and inspiration for our children. We feed our children and we clothe them. We have the best intention for our kids. Stop using”—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): What a wonderful presentation and speech there by Alfred Ngaro. That really got to the very nub—the very nub—of the Prime Minister’s statement. The aspiration the passion just emitted there. You could sort of pick it up by osmosis by sitting a couple of seats away. So that was really really inspirational.We have been well through the Prime Minister’s statement in this debate. Let us just recap what it is all about. The House had a speech from the Prime Minister and the motion that was moved was that the House express confidence in the National-led Government and commend its programme for 2014. That motion was amended by the Leader of the Opposition who said that New Zealand has become more and more divided and that those in the middle are struggling and those at the end are going backwards. I would tend to suggest that that description by the Leader of the Opposition fits the Labour Opposition caucus at the moment. When we look at those members they are divided. The Labour Opposition is bereft of good policy and therefore I cannot support the amendment.But on the other hand in the Prime Minister’s statement the Government is focused it is united and it is building a positive growing economy into the future and that is very very important. When we look at the monthly indicators around the economy everything is heading in the right direction. This is during a very very difficult time and we should give credit to the Government to the Prime Minister to the Minister of Finance Bill English and to Cabinet. We have economic growth of 3.5 percent. Unemployment is at 6 percent and heading downwards. Inflation is very low at 1 percent. Interest rates because of those good policy settings are staying lower for longer.When you stop and think about it we are a small country trading on a global scene. That requires a lot of carefulness because if we do step out of line the effects of other countries’ economies will come back on to us. To succeed we need to be near our bestif not at our best all the time. It needs a Government that works alongside its citizens takes them forward and builds the confidence so that they will invest and create jobs. It needs a Government and a Prime Minister that has a clear vision and clear goals and that is able to articulate those in such a way that the working man and woman and the families are able to see what the goal is rather than developing a protectionist economy where businesses are not truly exposed to the realities of life.When we look across the Ditch at the moment we see some of the harsh realities of being able to stay for say the last 20 or 30 years producing cars over there. They are making decisions today that New Zealand made 30-odd years ago. Our economy needs to be both productive and competitive.My colleagues over the many hours of this debate have very eloquently articulated the achievements and the focus and the structure of the Government’s agenda going forward that I have mentioned myself. The interest rates are at an all-time low. Economic growth is at 3.5 percent. I just want to focus on those two elements of the Government’s agenda for a small time. In the electorate of Kaikōura there is approximately 80 percent of the nation’s wine industry and in 2010 it would be fair to say that it tanked. There was oversupply there were some issues and there was a lot of debt and yet it was because of the tax package or the tax switch that this Government implemented in 2010 along with the policy settings that have kept interest rates lower for longer that we are actually seeing in 2013-14 the wine industry back on its feet and doing better than ever. It is producing probably 100000 tonnes more wine than it was back in 2010 and it is able to find markets for that wine due to the trade access settings that have been achieved by this Government.Crime is down. We have got a 30 percent lower crime rate today than we had when we inherited the Government benches. Our health system is functioning with 20000-odd more operations being conducted each year.I just want to make the point that all of this will mean nothing if we do not succeed with our younger generation with our children. So for the remaining time I would just like to focus on the importance of getting it right around education because the old adage must hold true in this case that if you want a first-class health system a first-class education system and first-class law and order and if you want to afford as the Opposition says social justice then you need a first-class economy. That is what a National Government under the prime ministership of John Key will deliver.I just want to acknowledge the wonderful work done by the education Ministers be it Hekia Parata Nikki Kaye or Steven Joyce because part of the Government’s agenda has been Better Public Services. What better public service can we provide than the goal of having five out of five of our children succeed in education starting off with ECE the early—Hon Trevor Mallard: What does that mean?COLIN KING: Well what it means is that everybody realises the opportunity they have. The member over there might be pointing out what Labour will do but effectively what this National Government will do is make sure we achieve 98 percent of children going into early childhood education. At the moment in 2014 we have got 96 percent of children going into early childhood education. We will achieve that goal of 98 percent in 2016. A point worth making at the moment is that New Zealand spends more per child on early childhood education than any of the other OECD countries. This is a Government that really has its priorities right. National standards is one of those very very important policies that have been implemented so that youth can succeed. There are a lot of people who will be negative about it but if you cannot measure it you cannot achieve it. What we saw around the Education Review Office was poor use of data collected.Leading on from that we can be enthusiastic about the vocational pathways and how they are going to set up our children to succeed in the trades and skills areas. We have seen our education system lead in many many ways but when we get into the trades and skills areas for too long we have been troubled by the fact that our trades youth are not able to be independent learners. That is because they are not able to have the skills to read write do maths comprehend and fulfil the theoretical side of their trades and skills.I would have to say that there is so much more one could contribute in this debate supporting this Government—Andrew Little: What a pity you won’t be here to do it next time.COLIN KING: Next time we will have to talk to Mr Little about how much money that other side wasted when they were in Government. In education we have spent those dollars wisely. Our Better Public Services targets will improve the opportunities for every New Zealander and for every new citizen who comes across into New Zealand and has the privilege of becoming a resident or a citizen in the longer run.I speak in support of the motion that this Government’s agenda will take the country forward and my grandchildren and your grandchildren will be the beneficiaries of that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Dr Jian Yang. Let me say that you have about 8½ minutes to go. I will give you a 2-minute bell before the debate in toto will conclude.Dr JIAN YANG (National): It is a great pleasure to be the final speaker in today’s debate to support the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament. I am very proud to be a part of the National-led Government a Government that has continued to work hard to make this country a better place for New Zealanders and their families.Before I come to the Prime Minister’s statement let us refresh ourselves a bit about the 2008 financial crisis. That financial crisis is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. But the New Zealand economy had already entered a recession in early 2008 before the effects of the global financial crisis set in later in the year. That was under a Labour Government. The outlook for the New Zealand economy deteriorated rapidly following the intensification of the global financial crisis in September 2008. Business and consumer confidence plummeted as uncertainty dominated the global financial and economic environment. Since then the National-led Government has managed our finances responsibly while taking a number of measures to stimulate our economy. Despite the severe impact of the global financial crisis and natural disasters such as the Christchurch earthquakes our economy has been growing.Labour and the Greens on the other hand still have not learnt anything from their last time in Government. They are already talking about going on a huge spending spree. Look at what Labour’s last big spending splurge between 2005 and 2008 did to our country. It increased the deficit to almost 9 percent of GDP mortgage interest rates were averaging 10.9 percent food prices went up 11 percent in Labour’s last year and the economy was in premature recession. You cannot spend your way into prosperity. National understands that and that is why we are building a stronger economy that will provide higher incomes for New Zealand families.The Prime Minister has outlined four priorities that will continue to grow our economy and create more jobs deliver better front-line health and education services and a safer New Zealand and support the Christchurch rebuild. Our economy continues to grow. It went up 3.5 percent between September 2012 and September 2013. Treasury has forecast that our economy will grow at a similar rate in 2014. This Government will produce a Budget surplus next year while most other countries will still be in deficit and building up debt. We have done this by responsibly managing the Government’s finances to reduce our debt. Business confidence is at its highest level since 1999. Thereare 66000 more people employed now than a year ago—an increase of 3 percent. The unemployment rate is the lowest in 3 years and expected to drop further as the economy continues to gather momentum.As well as our success in growing the economy we are also delivering results from our public services. Recorded crime is at a 33-year low welfare dependency is reducing and more elective surgery is being performed in our public health system. We are working to deliver Better Public Services for New Zealanders through police courts public hospitals schools tertiary training and the many other ways that people and businesses deal with the Government.The Prime Minister said in his statement that Ministers will be continuing their comprehensive programme of trade delegations focused on Asia. This is part of our Business Growth Agenda where