General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGeneral Debate[Sitting date: 25 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13700. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]General DebateHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. In the life of any Government there approaches a tipping point. It is a point where the temperature in the House rises as the public makes up its mind and where the Government of the day starts to look tired ragged and desperate. According to the Government I was not born in New Zealand. I am a militant Islamic terrorist and I was actually born in Kenya! We will get more from it on that.We are not fooled. The real issue going on is that the Government is covering up for a Minister of Conservation who is such an endangered species that he could not even crawl his way into the Chamber. This is a—Hon Member: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think I can anticipate—the member must not refer to the fact that a Minister is not in the Chamber.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: This Government is showing all the signs of a third-term Government in its second term. This is a Government on its way out and this is an Opposition on its way in. The endangered Minister is guilty of three capital crimes: self-contradiction excess intervention and repeat offending.In a self-contradiction on 29 July he said: “The first I knew of there being an issue overDOC’s submission [forRuataniwha] to the board was at my weekly meeting with officials on Monday 29 July.” On the 31st he said he received a full briefing and a final submission from his department. Roll the clock forward to 19 September. He told the media and the House: “I have consistently said I never saw this draft until Tuesday of this week.” That was months later. On 19 July he said: “I did not know that this draft document even existed.”—he did not know that a draft existed. When the deputy director-general of the Department of Conservation expressed the Minister’s concern what was so nuclear in the draft? It was the department doing its duty: warning that the poor littlefishies in the Tukituki River might be harmed by the nitrates in the dam.This caused the second capital crime: excess intervention. It was not nitrates in the water that was the problem; it was whatever was in the Minister’s waters because the Minister stomped all over proper departmental process. In so doing he thwarted the Department of Conservation fulfilling its statutory mandate: saving the littlefishies of the Tukituki River.The third capital crime is repeat offending because this Minister has a history of scandals rather reminiscent of theRuataniwha troubles. He sacked the Environment Canterbury board because it got in the way of big irrigator interests. I wonder which big irrigating interests are leaning on this particular project. He has a habit of going off half-cocked. He wrote letters of support to ACC for National Party campaigner BronwynPullar when he was Minister for ACC. He has a history of defamation cases—defamation cases. It rather reminds me of a certain MatthewHooton—but we will not go there—the timber companyOsmose the Exclusive Brethren Dave Henderson Bruce Stuart-Menteath and then of course the little matter of being found in contempt of court.Look at them on the other side. One almost feels sorry for them. There comes a point past the tipping point where you just want to put them out of their misery. That time is now ladies and gentlemen. Let us get a new Labour-led Government and give New Zealanders back their country.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I seek leave to table an article from today’sNelson Mail. It is on the eradication programme for the giant white butterfly and it has the—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to table the draft Department of Conservation submission on theRuataniwha dam and its implications for the Tukituki catchment and estuary—Mr SPEAKER: Can I clarify—was this not tabled yesterday?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have a copy here which is—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not the point. Was it tabled yesterday?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I may have missed that Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: If I am assured that it was not tabled yesterday I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table the draft Department of Conservation submission. [Interruption] Order! I understood it was tabled yesterday. I sought clarification from the Labour front benches.Hon Members: We don’t know.Mr SPEAKER: Well I would be staggered if the members cannot remember what was tabled yesterday when they called for it. [Interruption] Sorry the Hon Shane Jones is interjecting. What is the point?Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a very lucid point of order. We can expect the Speaker of this House to keep an accurate record of what documents are tabled.Mr SPEAKER: That is the point I am making. The document was tabled yesterday so the Hon David Cunliffe is wasting his time by seeking to table it again.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Oh this is getting to the ridiculous stage. I will hear from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove if it is a fresh point of order. If it is not then I will be asking the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to leave the Chamber.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): It is a serious procedural question not challenging you. It is the case I assume that documents and other things get tabled all the time and I assume your office—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are now getting to the stage when the member is exactly questioning that—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can I finish?Mr SPEAKER: No the member cannot finish. The member will resume his seat. We have clarified that the document was tabled yesterday. It is a privilege to seek leave to table a document. It must be something that is done to inform members. I have been assured that the document was tabled yesterday. I will not put leave for it to be tabled again today. That is the end of the matter.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order or is it seeking to clarify?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Seeking to clarify.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the—[Interruption] Order! It was on the basis of AnneTolley’s confirmation to me that it was tabled yesterday that I am seeking the clarification.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am sorry. I was asserting that the document was tabled. I do not think it was tabled yesterday; I believe it was tabled last week by the Greens.Hon Annette King: Are we sure?Mr SPEAKER: Well no. The easiest way forward—[Interruption] Order! Now that it has been clarified that it possibly was not tabled yesterday I am going to ask the member to seek leave—would the member seek leave?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): Yes. I seek leave to table this document which was not tabled yesterday.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the particular Department of Conservation draft submission. Is there any objection? There is.