Volume 701, Week 2 - Tuesday, 28 October 2014 - New Zealand Parliament (2024)

Visitors

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Communications with Blogger

Prime Minister—Communications with Blogger

State and Social Housing—Housing New Zealand’s Role

Government—Transparency

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Deputy Leader—Labour): In light of the Prime Minister’s answer to my last question, saying that the review into Judith Collins had nothing to do with the release of information to Cameron Slater, I seek leave to table the terms of reference for the Government inquiry, which, in fact, in item 2 say just that.

State and Social Housing—Housing New Zealand’s Role

Question No. 2 to Minister

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 179/3, with regard to the correction of answers. We have a situation where the Prime Minister gave a very specific answer to Annette King’s supplementary question, and she has subsequently tabled information showing that that answer was incorrect. I wonder whether he will be now taking the opportunity to correct that.

Mr SPEAKER : As the member has had explained to him before, if any Minister, in answering a question, feels he wants to correct that answer, then it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister or the Minister to decide when to do that. The member is right: it should certainly be done at the earliest convenience, but it is not a matter for this House. It is a matter, in this case, for the Prime Minister if he deems it necessary.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I assumed the question was in relation to the passing of information about a public servant. That is not a matter for the inquiry, as I understand it. The information in relation to Mr Feeley is absolutely a subject of inquiry, but I took the member’s question to be a completely different accusation.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Deputy Leader—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps we could clear it up if I was to repeat the question, because the Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER : No. [Interruption] Order! If the member was not satisfied with the answer, she had the opportunity at the time to ask another supplementary question. We have now moved well past question No. 2.

Technology Sector—Performance and Funding

Employment Relations—Impact of Legislative Reform

DENISE ROCHE (Green): My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and says: does he have any concerns that the changes proposed—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! Sorry. I am going to ask the member to start again and could I ask the Minister and Mr O’Connor to cease their interchange across the floor of the House.

Employment Relations—Legislative Reform, Collective Bargaining, and Pay Equity

Canterbury Recovery—3K to Christchurch Initiative

Television New Zealand—Outsourcing of Māori and Pacific Content

Transport Infrastructure—Rail Network

World War I Centenary—Commemorations

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā tangata katoa, tēnā koutou katoa. I am indeed honoured to be a member of the Cabinet and part of this Government under the leadership of John Key. It is a Government with a track record of delivering for New Zealanders and it will continue to deliver following the strong mandate at last month’s election.

I acknowledge my predecessors in my three ministerial portfolios: the Hon Chris Finlayson, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and the Hon Jo Goodhew. I am very reliably informed that I am the first Minister in Cabinet to simultaneously hold the portfolio of arts, culture and heritage as well as conservation. This gives me as an individual the opportunity to engage in a wide range of issues around our unique national identity, involving both our cultural and physical landscape as well as the historic events that have shaped us to become the nation that we are today.

The WW100 commemorations have begun already and will be a major focus over the next 4 years. On 16 October we marked the departure of the New Zealand troops from Wellington 100 years ago. The waterfront of Wellington marks where the journey to Gallipoli and the Western Front began for many of our troops. Senator Michael Ronaldson, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs in Australia, also spoke at the ceremony, and we both reflected on the beginnings of that strong Anzac tradition, which we are continuing to build on through our shared centenary relationships.

The significance of Anzac Day 2015 will be looming large in the minds of New Zealanders next year. The Government has demonstrated a very firm commitment to the centenary commemorations through the construction of the Pukeahu National War Memorial Park in Wellington, which will be opened in time on Anzac Day next year, literally on top of the new Arras Tunnel, which, as I said a moment ago, was completed ahead of schedule. This is going to become the national place for New Zealanders to remember and reflect on this country’s experience of war, of military conflict, and of peacekeeping, and on how those experiences shaped our ideals and our sense of national identity.

Pukeahu will also include an Australian memorial, with additional memorials to be added over time from other nations that fought alongside us in those important battles. All of this highlights, I think, the international aspects of our centennial commemorations, building on our long-held and valued relationships with other nations and a shared recognition of the First World War and the impact it had on us. Our ongoing relationships with France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and other nations during the centenary period will be a testament to the strength of these ties that bind. Lottery Grants Board funding of $17 million will also enable community and national projects as part of these commemorations, with a further $5 million just allocated.

Next year is also a very significant year for anniversaries of events that have shaped our nation specifically. Waitangi Day 2015 will mark 175 years since the signing of the Treaty, while Wellington will have been the capital for 150 years. These events provide an opportunity for all of us to engage with the ideas of identity and nationhood, and this includes the flag. The conversation about whether we want to change the flag or not and the binding referendum process will be coming through my office. Again, it is an issue that will be left to the people to decide—whether we want to stay with what we have or whether we want to change. There will be very wide consultation and two binding referenda, and no presumption of change.

Brand New Zealand is very much about who we are and where we fit into the world. New Zealand’s creative sector is significant national and internationally. The growth and sustainability of the sector is essential to our future well-being. Within the arts, culture, and heritage portfolio, I look forward to building positive relationships across a diverse range of organisations that represent the many dimensions of our cultures and their people. These providers of services make our New Zealand culture accessible, whether in a performing arts environment or through content distributed online. These providers represent and preserve our collective past and our present, but there are also funding organisations that futureproof and safeguard New Zealand’s cultural output, whether it is in the form of music, dance, or film.

I will be working with Heritage NZ on furthering progress on the National Historic Landmarks List. This will provide an appreciation of New Zealand’s most important heritage places, and the conversation about them and the conservation of them. I would like to acknowledge Minister Chris Finlayson’s contribution to not only the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act but also, of course, the broader arts, culture, and heritage portfolio. It is an integral part of our national identity, which informs another of my portfolios, conservation.

I have spent a lot of my spare time—and a lot of my working life, for that matter—studying and being around the flora and fauna of New Zealand. It is something I enjoy very much. I speak with personal experience and sincerity to say that for me the national parks are some of the many jewels within our landscape. The New Zealand Conservation Authority has made a recommendation that a new national park be established in the Waipoua Forest and to include a visitor centre. I very much look forward to progressing discussions with Te Rōroa about the Kauri National Park. This Government has also committed $30 million to containing and controlling kauri dieback, which is an extremely challenging disease to manage.

I am a great believer in building strong partnerships, and within conservation I believe that this is a key priority. By growing these partnerships we can improve our ability to protect biodiversity and help New Zealanders and visitors to this country further enjoy what our wonderful and unique environment has to offer. These partnerships involve collaboration across central and local government, working with private landowners and businesses as well as individual benefactors. Kiwis for Kiwi partnerships with Air New Zealand and Fonterra and a huts maintenance project and arrangement with Federated Mountain Clubs and Predator Free New Zealand are all examples of developing these initiatives. Here, I would like to acknowledge Rob Fenwich, who is a visionary with energy and commitment and who has given a lot of his time and thought and the breadth of his philosophy and experience to these vital tasks. I would also like to acknowledge my erstwhile colleague Ruud Kleinpaste, the “Bugman”, for his unique contributions.

Treaty settlements also offer further opportunities for strengthening relationships between the Department of Conservation and iwi as primary partners. This Government has created a record number of 10 marine reserves in this past year, doubling the set-net protection for the Māui’s dolphin. We have introduced a ban on shark finning and we have created new whale and seal sanctuaries. The balance between marine protection and resource use is very important for all New Zealanders, and as the Minister of Conservation I am absolutely mindful of that. Work on threatened marine species is also conducted collaboratively, including working with the fishing industry and port authorities to find practical solutions to protect marine mammals and our seabirds.

Improvements to New Zealand’s legislative framework for marine protection help ensure our protected status for marine areas in the exclusive economic zones and our territorial seas. The development of new marine protection legislation will address limitations in the Marine Reserves Act 1971. The current Act is, I feel, outdated and restrictive, and it does not encourage collaborative planning. I think there is an opportunity for New Zealand to be a world leader in how we manage our oceans. There are also two new marine recreational parks planned in the Hauraki Gulf and Marlborough Sounds, and an improved regulatory framework around those.

We face ongoing threats to our biodiversity from predators and we will continue to take a practical, science-based approach to dealing with these challenges. The use of 1080 is a cost-effective and scientifically verified method of managing these eco-invaders. Pest control will be extended to 1 million hectares to protect our native species. I would urge people to become up to date with the science on 1080. It is backed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. This year the department’s Battle for our Birds predator-control programme will combine the use of 1080 and trapping to combat the increased threat to at-risk species from stoats and rodents. The Battle for our Birds programme has the potential not only to make huge improvements in natural landscape conservation but also to benefit agriculture.

Economically, the Department of Conservation plays a vital role in New Zealand’s $24 billion recreation and tourism industry. It is key that we work with the industry on the short, medium, and long-term actions to deliver benefits for tourism and recreation while benefiting conservation. Our natural heritage is a legacy to be handed on to future generations, and the sound management of the natural environment is absolutely essential to this.

My portfolio as Minister for Senior Citizens is one that I have a very strong interest in. This Government is committed to ensuring that older New Zealanders have security and well-being and are given, very importantly, the respect and the value that they deserve. They have contributed hugely to this country. This Government, and me as Minister, will continue to value our older New Zealanders in practical ways. People are living longer and are healthier into their old age, more so than in any previous generation. The New Zealand population trends show that the number of people over the age of 65 is projected to double in the next 20 years to around 1.2 million in 2036. This means that older New Zealanders will contribute significantly more to the economy and also contribute to our society in unpaid and voluntary work. Thank you.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on some of the great crises and challenges that are facing the world and New Zealand at the moment. I want to identify two in particular, what I would call the twin crises of inequality and climate change. Of course, we are all increasingly becoming familiar with both of these things, but I think it is important that we underline just how important they are to New Zealand and the world.

When it comes to inequality, what we have seen over the last 20 or 30 years is a dramatic growth in inequality in New Zealand in particular but globally as well. As our societies have become more unequal, wealth has become concentrated in the top few percent, and the vast majority of people no longer own very much at all and have been stripped of most of their wealth as a result of the neo-liberal reforms and the new-right policies pursued by successive Governments. There are now a great many New Zealanders who have no access whatsoever to wealth, which is being concentrated in the handful.

On the other side of the coin we have climate change. The thing about climate change is, of course, that it is a global issue, but it does have very significant consequences for New Zealand as well. I want to start by talking about one of those, which is ocean acidification. What we have found is that the acidification in the ocean has risen by about a quarter since pre-industrial times, so, say, over the last couple of centuries. The amount of acid in the ocean has increased by about a quarter as a result of all the carbon that has been emitted into the atmosphere. Some of the carbon in the atmosphere dissolves in the ocean, and that means that the ocean is becoming increasingly acidic. That has a huge effect on shellfish and their ability to form shells. The Ministry for Primary Industries recently produced a report saying that ocean acidification is a threat to our aquaculture industry. This is a $375-million-a-year industry and it is directly affected by climate change, which is causing ocean acidification. Climate change in New Zealand has huge costs already, but it is only going to grow in time if we do not take action to do something about it.

Today I want to talk a little bit more about climate change. How we respond to climate change, one of the greatest challenges of our generation, will define us as a nation. Climate change is a reality. The science is very clear that human-caused climate change is a scientific reality, but, of course, we have a Government that is in denial about that reality. Yet climate change will affect every part of our lives, from how we grow food, in the case of ocean acidification, to how we make our living. And, of course, as the ice sheets melt as a result of climate change and also as the thermal mass of the water expands, we will then see rising sea levels, which will inundate coastal communities in particular. We recently learnt that parts of the Antarctic ice sheet have begun an irreversible slide into the sea. It is about 160 billion tonnes of ice that is being lost every year. Antarctica is literally shedding ice.

In spite of the denial of the current Government in New Zealand, climate change is happening right in front of us. A recent report in the Dominion Post about Wellington’s downtown streets, such as Lambton Quay, being turned into canals gives you a flavour of how it is going to affect us. Sea level rise is a dramatic problem.

Of course, the current Government says that we are such a small country that cutting our emissions will not make any difference, that we should not do anything to cut our emissions, and that because we are so small, we cannot take any effective action. In fact, the Prime Minister’s favourite line is “We’re only 0.2 percent of global emissions. What difference will it make?”, which is, of course, exactly what you could say about voting in an election. If you took that attitude towards voting, you would not vote. Of course, we know from the Dirty Politics book that the National Party members do not want people to vote, because they see that as a threat to their hold on the Government. The thing is that National has completely failed to grasp the challenge of climate change.

So far, under this Government, New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 20 percent. So at a time when we should be cutting our emissions to relate to the reality of climate change, in fact the Government is increasing New Zealand’s emissions. The Ministry for the Environment, once again, has produced a report that looks at emissions going forward, and, according to the Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions will increase by about 50 percent over a decade. So just think how grossly irresponsible a Government is that has policies that will result in New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions increasing by 50 percent. Imagine if other countries in the world were as grossly irresponsible as the New Zealand Government, if other countries were projecting to increase their net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent in a decade.

Fortunately, most countries and most Governments are not as grossly irresponsible as the John Key Government, but New Zealand is a major problem because we are an international player. So when the New Zealand Government goes out to the world and proudly tells everyone that it plans to increase New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent, it undermines international efforts to do something about emissions. It is, in fact, a national disgrace.

National rejects any proposals for a proper price on carbon, so the Green Party and others have put forward proposals to put a proper price on carbon, which we know is the cheapest, most effective way to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. And yet the Government has hollowed out the emissions trading scheme so that there is virtually no price and has weakened it to the point of redundancy, ensuring that it is a failure. The emissions trading scheme was designed to incentivise investment in clean technology, emission reductions, and the planting of trees. It has done none of these things—in fact, it has done the opposite. New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions are projected to increase by 50 percent over the next decade, according to the Ministry for the Environment. That is the hard reality of what is going on in New Zealand. It is embarrassing, it is farcical, and it is a disaster for the climate.

The Government is giving away free permits to pollute—in fact, it has given away $1.3 billion of free permits to pollute under the emissions trading scheme. When companies do pollute, rather than handing back these units, the big polluter companies have been selling them and then handing back cheap units that cost only 20c, so the Government has enabled a flood of these units to come in from overseas.

According to the Minister for Climate Change Issues—of course, in this context that means the Minister for accelerating climate change, Tim Groser—National has chosen to stick with its completely ineffectual scheme. It is ineffectual at reducing emissions but very effective at increasing greenhouse gas emissions. National has chosen to stick with its scheme to increase greenhouse gas emissions because the National Party base, the voters for the National Party, are not interested in action on climate change, according to Mr Groser. At a pre-election Climate Voter event, where I was there with him, he said that to many National Party supporters climate change is nothing more than a United Nations conspiracy—a non-issue.

Tim Groser is underestimating National’s supporters and in doing so he is abdicating responsibility for actually doing something. Instead of leading, National is actually taking New Zealand in exactly the wrong direction. Remember, the official statistics from the Ministry for the Environment say that under current policies New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 50 percent in a decade, a dramatic increase in emissions—a grossly irresponsible act. But the National Party has misjudged the people who voted for the National Party, as well as everyone else. Eventually, National’s wilful neglect will come back to bite it, and all of us.

