Thursday, 9 November 2017

THURSDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2017

THURSDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the Address in Reply debate will continue each afternoon after questions. There will be maiden speeches each day. On Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, the House will consider Government business, including the remaining stages of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. On Thursday, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 28 November.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I was just wondering, from the new Leader of the House, when we can expect some real legislation.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): There is plenty of real legislation in the pipeline. The member will just need to hold his horses a little bit longer.

Speaker’s Rulings

Oral Questions—Conduct

Mr SPEAKER: Before the House comes to the first question time of the 52nd Parliament, I would like to make some comments on how I intend to preside over oral questions. I have circulated this to members earlier in the day.

I expect primary and supplementary questions to be asked without interjection. Oral questions are an important mechanism for holding the Government to account, and, at a minimum, the House should be able to hear the questions being asked of Ministers. Strictly speaking, members are entitled to speak without interruption at all times, but the House has consented to some interjection to enable members to seek information—Speaker’s ruling 58/1. In my view, oral questions will proceed more effectively if questions can be asked without interjection. Barrages of interjection other times, including during answers to questions, will continue to be out of order.

Supplementary questions are given at the discretion of the Speaker—Speaker’s rulings 172/1 and 172/3. In recent times, the Speaker has given an indication to the parties of the way they may allocate questions. I have continued that practice, and I have also indicated to the three smaller parties in the House that they are able to use their supplementaries across a week. However, I do intend to use supplementary questions to encourage good behaviour from those asking and answering questions. Where no attempt is made to provide an informative reply, I’m likely to award the questioner additional supplementary questions.

Where questions are misused, I may reduce the number of supplementary questions available that day to the offending party, or I may increase the allocation to an opposing party. I aim to ensure a freer flow of questions and answers, without the Speaker being so involved. I will still call on members to ask primary questions, but where a Minister’s asked an oral question, he or she may answer immediately without waiting for a call from the Speaker. After the primary question, I will simply nod to the member asking questions to indicate for them to continue with supplementaries. I will call a member only when inviting a different member to ask a supplementary question.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing—KiwiBuild

1. Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What will the specific measurable targets be, if any, that she will use to hold her Government to account?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Acting Prime Minister): As Prime Minister, I will hold my Ministers to account for improving the well-being and living standards of New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Bill English: What is the appropriate measure—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, I’m just going to start right now. Who is the member who interjected then? Right, there’s an additional question to the Opposition.

Rt Hon Bill English: What is the appropriate measure we should follow to monitor progress on KiwiBuild where the Government has committed to build 100,000 houses over the next 10 years?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We will make decisions on appropriate targets in due course.

Rt Hon Bill English: So does that mean that the current expression of the Government’s commitment, which is “to build 100,000 houses over the next 10 years” does not necessarily mean what most people would take it to mean?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We will make and confirm decisions on appropriate targets in due course.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does the Government stand by—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The chief Government whip, I think, interjected, or someone around her did. There is a further supplementary to the Opposition.

Rt Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister stand by her Government’s commitment to “build 100,000 houses over the next 10 years”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We will make and confirm decisions on appropriate targets in due course.

Rt Hon Bill English: Why did the Government commit to “build 100,000 houses over the next 10 years” if it is now not willing to re-express that commitment in this House?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Because the previous Government didn’t build houses.

Rt Hon Bill English: Is it possible that the Government is revising this commitment because of public statements made by the Minister of Housing and Urban Development that the commitment may involve not building houses but buying existing houses?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

Rt Hon Bill English: What other reason could there possibly be for not being willing to restate a commitment made by all its members right though the election campaign to “build 100,000 houses”? What other reason could there be not to make that commitment here today?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We are not revising targets. We will make and confirm decisions on appropriate targets in due course.

Rt Hon Bill English: So is the commitment to build 100,000 houses an appropriate target, or one that is subject to revision or further decisions, or is it one that we should take at its word?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member will find out in due course.

Rt Hon Bill English: My question to the Prime Minister is this, then: are there other commitments that were made during the election campaign and in the Speech from the Throne that are now open to revision and later decisions?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We are committed to implementing what the Governor-General has said in the Speech from the Throne.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify: it’s been the practice in the House for some time that a member answering on behalf of another member should clearly identify that. I didn’t want to interrupt the question, but can you clarify whether that is still the case?

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister answered the question.

Housing—Supply and Prices

2. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What is the latest estimate of shortfall in housing and how has he responded to it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): We’ve inherited a crisis. The official figures show a shortfall of 71,000 homes, with a shortage of 45,000 homes in Auckland—far worse than the previous Government let on. Our Government has a comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis by building 100,000 affordable homes over 10 years, stopping the sell-off of State houses and building thousands more, and an ambitious programme of large-scale urban development projects.

Tamati Coffey: What is his response to the comments of the Reserve Bank Governor regarding KiwiBuild?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The governor’s been very clear that he’s made some assumptions about KiwiBuild. Our view is that the numbers of new affordable homes built under the KiwiBuild programme will be additional—over and above what the private market is already delivering—due to massive increases in the construction workforce, the Housing Commission delivering large-scale new urban development projects that otherwise would not be happening, and our policy commitments to free up the planning rules and deliver a pipeline of infrastructure-ready finance. These are measures that will directly tackle the capacity constraints that the governor spoke of.

Tamati Coffey: Was he surprised to receive this advice on the housing shortfall?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we knew there was a crisis in housing for the last few years, but I had no idea how bad things really were. The fact that there’s about 45,000 houses short in Auckland alone is one of the main reasons that house prices doubled in the last 9 years, to an average of $1 million per house. It’s the reason why we have the worst homelessness and overcrowding in living memory, and this Government is upfront: we are going to release data about that. The near-decade of spin and denial on housing is over.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Were the estimates quoted by the Minister of a 71,000 housing shortfall and 45,000 in Auckland provided to him in the briefing to the incoming Minister provided by his officials?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that answer, I require the Minister to table that document under Standing Order 376.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has no ability to require the tabling of a document unless it’s been quoted from in the House, and the Minister was clearly not quoting from it at that stage.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’ve ruled, Mr Woodhouse.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: It is a clarification, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, if the member has a fresh point of order that goes to a different point, I’ll hear him, but if he doesn’t, I won’t.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, it is a general point of clarification. I just want to clarify—

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Woodhouse, you’ve been a member for some time, I think you’ve been a whip for some time, and I think the member does know that, despite some pretence otherwise, there is no such thing as a point of clarification.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Who is correct: the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, who says that there is a fixed commitment to build 100,000 extra houses, or the Prime Minister, who says such a target has not yet been set?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Housing and Urban Development have reiterated our policy, which is to build 100,000 affordable homes to restore affordable homeownership to this country.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier on, you awarded additional supplementary questions to the Opposition for Government interjection during their questions. Just a point of clarification on your earlier—well, actually, no, a question: does that apply when interjections are made by members of the same party during questions, as we had just before?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, it does, but I think, as the Minister is aware, I am slightly deaf in my left ear, so I didn’t hear any interjections.

Fiscal Strategy—Core Crown Expenditure and Pre-election Fiscal Plan

3. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm it is his intention as Minister of Finance to ensure core Crown expenses do not exceed $81.9 billion in 2017/18, $86.1 billion in 2018/19, $88.2 billion in 2019/20, $91.8 billion in 2020/21, and $96.1 billion in 2021/22, as specified in the Labour Party’s pre-election Fiscal Plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I can confirm that it is my intention for core Crown expenditure as a percentage of GDP to be within the recent historical range. As to the exact figures in the member’s question, I cannot confirm those as, of course, they are subject to detailed Budget decisions and revenue forecasts that are yet to be finalised.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can he confirm that he stands by his statement from 4 September this year, and I quote, “Labour’s Fiscal Plan is robust, the numbers are correct and we stand by them”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that the Budget that this Government is putting together will be robust and it will deliver on a commitment that this Government has made to ensure that all New Zealanders share in prosperity.

Michael Wood: What else, in addition to managing core Crown expenditure, will guide the Government’s approach to responsible fiscal management?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government will observe the Budget responsibility rules as indicated in the Speech from the Throne: namely, delivering a sustainable operating balance before gains and losses; reducing net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP within 5 years; and ensuring a fair and balanced progressive taxation system. We will also never forget that the purpose of a strong economy is to give every New Zealander the chance to share in prosperity, and we will never be satisfied while children live in poverty or families sleep in cars.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does he stand by his statement, also on 4 September, and I quote, that “Our operating expenses are above the line and are clearly stated.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Budget that this Government will prepare will be clear about what we are spending and where the revenue for that is coming from.

Hon Steven Joyce: So that’s a no. Can I also ask: does he stand by his statement, and I quote, “We have quite clearly put in the spending requirements to meet the promises we have made. Our fiscal plan adds up. We are absolutely clear that we have the money to meet the commitments that we’ve made.”, also on 4 September?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government will prepare a Budget that shows how we will pay for the important commitments that we have made to ensure that every New Zealander benefits from economic prosperity.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can the Minister of Finance then confirm that it is not his intention to necessarily ensure core Crown expenditure does not exceed $81.9 billion this current financial year, $86.1 billion in the next financial year, $88.2 billion in 2019-20, $91.8 billion in 2020-21, and $96.1 billion in 2021-22? Can he confirm that’s not his intention, even though it was specified in the Labour Party’s pre-election fiscal plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that we will keep Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP in line with the historical range.

Hon Steven Joyce: Can the finance Minister then confirm that he doesn’t at all stand by the numbers he presented in the Labour Party’s fiscal plan prior to the election?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government is currently going through the usual process of putting together a Budget. We are absolutely confident that we will deliver a Budget that is in line with the Budget responsibility rules that were outlined in the Speech from the Throne and that will deliver to New Zealanders a fair share in prosperity. As I said in my primary answer, the final numbers are the subject of the normal Budget process.

Hon Steven Joyce: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker, but just to be clear, the Minister released a fiscal plan prior to the election—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will sit the member down now and ask him to ask a question. Speaker Hunt used to have an old saying that questions start with a question word, rather than something else.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: It’s a fresh, genuine point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Right.

Hon Simon Bridges: It’s simply this. The question was straight, really: whether he stood by the numbers they had pre-election. There really wasn’t any attempt to answer that specific question.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to take any further comments on that. Both the asker of the question and I thought that there was a very clear response.

Hon Steven Joyce: Is he saying that the actual numbers written on the Labour Party’s fiscal plan prior to this election, which he and his colleagues defended vigorously during the election campaign, are no longer relevant? The comments he has made suggest that he will put whatever numbers he likes in front of the public in due course in the next Budget.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have been absolutely clear that the commitment that we have made is that Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP will remain in line with the long-run historical trend. Members on the other side of the House well know that we will now be looking at new revenue forecasts and, indeed, new growth forecasts. They will determine the exact numbers that are presented. But we are very clear on this side of the House: our numbers add up.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order—the Hon Steven Bridges.

Hon Simon Bridges: It’s Simon Bridges, but I understand, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry.

Hon Simon Bridges: It’s all right. The point of order is this: the question really was about the relevancy of the Labour fiscal plan. He didn’t even address whether that fiscal plan is still relevant. I didn’t see any addressing of that question.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I’m going to deal with it again. I’m almost going to say “ibid” for my response to the member’s previous point of order. I think both the asker of the question and I have understood the answers.

Hon Tracey Martin: In the 51st Parliament, the last Speaker made it very clear that the Government was not responsible for the manifesto or the policies of a political party. Can I ask for a ruling on that, please?

Mr SPEAKER: I’m happy to answer that. I think the member has been quite careful in the way that he has phrased his questions, asking whether the member was standing by the figures or still agreed with the figures. I think that is something that is acceptable. They’re a set of figures—it doesn’t really matter where they come from—and it’s a question of whether those figures portray the current position of the Government. If that was not the case, I would have ruled out the original question.

Hon Steven Joyce: Has he noted how often the Reserve Bank mentioned policy uncertainty in their Monetary Policy Statement this morning, and has he considered how his statements in the House this afternoon and his responses to questions will not help with that policy uncertainty when the Reserve Bank was obviously placing some credence on his previous statements about Government expenditure and now he is not even standing by those?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Reserve Bank Governor noted today that his thinking was preliminary, and, just like the member opposite, when the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and Budget Policy Statement are released before the end of the year, there will be significant certainty about our spending plans. If the member can’t wait, I’ll make up a special advent calendar for him so that he can count down to the half yearly update.

Provincial Growth Fund—Benefits

4. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What advice has he received on the benefits of the Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Given the significance of creating a billion-dollar fund, the advice is voluminous. Indeed, I’ve even had advice from members on the other side of House as to projects that the fund could be directed to in the future.

Darroch Ball: What are some examples of regions that are needing urgent attention?

Hon SHANE JONES: We have been made aware of a number of regions that were written off as zombie areas—zombie towns—over the last nine years: Manawatū, Whanganui, Tai Rāwhiti, Tai Tokerau. A number of those civic leaders—and, indeed, certain list and constituency members from the other side of the House—are already drawing up proposals for such regions.

