Valedictory Statement
Hon Heather Roy Valedictory Statement; Parliament; Thursday, September 29 2011.
Mr Speaker,
My introduction to politics came at the tender age of 20 in 1984. They were exciting political times - Sir Robert Muldoon had called a snap election and Sir Robert Jones had launched a new party - the New Zealand Party. For the first time I had a flicker of interest in what was going on in the political arena and Sir Robert Jones' youngest candidate was campaigning for my vote. I liked his politics. The freedom and prosperity message appealed, but I liked the candidate even more. He got my vote that year - albeit a special vote because I hadn't enrolled - and I got him. A vote is a precious thing, as is a husband and I think it was a fair trade.
12.5 percent of the population thought that a free and prosperous nation was something worth supporting in that 1984 election. Under MMP that would have been around 16 seats for a Party that believes in freedom of market, mind, body. I still believe fervently in those same ideals.
My next political encounter was many years later in 1996, the first MMP election when ACT was established as a political party. Again, my involvement was through my husband Duncan. He was electorate chair in Aoraki and I helped with pamphlet deliveries, hosting visiting MPs and organising meetings as you do. In 1999 I was persuaded to stand. I thought I was flying the flag. Sir Roger Douglas and some of the party faithful decided I should be making a serious tilt at parliament and gave me an electable list position. Luckily, with five small children, I didn't get in that election but politics gets in your blood. I stuck with it and was elected in 2002.
My early Parliamentary life seemed destined for a time to be marred by the curse of mistaken identity.
When Deborah Coddington and I came to parliament in 2002 the then Speaker, Jonathan Hunt, couldn’t tell us apart. Deborah – tall, dark and statuesque - and I (none of those things) just seemed to confuse him every time we stood to ask a question or speak. It probably didn’t help the situation when we turned up to Parliament one day wearing men’s suits in response to his comments that the women in the House were dressing too scruffily. So sometimes I was myself, sometimes I was called to speak as Deborah Coddington and once as Deborah Roy. We eventually got our identities sorted out with the Speaker over a bottle of his very nice red wine.
Then there was the case of the swapped Bellamy’s bills. Eric Roy, who had not returned to parliament when I arrived in 2002, was receiving my bills in Invercargill and I was getting his much smaller bills. I recognised the problem when I was charged for the baking of a whole trout which I had apparently caught myself and supplied to the Bellamy’s kitchen. Much to my father’s dismay I am no trout fisherwoman. I rang Eric who complained about the amount I’d been spending and that he’d been asked to pay but we agreed to swap bills and sort the whole thing out when I was next in the south. We duly did so and a Southland Times photographer kindly immortalised the moment for us. And just for the record – despite constant speculation, Eric and I are not related – not brother and sister, father and daughter, second cousins twice removed and I’m not, as Eric once jokingly told a journalist, his love child. We are however friends.
Finally, an on-going but pleasant mix-up usually begins with the comment “you’re from the south aren’t you?” I am originally, as it happens, but I know as soon as I’m asked that question the person thinks I’m former National Party MP Katherine Rich. Clearly it is the healthy but pale southern complexion we share that causes the confusion! Or perhaps it is that we share the same views on many issues. Katherine, in her valedictory speech said that “Being an MP is not a job; it is a life. Political service is all-consuming, and the New Zealand public deserves nothing less.” She is quite right, but the all-consuming is tough on families and I, like others, owe mine a lot.So, once my identity crises had been dealt with, I was able to get down to work. Most of my first term was under the watchful leadership of Richard Prebble. His aim, he said, was to get us to Ministerial level by the end of our first term. That meant being thrown in the deep end and is undoubtedly the best way to learn; like an apprenticeship of sorts – there was no namby pamby breathing through your nose for ACT MPs!
During his time in parliament, Richard Prebble left many legacies to the country. Those I’ve personally benefited from most are his ‘Prebbleisms’: words of wisdom best adhered to or taken notice of if you know what’s good for you. I frequently pass these gems on to others.
Amongst his best are:
“If you can’t say it in two minutes it’s not worth saying”. This is true, I've discovered, of every conceivable topic.
“Don’t be scared of making mistakes. MPs who don’t make mistakes aren’t doing their job”. This was either given as advice to take some risks or as an unspoken reassurance that although you’d stuffed up, it probably wasn’t going to cause the sky to fall in.
“In Politics the highs are so high and the low’s so low”. The highs include successes like the Voluntary Student Membership bill, and demotion from your Ministerial Portfolios rate amongst the lows. Richard claims the highs always make up for the lows and in this he was absolutely right – no ifs, no buts, no regrets. There is nothing like a solid political win.
And as to the truth or otherwise of this one – I’m about to find out.
“Keep in touch with the friends you have before politics because you can’t tell if the ones you make in politics are real friends or not until you leave”. I think I've made many friends in my time here and established many respectful relationships with those across the political spectrum. I'm hopeful most will stand the test of time.
The apprenticeship served me well for my time as an MP.
There is nothing like coming up against a good Minister, while in opposition, to teach you the ropes. Several Labour Party Ministers taught me valuable lessons about how to handle issues – although their aim was generally to tell me nothing. Parliamentary Questions become your friend, as do the Official Information Act and the Ombudsman.
ACT battled for 12 years in Parliament before we formally became part of the Government. I look back at the many talented and hardworking ACT MPs before me who would have been great Ministers. Ken Shirley and Stephen Franks taught me by example that principles are important and sticking to them results in consistent policy gains. Had they had the opportunity to become ACT Ministers, both would have made a real difference to the lives of Kiwis.
But in politics timing is everything and I found myself in the right place at the right time to be appointed to a Ministerial post with responsibility for Consumer Affairs, Associate Defence and Associate Education after the 2008 election. Turning ACT policies into reality has been our big win.
School Choice is on the agenda, Aspire Scholarships for those from low income homes and a review into Special Education were big projects I was proud of leading.