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: A fresh point of order. I seek leave to table briefing notes to plan change 6 to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan Tukituki Catchment andRuataniwha Water Storage—Mr SPEAKER: Sorry the source of these documents?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Ministry for Primary Industries I understand.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a Ministry for Primary Industries draft statement. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: A fresh point of order. I seek leave to table Ministry for Primary Industries document 103298 starting at page 356 which is its final submission to theRuataniwha—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table a Ministry for Primary Industries submission. Can I just check. Are there any further documents that the member wants to table?Hon David Cunliffe: Many.Mr SPEAKER: Today?Hon David Cunliffe: No.Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Leave is sought to table the Ministry for Primary Industries documents. There is objection.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): It must be a good Government when the biggest issue of the day of the second week of the new leader’s career is whether the Minister of Conservation saw a draft report before he knew it existed. That is the biggest issue and I think it does show how out of touch the pale male stale Labour Party is.One of the bigger issues is actually housing and I just want to outline the Government’s programme of work towards resolving New Zealand’s housing affordability issues. In the last economic cycle up to 2007-08 housing in New Zealand became less affordable than it had ever been driven mainly actually by the policies of the current Leader of the Opposition where we ended up with first mortgage rates at 10 percent at a time when house prices had doubled in less than a decade.Back in early 2011 when house prices had actually been falling and were flat this Government decided that it was an issue that needed to be dealt with. At that time we announced the first inquiry of the new Productivity Commission. The first inquiry of thenew Productivity Commission was into housing affordability. That commission did a very good job because what it did was show that in fact the supply of housing was a critical determinant of the price of housing. I have to say that before then when this Government had advanced that proposition it was roundly criticised particularly by local government and also by the Opposition and by pretty much any commentator who thought they knew much about it.The Productivity Commission did its inquiry and released its report in April 2012. In October 2012 the Government released its response to that report and then we proceeded to take action because housing affordability is an issue that affects every New Zealander. We started intensive discussions particularly with Auckland Council because this is about the interaction of local decision-making and regulation along with its impact on macroeconomic settings and particularly in New Zealand on our export sector.Of course the Opposition should have understood the real risks of a runaway housing market because the runaway housing market under Labour was so bad that in 2008 it and then we had to back a sovereign guarantee of the New Zealand banking system with a contingent liability of over $100 billion. So we should all be aware of the risks of having a runaway housing market alongside any kind of financial disruption.It had never happened before that a New Zealand Government had had to underwrite our banking system which is driven primarily by housing loans. So of course we set out to take action to ensure that those circumstances could not arise again. As a result of our intensive negotiations with Auckland Council we have come to an agreement—I might say a historic agreement—that the Government and Auckland will work together on increasing the supply of housing going into that market where prices have been growing by 12 to 15 percent.That agreement is backed up by an innovative legislative solution which I have to say took an enormous amount of work from the previous and the current Minister of Housing and was put through the House in pretty quick time. It still took 6 or 8 months to get it through because that is the time it takes.The housing cycle of course has taken off—there is no doubt about that—and it is fortunate that this Government 3 years ago set off down the path of dealing with housing affordability. Now we are ready alongside the Auckland Council to consent thousands—thousands—of new houses including affordable houses.Phil Twyford: How many affordable?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The biggest indictment on that member’s party is that under Labour’s watch no affordable housing was built in Auckland—none. None was built in a decade—almost none in a decade. By the end of Labour’s time in office you had to pay $600000 or $700000 on the periphery of the city at mortgage rates—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): There are two agendas that are competing in New Zealand at the moment. There is the agenda for a smarter greener more compassionate New Zealand and there is the Government’s agenda of daft dirty and heartless and nothing could illustrate that more than the debate around theRuataniwha irrigation scheme. It looks like a debate as to whether Nick Smith misled Parliament or not but what sits behind it is that the Government is absolutely determined to pursue its irrigation agenda regardless of the environmental effects.What we know from theRuataniwha scheme is that it is massively subsidised by the taxpayer—both the ratepayers in the Hawke’s Bay as well as central government which will be kicking in a lot of money—we know it will have a huge downstream environmental effect of massive nitrogen contamination as a result of this dam project if it is to go ahead; and we know that the only Government department with thestatutory responsibility to stand up for the environment to speak out for it and to make a submission into this process is the Department of Conservation and that is why the Minister of Conservation had to censor his department and prevent it from putting in a submission that was critical of this dam project.The Department of Conservation’s original submission simply stated the science. The science around this is very clear. When you have a massive irrigation project—hundreds of millions of dollars this project will cost—and then you have tens of thousands of hectares of intensified agriculture as a result you get massive downstream nitrogen pollution with all the problems that causes not only to the native fish in that river system but of course to the recreational trout fishery as well. It is the fundamental destruction of the New Zealand environment.The Department of Conservation was simply going to put in a submission pointing to these basic scientific facts but it was unacceptable to the Government that the department should tell the truth about the freshwater science so it had to be suppressed. It was just the same as when the Government got