Partnership Schools—Legislative Reform and Potential Closures

5. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Will he be repealing the legislation that covers partnership schools within the next six months and how many schools does he expect to close or be converted to another type of school?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): In answer to the first part of the question: no, not within the first six months. In answer to the second part of the question: it’s too early to make those decisions.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Did he say to a Fairfax journalist, as reported on 4 November, that four schools due to open in 2019 would likely not go ahead?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was awaiting advice from the Ministry of Education about charter schools at the time that I did make that statement.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Have any charter schools been closed previously and, if so, what are the lessons learnt from that?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. One of the first charter schools was, in fact, closed within the first year of its operation. It cost the Crown over $5 million, none of which has been recovered, and there were several dozen students who needed to be re-accommodated in what was inevitably a very messy process. We are very keen to avoid that happening again in the future.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of his previous answer, has he received any advice, communications, or correspondence from officials or any other party on the potential legal or financial consequences of his reported comments on partnership schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The advice that I have received thus far indicates that the contracts that were due to be signed in October for those new charter schools were signed in September, prior to the election. I have not received any advice on any particular legal risks around that.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he guarantee that no partnership school will have their contract terminated without a comprehensive review, whereby all of the schools will have the opportunity to make their case rather than finding out through the media?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have been clear that we will negotiate in good faith on a case by case basis with all of the existing charter schools.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Given the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday that all people are entitled to care and compassion, will he guarantee that he will personally visit all of these partnership schools or the sponsors of the proposed schools prior to making any decisions about the future of some of our most disadvantaged children?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have been clear that we will deal with all of the issues around charter schools on a case by case basis and in good faith. The negotiations around potential changes to the contracts or arrangements will be conducted by the Ministry of Education and not by Ministers.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a very simple yes or no—will he visit the schools of these most disadvantaged children—and he didn’t answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: In a way, similar, I think, to—[Gown slips from shoulders] Sorry about this. I’ll get this right eventually. [Interruption] Pull it up? Thank you for your advice, Mr Bridges. Similar to the advice that I gave to the Hon Steven Joyce earlier, I think, by omission the answer was actually clear.

David Seymour: When the Minister told Newstalk ZB that one of his reasons for closing charter schools is that they were funded at a higher level than State schools, was he quoting any advice he had received in his capacity as a Minister?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I was drawing on the information that we obtained from the previous Government when I was an Opposition spokesperson.

David Seymour: Supplementary?

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member’s having a good go. He gets two in a week, but not in a week that’s only got one question day. So you can’t transfer your question from Tuesday, because Tuesday wasn’t a question day.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. Surely this week the House has sat three times and all members on this side of the House have been disappointed to have only one question time, but if we can at least use our allocated questions we will be OK.

Mr SPEAKER: I’m sure that that argument would be supported by the Green Party and New Zealand First, but it’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get all your questions for a week in the one day. I think I’ve been pretty generous with the member as to the arrangements that he’s got, and I wouldn’t push it if I was him. You might be able to, over time, negotiate with some friends.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know the general practice is to notify you of question transfers before they happen. Can I indicate that I would be happy to offer one of the Labour Party’s supplementary questions to Mr Seymour.

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member like one of the Labour Party’s supplementaries?

David Seymour: Oh, yes, I would. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Kris Faafoi: Where’s your friends, David?

David Seymour: Well, you find friends in the most unexpected places.

Mr SPEAKER: Was that you, Mr Faafoi?

Hon Kris Faafoi: Yes, it was.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, Mr Seymour gets an extra supplementary.

David Seymour: How can the Minister say to the media on one day that he is able to say with some certainty, as quoted, that he will be able to cancel the contracts of partnership schools set to open in 2019, and then say, only two days later to a different media outlet, that he is urgently seeking advice?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the comments I made to the journalist, I also made it clear that I had sought advice on that matter.

David Seymour: Has the Minister considered that by attempting to procure an end to the contracts through the press, he has actually violated the contracts on behalf of the Crown?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The position of the parties that form up the Government has been clear for a long period of time, from the point that the charter schools policy was first introduced.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was with respect to the Minister’s responsibilities and the legal implications of his statement as a Minister. His previous political positions, surely, are not relevant and he has made no attempt to address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: And it’s a pretty longstanding position in the House that Ministers have discretion about whether they answer questions that involve legal opinions. I think that the Minister probably went further than he had to.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ll just have to go back and check the Hansard, but the original question that I asked—he was very careful, as I see it. The Minister did not confirm that he received legal advice. He said “financial” advice. So the way that I read it, but we’ll check the Hansard in the future, is that he hasn’t received legal advice, so I think Mr Seymour is entitled—

Mr SPEAKER: No, and the point that I was making to Mr Seymour was that Mr Seymour was asking a question about the legal position of the Crown, and that would be inviting a legal opinion from Chris Hipkins, and he certainly does not have to give one.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I perhaps assist by asking that the Minister be given an opportunity to explain whether he avoided the question for legal reasons or just didn’t want to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member, I think, is now just beginning to trifle with the Chair, and while he’s not in a position to lose any supplementary questions this week, he could lose half of those from next week pretty quickly.

Roading, Auckland—East-West Link

6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Transport: On what date is the Board of Inquiry due to deliver its draft decision on the East-West Link Road of National Significance?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I do not have responsibility for the Environmental Protection Authority’s board of inquiry. With respect to the road of national significance part of the member’s question, I am advised that the description of the East-West Link, as such, was simply an announcement by the National Party in its election campaign press release. With respect to the other part of the member’s question, I’m advised that the decision of the board of inquiry is due to be released on 14 November.

Hon Judith Collins: On what date, given that he now knows the date of the draft decision, is the final decision of this board into the East-West Link road of national significance due, since submissions closed eight months ago in March?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s a matter for the board of inquiry, and I suggest that the member puts down a question to the Minister responsible.

Hon Judith Collins: What is the cost in monetary terms for the process to date, including the cost to the Crown, the submitters, and the New Zealand Transport Agency?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Approximately $50 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent so far on the East-West Link, but I want to reassure the member that that money will not be put to waste. The work done currently totals about $10 million worth. It includes construction of stage 1 improvements to Onehunga, coming to $10 million. It includes the widening of State Highway 20 between Neilson Street and Queenstown Road, and replacing the old Neilson Street rail bridge. The balance of about $40 million is for project investigations that will be very helpful in informing the Government on other aspects that may well be included in the newer high-value, lower-cost option that our Government is considering.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he agree with the statement of Phil Twyford on 20 June 2013 that the need for the East-West Link has long been obvious to New Zealanders?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I generally agree with that person. But I will say this: this Government agrees with Ken Shirley of the Road Transport Forum, who said, “The East-West Link in its last iteration was very expensive and we probably need to look at something with lesser expense”. He also said that the Road Transport Forum—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think that’s enough. I probably was being a bit kind to the member letting him go on after his first clause.

Hon Judith Collins: Has he advised Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that her publicly pre-empting the decision of the board of inquiry—by doing that she has opened up the Crown to potentially massive claims?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I am sure that the considerable legal expertise of the member would allow her to understand that the board of inquiry is a Resource Management Act process designed to make decisions on the resource consent for the project. The board of inquiry has nothing to say about the economic merits or economic value of the project, and is not a substitute for a decision by the Government on whether to go ahead with the project or not.

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was pretty clear: has he given this advice to the Prime Minister? He either has or he hasn’t. Can he please answer it?

Mr SPEAKER: And I think, for the third time today, I am going to say that both the asker of the question and I know what the answer is.

Raymond Huo: What will the Government use any savings from the East-West Link for?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The savings from a low-cost, high-value option, which this Government is exploring, are expected to free up hundreds of millions of dollars, which will be an additional contribution to the 10-year, $15 billion programme of investments in Auckland’s transport system that will deliver a congestion-free alternative to Aucklanders and get the roads moving once and for all.

Tertiary Education—Fees and Living Costs

7. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to reduce the cost of fees and provide more assistance with living costs for tertiary students?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government will be providing one year of fees-free tertiary education from 2018 for those entering tertiary education and training for the first time, and a $50 a week boost to allowances and loan entitlements, which will kick in on 1 January 2018.

Jo Luxton: Will these changes benefit students taking trades and other vocational courses outside of universities; and if so, how?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. It’s important to remember that only around a third of students go from school into university study. The other two-thirds move into vocational programmes or forms of employment, including on-job training. They will also be able to benefit from having one year’s free, and many of them will also be accessing the additional student support the Government will be making available.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will Australians have access to free fees in 2018?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Any Australians, as with any other residents from a different country, will need to meet the three-year residence requirement. If they do that, then yes, they will be able to access it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is providing Australia with free fees a priority for limited New Zealand education resources?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The policy is being applied or implemented on exactly the same basis that every other policy regarding tertiary education student support is being applied.

Provincial Growth Fund—Funding Sources

8. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How successful will his new $1 billion annual Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund be?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Obviously, the success will depend on the soundness of the proposals and the robustness of the criteria, which is being developed at the moment. But I can assure the member the success will surpass the 10 bridges in Northland that he promised.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can he confirm the fund and its $1 billion allocated every year will all be new funding rather than from existing funding?

Hon SHANE JONES: The full structure and character of the fund—

Hon Steven Joyce: Ha, ha!

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Speaker, can you tell “Slim Shady” with the bald head to keep quiet?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member now to withdraw and apologise. And the member probably shouldn’t use that expression, with the member in front of him and with me.

Hon SHANE JONES: For any offence caused to the music industry—

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Hon SHANE JONES: —or to the member, I apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon SHANE JONES: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Has the member finished his answer?

Hon SHANE JONES: Ah, hmm. The full character and structure of the fund will be worked through and be made available when the Budget Policy Statement is announced.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m simply asking a straightforward question about whether it’s new funding. I mean, I don’t even think that has been addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I’m going to let the member have another go.

Hon Simon Bridges: Thank you, sir. Can he confirm the fund and its $1 billion allocated every year will all be new funding, rather than from existing funding?

Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm that the full structure, content, and character of the fund will be released as a part of the Budget Policy Statement. I can, however, confirm in addition that funds such as the “neets” programme, which he established six months ago—on which not a brass razoo has been spent—will probably be in the mix.

Hon Simon Bridges: So can he confirm then that it’s a mix of existing funding reprioritised but also a Budget bid coming through Budget 2018?

Hon SHANE JONES: I repeat again that the full content, structure, and character of the fund will be dealt with conclusively in the Budget policy process. Just taihoa.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can he give me any detail at all about where the money’s coming from—is it existing money or new?

Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm that I am picking up unfinished work by the former Minister and I can confirm that there are substantial amounts of funds that were not dedicated yet promised, but the full extent of the provincial growth fund will be tidied up in the Budget Policy Statement announcement.

Hon Simon Bridges: As an annual fund, can he confirm that $3 billion will be spent over this term of Government?

Hon SHANE JONES: It is a per annum fund, and I can assure the member that it is our intention to dedicate and expend such an amount of money, and, based on the large number of proposals coming in to me already from civic leaders, regional leaders, EDS, and a few of his own colleagues, I think we’ll chew through that amount of dough.

Hon Simon Bridges: Of all the specific initiatives that are going to happen under this fund other than those specifically mentioned in the coalition agreement, are there any specific ones he already has in mind as real possibilities and can tell us about what they are today?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m glad that he has enabled me to talk about the tree planting programme. The full details will be rolled out at a later date, but I direct his attention to the Governor-General’s speech, the Prime Minister’s speech, and my colleague the Hon Ron Mark, on behalf of our leader—that speech. It identified a billion trees and it is related to the billion-dollar fund.

Hon Simon Bridges: Other than in the coalition agreement, in terms of new things that the public and certainly I wouldn’t have heard about, has he mentioned any specific initiatives to officials, and what are they?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I’m going to rule that question out, because the Minister has no responsibility for what that member has heard about.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I rephrase it, then, if I’ve put it inelegantly?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, you can have another go, but can I just say it won’t generally be a practice for senior members to let them have a second crack at asking a question.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has he mentioned any specific initiatives that he hasn’t spoken about publicly to officials, and what are they?

Hon SHANE JONES: The matters that are being debated and discussed within the precincts of the offices of the Government departments and myself and my office at this stage are not privy to the member.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If he’s saying that in the public interest he won’t answer my question—

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, is this a point of order?

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, Simon Bridges.

Hon Simon Bridges: Effectively, I haven’t had an answer. All I have asked him is about specific initiatives that he’s mentioned. He has, effectively, said he’s not going to tell me. If that’s in the public interest, that’s valid; otherwise, my submission to you would be that he needs to tell me if he’s made specific initiatives clear to the—

Mr SPEAKER: I think what the member—I mean, I don’t want to over-interpret what the member was saying. But I think what he was saying is he’s not yet in a position to make public those discussions, and that is something that has been the right and, in fact, the responsibility of Ministers for all the time that I have been in this Parliament.

Conservation, Department—Advocacy Role

9. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: What action is she taking to restore the Department of Conservation’s advocacy role to protect our wildlife and its habitats, and why?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): I will be instructing the Department of Conservation (DOC) to implement its statutory responsibilities to advocate for nature and to develop a robust advocacy strategy, which includes better communication with stakeholders.

Jan Logie: How did the previous National Government undermine DOC’s role as nature’s primary defender?

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, can the member repeat the question, just so I can—?

Jan Logie: What evidence has the Minister seen that shows DOC’s role as nature’s primary—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Part of the problem I have is that Amy Adams twice interjected: once the first time, and then the second time. What I’m going to do is ask the member to ask the question as she originally asked it, so I will then make a judgment as to whether it’s within the Standing Orders or not.