National has a 20th century attitude on the climate, and it is not just a monumental failure on the environment—which, of course, it is—it is also a failure to grasp the economic opportunities of our times and a failure to understand where the global economy is going. The global economy is heading towards a cleaner, smarter economy. That is where it is going—a greener economy. Instead of being part of that, this current Government is desperately trying to lock in 20th century technologies that have very high greenhouse gas emissions per unit. It is hoping to lock them in. The Green Party put forward alternative policies, such as our climate tax cut, where we would put a price on greenhouse emissions, and all the revenue that was raised would be returned in the form of tax cuts, both for individuals and for companies. Of course, the National Party completely rejected the climate tax cut, which was fiscally neutral, because of its desire to increase our greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent, according to its own figures, over the next decade—an increase in New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions.

Just this weekend the EU agreed to cut its emissions by 40 percent by 2030. At next year’s global summit in Paris, countries will have to commit to binding agreements. We cannot continue with the policy of this Government of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions. It is time to move into the 21st century, a century that will be marked by cleaner, smarter economics and Governments that understand the science of climate change and actually cut greenhouse gas emissions, instead of this Government, which is proposing to increase them. But, I suspect, it will require a change of Government for us to move there.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Can I take a moment to welcome all the new members to Parliament. Can I congratulate the National Party on returning back into Government after the strong leadership and campaign by our fantastic Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key. Can I also acknowledge the 14 new National MPs who have come in. On this side of the House we have certainly refreshed and rejuvenated our caucus. Welcome to them. We have already seen the strength and depth of the National Party caucus through some fantastic maiden speeches being delivered. There are 14 new MPs on this side of the House. I think across the whole of the rest of the House there are 10 new MPs, and I welcome them.

Can I also acknowledge the Speakers as well. Mr Borrows, can I acknowledge you in your new role. Can I acknowledge the Hon Trevor Mallard, Lindsay Tisch, and, importantly, the Rt Hon David Carter, who is going to do a fantastic job, as he proved he could do over the term of the previous Parliament.

While I am in a mood of congratulations, can I congratulate the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and especially the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, on securing our nomination and our place at the top table of the United Nations Security Council. That is a fantastic result for a small country down here in the South Pacific, New Zealand. Well done to all the officials, who have done a fantastic job in securing a seat at the top table in New York. I know it will bring very tangible benefits for the New Zealand Government for the next 2 years when we begin at the top table early next year.

Can I also address the Speech from the Throne. It is hugely important for the direction of New Zealand, and hugely important to outline the work programme for the John Key Government into the next 3 years. What you heard from the Speech from the Throne was the importance of the primary sector for the New Zealand economy, and also, getting back to the election campaign, how rural and provincial New Zealand back the National Party. What we heard in the Speech from the Throne was that we are going to have a relentless focus on returning to surplus, and that we are also going to aim to reduce Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020.

The Speech from the Throne talked about a real focus on trade. It is great that the Minister of Trade, the Hon Tim Groser, has just come back from a ministerial meeting in Australia over the weekend. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is moving in the right direction—maybe it is not moving quite as quickly as those of us on this side of the House would like, but it is making solid progress. Hopefully, in the early part of 2015, we can see some even greater progress. We know that that is vitally important in opening up new markets for our exporters. What is also going to be important is landing a free-trade agreement with Korea and the Gulf States as well, and many other countries. We should also acknowledge the focus that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, the Ministry for Primary Industries, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade have on enlarging our international footprint to make sure that we have got the right offices in the right places to open up new opportunities for our exporters.

Also the Speech from the Throne focused on investment into research and development. The challenge for industry and for businesses in New Zealand is to continue to invest in research and development. We are currently at about half a percent of GDP, and we want to focus and make sure that we can extend that to 1 percent by 2018.

We have also got a focus on food safety and biosecurity. The Speech from the Throne talked about the Food Safety Science and Research Centre, which is going to be one of the important things that came out of the Fonterra whey protein concentrate ministerial inquiry last year. We have also got a real focus on Primary Growth Partnership programmes—there are 16 of them under way, delivering value right across the primary sector value chain. We have a real focus also on infrastructure. That is to do with roading, that is to do with rural broadband, and that is to do with irrigation.

If we think about roading, let us think about the tangible benefits in my electorate of the Kapiti Expressway, a project that, across the Parliament, Labour and the Greens have opposed all the way. It is a road that is investing $630 million into my region. It is a road that is going to connect communities. Already we are seeing 400 jobs created, and it will grow to 1,000. So when our opponents stand up and say that we are doing nothing for the regions and nothing to create jobs, well, here is a classic example. It was fantastic, during the campaign, to turn the sod with the Prime Minister on Transmission Gully; a project that has been on the cards—hot, cold, and lukewarm—for decades. Now we have a Government with the guts and vision to build Transmission Gully, which is going to be vitally important for the Wellington region.

Now we need to focus specifically on connectivity for our rural and provincial towns and communities. That is why it is fantastic that $150 million is going to be rolled out on increasing our mobile coverage and also on rolling out rural broadband, because we know that our rural communities are the powerhouse of the New Zealand economy. They need to be able to connect with consumers and customers around the world, and it is frustrating when they cannot do that, so we are backing rural and provincial New Zealand. In the last couple of years, since I have been Minister, we have been through periods of drought, and we know that water storage is hugely important for the most productive part of the New Zealand economy, and that is the primary sector. We do not have a shortage of water in this country; it just falls at the wrong time, in the wrong place. We collect and store only about 2 percent of the water that falls in this country. That is why the Government is investing $120 million in the Crown Irrigation Investments company to kickstart these regional water storage projects. We know that they are going to help to grow our exports. We know there are about 400,000 hectares of land in New Zealand that could be under irrigation that are not currently. We know that it is also vitally important for the environment that you can maintain summer water flows, and that is good for the aquatic and marine life.

There is also going to be a real focus on water quality, because we have brought in national standards for freshwater—bottom lines—and also we have in the campaign said that we are going to bring in a policy that is going to mean that dairy farmers will need to ensure that their cattle are excluded from waterways by 1 July 2017. We need to acknowledge that our dairy farmers in New Zealand have come a long way. They have fenced 22,500 kilometres so far, which is fantastic, and we have got just a little bit more to go. We have also indicated that we are going to invest $100 million in a voluntary buy-back of significant land near waterways of significance. That is going to be done on a voluntary basis with the landowner. We need to acknowledge the fact that farmers, in my opinion, are environmentalists. They want to ensure they are leaving their farms and their land to their children and grandchildren in a better place than when they took them over.

We are also going to have a focus on making sure that we do the Resource Management Act reform that we have talked about. I need to acknowledge we have done a fair bit already, but there is more to be done to ensure we give more certainty, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness. We are also going to have a focus—as you heard from the previous speaker, the Hon Maggie Barry—on the ocean’s environment, and some of that touches on the area that I look after, which is fisheries. We are going to modernise the marine protected areas legislation, which will allow us to create recreational fishing parks in the inner Hauraki and also in the Marlborough Sounds. We are going to focus on international research to do with greenhouse gases—and there is much more to do in terms of encouraging industry to come and plant more trees.

Finally, we are working closely with Minister Flavell, the new Minister of Māori Development, because a big part of the growth opportunities in the New Zealand primary sector is in Māori agribusiness, and I will be working closely with him. There is a fantastic programme of work laid out for the next 3 years, and I am really excited about it.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): There is a new game in town and it is called “Guess Which Hat the Prime Minister is Wearing”. We have seen it in the last few days in the House when the Prime Minister has been answering various questions about his many conversations with his close friend Cameron Slater, the National Party’s paid attack dog, and we never really know which hat the Prime Minister is wearing. We do not know whether he is wearing the Prime Minister hat. We do not know whether he is wearing the husband hat—

Hon Annette King : What about the cat-owner hat?

PHIL TWYFORD : —the cat-owner hat, or the leader of the National Party hat. I have to wonder which hat the Prime Minister was wearing when he signed off on National’s policy to gut State housing. Was he wearing his Prime Minister hat, or was he wearing his “poor boy made good” hat? Or was he wearing his “rich guy living in a $10 million Parnell mansion” hat? I want to know, and I think we should know. We should be told which hat the Prime Minister was wearing.

Was he wearing his Prozac hat? Was he the perpetually relaxed and comfortable Prime Minister—comfortable and relaxed and feeling good about everything that is going on and every decision that is being made, including the dismantling of an 80-year tradition in this country of providing State housing to our most vulnerable families to ensure that every child growing up in this country, no matter which side of town they are on and no matter how financially struggling mum and dad might be, will get a decent roof over their heads? Under National, that is all about to go.

A few years ago at a National Party conference the Prime Minister told the audience: “we lived in a State house. I will always be grateful for the opportunities that gave me, and I make sure this is reflected in the policies I sign off on as Prime Minister.” Well, I have one word to describe that: doublespeak. This is the dark underbelly of John Key’s political persona. You see, he is all about the aspirational message of “you can be like me”, but, actually, what he is doing is pulling up the ladder. He is denying a new generation of New Zealanders the same security of housing, the same decent roof over their heads, that he and his family enjoyed growing in Christchurch.

Paula Bennett is just as bad. She has made a career out of pulling up the ladder. As a solo mother she enjoyed the generosity of taxpayer-funded support—in particular, the training incentive allowance, which was designed to encourage parents back into the workforce. Then, as soon as she became the Minister for Social Development, she gave it the chop. She is an expert at pulling up the ladder. But that is how National rolls.

Paula Bennett was on the radio this morning bemoaning the fact that people in west Auckland are living in the Rānui caravan park. It is a caravan park in the electorate that she represented for 6 years at the same time that she served as the Minister for Social Development, but apparently it is not suitable. Well, that is funny, because when she was the Minister for Social Development, her department was routinely referring people to go and live in that very same caravan park.

For 6 years under National the housing crisis in Auckland got worse every single year. For 6 years the National Government never did a thing to increase the provision of emergency housing for the homeless and, for 6 years, National did nothing to tackle the root causes of the housing crisis, like actually build more houses.

But if you want the ultimate example of doublespeak, it is National’s State house sell-off. National members do not talk about privatisation. They do not describe it as a sell-off of State housing. Bill English talks about helping more vulnerable families. In fact, he talked in question time today about putting the needs of tenants first. He talks about modernising social housing. Let us look not at what National is saying, but at what it is doing and what it is planning to do. What has become clear since the election, and what National did not see fit to tell the New Zealand public before the election, is that it is planning a massive State house sell-off of up to one-third of the 65,000 houses that the taxpayer owns. That is a publicly owned asset worth $6 billion.

Who is National going to sell them to? Well, Bill English has said: “We’ve been talking to banks, to property developers, to iwi, to the Salvation Army—we could sell them to anybody.” That is what he said. That is what he told the New Zealand Herald.

Well, what will happen to the proceeds when all these State houses get sold off? Bill English has refused to guarantee that the proceeds of State house sales will be earmarked for more State and social housing. He has openly canvassed the possibility that the proceeds of the sale of these State houses could go back into the consolidated account, and you have to wonder—

Hon Ruth Dyson : Make up another surplus.

PHIL TWYFORD : Yes, with National’s track record of flogging off publicly owned assets and then using them to fund its corporate mates, like funding rural irrigation, and using the so-called Future Investment Fund for the proceeds of asset sales to fund any number of boondoggle political projects. He was asked whether he would use the proceeds of the sale of State houses to rebuild more and more modern State housing. He said no. He said: “if we want less stock, there’s not much point rebuilding stock with it.” Well, you could not be much clearer than that.

This is the end of State housing. The Government no longer intends to own the houses; it wants to pay a subsidy to landlords. It might as well just put all social housing tenants on the accommodation supplement, because that is the clear, logical consequence of what National is talking about.

There is more gobbledegook and doublespeak. The Government wants—and we heard Bill English talk about it in question time today—a contestable housing market, even though its own officials in Treasury advised it that it is not possible to run social housing at a profit. You might as well try to run the hospitals at a profit, or try to run the public transport system at a profit. This is social housing that we are talking about. The market has never ever delivered decent affordable social housing for people at the bottom end of the market. It is a nonsense, and it is only the ideological tin hats on that side of the House that think it is at all a possibility worth considering.

Treasury was very clear that in order to get players to even enter a so-called social housing market, it would require a massive taxpayer subsidy. Treasury said: “You would need to unlock the potential of the Housing New Zealand asset base.” Well, it is pretty clear what that means. National wants to sell State houses at knock-down prices to its mates. That is what it is all about.

So in the middle of a housing crisis, when Government departments are routinely referring people to live in camp grounds, when homelessness is on the rise, and when we have got people living in cars and garages, what does National do? It wants to privatise State housing. It wants to flog off $5 billion or $6 billion worth of State housing.

The final chapter has now been written in National’s continuing running down, cutting back, and winding down of State housing in this country. This is the wholesale privatisation of Housing New Zealand. It is the end of State housing. It is an 80-year tradition, a commitment that we have had in this country that the Government of the day will guarantee that the kids of even families who are really struggling to keep their heads above water will at least have a secure, warm, dry roof over their heads. That is as New Zealand as you can get, and this Government is about to dismantle that tradition because of some ideological view that the Government cannot do anything right—that it can never even run State and social housing well. Well, we reject that view.

I want to quote Dita De Boni, who was writing in the New Zealand Herald last week. She finished her opinion piece on the opinion/editoral pages with this statement: “It is astonishing that a Prime Minister who grew up in a state house, and has gained huge political advantage from being able to trumpet that fact, can’t see why it is wrong to pull the ladder up after him.” Well, we will not allow the Government to get away with this. We will fight to ensure that all New Zealanders get a fair go. We will hold those members to account, and we will fight this policy to the bitter end.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): It is a privilege to be back in this House. I think that the election was a referendum on the general direction of this Government, and what we saw was nearly 50 percent of New Zealanders backing the direction of this Government. The speech that we just heard is actually part of the reason why. We have a Prime Minister that our caucus backs. We have a united caucus. We have 14 talented new members. This side of the House has itself in order.

The other side of the House is focused on ideological battles. What I heard when I was doorknocking in Auckland Central—and I am very pleased to be the member for Auckland Central for the third time—and I knocked on over 9,500 doors, were a number of things that people said to me. Firstly, they acknowledged the work that we had done in terms of the economy. We came back from the largest hit to GDP of any developed nation in the world to have some outstanding economic figures, and we have to acknowledge our economic team—in particular, the Hon Bill English, who has done an outstanding job in terms of the New Zealand economy.

Here are some of the figures. The economy grew by 3.9 percent in the year to 30 June. Average wages are up by $2,500 in the last 2 years. The figures are outstanding, given what we have been through. As the Minister of Civil Defence, I am personally very aware of the situation in Canterbury, the level of destruction. From an economic and social perspective, what our Government has invested is huge, so it is significant to acknowledge the general economic direction that we are currently under.

But I want to talk today about some of my priorities as a Minister. In particular, I want to focus on my Associate Minister of Education role. It is very important to acknowledge as well the Hon Hekia Parata, who is in the House today, and the outstanding job that she is doing as the Minister of Education. What we constantly hear from the other side is that this side does not have a heart. I believe the reason we commanded nearly 50 percent of the vote of New Zealanders is that that is just blatant claptrap. Look at the results and what we have done for our most disadvantaged: 100,000 houses insulated, more money in terms of rheumatic fever prevention, more young people in early childhood education, more young Māori and Pacific students in early childhood education, National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results up, and NCEA results up for Māori and Pacific students.