rid of the democratically elected councillors in Canterbury. Prior to the earthquake it got rid of the elected councillors in Canterbury. They were standing up to the irrigation agenda of this Government so they had to go. That is why the Department of Conservation had to be suppressed and its submission had to be suppressed. It was not allowed to go into this process.The Ministry for Primary Industries of course was allowed to put in a very large submission in favour of the dam project but the Department of Conservation was blocked. What this means is that we are heading down an economic path where we kill the goose that lays the golden egg. New Zealand’s clean green and safe reputation the foundation of our primary sector is being destroyed by the Government while it seeks short-term profits and simply an increase in more and more milk solids. The last drop of milk from the last blade of grass could describe this Government’s economic strategy.Instead of having investment in research and development and innovation making us an innovative economy that makes money from our brains we are simply becoming an economy that digs stuff up and grows milk and sells it to the rest of the world and in the process completely destroying the natural environment that underpins our primary food export sector. As theRiddet Institute—that is theagrifood institute that is an expert in this—pointed out the Government is determined to destroy the clean green and safe brand that underpins our primary sector rather than saying that what we need to do is build on that brand get value out of that brand control more of the value chain from that brand get to know our customers do the research and development so we make more money out of it and at the same time invest in research and development in more innovative industries that can complement the primary sector so we do not build an economy entirely dependent on cows and mining as this Government thinks we should do.That is the fundamental economic strategy issue that is at stake in this argument around theRuataniwha dam. It is a fundamental divergence of views between the National Party which wants to keep heading down this strategy of daft dirty and heartless and the Green Party which says that we need a smarter greener more compassionate strategy and a smarter greener economic strategy that actually adds value and makes us more prosperous and richer rather than simply degrading the natural environment on which our economy depends. That is the fundamental contradiction.When Nick Smith had the motive to get in the way of the department’s report he had the opportunity and the evidence is that he interrupted the report. The reason why he is doing that is not just some accidental reason; he is doing it in order to support theGovernment’s irrigation agenda which is fundamentally undermining the New Zealand economy.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I am sure the House is very grateful for that lesson in business resting on the vast experience in the real world of that member Russel Norman. I am sure we have enjoyed that. I do challenge such members to check some of their facts around the job creation side of what he has just been talking about.Anyway every time the far-left socialist coalition members over there speak and welcome socialism with open arms as does the new leader of the Labour Party—and congratulations to the new leader—every time they open their mouths New Zealand mortgages suffer. After that speech right then and the Leader of the Opposition’s speech New Zealand mortgages will suffer if in fact those members are ever to get near the Treasury benches. The programme of multibillion-dollar borrowing from overseas that the three contestants in the Labour Party leadership contest have committed their party to if Labour becomes the Government will mean that New Zealand mortgages will be so much higher than they are now. The Opposition cannot wait to get its sticky fingers on the Reserve Bank. Its members cannot wait to get the independence of monetary policy out of the clutches of the world-renowned Reserve Bank here in New Zealand. The moment they talk about that as with the moment they went there the last time they were in Government in 2008 with an inquiry—actually New Zealand mortgages will go higher if in fact those members ever get anywhere near implementing that policy.The results of the Better Public Services prudent management of our economy are starting to be enjoyed by more and more New Zealanders all the time. There are lower mortgage rates—half of what they were under Labour in 2008 in spite of the global financial crisis and in spite of the efforts we are having to do around the Christchurch and Canterbury earthquake tragedies. I must note that we should contrast where we are now with 2008 the source of data being the 2008 pre-election fiscal update—the document that introduced the decade of deficits to our country. I do note that one of the Associate Ministers of Finance was one Mr David Cunliffe in 2008 when the decade of deficits arrived in New Zealand.In 2008 under a Labour Government New Zealand had been in a recession for over 1 year. Under National right now there is some of the highest growth in the OECD. Under Labour when one Associate Minister of Finance was one David Cunliffe we had 10 percent floating mortgages. Under National right now we have 5 percent floating mortgages. Under Labour when Mr Cunliffe was an Associate Minister of Finance we had only 4 percent real wage growth over 9 years. Here under the National Government over just 5 years we have had 22 percent growth in after-tax wages. Inflation when Mr Cunliffe was an Associate Minister of Finance was nudging 5 percent destroying the financial assets of New Zealand and pumping up an ongoing housing boom. Under National it is 0.5 to 1.5 percent—under control. In 2008 under Labour exports had been in recession for many many years. Under National manufacturing and all export sectors are growing and having a brighter future. Under Labour when David Cunliffe was one of the associate finance spokesmen the tax take went up 50 percent. Taxes went up 50 percent. National in 2013 is rebalancing the tax system to target those who speculate on property. Under Labour in 2008 there was an explosion of loss attributing qualifying companies—nobody really hears about them any more—a product of the distorted tax system of the Labour Government backed by the Greens when Mr Cunliffe was one of the associate finance spokesmen.After 5 years of National in Government New Zealanders are better off. There is no better proof than the mortgage rates that New Zealanders are paying which are half of what they were under the Labour Government.