Jan Logie: How did the previous National Government undermine DOC’s role as nature’s primary defender?

Mr SPEAKER: My view is that that is something that the Minister has no responsibility for.

Jan Logie: May I rephrase that?

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I guess I have a question of consistency and leniency to the Opposition on a previous, similar issue.

Mr SPEAKER: It might seem a little bit unfair, and I can understand the member’s point of view there, but I think the difference is that in this particular case, members who are supporting the Government have quite a lot more resources and quite a lot more opportunity to be properly prepared. The member herself has had much more experience in recent years asking supplementary questions than Mr Bridges has, and therefore I was treating him a little more like I would a newer member.

Jan Logie: What evidence has the Minister seen that shows DOC’s role as nature’s primary defender has been undermined?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Political pressure and funding cuts by the last National Government significantly undermined DOC’s role. We have seen a major reduction—

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The answer was simply, from the very start, descending into political attack, and I don’t think that should be allowed.

Mr SPEAKER: My view is that it was a pretty gentle comment, and I just ask the member not to be quite so sensitive. Eugenie Sage—[Interruption] Order!

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: May I finish answering the question?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I think you were part-way through when you were interrupted.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes, thank you. National’s funding cuts reduced the number of planning staff by 40 percent. National virtually halved the amount of funding. That meant that the department didn’t submit on a number of applications, such as the Ruataniwha Dam, despite the significant number of threatened species that were affected by that dam.

Jan Logie: Why is restoring DOC’s advocacy role so important?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: We know that when DOC invests fully in the Resource Management Act process, there are better outcomes for both conservation and the environment. An example of that is Project Mokihinui, where the department made strong submissions and appealed to the Environment Court. Meridian withdrew its dam proposal, and that land is now being investigated for addition to Kahurangi National Park.

Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Property—Overseas Investment Act Changes

10. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister for Land Information: Does she stand by all of the Government’s policies in relation to her portfolio?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Land Information): Yes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will the Government’s proposed changes to the Overseas Investment Act (OIA) cause consequential changes to other New Zealand laws; if so, which?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The details of that proposal are still being developed, and legislation has yet to be introduced to the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will the proposed changes prevent trust constructions that allow property ownership by New Zealand - domiciled trustee companies who invest in residential property, and then extend licences to occupy to beneficiaries of the trust, who may also be settlors of the trust?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The details of that proposal are still being developed and will be in legislation to be introduced to the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will foreigners still be able to register trusts in New Zealand once the OIA is amended, and will they have the ability to have New Zealand - domiciled trustees invest on their behalf?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The details of the proposal are still being developed and will be in legislation to be introduced to the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister tell us how far on are the proposals to have a foreign-buyer ban, and what will be the time line for its introduction to the House, and, if it’s shortly, then how soon can we get the answer to these questions?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I think there are a number of questions in there. That commitment to have a ban on foreign buyers is part of the Government’s 100-day programme. The 100 days expires on 3 February, so there will be significant developments before then.

Teina Pora—Compensation

11. RAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: What announcement has he made recently on Teina Pora’s compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yesterday, I announced that Cabinet has agreed to inflation adjust Teina Pora’s compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. This means that Mr Pora will receive an additional $988,099 and this brings his total compensation package to just over $3.5 million.

Raymond Huo: Why did Cabinet decide to make the inflation adjustment to Teina Pora’s compensation?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Teina Pora was the victim of one of New Zealand’s worst miscarriages of justice. Mr Pora was wrongly imprisoned for nearly two decades. Those are decades he will never get back. It’s only fair that what Mr Pora receives should reflect the magnitude of the injustice that he suffered. Cabinet agreed that inflation adjustment was the right thing to do.

Raymond Huo: Why did he have to make this decision to inflation adjust Teina Pora’s compensation now?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The assessor appointed by the previous Government to consider the issue of compensation recommended that the previous Government make an inflation adjustment but that Government declined to do so. The High Court subsequently confirmed that it was within the discretion of Cabinet to make an inflation adjustment, and invited the Government, or Cabinet, to make that adjustment. The new Cabinet considered it and made the inflation adjustment.

Hon Amy Adams: Why did the Minister choose the particular inflation calculation methodology that he did from the range of valid options that were available to him?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In considering the inflation adjustment formula, I, as Minister, took advice from Ministry of Justice officials and also from Treasury, and their advice led to the inflation adjustment at the level that was subsequently agreed upon.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked very carefully and very directly around why one option was chosen over another. What I got from the Minister was who he took advice from, but I have yet to hear from him any rationale or reasoning as to why this particular one he felt was the right one to take.

Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member to ask the question again. I invite the Minister to maybe differentiate a bit about the advice.

Hon Amy Adams: Why did the Minister choose the particular inflation calculation methodology that he did from the range of valid options that were available to him?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The range of options included a measure of Consumers Price Index (CPI), less the value of alcohol and tobacco. I’m not quite sure why that was included in the range of options. The High Court was very clear that an inflation adjustment should reflect the change in purchasing power as between dollar amounts set in the year 2000 and the value of those dollar amounts in the year 2017. The only accurate measure or adjustment to make in that regard was CPI—the headline inflation figure—and that was the basis of the adjustment.

Primary Industries, Ministry—Structure

12. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all of his Government’s policies in relation to the primary sector?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Yes.

Hon Nathan Guy: What advice has he received on the cost of creating separate entities for forestry, fisheries, biosecurity, and food safety?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have yet to receive advice on the cost of breaking up the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), but I can assure the Minister that a greater focus on biosecurity will deliver better border protection. A greater focus on forestry will deliver greater amounts of planting of trees. A greater focus on fisheries will ensure better protection of what is one of New Zealand’s greatest resources.

Hon Nathan Guy: What advice does he give to exporters who are now very concerned about the uncertainty and the nervousness within MPI’s 2,500 staff, who will now be focused more on themselves and their future than supporting the most productive part of the New Zealand economy—and that is, indeed, our exporters?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Exporters at the moment are celebrating the lower dollar. I can assure that Minister—that member, pardon the pun—that there will be a very strong focus through an independently focused biosecurity and food safety regime to protect the interests of those exporters—unlike the previous regime, which delivered insufficient focus. We had a numerous number of incursions through biosecurity and food safety issues, such as WPC80, which is still costing this country hundreds of millions of dollars.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Apologies for interrupting the Clerk. I seek leave that on Thursday the 9th and Thursday the 16th of November the House adjourn at the conclusion of maiden speeches, and on Tuesday the 14th and Wednesday the 15th of November the House suspend for the dinner break at the conclusion of maiden speeches.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. That will be the case. Now, back to the Clerk.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 8 November.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): It’s morning in New Zealand. It’s a new day, and our great country has a new beginning.

In the last nine years, this country has changed a great deal, and not all for the best. Ours is a great country still. There’s a lot about New Zealand to be proud of, but we on this side of the House know that it can be so much better. No one—no parent—in this country should have to raise their kids in a Skyline garage or in the back of a van. No one should have to give up the dream that has always been such a part of our heritage in this country—our legacy—that if you work hard and save, then you will have the possibility of owning your own home. Nobody should have to beg for their next meal. That kind of inequality is degrading to us all.

In her Speech from the Throne, the Governor-General said that this will be a Government of inclusion and that everybody in this country is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity. Every child growing up in New Zealand should have the opportunity to live the best-possible life. The Governor-General said that this will be a Government of transformation. We will look for good ideas wherever we can find them. We will tackle the root causes of the housing crisis that plagues this country. Nine years of spin and denial are over.

The Governor-General said that this will be a Government of aspiration. We want New Zealand to be—

Hon Simon Bridges: Hey, that’s our word. You give my word back.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We have no qualms about being ambitious for this country, because those members campaigned on being ambitious for New Zealand nine years ago, and what did they do? Tinkering and drift, while the problems and the challenges got worse and worse and worse.

Housing is a top priority for this Government. We are ambitious for this great country of ours, and we make no apology for that. We are going to take immediate action to address the homelessness crisis. As housing and urban development Minister, I do not want to be here in six months’ time telling the House that we’re spending $90,000 a day on motels. That was not a housing policy; that was an apology note to the nation for those members’ total failure to do anything meaningful about the housing crisis.

We will tackle the systemic problems in the housing crisis, we will stop the sell-off of State houses, and we will pull all the stops out to provide decent emergency and transitional housing for the 40,000-odd New Zealanders who find themselves homeless today. We campaigned on it. The New Zealand First Party, the Green Party, and the Labour Party are all opposed to the former National Government’s sell-off—the bulk sell-off—of State houses in the middle of a housing crisis. We campaigned on it, and in Government we are going to deliver that. And not only are we going to stop the sell-off; we are going to build thousands and thousands of extra State houses.

Our KiwiBuild programme is our flagship initiative to address the falling rate of homeownership, which under the past Government saw the rate of homeownership drop to the lowest point since 1951. This side of the House believes that homeownership is something that’s worth defending. It is not acceptable for half of the population to be denied the opportunity through their lives to build an asset that would allow them to borrow against it to start up a small business, to give their families the permanence, the independence, and the dignity of owning their own home and the stability to raise a family—to know that you’re doing the best you can for your children to give them the start in life that they deserve.

When housing goes wrong, as it did woefully and dramatically under the last Government, everything else goes wrong with health and education. When families are denied the stability that they need—when families are living in the rental market because they cannot afford to get a deposit together because they can’t keep up with rising prices, and they have to move out of that rental house every year and find somewhere else to live and move across town—what does that do for the education of those young people in that family? It is the seeds of social disaster.

We are not content with the tinkering and the dribble of housing that we have seen in the last few years, as this previous Government struggled to catch up with the problems that it had allowed to get so terribly out of control. We are going to change the game, and in the next 12 months we will legislate to establish an urban development authority that will cut through the red tape and drive forward with at-scale, master-planned, new communities; not the splattering of poorly designed and planned houses that we saw under the special housing areas of the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Like Hobsonville.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We want to see well-planned—yes, like Hobsonville. That was the brainchild of the Helen Clark Labour Government, and it’s the only decent housing development, apart from Waimahia, that we saw for nine years of the last Government. Hobsonville is a fantastic example. We will establish, as per the coalition agreement with our partners the New Zealand First Party in this Government, a housing commission to drive forward at-scale development and deliver the dream of affordable homeownership that young Kiwi families desperately need.

We acknowledge that there are terrible constraints of land and workforce, which is the legacy of the last nine years of this Government. We’ve inherited a crisis. We know that. We understand that. The first thing that jumped out at me from the briefing for the incoming Minister of Housing and Urban Development was that the shortfall of housing under that former Minister over there, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, has now got up to 45,000 houses in our biggest city—45,000. Is it any wonder that we see the worst overcrowding that this country has ever seen since the Great Depression? That is the legacy of the last National Government—worst overcrowding. A 45,000 shortfall—that’s why house prices have rocketed. They have rocketed to a million-dollar average in Auckland, and that is why homeownership rates have been on the slide so dramatically.

We know there are land constraints. That is why it is our policy to do the thing that the last National Government only ever talked about. We are going to genuinely free up the planning rules. Our policy is to get rid of the urban growth boundary and to usher in a smarter, better planning system that does long-range spatial planning that protects areas of special value. We’re going to do that—

Hon Judith Collins: With the Greens?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —not just talk about it for nine years. The Green Party voted for that policy twice in the last year, when the National Party voted against that policy. So I suggest to the member opposite that she go back and check the National Party’s policy on that, and ask her colleagues why they talked about it but never did a damned thing about it.

This party knows that as well as freeing up the planning rules, we are going to fix the broken system for infrastructure financing, and I want to acknowledge the tentative, belated efforts of the Hon Steven Joyce to set up a special purpose vehicle to try to find a new way of financing urban infrastructure. It’s just that having the Government write a cheque every six months is no serious fix for a broken infrastructure financing system. We need a pipeline of ready infrastructure finance. That is the task that we are going to grapple with in the coming months.

We’re also going to tackle the demand side factors that Government refused to even acknowledge were a problem for so long. We’re going to ban foreign buyers from buying existing homes in our first 100 days. We’re going to push the brightline test out to five years, just as Treasury advised the former Government that they should, and we are going to change the laws around negative gearing and the tax breaks for property investors that turbocharge property speculation. This Government is serious about fixing the housing crisis that we have inherited.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): May I congratulate you on your election to your new role, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, I think the public of New Zealand will be scratching their heads at the end of the first week of this new Parliament, because it has been, at most, an interesting start for the first week of the new Government. We had, of course, on Tuesday the absolute procedural muck-up, where they couldn’t even count—at all—on the first day. Then we had them going on television and trying to spin their way to the suggestion that they actually knew what was going on the entire time. I think that gave an early glimpse into the character of this Government: a bunch of, dare I say it, student politicians who are good at talking points but have nothing of substance behind them. That was on day one.

Then, on day two, we had the Speech from the Throne, and then we had a truly excellent speech from the Opposition leader, Bill English, who reminded the new Government of the benchmarks they were inheriting that they must do better than. Actually, they’ve got a problem, because the talking points won’t work when you’re in Government. You can’t survive on talking points. You have to actually measure up to the facts and the data and the statistics, which are presented not by the Opposition, not by the Government, but by the independent Public Service. And I saw the slumped shoulders of some of the senior members of the Government as Bill English read out the benchmarks that they will be measured against.