Among my Defence highlights was participating in the Defence Review. I continue to believe a strong Reserve Force will give the NZDF greater flexibility and capability and hope there will be real focus on this for the future. My Companion Studies on New Zealand’s Defence Industry and Voluntary National Service raised interesting proposals for NZ Inc. and I would be very sorry if this work wasn’t useful as a base for future thinking.
Alongside Rodney Hide’s Regulatory Standards work and legislation, the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill and Local Government changes I think ACT supporters and voters can be satisfied that our policy wins were significant.
Consumer Affairs is a great portfolio because it potentially covers everything. As Minster I got letters about electricity, cell phone providers, credit services, suggestions on how to improve the design of men’s trousers and enquiries about how to deal with competitive tearooms on bus routes, but the most frequent theme was the price of milk. I initiated and led the review and amalgamation of consumer law – the Consumer Law Reform project.
The moment I became the Minister I seemed to find myself in unusual Consumer Affairs situations: a salesman trying to sell me an extended warranty who only gave up after I told him that I personally was responsible for the education campaign to say they gave no better protection than the Consumer Guarantees Act – he’d just told me it was a crock – seeing for myself how an EFTPOS machine strategically placed on scales weighing fresh produce adds significantly to the price and most alarmingly being checked into an already occupied upmarket Auckland Hotel room complete with a Spanish speaking porter called Manuel doing a luggage swap in front of me. If I ever decide to write a book there is plenty of material. The working title will be "Consumer Traps: Beware the Manuel Factor".
Like my fellow retiring colleagues I have been honoured to have been elected to this House, to speak on behalf of the many Kiwis who have entrusted their vote to the ACT Party and, sometimes, to have my personal views on conscience issues heard. There is nothing like being a Minister and getting things done. Serving one’s country in this way is a rare and special thing and I thank those who over three elections have given me the opportunity to do so on their behalf.
Politics is the contest of ideas. Situations change, people's attitudes change and the relevance of policies changes. In order to keep up and for parties to remain relevant to voters, it is imperative that new ideas are encouraged, examined, researched and pursued according to their merit. I'd like to think we have a Parliament that welcomes the contest, but I have been disappointed by the lack of courage to tackle entrenched problems with innovative solutions and a refusal often to even engage in reasoned debate. Frequently, these issues only see the light of day as Private Members’ Bills. On the very slim chance that a space would open up on the Members’ Order Paper in the past year, I drafted a Bill to allow nuclear propelled ships to once again visit New Zealand waters. Our current policy is a relic of a bygone era with no relevance to modern life and is holding our country back in so many ways. People will happily expose their bodies to the nuclear materials such as X-rays but won't even contemplate having a vessel propelled by nuclear power in a New Zealand harbour. ACT has been the only party in my time here to want to engage in a debate that isn't dominated by hysteria and deliberate confusion. The same is true regarding the youth minimum wage, education funding following the child and so many other issues.
Sir Roger Douglas personifies the contest of ideas. He is a reformer and our Parliament has too few of his ilk; those who think out-side the square and tackle issues from a solid, principled base. His endless optimistic pursuit of solutions to the really thorny problems our country faces is truly inspiring. He is a numbers man and the numbers are usually explained on a serviette or in detail on a whiteboard. Sir Roger says politics is all about numbers although now of course he's talking about different numbers - those that win a policy battle with a majority. He's right, but politics is also about people and I have appreciated hugely his mentoring, his friendship and his unwavering support over many years, especially the past three.
There are a few things that I believe would make our Parliament work better and I hope the Constitutional Advisory Panel set up to conduct a wide-ranging review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements will give serious consideration to a 4 year Parliamentary term and have a discussion on the appropriate size of Parliament and the Executive, given the strong suggestion by Kiwis in 1999 to have fewer MPs. I believe we need a mechanism to hold our Executive and Parliament more accountable – in other countries this is achieved with an Upper House. And a position I have reached after being involved personally in a number of conscience votes is that referenda on conscience issues is worthy of serious consideration. I’m not convinced that 120 MPs – or 122 currently – are any better placed to make decisions on issues of conscience than the adult population.
There are always a huge number of thank yous to make on occasions such as these. I will be saving most to give in a more personal way. However I would like to acknowledge and thank those who work tirelessly to make Parliament tick and to make life easier for MPs: the Clerk’s Office, Parliamentary and Ministerial services, the library staff, the messengers and especially the security staff who always ask how my TF training is going.
And I’d like to give a collective vote of thanks my hard working and loyal Party members who helped me get elected, then re-elected in the first place – the Aoraki team from 1996-2000 and my Wellington based teams in Ohariu and Wellington Central more recently. I would like to specifically thank Dave Moore for his invaluable support.
To the ACT Parliamentary team past and present – heartfelt thanks for a job well done. Our successes are your successes because of your commitment to our shared cause. I also want to thank my loyal and supportive Ministerial team. We had the some trying times as all do, but much more often we had the best of times. You helped me work to my potential as a Minister and without you I wouldn’t have achieved half of that I did.
Finally, my family. To Duncan, Johnny, Barbara, Penny, Finn and Jack. Thank you for your love and support, putting up with the constant phone calls and my frequent absences. I hope that being around a lot more isn’t going to suddenly cramp your style, but I for one am looking forward to that enormously. And when my mother calls for a chat, she will no longer have to end our conversations with “Well, just don’t work too hard”. She has not set me a good example in this regard.
I have a good friend who reminds me that there are plenty of beaches to walk on and plenty of wine to drink. Wise advice I intend to take. There will still be a few boundaries to push I suspect but perhaps at a more sedate pace!
In my maiden speech I noted that I was the 80th woman to have been elected to this Parliament. I asked the Parliamentary library to calculate for me how many had left before me. It turns out that I am also the 80th woman to leave this Parliament. I have taken from this that the time is right for me to move on to other things – not a moment too soon, not a moment too late. Timing in politics is everything.