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Over the years New Zealand First has raised a number of issues in this Parliament and over the years we have had our credibility attacked by certain people in the press gallery and around the country who do not seem to have much of an understanding of how facts are assembled. The reality is that over the years we talked about things as wide as the wine-box inquiry New Zealand Rail the leaking of secret documents the Bank of New Zealand scandal the Māori loans affair and time after time we have had the effrontery to be faced by journalists and people in the Opposition who say that what we are arguing is not true.I want to say aboutWhānau Ora that the allegations being made here in the last 2 days are true and that what the Minister forWhānau Ora has been telling the House is not true. That is demonstrably obvious to everybody here in respect of those questions. Yesterday she was asked a question on whether or not she had ever offered resources and staff such as report writers to prepareWhānau Ora commissioning agency bid documentation. All the evidence for that has been placed before this House. Instead the Minister gets up here and seeks to vacillate and argue and by being deliberately obtuse get away from what used to be a House where things were transparent and members of Parliament were accountable. This is a disgrace and all over this country there are people writing in—I am sure even to you Mr Speaker—to say what a disgrace they think it is.The fact is that John Key said thatWhānau Ora contracts would be focused on results meaning that the providers would be held accountable for what they achieved with Government funding. When did that happen in the last 2 days? She was asked a simple question: did this or did this not happen and 2 days later you have got officials in this Parliament and members of Parliament and certain people in the media who would not know a Māori if they fell over one having the effrontery to challenge someone whose information is based on documentation and Māori information as well.This is the “bro-rocracy” of the “Browntable”—to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from worthy social causes to the elite mates and supporters of the Māori Party. They have been caught out yet again with their pork andpūhā politics. It is a blatant and barefaced use of public money to fund a completely separate system—a blatant attempt to sideline pan-Māori and urban Māori authorities for their own preferred ancient mediaeval mechanism. It is a giant leap back to the worst excesses of ancient tribalism and it does not fit in with the modern democratic society.Whānau Ora medieval in purpose does not empower Māori. The Māori Party most certainly does not empower Māori. Democracy does empower Māori and all the great progress and achievements came with the democratic system to this country and every time we let that system down in this Parliament we sell our nation and democracy short. It is a giant leap backwards. They started with $30 million then $43 million then $50 million and now it is $53 million a year since 2010-11. It is a gold-plated gravy train and the latest twist is that now there are three non-governmental agencies in the mix—the so-called commissioning agencies.Remember when we said that they were giving money to Māori gangs and selling drugs? Remember when we said that they were giving money to a rape crisis centre with not one client? Remember when we said they gave $65000 for a weekend hui at a rugby club as some sort of attempt to get connection amongstMāoridom? She opposed that—[Interruption] What does that mean Mr Speaker?Mr SPEAKER: One minute.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh I thought you were saying it was wonderful. Sorry Mr Speaker. Tariana Turia in this House and outside it denied it in the face of the media. I want to tell the New Zealand media that it doesMāoridom no good—or this nation any good—if it thinks it can take sides and that somehow this issue will go away. It will not. The fact is that the Minister has been caught out. I have lodged a breach of privilege. If we have got justice in this country it will find favour. The Minister said—not once but twice over 2 specific days—on the question as to whether she was involved in any sort of resourcing of these agencies “No.” over and over and over again. That is a breach of privilege and that Minister should go.Hon JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): As I rise for this general debate today I do so knowing that the feedback I am getting from the people of my Rangitata electorate is that they are so grateful to have a Government that has its eye on the ball; that has its eye on the things that really matter to New Zealanders. So it is not what is the matter with New Zealanders; it is what matters to New Zealanders.One of the most important things to them is that the Government has assisted their households and their families through the global financial crisis and through the tough times and they have come to understand that it has their interests at heart. So it is about responsibly managing the Government’s finances. As I often say to people I understand as does this National Government that when we talk about Government spending it is actually their spending. It is their taxpayer money that we are spending. It is not Government money. It came out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders.It is actually about a more competitive and productive economy because that is about jobs that is about raising incomes that is about raising the standard of living for the households of New Zealand. That is the sort of stuff where in fact the average household understands that it is spending so much less on its mortgage under this National Government than it ever did under the previous Government. They can certainly get their heads round how that has helped them through this time.It is about the confidence that the people of Canterbury understand. They know that this Government is backing them and is backing getting the rebuild done. Canterbury is firing on all cylinders. I can tell you that unemployment is low there. I can tell you that in my part of Canterbury we are now suffering from unease about skills shortages. So I would say to people in the rest of New Zealand to come on down—we have got a job for you. We will look after you down our end of the country.The thing I want to concentrate on today is the Better Public Services targets. You see this Government does not shy away from setting itself tough targets—targets that will not be easy to achieve and that are not simply window dressing. Our Government and New Zealanders understand that it is not about spend spend spend—spend for the sake of spending. It is actually about getting some value for the money we spend. It really is. We are certainly delivering. We are reducing crime. We do have measurable improvements in the health of New Zealanders. We are reducing educational underachievement and long-term welfare dependence. But long-term welfare dependence is something that the members on the other side of the House depend upon. They actually depend upon it to stay there and support them.In fact the targets we have actually set are quite hard to achieve. We have actually had to take some risks. On this side of the House we have had to take some—Andrew Williams: We’re over here.Hon JO GOODHEW: Welfare dependence is over there is it? Welfare dependence is over there since that is what I am actually talking about at the moment and the member calls out “We’re over here.” So the number of long-term beneficiaries has fallen by almost 3000 to 75300. That is 3000 in the past year.As for the Social Workers in Schools scheme