Then we had today. We started off with the Reserve Bank, in their Monetary Policy Statement, ever so politely pointing out—about 20 times through the document—that they had no idea what the new Government’s new fiscal and economic policy was. And it wasn’t just them, because they pointed out they’d taken what advice they had been able to get from Treasury, and Treasury therefore also had no idea what the new Government was doing or planning in fiscal and economic policy.

But that’s all right. We have reference points for what the new Government is planning. We have, for example, the Labour Party fiscal plan that was released prior to the election and was backed up not just vociferously but vehemently by the then spokesperson and now finance Minister of the Labour Government, who said that his numbers were correct, that his numbers were accurate, that his numbers were what the new Government would be measured on. He said, and I quote: they’re “robust … we stand by them despite the desperate and disingenuous digging from an”—apparently—“out-the-door Finance Minister, says [the] spokesperson Grant Robertson.” That’s what he said.

He also accused me—of my criticism being an affront to democracy. It was an affront to democracy that I criticised his numbers. And then, on the very first opportunity in question time this afternoon, there was an almost biblical denial of his own numbers—on day one of question time, when he was given the opportunity to back up his numbers, to repeat what he’d said prior to the election, which he had called, in terms of my criticism, an affront to democracy. So what was it today? If I was an affront to democracy for criticising his numbers, what was he doing standing in the House today refusing to stand by the numbers from his pre-election fiscal plan?

I’m sorry, but at the end of the first week the credibility of this Government—both the procedural muck-up and the way they tried to obscure it, and then secondly the brazen affront to democracy from the new finance Minister this afternoon, are an indication that this Government has no great character at all.

The important thing is it is not actually about me. It’s not about Grant Robertson. It’s not about Chris Hipkins. It’s about the people of New Zealand and where this Government plans to go. And the other thing we learnt from question time this afternoon was they have no idea where they’re going to go or how they plan to get there. They have a wish list from the Speech from the Throne of some 51 new spending commitments—51 new spending commitments in the Speech from the Throne. You know, you can make 51 new spending commitments sound pretty good. You can just read them out, as the Governor-General ably did, and they can sound OK, except in the backs of their minds most New Zealanders are sitting there thinking, “How do I pay for this?”—because they do have to pay. It is their money. It is their taxes that have to pay. So this is like the Christmas list for the Labour Party, and the public of New Zealand is sitting there going, “How do I pay for all this?” And we don’t know now, because the only guide we have from the Labour Party has now been denied by the new finance Minister.

It is now more than two weeks since the coalition agreement between the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party was signed and released, and we have had no—absolutely no—indication of the costs of that agreement. The Minister of Finance has been invited to release the costings that undoubtedly they did before signing up to this agreement, and that should be very straightforward. He said to the television station, in the interview, which I think was with The Nation, “I can’t do that, because I didn’t have access to the public sector. I need access to the public sector.” Only he did, because in the coalition negotiations all parties had access to the public sector, all parties had access to Treasury, all parties had the ability to have their policies properly costed. So we are left with the potential conclusion that they didn’t get them costed—they didn’t get their policies costed. No wonder the Reserve Bank, in their ever so polite way this morning, is saying, “We have no idea what’s going on in terms of spending plans for this new Government.” That wouldn’t be such a big deal, except that we’re already starting to see how this uncertainty plays out.

There’s a small example of it that’s just occurred over the last week, and that is the increase in petrol prices. Petrol prices have gone up 9c a litre over the last week. Two reasons: one, world oil prices—not much we can do about those. But the other one is the 5 percent decline in the New Zealand dollar that has occurred since this Government was put together—just under 5 percent decline in the New Zealand dollar.

We had, this afternoon, the Minister for Primary Industries saying that’s a good thing, which it is if you’re an exporter. But if you are a consumer, if you are a New Zealand family working hard to make ends meet, what it is is an early sign that this Government will make you chase your tail—that this Government will be out front like Father Christmas, handing out the goodies, and in the meantime, out the back, putting up the cost of living so all the goodies go back in their pocket. That’s what’s going to happen. That’s where we’re heading because of this bunch of student politicians that are now running New Zealand’s Government with their talking points and very little else—very little else.

So Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will be very focused on holding this Government to account—not because we need to, not because it’s our job, but because the public of New Zealand are relying on us to, because the public of New Zealand will want the economic growth, the economic opportunities, to continue and they don’t want these people to muck it up. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Might I congratulate you on your appointment, and it’s a delight to have you in this role.

I don’t want to embarrass my colleague the Hon Steven Joyce, but I think I will just this once—well, actually, quite often really. Just this once. He won’t ask for it because he’s such a humble man, but I’m going to ask for it: he needs an apology from the Hon Grant Robertson. He needs an apology for the disgraceful way that he was castigated during the election campaign over the $11.7 billion fiscal hole. And what we found today from Grant Robertson, the new Minister of Finance—I’m trying not to laugh as I say that; I’m trying to actually give him that due—is that he doesn’t even know what all these promises are going to cost. In fact, how could he say to Steven Joyce, “This $11.7 billion hole is not correct, it’s all been costed and it’s all right”—utter rubbish. It’s probably going to be even more.

From the Speech from the Throne just the other day—I was listening to it, and I thought, “I don’t think there’s been one of those, with that degree of hopefulness, of promises—with no money for it, all those promises—since 1972”, and we all know what happened to that Government. It’s really important that when you’re going to make these promises on the election trail, when you come to ask the Speech from the Throne from the Governor-General to make huge promises on behalf of a new Government, that there is actually some possibility of being able to deliver on them. Instead, what we’ve seen today in the House in question time, and yesterday, and the day before, is an utterly incompetent group of people who are Ministers in a Government that should not be there. That’s what we’ve seen.

These people have been in the role for three weeks. They’ve had the best help from the best Public Service that I have seen—the very best people, who have been trying to help them to understand even the most basic parts of their job. Could we get an answer today from the Government that made sense? No, we could not. What we heard was, “Oh, we’ll come back to you when we’ve done a costing. Oh, we’ll come back to you when we’ve worked out what we’re going to do. Oh, I can’t remember what I said four years ago when I was saying we should have an East-West link—and now suddenly I don’t want it.”

That’s the sort of response we got from an incompetent Government, and they’re not going to have much time to get better, because we are going to hold this Government to account. We are going to ask why it is that we have political questions and attack points from the so-called Green Party all about talking about themselves and using a Government department as one of their advocates, rather than allowing them to be a public service, after all. That’s what we’re going to be doing.

So when we go back to what this new Government has inherited, they have inherited something that a National-led Government has never had the opportunity to inherit, and that is actually a sound set of books; a country that is going places—upwards, not down—a country where people want to come and live; a country with the lowest unemployment rate of any of our competitor countries; a country that actually took kids who were failing and helped to secure for them a future. What we’ve seen today is the petty nastiness of a Government that wants to take away from little kids who have been failed in the standard, mainstream education system—to take away from them a chance of a better life, because it doesn’t suit the unions’ ideology. That’s what we’ve seen. It has been an absolute disgrace to see that today. We’ve had a Government whose Ministers have been happy to go out and to say that they’re going to wipe out these contracts, that they’re going to ignore the law—which, by the way, is the law of New Zealand. They’re going to do all of that, and the kids who are going to have failed because of that, they’re the kids who are the most vulnerable.

I’ve got a partnership school in my electorate, and I am proud of the fact that there are people who are willing and able to help kids who in the mainstream system will simply fail, and they’ll fail because of all sorts of situations. But quite often, if those kids are not allowed to succeed, they will not only have a failure of an education but they will have a failure of a life, and so will their children and grandchildren. And to see today the nasty little pettiness—and did we hear anything from the Speech from the Throne yesterday about these poor little kids? Oh yeah, we did—that we’re going to close down the schools that will help them. That’s what we heard.

What a nasty, petty Government to do that. There are no children more worthy of our help as a country and, by the way, for taxpayers to help fund than these kids, because their success actually means generations of success for families. Any of those of us who’ve had anything to do with working in or dealing with the justice sector, the prison service, all of these areas, and even in our electorate offices, we see families where there is intergenerational failure—failure in terms of education, failure in terms of keeping to the law, failure in terms of addiction, all sorts of problems, family violence; all the way through.

This new, brave Government that’s going to be relentlessly positive for New Zealand has done nothing for those kids other than to make their lives more difficult. Let’s spare a thought for the parents of those children. Let’s just spare a thought for them. So they’ve got good parents trying to do their best—a child with difficulties, a child who cannot function in the mainstream system, because kids are not all born the same. That’s something that you only really learn as a parent. Almost nothing prepares you for parenthood other than parenthood—nothing.

I hate hearing people who have never had to deal with a situation where a child is being bullied, is having difficulties because of teacher—

Darroch Ball: Oh come on, Judith. You’re talking rubbish.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I know Darroch Ball thinks that’s funny, but I actually don’t think that’s funny. I think that people like Darroch Ball, who come down to the House and who think that they’re going to shout out and tell us, over here—that they don’t care. Well, I don’t care about people like Darroch Ball, because people like him, people like Darroch Ball, they think more government is the answer to everything. Actually, for those kids, they just need the help, they need the funding, they need people who care, and they don’t need experts like Darroch Ball. If the expert is Darroch Ball, I’d rather have the amateur any day.

Actually, when I think about this particular Speech from the Throne, what did we hear? Well, we’re going to have 100,000 new houses built by this new Government in 10 years. Well, on my counting that’s 10,000 houses every year, and by the way, I’ve started counting. So with three weeks in, I hope they’re doing some foundation work. I wonder who’s doing it for them. Isn’t it funny how Governments, like a Labour-led Government, like to claim credit for the private sector, the developers, the people who actually take the risks in life, the people who mortgage their own properties just so that they can actually get a development going, get a subdivision going—the people who take the risks; the people who, by the way, pay the interest rates to the bank—that’s how they do it.

Unless Mr Twyford is going to set up a great big little building company, which is going to be, what? “Kiwi Building Housing”—whatever. It will have to be a Kiwi thing because they can’t use the words “New Zealand”, because apparently they don’t like that, but it’s the “Kiwi Building Housing Company” that is going to be out, building 10,000 new houses a year. Well, it’s a jolly good thing for Mr Twyford and his Government that we have left from Government a situation where there has been job creation of 10,000 jobs a month, with 56,000 jobs created in the last three months. It’s such a good thing that the outgoing National-led Government has left enough money not only in the kitty but actually in people’s pockets so that they can actually do something for themselves. They’re not going to be hanging around, waiting for Mr Twyford, because the developers have been working for some years. They’re working very hard, taking a lot of risks, and the one thing that’s the big risk that they didn’t want was a Labour-led Government.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this next call is a split call. I call Jan Logie. I will give you a warning bell at one minute.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Kia ora. E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare ngā mihi o te wā ki a koutou katoa.

[Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you, and acknowledgments of the moment to you all throughout the House.]

To start, I’d like to offer my congratulations too to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a woman in the Chair and it’s really lovely to see, so my congratulations to you.

The sun is shining and the babies seem to be content and this House has already been changing the way that we do things, and I do want to acknowledge the images that are taking over my social media thread—at least of the Speaker last night in the House holding a baby in his arms, as the baby’s mum spoke in this House. That symbolism of that moment and how much it meant for so many mothers trying to juggle work and life and their commitment to their family, I think it really did show the hope of how, when we support each other, so much more is possible and how much—you know, it was just a beautiful moment, and I hope for everyone to have beautiful moments like that through their workplaces.

So here we are, after a pretty rough election campaign, into a new Government and some new hope. Last night, I was in my electorate, in Porirua East, around where I live—

Hon David Bennett: You haven’t got an electorate. What’s the name of your electorate?

JAN LOGIE: The electorate I live in. I was talking to some local people, and they were talking about concerns around the rising cost of housing, the fact that when they visit some families in the community and take the temperature of the house, that it’s been down to 9 degrees at times—colder inside the house than outside, because the quality of those State houses in that place is so bad. It’s the same with the private rentals. And how they’re working with children in early childhood and supporting the families, and the families are struggling to put food on the table for their kids. And then they are worried for the future of those babies. And I’ve got to say it was quite a grim conversation, and then there was a moment when we looked at each other and we suddenly thought, “Oh, there’s been a change of Government. Actually, it’s not necessarily going to be like this for ever.”—that actually we now have a Government that is committed to changing those things, that is actually, totally committed to making sure that our families and our communities have enough to thrive.

I’ve heard the speeches so far today—and some of the questions in the House from that side of the House—and it’s all about the dollars. And I understand you have to pay for things, but it certainly reminds me of that quote from Oscar Wilde of the definition, I think, of a cynic: the person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. That, to me, speaks to the hollowness of the world view of that side of the House and the difference for us on this side. We listen to people when they tell us they don’t have enough and that they are getting sick because their houses are making them sick, and we will do something to change that. So I am so proud to be on this side of the House in this—part of supporting a progressive Government.