As I look around the four walls of this chamber for the last time I’ll take particular note of the battlements: the 12 carved circular wreaths around the balcony and the 18 carved plaques on the wall panels, representative of battles and places where New Zealand troops have fought and served. They remind me of the reason I came to this place – to continue the fight for our freedoms that our forebears began, for a prosperous nation, one where we all have the same opportunities. Our freedoms are hard won with many New Zealanders having paid the price with their lives. Freedoms hard won, but so easily eroded. I have been honoured to serve my country in this House and I hope those in the 50th Parliament and beyond will also be reminded of their responsibility to uphold our freedoms.
I wonder, Mr Speaker, if I could make a request before I leave this chamber. There are some battlements missing from our walls: the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and our recent peace keeping missions are not represented despite the fact that our Defence Force personnel have participated with the same courage, commitment and distinction as those who served before them. They too have suffered injury and, in some tragic cases, loss of life in their quest for freedom around the world on our behalf. I know my fellow soldiers would be touched by such a gesture and it would seem entirely fitting.
Lest We Forget.
Free At Last
Hon Heather Roy Third Reading Speech; Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill; Parliament; Wednesday, September 28 2011.
Mr Speaker,
It gives me great pleasure to lead the debate on this third reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Voluntary Student Membership has been a test of patience and many thought this day might not come at all in this Parliamentary term.
Others hoped it would not and around 0.1 percent of New Zealand's 400,000 or so tertiary students protested against the bill earlier this week, along with a handful today on Parliament’s lawn. I encourage Kiwis to be actively involved in their democracy because freedom of speech and freedom of action are important rights that should not be denied. There is a certain irony that these rights have been used to oppose another fundamental civil right - freedom of association for students but none-the-less I staunchly defend these students’ right to do so.
Opposition to issues is frequently noisy, while support is often silent. This post of support from a Canterbury University student appeared on my Facebook page yesterday: "I feel strongly about the freedom to choose and I know many others that feel the same. Please also remember to hear the silent voices of those of us who do support you. We don't need to make a huge ruckus out of it because we're sensible people supporting a sensible bill".
Voluntary Student Membership means students, from 1 January 2012, will no longer be compelled to join a Student Union before they are allowed to study at a tertiary education institution. They will instead be free to choose whether or not they join an organization that as an Incorporated Society has the same legal status as the Automobile Association or the SPCA. We don't force motorists to join the AA before they can own a car or force pet owners to join the SPCA.
Student Unions were originally voluntary organisations and this bill returns student unionism to its roots. Over recent decades they have become increasingly politicised when their core functions are meant to be representation of their student body - not just a select few, advocacy and the provision of some services. The University and Polytechnic councils provide other services such as health and welfare services.
There has been much talk during the course of debate surrounding VSM about huge opposition from students with the figure of 98 percent frequently quoted by the Bill’s opponents. Let's be very clear about this figure. It refers to submissions opposing the Bill at Select Committee. This was essentially a copy and paste campaign, like a petition, conducted by student politicians en masse. By comparison a Stuff poll last October had almost 5,000 votes and showed 72 percent were in favour of voluntary membership.
Misappropriation of Students’ Association funds has become a significant problem in the past few decades. The fraud has ranged from the farcical $6,000 spent by a VUWSA executive member phoning a psychic hotline through to the large scale embezzlement on several occasions at Whitireia Polytechnic totalling around $750,000. These all too regular examples of fraud proved the need for action. Compulsory membership has created an environment conducive to financial mismanagement. Student Unions are governed and managed by young people who often lack the necessary management skills and experience to run a multi-million dollar business and a captive market of students who cannot vote with their feet if their funds are mismanaged.
Voluntary membership means associations will have to attract membership to gain funds then provide the representation and services students want in order to keep them.
There has been much talk in this debate about Australia’s experience of voluntary membership, or VSU as it’s known across the Tasman. Those opposing the Bill have conveniently ignored the Student Unions that have not only survived but thrived under Voluntary membership. The University of West Australia stands out as an example for the rest. Amid the doomsday predictions promulgated by the left, they retained 60 percent of their members under VSU and have continued to provide valued services to their members.
Looking to the future in New Zealand my intention was never to destroy Students’ Associations, but to give students free choice of belonging or not. I hope that associations will put as much effort into planning for the future as they have put into planning their protests. I hope to see Students’ Associations actively promote the benefits of membership by:
• Using quality communication with students to find out what they want, preferably using 21st century communications, as students do;
• Conducting quality market research on what services students actually value and are prepared to join to access;
• Affordable membership fees;
• Innovative incentives to join, such as discounts for members at student association bookshops and cafes and negotiated discounts with local retailers;
• Focussing advocacy on those issues which almost all students agree on such as increasing the quality of education and increasing accountability of tertiary institutions to students.
When students see an organisation providing representation and services they value they are much more likely to join.
There are many people to thank and acknowledge in this journey which spans at least 20 years. The battle started with the Freedom on Campus Network and has progressively been carried forward by Prebble's Rebels, ACT on Campus, the Young Nats, Student Choice and my ACT Party colleagues present and past. I would like to also thank the Select Committee members so ably chaired by Allan Peachy and the Select Committee staff who dealt with the large number of submissions and submitters. Thanks also to all submitters - both those supporting and those opposed to the bill. As a result of your contributions several changes were made to the Bill that have made it much better. To the officials from the Ministry of Education and PCO, my grateful thanks for your expertise, sage advice and most notably your cheerful patience to a process that ended up being much longer than was intended.
To Sir Roger Douglas, thanks for your Midas touch - I don't know anyone luckier at having bills drawn from the ballot and for shepherding VSM through the Select Committee process. And my grateful and sincere thanks to the staff in my office who have researched, advised, written, agonised and become very good at understanding parliamentary process because of their absolute belief in and commitment to freedom.
It is harder to say it any better than Andrew Little in his final address as President to the EPMU:
“I believe voluntary unionism - true freedom of association - gives the union movement much greater strength and a much greater moral authority.”
My final thanks to the National Party Caucus and United Future for their support of Voluntary Student Membership. Freedoms are hard won and so easily eroded. Parliament’s gift to students tonight is freedom of association. Please be sure to use it wisely.
Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill - First Reading
I move that the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
The Bill is a timely response to New Zealand’s challenging economic circumstances. It will provide more certainty around the growth in government spending, greater spending restraint, and will improve the transparency of spending decisions.
The Bill will lead to government objectives being delivered through a state sector that takes up a smaller share of the economy. A smaller, more efficient state sector will allow a lower tax burden over time, supporting higher economic growth and higher living standards.
The Bill also responds to weaknesses in our current legislative framework. The fiscal responsibility provisions of the Public Finance Act focus on achieving and maintaining a prudent level of government debt and on the operating balance required to achieve that. The Public Finance Act has served us well in that regard, and helped New Zealand bring its net core Crown debt down from 56% of GDP in 1992 to 5.6% in 2008.
But the Public Finance Act has not prevented core Crown expenses from rising as a share of gross domestic product. We have seen government expenses soar from 28.8% of GDP in 2004 to a forecast 36% in 2011. It has been easier for governments to increase spending, than to reprioritise and drive greater efficiency within the existing base of spending. This Bill is designed to place greater disciplines on governments, deliver greater value for the taxpayers’ money, and protect New Zealand’s growth prospects.
The Bill has two main elements. The first is a spending cap that limits the annual increase in core Crown expenses to the rate of population growth multiplied by the rate of inflation. The second is a requirement that any proposed spending increase above that cap be subject to a binding referendum on whether the cap is to be raised to allow for that increase.
The spending cap for a financial year beginning 1 July is based on the product of the annual percentage change in the resident population and the consumer price index. This “rate of increase” is based on data for the twelve months ending 30 September in the year prior to the financial year for which the cap is being set. That rate is then applied to core Crown expenses from the previous financial year.
The spending cap provides for a small number of sensible exclusions.
For example, the cap is designed to allow fiscal policy to continue to play a stabilising role in response to the economic cycle and shocks. Unemployment benefit expenses are therefore excluded from the cap so that they can continue to expand and contract through the economic cycle in a counter-cyclical way.
Borrowing expenses are excluded from the cap as these are effectively limited by the Government debt objective, required under the Public Finance Act 1989.
Similarly, capital expenditure is excluded from the cap because it is constrained by the debt objective and the fact that the operating expenses associated with capital expenditure would need to be met from within the cap
The Bill provides for national emergencies, such as natural disasters, where it is appropriate to exclude expenses incurred in responding to an emergency.
Impairment losses on assets (such as student loans), which are recorded as an expense, are also excluded from cap. These tend to be volatile from year to year and hard to forecast, and therefore difficult to manage within the cap.
The Bill fits with the annual budget cycle by requiring that the spending cap for a coming fiscal year be publicly announced in the Budget Policy Statement ahead of the Budget. Indicative caps for the following two financial years must also be disclosed.
The Minister of Finance would be subsequently required to state, when presenting the annual financial statements of the government to Parliament, whether expenses were within the cap for that year. If not, the Minister must explain why expenses were incurred in excess of the cap, and what measures will be taken to ensure compliance in future.
The Government may, at any time, initiate a binding referendum on a proposal to increase the spending cap for a specified financial year. The Bill requires any referenda to be held under the provisions of the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000.
The question put to electors requires a simple “yes” or “no” response and is specified in the Bill. If a majority of votes cast in a referendum favour the proposal to increase the spending cap, then the cap is raised by the specified amount.
A referendum may be held on a proposal to increase the spending cap for the financial year ahead, or to increase the indicative spending cap for a subsequent year. It is envisaged that a referendum on the latter proposal would fit better with the budget cycle. In such case, a referendum could be held twelve months before the start of that subsequent financial year, allowing time for the result to be reflected in the Budget strategy and process relating to that financial year.
The Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill has its origins in the Taxpayer Rights Bill, which I had drafted as a private member’s bill during the previous term of Parliament.
The National-ACT confidence and supply agreement provides for the Taxpayer Rights Bill to be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee as a government bill.
That Bill has been refined so that it focuses solely on limiting the growth in expenses, thereby allowing for future taxation to be lower. It has also been renamed the Spending Cap (People's Veto) Bill to better reflect its intent – capping the annual growth in spending and allowing people a direct say over any higher increase.
New Zealand is grappling with the hangover of too much spending and too much debt. Putting New Zealand back on to the right path will require restraint and a determination to never again allow excessive public spending to drive up interest and exchange rates, and to drive out growth. The Spending Cap Bill will help provide that restraint, and will support that determination.
I commend the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill to the House.
ACT Leader’s Speech to Parliament on the Canterbury Earthquake
This is a very dark and very grim day for New Zealand, perhaps the likes of which we have not seen in our lifetime. We do not know the full extent of the tragedy, but early accounts suggest that it is enormous and that there is considerable devastation. It comes on top of an extraordinary amount of suffering by the people of Christchurch and Canterbury as the earth has shaken and shaken continually since September last year.
It is important to this House, with representatives of all of New Zealand, that the people of Canterbury know that every New Zealander has the people of Canterbury in their thoughts, in their prayers, and in their hearts, and that this Parliament and our Government stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their darkness, and in their sad, tragic plight where they need assistance as they have never needed it before.
We know, too, that this tragedy now will have travelled right around the world, and that there will be Kiwis in the far-flung corners of the planet grieving for the people of Canterbury and Christchurch in their tragedy. We know as a Government and as a country that we are not alone, and we know that our brothers and sisters in Australia will be thinking of us. The United States of America, the United Kingdom, and all the countries around the world will be beside us in this great hour of need. This is a time when words fail us. We hope and pray that the tragedy is not as bad as we so solemnly fear in this hour. Thank you.
Abuse of parliamentary process disrespects us all
Hilary Calvert MP General Debate speech; Parliament; Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Earlier today we saw a rare show of respect in this House between the people of New Zealand and our closest neighbour. But where is the respect from this House when it comes to allowing the people of New Zealand the chance to have their say?
This House will soon be debating the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. The way this bill has been dealt with to date is a travesty of justice. It shows why the public has lost its respect for politicians.