there are hundreds of initiatives to improve the productivity and competitiveness of our economy. Last week China Southern Airlines China’s largest airline and the third-largest in the world flew its first charter flight between Guangzhou and Christchurch. I was there at the opening ceremony. This epitomises the strength of New Zealand’s and China’s relationship and will also bring many benefits to the South Island. China is now one of New Zealand’s largest trading partners—sometimes the largest. I am sure it will be the largest before too long. I say this with confidence because I was happily involved in promoting trade between China and New Zealand and witnessed the growth of trade between the two countries.Similarly I have witnessed the growth of the China market for New Zealand tourism. China is our second-largest source of international tourists. We have been working hard to promote New Zealand in China and to make sure our tourism facilities are convenient and friendly to Chinese tourists. The number of Chinese tourists has been growing rapidly. They are staying in New Zealand longer and hence spend more. China is also our largest source of international students but we need to do more to attract more international students.The Prime Minister talked about building our export education and the many initiatives that are being implemented to attract international students to study at our schools and universities. As a former university lecturer I am very supportive of this. Today the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment the Hon Steven Joyce announced that the Government would invest $465000 co-funding a dozen new growth initiatives in the international education industry. International education is an important part of our economy and National is committed to doubling the value of the industry to New Zealand to $5 billion by 2025.Our success speaks volumes and is delivering for New Zealanders. We are moving forward not backwards. The John Key - led Government continues to focus on the issues that matter to our economy to our community and to New Zealanders: a stronger economy more jobs better front-line health and education services a safer New Zealand and rebuilding Christchurch. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Su’a William Sio you have about 41 seconds.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): At Waitangi one of the elders there said to the National Party that when it comes up to Waitangi it should not behave like a seagull—that is do not just come up to Waitangi and crap and then fly away.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I would say that the same goes—I would repeat it in this House—Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order—Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I would repeat it in this House for the sake of everybody else.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order? The debate has now concluded.Hon Tau Henare: Well I think I will make a point of order.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No the debate has concluded. There are two questions. The first is the amendment. The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat all the words after “That” be deleted and substituted with “this House express no confidence in this National-led Government because New Zealand has become more and more divided and because those in the middle are struggling and the poor are going backwards.”Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat this House express its confidence in the National-led Government and commend its programme for 2014 as set out in the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) BillThird ReadingHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I moveThat the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill be now read a third time. The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill amends policy relating to the funding of international traveller processing services at the border. The bill completes the funding arrangements first agreed with the aviation industry right back in 2004 further refined over the years and finalised by this present Government. I want to start by thanking everyone who has been engaged in the development of this bill over the years who have worked in a very cooperative manner with the Government to reach this point tonight. This includes the work of the Primary Production Committee led by its chairman Shane Ardern and of course I acknowledge the officials and all of those who made submissions on the bill.The bill provides a clear legal basis for the Ministry for Primary Industries the New Zealand Customs Service and the Aviation Security Service to recover the costs associated with providing traveller processing services at new and restarting international airports for a period of either 3 years or any lesser period prescribed in regulations. It also provides that an airport may cease operating international services and then restart them within a 6-month grace period without triggering cost recovery. The bill also provides for cost recovery of non-routine processing at all international airports. The bill’s objective is to reduce the Crown’s exposure to an unpredictable and uncertain fiscal liability for providing aviation security biosecurity and customstraveller processing services at international airports. It ensures that border agencies can maintain higher standards of border protection without needing to reprioritise resources from other front-line operations to service new and restarting international airports.The previous Minister for Primary Industries asked the Primary Production Committee in its consideration of the bill to consider a proposal that the cost recovery period be set at 2 years and to consider industries’ views on this. After hearing the views of submitters on this issue the committee also recommended a cost recovery period of 2 years. A 2-year cost recovery period provides a reasonable measure of confidence in the commercial viability and sustainability of international services at a new or restarting airport before it is transitioned into the funding arrangements for established international airports. At the established international airports biosecurity and customs services are funded by the Crown while Aviation Security Services are funded by a per-passenger charge on airlines. A final decision on the length of the cost recovery period will be made after the bill is passed and will be set out in regulations.The bill provides for regulations to be made before charging can begin for any new or restarting international airports and requires border agency chief executives to consult with directly affected parties before regulations are made. I look forward to officials engaging with the aviation industry on the development of these new regulations. These regulations will prescribe the cost recovery period and the actual rates or methods of cost recovery at new or restarting airports.The bill has received strong support from every political party in the House. I think this fairly reflects the importance that Parliament attaches to aviation security biosecurity and customs-related issues. Protecting our border from biosecurity threats is my No. 1 priority as Minister for Primary Industries.Our primary industries are the backbone of New Zealand’s economy. They include of course agriculture horticulture fisheries forestry and viticulture. The list goes on. They are worth around $32 billion a year in exports and make up about 70 percent of all of our exports. These industries rely on our world-class biosecurity system. It is a system that continues to evolve and improve with technology and new ideas. To give some context around 175000 items come across our border each day and we receive around 10 million travellers a year. Biosecurity threats and incursions will happen. We do not live in a risk-free environment. We will never have zero risk even if we close all of our borders. The challenge is how we continue to facilitate growth and trade yet continue to protect New Zealand from unwanted pests. It cannot be a choice between these two goals. We have to do both—grow and protect.The Ministry for Primary Industries takes a multilayered approach to biosecurity threats working on many fronts—overseas to stop travellers and importers from bringing pests here at the border to identify and eliminate pests that do arrive and here in New Zealand to find eliminate or manage pests. Biosecurity funding is higher now than when we took over from Labour and has doubled since 2000. In the last year and a half around 100 new quarantine inspectors and more dog detector teams are working on the front line. We have 12 new X-ray machines installed at our international airports. These new machines will be more reliable than the older X-ray units and will provide better image quality. Baggage is now able to be screened with greater accuracy and image quality. This means border staff will be better equipped to spot biosecurity risk items before they enter New Zealand. We have also brought in Government-industry agreements which once signed will involve industry and the Government working together on preparation and responses to these kinds of threats.Border protection is a major priority for this Government. This bill reflects that by helping to ensure that border agencies can maintain their high standards of border protection. I commend this bill to the House.