I do just want to touch on some of the sense of also acknowledging that we need to ensure that our families have enough, and we also need to ensure that our communities have the resources to be able to bring people together and to deal with the issues that have come in front of them, and that we are going to have to spend more money. It’s true. We have our domestic violence organisations and our sexual violence organisations with waiting lists that are closing their books in some places—the staff being stretched and worried that their practice is compromised and not able to support people. So I look forward in this new Government to making a difference for our people and our communities.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): It pleases me no end to be able to stand up and say “Madam Chair”. Thank you so much for stepping into this role. You honour us all in our country. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This is my first speech in this, the 52nd Parliament, and I rise with hope, with my colleague Jan Logie and all of the Greens and our Government. I rise especially with a huge sense of responsibility; an acute awareness of the responsibility that we all have now to restore some of the dignity to the people, the rivers, and the progressive values that were eroded over nine years of the former National Government. I’m aware that working together we will do this—we will do this. We have a clear plan and we have had those visions for some time now.

I have a particularly huge sense of responsibility to continue to drive the kaupapa Māori political aspirations that the Greens have always shared and have always supported tangata whenua and iwi with. We want to both work with our Labour and New Zealand First colleagues and also keep pushing and holding to account, gently, our Government colleagues when we know that the Greens have got some specific plans that we need to keep pushing on.

I am so proud to see Te Reo in schools make it on our agenda—make it on our Government agenda. The Greens are incredibly proud that we have put that on the party political agenda, and certainly on the campaign political agenda, to support the work that has happened for many years to ensure that all our tamariki universally have access to Te Reo in schools. I was proud on Sunday just gone, Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker. See, we’re going to get there—we’re going to get there. I was proud to announce that I will launch and put back into the members’ biscuit tin the bill to initiate a day for Parihaka—Te Rā o Parihaka Bill. This is about claiming the injustices of our country but also celebrating the incredible commitment, the solidarity with the Parihaka descendants and community, to nonviolence in the face of Crown acts of repression and aggression.

I am really looking forward to working with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, Minister Nanaia Mahuta, on things like wahakura, where for such a reasonable cost we can make sure that we say to every tamariki who arrives to us: we welcome you. We welcome you wahakura, a woven baby pod that will also play a massive role in awesome regional economic development for weaving and for organisations who are already trying to provide these pods for us. I will keep pushing for Māori wards. The bill that was drawn just this year was voted down, but I know I will keep speaking for the establishment of Māori wards.

I congratulate Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei and Ngārimu Blair for their opposition to the East-West Link, which I am proud that the Greens oppose and which I am proud that this Government has done away with. It was hella expensive. We can do better. I’m really proud that we stood up to that.

I am particularly proud of where we are going in this Government. Seeing Uncle Mr Speaker in the House last night with the beautiful baby Heeni and seeing our breastfeeding mamas and our babies in the House was about understanding that this House is supposed to be a House of Representatives. It is supposed to reflect our community and our society in all parts of it, and it is also understanding that, absolutely, we can make and will make essential decisions because we are reflective of who we are as a country.

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak. We are heading in the direction where our families, our rivers, and our progressive values have a strong voice, and the Green Party in particular will continue to advocate for an understanding that realises that our social, our economic, our cultural, and our environmental well-being all depend on each, all are connected to each other, and are reliant on each other. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Firstly, can I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as Deputy Speaker in the role that you will bring to the House, and also join with other members in congratulating the new Speaker.

Mr Speaker has actually been one of the most partisan members of the House. He’s actually pushed the boundaries hard, in even going after members’ families. He’s a member that has the unusual reputation of even having been involved in fisticuffs in the lobbies, and actually has the worst record of any member in being asked to leave the House. His challenge is to change his leopard spots—to turn from being the poacher to being the gamekeeper. It does matter, because this institution sits at the heart of our democracy. I will acknowledge that today’s opening ruling from the Speaker, actually, in my view, gives a signal that he’s prepared to make that change, and he will need to.

The first point I want to make in this first speech of the 52nd Parliament in the Address in Reply debate is, while the Government is lawful, what has taken place in this Parliament is exceptional and unusual, and we are going to hold the Government to account because, actually, it does not have a mandate for its policies, and I want to put this case.

This Parliament is one of the longest in the world for its continuous running of our democracy. But this, the 52nd Parliament, is the very first in which the party that got the most votes, the party that won the most seats, is not the governing party. In those previous 51 parliaments, actually who gets the most votes and the most seats counts. There is one exception in that 150-odd year history of this Parliament: in 1911, the largest party was not the Government, but I would point out that it got 34 percent of the vote, not 44.5 percent of the vote, emphasising how unusual the make-up of the Parliament that we have is. And it is not just unusual for our own Parliament; it is actually very unusual internationally.

I put a challenge to members opposite: there are 60 parliaments in the world that are elected by proportional representation. Most of those parliaments have existed post World War II. There is not a single case anywhere in the world in which a party has secured more that 40 percent of the vote and is not in the Government. I will just tell the members opposite: tell me a country in the world where the party that has secured over 40 percent of the vote is not in the Government. The members opposite are silent.

Hon Member: So what?

Clayton Mitchell: Do you understand democracy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member interjects, “What does it matter?” I tell you why it matters. Because what people vote in a democracy matters, and one of the reasons we will be particularly holding New Zealand First to account is that they are responsible for that very unusual outcome.

I also want to remind New Zealand First members of this piece of history: in 2005 the National Party secured 1 percent of the vote less than the Labour Party. We secured 48 seats at that election; Labour secured 50 seats. The New Zealand First Party said they had no choice but to go with the Labour Party in forming the Government in 2005 because they had to “respect the will of the people”. They had to respect the will of the people. So I am challenging New Zealand First to say what has changed.

I also want to say that the Government has a very confused mandate. I’d seek some clarification for the Government as to just what is the mandate that this Government has. Can I take an important issue like defence policy. The New Zealand First policy was that—

Hon Phil Twyford: Do the maths, Nick.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let’s do some maths. Let’s do some maths, Phil. The New Zealand First policy was that we do grossly underspend on defence and we need to spend a lot more and we need to double the budget. The Green Party’s policy was that we spend too much on defence and we need to reduce it to just a peacekeeping force. Which policy is the policy of the Government, I ask?

Take the important area of foreign affairs, for which we now have a Minister. The New Zealand First policy is that, with respect, the previous Government’s policy was not sympathetic enough to Israel, yet the Green Party’s view is exactly the opposite: it is not sympathetic enough to Palestine. I ask the Government: what is their policy? The Government does not have a mandate, because it is a confused mandate.

I take an area that is strong for me, around issues of water quality. New Zealand First organised public meetings in places like the Waikato, and like Southland and Canterbury, and it said the new Government’s water quality policy is so tough it’s going to drive farmers off the land and it is far too tough. And we had the Labour and Green parties campaigning simultaneously, saying, “No, it wasn’t too hard; it was too soft.” And again, we have a confused mandate from this Government.

I take a really crucial area like tax. The New Zealand First Party—I have their policy in front of me—campaigned on less tax. They wanted the company tax reduced. They wanted GST reduced on key items. Parties opposite, also part of the Government, argued for more tax. And so, on such a fundamental issue, this Government does not have a mandate for its policy.

I remind New Zealand First: their policy is to change the law with respect to the smacking of children. They opposed that area of policy. The Green Party has exactly the opposite policy on a crucial issue around children. And again, I say there is a confused mandate.

I take an important issue, an issue like the Treaty and Māori relations. We have just heard a speech from the Green Party saying that they want to have separate local representation for Māori. Do the New Zealand First members opposite support that policy? They are awfully silent, because they campaigned on exactly the opposite: that we needed to get rid of any special provisions for Māori in local government or other places, re-emphasising the confused and muddled mandate that we have from members opposite.

We’ve also seen in this very first week of the House the reason that we need to actually ensure numeracy is taught in schools. Firstly, we had the debacle on Tuesday in respect of not being able to count the numbers in the Parliament. But far more serious was the issue exposed by Steven Joyce this afternoon, where, in the very first question time, Labour is refusing to stand by their numbers in respect of expenditure by this Government. In the closing stages of the election campaign, one of the most important and debated issues was whether Labour stood by their numbers, and what we know today, in the very first question time, is that they no longer stand by their fiscal numbers.

I want to finish with a few key numbers that I want members opposite to remember. Let’s take the issue of employment, because if we’re serious about the issues of poverty, actually jobs are critical. And what we know is that in the last year, 10,000 more New Zealanders got a job every single month. In my area, I would say to Mr Jones, a region unemployment was 2.2 percent at the change of Government—2.2 percent. That’s the lowest it’s been in my 27 years as a member of Parliament for that community.

Hon Andrew Little: Why’ve we got the lowest wages? Why the lowest wages?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to Andrew Little and others opposite: we will be holding you to account around those job numbers.

Let’s look at incomes—incomes going up at twice the rate of inflation. Let’s look at the issue in terms of houses: 31,000 houses per year are being built. Every year for the last six years, the number of houses being built has gone up by an extra 10 percent, every single year. This Government has a confused mandate and we will be holding it to account.

Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Early in the speech from the Nelson member, there were a number of gratuitous and unwise things that traduce the reputation of Mr Mallard. I’m disappointed that you chose not to intervene. Can you just give some clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to how far a speaker can go in maligning the history of the reputation of Mr Mallard.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fact, the member is quite correct, and I should have—in fact, I did query whether this was a wide-ranging debate, because the member to my left did go on for quite some time. However, I don’t know that any of it was necessarily untrue, and I didn’t take action.

Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, ngā mihi ki a koe i roto i tēnei whakaaranga ōu, kia noho hei Māngai mō Te Whare.

[Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulations to you on this elevation of yours to sit as a Speaker for the House.]

Greetings, Madam Deputy Speaker, a senior member, not unlike myself, from a province; I acknowledge you and thank you for those words of clarification.

There are seven stages of grief. We have witnessed that from a member currently holding, by the narrowest of margins, the seat of Nelson. What we’ve got is a mixture of shock and denial. Now, as a consequence of the member, correctly holding his seat—but now he’s in denial because he occupies the desert known as “Opposition”. The speech reflects an unwillingness or a denial for what is a system relied upon to elect a Government in New Zealand. Now, he may deny that he enjoys his current position, but he cannot deny the veracity in the existence of the law that enables this Government to be formed. So I accept that there’s still the element of shock.

I also know that soon we’ll witness in that member the expression of guilt, and that guilt will evince itself with bouts of anger that they should never have run a campaign saying “Get rid of the middle men.” There was always going to be a cost for that assertion. I will not talk about matters that will require substantial legal fees on that side of the House, because it’s not parliamentary to talk about High Court cases. But, in that case, guilt will start to consume the architects of the election campaign on that side of the House, which has caused them to occupy the space where they are.

Of course, beyond that, the next stage of guilt is often called bargaining. Now, a great bargain is going to take place between my old competent Judith Collins, “Slim Shady”—in the form of Mr Joyce—and—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member, but, please, no descriptions; can we just have the names of the members.

Hon SHANE JONES: I apologise. The architects of the campaign—so the grand bargain, as a part of the grief process, will take place as to how do they get rid of the people that caused them to end up in Opposition. The bargaining has to happen amongst themselves, but rest assured, every week that goes by, we will endeavour to pour petrol on that fire. It will grow as they learn about the loneliness, the irrelevance, and, bit by bit, the public indifference, which will just reveal to them how actually lonely they are.

Loneliness is the next stage of grief: loneliness and reflection. The former Minister, the member for Nelson, has never been reflective about a single thing in this House. And I can’t speak for erstwhile colleagues from Labour, but I have no doubt in my mind that the notion of utu and karma, which they think about from time to time, rests upon the head of that member.

Now, after the bleakness of depression and loneliness, there’s an upward turn. The upward turn is sitting on that side of the front bench. Judith Collins is awaiting her opportunity to serve utu upon the people who deprecated her while she was a loyal Minister in the last Government—incredibly hard-working, loyal to the kaupapa, but, unfortunately, written off. Rest assured, that upward shift is happening, as members who have had their day, like the member for Nelson, disappear down the shaft of political obscurity.

Now, after that in the process of grief comes reconstruction. Now, naturally, I’m the Minister for Infrastructure, but I’ll talk about that another time. Reconstruction is when you try and reinvent yourself, as that side of the House must do, in order to capture enough Kiwis to govern again. You cannot run a campaign to get rid of the middleman, you cannot make the Māoris extinct—OK, you can keep the equivalent of the SPCA in Epsom, one single canine running around, occasionally waiting for a rub, but that’s not good enough to form a Government. That’s not good enough to create a majority in the House. So in the process of reconstruction, not only do they need to freshen up their message but they need to move away from the ugly, cruel, unwise—I have to say—types of memes that they ran through their campaign.

That will be incredibly important for the people that they purport to represent, because, let me tell you, from Foveaux Strait, Spirits Bay, Tai Rāwhiti, Te Tai Hauāuru, I can assure you: your leaders in your own community are knocking on the billion-dollar Minister’s door. Naturally, we will treat them as ordinary, fair Kiwi representatives—something that that side of the House chose not to do where my leader was concerned. There’s a cost for that, folks. You can’t run tawdry, slimy, duplicitous comments and campaigns like that without having to bear the burden of the costs. That cost is three years of obscurity.