In 2004 the Labour Government took away the rights of Māori to go to court. The hui that concluded outside this Chamber was the largest New Zealand has ever seen. The opposition to that bill from Māori and non-Māori alike spelt the end of that Labour Government.
The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill continues the injustice, and the nation has again mobilised against it.
Submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee on the bill were overwhelmingly negative; 5,000 written submissions and 500 oral submissions left the committee in no doubt that this bill is fatally flawed.
The committee’s response was to shut down debate, and it surprised this House by reporting back early. The committee recommended no changes to the bill, yet the Minister in charge of the bill has clearly indicated that changes need to be made.
Officials recommended that 89 of the 124 clauses in the bill be changed. They recommended an average of four changes per clause—a total of more than 380 changes. The bill was reported back to the House with none of those more than 380 changes.
As the bill stands, it will still allow for *backroom political deals without public scrutiny. It will still not clearly spell out that access to the foreshore and seabed will remain free. It will not respect any of the submitters who gave up their time to participate in a democratic process.
This is the House of Representatives, and in it we need to respect people. The people put us here, and the people decide when we leave. That is democracy; we disrespect it at our peril.
The Attorney-General has promised that he will seek to make changes through Supplementary Order Papers. Those Supplementary Order Papers will be presented to us without notice at the third reading.
Backroom deals, hasty changes, and improper process are not the hallmarks of a respectful relationship. We would not be accused of treating our neighbouring countries this way, and we should not treat our own people this way.
Hon Heather Roy response to the Prime Minister's Statement
Hon Heather Roy response to the Prime Minister’s Statement; Parliament; Wednesday, February 9 2011
Welfare reform is something the ACT Party has spoken passionately about since its inception. I congratulate John Key on his speech yesterday for his focus and for his words on welfare reform. He said that a Government is judged by how it cares for the sick and vulnerable. That is too true. He said that 200,000 children are trapped in welfare homes. That is 200,000 children too many. He said that those who can work should work—and he is right.
But it is easy—very easy, in fact—to stand up in this Chamber and say these things, and much harder to do the real work and to act. I was very disappointed, I have to say, in the Hon Annette King’s address. She decided to spend 10 minutes attacking Mr Key for what he said yesterday, yet whenever she is given the opportunity she talks about the wonderful policy work she is doing in the area of welfare reform. Well, where was the talk of that in her speech? She had 10 minutes to positively put forward what she wants to do for the vulnerable in our society. The truth of the matter is that in 9 long years in Government, Labour did not manage to get on top of this issue.
Here is the situation: in 1970 we had 37 workers for every person on a benefit. By 2000 there were five workers supporting every person on a benefit. In December 2010 the ratio was 6:1. Under the current Government at least things have improved slightly, but this is a shameful position for a country to be in. We have 2.2 million people employed in this country, but 353,000 people are on welfare benefits—a ratio of 6:1. Welfare dependency amongst working-age New Zealanders is reaching unsustainable levels financially and it has done huge damage to this country socially.
Far from reducing the number of people on welfare, subsequent welfare policies from National and Labour Governments have taken the opposite path. Their policies have increased the number. We have just had notice of an increase in the minimum wage; both National and Labour Governments must take responsibility for this. National has steadfastly refused to reinstate youth rates. These initiatives push people out of work and on to welfare. National has also entrenched middle-class welfare by refusing to alter the Working for Families policies, which make more people than ever dependent on the State.
The Welfare Working Group has put forward some very sound proposals. There are a lot of them. Some of the proposals are excellent and are things that the ACT Party has proposed for a long time. Some are considered to be a tough love approach. That may well be the case, but it is time that we got tough. It is time that we had the courage to do the things that will make a difference. This might mean lifting the age at which a young woman can get the domestic purposes benefit. It might mean having time limits for benefits. These things might be tough, but they put the incentives in the right place and allow people to take ownership of their lives. These are the decisions that we have to make.
When we talk about what is tough—and again I congratulate the Prime Minister on focusing on this issue in his speech yesterday—it is too tough to stomach the environment in which far too many of our precious young children live in, where they are abused and in some cases—too many—are killed. The Lillybings, the James Whakarurus, the Nia Glassies. Welfare dependency has created an environment where the abusive relationships, the suffering that these small children have experienced, means we have a society that none of us in this House should be comfortable with.
ACT is the only party committed to true welfare reform and we will push the Government as far as we can in terms of getting the incentives right. There are many things we could do to send the right signals. We could be purchasing our own accident and unemployment insurance, which would put the emphasis, the incenvives, in the right place. We need to get the economy in a position where it can support the truly vulnerable, where welfare functions as a safety net not a hammock that is so distended that we cannot tell the truly vulnerable from those who would like to climb out and get on on their own.
Michael Joseph Savage would turn in his grave if he could see how successive governments have trapped ever increasing numbers of New Zealanders on Welfare. He was popular, because he offered people hope. He said “let people govern themselves”, and when we think about welfare reform, that should be foremost in our minds.
ENDS
New Year's Resolutions
Hon Sir Roger Douglas response to Prime Minister's Statement; Parliament; Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The New Year is an opportunity for a fresh start. Traditionally people make resolutions that seek to cut back on the excesses they indulged in the year before. It seems that the National Government has yet to decide on its New Year’s resolutions. I have decided to save them the hassle and put together a list of resolutions that National can adopt, which would actually help New Zealand.
The first resolution should be to slim down.
The National Government after two years of binging has made Government bigger than ever. Total government expenditure reached just over $81 billion in 2010 – that is almost 43 cents in every dollar earned. Such expenditure is financed by borrowing around $300 million every week simply because the amount of tax the government collects is less than they spend.
With the Government so big, is it any surprise that our economy is not getting off the ground? Growth in the New Zealand economy remains around 1 percent. When the economy is leashed to a weight that spends over 40 cents of every dollar, it is easy to see why we are going nowhere. In the meantime, we see other countries like Singapore float away, with average annual growth rates of 4 percent – there, the Government spends a mere 17 cents for every dollar. This might be alright if we were getting better services than Singapore. The reality is that not only does our spending make us poorer than Singapore but across the board we also have worse poverty, education, healthcare, crime – the list goes on. Forecasts show Australia will be 42 percent wealthier than us by 2025, because of this 412,000 New Zealanders – the equivalent of all residents in the Wellington Region - will leave for Australia over the next 15 years.