What the other side will tell you is that we do not care. The reason that we have people voting for us from many diverse communities over the country and the reason we have members of Parliament on this side of the House who came from pretty disadvantaged backgrounds is that they believe in our policies. They actually believe that it is wrong not to know where those children are who are not achieving. That is why we have national standards. They actually believe in the policy.

As the Associate Minister of Education I am very proud that we have invested more than $700 million to enable young people to have access to fast, reliable, uncapped connections funded by the Government, because at the heart of that policy is equity. I was really pleased to be in Te Aroha to have the 1000th connection for Network for Learning. I acknowledge the local MP, Scott Simpson. What we can see happening in these schools is not just about today; it is actually about investing in New Zealand for a long period of time. Some of these children are involved in robotics, and they even had a television and radio station.

What we are offering as part of our Government’s investment is a real investment for the future. That includes not just ultra-fast broadband but also our School Network Upgrade Programme. It is an investment in the managed network, but it is an investment in wireless technology. We also fund laptops for teachers and we fund professional development in this area. That is a significant achievement of this Government and it shows that those issues of equity are our priority. I am very proud to be the Associate Minister working alongside the Hon Hekia Parata to deliver for some of our most disadvantaged students.

As the Minister for ACC, again what it is about is results. When I was on the doorstep, people were really clear. They could see real policies from National and also real results, compared with some of the ideological battles that are still being fought in the Labour Party. We were handed a very difficult situation in terms of ACC. At a fiscal level I was very proud to announce in the last week as well that the surplus is at $2.1 billion. That is $300 million more than what was expected. What we have committed to as a Government is that there will be $480 million in levy reductions going back to households and families in New Zealand. The reason that we have been able to do that is we have taken some very hard decisions and we have ensured that there is fiscal responsibility here.

I do want to acknowledge that there is a long way to go in terms of the corporation. It is an organisation in transition and it has a number of plans to deal with the issues in terms of privacy. But as long as I am the Minister, I will be focused on ensuring that we treat some of our most disadvantaged and vulnerable better through the system, whether it is through working on that claims process or whether it is through some of the issues in terms of entitlement. But at a fiscal level the corporation and the Government can be very proud of where we have taken that organisation in the last few years.

As the Minister of Civil Defence, as I said before, we have been incredibly focused on ensuring that we are better prepared as a nation for an event like the Canterbury earthquakes. What does that mean? It means ensuring that we are better equipping our local authorities to deal with some of the smaller events that occur. As the Minister of Civil Defence in the last term, I was there up in Northland helping out with the Northland floods, but we also had the Wellington earthquakes. We are the Shaky Isles. We have many threats to this nation, and I think it is pleasing that we are doing things around young people, getting them involved in emergency services.

We are reviewing our National Civil Defence and Emergency Management Plan. We have shifted the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management into the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. That is a really important move because it is saying that not only can we ensure that all of Government is better prepared but also we have a greater focus and greater sense of preparedness at the highest levels in terms of New Zealand.

I do also want to acknowledge that in the area of civil defence we are seen as world leading, and I am very proud that Minister McCully and I signed a new partnership agreement that is about helping some of our Pacific neighbours. We have been helping countries like Samoa with their siren warning systems. I want to acknowledge at this point the Hon Murray McCully because I think it is an extraordinary achievement. We know that members like David Shearer have been involved in that Security Council campaign, but it is a huge achievement for a small nation to win that seat at the table. I think in part it is because we have programmes in areas like civil defence where we play our part, we are there on the ground actually helping deliver real systems that may one day save lives in countries like Samoa.

I am also the Minister for Youth and I do say to people—and I am sure I will fight with many of my ministerial colleagues on this—that I do believe that I have one of the greatest jobs in New Zealand. I get paid to go and meet a whole lot of amazing young New Zealanders. I often say that you will not always see on the front page of the paper the stories of some of the young people who are doing amazing things. But I can tell you that we have young people in New Zealand who through our school system are developing new apps around processing blood samples quicker, developing things for conservation, and doing some extraordinary things in New Zealand. In part it is because of the investment that we make in areas like information and communications technology and it is because of the amazing teachers we have in our classrooms.

But there is still more to do. One of the areas that I am passionate about is the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project. I think it is significant that our Prime Minister has chosen to lead that area. We still do have too many young people dying and taking their own lives. Part of that is about issues like bullying. Part of that is about mental health issues. There are a number of initiatives and over $60 million being invested in that Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project. It is a really important project.

I do want to put on record that as the Minister for Youth Affairs, I am looking at some new priorities. One of them is around the prevention of sexual violence. In particular, in my ACC portfolio I can see there is a huge amount to do in that area, but I also think there is a huge amount more that we can do in terms of young people with disabilities, and I look forward to working on those areas.

It is a privilege to be in this caucus. It is a privilege to be the member for Auckland Central and a member of John Key’s Cabinet. I do think this is the best that I have seen our party. We have a leader, we have a united caucus, and we also have a number of really, really good policies, and I want to leave you with a couple of them that are pretty dear to my heart. I want to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata. One of the policies that we have campaigned on but that really has not got a lot of media attention is very important to me personally and also in my capacity as Associate Minister of Education. That policy is the 800,000 hours that we have committed to in order to help some of our students in special education. My little sister has severe autism. I have met with many parents across New Zealand, and I know that is an area we want to do more in. I think the fact that the Hon Hekia Parata secured that as part of our election policy is a tribute to her and her leadership, but it is also going to be very important to help some of those students who need further support, so thank you very much.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to speak this afternoon about one of the two crises that the Green Party has identified as facing the world as well as this country, and that is inequality. The levels of inequality in New Zealand are killing children. That is a bald and brutal truth. University of Otago research has shown that every year around 60 children are dying before the age of 1 due to diseases related to low incomes. The Government tells us that it is going to save these children by getting their parents off benefits, even though there are not work-test requirements for sole parents with children under the age of 1. I doubt that anyone in this House would want any.

The Government tells us it is going to save these babies by getting their parents off the benefit, while refusing to even check what happens to those babies after their parents get off the benefit. The Government tells us it is going to save these babies by getting their parents into work, and then the very first piece of legislation the Government introduces into this House undermines the ability of people to negotiate decent pay and conditions. This Government tells us it is going to save these babies by getting their parents off benefits, and then intervenes on behalf of an employer trying to argue against pay equity for some of New Zealand’s hardest-working and poorest paid women—caregivers.

These babies are not dying because their parents are bad; they are dying because we have not acted to save them. They are dying because of the policies that entrench and exacerbate inequality. In this place we have the power to make decisions to stop those children dying. The Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty created the road map for the Government to save the lives of these babies, but the Government has largely ignored this. The Green Party used that document to create a comprehensive suite of policies to save these babies and to make our entire society fairer and more productive to boot. On average another 24 women and babies are killed every year due to domestic violence in this country. We do not even know how many more are dying because of health problems, suicide, or related injuries associated with domestic violence. Australian research suggests that it is probably more than those who are dying on our roads.

The Government has said, from the initial speech, that it will be trying to reduce family violence, and I am just hoping that the omission of sexual violence in that list was an omission rather than a decision. The Government has previously said, though, that domestic violence was a priority last term while at the same time it systematically eroded and undermined essential protections like core funding for Women’s Refuge, like legal aid, like functioning Family Courts, like social housing, like Work and Income protection for women coming out of violent relationships, and like the survivors’ network that networks up all the community agencies and helps them share stories and respond appropriately. It just makes me despair when Government members say on the one hand that they are taking this seriously, and on the other hand they remove the vital protections that we need to save lives.

In the Prime Minister’s reply to the Speech from the Throne he said that the Government would be focusing on gangs in relation to family violence. Sure, it is one part of the puzzle—sure—but not the sole focus, surely, when we need to be reviewing all of our legislation and policies to make sure we can turn this round, because we can turn this round. You know that a core aspect of the prevention of domestic violence is reducing inequality. New Zealand deserves better, and I welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with Ministers and MPs right across the House to save lives, because this place has the power to do that.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to talk about inequality and disability. The recent census showed that nearly one in four New Zealanders lives with a disability—up from one in five in the previous census. These figures include some of the most marginalised people in New Zealand, especially those who have had a disability since birth. Disabled people are seriously under-represented in paid employment, and experience correspondingly higher levels of poverty as a result. This poverty is absolutely dire for many disabled people, who often have no resources and no buffers to cope with a long-term lack of income.

The figures are stark. For example, let us look at homeownership. In New Zealand the rate of homeownership for the average population is 64.8 percent. In contrast, only 52 percent of disabled adults own or partly own a home. However, when we look at those who have been disabled from birth, the rate of homeownership drops to 27 percent. That is less than half the rate of the average population. Can you imagine the outcry that would exist if fewer than one in three New Zealanders owned their own home? And yet that is the reality for those who live with a disability from birth. It shows just how systematic the barriers are that disabled people face in every level of society, from birth onwards, which ends up with their being unable to access their own home.

As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Government has an absolute responsibility to step up and remove barriers to participation for disabled people. It must take this responsibility seriously. Disabled people do have so much that they can contribute, but they are locked out of paid employment and face a lifetime of rejection. No matter how skilled or qualified they become, they still face rejection and difficulty accessing paid employment.

I have spoken with disabled people throughout the country who are desperate to be active, productive participants in the paid workforce and may have valuable skills. Be Accessible, which is an organisation that works on disability issues, estimates that the opportunity cost of workplace exclusion of people with disabilities is $11.7 billion in New Zealand. That is the economic value of the work that they could be contributing but are not able to, because of the barriers that are in place to paid employment.

One of the immediate steps that this Government could take is to step up and prioritise providing paid employment opportunities to disabled people. One obvious place where the Government can start is in the public sector. A best-practice model from the Government in employment in the public sector will have massive direct benefits, and also serve as an encouragement for the private sector to follow suit. The public sector still remains the biggest employer in New Zealand, with over 36,000 front-line paid staff. At the moment most Government departments do not have active specific initiatives aimed at identifying and recruiting people with disabilities even just into the potential labour pool. That means that many disabled people do not even get a foot in the door.

It is time for the Government to step up. What the Green Party believes is that the public sector needs to lead the way by being a positive employer for disabled people by amending the State Sector Act to put a stronger emphasis on the responsibility of the State sector to give disabled people an equal chance to get a job, and in doing so is the act of thinking about how we can do this. How can we remove barriers? This will mean becoming more aware and setting up a positive cycle of reinforcement. This is something that I would like the Government to absolutely look into seriously. It is something that disabled people have called for, time and time again, because they have had so many dire flow-through effects on the whole culture and attitude of the country as a whole towards disabled people, towards recognising our skills and our abilities, and getting them actively included into the economy and into Government. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to be back here, in the 51st Parliament of New Zealand, and to be giving the first speech in this Parliament that I have had an opportunity to give. I want to commence by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the other presiding officers on your election to office and on the good work you do on behalf of the Parliament of New Zealand.

It is a great pleasure and honour to be back for the third term of this fifth National Government. It is an enormous privilege and an honour to be representing the very fine and most beautiful electorate of Coromandel. Indeed, I want to thank the Coromandel people for their generosity, for their support, and for their endorsem*nt of my second term in this place. They have, in fact, humbled me by the level of support they have given me, and I am very delighted to be back here being their face, their voice, in this special place. I want to restate my personal commitment to the people of Coromandel that I will be a strong and reliable advocate for them in this place, and I recommit myself to another 3 years of hard work and dedication to Coromandel and its people.

We live in a very small, intimate, and precious little democracy. It is a participatory democracy. It is a democracy that has an unbroken tradition going back 160 years now. In that 160 years there have been something like 1,400 MPs who have come through this place. That is actually not terribly many when you think about the length of time we have been operating as a democracy.

Part of what makes our democracy so special is, as I say, that it is a participatory democracy. It is a democracy that requires volunteers to actively be involved in campaigning to support their parties, to take a view, to take a position on issues of the day, and to be involved in the great contest of ideas that is an election campaign. So when we had the election only a few weeks ago, it came as no surprise to me that thousands of people all around the country decided to get involved and to become part of that campaign. I want to acknowledge participants, volunteers, and activists from every sphere of the political spectrum, actually, in terms of being involved.

One of the things that always fascinate me is that a number of our fellow country folk just say: “Oh, well, I’m not interested in politics. It doesn’t matter. I don’t care.” Those are the people whom I find most frustrating in terms of our democracy because they should care. It is important, and they should take part in it. I have a much greater personal regard for those people of a differing political opinion from mine who at least have invested some time, effort, and energy in coming to a view and who are prepared to stand up, defend it, and go out and argue for it, even if it is not something that I support. So I want to thank the volunteers, I want to thank everybody who participated, and I particularly want to acknowledge and thank not only my fellow contestants in the constituency of Coromandel but all of those who offer themselves for election to public office—win, lose, or, in some cases, come close to a draw. Standing for Parliament is a big deal and it is a big commitment, but it is important for the sake of our democracy that, in fact, people do offer themselves to Parliament.

I want to just comment on a couple of things in relation to how this Government—this third-term Government, the fifth National Government—is going to assist the good people of Coromandel. I particularly want to raise and take up a point that the Hon Nikki Kaye made only a few minutes ago about the importance of access to fast internet and fast broadband. One of the policies we went to the election with was to get up to speed more than 80 percent of New Zealanders having access to ultra-fast broadband. That means that in my community there will be towns like Te Aroha, Whitianga, Thames, Paeroa, Katikati, and Waihī that will be eligible for contention in terms of further ultra-fast broadband roll-out. That is going to be a big process, and I know that those communities will be stepping up to the opportunity and the challenge that is offered by the benefits that come with ultra-fast broadband.

Further, there is going to be increased spending in the extension of the Rural Broadband Initiative, and another $150 million will be invested by this Government in extending that Rural Broadband Initiative. In my electorate, farmers understand how important it is to have connectivity—good, reliable connectivity. Business folk do, as well. Thank you very much. I look forward to participating in this Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Jacqui Dean.

Hon Ruth Dyson : It comes as a big surprise.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It does come as a surprise to me—but a very welcome surprise. Indeed, I would welcome some guidance from my whip on just how I am going to focus my speech, but, actually, it is not going to be that hard to focus my contribution to this debate because what we campaigned on leading up to the election was an agenda of stable government. I think that, with the support of the New Zealand public, we have truly been given the mandate to deliver on that promise of stable government. In fact, the Hon Bill English, as the Minister of Finance, not only has steered this ship very well for the past 6 years but promises to do so again for the next 3 years, and New Zealanders up and down the country can be assured that this Government will be delivering on its promise of building the economy and looking after all New Zealanders.

I want to actually focus particularly on one area of the New Zealand economy that is of particular interest to me, and that is tourism and regional development. In terms of regional development, something that I am very proud of in the last two terms of Government has been the development of the New Zealand national cycle trails programme. I can recall standing in this House on several occasions over the past few years talking about the benefits of the cycle trail to the local economy of Central Otago. I noted at the time that the Otago Central Rail Trail was making a significant impact on some of the small towns of Central Otago.