Now, of course, the final element of the actual grief process is hope, and the Bible talks about three taonga, and Corinthians talks about faith, hope, and aroha. Well, a small part of me does have aroha for where you find yourselves, but as you did to others, so it will be done unto you—ka pai. Secondly, it is necessary for us to have faith—have faith in the land of the law, Mr Smith, which enables New Zealanders to vote and cause this type of innovative Government to rule the country for three years. Trust and have faith in the law that in your time you helped pass. Of course, the final element of hope is that without change it’s an empty—it’s a barren sensation, and at the moment there is no evidence that their hopes will be realised. We will watch the different stages of grief, along with New Zealanders, as this side of the House gets going, with appropriate levels of humility, to run the country.

Now, given that we’ve been talking about the member for Nelson, he has encouraged me to come to his region. I look forward to coming to his region, if only to remind him: don’t ever try to destroy the Treaty of Waitangi rights of the indigenous people by imposing upon them in secret the Kermadecs reserve. Don’t ever try that again. That not only humiliated John Key—humiliated John Key—while he wandered off into an international forum, it not only isolated the hard-working and reputable then Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, but this man got going on a silent agenda that only he could hear in his head, an agenda that has been rejected by so many New Zealanders. He leads those who are still in a wicked place of grief—true. I say to you: not only will we have the billion-dollar fund but we will plant the trees to pay for the $32 billion deficit that that Minister, that environment Minister of the past, has left with New Zealand.

Upon agreeing with the Paris Agreement, New Zealand, and as a consequence of doing absolutely nothing to reduce our carbon deficit—that bill is now up to $32 billion, and it must be paid by 2030. Only through us planting trees, only through us bringing the agricultural sector so that they own the full cost of the privileges they enjoy to make money within our environment, will we all as Kiwis make a meaningful contribution. I say it again: $32 billion of a deficit that has to be paid as a consequence of his dilatory approach in relation to climate change.

So we will plant trees. We will plant native trees. We will plant exotic trees. We will plant in such a way that the young people see it as an acorn that they can grow and be proud of their contributions to get rid of the excesses of climate change. Number two: we will work with local government. Number three: we will work with iwi. Number four: we will also find spaces within the State-owned enterprise estate to ensure that all sectors of Government work with the Ministers to ensure that our contribution, in a very practical way, reduces the $32 billion deficit. Kia ora tātou katoa.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā koe e te uri o Te Awa Tupu. [Greetings to you, the relative of the sacred River.]

JO HAYES (National): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I just want to congratulate you for your new position as Assistant Speaker. I also want to extend my congratulations to your other presiding officers as well. So well done, Adrian, well done. Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker, for allowing me to stand up and take this call.

I just want to say that the previous speaker, Shane Jones—I think he had all blow and, really, no go in his speech. He talked about planting trees. He talked about planting exotic trees, and he talked about planting native trees. Timber trees—where are our timber trees that we will be able to build houses with? He never really touched on those kinds of trees. Some exotic trees you can’t use, and some native trees you cannot use to do that, because there will be a moratorium on native trees.

When I hear the member as he talks about sitting on this side, actually, and he talks about Māori and extinction of Māori on this side of the House. Well, that’s not what happened. We know that over 56 Treaty claims were actually resolved under the previous Government. We know that we worked very hard with the Hon Chris Finlayson to do that work, because Māori needed to have the opportunity to grow their own economic development. It’s the work that we have done on this side that is actually preparing them for future economic development for all their mokopuna mai rā nō. And I am sure that the people of the Whanganui Awa will benefit from this as well, the work that we’ve done for Te Awa Tupua, in recognising—and it was a landmark piece of legislation—the awa as a person.

So when I stand here and I listen to all the rhetoric from across the way over there from the Government Ministers, I start to think, you know, let’s have a look at Mr Twyford’s housing. He wants to have these KiwiBuilds. He wants to have all of these KiwiBuilds, yet he tends to forget that it was this Government that actually built more houses than what any Labour Government had ever built in their history. Social housing’s been upgraded—the Housing New Zealand homes. We have amazing social houses in Christchurch, in Christchurch East, and now, with this push to have 100,000 homes per year, the people of New Brighton, the guardians of Rāwhiti Domain and the rest of the people of New Brighton are now fearing that the Government will take their domain away and put houses on it. This is not what the people of Christchurch East, of Rāwhiti, and of New Brighton want, and we will fight it every single way to stop any kind of housing going on the Rāwhiti Domain. That’s how it is. It is our Hagley Park of the east. It is nobody else’s, and no Government, no council, has a right to put a house on there.

I attended a meeting just recently of a number of people. It was one of the biggest meetings that they had had. It was a community meeting about this issue, and one of the things they were very clear about, and they did pass that on to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Minister Megan Woods—they did pass on their fear that they would lose this battle to retain their Rāwhiti Domain.

So when I start to look at all the promises that come from the Government, and I look at the way that this side of the House has actually set up this Government—we’ve set them up. We have increased the average wage by $13,000 from $46,000. That’s nearly $60,000, the average wage that people get in their pockets. That’s a really good set up to help people to actually be able to live comfortably in their lifestyles, the way that they choose.

I also look at the family packages—$1,350 per annum for people; 3.1 million people would have got that under National, had National been the Government. This side over there—the Labour Government—is going to wipe that out. They’re wiping out all tax regimes that would actually help low to medium income earners get a foot up and start to actually live the life that they want.

I look at the health packages that this side of the House, this National Party, actually put in place for free GP services to those under the age of 13. That’s GP services and prescriptions. That’s when I start to look at that; this is what this side of the House did. For the first time in 40 years, it was this side of the House that increased benefits. The Labour Government has never done that. They have never, ever done that for beneficiaries at all. It has never, ever, been a piece of legislation that the Labour Government has ever done.

They say that they are the Government of the people. They are not the Government of the people; they are the Government of their own selves—of themselves. That’s who they are. They don’t give a toss about the people out there; I can tell you that now. They only want to worry about themselves. They only want to think that they are doing great things, when we all know that they’re not doing anything for the people out there. And so, when I look across there and I see New Zealand First over there and I see the Greens over there, I see the Greens say something and I look across at New Zealand First and your smile goes down. It goes down.

Then we had last night the paid parental leave—the bill that came in—the first and second readings. Then I look at that and I look at what this side of the House, this National Party, actually talked about: our new paid parental leave from 18 to 22 weeks. It was done within economic and fiscal boundaries, so people could afford it. The risk of having paid parental leave jump up to 26 weeks by 2020 will actually, may actually, put jobs at risk. It could actually put jobs at risk.

One of the areas of that paid parental leave on this side of the House that I want the Labour-led Government to actually think about is around the flexibility part of the package that we had. The flexibility part—the first part was about having both mum and dad at home with the newborn, without dad taking annual leave to actually do that. I know, because my son had a baby on 22 August and he had to take annual leave to actually stay at home to help out his partner and their new baby. The second part of it is a free dental visit for pregnant women. Because we all know—well, actually, you men wouldn’t know across the other side—women that are pregnant, they do lose quite a lot of their calcium, and they do have issues with their teeth. So, therefore, part of the flexibility package was about giving women a free dental visit during their pregnancy.

Finally, to women and IVF treatments: at the moment they only get two free visits for treatment. We were offering a third free treatment, because we do care about children. We are about children. We want to see children live and thrive in this country. That’s why we have done so much around protecting the children under the change from Child, Youth and Family Service to the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki—whose name’s going to change. I would like to think that the basis of that ministry will stay the same. I want to see it stay the same because it did target young children that were most vulnerable and at most risk of abuse. You can sit over there and you can laugh about it, but those children—and you know as well as I know—they are Māori. They are Māori kids and we’ve got to look after them. That is our responsibility—all our of responsibility. That’s why I want to see the whole infrastructure of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children—or for Children, however they want to put it—stay the same with the purpose of having the young people sitting at governance level, helping to make decisions, helping with decisions, and helping to actually recruit staff, so it’s actually focused on them.

So without any further ado, I see the clock is actually ticking down, and I know Fletcher wants me to carry on, but, buddy, hey—you know?

Fletcher Tabuteau: You’ve got a minute—carry on!

JO HAYES: I hear what you’re saying: I’m pretty good, I know that, and I know you love hearing my wonderful voice floating over to you.

Anyway, I just want to close off. We heard the Prime Minister talk about intentions, and all I can say about intentions—and, most probably, good intentions is where she was coming from—is there is one saying about good intentions, and that is: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hon Members: Whoo!

JO HAYES: Whoo! Yeah. So, let’s have a look and see what these intentions are going to do. They’re nothing. They don’t do anything. There is no action in behind that. We are going to see an interesting three years as to what’s going to actually happen, whether or not these people can actually deliver. I doubt they’ll be able to deliver. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Can I begin by congratulating you on your election as Assistant Speaker, and, indeed, congratulate the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard on his election as Speaker, the Hon Anne Tolley as Deputy Speaker, and Poto Williams as the other Assistant Speaker. I think it’s great that as the diversity of Parliament is now really starting to evolve—it’s great to see even in that small clutch of presiding officers the extent of diversity in your group, and I think it’s fantastic and it’s great to see you in the Chair, Mr Assistant Speaker.

I’d also like to congratulate my leader and the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, on the leadership that she has provided, the campaign that she ran, and her work in establishing a solid, stable, enduring relationship with our colleagues in New Zealand First and in the Green Party, to form what is a truly MMP Government in New Zealand at last. This is what MMP was about: voting blocs, parties coming together and forming that interesting mix—

David Seymour: Is that what you call it—an “interesting mix”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —of policies we have in common, and a real diverse representation of the views of New Zealand. I’m sorry there was no room for Mr Seymour, in spite of his celebration of past achievements of past Labour parties. I want to acknowledge the members opposite, and welcome the new MPs opposite too, and to say that amidst the histrionics, the theatrics, the slights, and the insults—and, of course, there won’t be many of those now, because Mr Mallard has ruled against them—the Opposition does have a vital role to play. We respect that, we understand it, we know it, and it is vital for a thriving democracy. If there’s one thing that we all come into this House to do, and a value with which we are all imbued, it is that sense of the robustness of our democracy, of the freedom of expression that every member gets to enjoy in this House. It is your role, it is our role, and we respect each and every part of it.

Of course, members opposite will know, whether through the adversarial exchanges in this House—either in question time or in the debates that we have, or, indeed, in the exchanges in select committees—or whether it’s the debates we have in the metaphorical town square, we might just find that there are some things that we agree on, and we should never hesitate to do that.

Can I welcome the new members on the Government side as well. I look particularly to the new Labour MPs, and what a rich well of talent we get to draw upon in this 52nd Parliament. I am very proud to be part of a party that has the level of diversity that it has: the number of new women MPs, Māori MPs, and members for whom New Zealand is the place that their families chose to come to live and settle here. Our caucus is richer for that, this Parliament is richer for that, and New Zealand is richer for that as well. We are a country that celebrates its diversity, and I celebrate that on this occasion as well. Slowly but surely, the rest of this Parliament will catch up.

The Speech from the Throne set out ambitious and challenging goals in housing; in health; in public safety and police, because we have a bit of work to do there; in the environment, because we have only one planet; and in building a truly productive economy, where wealth is generated and wealth is fairly shared. That is our goal. The Prime Minister yesterday, in her Address in Reply speech, made it clear what the Government’s priorities will be. They are about genuinely reducing child poverty, about building an education system for the future—for early childhood, for primary, for secondary, and for tertiary. There is transformation about to happen in education, and it won’t come a moment too soon.

Hon Tracey Martin: And adult and community.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Of course—and adult learners, too, as the Hon Tracey Martin has just reminded me. Of course, the other big challenge and goal we’ve set ourselves is to give first-home buyers a chance to restore that Kiwi dream of owning your own home. And why wouldn’t we, in this great country we call Aotearoa New Zealand?

There is a good reason why New Zealanders wanted change. The Hon Nick Smith can rail all he likes about mandates. The truth is, just like in his electorate, more people voted against that side of the House than for it. More people voted for this side of the House than against it. That’s why we have a mandate. That’s why we are the Government. New Zealanders wanted a change, because—see, here is the reality: we cannot claim to be a success as a nation when we have record homelessness in this country. That’s not a New Zealand value. That’s not a New Zealand way. We cannot claim success when 60 percent of wage and salary earners in the last 10 years have noticed that they have not got ahead, and in some cases have gone backwards. That’s not success. No matter what figures you trot out, that ain’t success.

We cannot claim to be a success when 290,000 children live in poverty. We cannot claim success when our health system is left struggling to provide basic healthcare for many New Zealanders. That’s not success, and New Zealanders had enough and they wanted change—and they’re going to get it. We cannot claim success when the regions are struggling and when job growth numbers—as the Hon Nick Smith talked about; he was very proud of those job growth numbers, but we can’t claim success when those numbers are based on a growing number of part-time, casual, short-term, temporary, low-paid jobs. That’s not success. That’s why we’re committed to genuine productivity growth, genuine productivity improvement through good investment, good technology, and good long-term jobs that pay well. I know members opposite are confused about what a good quality job looks like, because that was a question from the Hon Steven Joyce today. A good quality job is something that allows a person to live in decency and in dignity, because that’s the New Zealand way. We have big challenges.