The first New Year’s resolution is clear – the government needs to slim down. I find it unbelievable that National who rightly complained so bitterly about the years of wasteful spending by the Labour Government, suddenly when they get into power they cannot find any wasteful expenditure to cut. To the contrary, they seem to have borrowed more money to spend.
The simple truth is we will never spend or tax ourselves to prosperity. It is a shame that National still needs to learn such a basic lesson.
The second resolution should be to focus on what really matters.
The core services such as education, healthcare and welfare are very important government service. However, government has been increasingly bad at providing them. Our education system is failing our young people – a third of school leavers fail to achieve NCEA Level 2 or higher. For Maori, 56 percent will not gain NCEA level 1 or above before they leave. Some of our schools are so unsafe that the police are stationed within them. A classroom surrounded by police officers is no proper learning environment, and so it is hardly surprising that 30,000 school students cut class every day.
Children are voting with their feet every day and choose to be away from dilapidated classrooms, rigid curricula, violence and the monotony of the classroom environment. In education the government should resolve to empower parents.
In welfare, 13 percent of the adult population are receiving a benefit; this is compared with 2 percent in 1960. Approximately 1 in 5 kiwi children will live in a benefit-dependent household. Recent figures show 352,707 people are on some type of benefit. For every 6 workers, 1 person is on a benefit. Add in superannuation and the aging population, it is likely that our children will live in a world where for every one person receiving a government hand out they will be supported by just 2 workers. This is not sustainable.
In health, the number of practising physicians is 2.3 per 1,000 people. This is almost 1 fewer physician per 1,000 people than the OECD average. There are 6.2 hospitable beds per 1000 people – that is over one hospitable bed fewer than the worldwide average, and 12 hospitable beds per 1,000 people fewer than Switzerland. Every year, hundreds of people continue to die on waiting lists because our health system is overstretched.
If Government tax funded money could solve all these problems New Zealand would have solved them already. We spend vast amounts on all these areas, but get substandard services in return. We have made ourselves poorer to afford all of this, but do not get the kind of services we want. We need to rethink how we approach these areas.
In welfare, the government should resolve to get two-thirds of those on benefits back to work. Despite unemployment reducing sharply between 1999 and 2008, expenditure on welfare soared - part of this was done by transferring people onto the sickness and invalids benefit. We will never solve the problem by just moving people around. The number of sickness and invalids benefits has increased by almost 70 percent in the last decade. In that period the population has increased by 12 percent and spending on health has almost doubled – it is very difficult to argue that the figures represent a declining level of health in the population. Rather it seems for some that it is has become a life-style rather than a transition. Now, welfare is an important safety-net, but it should not be a life-style. In many ways, society has failed these people. The schooling system failed them, leaving them with low skills.
The minimum wage has then ensured that they have been locked out of jobs. The first step would be to focus on the minimum wage. The youth minimum wage should be reintroduced. Those who deny that the youth minimum wage has had no effect on youth choose to ignore the growing evidence. Some minimum wage apologists cite the comparisons between today’s recession and the 1991 recession to show that unemployment hit youth equally hard even when there was a minimum wage. However, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the 2009 recession has hit 15-19 year-olds harder relative to 20-24 year-olds, than was the case in the 1991 recession. If this is not the effect of the youth minimum wage, then what other reason explains it? Why do we force young people to accept $4.50 an hour on the benefit, when they could earn $10 an hour working for an employer? When we do, we give those on the benefit the incentive to supplement their income through illegal means – joining a gang becomes a very lucrative business.
The second focus should be to introduce a work test for those on the invalids/sickness benefit, to make sure that they are genuinely incapacitated.
In health, the government should resolve to restore the right incentives. If we look to other places around the world we can find practical templates to model our healthcare system on. Singapore has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Infant mortality rates and life expectancy are among the best in the world. However, what makes it amazing is its cost effectiveness – the government spends very little money making it a good system. The Singapore government spent between 1 and 3 percent of GDP annually on healthcare. To contrast, New Zealand spends around 8-9 percent of GDP – that is over 20% of all the money that the government directly spends. What Singapore does is make it compulsory to have a health savings account in which individuals pre-save for medical expenses. The government also offers an option of taking out catastrophe insurance – it will pay for any medical procedure over approximately $10,000. The real key is they allow for the private market to operate providing both hospitals and insurance. These compete with the public hospitals making them more competitive. The government even requires these private hospitals to publish pricing lists to encourage comparative shopping. The real point here is it balances incentives – the individual can make a trade-off between medical care and the cost.
This is missing at the moment in New Zealand. Individualised health accounts and catastrophe insurance will see the money we currently spend on health redirected to the individual. This will give each and every one of us greater control over our own healthcare – we, not bureaucrats, will make the decisions about what is needed. In addition, costs will decrease as hospitals and clinics compete for business. Only if the system encourages competition will the cost-plus culture be avoided, making us all better off while still delivering healthcare to all.
The third resolution the government should make is to have a spring clean of the government’s books.
The National Party talk of being bold, yet their vision in terms of state assets would be bold only in North Korea or the Labour Party caucus room. Even Cuba, the communist bastion, has embarked on more bold policy in relation to state assets than the National Party. Why is it that pretty much every country around the world continues to move Government owned business into the private sector, yet, New Zealand lags so far behind? In New Zealand it is ideological to want to privatise, for the rest of the world it is rational.
Privatisation is not done for ideological gratification. It is done because it works. It is important to appreciate why it works. The real reason you want to do it is not to make a quick buck, but to make New Zealanders wealthier. Higher wages and cheaper products are a result of business productivity. Productivity is achieved by making the underlying regulations right, by getting in new managers and opening old ones up to competition. We need to put these businesses in the hands of managers who are accountable to the owners and have to serve the customer in order to survive.