I recall that as I was saying this and talking about the small town of Lauder, the small town of Middlemarch, and the small town of Ranfurly, which were enjoying something of a renaissance, there would be gales of laughter coming from the other side of the House. Those members were going: “Oh, come on. What’s $7 million to Central Otago? That’s nothing. We live in Auckland and we’re much bigger than that.” Well, the joke is on them because not only have Central Otago and those small communities benefited from that investment by the Prime Minister, which was his initiative back in 2009, but so has the rest of New Zealand. So the laugh is on them because Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First did not get it. They did not understand that regional economic development has to start from the ground up. It has to start by a Government investing in the infrastructure to enable growth in the regional economies.

Hon Annette King : Who invested in Whale Watch Kaikōura? Look at a real success—Whale Watch Kaikōura.

JACQUI DEAN : You see, the Hon Annette King still does not get it. The Hon Annette King over the other side of the House still does not get it because—I do not know where she lives. Is it Hutt City or Wellington or “city slickers”—who would know? But regional development is well understood by the members on this side of the House for a very good reason, and it is that we all live in the provinces. If you have a look around at our fantastic new line-up of MPs, you will see that a good deal of them come from the provinces. Why is that? Because the voters in provincial New Zealand appreciate and understand what good government represents and have voted in vast numbers for those very members. So it stands to reason that in terms of regional economic development, of course Labour does not get it. Of course the Greens do not get it. How could they? They do not represent rural and provincial New Zealand.

So let us talk just for a moment about the ultra-fast broadband initiative. Let us talk just for a moment about rural broadband investment into our regions and what a great benefit that is going to be having for the agribusinesses throughout New Zealand. Let us talk about the investment into schools and into hospitals by this Government. Let us talk about the work that the Minister of Education, the Hon Hekia Parata, is putting into modern learning environments for our young New Zealanders in the cities, because, yes, we care about them as well, but a lot of it is going into provincial New Zealand. I am so proud that my small towns in the seat of Waitaki are benefiting from all this investment being put in by this Government. We stood up and we promised stable government before this election. We stood up and we have delivered.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin by also congratulating the member Jacqui Dean, who clearly was not aware she was on the speaking list and made a good contribution to this debate anyway. I also congratulate her on her re-election as the MP for Waitaki. I want to congratulate the Rt Hon David Carter on his re-election as Speaker. He was my opponent in, I think, six elections in the seat of Lyttelton and Banks Peninsula, and, more recently, in Port Hills. He has not been my opponent in the last couple of elections, and, obviously, he is not going to be now because he is the Speaker. I also want to congratulate Lindsay Tisch, the Hon Chester Borrows, and yourself, the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is a pleasure to have you as the rigorous person who, I guess, understands the rules of the House more than anyone else but also who is intent on having them implemented, which will be a pleasant change from others, who just make a passing reference to them during their ruling.

I want to congratulate all returning and all new MPs. It is a huge honour to be a member of Parliament and with that honour comes a great deal of responsibility. I look forward to getting to know, particularly, the new members more and sharing some of our experiences for the betterment of New Zealand. I think we are all in here for the same reason but we all have different views on how that betterment can be achieved.

I want to thank the Labour team in the Port Hills for our campaign. It is a privilege to have been re-elected to represent the Port Hills electorate. Regardless of what Scott Simpson said earlier in relation to his electorate, Port Hills is actually the best electorate in the country not only because of the Port Hills, the river, the estuary, and the harbour; it is really because of the people that it is the best electorate. We have had more than our fair share of challenges over the last few years and the people of the Port Hills have shown they are up to meeting those challenges and supporting others through them. I pledge to continue to be a strong voice for our electorate, to be accessible, and to work hard to progress the aspirations of my constituents.

I want to acknowledge and thank Kristine Bartlett, the Service and Food Workers Union, and Peter Cranney for the victory in the Court of Appeal case on the pay equity legislation. This gives the Government members a real opportunity to make good of at least one of the points they made that has been the subject of this Address in Reply debate, and that is looking at wage issues. If they can respond to that victory on pay equity with some substantive moves, that would be a huge contribution and recognition of the value of the work that so many women workers do in our nation.

I want to support the amendment to the motion before the House, the amendment that was moved by the Hon Annette King. She talked in her amendment about wanting to see all New Zealand children living in warm, dry homes. She wanted to see the number of affordable homes increased, ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to affordable healthcare, wages for all rising faster than the cost of living, jobs created, unemployment back under 4 percent, exports increasing as a percentage of GDP, the diversification of our economy, the reduction of economic and social inequality, targets to measure and address child poverty, a commitment to a cross-party approach to the elimination of domestic and sexual violence, real measures to address climate change and improve our sustainability, a plan for the recovery of Canterbury, and the Government to be guided in its work by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. If those issues were addressed and if that amendment was supported, then all New Zealanders would indeed have a more positive future to look forward to, and all New Zealanders would have an opportunity to contribute to the best of their ability and to have a better future for them and their children.

I want to touch more specifically on three of those points: on child poverty, on housing, and, particularly, on employment law, as it is so relevant at the moment, being debated as the first piece of legislation the incoming National Government wants to progress. On child poverty, it really has beggared belief to watch both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance progress the issue—after 6 years of total denial of the existence of child poverty in New Zealand, let alone any inclination to want to address it—and to suddenly decide that it is going to be a priority for this term.

I thought the icing on the cake though was when Bill English blamed local government for child poverty. I saw one of the better tweets on this issue when somebody said: “Mum’s just got home, opened the door, and said: ‘Couldn’t find a job today, so there’s no dinner.’ And the children screamed: ‘Damned urban planners!’.” That really spoke volumes about the lack of understanding that Bill English has and his total inability, even after 6 years in Government as the Minister of Finance, to take any responsibility at all for the increasing number of children we have in our country living in poverty. There are 20,000 more children living in poverty now than when this National Government was elected and first took office. I hope that the commitment bears some fruit. I doubt that it will after the constant denial but, for the sake of those children who are living in poverty and for the sake of their futures and their children’s future, I certainly hope that the National Government will deliver on that.

In relation to State housing, there was not a mention during the entire election campaign of the Government’s commitment and plan to sell off one-third of our State housing. It is breaking an 80-year-old agreement across all parties in this Parliament that it is a Government responsibility to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society have somewhere to live. We have seen an increasing number of people not being able to have access to any home at all and that is where the Government needed to get into that space to say: “We do not have enough houses to house New Zealand families. We should be building more houses. We should be making sure that all New Zealand families are able to live in a house. It does not have to be a flash house, but it should be a decent house. It should be warm and dry.” Instead, this Government is breaking that 80-year-commitment to ensure all New Zealand families are properly housed. It is walking away and saying it is going to be someone else’s responsibility. This is one of the biggest moves—the biggest abandonment of commitment to New Zealanders—that I have ever seen a Government take, and all the newcomers, all the newbies in the Government, will just close their eyes, close their ears, abandon the commitments they made when they were standing for election to this Parliament, and support the Government selling off one-third of State houses.

I think it is an outrage particularly after what both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said in this House about good organisations like the Salvation Army, and what they said about people like Campbell Roberts, a leader in social policy research and advocacy in New Zealand. Mr English and Mr Key said he did not know much and he should get out more. That is what they said about the leadership from the Salvation Army and now they are saying that the Salvation Army can be the major providers of social housing in New Zealand.

I just want to conclude by talking about the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Simon Bridges, who has been speaking during the Committee stage on behalf of the Government, clearly has no understanding of the history of one of the provisions in the employment legislation we are discussing, which is the right for people to have a break during their working time. He talks about air traffic controllers causing chaos. He talks about small businesses having to close so that the workers can have a break. I am going to challenge him during the next round of the Committee stage to give one example where any business or any airport has had to close so that the workers can take a break. The legal right for a worker to have a break has been in our legislation for only a few short years, and the first thing this Government has done—this incoming National-led Government—is to take away that right from New Zealand workers. I think that is wrong. It is not as if anybody in the workforce is asking for much. The right to have a break should be something that this Parliament supports. I do not buy into the argument that bad employers will abuse the law; I buy into the argument that this Parliament should be about making good law, and nothing that this Government has signalled as introducing is good law. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Mr Assistant Speaker, this is a split call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard) : This is a split call—5 minutes.

SIMON O’CONNOR : I want to take umbrage with the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, and Scott Simpson: Tāmaki is the best electorate in the country, and I invite all MPs to come and visit. I want to start with some thanks. There are some illustrious figures in the gallery. I want to acknowledge the regional team of the National Party who are here today. It is good to have you guys here. I also want to thank the headquarters team from the National Party too, who helped us to such a fine performance in the election. They were the architects of that. But, most of all, I want to start by thanking my Tāmaki campaign team: Cyrus, Andrew, Richard, Eric, Graham, Ben, Christine, and Hari. Thank you too to the hundreds of volunteers in Tāmaki who got out and about and helped us out with everything from phone-calling to doorknocking, from flyers to letters.

Tim Macindoe : And the elderly supporters.

SIMON O’CONNOR : Elderly supporters? Are you thinking of one in particular, Tim Macindoe?

Tim Macindoe : Yes.

SIMON O’CONNOR : Do you want to make a shout-out to your mother here? Very good.

Tim Macindoe : She’ll be pleased to hear from you.

SIMON O’CONNOR : Mrs Macindoe, your son says hello. All those volunteers, from flyers and letters to hoardings, catering, scrutineering, and special voting—it was an incredible effort, which paid off. What a result in Tāmaki—the most votes and the highest percentages in the country. In fact, it was a great result all round, although I do have to acknowledge my colleague Amy Adams, who got 140 more votes in her majority than I did. Next time, Amy, we will see how things go.

Really, it is thanks to the people of Tāmaki for their great support of both me and the National Party. I have enjoyed the first 3 years here in Parliament, and I am looking forward to the next three. I want to acknowledge all of our new MPs, particularly our 14 new National MPs. One in particular, Todd Muller, who is giving his maiden speech today, comes from St Heliers. I am always sorry to lose a vote—I am hoping he was a voter of mine—but, you know, I do not want to think of this so much as my losing a vote, as gaining an MP. Speaking of MPs, I want to acknowledge Peeni Henare. Peeni and I worked together in the Ministry of Social Development many years ago, and I am looking forward to working with him here in the House. His electorate, Tāmaki Makaurau, takes in mine, or perhaps my electorate takes in part of his.

Thinking of Tāmaki, I want to acknowledge the outage that we locals experienced recently. I want to acknowledge the work that Vector and others did in keeping me in the loop, which in turn enabled me to engage with my constituents throughout the power outage. I am very grateful that the Minister of Energy and Resources and this Government are looking to undertake an inquiry there through the independent Electricity Authority. That is quite important.

In the days after the outage, I took the opportunity to go around the electorate to meet as many of the business owners as I could, not only to have a discussion on their experiences around the outage but to get their sense of what was going on in general. What was very clear to me was that the businesses and the business owners of Tāmaki are very pleased with where this Government has gone in 6 years and where it is going. They are in good heart. They are very positive about the economy. They know that ultimately National is on the right track and that, unlike the other side, it is not a three-ring—sorry, hold on, a four-ring—circus. They are very positive about where the National Government is going.

There are lots of positives there, not only from the result within the Tāmaki electorate—and that really comes down to some amazing work by hundreds of volunteers, some of whom may or may not be here today—but because we are on the right track. Even when we had that adversity of a few weeks ago, through the outage people were still very positive about the choices that this Government was making. As the final bell rings in this speech in reply, I just want to say—

Tim Macindoe : There are plenty to come.

SIMON O’CONNOR : Yes, it was just for myself—that was incredibly selfish and self-oriented.

Tim Macindoe : You can’t shut down the debate that early.

SIMON O’CONNOR : That is right. Is this not the adjournment? Oh, well.

I just want to acknowledge the opportunity to become chair of the Health Committee. I spent many years in the past with Southern Cross, the health insurer. I thoroughly enjoyed that, and I am very much looking forward to engaging with an impressive team from across the House, actually, in an area of interest to me.

It is great to have this call, albeit a short one, in the Address in Reply debate. It was a good Speech from the Throne. In fact, the whole ceremony of the State Opening was incredibly important for us as New Zealanders to understand our democratic process. In fact, I was saying to some friends recently that the fact that you can have politicians, the judiciary, and the heads of the military all together as one in a peaceful, democratic system says much about this country. Thank you very much.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is great to be back. I am just so rapt to be back in this House; it is a privileged position that I hold. I want to congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker, on your promotion. I also want to congratulate Lindsay Tisch on his Assistant Speaker role; the Hon Chester Borrows, Deputy Speaker; and, of course, the Rt Hon David Carter on his role as the Speaker.

I also want to extend a welcome to our new MPs to this 51st Parliament, especially our 14 new MPs. It was not long ago that I actually stood in your shoes. It was actually the end of January this year. It is a highly privileged position to be in, as you know. I know that you are going find the time here very valuable and you are going to meet some very good colleagues along the way.

I want to extend my thanks to those people in Christchurch East, those wonderful people who party voted National. I was selected 100 days prior to the election and spent about 50 days on the ground there, and I met some amazing people in those streets. Some of those streets are a little bit battered, but the people were strong and resilient and they continue to be that today. No doubt they will see me in their electorate from time to time.

I also want to thank the volunteers from the Christchurch East National Party electorate committee. I want to thank Rae Mills. Rae is an old soldier from way back, and he has worked tirelessly for the Christchurch East electorate. Rae, if you are watching today, I just want to extend my thanks to you for chairing our great electorate committee, and also to Peter Macguire, our deputy chair. I also want to say kia ora to a whanaunga over there on the Opposition benches, Adrian Rurawhe. Adrian and I worked together. Adrian was actually on a board that I was the chief executive officer of in Whanganui, so I want to say kia ora to you too, Adrian.

My Address in Reply speech is just going to cover off a couple of areas: one is growing the economy, and the other is supporting beneficiaries in employment in Christchurch. I know that a strong economy produces more jobs and higher incomes and that when we have more jobs and higher incomes our well-being rises quite high. One of things I want to say is that these two ingredients for better well-being will go down well in the Christchurch East electorate. I know that.

The Business Growth Agenda comprises six key areas. Those six key areas include education. Without a good education we struggle to get on employment ladders—we struggle to do a lot of things. I was brought up to believe that, and that a good education will set you free.

Innovation is the next key area. We have the No. 8 wire innovative thinking of all New Zealanders. That is what we do. If we have not got the tool, we make it. That is what the innovation area is all about. When we start looking at infrastructure, we are looking at roading and all those areas. For the Christchurch area, we are progressing well in that area, for horizontal infrastructure.

When we start looking at skilled and safe workplaces, it is one of the areas that Minister Michael Woodhouse is working on, and it is a great area to work in because it is really important. I come from a Māori health provider area and that is one of the key areas that we had to do policies for, to make sure that our staff are safe in their employment.

Export and capital markets are key in order for this country’s economy to grow. We are already feeling the benefits of a growing economy. Already our best and brightest are starting to return to New Zealand. We are feeling that, and it is great to have them home so they can help us keep on growing this wonderful country that we live in.

My second focus area is in supporting beneficiaries into employment in Christchurch. When I was campaigning, the Opposition MP did not like that. She thought it was a waste of money. Well, I can tell you now that on the front page of the Christchurch Press we had one of those beneficiaries, who came from the Wairarapa. He got a job in construction and he was made a supervisor in such a short time. I do not think that he would have felt very humbled or very happy that MPs were out there saying that what this Government has done was a waste of time for him. Thank you.