In justice, we have a sharply increasing crime rate, a rapidly rising prison population, and we had a previous Government that continues to boast about its version of social investment, and I just lay this out for this House. They talk long and large—still—about social investment. They say, “Don’t take it away.” You see, their version of social investment was “Look, we can look at the numbers and we know where the hard problems are, and therefore where the money needs to go.” Nine years they had in Government, nine years they had running their version of social investment, looking at the numbers, seeing where the hard problems were. But what happened? For nine years they told us of social investment, but when it came to criminal justice, they even declared that prisons were a moral and fiscal failure. So in their nine years in Government, as the prison population steadily rose throughout that nine years, as the crime rate grew—certainly, serious crime grew in the last three or four years of that Government—what was the single biggest social investment they were prepared to make to fix those hard issues? One billion dollars and yet another prison—$300 million a year for yet another prison.

Hon Louise Upston: Well, just let them out, then. Unlock the doors. Let them out.

Hon Member: Labour’s open door policy.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: And the silly, mindless bleating from the members opposite who say, “Oh, let them all out.” They don’t have an answer. They don’t have an answer. They claim to be the authors of social investment to fix the big social problems we’ve got, but they don’t have a single answer. Eight years they had of tackling those problems, and they said a year ago, “We know what the answer is. We’ll build another prison. It’ll cost a billion dollars. We’ll spend a billion dollars on another prison, and we’ll spend $300 million a year locking these people up because we don’t care about the real problem.”

Well, that has to change, and it’s going to change because you’ve got brilliant people like the Hon Kelvin Davis, like Peeni Henare, like the Hon Tracey Martin, like Darroch Ball in New Zealand First, and like the members of the Green Party, who care about fixing the problem, and that’s what we’re going to do. Just as we have done for Teina Pora, it is time for justice for all New Zealanders. It is time to stop the growing crime rate that happened under that Government; time for New Zealanders to feel safe in their homes, in their streets, and their communities; time to do something for justice; time to do something better for New Zealand.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and let me congratulate you and your other presiding officers on your appointments. It is particularly good to see two new Assistant Speakers and also the Hon Anne Tolley as Deputy Speaker. I’d particularly like to congratulate the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard for his work as Speaker today. I think members on both sides can see that he is going to play this with a very fair and even hand with his new approach to question time.

I’d like to start by thanking the people of Ōhāriu. Once again, the voters in Ōhāriu have shown confidence in the National Party, and the National Party plan as being the right plan for them and for all of New Zealand. In 2014, when I had the good fortune to enter this Parliament for the first time, just a little under 19,000 people in Ōhāriu put their faith in National, and then, just a few weeks ago, again over 18,000 of our voters in Ōhāriu kept their faith in the National Party. It was a very interesting election in Ōhāriu in 2017. It was a campaign of two halves. The two halves shared one thing in common, and that was a party and a National candidate that understand that it’s the party vote that delivers the seats in the House and gives a party the best opportunity to form a Government.

But the second half of that campaign also gave the opportunity, for the first time in 21 years, for a National Party candidate to contest this seat, and I thank every voter—both National Party voters, but as the split votes show us, also voters from other parties—that put their confidence in me. Four and a half weeks is not an optimal length of time for a campaign, but I look forward to the next three years to win the confidence of those National Party voters and the other constituents of Ōhāriu. I think, as all members—electorate MPs and list MPs across the House—know, the best way of achieving that is by working hard in our communities and working hard for the members of our communities, irrespective of where their political affiliations may or may not lie.

But it is easy to see why the people in Ōhāriu have such a strong affinity to the National plan. The demographics in Ōhāriu show a very strong proportion of families with mortgages and high homeownership, in work, and with children—the sorts of people that need an economy to be performing well and continuing to grow; an economy that offers them their future prospects and the choices for the careers they need to make the choices that will help them and their families get ahead. They could see that in the National Party plan there was something that could deliver the future that they wanted. So I am sure along with all of us they watched or listened to the Speech from the Throne with some hope for that future. What they got was a whole lot of intentions and a great lack of any real plan. It was a speech that was rich in rhetoric and light in detail. No more was that evident than in the area of information and communications technology. This is an incredibly important industry, part of an even more important sector of our economy, for the hopes and prospects of New Zealanders, and it rated nary a mention in that entire speech. All it got was that apparently productivity is reliant on the use of technology. Well, there are no points awarded for saying that. It is one of the most obvious statements that anyone could make, but there was no detail and no plan as to what the Government thinks it might do to deliver that.

So let’s give some context as to how important this is. The technology sector, which includes ICT, is 8 percent of our economy—8 percent of our economy—and therefore a roughly proportionate percentage of our jobs and prospects are reliant on what a Government will do to support the sustainability and growth of that sector. And we heard nothing. Now if we look at ICT as a component of that, most recently—in only the last few weeks—the Technology Investment Network released their TIN200 report on technology exporters. It was actually fantastic news. For the first time ever our technology sector businesses have reported total global annual revenues of $10 billion—$10 billion.

Chris Bishop: How much?

BRETT HUDSON: Ten billion dollars. That’s a huge number of jobs and prospects for Kiwis, because that is fundamentally what those revenues mean. They’re not some abstract figure of dollars to be counted up by an accountant; they are jobs and incomes—$10 billion. And ICT delivered over 58 percent of the annual growth in that export business sector—58 percent. It is hugely important to the jobs and incomes of New Zealanders, and what did the Government have to say about it? Nothing—nothing. But apparently productivity is addressed through technology. Well, you know, how? What are you going to do? New Zealanders want to know. They actually want to know that the Government has a plan to support the growth in opportunity for them in that most important industry. There was nothing at all—nothing at all.

Well, there was not quite nothing—not quite nothing. There was something that was vaguely related. There was something vaguely related, although it wasn’t addressed specifically: the plan for the reinstatement of R & D tax credits will apparently also help ICT. There’s one small problem with that, and that is that under the last Labour Government the R & D tax credits were an abject failure, and they will be the same again. They were a failure, and will continue to be, because they crowd out investment. The Government should know—certainly the last Labour Government knew, because they had reports that showed them—that what would happen under the tax credits is simply that people would report work they were already undertaking as part of R & D. There was nothing really new to be created out of that.

What was worse was that firms used the definition of research and development that the then Labour-led Government took from the Australian Taxation Office or the Australian deployment, and that simply allowed businesses, particularly businesses using ICT, to redefine or repurpose upgrade activity as R & D. They were able to classify expenditure on upgrading systems and applications as R & D and claim a tax credit from the taxpayer. It was purely and simply a rort, and the closest that this Government has come to saying what they’re going to do that will help or affect the ICT industry is that they’re going to reinstate the regime that allows rorting of the taxpayer. The taxpayer can simply look forward to the same outcome.

Well, New Zealanders deserve better. They certainly deserve better in an industry that is so pervasive across the economy of New Zealand and the public sector. There should be a focus on how they are going to grow business optimisation; how they are going to grow the ability for businesses to act more effectively and more efficiently; how they are going to improve customer services, back-office business processes, and the way businesses connect with their suppliers and customers; how they are actually going to help use technology to create more opportunities, more jobs, more incomes; and how they are going to help the public sector deliver better public services to New Zealanders and change the machinery of government through technology. There was none of that at all—not a skerrick of it. It was an enormous disappointment.

What they did show us, though, was the difference between what the two main parties see as the role of Government. See, the Labour Government very clearly sees that the answer to every problem is more Government, and it shows in the way they take choices away from people, retain that financial resource in Government, and then dole it back out again, expecting people to be grateful for getting a little bit of their own money back. A good example is that when the Leader of the Opposition used an example about checkout operators and truck drivers paying for lawyers’ and accountants’ university training, the Prime Minister said, “Well, maybe those checkout operators have got children that they would like to go to university.” Well, if they weren’t going to cancel their tax relief, they’d be able to afford to do that.

But instead what they do is they’ll take the money from them, dish a little bit back, and then demand that the recipients are grateful for that. Well, it’s no way to run a Government. It’s certainly no way to run a country. It’s going to lead simply to a dependency on the State, which is actually what their ethos of government is all about. I think New Zealanders are going to wake up to this really quickly.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe Te Māngai o Te Whare. Hoi anō, ka ū tonu ahau ki Te Reo Māori, hei whakaohooho ake i te wairua o tērā taha o Te Whare, kia rongo anā rātou i te mamae i pākino nei ki a tāua Te Māori, ki roto i ngā tau e iwa kua pahure ake nei. Kāti, tuatahi, e tautoko atu ana i ngā tangi mōteatea ki a rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō. I nanahi rā i whāki mai Te Māngai o Te Whare i te ingoa o Rangi McGarvey, kua ngaro atu ki roto i ngā wiki tata ake nei. Ā, ka tautoko anō hoki i te tangi mōteatea ki tēra o ngā pāpā a Lewis Moeau i ngaro atu ki roto i te mārama kua pahure ake nei, ka tāpae atu ko tōku tupuna a Parehuia Kopa, i riro i ngā rangi taha ake nei. Rātou ki a rātou, ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou e Te Whare.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, ka tautoko atu ahau i ngā mihi kua ūtaina ki runga i a koe, koutou ko te kāhui Māngai o tēnei Whare, atu ki te ūpoko tae rawa atu ki a koe. Ā, e mihi atu ana ki a koe, koutou hoki, me ō koutou whānau ki roto i ngā āhuatanga o te wā. Ka tautoko anō hoki i ngā mihi ki tō tātou Pirimia hou. Ka kī atu ētahi, he kōtiro, ka kī atu ahau ki a rātou, he wahine māia. Kua rongo atu ahau i tana hiahia mō Aotearoa whānui ki roto i ngā tau e toru kei mua i a tātou, koinei ahau e tautoko atu ana. E tautoko atu ana ahau i ngā kōrero, ā, ka tukuna atu i ngā mihi ki Te Rohe Pōti o Tāmaki Makaurau, i whakaae mai kia tukuna atu, kia whakahoki atu ahau ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata, hei māngai mō Te Rohe Whānui o Tāmaki Makaurau, te rohe kua kitea i te pōharatanga, te rohe kua kitea i te kāinga koretanga, te rohe kua kitea i te kore mahitanga. Koia rā te mahere, arā, te perēne, kua kōrero mai rā ē tērā taha ki roto i ngā totohetanga i te rā nei.

Kāti, e hari koa ana tēnei Māori nō Te Tai Tokerau. E hia nei ngā Māori kua uru mai ki roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei wā. Ko te tini o ngā Māori ki roto i Te Kāhui Kāwanatanga, tēnei ka mihi. Ko te tini o ngā Māori kei roto i Te Kāwanatanga, arā, Te Rōpū Reipa kua uru mai ki roto i tēnei Whare, tēnei ka mihi. E whakahīhī ana! E whakahīhī ana me pērā, ka tika! Ēngari, ka mahara ake ahau i te tini o ngā Māori kua wehe atu, mai i tērā nohoanga o Te Whare Pāremata, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Ko tetahi anā, ko Te Hōnore, ko Te Ururoa Flavell, ko tētahi ko Marama Fox, ko tētahi atu ko Metiria Turei, ko tētahi atu ko David Clendon, arā, ko Pita Paraone, arā, ko Denise Roche, arā, ko Ria Bond. Ka kī atu ahau ki a rātou, kei konei tonu mātou e kawea ana i ngā ōhāki me ngā tūmanakotanga ō rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō. Ēngari, ka huri atu ahau ki ngā mema Māori hou kua uru mai, aini tata ake nei. Ka rongo Te Whare i te kōrero tuatahi o ngā wahine toa o Te Tai Tokerau, o Te Tairāwhiti hoki, arā, ko Willow-Jean Prime tērā, arā, ā, ko tōku tuahine a Kiritapu Allan tērā—e hari koa ana, e hari koa ana.

I te nohoanga o Te Whare Pāremata i ngā tau e toru kua pahure ake nei, ko au te mema o tēnei Whare, kua kaha kōrero nei i Te Reo Māori, ka pērā tonu, nā runga i te kōrero mai i Te Torouna o Te Kāwana Tianara ka kī atu, “Ko tetahi o ngā aronga o tēnei Kāwanatanga, ki tō tātou Reo Māori”. Me pēhea rā tātou e whakatauira ai i Te Reo Māori ki Te Motu whānui mehemea kīhei tēnei Whare e ū ana ki ngā ūara o Te Reo Māori ki te kōrero i Te Reo Māori. Kāti, tēnei ka mihi! Kāti te whakahīhī, me kāti te whakahīhī! I āianei nā i runga i te ngākau whakaiti, ka kōrero atu ahau mō ngā kōrero i puta mai i Te Pirimia ki roto i ngā rangi kua pahure ake nei.

Ā, kua kōrero mai Te Pirīmia mō te āhuatanga o te hunga taiohi. E tika ana ngā whakatauāki o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna, anā, ko te aronga o te hunga o nāianei, nā, mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna ki roto i ngā tau e tū nei. Mehemea e ū tonu ana tātou katoa ki tērā ūaratanga, ko te hiahia o tēnei Kāwanatanga, kia aro atu ngā mahi, ki ngā mahi e pā ana ki te hunga rangatahi, ki te hunga taiohi, ki te hunga tamariki, ko te hunga e noho ana ki raro i te pōharatanga, ko te hunga kua tūkinohia e Te Karauna ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei, e ngā tamariki e kai ana i ngā tarutaru me ngā mēa hē katoa o tēnei ao, kua hinga atu ki te pōharatanga ki roto i ngā tau. Koia rā tērā, ko te aronga o tēnei Kāwanatanga me ahau hoki, tā te mea, kua whakatūngia e Te Pirīmia tetahi o ngā Māngai Māori o Te Whare nei, ki te tiaki i te kaupapa rangatahi mō Te Motu whānui. E hari koa ana!