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I rise to support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill in its third reading. As the Minister for Primary Industries has said the aim of the bill is to enable the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security biosecurity and customs traveller processing from the operators of new or re-established international airports or international airports that sometimes request that travellers be processed in a non-routine manner. The Minister said in his third reading speech that this bill has had support from parties across the House and that is true. It is also true to say that Labour was involved in developing a similar cost recovery policy back in 2004. There has been a long process of working through these issues. What I found interesting though were the Minister’s comments about how biosecurity is a high priority for this Government given that this bill was introduced in September 2010 had its first reading on 16 September 2011 was referred to the Primary Production Committee and people were given just 1 month to make submissions. In fact in reading the submissions I saw that that was one of the complaints from submitters—that it was a truncated process. I know that there has been a lot of discussion but that was one of the complaints that were made.Again it gives rise to the question which we have traversed before of why this had to happen given that we are now finally reaching the third reading of this bill something like 4 years later. I do question the Government about that. But having said that we all know that biosecurity and customs services come at a huge cost to the Crown and any new international airport should have to pay some of those costs. We already have a high number of international airports per capita. Every one of those international airports requires a replication of biosecurity and customs services at an additional cost to the Government. Our international airports are in Auckland Hamilton Rotorua Wellington Christchurch Dunedin and Queenstown. That is a large number of international airports for a small country like our own.As I said we went through a process of proposing a similar cost recovery process in 2004. We were concerned about the time period and there was a big discussion about that. We do approve the move to lower the cost recovery period to just 2 years as happens under this bill. Although this bill is right to make new international airports pay their fair share of the costs of customs and biosecurity it is about time that the Government started paying fair attention to the issue of biosecurity. There has been an Auditor-General’s report quite recently and it had some pretty damning evidence in it that New Zealand is at risk of a major biosecurity threat because of the Government’s obsession with cutting costs and restructuring. We have seen under this Government a merging of departments and a shuffling of agencies. We have got mega-agencies—super-agencies—under the auspices of Steven Joyce and other Ministers who seem to think that shuffling deckchairs is a good way to look like they are doing something—like that old adage you know that when you do not know what to do you restructure and then it looks like you are actually taking some action.As part of that too of course under this Government there was a restructure in 2010 a restructure in 2011 and a restructure in 2012. I want to just pause here for a minute and pay tribute to the staff on the front line working in biosecurity the Customs Service and the Aviation Security Service who have been trying to do their jobs through all of these restructurings. They are now part of one ministry called the Ministry for Primary Industries. But what we saw during that period between 2008 and 2012 was a cut of 91 biosecurity officers and those dogs—those lovely little dogs that we see when we come through customs—Carol Beaumont: Beagles.DARIEN FENTON: The beagles—the beagles. They cut the number of beagles. I am sure that the member John Banks would have been unhappy about that because he talked about beagles too did he not? He liked beagles.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Was it one of those in the brown bag?DARIEN FENTON: Yes well that is true. I know that since then Nathan Guy was kind of forced to increase the number of biosecurity staff and has actually had some nice photo opportunities with little beagle puppies.Hon Nathan Guy: Clara. Clara was her name.DARIEN FENTON: Yes I saw that in the newsletter. But he was kind of forced to do that because of the risks to our biosecurity—the risks that we are seeing. But the truth is that during that period—Budget 2009—the Government cut $3.5 million from biosecurity over 4 years. Again in 2010 it cut a further $9.5 million over 4 years. So on average this is about $3 million a year from a vote that has around $180 million or $190 million to spend. Indeed the Auditor-General pointed out that there have been cuts in capacity in the appropriations from the years 2007-08 through to 2011-12. So we are looking forward to the forthcoming Budget Minister and we hope we will see some remedies around this issue. Of course in biosecurity almost every week now there is an incursion—Hon Nathan Guy: That was under Labour.DARIEN FENTON: Pardon?Colin King: That was under Labour.DARIEN FENTON: Almost every week under this Government there has been an incursion in our biosecurity. What the Auditor-General was warning about is that a foot-and-mouth outbreak could cost the country something like $13 billion but we are not ready for that. We are not prepared for that. So I hope again that the Minister took that report seriously and that we can look forward to some money in the Budget being put back into those restructured departments back into the staff. That would follow the recommendations of the Auditor-General again who was saying that there needs to be a lot more work done on supporting those staff on training on preparing for a major outbreak that could come any day—we just do not know.Of course what we do know is that Psa disease has had a terrible terrible impact on the kiwifruit industry. The researchers from Lincoln University estimate that by 2015 it will have cost the industry $410 million and approximately 1400 jobs. So the costs to the country are tremendous.Going back to what I said at the beginning we are supporting this bill. There has been a lot of work done on it over many years. We cannot afford to take risks with our biosecurity with customs or with aviation security. They are very very important parts of protecting our border and the cost recovery proposals in this bill along with the grace period that is proposed are supported. I know that the Primary Production Committee did a good job looking at that and I do want to give respects to the member Shane Ardern who I know is a very good committee chair from my experience of working with him.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Not a bad bloke.DARIEN FENTON: Not a bad bloke. In fact I think that it will be a shame when he leaves Parliament. He is one of the decent blokes around this place one of the good people around this place. So I know that he led the select committee through this in a very professional way even though most of the committee members have now left and he will be following them. I am pleased to support this bill.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. This bill has had a reasonably long gestation period but there are fairlygood reasons for that. I should perhaps highlight some of those but not go over all of the issues that the Minister for Primary Industries has already canvassed and perhaps give a little bit of background as to why the bill came about.The airports of both Hamilton which is in my electorate and Palmerston North which is nearby Mr McKelvie’s electorate my colleague to the left here were international airports in New Zealand. They had international carriers that were flying in and out of there and those carriers decided for commercial reasons I presume that they no longer wanted to visit those airports. Of course to be international airports they had to maintain all of the biosecurity civil aviation security and customs services. Of course that carried with it I guess an enormous cost to the State and obviously it was a waste of money if those airports were not going to become international airports again or were not going to become international airports for some time into the future.At the same time that that was happening because of the very work of the National Government—Hon Member: Ha!SHANE ARDERN: —because of the excellent work of the National Government substantial investment was going into new technology for both biosecurity and customs—in fact for the merging of some of that technology. Of course what that would have meant was that those airports would then need to upgrade to the new systems—new X-ray equipment new types of surveillance equipment etc.—and there was a lot of potential expense in that as well.So the motive if you like for a cost recovery programme was that if an airport decided it might like to become an international airport regardless of where it may be—and there are others that have suggested they might like to become international airports—Colin King: Invercargill.SHANE ARDERN: —Rotorua for example and Invercargill is another one that my colleague mentions—then obviously the airport itself in the commercial decision as to whether or not to do that would need to be involved in some of those substantial potential costs to the Crown. Further every time that does happen if that investment is not made to a level that it should be then obviously we expose ourselves to further biosecurity risk and as the Minister quite rightly pointed out and other speakers have touched on it biosecurity risk is a major threat to the New Zealand economy.I heard the previous speaker Darien Fenton say that the Auditor-General identified $30 million. Well I think it may have been $30 billion. It is more like $30 million a day—the likely cost of a foot-and-mouth outbreak for example. So it is something that would actually devastate the New Zealand economy. It reinforces as the Minister for Primary Industries and biosecurity said the importance of our primary sector to the New Zealand economy but it also reinforces the vulnerability of the sector to something getting across the border that could have that type of devastating effect.So the main provisions of the bill as the Minister pointed out are to recover costs in the areas of aviation security biosecurity and customs. On the basis that these issues have to be addressed using the best technologies the best systems and the best surveillance I think that this is a very sound measure brought forward obviously by a very competent Minister and a very sound Government in this fight against biosecurity and other airport or border-type issues. So I totally support the passage of this bill. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Thank you and likewise Mr Assistant Speaker.Hon Member: You’ve known each other for a while.