they are now implemented in decile 1 to 3 schools—72 percent of low-decile schools. That is making a real difference in those schools. Not only have we got social workers in schools but we have got social workers in every single district health board hospital. That makes a real difference. That makes a real difference.So if we want to look at some statistics that are truly truly scary 3044 children experienced substantial physical abuse in the year to March 2013. But actually the good news is that that is a reduction of 3.5 percent. So we are seeing—Andrew Williams: That’s margin of error.Hon JO GOODHEW: Oh the member is dreaming. The Vulnerable Children Bill received universal unanimous support across the House so that is something that we can actually all agree on. But what we did not see under the previous Government is any jolly improvement on that or on any tough things. So when we went out around the country with a green paper we said that we wanted to hear the tough things that people thought we should do to protect vulnerable children. We are having fantastic success when it comes to immunisation elective surgery cancer treatment—results results results under this Government—Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is always extraordinary to follow Jo Goodhew the only Minister of Women’s Affairs ever to vote in this House against paid parental leave. That is an unbelievable record that she will leave behind in this House.It is movie time for Nick Smith. We are up to the sequel in the series. The first movie as most people will know was entitled “Fatal Attraction: The BronwynPullar Affair”. That is how things began. For those who do not recall the details of that case it concerned Nick Smith writing a letter on a ministerial letterhead as Minister for ACC and intervening in that case. I might say that there was a guest star in that movie—Judith Collins. While we are discussing that we still do not know who leaked the email out of Judith Collins’ office. We still do not know that today. There are some suspicions around but she was certainly a guest star in that movie.Now we have reached the sequel. The sequel is a remake of a well-known filmThe Dam Busters—or in this case “The Accidental Dam Buster” with Nick Smith. What is not well-known about theDam Busters movie is that it is actually based on an operation in World War II called Operation Chastise. It would be fair to say that there has been a great deal of chastising going on on the other side of the House. Nick Smith is very grateful for the fact that Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce are not here because Operation Chastise was taking place in the Beehive earlier this week.Nick Smith just cannot stick to one story about what has happened. What Nick Smith told us on 17 September is: “I did not give the department an indication of what that submission would be.”Hon Annette King: “I did not have sex with that woman.”GRANT ROBERTSON: He also said: “I did not know that this draft document even existed until this morning.” As my colleague Annette King says there are echoes here of “I did not have sex with that woman Ms Lewinsky.” Nick Smith cannot keep his story straight in this matter.What we are seeing here from Nick Smith is a continuation of his form his complete lack of respect for any kind of due process and a continuation of the crony capitalism that is now the mark of this Government. Nick Smith has the ACC case. He also has the Canterbury Regional Council case. It is important to remember that when Nick Smith was asked why he cancelled the Canterbury Regional Council elections in 2010 he said: “Because I’m worried about the outcome.” That is what he told New Zealanders.His lack of respect for democracy is so great that he cancelled those elections. So he has form in this. He also has form in the funding of the Mackenzie Basin consultative process on behalf of Jacqui Dean where he overrode the Ministry for the Environment’s funding processes to put in funding for his pet project.This National Government does not believe in the old “one rule for all” saying that we used to hear from Don Brash—no it does not. There is one rule for National Party Ministers. They can intervene. They can meddle. They can show up on behalf of their cronies because that is the kind of Government we have now. It is a Government that works in the interests of its mates and not in the interests of ordinary New Zealanders and the people who work every day to earn a living in this country.There should be a third film in this series and that isGone with the Wind—or “Gone with the River” because that is what Nick Smith should be. If John Key has any standards for ministerial behaviour Nick Smith should be gone. He has misled this Parliament. He has misled New Zealanders. He has intervened in a process that the Department of Conservation legitimately wanted to be involved in. We stand here today with a staff member having resigned from the Department of Conservation because of this Minister’s interference.John Key needs to say to Nick Smith that his time has gone—there has been one too many breaches of what New Zealanders would see as the standards of ministerial behaviour. John Key is letting it go because his Government is on the ropes. Nick Smith’s behaviour has fallen well short of the expectations of New Zealanders. This is a continuation of the cronyism of the meddling of a Government on its way out.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I am wearing a gerbera which is the symbol for Arthritis New Zealand to acknowledge and celebrate the organisation’s wonderful work with the many New Zealanders who are living with that debilitating and often painful condition. I also want to acknowledge those who are out collecting in their annual appeal this week—in pretty inclement conditions in many parts of the country. I am always so proud of the generosity of New Zealanders in responding to such good causes.I am also very proud to be a member of a Government that is doing such a good job focusing on the challenges and the issues that matter to New Zealanders and is succeeding. One of the four key planks of our current term of office as was mentioned by the Hon Jo Goodhew is delivering better public services. That is because New Zealanders want their Government to spend their hard-earned tax dollars wisely and they deserve to see positive results for that expenditure. We have been through very challenging times since the recession hit at the end of 2007 and our Government has had to make many tough decisions to get public spending under control and the Government’s books back into surplus. We are succeeding and that is a remarkable achievement which has earned admiration from Standard and Poor’s the IMF and many Governments that look on New Zealand with great envy.The members opposite love to talk of cuts. Frequently they make them up because the facts do not support the story they are trying to tell. In fact their constant misrepresentation of the Government’s fiscal strategy and significant progress is a major reason for their failure to connect with the electorate at large or to persuade the public to accept their attempts to rewrite history.My constituents in Hamilton West know we