Smith Nick; Jones Shane; Tolley AnneHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Firstly can I congratulate you Madam Deputy Speaker as Deputy Speaker in the role that you will bring to the House and also join with other members in congratulating the new Speaker.Mr Speaker has actually been one of the most partisan members of the House. He's actually pushed the boundaries hard in even going after members' families. He's a member that has the unusual reputation of even having been involved in fisticuffs in the lobbies and actually has the worst record of any member in being asked to leave the House. His challenge is to change his leopard spots—to turn from being the poacher to being the gamekeeper. It does matter because this institution sits at the heart of our democracy. I will acknowledge that today's opening ruling from the Speaker actually in my view gives a signal that he's prepared to make that change and he will need to.The first point I want to make in this first speech of the 52nd Parliament in the Address in Reply debate is while the Government is lawful what has taken place in this Parliament is exceptional and unusual and we are going to hold the Government to account because actually it does not have a mandate for its policies and I want to put this case.This Parliament is one of the longest in the world for its continuous running of our democracy. But this the 52nd Parliament is the very first in which the party that got the most votes the party that won the most seats is not the governing party. In those previous 51 parliaments actually who gets the most votes and the most seats counts. There is one exception in that 150-odd year history of this Parliament: in 1911 the largest party was not the Government but I would point out that it got 34 percent of the vote not 44.5 percent of the vote emphasising how unusual the make-up of the Parliament that we have is. And it is not just unusual for our own Parliament; it is actually very unusual internationally. I put a challenge to members opposite: there are 60 parliaments in the world that are elected by proportional representation. Most of those parliaments have existed post World War II. There is not a single case anywhere in the world in which a party has secured more that 40 percent of the vote and is not in the Government. I will just tell the members opposite: tell me a country in the world where the party that has secured over 40 percent of the vote is not in the Government. The members opposite are silent.Hon Member: So what?Clayton Mitchell: Do you understand democracy?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member interjects What does it matter?" I tell you why it matters. Because what people vote in a democracy matters and one of the reasons we will be particularly holding New Zealand First to account is that they are responsible for that very unusual outcome. I also want to remind New Zealand First members of this piece of history: in 2005 the National Party secured 1 percent of the vote less than the Labour Party. We secured 48 seats at that election; Labour secured 50 seats. The New Zealand First Party said they had no choice but to go with the Labour Party in forming the Government in 2005 because they had to "respect the will of the people". They had to respect the will of the people. So I am challenging New Zealand First to say what has changed.I also want to say that the Government has a very confused mandate. I'd seek some clarification for the Government as to just what is the mandate that this Government has. Can I take an important issue like defence policy. The New Zealand First policy was that—Hon Phil Twyford: Do the maths Nick.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let's do some maths. Let's do some maths Phil. The New Zealand First policy was that we do grossly underspend on defence and we need to spend a lot more and we need to double the budget. The Green Party's policy was that we spend too much on defence and we need to reduce it to just a peacekeeping force. Which policy is the policy of the Government I ask?Take the important area of foreign affairs for which we now have a Minister. The New Zealand First policy is that with respect the previous Government's policy was not sympathetic enough to Israel yet the Green Party's view is exactly the opposite: it is not sympathetic enough to Palestine. I ask the Government: what is their policy? The Government does not have a mandate because it is a confused mandate.I take an area that is strong for me around issues of water quality. New Zealand First organised public meetings in places like the Waikato and like Southland and Canterbury and it said the new Government's water quality policy is so tough it's going to drive farmers off the land and it is far too tough. And we had the Labour and Green parties campaigning simultaneously saying "No it wasn't too hard; it was too soft." And again we have a confused mandate from this Government.I take a really crucial area like tax. The New Zealand First Party—I have their policy in front of me—campaigned on less tax. They wanted the company tax reduced. They wanted GST reduced on key items. Parties opposite also part of the Government argued for more tax. And so on such a fundamental issue this Government does not have a mandate for its policy. I remind New Zealand First: their policy is to change the law with respect to the smacking of children. They opposed that area of policy. The Green Party has exactly the opposite policy on a crucial issue around children. And again I say there is a confused mandate.I take an important issue an issue like the Treaty and Māori relations. We have just heard a speech from the Green Party saying that they want to have separate local representation for Māori. Do the New Zealand First members opposite support that policy? They are awfully silent because they campaigned on exactly the opposite: that we needed to get rid of any special provisions for Māori in local government or other places re-emphasising the confused and muddled mandate that we have from members opposite.We've also seen in this very first week of the House the reason that we need to actually ensure numeracy is taught in schools. Firstly we had the debacle on Tuesday in respect of not being able to count the numbers in the Parliament. But far more serious was the issue exposed by Steven Joyce this afternoon where in the very first question time Labour is refusing to stand by their numbers in respect of expenditure by this Government. In the closing stages of the election campaign one of the most important and debated issues was whether Labour stood by their numbers and what we know today in the very first question time is that they no longer stand by their fiscal numbers.I want to finish with a few key numbers that I want members opposite to remember. Let's take the issue of employment because if we're serious about the issues of poverty actually jobs are critical. And what we know is that in the last year 10000 more New Zealanders got a job every single month. In my area I would say to Mr Jones a region unemployment was 2.2 percent at the change of Government—2.2 percent. That's the lowest it's been in my 27 years as a member of Parliament for that community. Hon Andrew Little: Why've we got the lowest wages? Why the lowest wages?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to Andrew Little and others opposite: we will be holding you to account around those job numbers.Let's look at incomes—incomes going up at twice the rate of inflation. Let's look at the issue in terms of houses: 31000 houses per year are being built. Every year for the last six years the number of houses being built has gone up by an extra 10 percent every single year. This Government has a confused mandate and we will be holding it to account.Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Early in the speech from the Nelson member there were a number of gratuitous and unwise things that traduce the reputation of Mr Mallard. I'm disappointed that you chose not to intervene. Can you just give some clarification Madam Deputy Speaker as to how far a speaker can go in maligning the history of the reputation of Mr Mallard.Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fact the member is quite correct and I should have—in fact I did query whether this was a wide-ranging debate because the member to my left did go on for quite some time. However I don't know that any of it was necessarily untrue and I didn't take action."