I congratulate my distant cousin the Hon Chester Borrows on his appointment—

Hon Annette King : What about your other cousin?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON : —I will come to you shortly—as the Deputy Speaker, and, of course, I congratulate the Assistant Speakers. It is the first time I have seen you, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, in the Chair, and I think that you are going to be a wonderful Chair. You very much look the part, and I think you are going to require the highest standards from all members of Parliament at all times. For example, I cannot imagine for one moment that you would tolerate members of Parliament hurling hom*ophobic slurs across the Chamber at other members of Parliament. So I very much look forward to your time as Assistant Speaker.

I also congratulate the Prime Minister, who moves into that category of Prime Minister like Dick Seddon and Peter Fraser, both of whom would be members of the National Party today. I particularly want to pay tribute to that great Prime Minister Peter Fraser, because at the weekend we are all going to be celebrating—

Hon David Cunliffe : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice, and I am sure you will correct me if this point is not within the Standing Orders, but I wonder whether it is possible for a member to take exception on the part of a former member, because in the case of—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Trevor Mallard) : Order! The member will be seated.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON : Quite apart from losing an election, he has lost his sense of humour. But—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Trevor Mallard) : Order!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON : Not you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard) : And referring to a point of order that has been dealt with—the member will get on with it.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON : Oh, mea culpa, and thank you for your guidance. I do appreciate it. Let us come to Peter Fraser and the Polish refugees, because that was a real act of statesmanship by that great Prime Minister, as a consequence of which we have a wonderful, vibrant Polish community in New Zealand. I am sure Mrs King is going to be with me on Sunday when we recognise that contribution in Wellington.

Let us move to Mrs King, because I want to congratulate her on her wonderful victory in Rongotai. Admittedly, she lost the party vote for the first time since 1996, but her electorate vote margin was impressive, and I want to congratulate her. Labour bombed in the party vote, but she did well in the electorate vote. Mind you, Labour bombed by 900 votes in the party vote. It was not as much as the margin by which Mr Robertson lost the party vote in Wellington Central. It was the second time that the Labour Party—

Hon Annette King : You haven’t looked at your final vote.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON : Oh, 894—do not quibble. It was the second time in a row that Labour has come third in the party vote in Wellington Central. Indeed, comments are being made about his lamentable performance, and I think it is going to reflect in the great Labour leadership campaign.

As Mrs King will know, the Chatham Islands are now bluer than ever. I think they may even possibly be bluer than Epsom, and that is a testament to the work that the Government is putting in over there. It is not numbers; it is quality.

I had a very good time on the campaign with Mrs King. She is an excellent campaigner. She is an impressive performer, and I cannot understand why she is not seeking the leadership of the Labour Party, because I do think that she would wipe the floor with the four current contenders. Indeed, my favourite meeting—I do not know what Mrs King’s favourite meeting was—was in Island Bay—

Kris Faafoi : One when you weren’t there.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON : —I was at all of them—when a man followed me down the street, yelling that I was working for the CIA. Perhaps he had had a tip-off from his sources about my new portfolios; it was just that he got the wrong intelligence agency. It was all jolly good fun. No dirty politics in Rongotai—well, apart from the people who defaced my billboards—but it was all good, solid fun. Some of Mrs King’s billboards were defaced as well, and I was really quite upset about that.

I want to say something about the various portfolios for which I have responsibility. Of course, my new portfolio responsibilities have necessitated my handing over the arts, culture, and heritage portfolio. It is a fantastic portfolio, and, as can be seen from Mrs Barry in the House today, I think she is going to be a superb Minister for the arts. She could possibly be even better than Allan Highet, who, I think it is commonly accepted, was our greatest Minister for the arts. She knows that there is more to arts than self-promotion, unlike some other Ministers for the arts, and I confidently predict that the golden age of the arts that I have spoken about so often is about to morph into the platinum age.

I am pleased to be Associate Minister for Māori Development again, and I very much look forward to working with that great Minister Te Ururoa Flavell on a number of important matters, particularly reform of Te Ture Whenua Māori. I think this is one of the biggest pieces of economic reform for many, many years, and I would be delighted to meet with the new Labour MPs to talk to them about the potential that this has. The Ministry for Primary Industries report published a few years ago said: “Get this right, and it is worth over $8 billion to the Māori economy over 10 years and could be worth 3,600 jobs.”, so it is worth putting in the effort. It is not about—as we heard during the campaign—doing something to destroy the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court, but is about expanding the jurisdiction and making sure that we do the right thing there.

I very much look forward, as you can imagine, to working on Treaty settlements. Ngāpuhi, Hauraki, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Taranaki iwi, Wairoa, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa—these are all major settlements, and I am very much looking forward to getting stuck in there.

I particularly want to say how delighted I am that Ron Mark is back in the House. I have been very involved with Ron over a number of years, working on the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa claim. I know that because he is back here he has had to hand it over, but he did a great job. I confidently predict that he will soon be the leader of New Zealand First. I think we have seen a number of appalling contributions from Mr Peters since the House has been back. He has no interest in being here any longer and he is already counting down the days.

On the subject of leaders in waiting, I also want to welcome James Shaw to the House, a person whom I have known for some years and a person of whom I have a very high opinion. I am delighted that he is going to be making his maiden speech immediately after me. One of the more pleasant aspects of standing in Rongotai, quite apart from the fact that Mrs King is such a jolly good sport, was when James Shaw turned up to debates instead of Russel Norman. There were two positives in that. Mr Shaw is not an ideologue. He is a practical and pleasant individual, and more in line, I think, with the way the German Green Party has developed. The German Greens seem, to me, at least, to be a principled environmental party, not a dogmatic, left-wing rabble that talks down to people. I have to say I have lost count of the number of times I have seen iwi representatives in the gallery visibly laughing at the contribution of Green Party members on Treaty bills.

When the Greens move on from their present anti-establishment phase, I know that Mr Shaw will be waiting in the wings to take them into Government, and I wish him all the very best. Then all he is going to need to do is replace Catherine Delahunty, Jan Logie, Eugenie Sage, and some of the other Green comedians in the Green caucus, and I think it will be a real party.

Finally, I want to say something about the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS. I am very privileged to hold those portfolios. In the few weeks I have had responsibility for those jobs, I have come to respect those people and the very important work they do. They are the unsung guardians of our liberty, and we are going to have a debate on aspects of those organisations in the next few weeks, but I want to acknowledge the very dedicated and capable people whom I have met and who I know are committed to securing the freedom of New Zealanders. Obviously, they cannot talk very much about what they do, but the work they do is very important, and I acknowledge it.

I certainly hope that in this Parliament, at least, the intelligence questions that we as members of Parliament are going to have to face will not be dealt with in a partisan way. Debate is good; debate is necessary, but using the intelligence agencies to get at the Prime Minister, for example, is wholly unsatisfactory. I hope, as it is very important for this country, that the two big beasts of politics, if you like—the National Party and the Labour Party—work together to create a consensus in this area. As Minister responsible for those agencies, let me say to the Acting Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and to others on the Opposition benches that I will be seeking to work with them so that we can rebuild that bipartisan consensus.

JAMES SHAW (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. May I start first by thanking the Attorney-General for his most whimsical of contributions.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak a little about the past, a little about the present, and a little about the future. The privilege to serve in this Parliament was given to me by all those who gave their party votes to the Green Party in this year’s election. I thank them all. I pledge to do my utmost to live up to their hopes and their expectations. In particular, I would like to thank the people of my electorate, Wellington Central, 30 percent of whom voted Green at this year’s election. Over 300 people volunteered on the Green campaign in Wellington Central this year. Thank you all so much for everything that you did. You are an amazing group of people. That 30 percent belongs to you. I am proud to be associated with you.

I am proud also to be a Wellingtonian. I was born here in 1973. Surviving on only her teacher’s salary, my mother, Cynthia Shaw, raised me and somehow managed to save enough to send me to a private primary school, Scots College. Later, I transferred to Wellington High School, where occasionally I went to class.

My mother grew up on a farm called Waiwhero, near Ōpōtiki. She and her brother and sisters were the last generation to grow up on that farm, which had been in the family for nearly a century. They were the first generation to go to university, to live in the cities, and to travel the world. My first ancestors in New Zealand were Charles John Shaw and Annie Mathilda Baggett. They were married in St John’s Church in Christchurch in 1867. Annie was the granddaughter of a Jamaican plantation slave, worth £80 in an 1807 inventory. Charles Shaw grew up in Somerset in the UK. His older brother William died fighting in India in a struggle for independence that the victorious empire referred to as the Indian Mutiny. After that, Charles’ father thought that his prospects might be brighter in New Zealand, and he packed him off here with a saddle, a bridle, spurs, and a double-barrelled shotgun.

My mother is here today with my brilliant, beautiful wife, Annabel. Annabel and I were married in January of 2013. Six months later the right to marry the person whom you love was extended to same-sex couples, couples like my mother and her partner of 30 years, Susanne, who helped raise me. They are here along with many members of my family. I thank them and I acknowledge them all. My story is woven in with their stories.

In their speeches, friends of mine in the seats opposite are fond of occasionally referring to their conservative heroes like Margaret Thatcher. Well, Margaret Thatcher was one of the first world leaders to warn about the problem of climate change. Thatcher trained as a chemist. She understood that you cannot change the chemical composition of the atmosphere without consequences. In a speech to the United Nations in 1989, she said: “What we are now doing to the world, … by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate … is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.”

Thatcher was right. In 2013 New Zealand was hit by our worst storm in 60 years. It left 30,000 Wellington homes without power; some for up to a week. It set the city back $4 million in direct clean-up costs. Around the country it resulted in $31 million in insurance claims. That summer of the same year we had our worst drought in 70 years. It cost New Zealand $498 million in lost exports. Treasury estimates that this drought cost our economy over $1.5 billion. It was the worst drought in 70 years. It was the worst storm in 60 years. It was the warmest winter on record. There were billions of dollars in costs and damages all in the same 6 months.

I am 41 years old. In just those 41 years, fully half of all of the planet’s wildlife has been extinguished. Thousands of species have become extinct. This is ecocide—the destruction not just of species but of habitats and life support systems that they need to survive. We know that the cause of this carnage is economic and that the solution is political.

Annie’s grandmother was a slave in a time in which slavery was seen by many as a vital component of the global economy. The abolition of slavery was posed as a threat to financial stability. Charles’ brother William was a colonial soldier during a time in which India was the jewel of the British Crown and empires were considered necessary for the expansion of wealth and trade. Annie herself was not allowed to vote, and people opposed to the suffrage movement argued that giving women the vote would lead to the breakdown of civilisation. There would be a battle between the sexes. Society would crumble as women became militant and unruly, which is just as well because the Green Party draws much of its strength from militant, unruly women.

People pollute the atmosphere. They destroy rivers, ecosystems, and species for the same reasons that they used slave labour or seized land belonging to a race of people whom they considered inferior—because they can. If people can maximise profits and reduce costs by polluting the environment, they will do so because the market incentivises that behaviour. I am a huge fan of the market. When it comes to setting prices and allocating scarce resources, it generally beats the alternatives hands down. But the market is not sentient. It is not magical. It does not know that habitats are being eradicated, that species are being extinguished, or that the climate is changing. We need to tell the market that this is happening. We can do it the same way that we told the market that we would not tolerate slavery, colonialism, or limits on suffrage.

Through the political system, we change the law. Just as we believe that we have an inherent, fundamental, and inalienable right to life, liberty, and security of person, we can eradicate ecocide by extending to Earth’s other inhabitants the same legal protections that we enjoy. Corporations already have legal personhood. Why not actual living things? There are already precedents for this in Aotearoa. Both Te Urewera and the Whanganui River now have legal personhood. They have the right not to be polluted, the right not to be degraded, the right to exist—inherent, fundamental, and inalienable, just like us.

There is always controversy about the expansion of rights. Whenever the status quo is threatened there are always doomsayers warning that civilisation will collapse or vested interests warning that the economy will be destroyed. But the changes that seemed so threatening to so many people never are in hindsight, and the warnings that seemed so serious always sound absurd to subsequent generations.

In my 20s I left New Zealand. I joined AIESEC, the Association internationale des étudiants en sciences économiques et commerciales. Founded in the aftermath of World War II to promote peaceful relations between nations, AIESEC was, and is, the world’s largest student-run student exchange programme. I went to work with it in Brussels. Then I moved to London, where I worked as a business consultant for 12 years, first as a manager in the chairman’s office at PricewaterhouseCoopers, then at Future Considerations, an organisational development consultancy that I helped to establish. My specialty was in working with business teams to find solutions to seemingly intractable problems. In my time I have worked with groups of people in over 30 countries and I have travelled to more than 50. I have learnt that underneath all of our differences there are values that are common to all of us, no matter how incomprehensible or alien we seem to each other—which should serve me well here.

Last year we were working with a village near Lake Bhimtal in the foothills of the Himalayas in Uttarakhand, India. The village was on the edge of a bamboo forest that theoretically enjoyed full protection, and yet the people from the village relied on bamboo that they harvested illegally from the forest. The traditional sources of bamboo were going because of dramatic changes in rainfall patterns. The forest park rangers were in conflict with the villagers. The villagers were losing what little livelihood they had. Their children were leaving the mountains to work for factories and call centres in Delhi. When we sat down with these people, we had no idea what the solution to their problem would be. As it turned out, part of the answer was to get the forest park rangers to bend the rules and to allow the villagers to enter the forest and continue to harvest the bamboo. In return, the villagers agreed to plant two bamboo seedlings for every one that they took. It was a simple solution; it just had not occurred to the forest park rangers or to the villagers because of the adversarial relationship between them.

When we are presented with this conflict between the economy and the environment, it is almost always a false choice. There is almost always a solution that delivers both. The solution is not always obvious when you start out. Problems and conflicts that seem unsolvable have solutions. The hard part is getting the different parties to work together to find them.

I enter Parliament as a member of our country’s loyal Opposition. My role is, in part, to hold to account, to challenge, and to speak truth to power, but I am not committed to partisanship for its own sake. Political tribalism is, I believe, the greatest barrier to creating enduring solutions to the great challenges of our time. I do not know what the answers are. I believe that the notion that anyone here thinks that they have the answer is itself a dangerous thing. It is a pretence that we feel forced to maintain for purposes of political theatre.

I do know that we need to change the way that we see ourselves and our relationship with the world. I know that those changes will scare some people and that there will be warnings about the destruction of the economy and the end of civilisation, but, as always, those changes will be seen as obvious and harmless in hindsight. I know that presently we are stuck. To get unstuck we will all need to let go of some things and to be more committed to finding the answers than to being right or to others being wrong.

Time is too short for resignation. Things are too bad for pessimism. It is too big a task for petty politics. It is too important for partisanship. These things we must transcend and transform. If any other member of this House from any political party or any member of the public listening hears this challenge and wants to rise to it, my door is open. Thank you.