have had to get Government spending under control after the reckless approach that we inherited at the end of 2008 and they understand that we are following a programme to attract investment in our economy and job creation. They are unimpressed by the constant opposition of Labour MPs and Green MPs to the many options that we are suggesting to create new job opportunities and investment in this country. The facts demonstrate that our plan is getting resultsbecause the economy is growing wages are increasing and interest rates are at record lows.More than 65000 jobs have been created in the past 2 years and our unemployment rate is lower than that of most developed countries. Business confidence is the highest it has been this century and our manufacturing sector has grown 9.2 percent since 2009—an amazing turn-round from just a year before when Labour was in office and it plummeted. Our fiscal outlook has improved markedly our management of the economy is sound we are on track to surplus in 2014-15 and we will be one of the few countries in the world that will not be increasing public debt at that point.At the start of this term of Government the Prime Minister set some very ambitious targets for those who are delivering better public services in our country. That is because we are an ambitious Government and because New Zealanders want to see better outcomes across health education social welfare our criminal justice system and elsewhere and in every one of those areas we are delivering. The recent results are very good.Let us consider some of the results. We have committed to reducing child abuse and neglect in New Zealand because it is a tragic blight on our society. In the year to March 2013 we have seen a 3.5 percent reduction in the number of New Zealand children who are experiencing substantiated physical abuse. It is still a major challenge and I am absolutely committed to the Children’s Action Plan which Paula Bennett has rolled out because it will deliver further gains and further safety for our children in this country. Our crime rate is the lowest it has been for 30 years and our police are doing a superb job—Chris Auchinvole: How long?TIM MACINDOE: Thirty years. The police do a superb job on the front line. Most encouragingly youth crime has fallen by 19 percent in just 2 years. We have already exceeded the Better Public Services target.As a political candidate and latterly as an MP I hammered the need for a much greater focus on rehabilitating those who are already in our criminal justice system because there is no point in incarcerating offenders at great expense to taxpayers if we do nothing to reduce the likelihood of their reoffending on release. That is why I warmly welcome a raft of initiatives that we have seen in recent months from the Hon Anne Tolley. We have seen a new nationwide reintegration programme called Out of Gate which will deliver fantastic services to those who are on the point of being released. It is a fantastic initiative. I really commend it. It will ensure they have much greater options to get a job at that crucial time just before their release when they could be at risk of reoffending.We have seen that there are fewer victims of crime and there are further reductions in reoffending rates as a result of the new education strategy that is being rolled out for prisoners. The majority of prisoners cannot read or write properly. This is a serious driver of crime. That is why we are tackling the problem. It is working.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I would be very disappointed if you did not Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a real pleasure to talk in this general debate this afternoon but I am really disappointed in my subject. I have not seen very often in this Parliament the kind of inconsistencies and misleading that the Hon Nick Smith has indulged inin the last 2 weeks and I say that it does a disservice to the whole of this House. The reputation of this Parliament should be important to all of us. If a Minister ends up doing something that is not right then I think it is incumbent on that Minister to front up and say so.But what we have seen is that the Minister of Conservation was briefed clearly on a draft submission from the Department of Conservation that it wanted to make—and actually it is its statutory obligation to make—to the board of inquiry looking at the proposal for plan changes to do with theRuataniwha dam. It was concerned about it and it wanted to make a submission expressing its concerns particularly about the water quality and the impact on native fish. That is its responsibility. It briefed the Minister. He has consistently denied knowing of the existence of that submission. How could a Minister be briefed on a submission raise concerns about it ask for a copy of the full submission before it is submitted and then deny its very existence? That is not credible.Today I was very disappointed that the Minister was not able to join us in the House to answer questions and I think that my disappointment was matched only by the disappointment of Nick Smith’s colleague Tony Ryall who was clearly disappointed that he was passed the parcel—an absolute hospital pass—in trying to justify the inconsistency that I just referred to. Minister Nick Smith has said that he did not give the Department of Conservation an indication of what its submission should be. Yet the deputy director-general—not a junior staff member; a competent well-regarded professional—sent an email out to her senior colleagues saying: “The Minister has expressed concern about our submission. He wants to see a final copy of it. You should send it over tomorrow because I am out of town.” I am quoting from the email Mr Assistant Speaker rather than referring to you. Then she said: “He has expressed concern and might want us to let the determination about the water quality be made by the EPA.” It was a clear indication from the Minister about what should be in the submission and what should not and again we have had the Minister denying that.The denial of knowing about the submission is clearly not credible. The Minister had a briefing he expressed concern he asked for a full copy and then he said that he did not know of the existence of the draft submission. That is just totally unbelievable. It just cannot be true. He then said that he did not have any influence on that submission at all. As I have just said if you line that statement up against the statement of the deputy director-general from the email that was sent which is now on the department’s website that statement clearly is not credible either. And this afternoon we have had further revelations of Ministers riding roughshod over their departments in relation to this very same proposal theRuataniwha dam. Had David Cunliffe been allowed to table the documents that he sought leave to table which was denied by the Hon John Banks then that would be out in the public domain. I certainly hope he is able to table those in the future.The Ministry for Primary Industries another Government department expressed concern in its draft about theRuataniwha dam proposal about the phosphorus management about the lack of industry best practice about the economics of the proposal and about the nutrient management system—very similar concerns to those expressed by the Department of Conservation. The ministry no doubt reported that to its Minister. What did its final submission say? Its final submission omitted everything about the water quality and went from the draft submission saying that the economics of this proposal are very dodgy very risky to saying that this is a very solid proposal on economic grounds—a miraculous U-turn.