Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): You know Rogernomics has in the Labour Party history attached itself to Labour as some sort of terrible appalling time of Labour Party history that they'd rather forget. When they talk about the 1980s and 1990s they don't actually remember that it was their party from 1984 to 1990 and they kind of conflate Ruth Richardson and the benefit changes and the mother of all Budgets" with Rogernomics. They forget that they were the people in charge and that the continuation of things that happened in the early 1990s were the continuation of their own Government's time in office. Grant Robertson's obsessed with this period. When he was back in the dark days of Opposition and he was casting about for things to do he rewrote the Labour Party constitution and they tried to just whitewash the 1980s. They said "Governments in the 1980s took New Zealand down dark turns." They didn't mention it was them. They just kind of pretended and forgot about that. So today we hear from the Government in this debate but also repeatedly through Minister Robertson's speeches that this is like the chance to repent. Redemption is here. We're going to make up for things that happened in the 1990s. Well the funny thing was who was in charge between 1999 and 2008? It was Helen Clark. In fact Labour has been in charge during the last 30 years for 14 of those 30 years. But yet apparently it's taken till today for the country to repent and redeem themselves. The other interesting thing about all this talk about the 1991 benefit cuts is that they weren't in the 1991 Budget. Grant Robertson is wrong. Grant Robertson said today in his speech that the 1991 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update cut benefits. It did not. There were benefit cuts but they were in the December 1990 mini-Budget after National came to Government back in 1990. I was seven. Grant was I don't know 12 or something. Clearly this is something he cares deeply about but he's wrong about when the benefit cuts actually happened. But of course he'll just ignore all that because it doesn't allow him to create the symmetry the symbolism of what he wants which is 30 years on from 1991. So he misremembers history and actually there's a lot of misremembering of history going on in the Labour Party at the moment because in the Labour Party's version of history pre-1984 before that big bad Roger Douglas came along with his mates Caygill and Prebble and then they were followed by Ruth Richardson their other mate from the other party in their version of history pre-1984 New Zealand was a glorious country: unemployment was low—Hon David Bennett: Milk and honey.CHRIS BISHOP: —and milk and honey—Hon Scott Simpson: No strikes.CHRIS BISHOP: —there were no strikes. Whereas the reality is as the smarter Labour Party members know like David Parker actually New Zealand pre-1984 was a sclerotic economy compared to a Polish shipyard—an economy that was on its knees.Hon Michael Woodhouse: What did it have though—it had wage and price freezes?CHRIS BISHOP: Well it did. It did have a wage and price freeze.Hon Andrew Little: Who put those in place?CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah well that's right. I mean here's the thing. Andrew Little says "Who put that in place?" Here's the thing. I'm prepared to acknowledge that Rob Muldoon's wage and price freeze was a mistake. Are you Mr Little prepared to acknowledge that the changes made from 1984 onwards—which by the way the fundamentals of which have never been reversed—have made New Zealand a more productive and prosperous economy?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate. CHRIS BISHOP: I'm sorry. I'm sorry Madam Speaker. I got very fired up there. So we'll wait and see if Mr Little is prepared to acknowledge that.So the Labour Party misremembers the past because we did have a wage and price freeze from 1982 to 1984. I'll tell you what else we had back in the 1970s—there's been repeated references to it during the debate today and in previous days—which is a union system or an industrial relations system not so much focused on the flexibility of the labour market but on raw union power. David Seymour made reference earlier to the fair pay agreements being advanced by the Labour Party as being actually closer to the 1896 Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and there's probably some truth in that. The sad thing is that successive Labour Governments in both Australia and New Zealand and social democratic Governments around the world have realised that enterprise-based bargaining based on the productivity of a business is the way forward for higher wages not productivity based on whatever a union boss and the employer boss decide in a smoke-filled—well it won't be smoke-filled any more but a back room—Hon Michael Woodhouse: A vape-filled room. CHRIS BISHOP: —a vape-filled closed room in the dead of night when they're trying to strike an industrial bargain. We've long ago realised that. Paul Keating realised that. Bob Hawke realised that. Roger Douglas in New Zealand realised that. Stan Rodger who was the Minister of labour in the 1980s under that Labour Government realised that. Successful progressive social democratic parties know that which is why none of them including the Australian Labor Party are trying to go back to the bad old days. I'll tell you the only party in the Western World the only social democratic party in the Western World trying to reverse 50 years of industrial progress is the New Zealand Labour Party. So they misremember the past.Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I'm actually finding that quite interesting but none of it is in the bill.CHRIS BISHOP: Speaking to the point of order I accept the point that it is relatively wide-ranging but I just make the point that it is responding largely to points made by members opposite and it's a robust debate.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK thank you. Thank you for those points of order. I've been following the bill closely as the debate has flowed and it is a relatively narrowly focused debate but there are the changes consequential changes—increases to social welfare benefits—and I think given the House is in urgency I am happy that the member's speech is within the scope of this bill. However I would remind the House to be aware that this is still a first reading—second reading you can spread your wings a little more.CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you Madam Speaker. So we support this as members on this side of the House have—[Interruption] Well we support it for the reasons that Nicola Willis I think neatly outlined which is that you've got to maintain the gap between welfare and work. We agree and we absolutely believe you have got to maintain that gap between welfare and work to incentivise people to get into the labour market. So the general policy statement—"this bill proposes to increase the Minimum Family Tax Credit … as a consequence of increases to Social Welfare benefits"—is absolutely justified in light of the increases to benefits that the Government is providing. But I would make the point that we will never do anything about inequality in this country—an admirable goal—until we sort out our housing market. The Minister of Finance in his speech today waxed lyrical about doing more for those on low incomes and creating a more equal New Zealand. Actually if you want the truth since the 1980s since the terrible reforms that they like to demonise the truth is if you take out housing costs inequality in New Zealand is flat. When you include housing costs that's when you start to get the pernicious effects of restrictive land laws restrictive zoning requirements in our major cities and a restrictive urban and outer urban planning regime that makes it nearly impossible to build a house in this country and it makes it difficult—nearly impossible—to supply the infrastructure to build a house in this country. If we're talking about 30 years on it was 30 years ago this year that Parliament passed the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991. By God if there was one thing this Government could do that would make a difference to reverse something bad that happened 30 years ago for me it probably wouldn't be the benefit cuts. If I'm looking on 30 years and saying I want to do something progressive I want to do something that will change things for the better in this country I want to do something that will make it easier to build houses I want to do something that will make it easier to create a more equal society I want to do something that will make it easier for low-income people to get on the housing ladder I want to do something that will make it easier to lower the social housing wait-list make it easier for renters in this country the one thing I would do would be wholesale Resource Management Act reform. Thirty years ago Parliament passed the RMA and 30 years—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member is just getting a little wide of the bill. Could he return to the bill please.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh well Madam Speaker I'm making the point about how the Government's argument is that lower-income people are doing it tough and therefore we have to increase benefit levels and I'm making the point that one of the reasons lower-income people are doing it tough is because of the explosion in housing costs particularly rental costs driven by a restrictive housing market driven by the Resource Management Act. This is a point that people often don't understand: if you make it harder to build houses you make it harder for people to get into the rental market and you make it easier for landlords. You mean that landlords can charge what they like. We need a housing market where renters have the power not landlords. At the moment the situation is the reverse. You've got students near where I used to live lining up on Kelburn Parade and the streets running off it at 8 a.m. in the morning to get a student flat that's smelly and mouldy and they're charged an arm and a leg and through the nose for it—to continue the clichés. It's just appalling. We've got to reverse all that and once we reverse all that by actually making some changes that should be reversed from 30 years ago—i.e. the Resource Management Act—that's when we'll get a housing market that works for renters. We don't need to increase benefit levels like that. That would be the single best thing we could do for low-income people in this country."