MARAMA FOX (Māori Party): E Te Mana Whakawā, nei rā te mihi mahana ki a koe, anō rā ki Te Whare hoki. I tērā wiki i tū ake au ki te tuku ki tērā o ngā hōia kua hinga, ā, e tika me mihi ki a rātou katoa kua mate. Kei ngā ringa o Te Atua e karapoti nei i a rātou i tōna korowai nei aroha. Rātou ki a rātou ka tika. Ā, ki a tātou te hunga ora nei, ko tātou te hunga i whakatutuki i ō rātou nā wawata, tēnā tātou katoa. Ko wai tēnei e tū ake nei? Ā, he uri o ngā iwi o Te Ikaroa Rāwhiti, o Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Porou, o Rangitāne hoki. He uri tēnei o te kāhui rangatira o Te Pāremata Māori, rātou i hanga, i whakarite i ō rātou ake pāremata, i runga i te whakaaro, kua ngaro rā Te Reo hāpai i ngā hiahia, ngā wawata, ngā take o ngā iwi Māori o te motu, ā, ki te whai hoki i ō rātou ake rangatiratanga. Tamahau Mahupuku, Hoani Rangitakaiwaho, Manihera, Te Maari, Whatahoro, ā, me te kuia Niniwa-i-Te Rangi, a wai rā, hoki wairua mai! Ka tū whakaiti au kei mua i ō rātou nā aroaro, kei mua i a koutou aroaro, ōku pou, ōku rahi. Hoi anō rā ki Te Whare katoa, tēnā koutou.

[Mr Speaker, warm greetings to you, and to you as well the House. Last week I got up to deliver a tribute to the soldiers who were killed. It is fitting indeed that one be made to them all who died. They are in the arms of God, enveloped in his loving cloak. It is appropriate that they be left among their own. And to us here the living, we are the ones to accomplish their aspirations and I salute us all. Who, then, is this individual standing here before you? Ah, it is a descendant of the tribes of Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Porou, and Rangitāne also of Te Ikaroa Rāwhiti. This, then, is a progeny of the esteemed company of the Māori Parliament, the ones who create and prepare their own parliament upon the view that the very language to lift up the needs, aspirations and matters pertaining to the Māori tribes of the nation is gone. They pursue their right to exercise autonomy as well. Tamahau Mahupuku, Hoani Tangitakaiwaho, Manihera, Te Maari, Whatahoro, the matriarch Niniwa-i-Te Rangi and others, come back spiritually! I stand humbly before you my pillars and my greatness and so my thanks to you all the entire House.]

Today is an auspicious day. It is a significant day in the history of this country, yet there is no pomp and ceremony to mark this day, no grandeur, no national public holiday, and no special programming by our State broadcaster. In fact, I would hazard a guess that there may be some seated here in this House who do not know what it is that I refer to. Today is, in fact, the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Today, 179 years ago, a confederation of Ngāpuhi chiefs gathered together in Te Hiku o te Ika to sign the article declaring this land its own sovereign State, an independent country in its own right—not open for discovery, not free to be claimed for princes and principalities, but independent; a land with its own customs, its own languages, its own methods of environmental protection, and its own system of justice, its own rangatiratanga.

Interesting and topical as it is now, those chiefs had also previously established their own flag—a symbol of independence, flown across the bow of the ships owned by Māori as they sailed throughout the world to trade in the ports of Australia, Canada, and the United States, and a symbol of their nationhood, raised to the world to show their independence. If these chiefs were here today, what would they think? What would they think of what has become of their nation? Would their flag be branded a racist flag in the way the Māori flag was just the other day by members of this House?

It is both interesting and enlightening to read the history of the Declaration of Independence from the indigenous viewpoint provided through Ērima Henare, who said: “The words of the declaration come right from the heart of Māori—from the eyes, from the mind, the face of Māori.”

The truth or otherwise of the significance of the Declaration of Independence will not be solved here in my maiden speech. I raise it to bring light to the fact that we continue to express our nationhood in one-dimensional viewpoints. We raise our children on a litany of “Eurocised” history, largely neglecting altogether the rich and vibrant history of pre-colonised Aotearoa.

On this historic day, how do we remember our past? How do we take stock as we act in our present? How do we determine the ingredients needed to forge a pathway for our future? It is only right and proper to acknowledge Dr Pita Sharples for his role in bringing Māori history into our curriculum for the benefit of all our mokopuna and all of Aotearoa.

Just a week ago I proudly stood in the House to swear allegiance to the Queen and my commitment to carrying out my duties as a member of Parliament, but I was not afforded the honour to do so to the founding unification document of our country, the very document that allowed the Queen to assert her sovereignty in this land—to the Treaty itself. Surely, if I come here from the Māori roll, I come as a representative of the Māori voice. Surely, I take my place in this House as a representative of the Treaty partner and should be able to acknowledge the Treaty and the Oath as a partner to the Crown.

It was heartening to me to know that every single party in our 51st Parliament attended a karakia taunaki held in Matangireia on the morning of the swearing in. The karakia offered on our behalf were significant. The wairua felt by all present bore testament to the chiefs who signed the Treaty and testament to the contributions of great Māori and non-Māori parliamentarians of the past. I look forward to the day when all will recognise the importance of such remembrance and adherence to the Treaty as a matter of course in the fulfilment of our responsibilities as members of this House and representatives of this great nation. I look forward to the day when I can pledge an oath to carry out my duties in accordance with the law and the Treaty of Waitangi. I also look forward to the day when they will not mean two different things.

When I first entered this House, I desired to feel a sense of the spirit of this place—this place where debate and conjecture have raged over determining the pathways of our people; this place where our Māori predecessors stood to uphold the unending struggle to assert Māori aspirations; this place where Ngata, Pōmare, Te Rangi Hīroa, Kara, Meha, and others have spoken, and where Matiu Rata, Tirikatene, Parata, Horomia, Turia, and Sharples have argued the cause of Māori, endeavouring to uplift and change the impact of assimilation and colonisation on our people.

I recall reading for the first time the debate that raged in the Parliament of the day when discussing the Native Schools Act. I was astounded not just by what was said and done but by the lasting impact of such legislation on the intergenerational lives of our Māori. Here in the Parliament of this country in 1867 they debated whether to exterminate the natives or to civilise them through education, but if they were to educate them, they needed to do so through a language that was more conducive to human thought. In the debate that followed, there was also reference to the fact that “We need to be careful not to hunt them into education as we have hunted them into the selling of their land, for fear that it might engender a spirit of resistance.” Hence Māori language was outlawed in this country by an Act of Parliament. The Native Schools Act was entrenched, and the native schools were instructed to teach only rudimentary literacy and numeracy to the natives. Instead, teachers were encouraged to teach labouring, cooking, cleaning, and nursemaiding—not nursing, just nursemaiding—for that is all they were capable of learning.

This was indicative of the colonial understanding of the day. This is not a reflection on those who are gathered here. It was, after all, a long time ago, but understand this: that piece of legislation stayed in place in this country for 100 years, until 1969. That is generation after generation of our people being told: “Your language is not good enough.”, “Your culture is not good enough.”, and, essentially: “You are just not good enough.” At the very least, it is social engineering and cultural genocide.

I come to this House as a proud descendant of Papawai, the home of Māori Parliament. Papawai is where our Māori Parliament operated from 1892 until 1902. During that time, it also met at the settlements of Waipatu, Tokaanu, Pākirikiri, Waiōmatatini, Rotorua, and Waitangi. It acted as a forum whereby Māori leaders from around the country could discuss issues of the day and as an opportunity for leaders to meet with parliamentarians to discuss legislation that affected Māori. It was the place where my ancestor and hero, Niniwa-i-te-rangi, stood on marae ātea around the country to promote the Māori Parliament and the concept of kotahitanga, or the uniting of Māori to achieve equity and transform lives for the future well-being of the people. She would have made a great Māori Party MP.

It is time to stand up and determine that this country has come of age by recognising our duality of nationhood as coined by Hingangaroa Smith. When we can acknowledge our joint history with all of its warts and tragedies, perhaps then we can move forward as one nation. I look around this place and I wonder where our joint symbols of nationhood are. Where is the place of Māori? Many continue to debate the necessity of the Māori seats in this House. I put it to you that when there are no longer disparities for Māori in this country, then we can remove the Māori seats. When Māori are recognised as value added to our country and not merely entertainment fluff to be rolled out for special occasions, then we can remove the Māori seats. When we can converse in Te Reo Māori without the need for a translator, then we can remove the Māori seats.

Now I hear the murmurings that that will never happen. Well, why not? Surely we have proven our worth. Surely our ancestors who have given their lives on the battlefields of this earth have fought the price of citizenship. Surely those of our people who have sacrificed their land, their dignity, and their traditional knowledge have given more than was necessary to give to share this land and to be acknowledged and valued. When our local governments can look at their numbers of Māori population as an asset and not a deficit, then we can move forward as a nation. When we can report wellness and not unwellness and when we can strive for equity and not just equality, we can move forward as a nation recognising duality of nationhood, becoming truly ambi-cultural and not just bicultural.

I know the Western culture. I have been completely assimilated into it. I know the constructs of that culture. I also know my own culture. I am equally versed in the traditions of my ancestors, their knowledge, and their histories. I regard myself as ambi-cultural—equally versed in the dual cultures of this country. I come here today to forge a place for Māori in this country as value added—as an asset, not a deficit—to change the poverty of not just the hand but the poverty of the mind, for all of our people to believe there is a real place for Māori in this country through language, culture, and identity.

It is not the only reason I come here today. In the gallery are members of my family, hapū, and iwi. I stand on their behalf. I am driven forward on their behalf to address those disparities I have referred to. I want to add my voice to those who advocate for our children and to build a nation where our children are not plagued by hunger, where our children are not reared on a diet of drug and alcohol-fuelled parties, and where our children are not schooled by those who do not know how to say their name, taught by those who do not believe in them, or harmed and exploited by those who are supposed to protect them.

In Wairarapa we know the pain of child mortality and tragic death. In 1992 our naive peace was shattered by the murders of seven of our whānau in the Judds Road massacre. The enduring picture I have of seven coffins lying on our marae ātea surrounded by the mothers, sisters, aunts, and grandmothers of our whānau is both bitter and sweet—sweet at the memory of the outpouring of love that followed. The other picture that will haunt me is that of one large open pit where all seven coffins were lowered into the grave, because seven graves side by side could not be dug with strength enough to hold up the walls of earth. As if this tragedy was not enough, in the 10 years that followed we lost the Sherman baby, the Aplin sisters, “Lillybing”, and Coral Burrows, and we gathered here from Wairarapa were related to them all.

When our children suffer in this way, then I must stand up. When our young people choose to end their lives instead of live their reality, then I must stand. When our children cower in fear on the streets of this nation, then I must stand. When our children sleep their nights in the backs of broken-down cars, then I must stand. I stand to give voice to those who have lost their voice and the song in their hearts. I stand to find a way to heal and restore love to our homes. I hold fast to a hymn of our church that sweetly reminds the listener:

There is beauty all around,

When there’s love at home

There is joy in every sound,

When there’s love at home

Peace and plenty here abide,

Smiling sweet on every side

Time doth softy, sweetly glide,

When there’s love at home.

The most important work we will ever do will be within the walls of our own homes. When we change what we do in our homes we will change society.

That song is the song of Whānau Ora, the lyrics of which Tariana Turia has written into the hearts of every person who calls this land home. So I want to acknowledge home and those who have brought me here, the kuia and koroua who put my billboards up, from Wharekāhika in the north to Ūawa: Kōkā Connie, Pāpā Prince, Pāpā Erueni, and Pāpā Hemo, ka tūpou taku māhunga ki mua i a koutou. [Uncle Prince, Uncle Herewini and Uncle Hemo, I bow my head before you.]

Leona, Lynlee, Auntie Cath, Uncle Hōri, Hēnare, Phyllis, Christine, Jael, Rose, Pānia, Pānia, Kiri, Maxine me au tamariki, PJ, Big Bill, Ivy, Baden, Pete, koutou e Takapou, werawera nei tā te mihi kore rawa atu ki a koutou katoa. [To you collectively Takapou, the warmth of my appreciation to you all is endless.]

To the Māori Party membership far and wide who have supported me to stand here today, proud to be a representative of the strong and independent Māori voice in this Parliament, tū Māori mai! To my family, my sisters, my brother, who has acted as my father, and even my dad, who I am sure will watch this on YouTube, I love you all. You have made me who I am. My children, Jordan and your spunky wife Marion; Rikihana and your cheeky wife, Mahli, our moko Rākainuku; Ririwai and your soft and generous wife, Fe, and my darling moko Tohumairangi; to Whatahoro, the epitome of whose name you bear; and Mānahi—Mānahi, I will not forget bubba, who was lost to us almost a year ago, Lania—and my daughters, Te Ao Mārama, Mihiroa, Aromea, and Moeteao, I love you so much. The testament of that love is etched on my heart and my puku for ever. To my darling husband, whom I have trained to be a super-dad over the last 26 years—we were married 26 years ago today, which I just remembered this morning—I am for ever in your debt and care.

And finally, to the one who is my privilege, for I am privileged—not in the way it has been expressed in the past by members of this House, but I am privileged—to be raised by a mum who taught me never to allow myself to be treated less than I deserve, who taught me I can do anything, who taught me to be better than the best I can be and not to be a statistic. You are my privilege—you who drove me 14 hours non-stop during the election when I was too sick to drive myself. There are not enough words to express the gratitude I have to a loving Father in heaven, who blessed me with you as a mother.

I commit myself to this House. I commit myself to our people. I commit myself to this Government to ensure that those whom I love and those who deserve the love of this nation will have the full benefit of all I am able to give on their behalf. I am excited to work alongside my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell, to add to the greatness of this nation built on the greatness of our ancestors.

Otirā e Te Whare, huri noa i te motu me maumahara nō Rangiātea tātou katoa, he tangata rangatira tātou nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[But at the same time, to the House and indeed to those ones throughout the country, you must remember that we are all from Rangiātea and a revered lot, so acknowledgments, salutations and congratulations to you all.]

• Waiata

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Esteemed guests and colleagues, friends and family, I will start by offering my congratulations to the Prime Minister and the National team for securing a historic win, and a well-deserved third term. May I also congratulate all new Ministers and MPs, and you, Mr Speaker, on your re-election. It truly is an honour and a privilege to be part of this high-performing team and to serve my fellow New Zealanders.

I would like to especially thank our leader, the Rt Hon John Key, for being a source of inspiration to me and many other New Zealanders. I would like to acknowledge the National Party leadership team, especially the president, Peter Goodfellow, board members Alastair Bell and Malcolm Plimmer, northern regional chair, Andrew Hunt, and former regional chair Alan Towers. Thank you to the Hon Paula Bennett, the Hon Maurice Williamson, Belinda Milnes, and Ele Ludemann, for their encouragement and support. To my campaign chair and team, especially Diana Freeman, Gavin Logan, and Rita Van Pelt—thank you. A special thanks to our volunteers and the Young Nats—you all are amazing individuals. I am also thankful for the tremendous welcome I have received from the community.

As my colleagues will agree, none of this would have been possible without the support of my family. My husband, Ravinder Parmar, has given unwavering support. And thanks to our boys, Jagmeet, who turned 18 a week before the election and voted for the first time, and Abhijeet, who is 12, and very eager to become a teenager.

Earlier this year, I was chosen by the National Party as the candidate for the Mt Roskill electorate, and I am extremely proud to have repaid its faith in me by winning the critical party vote in Mt Roskill. Now I am a list MP who has the privilege of looking after the Mt Roskill electorate. About 39 percent of the residents in Mt Roskill are of Asian ethnicity, which is more than three times the national average of 11.8 percent. Just under half of the people in Mt Roskill in 2013 were born overseas, and I am one of them. Mt Roskill reflects the growing diversity of our country, and it is clear that the National Party reflects that diversity. Mt Roskill comprises small businesses, professionals, and hard-working people looking to get ahead in life. I can assure them that my values and those of the National Party align with their goals and aspirations.