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: We have indeed. As colleagues on both sides of the House have said there is quite a bit of unanimity in respect of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. The aim as we know is to enable the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security biosecurity and customs traveller processing from operators of new or re-established international airports. I would also acknowledge Shane Ardern having sat on the Primary Production Committee in its more lively days. He is one member who I think should have been put in higher office many years ago. He more than most knows the impact both positive and negative of biosecurity on his industry.But I would say this. There has been a trend with this Government—a sort of obsession—of constant restructuring. There has been a Government obsession of course with merging. Biosecurity New Zealand has been through two restructurings under this Government and is now part of the Ministry for Primary Industries. I know that my colleague Damien O’Connor has expressed quite a bit of concern around that where you have a sort of poacher and gamekeeper amalgamated together. We do know—and I am sure Mr Ardern will help me out—that it almost seems like a monthly or weekly occurrence that we have another incursion. I heard on the radio that there is some other fly or flea or something else that has got in.Although I accept that we have a huge border a massive geographical border to protect and we are close to our Australian cousins—who have a few more gremlins than we do in New Zealand—the point is this: there has to be an obsession not simply with constant restructuring and saving a few quid here and there but with actually reinforcing the work and the resources of those agencies and people who have the ultimate responsibility to protect the border. We talk about for instance physical violence and terrorism in that form. What is of possibly even greater threat some would say is if you like biosecurity terrorism. Mr Ardern and others have said that if somebody was to implant foot-and-mouth or some other horrible disease here and decimate our dairy our beef or our other sectors it is almost game over especially in dairying which is a major part of our economy. So terrorism comes in many forms. Likewise with no deliberate act people coming across our borders bring in things they should not and bring in things that they are ignorant of without any malice intended but again it poses threats.I do recall sitting on the Primary Production Committee in the first term I was in Parliament. I am sure that Mr Ardern will recall this. As Labour took office we had a great debate over the former National Government shifting resources. I think that at that point it was away from container surveillance. I am sure that Mr Ardern recalls the debate when money was shifted around by the then National Government. It penny-pinched here and penny-pinched there. I think it was away from airport security—no it was away from container surveillance into airport biosecurity. I think we did an inquiry on it as I recall and massive risks were identified around the random nature—as it was then—of container surveillance.There are some very good Kiwi companies. The company that I recall in Christchurch—is it Syft Technologies? I think it is. Mr Ardern nods. Syft Technologies as I understand it has developed for many years—Hon Trevor Mallard: Been there.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: So have I.Hon Trevor Mallard: Good company.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is a good company.Hon Trevor Mallard: You might’ve taken me.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I possibly did. I may have used its technology to have you checked out biosecurity-wise Mr Mallard. But it has a—Hon Trevor Mallard: It was more comfortable than the normal method.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed. That company developed sniff technology I think it was called. To put it in layman’s terms because I am not a technical expert with this technology you can bang this box inside a container and for instance it can take a sniff of the air. It can tell you whether any sort of biological organism is alive or dead in there and it can identify where there is a threat. That may be why the new ACT leader has imported some of the technology for his caucus room.The interesting thing at that point was that I remember visiting the business and Biosecurity New Zealand and the Customs Service at the time would not use the technology. In fact I do not think it is being used today.Hon Member: A different type is.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: A different type of technology. I know that at the time one of the biggest contracts for Syft was Biosecurity Australia. The Australians used it before us. So maybe there are a few lessons there that technology should be taken on board—and good old Kiwi technology could be taken on board—because the Aussies were a bit smarter than us. They used it and I recall that our Biosecurity New Zealand guys at the time in late 1999 when we embarked on this inquiry were still doing very very random container surveillance—extremely random. I think we went down and had a look at some of it and it was almost like trying to profile what may be a risk in a container and away you go. There was also an issue over the wooden pallets that were being brought in which were having very little if any inspection. So it is not just airports.I say to the Government that we support the legislation but I think it has to get serious—very very serious—about the nature and constant restructuring of our biosecurity agencies. Is it right that the Ministry for Primary Industries and food safety poacher and gamekeeper are in one? I do not think it is. I share Damien O’Connor’s view. I think you have got to have some separation. Perhaps the difficulties that Fonterra has been through—a different set of difficulties but food safety and to some extent biosecurity as well—show that there is a deficiency and a weakness in having those organisations married up together. Sure you want cooperation and you want synergy but there has to be some sort of tension between those authorities to ensure that our borders are protected and that they are protected rigorously. So I look forward to the debate as we go through this legislation.Of course there will have to be infrastructure and dollars put around this. Staff will have to be trained. There has to be a bigger commitment as my colleague Darien Fenton said to staff training and skilling. I often wonder and I recall again that when I was on the select committee there was an issue raised about the old-fashioned Air New Zealand stewards and stewardesses who in the old days would come through with the aerosol can—remember? They would walk right down the aisle. I remember one submitter saying that the best advertisement or wake-up call for people getting off the plane—those from foreign countries who did not quite get how serious it was—was somebody going down the aisle spraying. Even if they were spraying I do not know water—who cares? It was a wake-up call to people.Hon Trevor Mallard: It was on the flying boats.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Pardon?Hon Trevor Mallard: The flying boats went from Evans Bay.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed. Thank you Trevor Mallard. Trevor is approaching his 75th year and recounting history. But this is serious. The point is that that is a wake-up call to people.I lived in Perth for a time and each state has biosecurity arrangements. I know that in Western Australia you could not bring in honey and other products. It was almost like you lived in another country when you went across those borders either by air or by rail—very serious. In other countries you go to there are no biosecurity protections. If you go to the States you are asked “What are you bringing in?” you say: “X Y and Z.” and there is very little checking if any in the States. Certainly in parts of Europe like—Julie Anne Genter: That’s not trueHon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes it is. I have just come through Los Angeles airport in the last couple of weeks and apart from ticking a box there were no beagles; nobody was profiling bags. It was not as rigorous—Darien Fenton: There’s a few guns.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: There are a few guns yes but it was not nearly as rigorous as in New Zealand. So we want to see those standards maintained and enhanced so that we do not have the problems of other countries.We are exceptionally vulnerable. We are an island State. We are predominantly dependent on agriculture. As I said and I endorse the other speakers who have made the point one major biosecurity threat—even if it does not come off—again dents our reputation. We have had foot-and-mouth scares that thankfully have not come to anything but even then our reputation and our exports are at risk because people ask questions and people get concerned. The Fonterra experience though different should teach us a lot about how our reputation our New Zealand brand is at risk through these types of threats. So I support the bill and I look forward to its further scrutiny as we go forward.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. As the Green Party spokesperson on transport it is my pleasure to rise to take a call on the third reading of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. This bill has been around for quite some time. In fact it went through the select committee process before I was elected to Parliament. I think this bill was one of the first ones that I sat down and wrote a speech for after being elected to Parliament. So it was about 2 years ago that I first sat down and looked at it.This bill has only just made it to the Committee of the whole House and the third reading in the year 2014 which is somewhat astonishing but I am sure that that is for good reason other than the Government not being able to manage its legislative programme—that is possibly one of the reasons; I am not sure. We support this bill. The first reading speech was given by my former colleague Sue Kedgley who is now a regional councillor for Wellington and my current colleague Gareth Hughes gave the second reading speech. As they made clear and I would like to reiterate the Green Party is supporting this bill. It is uncontroversial. It takes some positive steps in the direction of supporting our biosecurity which many speakers have already talked about this evening. Also we quite approve of the approach of cost recovery—that is internalising some of the costs that would otherwise be externalised and pushed on to taxpayers.New Zealanders value our natural environment. New Zealanders really value our beautiful forests lakes rivers oceans and beaches and I think most New Zealanders if not all of them do want to protect them. They recognise that there is an intrinsic value and it is something that hits right here in the gut. It is something that you cannot really summarise or quantify in a complete way. But it is also possible to quantify the benefits the economic benefits—some of them—of looking after biosecurity. This essential element of our defence against environmental degradation and ensuring that we do not introduce pests and diseases is really important because it is vital not only to preservingthe natural environment that we value for intrinsic reasons but also to ensuring the continued strength of our primary production base.New Zealand’s competitive advantage in the world is really its“clean green” brand and much of our success overseas selling our dairy products to China or promoting tourism around the globe is because we are perceived to have a pristine natural environment. So it is in our economic interest to genuinely look after that environment to invest money if need be in protecting the environment and to ensure that things like biosecurity are at the forefront.But I think that this bill probably does not go as far as it could in looking after all of the potential ways that we could be protecting our environment responding to the challenge