Before the electricity industry is privatised we need to be sure that the regulatory environment is spot on. Competition is the key. It is competition that ensures value. We should seek to get maximum return from these assets not through the price the asset is sold for but from New Zealanders gaining their return in lower real prices and in more jobs.
The problem with National’s approach to privatisation is that they will get none of the benefits and keep all of the problems. By only moving a small amount into the private sector they will continue with the status quo i.e. protecting existing managers from competition.
New Zealand’s outlook is bleak – today we sit in a position similar to the one in 1984. The difference though is that in 1984 we made tough decisions; we outlined the goal that we wanted to achieve and moved swiftly to attain it. The public were supportive because they were able to see what we wanted to achieve and returned the Government with an increased majority in 1987. The point is, we did this by pursuing the right policies, not by doing what was popular in the short term. If you cast your mind back over the last two years of the National Government, can you think of one piece of quality reform that has made New Zealand better off and will be remembered in 10 years?
I find it pretty amusing for a party to spend nine years in opposition, arguing against most of the major changes brought about by Labour - working for families, the lack of privatisation, the abolition of youth rates, freezing of tariffs, the re-regulation of the labour market, among others, and then to do nothing about it when in power. The National Party just don’t get - and until they try to set the agenda rather than following blindly what Labour leave in their wake, they will continue to fail New Zealanders.
ENDS
One Law For All
Hilary Calvert MP response to Prime Minister's Statement; Parliament; Wednesday, February 9, 2011
It’s good to be back in the debating chamber for what promises to be an interesting year. I hope all members had a great Christmas and New Year break and are feeling refreshed.
The parliamentary year has barely begun and we’ve already witnessed plenty of drama and sideshows. We cannot let what the media deems important distract us from the reasons we are here. We should worry not about catwalks or campaigns, but how to enable the conditions whereby all New Zealanders can get ahead.
ACT and National have worked well together in many areas. We are pleased to have ensured stable centre-right government since 2008.
We are a party of principles, and when we see National stray from theirs it is our duty to call them out on it. A key principle for ACT is one law for all New Zealanders. That is, one law for all regardless of race, religion, income or location.
We thought this was National’s view too. But since 2008 we have seen them, under the influence of the Māori Party, move us further down the path to separatism.
One such example is the Marine and Coastal Area Bill, which is scheduled to replace one racist piece of legislation with another. The Prime Minister promised to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act only if there was widespread support; but it is plainly obvious the new Bill is massively unpopular with almost everyone. Despite this National, with the support of the Maori Party, seem hell-bent on passing this legislation as soon as possible.
It’s a Bill that divides up our coastline, minerals and access along tribal lines. If one isn’t in the right iwi, one misses out. National says up to ten percent of our coastline could wind up under customary title. We could ultimately have a situation where our entire coastline, just like our longest river, is under co-governance.
What is wrong with that, some may ask. The Treaty of Waitangi, signed a little over 171 years ago, promised that all – Māori and non-Māori – would be equal before the law. Everyone would have the same rights and responsibilities as each other.
That has long since fallen by the wayside. The Treaty has been twisted into a form that pits “them” versus “us”. No longer is it about equality of opportunity for all. Instead, it’s now focused on taking what we have and divvying it up along racial lines.
For ACT, ‘one law for all’ goes beyond race. It is about empowering all New Zealanders to get ahead and better themselves. It is about acknowledging that focusing on equality of outcome is impossible and irresponsible – but we can, and must, work to ensure equality of opportunity.
We see children trapped in bad schools, the ill forced to linger on public waiting lists, and the jobless lost in an archaic welfare system.
As our leader Rodney Hide said, ACT finds the thought of 12,000 new entrants per year ultimately leaving school functionally illiterate unacceptable. It’s abhorrent that those in the central North Island cannot get the same level of chemotherapy treatment as other parts of New Zealand. And locking our young people out of the workforce through impossibly high minimum wages borders on criminal.
The current system locks too many into a lifetime of missed opportunities. ACT has policies that will enable people to choose the education and health system that suits them best.
We are desperate to lower barriers into the workforce that past governments were only too happy to erect. We want an economy that rewards those who raise our living standards through hard work and innovation.
And we intend to stop the divisive Marine and Coastal Area Bill and restore the sanctity of property rights for all, regardless of colour and as determined by centuries of common law.
This is what one law for all New Zealanders means to me and to the ACT Party. We look forward to continuing to work with National where our principles match, and to speaking out when they do not.
ENDS
ETS Widening Gap With Australia
Hon John Boscawen response to Prime Minister's Statement; Parliament; Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Mr Speaker,
It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to respond to the Prime Minister's speech, and I take this opportunity to acknowledge and congratulate the Government on much of what it has done during its first term.
I say "much", but not all.
Among the achievements have been the reform of the Resource Management Act, which the ACT Party has participated in; the rationalisation and streamlining of various Government departments; and I should also say the passing of ACT's 'Three Strikes' law, which has already started to make New Zealand citizens feel safer in their homes and on their streets.
I say that it is ACT's 'Three Strikes' law because no one can deny that that law would not be on our statute books but for its promotion by the ACT Party. The Prime Minister freely acknowledges that the 'Three Strikes' law would not have been passed without the ACT Party nudging and cajoling the National Government every step of the way.
The ACT Party and National have also implemented, and then expanded, the 90-day trial period for employment contracts. This has helped to align our employment practices with those of the rest of the developed world. But, more important, it has given employers the opportunity to take on new employees with the confidence to know that, if they are making a mistake, they are able to find an alternative. It is important to give confidence to employers so that new employees can be taken into the workforce.
The ACT Party was instrumental in getting that policy extended to cover - not just employers of fewer than 20 employees but - all employers in New Zealand, to give them the opportunity to improve their productivity and employment of New Zealanders.
Although unemployment at 6.5 percent is higher than Australia's, we can take some comfort from the fact that it is not around the levels of the US and the UK of around nine and 10 percent. We are told informally that if we included those people who are looking to work full-time in the US, the level would be closer to 15 percent.