I was born in India, one of four sisters, to very hard-working parents. My father, Sham Jaswal, is now retired after proudly serving in the Indian Air Force for 38 years. As you would expect, our home environment mirrored the morals, virtues, and also the discipline of the armed forces. Actually, I am grateful to my dad for that. My mother, Kuldeep Jaswal, looked after the family, and I spent my early years travelling with my parents from one air force base to another. Those early years of changing schools every 3 to 4 years and moving between different air force bases in different states of India helped me to learn about different cultures and lifestyles, and also taught me how to make friends quickly. I remember it being a very busy time.

Both of my parents worked hard to raise us and to provide for us. Like many of my colleagues, education was extremely important in my family. I remember during my final years at school the exciting new field of biochemistry becoming a proper subject and a popular topic of discussion at school, which attracted me to the study of biochemistry. I left school wanting to become a scientist, to find cures for deadly diseases, so I completed a BSc in chemistry and an MSc from the University of Poona, India. During this time, studying biochemistry, I realised the importance of gene cloning strategies to identify the cause, or causes, of diseases, and I decided to do my PhD in this field.

But then, as is traditional in my culture, I married Ravinder in an arranged marriage and came to this amazing country to join him and start a new life with him in New Zealand. On arriving here in 1995 and settling into life in Auckland, I wanted to continue my education at the University of Auckland. I was lucky enough to find Associate Professor Nigel Birch at the University of Auckland to supervise my PhD. He is one of New Zealand’s great scientists and he played an important role in making me a scientist. To be technical for a minute, for my PhD I investigated a possible role for neuroserpin in neurite outgrowth by its over-expression and under-expression in two types of cell lines. Neuroserpin is a serine protease inhibitor predominantly expressed in neuronal cells during the late stages of neurogenesis and in the adult brain during synaptic plasticity. The result of my research suggested a new role for neuroserpin in neurite outgrowth in-vitro, and my published papers highlighted the physiological importance of neuroserpin, with emphasis on its role in neurite outgrowth, neurite regeneration, and maintenance in the nervous system. Simplified, my work looked at whether it was possible to use it to re-establish connections in the brain. My postdoctoral work built on this research, and then later I moved into research on retinitis pigmentosa—an inherited degenerative eye disease that causes progressive vision loss.

By this time, while working as a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Auckland, I felt it was time to put my training into a more practical realm, and I decided to move into the commercial sector. After spending some time in the scientific commercial sector, I decided to use my skills to move into business, and I joined my husband to start up natural health products manufacturing within our existing facility, which was being run by Ravinder to make confectionery and chocolate products. My days in business were focused on product development, improving efficiencies and productivity, and providing the best possible environment for our staff.

My time in my manufacturing business gave me an in-depth understanding of our local and international markets, our food manufacturing sector, and our regulations, and how we compare with international markets, and how our manufacturing in New Zealand is distinctive from other countries. Our local innovation keeps us one step ahead in the business world. We Kiwis are innovative people and full of ideas to start businesses. Although owning and running a business is stressful, busy, and often intense, it is also rewarding. I am eager to work for our dynamic business owners so that their hard work pays off and their great responsibility is recognised.

Like my family, I have always believed in hard work. From Monday to Friday I was a scientist, and then later a businesswoman, and on the weekends I worked as a broadcaster for 16 years on an Indian radio station in Auckland, plus, of course, there was my role on the Families Commission and the Film and Video Labelling Body of New Zealand. Somehow, I managed to fit in raising our two boys and putting in more than a decade working in the community, especially in the field of domestic violence. My values of strong, caring families and communities, personal responsibility, and equal citizenship and opportunities mirror those of the National Party.

During my time in this hallowed precinct I am eager to make a positive difference in a number of areas. Firstly, in science and innovation and, in particular, the conversion of science to business. We are producing very highly skilled scientists, and I do not want New Zealand to be just a breeding ground for good scientists; we need to provide opportunities for them to explore their scientific vision in our homeland, to attract more interest, and to retain that pride in good work. We need to supercharge the activation of the amazing research that is currently under way in New Zealand institutions, and apply it to our businesses, our industries, and our products. I believe there are huge potential advantages just waiting for New Zealand to seize on.

I am passionate about enabling and encouraging business. Small and medium-sized businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, and 97 percent of New Zealand businesses are small businesses. If big corporates are doing well, or otherwise, we hear about it, but small businesses often do not make the news, even though they make up a significant part of our economy. They provide a career for those who value economic independence, they supply components and services to large companies, and they contribute to innovation and invention—something that all economies require. But behind every small business is a group of really hard-working people in different industry sectors, and I think they need attention so they can keep making the contribution they are to our economy. I believe there is a lot more that needs to be done to help them thrive. I respect and admire the courage of all business people out there and those entrepreneurs who are starting up new companies.

I believe in family values, and in the need to mount a coordinated effort to stamp out domestic violence and to build resilience and respect in family relationships. For many years I have worked in this sector and have seen the impact of family violence on family members, communities, and, in the long run, on societies. We cannot afford to skirt round this issue if we want to increase the quality of life for New Zealand families. Plus, it makes fiscal sense. Family violence has been estimated to cost the equivalent of the Canterbury earthquakes on our economy every year. Equally as important, though, is the significant negative impact that domestic violence has on children’s well-being—psychologically and socially. As an advocate for gender equality, I also believe in merit. I am a proud member of a party and a caucus that do not believe in a quota system for women—I am here purely on merit, and I would not have it any other way. I think many other Kiwi women feel this way. Equally, although I am proud of my Indian heritage, New Zealand is the only place I call home. I do not consider myself to be just an ethnic MP; I consider myself to be an MP who brings many perspectives and experiences along with my ethnicity, which I will apply to the serious and important work of an MP in this House.

With a multi-professional background as a scientist, businesswoman, community advocate, broadcaster, and mother and wife with strong family values, I have come to the House determined to make a positive difference in the scientific world, the business world, and in our communities. I hope to use my professional background and my scientific background to simultaneously bring imagination and patience to my work here, having learnt as a scientist that sometimes it takes multiple approaches to get an outcome. As a businesswoman I bring the energy, drive, and eagerness that are needed in a business person in order to see growth. As a community advocate who has worked in the heart-wrenching field of domestic violence, I bring an appreciation of the effort and hardships of our communities.

I am truly grateful for all of the experiences in my life, which have given me the opportunity to evolve into the person I am today. Since becoming a New Zealander, I have had 20 years of opportunities, and I believe it is now my turn to give back. It is a privilege and an honour to be a member of a team that is working for New Zealand—the team led by the Rt Hon John Key. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It is an honour to be able to address the House today in this august Chamber, rich in history, personalities, and its politics. But I would like to begin with a thank you to my wife, Tina, and our three boys, who have afforded me this opportunity. I know that Parliament brings challenges to family life, and to have your support is important to me. I was just showing my boys around the Parliamentary Library, and the first book they picked up was called Twitter For Dummies—that is my boys. I would also like to thank my parents, especially my 92-year-old father, who is unable to join my mother here today. Mum and Dad, you have always been open to the opportunity of the possible. This has been a powerful and liberating force throughout my life. I also acknowledge that I am here primarily because of the strength of the National Party and the support of the good people of Hunua. But first, a little about my journey here to Pāremata Aotearoa.

I am a fifth-generation New Zealander. The Bayly family origins are a tiny village called Clawton, on the border of Cornwall and Wales. In the 19th century, three brothers decided that they wanted a better life. Before leaving, they walked to the nearest village, found three sisters, married them, and then set sail on the Amelia Thompson, arriving in New Plymouth in 1841. My great-uncle was a fluent speaker of Te Reo, and ended up acquiring land in Kai Iwi, near Whanganui, where I grew up. My mother’s connection with New Zealand came through Eliza Pattle, who was married to Edward Gibbon Wakefield, principal of the New Zealand Company.

My identical twin brother, Paul, and I were the youngest of six boys. Our life on the farm was mayhem, but great fun. People often say: “Your poor mother, with all those boys.” Here she is in the gallery today, and she looks pretty good to me. I can remember going on only one holiday as a family. All of us boys were squeezed into the back of the Rambler Rebel. We got a flat tyre before we left the garage, we fought all the way to Napier, and it rained all weekend. Never again! But that suited me fine, as I loved nothing better than riding horses and mustering sheep and cattle.

My first school, Waitahinga School, had nine pupils. At lunchtime we would jump the fence and go looking for wild deer in the bush. However, academically it was less than memorable. But looking back now I do not think it mattered. What was much more important was the sense of community it taught me. My father helped build the school swimming pool and my mother drove the school bus. Everyone knew everyone and helped each other. There is nothing more powerful than the spirit of community.

At age 11 it all changed. Paul and I were dispatched to boarding school, but we loved it—sport, friends, and new experiences. The school was steeped in tradition and hierarchy—and, I daresay, much like this House. After graduating from university I trained as an accountant and then spent 10 years working with merchant banks in New Zealand and in London. It was the heady days of the 1990s. Our firm in England was listing a new company on the London Stock Exchange every week, and we also managed some of the world’s largest privatisations. Exciting times. But, like many, we made a choice. Tina and I came home. Since then we have focused on managing our own businesses. We have been doing that for the past 18 years—some successful, some less so—but the experience has been invaluable.

Managing a business is a challenge. It is about strategy. It is about products and services and meeting changing needs. It is about dealing with people, but most of all it is about perseverance. I want to acknowledge today all the hard-working business owners who spend countless hours thinking and worrying about their own companies and how they are going to pay the wages next week.

But life is not all about business. They say you can take the boy out of the farm, but not the farm out of the boy. Having a sedentary job, I have always turned to the outdoors. I was a Territorial officer in the New Zealand Army, and then in the British Parachute Regiment. When I was in my twenties, jumping out of a C-130 Hercules at 800 feet was exciting. Nowadays, I have got to tell you, you would have to push me out. It is not until you have commanded a squadron of Leopard tanks in the desert or seen an A-10 “Warthog” aircraft in action or felt the reverberation of a grenade going off that you can start to appreciate the skill and dedication of our armed forces, both current and those who have gone before us. There is nothing more resourceful and tough as a New Zealand soldier. It is no wonder they are in demand by our allies around the world. Recent events in the Middle East have highlighted the need to have a rapidly mobile and credible Defence Force, and the investment by the Government now looks well timed. Further developing peacekeeping and civil emergency capability is, I believe, a natural progression.

Like so many Kiwis, I love sport. I have competed in three Coast to Coasts, and numerous adventure races and marathons. What I like about these long-distance events is the personal challenge and the people. These races are honest. There is no room for ego. You meet amazing athletes who are modest, sincere and dedicated—great people to be around.

Over time it gradually dawned on me that the young bucks were getting faster than me, so I took up mountaineering. You may have to go up, but at least you do not have to run. After climbing some of our superb mountains in New Zealand, including Aoraki / Mount Cook, the summit of my adventuring was a visit to Antarctica in 2013. There is something very special about being the first person to climb a mountain and then to have the privilege of being able to name it, or to drag a sledge high up on the exposed polar plateau at minus 30 degrees Celsius to the South Pole. Hauling your own possessions and food, knowing you are hundreds of miles from safety, is not just exhilarating; it is also enlightening.

Speaking of special places, this is also true of the electorate that I represent. I state categorically that I am here to serve all the people of Hunua. I want to acknowledge my campaign chair, Romi Patel, and thank also the many volunteers who came out during the election. It is both humbling and a privilege to follow a long line of great parliamentarians who have represented this electorate—these include the Rt Hon William Massey, who, as the Prime Minister, stood on the steps of this building 100 years ago, as the Governor-General announced that New Zealand was at war with Germany. Then there was Sir William—also known as Bill—Birch, our hard-working former Minister of Finance, and, more recently, Dr Paul Hutchison, who diligently represented our electorate and made a significant contribution to this House as the chair of the Health Committee.

When I contemplated a new challenge in my life—that of coming into Parliament—I knew I could do so only to represent an electorate for which I felt a close affinity. This is how I feel about Hunua. It spans the windswept Awhitu peninsula on the Tasman Sea. It takes in the townships of Waiuku and Pukekohe, with all its rich red soils, and goes up into the beautiful Hunua Ranges. It traverses the verdant green areas of Clevedon and Whitford before finishing up at the Waitematā, taking in the pōhutukawa-lined coast stretching from Beachlands and Maraetai to Orere Point.

During the election campaign I knocked on 14,000 doors. There is a certain honesty you get when you stand on someone’s back doorstep and talk to them about their lives and issues.

One particular matter I wish to achieve is to work with the people of Ngāti Te Ata to conclude a just and equitable settlement with the Crown.

I hope this gives the House an insight into my journey to this place and the experiences that will inform my views and my conscience as a member of Parliament.

It was always an easy decision to stand as a National Party candidate. This Government has shown significant skill and judgment in steering this country through very difficult financial times. I do not think many New Zealanders fully appreciate the gravity of the turbulent international events that have gripped nations around the world over the past 6 years. This Government got us there without compromising the level of financial support provided to families and individuals in need. That took faith. However, we can take no pride in the fact that there is a group that feels disconnected. The causes are many, and this is one of the issues that drew me into politics. I think that putting the individual and family at the centre of the issue, rather than focusing just on government processes, is to be commended, but more is required. We need to continue to grow our economy, as this will deliver more employment and better-paying jobs.

For the first time in modern history, New Zealand is now well placed geographically to benefit from being on the doorstep of the most dynamic economies in the world. This physical advantage, together with the power of digital connectivity and improvements in logistics, means that the traditional issue of our tyranny of distance is being transformed into proximity of opportunity, and that opens up exciting possibilities.

There are a number of ways we might further improve our economic performance. We need to continue to do what we are good at. It is great to have a strong primary sector, but our economy is much wider than that. We must continue to value our manufacturing sector, and developments such as 3D printing are ideal for niche New Zealand original equipment manufacturers. Expanding the professional and creative industries is also essential, given they account for 25 percent of this country’s total exports. We must better link our universities to business by carving a symbiotic and seamless pathway from study to jobs, and we need to build capability by supporting and upskilling our entrepreneurs, as they are the ones who have the potential to build significant companies over time.

Another key area of interest is environmental management. When it comes to these matters, talk is cheap. My credentials are that I have established a composting and recycling business, processing over 40,000 tonnes of material each year into beneficial products for horticulturalists and farmers. I have also worked with a number of clean-energy companies, and I wonder why New Zealand is not a world leader in electric car usage, in smart home energy systems, and in harnessing excess electricity for hydrogen generation. I stand alongside so many New Zealanders who believe the environment is precious and must continue to be protected.

In closing, may I say that it is an honour and a privilege to be part of this new community here in Parliament, representing the people of Hunua. I have never dodged a challenge, I am not afraid of adversity, and I value open and robust debate, but I cannot, and will not, abide intolerance, prejudice, and injustice. I intend to follow these principles here in Parliament. Thank you, and I look forward to working with you all.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ko 1862 te waka, Ko Mauao te maunga, ko Wairoa te awa, ko Pākehā te iwi, ko Poutūterangi te marae, ko Todd Muller ahau.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. 1862 is the canoe, Mauao is the mountain, Wairoa is the river, the people are predominantly of European descent, the courtyard is Poutūterangi, and I am Todd Muller.]