of climate change and internalising external costs. The bill obviously has a very narrow focus. It is looking at the processing of international travellers and how we are going to fund that and ensure that we have the means for funding the processing of international travellers. But there are other considerations that arise when we are thinking about how we can look after our “clean green” brand protect our environment and internalise some of those external costs.Unfortunately even though aviation has enormous benefits for humanity—and I personally have benefited greatly from the ability to travel easily and quickly between continents; it is something that is a unique privilege really that not many human beings have gotten to experience in the history of humanity—it also has some costs and particularly in terms of carbon emissions. It is something that may not be able to grow indefinitely. We are going to have to find alternative means of travelling and it may take a little bit more time. We may be able to create alternative fuels that are not going to have such a negative impact on the climate but we are not going to be able to do that unless we put a proper price on carbon.It is absolutely essential that we start to put a price on the harmful emissions that are changing our climate because until we do that the market is not going to respond. People are not going to come up with the alternatives. Humans are incredibly innovative and able to adapt and that is why it is so important for Government policy to take the step of putting an appropriate price on carbon emissions. That is what is going to incentivise solutions. It is going to create a market for coming up with alternative fuels that do not have such a harmful impact on the climate.Unfortunately this Government has not really taken steps that would ensure there is a price on carbon. It says that it is going to respond to climate change. I have yet to see any evidence of any real national coordinated approach even to adaptation to a changing climate which is something that could potentially cost us. If we are going to have increased flooding and increased droughts we need to be preparing for that now. We need to be ensuring that the infrastructure we are putting in place is going to protect our communities in the future given that we know that the climate will be changing.But in addition to that we need to do our fair share in the world of reducing carbon emissions. The best way to do that is to give people alternatives and invest in alternatives. For New Zealanders many of the trips that we make around New Zealand and internationally obviously cannot be easily replaced with another form of transport other than aviation. But most of our carbon emissions from transport are generated in travel in and around our towns and cities. That is where we have the real opportunity. The Government could be investing in alternatives such as safe walking and cycling and public transport—all things that not only reduce carbon emissions but create a more liveable city for people and reduce the money that people have to spend just to travel. Most trips at peak time are quite short distances—less than 5 kilometres—and it is entirely possible to replace those with walking cycling or public transport if the infrastructure is there. It is much more affordable obviously.So on the one hand we have got to invest in alternatives where those are available and on the other hand we also need to internalise the costs. This bill for example internalises the costs of international processing and puts it back on to the people who are travelling. They are the ones who have to pay for the processing—it is not the taxpayers—and so should those who are generating carbon emissions and contributing to harmful climate change have to pay the price of that.If people are facing the true cost of their choices they are able to weigh up the costs and make the decision that makes the most sense to them. For example for me to do my job unfortunately at the moment I have to fly between Auckland and Wellington because there is no alternative really particularly because the passenger train has now been reduced to 3 days a week. There is no overnight train and there is no high-speed train like we might have in another country.I would happily pay that price. If paying that additional cost of the carbon emissions was going to provide the Government with more money to potentially invest in alternatives that would make it easier potentially to travel without generating carbon emissions or to invest in research into biodiesel alternatives. The Green Party supports this bill. We understand that it is incredibly important to look after our biosecurity. It is something that the Green Party has long championed and it is wonderful to see the bill passed in the House this evening.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I can just remember that I am supposed to be speaking but it is very hard to remember what I should be speaking about because 8½ of the last 10 minutes covered nothing remotely related to the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.This bill came about primarily because of the closure of Iain Lees-Galloway’s Palmerston North Airport to international flights. People were very concerned at the ramifications of that and lobbied the Government. Actually there is a clause in the bill that specifically deals with the ability of those airports to renew those international flights within 6 months without losing their services. However all that I could add to this debate has already been so eloquently said by Minister Guy and Shane Ardern the very competent chairman of the Primary Production Committee. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill—which admittedly is in its dying stages—even though it is not a piece of legislation that New Zealand First has had the opportunity to make input into. This is a shame because if we had we could perhaps have brought some common sense and a degree of sanity to what is yet another example of poorly thought-through lawmaking on the part of this Government.This is short-sighted legislation. It is misguided in its intentions and driven by a grasping mentality. Like much of this Government’s biosecurity agenda it places too much reliance on unproven technology and questionable techniques at the expense of front-line officers with years of experience and actual boots on the ground. This bill has obviously not been regarded as a crucial piece of this Government’s agenda coming through as it has from the 49thParliament rising and falling on the Order Paper for most of the 50th Parliament and limping through finally to the stage where we are about to sign it off.Similar to my Green colleague who spoke earlier Julie Anne Genter I confess I wrote the nuts and bolts of this speech about 2 years ago. I had to go back through it again to find out why we were opposed to the bill. I am happy to report that our reasons are still sound. In essence New Zealand First does not really object to the Government attempting to recover costs associated with screening passengers who are entering NewZealand through new and reopened airports and through new and low-volume ports of entry for biosecurity and other risks if these costs are materially over and above that which could normally be expected.We have some misgivings that this approach picks on the little guy and that the provinces are marginalised by it the smaller airports the regional airports such as Palmerston North Airport in the same way that this Government appears to regard much of the heartland as an irritant and an encumbrance rather than as the vitally important—indeed the essential—core of New Zealand’s agriculture and tourism-based economy that it actually is. Perhaps the National Party has forgotten its roots as part of the process of selling its soul to the free-market economics of neo-liberal ideology.But I digress—I digress just a little. We do not really object as I say to the Government attempting to recover costs where they have been incurred unreasonably or outside the scope of expected norms. We would question however how far the concept of user-pays is destined to proceed while general taxation continues. Will there come a time when every last dollar of Government expenditure is matched by a direct recovery of costs in some form or another? And yet general taxation continues unabated alongside it. We would question also the Government’s rationale in claiming that it must recover costs from new airports restarted airports and low-volume airports because operators of those airports are able to commence operations bring passengers into New Zealand and expose New Zealand to potential biosecurity risks without regard to the cost that such operations will necessarily impose on the nation’s border agencies the Customs Service the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Aviation Security Service. Mentioning the ministry dates this speech. It no longer exists; it is now the Ministry for Primary Industries.New Zealand First asks why when it is the Government itself that should be licensing and approving the activation and operation of these newer and smaller airports the Government does not take these costs into consideration when it is making the decision to allow any such new airport or point of entry to commence operations. Is this yet another case of deregulation and self-regulation of industry along the lines that we have seen with the likes of leaky buildings and Pike River?Even under these circumstances New Zealand First is not expecting the passage of this bill through the House to be arrested by our protests regarding it. It is a fait accompli that this bill will pass into law because the Government that is sponsoring it has the necessary numbers in order to make it happen. This we accept and this is why we regret that we were not able to make input into its early stages. We are voting against it because in action it will serve to reinforce bad practices at the border. It will make the Government’s current faulty direction in terms of biosecurity even worse. If the Government was intending in any way to focus its efforts on a regime of proper and effective biosecurity measures at the border we would have less opposition to it. But it is becoming apparent that this Government has no such intention. New Zealand’s biosecurity is becoming less robust and more threatened at every turn.Officers at the border are demoralised and disenchanted by the direction in which the Government is heading with regard to the treatment of biosecurity risks. They are struggling to understand why the ultimate responsibility for New Zealand’s safety and security should rest with them when at every level of authority and management above them such responsibility is being abdicated. There are insufficient dog teams available to service our ports of entry and officers complain frequently and with genuine concern about chronic and unaddressed understaffing. These shortcomings are being made in favour of scanners profiling and most disturbingly SmartGate—which as any frequent traveller will attest should be more accurately described as “DumbGate”given that it allows for the potential to admit all and any biosecurity risks without any recourse to interception or redress at all.Ian McKelvie: You’re rabbiting on a bit.RICHARD PROSSER: If this Government’s desire to recover the cost of biosecurity—I am just looking after your patch Mr McKelvie—screening at the previously described ports of entry was to be used to provide for adequate screening methods and effective interception of unidentified risk factors New Zealand First would be less opposed to the bill. But while this cynical money-grubbing exercise disadvantages provincial areas in the way that it does and does not address New Zealand’s actual and real biosecurity needs as it should New Zealand First remains opposed to the bill. Thank you.