The fact that our unemployment rate is higher than Australia's should be a concern to us. Already we have seen in the past week the 'New Zealand Herald' reporting that net outwards immigration to Australia is already back on the increase. We need to be focusing continually on our relationship with Australia because, unless we do - unless we move to reduce the income gap between New Zealanders and Australians - we will see ever greater numbers of New Zealanders move overseas, and move overseas permanently.
It is a fact that, for generations, young New Zealanders have travelled overseas to gain experience - to gain job experience - and to seek out new endeavours and new experiences. Traditionally they have always returned to New Zealand but, increasingly, they are not. That should be a concern to all New Zealanders as more and more of our children and grandchildren grow up in countries other than New Zealand.
It was this concern for the declining living standards of New Zealand versus Australia that caused the ACT Party to campaign on reducing that gap, making it a fundamental plank of our 2008 election campaign.
In fact, we put out a 20-Point Plan to reduce that gap and - as part of our Confidence & Supply Agreement with National - got National to commit to the concrete goal of reducing that gap, eliminating that gap, and bringing our living standards alongside those of Australia by 2025.
The ACT Party was, once again, instrumental in nudging National and convincing it to appoint the 2025 Taskforce chaired by Don Brash. It is a big challenge. As the Taskforce pointed out in its most recent report last November: if we continue on as we do now, we face the risk that a further net 400,000 New Zealanders will leave our shores for Australia by 2025.
It is interesting then that we have in this morning's 'New Zealand Herald' an editorial titled 'National needs new policy for closing the gap'. The 'New Zealand Herald' reminds us that, from the convenience of Opposition, National was able to make promises and criticise the then Labour Government's position on the economy. It points out that the challenge to raise our living standards is still there. It says that the Government knew, and certainly knows now, that the comparative success against Australia would require bold and disruptive interventions. The 'New Zealand Herald' says that National is making that commitment in standing up.
Making that commitment to a concrete goal of lifting our living standards to Australia's requires bold policies and courage. ACT has always led the way in promoting policies to align and to raise New Zealand's living standards with those of our closest neighbour. The editorial concludes by stating: "For its own sake, New Zealand needs bold economic initiatives that will position the country for sustained growth."
Let me repeat that to the members in the House from the National Government tonight: "For its own sake, New Zealand needs bold economic initiatives that will position the country for sustained growth."
It is the role of the ACT Party to advocate for those bold initiatives and to promote those policies. When I first rose this evening I congratulated the National Government on much of what it has done. Tragically, there are some things the National Government has done that have not been helpful for the economy; that have not moved the country in the direction of reducing that gap.
I think of youth rates - of the National MPs voting against Sir Roger Douglas' Private Member's Bill to reinstitute youth rates. I will remind Members for a brief minute of that debate. We saw the previous Labour Government legislate to abolish youth rates, legislate to require employers to pay 16 and 17-year-old young people the minimum wage. What is the natural reaction of an employer when faced with employing someone who is 30, who has life experience, who has jobs, who has skills experience or employing a 16 or 17-year-old? It is a lay down misere. It is obvious. Anyone who has spoken to employers knows that an employer will go for the most experienced person.
Young people are being denied the chance to get on to the bottom rung of the ladder. This Parliament has denied young people the chance to go out and get a job at $10 or $11 an hour, or whatever their economic value is to their employer. The Government has said that it will throw them on the scrap heap and give them the Unemployment Benefit of $4.50 an hour. How does that help raise New Zealand's productive capacity? How does it raise our prosperity? We have seen that with the significant increase in youth unemployment since the Labour Government first passed that legislation abolishing youth rates.
We have also seen a very significant cost to the economy in the Emissions Trading Scheme. This scheme was introduced by the previous Labour Government, came into effect on January 1 2008, and operates as a massive subsidy to foresters.
What the previous Labour Government essentially put in place was a massive grant that gives tree planters a one-off gain of about 230 tonnes of carbon - around $5,000 a hectare.
The previous Labour Government put into place a grant system that requires New Zealanders to pay some $500 million a year more in electricity and petrol to subsidise those massive subsidies.
Nothing annoys me more - nothing makes me laugh more - than to hear Labour Leader Phil Goff stand up and talk about the price of electricity and petrol going up. Mr Goff knows full well that the Emissions Trading Scheme under the previous Labour Government would have resulted, not in a five percent increase but, a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity.
While we can be thankful that the scheme was modified by National, the fact is that it should not be there in the first place. It should not be operating as a $500-million-a-year subsidy to foresters. The previous Labour Government put into place a system to pay massive subsidies to foresters, which required the National Government to carry it on. Anyone in the industry who was smart knew that.
All New Zealanders are paying for that with their electricity and their petrol. If anything is contributing to that gap between New Zealand and Australia, it is the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Thank you.
ENDS
Ami Fila Fali Ba Uma - We Are Going Home
Associate Minister of Defence Heather Roy today completes her visit to the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) troops on deployment in Timor-Leste, returning to New Zealand this weekend with a deeper insight into the work that NZDF personnel are doing and the high regard in which they are held.
"The feedback I have received during my visit is a testament to the dedication and professionalism displayed by New Zealanders - NZDF personnel, Police and others - while deployed in Timor-Leste," Mrs Roy said.
"While the focus of this visit was on observing and meeting with NZDF personnel it also provided an opportunity to meet with New Zealand Embassy staff, the New Zealand Police contingent and other members of the UN in Timor-Leste.
"I also attended a service to lay a wreath at the memorial to Private Leonard Manning, killed in action almost 10 years ago to the day, while on patrol with his unit near Tilomar in the Cova Lima District of Timor-Leste.
"All of this has served to reinforce my knowledge that our troops are performing in an exemplary manner; as fine ambassadors for New Zealand they are respected and well-liked by other UN personnel and the local population.
"I'm returning to New Zealand with a much greater understanding and appreciation of the efforts that our troops are making in, what is, the newest member of the Southeast Asian community," Mrs Roy said.
ENDS