This afternoon I rise with immense gratitude to the people of the Bay of Plenty electorate for their strong support of the John Key - led National Party and for placing their trust in me as their local MP. It is a realisation of a childhood dream, and I commit to work for all of you, and to advocate without fear or favour and for the good of all our community. To begin, I wish to acknowledge the Borell and Bidois whānau of Te Puna, who have given me this very special korowai to wear this evening. I am very deeply humbled.

There are many whose love and support have enabled me to stand here before you today. Firstly, my parents, Mike and Trish Muller, who are in the public gallery—thank you for your unconditional love, your values, and unerring belief in my potential. Thank you for showing me the power of fusing a loving family with hard work. The more I observe society, the keener my appreciation grows. I wish to acknowledge my three younger brothers: Gavin, Craig, and Nathan. We were a tight family growing up, who made our own fun, largely around backyard cricket, rugby, and the kind of fierce hand-to-hand combat that only brothers of a certain age can understand. Thirty years on, the hand-to-hand combat is now verbal and I remain blessed with the certainty of a family’s love.

To my wife, Michelle, thank you for believing in me, for being willing to walk our life’s journey together, and for being such a wonderful mum to Aimee, Bradley, and Amelia. To my darling children, thanks for your understanding and acceptance that in coming to Parliament, daddy will not always be at home. My biggest work in progress remains being a loving dad and husband and I will continue to strive to be there for them when they need me.

I wish to acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Tony Ryall. His extraordinary performance as Minister of Health is well documented, but it is his integrity and work ethic for the people of the Bay of Plenty that is the benchmark I will seek to emulate. I wish to thank the local Bay of Plenty National Party; campaign chairman, Sean Newland; electorate chairman, Mark Bayley; my campaign team; and the hundreds of volunteers for their tireless commitment to our cause. I am humbled by your support.

Finally, my thanks to those who have backed me throughout my career, often affording me opportunities that my experience did not justify, particularly the late Professor Lew Fretz at Waikato University; you, Mr Speaker, in my earlier days in the National Party; Doug Voss at Zespri; and, more recently, Theo Spierings at Fonterra. In particular, I would like to thank the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, who plucked me from party obscurity to be his executive assistant throughout his second term, a role that took me across the country to engage with the diverse families and communities that make up this extraordinary place. Jim, I have always been extremely grateful for your support, now spanning across two decades. You are a statesman of great mana and I am very honoured you are here today.

I was born in Te Aroha 45 years ago, but the Bay of Plenty is home. Like many before us, and particularly after us, our family moved from somewhere else to the bay 40 years ago for a better life. In my parents’ case, it was a move from dairy to a new industry that was just emerging from the corners of citrus orchards in Te Puke and Te Puna. I went to the local school at Te Puna, then Tauranga Boys’ College, and then the University of Waikato, where I followed my passion for public service and its contribution to history.

My personal passion stems from two great influences: the power of the written word and the fulfilling power of deeds. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the unnamed salesman who convinced my parents to use their savings—such as they were—to buy the latest World Book Encyclopedia in 1978. I devoured those books, in particular the sections on American Presidents. It fired my imagination to such an extent that I saw myself as a future United States President, constitutional challenges notwithstanding. I even wrote a book as a 10-year-old that saw me elected Vice-President of the United States as a very young man in my 20s, becoming President upon the very unfortunate death of the then President, and then going on to serve 13 consecutive terms until, I think, I died of old age. My mum still has the story hidden away in our attic and I suspect it is best for it to remain there.

For the power of deeds it was my grandparents Henry and Eileen Skidmore, former Mayor and Mayoress of Te Aroha, who gave close to 60 years to that small mountain-bound community, and their impact on me has been profound. Family, faith, and community were at the core of their lives, and their example shines for me still. They demonstrated how selfless service not only enriches those who receive it but, for those who give it, enables a life that has distinct meaning. I have always wanted to serve my community and for me the vehicle for that service is the National Party. The National Party has been an integral part of my life since 1989, when I was welcomed into my first meeting with open arms, encouraged to speak, and to contribute, and—typical of National Party values—the more I did, the more opportunities opened up.

We are a party made up of ordinary New Zealanders committing extraordinary levels of personal time and commitment to a philosophy that has anchored our own lives over many years, thereby proving it is fit for the lives of generations to come. I believe that the National Party philosophy speaks to the aspirations of the families of the Bay of Plenty and the values of our country. Our belief in family—though we are singular individuals, we are made complete through the shared effort and experiences that family brings. Our belief in individual enterprise—hard work and application should be encouraged and rewarded, whilst acknowledging the need for resilience and perspective, because life is often unfair. Our belief in the importance of constant self-improvement—education is a lifelong experience that is neither defined by, nor concluded with, a graduation ceremony and certificate. Our belief in the value of personal dignity, particularly for our elderly—our elderly should be our most venerable, but can, particularly in their twilight years, become some of our most vulnerable. We must get the balance right between supporting those who have much to live, with those who have given much already. Our belief in the right to personal security, be it in our communities or our homes—our commitment to public safety must be underpinned by tough deterrence for those who breach our trust. And, finally, our belief in a compassionate community that looks out for others and provides a pathway for improvement that is matched with expectations of self-motivation and individual responsibility. These are the values of the National Party. They speak to the aspirations of the country, and will be my guiding stars.

I am very privileged to represent the Bay of Plenty electorate. It wraps round the city of Tauranga and is made up of the small communities of Āpata, Ōmokoroa, Whakamārama, Te Puna to the west; Kaimai, Ōropi, Ōhauiti to the south; and Welcome Bay, Maungatapu, Arataki, Ōmanu, Matapihi, and the future city of Papamoa to the east.

It was a very different place when I was a boy, when the regional population was just over 30,000, and the communities were mostly rural. All my childhood memories are about harvesting the bounty—in our case, kiwifruit—and the sense of place and space that this remarkable area affords. And I recall the families coming, year after year, and the challenge and opportunity that growth brought. In 1974 no one, with perhaps the exception of local icons Roly Earp and Bob Owens, could imagine dairy, kiwifruit, and avocados so developed, or a community city of our size with the supporting roading and port infrastructure of the excellence we have. Now we stand, in 2014, as a city of 120,000, and a region spread from Katikati to Te Puke of 175,000 and growing at over 3,000 a year.

My vision for this community, looking out to 2030, is a vibrant, diverse region that energetically and innovatively connects itself to the world, confidently drawing on the unique talents and character that underpin our small communities of today. Our region is one of the fastest growing in the country, and we should welcome and celebrate that growth and be demanding of our city planners and of Government for the ongoing investment that is required for our region to thrive. One in five Bay of Plenty locals is from offshore and half of them are from the UK. Our growth story to date is one of warmly welcoming new people from around the country and around the world. Long let this continue.

I commit to the people of the Bay of Plenty that I will add my voice and efforts to theirs and always look to promote our natural advantages of climate, soil, vocational and tertiary education, innovation and manufacturing excellence, and diversity of people and ideas, which together with our global port gateway is increasingly taking our uniqueness to the world.

Throughout my career I have had the privilege of travelling extensively throughout our country. It has nurtured in me a fascination for people and a yearning to understand their stories and observe the power of place and belonging in their lives. I believe our country will for ever be defined by the land and its influence on the people. Its abundance sustains families and communities and its physical beauty—almost mythical in its scale and power—drives our collective creativity and inspires our innovation, a forever changing landscape with a brooding intensity and an energy that is palpable. Aotearoa gets under our skin, and the longer we have been here, the more intrinsic the connection to the land becomes.

Our tangata whenua have specific words that speak to the power of this place, but you can see it in the sixth-generation farmers who express kaitiakitanga in different words but showcase it on their farms. You can see it play out in those who seek to protect it from others who wish to come and make a life here. You can see it in those who wish to tame it, or in those who wish for it to be for ever locked in yesterday’s memories. You can see it in our new migrants, who shed tears when sharing the impact of moving here.

The power of this place is real and it affords us as a people with huge privileges and opportunities. We need to be careful that our innate and subconscious awe of our environment does not blind us to the opportunities that it presents us. We have one of the largest exclusive economic zones in the world. Close to 90 percent of our water flows to the sea. We have a productive basin underpinned by sustainable practices that are admired by many around the world. We have trading partners who see value in what we can offer and are willing to pay for it. Let us use our natural resources to their fullest potential. I am not advocating plundering New Zealand with 19th century tools and ideas; I speak of alloying the world’s best technologies and innovations with some of the greatest natural resources and talent in the world for the betterment of our people.

There is always risk in any endeavour, but I firmly believe that there is greater risk in inaction. Not only will we deny ourselves the opportunity to improve our standard of living for generations to come, but we are, quite frankly, denying history. Since the dawn of time, scarce and valued resources are rarely left untouched. We have the opportunity to use our natural resources and advantages for the benefit of our people, or to know for certain that some other people of some other age yet to come will do the same.

The capacity of this country to imagine this future, one that leverages our natural resources with our people and for our people in a way that acknowledges our genuine respect for place and space, is one of the defining challenges for this generation. It is about fusing the environment, the economy, and our education system with the values of our country and the values of the National Party. Captain Cook’s Bay of Plenty is as good a place as any to start. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

• Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, for the opportunity to speak. I do want to, firstly, acknowledge you in your role and the new Speakers of the House. Thank you very much for everything that you do in keeping order in the House. I want to welcome our new members, and we got to hear some of them give their maiden speeches today, and I want to greet the returning members. It has been an honour to return this term to experience the full ceremony and celebration of the Commission and State Openings of the 51st Parliament, and I send my regards to the constituents of Christchurch East for affording me the privilege of representing them again.

I listened with interest to the Speech from the Throne for this Government’s commitment to our people on housing, and I am sad to say that I was saddened by what I heard. Our people know that shelter, decent housing, and a roof over their heads are the most basic rights, and it is absolutely the State’s responsibility to house its people. Our Government has in the past built our nation on this fundamental premise, and it is our responsibility to ensure that our people have shelter. We need to look further and say that this shelter must be accessible and that there are no barriers that exist to decent housing, whether that barrier be the lack of income, lack of availability, or the colour of your skin, whether you are a beneficiary or a paid employee, or whether you have a disability or a mental illness. This Government is saying to our people: “You are on your own and, furthermore, we are going to provide private landlords with more stock with which to charge exorbitant rents, and force low-income people out of the housing market and into cars and garages.”

I believe that the provision of housing is a core function of the State, and the reasons are simple. Housing and shelter are important. They are basic human rights, and they are rights that provide protection from the elements and those things that might harm us. They permit us to establish ourselves, and to gather and preserve those things around us that are important to us. They provide us with a base from which we can flourish—a safe place to restore and to recover. But it is not just about housing. It is about decent housing that is warm, dry, and, above all, affordable.

What causes me the most concern is the lack of commitment to ensure that the sell-off of our State houses is not detrimental to those on low incomes and prices them out of the market for a decent home. We are being assured by Minister English that social housing providers will be able to purchase these homes for their clients, arguably the same people currently living in them. I would ask why the State should not continue to be the provider. The State has the resources to maintain these properties. It is cost-effective to hold a large portfolio of property to contract at the best Government rates for maintenance and repair. Again I ask why the Government should not continue with State housing.

We have seen plenty of examples of the benefits of State housing and what has been provided to members on both sides of the House, and I include the Prime Minister in that line-up. There is a need for housing; no one can deny that. So why does this Government want to sell State houses, because clearly the Government is the best provider of social housing in terms of affordability and in terms of being able to maintain and repair these houses? The State has been a good provider of social housing, as evidenced by members of this House. It comes down to one thing, I believe, and that is ideology. The Government does not believe in preserving assets, paid for by New Zealanders for the use and enjoyment of New Zealanders. This is wrong.

These State houses have been the backbone of strong communities and building decent lives for 80 years, and we should be building more of them, not flogging them off and flogging them off with no guarantee of any new homes to be built to make up the shortfall in our communities. Why should we not sell these homes? Let me quote John A Lee, who knew a thing or two about housing: “It is well to remember that good housing is essential for a good community.” Being able to put down roots and develop links and connections into that community and to take advantage of community capital, the social capital, takes time and people have to have time to do so, regardless of whether they own or they rent.

There should not be a barrier to long-term residency in a community simply because of your ability to purchase a home or to affordably rent a home. These are not individual benefits; it benefits the community to have well-networked residents, who are aware of their neighbours’ situations and supportive of them. A natural disaster is the time when these connections are most apparent, and Christchurch is a case study on well-connected communities pulling together and working together through a very difficult time. Decent housing provides good outcomes for children. They will be connected into school, and school will be connected into the family. Children are safer, women are safer, and communities are safer when those connections have been developed and enhanced over time, and outcomes are better for families when transience is minimised or eliminated.

The relationship of the cost of housing to income is without question the most critical situation that needs addressing, and supply plays a significant role in that cost. The housing issue paints a different picture depending on which part of the country you are in. If you are in Auckland or Canterbury experiencing escalating prices, this is pricing first-home buyers out of the market. This fuels pressure, which flows through the system, and those with fewer resources are competing for rents. We know the story; we know it well. It is repeated every day to us by our constituents and by our media. The result is families in cars and caravan parks, in tents, and in seriously overcrowded, unsafe, and unhealthy homes, putting their friends and families at risk of losing their tenancies. For low-income people and families it is the most insecure time for housing in many years.

Here I want to quote Alan Johnson, well-known to many, who commented on the Government’s record card on housing in his report Give Me Shelter: “A lack of any vision or unifying view of social and affordable housing … A poor understanding of future housing need and a failure to plan for this need … Inadequate funding and an absence of any funding models which might address housing need in an effective way and on a sustainable basis”. What is the responsible approach to housing? It is one that considers the person’s ability to pay for that housing. This means not only affordability and availability but the income available to pay for that housing, which for most of us is the biggest take out of our pay packets each week. This means decent pay, raising the minimum wage, and setting a target to achieve a living wage in jobs where we value workers with decent conditions, adequate rest, and meal breaks.

At question time in the House today Minister English said that we should not be surprised, that the housing programme for sell-off has been signalled for 4 years now, and that the Government’s programme will address the serious housing needs. Minister English also admitted that there are serious housing needs, which, I must say, is refreshing to hear, given the accusation that our side of the House is always overstating the problem—catastrophising, I think the Government calls it. So, it is with relief, I acknowledge, that the Government is finally taking some notice of this. The Minister says that this programme will deliver housing of the right type, in the right place, of the right condition, and of the right size. I do hope that it will deliver for our people. The Minister went on to say that under the Government’s programme of delivering better public services it is taking a better approach to people, and that it will be measuring success based on the measures of serious housing need.

I can only say that the Government needs a better measure than the one that it is using for reducing child poverty, for example, because if it is serious about addressing this need and the serious housing need, it needs to get real about the impact of its policies on that need. By this I mean the benefit reforms, the investment approach to social services, and delivering better public services. Do these deliver real solutions to our families? I believe that our families are being put in an impossible situation, where, based on resources that they have, they have no choice. It is not bad decision-making; it is that they do not have choice. Above all, I believe that we want a Government that will make it possible for Kiwi families to put down roots and fully participate in a healthy community life.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

• Motion agreed to.

Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill

Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)