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to be part of the third reading of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. I would like the House to appreciate that my short contribution is no reflection on the importance of biosecurity and the customs and excise side of things.One thing that has not yet been mentioned is the cost. In each of those cases where there are efforts to start up an international airport it costs about $2 million. As we look at the high-tech situation that is employed and involved today around airport technology whether it is sniffer dogs or X-ray it is highly costly to resettle and train staff and to move families.I believe that this bill is just a good business function and that those people who are going to set up such a business of international arrivals in airports at their terminals will put this in their business case and adjust it accordingly. I have great pleasure in supporting this bill.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Kei te pai.RINO TIRIKATENE: I am very pleased to add my contribution to the third reading of this bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. We on this side of the House support this bill. We have supported this bill throughout. Like my colleagues I believe I spoke at the Committee stage of this bill which must have been over 2 years ago now. So I had to really reach back and think about what this bill was all about. But here we are nearly 4 years after it was introduced and we are on the home stretch. We are actually going to get it passed. It is a very reasonable piece of legislation and we do support it.We want to make sure that the Crown does not have to foot the bill for the processing costs of all international travellers and for all of the interactions that take place at our borders. It is fair for our airport operators to. Our main international airports are substantial operations. They are multinational listed companies. Some have substantial public ownership or local authority ownership. They are effectively public companies and I think it is fair that—given the investment that is required in terms of aviation security the New Zealand Customs Service and most important biosecurity—those big airport operators do contribute to non-routine processing in this case. We know that they are well-established operators and have been since they have been in operation so it is fair that they contribute their fair share towards those processing costs.I am very proud. I have heard contributions from around the House this evening about international airports in certain electorates and I am pleased to say that my electorate has the most international airports here in New Zealand. We have got Wellington Christchurch Dunedin and Queenstown so there are plenty there. Unfortunately I do not get Palmerston North which is Mr Lees-Galloway’s. I understand that it cut out a few years ago but hopefully it will come back.Iain Lees-Galloway: They’ll be back.RINO TIRIKATENE: It will be back. It will be back. There are plenty of international airports in my rohe. I am very proud of that. I have been around most of them. I have not actually done international travel through them but I know that it is very important especially to the South Island economy that we get our international travellers travelling to and from those international airports.I would also say that this legislation also encompasses new or re-established international airports. We have mentioned Palmerston North which will hopefully come back online very soon but we could also arguably—Iain Lees-Galloway: It still works; it just hasn’t got international flights.RINO TIRIKATENE: It does work and I understand that it does take the overflow and that when flights are diverted it still takes those international flights. So in a way you could say that it is still a type of international airport. It helps Wellington out every now and then.We could say that we are looking at the future and hopefully at the growth of our passenger numbers in our regions especially. But arguably there is another international airport depending on whom you talk to. I am talking about another amazing place in my great electorate and that is the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Islands is a very small community but they do regard the mainland as New Zealand and they are very much staunchly proud of the fact that they are Chatham Islanders. I thought that I would give that great community a little shout-out this evening. They do have big aspirations over there and hopefully—you never know—one day they might have an international airport there themselves.Getting back to this bill we do support it. We have seen a lot of innovations I guess in recent years in terms of processing. SmartGate is one of them as well as the advanced profiling of passengers who are coming through our borders. But we must not overlook the fact that you cannot beat having people on our borders having well-resourced border security especially our biosecurity system.Darien Fenton: Beagles too.RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes absolutely. I do not see many of them these days but we need to have those cute little but very very highly trained beagles that do the sniff test for illicit drugs or whatever other illegal items that certain passengers may be carrying.I do want to give a special acknowledgment to those fine men and women in our New Zealand Customs Service and the biosecurity service for the work they do. I say this in many of my speeches but they do defend our pā. They defend Aotearoa. They defend it from biosecurity incursions and those nasty bugs or whatever nasties they might be that might come in that could potentially decimate—decimate—our primary sector especially our export sector which we are so highly reliant on.So it is important that we do make sure that there is a well-resourced biosecurity service. We can benefit from technology but you cannot lose sight of the fact that we also do need well-trained and well-resourced people on the front line who do their job to protect our borders.I would also just like to pick up on Mr Prosser’s comment because I know he was talking about how my colleagues over here in New Zealand First are opposing the bill. That is regrettable but I do acknowledge Mr Prosser’s entertaining speech.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It was another incursion.RINO TIRIKATENE: Indeed it was another incursion. I think Mr Prosser maybe needs to look back in history to the time when Auckland International Airport was sold and to the Minister—or one of the Ministers—at the time who actually signed off on that prospectus. That Minister was the Rt Hon Winston Peters. So that party has played a key part in terms of the privatisation of our international airports.Denis O’Rourke: That’s nonsense.RINO TIRIKATENE: It is a fact. I will table the prospectus of that international airport of which Mr Peters was the Treasurer at the time if I can get my hands on it. I recall these things because I was part of an army of lawyers at the time that was doing a lot of the legal work behind the scenes in that initial public offering.Denis O’Rourke: You need to give that a bit more thought. You need to research just a little bit more so you get your facts right.RINO TIRIKATENE: I am just saying that the Auckland International Airport float was actually during the time when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was the Minister who signed the prospectus.He was one of two Ministers who actually did that.But I digress—I digress. I want to get back to this bill. This is a very reasonable bill. It is a reasonable bill because we do not want these largely overseas-owned floated international airport operators to be getting a free ride off the taxpayer. I think it is fair—and I think that every Kiwi has a sense of fairness—that the operators should pay their fair share. We know that a lot of the operators are very profitable and a lot of those profits are going straight back to wherever their institutional shareholders come from whether it is the US whether it is Australia or whether it is anywhere around the world. So with the fact that they can generate their profits through the benefit of having to operate their airport and process all the travellers it is certainly fair that those airport operators have to pay their fair share.I would just like to make a final comment. I think that what could actually benefit our processing of international travellers would be to have a 10-year passport. I know that that was raised in front of a select committee today. I think Kiwis do deserve it. We need to revert back to the 10-year passport. It is a lot fairer on everybody. If you take 5 years really that 5 years is condensed to only 4½ years of actual use of that passport. It is an ever-increasing cost. I think that our good hard-working citizens out there who do want to travel should get a fair go and revert to the good old 10-year passport whereby they can get good passage around the world under our highly respected passports. That would be a great gesture. I know that it is something that this side of the House will definitely be looking into. That concludes my speech. Kia ora tātou.Dr JIAN YANG (National): Ni hao. I support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. Thank you.