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I would just like to say—and I am sure the Hon Annette King will join me in saying—to the Hon Tony Ryall 60 million thankyous on behalf of the people of the West Coast for the Grey Base Hospital. That is one of the most wonderful pieces of news that we have had in recent times. But one of the most important things to National is—as members opposite know; you can see it in their eyes that they know—supporting families and households. We are doing it in spades. We are doing it in spades. We are doing it with our clear plan to take New Zealand forward. Weare doing it where it matters when it matters and for whom it matters. How are we able to do this in times of earthquakes global recession and continuing economic risk? We do it through having the Prime Minister we have got. We do it from having the Cabinet Ministers that we have got and in my view they work extraordinarily hard. And we do it through having the whole of the National caucus working with our coalition partners—Hon Chester Borrows: As a team.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —as a team; as a team quite right.Hon Anne Tolley: United.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: A united team.One of the biggest differences between centre-right and centre-left just to be serious for a moment is the size of the Public Service. This is a major divide in my observation in New Zealand politics and always has been. Each side is equally determined that their way is best. Labour and the Greens combined believe in big Government with big Government departments and lots of civil servants. Ask the real estate agents in Wellington how much property the Labour Government had leased before we saw it off the Treasury benches. There were heaps—heaps of places were under lease. National-led Governments work on the basis of judging the use and effect of Government services—not on the basis of size not on the basis of the number of staff but on having better public services. Targets have been set. Strategies have been introduced implemented reviewed and assessed. There are many indications of success. We have heard of so many examples today from this side of the House. It has been a pleasure listening to the speeches from my colleagues. It really gives one confidence that the country is in good condition in good heart. Mortgages rates are half of what they used to be under Labour—half of what they used to be under Labour the “Shylock Party”.Andrew Williams: What about Christchurch?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Christchurch is getting rebuilt. The economy is growing. Jobs are being created weekly wages are increasing and interest rates generally are at an all-time low. More than 65000 jobs—no wonder there is silence—were created in the last 2 years. I understand—a point of celebration—that there are more people employed in New Zealand now in paid work than ever before more than at any other time. New Zealand has a proud history. Other countries look at our managed success with understandable envy—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Sorry to interrupt the honourable member but there were two members who do not have the floor who are interjecting on each other and that is not permitted.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you so much for introducing an element of control on the side benches—a constant risk to the—[Interruption] I am not going to repeat that but they are a constant risk to the integrity of good government. However I had not actually noticed them. I had not actually heard them. But it really is interesting to see how our economic success is met with understandable envy in overseas countries. Our Prime Minister has been doing a great job overseas putting our credentials before other developed countries. New Zealand can be very proud.But one of the achievements of this Government that I am particularly proud of is in the health portfolio—in the health portfolio. I remember when we were in Opposition when Pete Hodgson was Minister of Health. Do you remember “Screeching Pete”? I remember when the Hon Tony Ryall picked up the portfolio and shook it like a doormat. He did. He did. He refused to accept the appallingly low levels of service—people stuck in corridors and all that sort of thing. I know that Annette King was very disturbed as well. When we became the Government the Hon Tony Ryall transformedthe health services and the National-led Government committed to growth in health services—committed to growth in health services. I have been stopped by doctors and medical practitioners at service stations in the street in a number of towns throughout New Zealand where people say “Please tell Tony he is doing a wonderful job.” and he is.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member must use the Minister’s full name or title.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I will say it again—Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Climate scientists and officials are assembled in Stockholm this week to go through the first part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment report. The focus is on the scientific findings of climate change. We know from the media that the report is confirming the scientific forecasts of climate change that were put forward generally in 2007. The difference is that the scientists are now affirming this with greater confidence. Although this is reassuring it does not alter the terrain for policy makers in terms of the need for prescribed policy. In fact we have known for two decades now of the need for an economic transformation. The first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of 1990 concluded that scientists were virtually certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. Based on then current emissions global warming would be about 3 degrees by 2100. That was in 1990. The panel’s four subsequent reports have simply reaffirmed what we largely knew 23 years ago.This scientific insight you might hope would be matched with rational discussion and insightful policy. Given the stakes involved—the bio-integrity of the planet the health of the global economy the quality of life of our children—you might think we would act on the basis of the precautionary principle we proclaimed at the Earth Summit back in 1992. But rationality and insight have been attacked by vested interest and a weird form of scepticism. That has delayed action to a point where we now face catastrophe if urgent action is not undertaken.The World Bank president attending Stockholm said yesterday: “Decades of progress are now in danger of being rolled back because of climate change … This is a ‘make-or-break’ decade for action on global warming. The time to