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker. I am not sure whether I am going to be sharing my 5 minutes with the Green Party but I will take it anyway and see what happens. I rise to support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill as we have agreed. We support it for the reason that this is an appropriate development. International airports are important for our country. We support it for the reason that it is important that if these international airports are going to be established in other regions we should ensure that they have a resource in terms of protecting our borders with customs officials etc.My electorate has the Auckland Airport which is one of the busiest international airports of New Zealand. I refer to it as the gateway to New Zealand and the gateway to the nation the land of the young beautiful and gifted which is a reflection of the make-up of that particular community. I know that my colleagues who were in the former Labour Government prided themselves on the fact that we took care of that and ensured that the resources and facilities were available at the airport to ensure that our borders were well protected. That was an important aspect of our vision for the future. You will recall that since this Government came into power we have questioned the way that it has cut funding to resources particularly at the customs level. We have questioned the way that under its watch we have had the Psa disease which has hurt ourkiwifruit farmers. More recently there has been a fruit fly found in our regions. That is of significant concern and I know that my colleague Damien O’Connor raised consistently with the Minister of Customs—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: And agriculture.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —and agriculture—how the cutting of the funding when National came into Government has hurt our borders in that particular regard.Airports are important and I know that in the last 5 years we have had significant numbers of New Zealanders use those airports to fly away—to flee from this country.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A thousand a week is it?Su’a WILLIAM SIO: About a thousand a week—52000 in the last year or so all flying to Australia. Although they have been using the new facility SmartGate they could not wait to get out of this country since this Government came into power. I know that 52000 Kiwis have fled our shores for a better life out there in Australia. Even though this Government has in the last day or two trumpeted how the economic recovery seems to have improved our employment rate if those 52000 New Zealanders were to return to our shores I think we would be in a much worse state than the Government makes it out to be.I have a cousin who is leaving our shores for Australia unfortunately. She is married and has three children. Her oldest son is working. The three of them working have been able to support their family pay the mortgage and ensure that the younger kids get supported in their sports activities in their school. Last year my cousin’s husband lost his job out in Howick as I think a printer. As a result of losing that job despite the fact that his wife and their oldest son were working they could not afford to maintain their mortgage despite the low interest rates that we are experiencing. As a result in the last 2 or 3 months the husband has travelled to Melbourne to try to find work there. He has recently come back has got a job there and is now ready to move his entire family to live in Melbourne. They will not appreciate my naming them in the House but I am quite saddened by the fact that despite us trying to convince them to stay they do not believe any of the rhetoric that this Government has said. They do not believe any of the promises about the brighter future. That is why they are leaving New Zealand to go to Australia.Can you blame them? Can you blame the 52000 New Zealanders who have left our shores to try to find a better life in Australia? Despite this Government trumpeting and celebrating the improvement in our economic affairs I think a large proportion of working class communities—everyday New Zealanders—are not able to celebrate that recovery. Overall our Government is celebrating the drop in unemployment at 6 percent but I think if you look for example to the Pacific communities it still remains high at 13.7 percent. It is even worse for our young people. For our young people—Hon Maurice Williamson: And this has got what to do with cost recovery at airports?Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Absolutely airports—we are talking about economic development OK? People getting jobs people not getting jobs. As the Minister has intervened I do want to say that since he has been the Minister of Customs there have been regular complaints which I have referred to the Minister often from the Muslim communities who have been accosted at the airport. On one occasion I did ask the Minister whether he could assist in this because what happens is when somebody dies in the Muslim community protocols will permit that the dead be allowed to lie only for a certain number of days—Hon Member: One day.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: One day; that is right. So when a parent or somebody dear to them dies they are off. They are off. They are at the airport buying a ticket getting onthe first plane in and getting on the first plane to return. Often our officials looking at that get suspicious but the reality is that because of cultural customs they must do that so often these trips are never planned. I know that we raised it with the Minister asking whether he could do something about certain individuals being blocked off at the airport and being investigated for suspicion simply because they have not planned those trips. Well you cannot plan for somebody dying. So particularly in Muslim culture that is important. I know that the Minister has struggled with that. He has struggled with understanding that culture just as this Government has struggled to try to convince the rest of the country that things are better.Things are not better. Things are not better. All you have to do is look at the card. Look at this card that was released today by the Salvation Army. Look. Air New Zealand also prides itself on saying that it is a No. 1 airline—top of its game—but sadly we cannot say that about this Government. It got a D for child poverty not an A. It got a D. Unlike Air New Zealand it got a D. Children—it got a C-. Anyway I am disappointed that I have had to speak to this particular bill. There are so many things that we could have been talking about. We could have been talking about a better vision for this country where everybody benefits and where everybody is able to get the opportunities to get ahead. Instead we are talking about a bill that is as narrow as the arrogance of this particular Government. Thank you.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am enormously proud to support this bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.Bill read a third time.Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I moveThat the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. The issue of managing earthquake-prone buildings has been considered by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes and a comprehensive review has also been undertaken by the Government. This is a significant issue with what I think is a very high level of public interest. About 15000 to 25000 buildings—and I guess that one of the first problems we have is that no one knows exactly how many—across New Zealand could be earthquake-prone. I stress that this does not include residential buildings. It does not even include apartments if they are less than two storeys. They have to be multiple-storey apartment blocks to be included.Five hundred and thirty-five submissions were received on the Government’s consultation document which we released in 2012 outlining the proposals to improve a system for managing earthquake-prone buildings. More than 1000 people attended the public meetings and the stakeholder meetings held all around New Zealand on the issue last year. I attended a number of those meetings to hear very firsthand the public’s concern about the issue. Although rare major earthquakes stand out from other hazards in terms of the very large impact they have as a single event both in terms of fatalities and injuries as well as economic losses. The Christchurch earthquake of 22 February 2011 provides a very dramatic example of that. Both the Canterbury earthquake royal commission and the review undertaken by the Government identified problems with the current system for managing earthquake-prone buildings including significant information gaps and issues with consistency of practice. A clear view has emergedfrom society’s perspective that the current system for managing earthquake-prone buildings is not achieving an acceptable level of risk.Many earthquake-prone buildings are not being dealt with in a timely and cost-effective manner. This bill introduces a revised system for managing earthquake-prone buildings that in my view strikes a balance between protecting people from harm in an earthquake and managing the cost of strengthening or removing buildings. In a nutshell we do not want to make every building in the country meet the gold-plated standard and actually make nearly every building unable to be economically used; on the other hand we do not want people exposed to higher risks of fatalities and injuries because the building owners are not required to do anything. So it is about striking a balance. The bill is very broadly in line with the recommendations in volume 4 of the Canterbury earthquakes royal commission’s final report while also taking into account views of submitters on the public consultation document and feedback from the public and stakeholder meetings.The bill moves to a system that has a significantly greater role for central government particularly in providing leadership and direction to make better use of the capability and resources of both central government and local government. I now want to outline some of the key changes contained in this bill that I think are really quite useful. The bill is to provide better information and disclosure and so it will require territorial authorities to undertake a seismic capacity assessment of existing non-residential and multi-storeyed multi-unit residential buildings in their district within 5 years from the commencement of this legislation. That was what the royal commission recommended and we thought that 5 years was a realistic time. If you take 25000 buildings and you divide that by five you get 5000 a year and if you divide that by 52 weeks it is 100 buildings a week that will need to be assessed. That is a lot of work to be done and while a lot of engineering capacity is being soaked up in Christchurch with the rebuild any time frame shorter than that would have put a huge demand on supply in the engineering fraternity.Councils will follow a methodology to be specified and published by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment when undertaking those assessments so the first concern we had was that it would be a different regime all around the country. Well no. The guidelines and the methodology will be very very set for how you do the evaluation. The bill also provides for a public register containing information on the seismic capacity of buildings to be held by the ministry and I would actually like to go further. After we have got that public registry I would like to get it on to Google Maps and handheld devices and actually have people even walking into a building to have a cup of coffee being able to tell what the seismic rating of that building is. Boy would you see some market changes then when people were not prepared to use a building because it was not at a realistic level.Setting the threshold for defining an earthquake-prone building and the level of strengthening required involves as I have said already balancing risk versus cost. In this respect the bill does it. It clarifies the current threshold for defining an earthquake-prone building including that it applies to parts of the building as well as the whole. That has never been the case in the past. So it might be just the parapets or the verandahs or you know a lion or a gargoyle or something on the front of the building that could be the earthquake-prone bit; the rest of the building may actually be OK. So this is the actual part of the building or the whole and in practice the threshold that is often referred to will be that of 34 percent of NBS—the new building standard.I want to first get a response in to Business New Zealand. When Mr O’Reilly first saw this policy he said: “Oh I don’t like it because it’s one-size-fits-all.” Well let me give it to you again: it is 34 percent of the new building standard and the new buildingstandard is different in every town across the country. Kaitāia has almost no earthquake-prone building issue at all. The new building standard is almost zero and 34 percent of it is almost nothing. Wellington on the other hand has a higher standard than Christchurch even after the February earthquake. So to Mr O’Reilly I say that no it is not one-size-fits-all. This policy is about 34 percent of the risk faced by the specific location and the seismic risk that is identified.The bill also clarifies that the level of work required to fix an earthquake-prone building is only such that the building or the affected part is no longer earthquake-prone. There will be no requirement to go beyond the 34 percent. I would hope building owners do that where they think it is economically viable or where their customer base wants it. I know that for example the banks have been demanding that every building their staff is in is 67 percent but that is their call. It is a market call. They are individual private companies that can do what they—I do not know for Mr Shane Jones’ edification what the supermarkets are demanding as their seismic standard. They may actually have one. After tonight I think they will need one.To help ensure that earthquake-prone buildings are dealt with in a timely manner the bill sets a national time frame of 20 years for buildings to be strengthened or demolished. That is slightly different from what the royal commission said. The royal commission said 15 years. We felt that was just too tight on building owners from the time they were given it and we have moved it out by 5 years to 20 years. The territorial authorities have 5 years for the assessment and then 15 years after the assessment giving them 20 years. The bill provides for work on certain buildings defined in regulations to be prioritised. Things that are found to be quite life-threatening right now are to be given the first priority.It provides for exemptions for certain buildings from requirements to undertake work. It provides that owners of buildings that are category I historic places under the Historic Places Act may apply to the territorial authority for an extension of another 10 years. So we are trying to keep the historic places a little bit protected and not force them to meet the same time frame as normal commercial builders but owners must manage the risk if any extension is granted.The bill will also enable territorial authorities that are building consent authorities to issue building consents for required work on buildings that are earthquake-prone without requiring any upgrades to other circumstances. I know that the disability community was quite keen on making it mandatory that if you had to bring your building up to standard you should have to bring all of the disabled access elements into it as well. We think that is just too hard an ask on a building owner. Where it is possible I hope they do and where it is economically viable I hope they do but in the end we are not going to mandate it. The royal commission said we should not mandate it and we have agreed with the royal commission.So in a nutshell I think this bill is good. I think it helps give some protection to our heritage buildings but it makes sure that commercial building owners get out and get their buildings assessed. It makes sure the public can go to a register look for their building and find out. The bill will in my view ensure that earthquake-prone buildings are dealt with in a timely manner by way of a nationally consistent system. It will strike a balance between protecting the public from harm in an earthquake and managing the cost of strengthening or removing buildings and it will ensure that information about earthquake-prone buildings is made available to the public. I commend this bill to the House.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): We will support the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill which may be in contrast to various other things I have not supported today. We will support this bill largely because we do want to assure thepublic—and I think this is an area where bipartisanship is in order—that the dwellings the buildings and the structures that they occupy work in and visit are moving towards a higher level of compliance.We on this side of the House have been contacted by people fearful that buildings in Feilding Palmerston North and dare I say it Kaikohe may actually be lumbered with a higher cost structure in order to meet the standard. So it is important that those owners do not have a single option which is demolition. I cannot see how that is going to serve the purposes of the community or the owners in our rural townships. I could think of Kaikōura. I could think of areas around Manawatū or even in my own rohe Tai Tokerau. We have other problems in the north. The last time I checked earthquakes were not one of them. We have Hone Harawira but that is another matter. I suppose that in itself could be a threat to a building but that aside it is important that we all join together to strike the right balance and that we get the right submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee.I actually do have some sympathy for those trusts some of them church trusts that have as their assets on their register these kinds of buildings. If we go ahead and demolish all of our old heritage buildings we are such a young country that I think that is an unwise step. But the reality is that we observed two things in the aftermath of the earthquakes. In one sense we have got to sort of guard against the loss of life or limb and on the other we have got to come up with a pragmatic solution that enables people to economically continue to own buildings use buildings and not be lumbered with a level of compliance of cost such that in some cases I genuinely fear they will just walk away from the buildings. I fear they will walk away because No. 1 the buildings may become uninsurable and No. 2 because of the cost structure associated with upgrading the building they will never get a rental stream that will enable them to cover the costs of the upgrade work.I think that the Minister for Building and Construction has genuinely tried—or at least I am told that he has listened and tried. There is a duty however on the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment which is where I think the building department is currently located. There is such a confusing array of planets in Steven Joyce’s solar system otherwise known as “MBIE” but there is a set of onerous responsibilities upon them. I only hope that as this regime is eventually implemented consultation is the hallmark of what the bureaucrats do in dealing with not only the public advocate groups or advocates but also the owners or their proxies of these buildings.The notion that this is one size fits all—popularised by Philip O’Reilly the only member of the National caucus who is not a parliamentarian—I think needs to be dismissed. It needs to be dismissed because there is nothing that that advocate says on behalf of Business New Zealand that does not reflect a view that inheres in the National Party caucus. So when we hear his name or his advocacy it is irrelevant. In fact I am told that Mr O’Reilly is thinking of going to Europe. I am not in a position to purchase him a ticket but he has outlived his usefulness in terms of the way in which he contributes to these debates and I support what the Minister said about Mr O’Reilly. His assertion that this bill—which we do want to support and it will be refined as it goes through the select committee process—is so constrictive that it will not cope with the inevitable differences speaks more of his inflexible mind and quite frankly of the ideological claptrap that we have become accustomed to hearing from that fake representative of the New Zealand business community. I think I have served the Lord’s purpose in describing him so I shall move on.My colleague Mr Raymond Huo has already contributed in this debate and we know in standing with the Minister and shepherding this bill off to the selectcommittee that there will be people who feel that not enough has been done. What will the Crown do? Will it change the tax regime to actually enable the costs to sit as a type of expense that building owners can write off as a cost of owning such capital structures or will the costs continue to sit as a work of a capital nature the cost of which can only be written off over a very long period of time?I should imagine that for the property developers and owners who are advocating that perspective—I guess we will hear from them in the select committee—that could be a very big number. And the slender number of New Zealand owners who are offended by the fact that these additions and these improvements remain as capital additions probably are in inverse proportion to the amount of money it will cost the New Zealand taxpayer base if we accede to their request. But having said that we live in a democracy. They are entitled to come forward—as long as they are giving a balanced and accurate depiction of the situation—because they do fulfil a valuable purpose i.e. the development and ownership of capital assets. But they cannot expect to write off all of that expense if it reflects an inordinately difficult impost on what is probably a sort of strained fiscal situation in relation to how much of that can be written off on to the State.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.