address the interlinked challenges of climate change and ending extreme poverty is now.”There is a difference between the scientific method and political gaming. Science requires by its nature contestation of hypotheses advanced and conclusions reached. Political gaming allows the undermining of that process through tactics of defamation and selectivity of fact. Let us listen to the scientists in the past 24 hours. They are saying a few things about the confidence thing. They are saying that they are about as certain that global warming is a man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill. They are saying that they are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They are more certain about climate change than about vitamins making you healthy.George Gray used to be the chief scientist in the Bush administration. He said: “There’s a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain we shouldn’t do anything … That’s crazy.” A new group of international leaders headed by former Irish president Mary Robinson has just issued an appeal. She said: “The time for radical leadership on climate change is now … for the sake of generations to come”.So the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment view according to the media is that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 40 percent since 1750 half of that in the last half century. Temperature rises are pretty much asprojected back in 2007 most likely around 2 degrees plus perhaps almost 5 degrees. The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on climate science will be another wake-up call for humanity. It will inform us on the related issues that must follow—an assessment of impact and mitigation measures.And what will New Zealand have to say? What might we ask of the Minister? He is attending trade talks in Asia right now largely indifferent to the real global issues of the day in the Swedish capital. What emission reductions have been achieved as a result of his Government’s radical leadership in the emissions trading scheme? What is our projected emissions level for 2020 the end of the make or break decade for action on global warming? Is he satisfied that the 5 percent unconditional target set by New Zealand for 2020 is enough is a fair share in global radical leadership for this critical decade? Why do he and the John Key Government not show greater concern for what is happening around them?SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is always interesting to follow a Green member in a debate such as the general debate—one where we have doom and green gloom ad nauseam.Chris Auchinvole: What?SCOTT SIMPSON: Doom and green gloom. The Green vision for New Zealand is like the Amish without the Bibles. It is back to the horses and the carts. It is back to doom and gloom and frankly we on this side of the House have a far more optimistic a far more positive a far more aspirational view of the world. Ours is a Government—led so ably by the Rt Hon John Key—that has a vision and a view of New Zealand that is going to create the brighter future that we have already set in place for all folk in our country. Our plan is about responsibly managing the Government’s finances so that taxes are spent wisely and services are provided well.Over the last 48 hours my electorate of Coromandel has been buffeted by high winds by heavy seas and by heavy rain. That is no doubt all due to the climate change Dr Graham?Dr Kennedy Graham: Yes.SCOTT SIMPSON: The member says it is no doubt due to all the climate change. It is probably more to do with the annual spring equinox actually. It has been going on since time immemorial. It has probably got to do with nothing more than just the spring equinox. Trees are down roads have been closed by slips and there have been high tides all around the electorate. Roads have been closed and electricity I am told is still off in some parts of the electorate. So my good wishes and concerns go to the hard-working stoic diligent people of the Coromandel who are putting things to right getting on with the job and cleaning up after the storm. I want to particularly mention and thank our emergency services on the peninsula most of which are volunteer emergency services. They have done a great job.Better public services are what this Government is about. Yesterday during question time I had the opportunity to ask our very capable Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins about the conviction and sentencing statistics for the 2012-13 financial year. I am delighted to say that she was able to confirm to the House that the figures just released show that the number of adults charged in our courts has decreased a further 7 percent in the last 12 months—Chris Auchinvole: 7 percent.SCOTT SIMPSON: It is a further 7 percent. Since the 2008-09 financial year the total number of people charged with criminal offences has been reduced by a massive 23 percent. That is 23 percent. The number of people charged with criminal offences in our justice system has reduced by this massive 23 percent.Clearly the justice sector is working well and in my capacity as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I am very pleased to be able to work with National’s justice team. That involves the Minister of Justice Judith Collins the Minister for Courts the very capable Chester Borrows the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley and of course the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson. Together they are doing a great job. Altogether it means that there are fewer people in our criminal justice system because this is a Government that is committed to making New Zealand a safer place for all so that we have fewer victims in our community. It is absolutely important that we do have that.These statistics show that our initiatives across the sector are having very positive results. The crime rate is down to its lowest in more than 30 years—the lowest crime rate in more than 30 years. And it gets better because under National youth crime in particular has fallen 19 percent in just 2 years—19 percent down in 2 years. This means that we have already exceeded the Better Public Services target to reduce youth offending by 5 percent by 2017. So what have we done? We have upped the challenge. We have upped the challenge and we have increased the target so that it is now set at a 25 percent reduction by 2017. The number of young people appearing in court is dropping as well. Child and youth prosecution statistics show that the number of children and young people being charged in court is at its lowest in 20 years.So collectively this National Government is bringing better public services to New Zealand and in the justice sector we are really excelling. That means there are fewer victims and fewer New Zealanders who are feeling unsafe in their homes and in their workplaces. Together this is a good Government doing an exceptionally good job which is making the justice sector a hallmark of success in terms of our better public services. This is a good Government doing a great job and I am privileged and delighted to be working with such capable colleagues on this side of the House.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.