Ko tetahi atu o ngā kaupapa kua kōrero mai e Te Pirīmia ki roto i wāna kaupapa katoa—ka whakapono ahau, nā Te Whānau Ora ka piki ai te oranga o tātou Te Motu whānui. Me kaua e kī ake, ko ngā Māori anahenahe, kāhore! Engari, horekau he rerekētanga ki waenganui i tēnei mea te whānau, me te family. Kua hōhā katoa au ki roto i tēnei Whare, ka rongo atu i ngā mema o Te Whare nei, ka kī atu, “to help family and whānau”. Ko taku pātai atu ki a rātou, he aha te rerekētanga? He aha te rerekētanga o te whānau me tēnei mea te kupu Pākehā “family”? Nō reira, ko taku aronga i tēnei wā, ko Whānau Ora. E hiahia ana au kia tū pakari ai te kaupapa mō te oranga o Te Motu whānui—kaua ko ngāi Māori anake—nā runga i te whakaaro, mehemea ka piki a ngāi Māori ki roto i te ao nei, ka piki a Aotearoa nei whānui! Nō reira, koia rā tērā ko ētahi o ngā kōrero, mai i Te Torōna, mai i Te Pirīmia ki roto i ngā wiki, i ngā mārama kua pahure ake nei.

Ko tetahi atu o ngā kaupapa e tiaki ana ki roto i taku kōnae mahi mō ngā tau e toru kei mua i a tātou, anā, ko te āhuatanga ki ngā kaitūao, arā, ko te community and voluntary sector. Ā, kua pānui atu ahau i ngā kōrero ā ngā Āpihā o Te Kāwanatanga e pā ana ki tēnei wahanga mahi, engari ka whakaaro ake ahau ki roto i a tāua anō o te marae, ko te nuinga o ngā kaimahi ki runga i te marae, ko te nuinga o ngā kaimahi ki runga i ngā papatākaro puta noa o Aotearoa nei, anā he whānau, he kaitūao. Ko te tini o ngā mahi i oti nei i ngā hapori ēhara mā Te Kāwanatanga, tērā e tautoko engari mā te kaitūao nahenahe. Ko tōku hiahia kia piki anō te tautoko o Te Kāwanatanga i ngā kaitūao puta noa, kia ora mārika ai ngā hapori puta noa i Te Waipounamu, huri tū atu ki Te Ika-a-Māui. Koia rā ēnā ko ngā kōnae mahi kua whakaritea nei e Te Pirīmia māku, hei kawe atu ki roto i ngā tau e toru nei.

E hari koa ana kua tiro atu Te Kāwanatanga hou nei ki ngā kaupapa nui o te ao. Ka pātai mai tērā taha o Te Whare: “Kei hea te mahere mō ēnei o ngā manako o tēnei Kāwanatanga?” Ko tāku e kī atu ki tērā taha, ko te mahere kua kitea e tātou Te Māori ki roto i ngā tau kua pahure ake nei anā, ko te pōharatanga, anā ko te kāingakoretanga, anā, ko te pēhitanga o tāua Te Māori. Nō reira kei a mātou ngā kaupapa, kei a mātou te mana pōti o Te Iwi Māori, kei a mātou te mana pōti puta noa, me te hiahia kia mahi ngātahi tātou katoa, arā, o tēnei taha o Te Whare—ko Te Rōpū o Aotearoa Tuatahi, ko Te Rōpū Kākāriki. E hari koa ana! Ko mātou nei ngā pāti, ngā rōpū, o Te Kāwanatanga. Ka kī atu, he mata mō Aotearoa. Kaua e kī atu, mō te hunga whai rawa, kaua e kī atu mō te kaporeihana, kaua e kī atu mō te kamupene nahenahe ēngari, ka kī atu ko ngā kanohi me ngā māngai o tēnei taha o Te Whare, he māngai mō te katoa!

Nō reira, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, kāre e kore ki roto i ngā rangi e tū nei, ka rongo atu koe i tōku Reo Māori e kōrero ana i ngā kaupapa o te wā. Hoinō tāku, e mihi atu ana ki a koe, ki ngā manuhiri, me ngā whanaunga kua tae mai ki roto i Te Whare ki te whakarongo mai ki ngā kōrero tuatahi o tēnei taha o Te Whare. Kāti, tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa!

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Accordingly, I will remain speaking in the Māori language to rouse the spirit on that side of the House so that they hear the pain that affected Māori badly during the past nine years just gone. And so, firstly, I endorse the grieving laments to them who have been lost to the void. Yesterday, the Speaker of the House disclosed the name Rangi McGarvey, who passed away in recent weeks. I also endorse the grieving laments to that one of the fathers, Lewis Moeau, who died a month ago and mention my ancestor Parehuia Kopa, who died in recent days. They to themselves, the lines of the talk are brought back to us the House.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I endorse the tributes placed upon you, and upon collectively the Assistant Speakers, from the head right down to you. I commend you, and you collectively, as well as your families in the circumstances of the moment. I also endorse the tributes to our new Prime Minister. Some say, a lass, but I say to them, a capable woman. I have heard her desire for New Zealand - wide in the three years before us and this is why I am supporting her. I am endorsing the comments and send my thanks to the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate, who agreed that I be allowed and permitted to go back into this House as a representative for the extensive Tāmaki Makaurau electorate where poverty, homelessness, and unemployment has been seen. That indeed is the plan, in other words, the perēne that the other side have told us in the debates today.

Well, this Māori from the North is absolutely pleased. Such a lot of Māori have come into this House at this time. Such a myriad of Māori in the Government caucus and I applaud this. I am proud of it! I am really proud it’s like that, and so it should be! But I think about the myriad of Māori who have left since that sitting of the House right to this moment. One is the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, another is Marama Fox, another one is Metiria Turei, another one is David Clendon, namely Pita Paraone, Denise Roche, and Ria Bond. I say to them, we are still here bearing the last words and aspiration of theirs who are lost to the void. But I turn to the new Māori members who have just recently come in. The House has heard the maiden speeches of the warrior women of the North and of the East Coast as well, namely Willow-Jean Prime there, and my sister colleague Kiritapu Allan there—absolutely pleasing and joyful.

During the sitting of the House in the three years just past, I was the member of this House who diligently spoke in the Māori language and will continue to do so based on the Speech from the Throne of the Governor-General that stated, “One of the interests of this Government is to our Māori language.” How indeed will we exemplify the Māori language extensively to the nation if this House is not complying with the values of the Māori language to speak it. I commend this! Enough arrogance, put an end to it! Right now, and with an air of humility, I will talk about the statements that emerged from the Prime Minister in the days that have just gone by.

And so the Prime Minister spoke about the circumstance relating to the young ones. The wise sayings of the parents and ancestors are right, it is indeed the interest of the young ones of today, the children, and the grandchildren of the future. If we are all still complying with that aspiration, the desire of this Government is to focus tasks on those relating to young ones, youths, and children, to those ones living in poverty, to those ones ill-treated by the Crown in past years, to those children on cannabis and on all the wrong things of this world, and over the years have become impoverished. That indeed is the focus of this Government and mine as well, because the Prime Minister has appointed one of the Māori representatives of this House to take care of the young person’s policy for the wider nation. I am elated!

One of the policies that the Prime Minister talked about from within all her policies—I believe it was Whānau Ora that increased the well-being of all of us as a nation at large. Let’s say it wasn’t Māori solely, no! But there isn’t a difference between this whānau and family thing. I have become absolutely fed up in this House when I hear members saying, “to help family and whānau”. My question to them is what is the difference? What is the difference between whānau and this English word “family”? Therefore, my focus at this time is Whānau Ora. I want the matter about the nationwide well-being to stand robust—not just for Māori people—solely based on the viewpoint that if the well-being of Māoridom goes up in this world, New Zealand - wide well-being will go up too! Therefore, those are indeed some of the statements from the throne and from the Prime Minister in the weeks and months just past.

One of the other policies that I look after in my portfolio for the three years before us is that one in relation to volunteers, in other words, the community and voluntary sector. And so I have read the accounts by Government officials about this section of work, but I give due consideration to you and I of the marae in that the majority of workers on the marae are family and volunteers, as are those on the playing fields here throughout New Zealand. The myriad of tasks completed in the communities are not Government supported but are solely volunteer supported. My hope is that Government support of volunteers increases throughout as well so that communities in the South Island and North Island are better off entirely. Those then are the portfolio tasks that have been considered by the Prime Minister for me to be responsible for in these three years.

I am absolutely delighted that this new Government has examined important matters of global concern. That side demands: “Where is the plan for these desires of Government?” My response is that the plan we of Māoridom discovered during the years that have just gone by is that poverty and a lack of homes have suppressed Māori, you and I. Therefore, we have the policies, the voting mandate of the Māori tribes, the voting mandate throughout, and the desire for all of us to work in collaboration, in other words, all of us on this side of the House—New Zealand First, and the Greens. I am absolutely rapt! We then are the parties, the groups indeed that make up the Government. I say, a face for New Zealand. I am not saying a face solely for the rich, the corporate, and the companies, but, I say to that side, a face and mouthpiece on this side of the House, a mouthpiece for all!

Therefore, Mr Assistant Speaker, without a doubt in the days to come you will hear my Māori voice talking about the policies of the moment. Accordingly, all I have to do is to acknowledge you, the visitors and the relations that have arrived in the House to listen to the maiden speeches of the ones from this side of the House. And so enough, greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to you collectively, and to us all!]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā koe. Members, just as a word of explanation, I understand that there wasn’t a translation. I don’t listen to the translations, but I can assure members that everything was in order in terms of what the Minister has said.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you and congratulations on your new role in this House. We trust you implicitly and thank you for your gesture in letting us know what was said in the last speech. So thank you very much.

This country has embarked on a socialist experiment in the last few weeks. It’s an experiment that is doomed to failure. It is an experiment that is socialism at its worst, and it is in this country for the first time. It’s time for the people to stop this socialist experiment. The other side of this House will have an agenda over the next three years where it will want to keep the poor people poor. Those members do not want anybody to get an education so they can lift themselves out of the trap of poverty. That is why they have taken away national standards. They are taking away NCEA. They are keeping people in poverty, and that is what socialists always want, because socialists want to be in control and they don’t want to give anybody any chance to get the best out of their life. That is a socialist agenda that will not succeed.

The other thing socialists always want to do is make people dependent on the State. They want to make people dependent on the State for their housing. They want to make people dependent on the State for their jobs. That is what those socialists are doing at this moment. They are creating an attitude and a sense of dependency in this country that will not set New Zealanders free and will not enable them to succeed.

The other thing that socialists want to do is to create barriers around our borders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Can I ask members to my right, please do not bring the Speaker into your interjections. There is too much of a barrage of interjections coming across the House. Please be mindful of that.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: The other thing socialists do is they put up barriers. The socialists over there are going to stop immigration into this country. They are going to stop people coming in that have got aspiration and want to work hard to make this country great. You can see the New Zealand First Party laughing. Well, all those Labour members that turn up to all the ethnic events, beware, because the people there know that your agenda is to stop people coming into this country. That’s what all socialists have ever done and that’s what you’re going to see out of that side of the House.

The other thing socialists do is they love big spending. They love to promise and spend and spend, and they’ve got to pay for that spending, and that’s going to come in increased taxes on New Zealanders. That is what these socialists are going to do in the next three years. They’re going to increase the spending of Government. [Interruption] There were 51 promises yesterday, Mr McAnulty. Watch your constituency look at that and go, “What’s happening to my people?”

The other thing socialists always do is think they’re right. The 60 people that are on that side of the House always think they’re right. They become the privileged elite. They know better than the 4.5 million people that are out there. That’s what those socialists are going to turn into in the next three years—the privileged elite that know better than the 4.5 million. That’s the reality of what we have entered into in New Zealand.

It’s an experiment based on a group of people that never got over 1984. They never got over the Labour Government that brought in reforms to this country. They want to go back to a utopia that never existed and never can, and never will succeed. Mark my words. The end of socialism will come when you see higher interest rates, lower growth, and higher unemployment, and you will see a mass exodus of New Zealanders going out of this country. There will be a housing crisis in this country that will be created by that socialist agenda and those 60 socialists over there.

Now, we’ve heard of all their good intentions—how they mean to do well and how they love to see this country prosper. But they don’t mean that at all. The world has learnt the lesson of how socialism fails. Every experiment that has been tried in this area has failed. We will be the only country, apart from North Korea, in this region that will actually be taking on a socialist agenda. That will put New Zealand back generations, and it is all on those 60 people over there.

Well, it’s not actually all on those 60 people over there, because 50 of them never actually got voted into Government. Only one man let them become the Government, and that is a bitter and twisted individual that wanted to show that he was bigger than the system in his last term, in this Government. So that is the true nature of what we will see from those parties over there.

Today we saw that we cannot trust a single one on that side. There is no trust over there. They have reneged on all the things that they promised during the election campaign. There was going to be a fiscal plan that could be relied on by New Zealanders. That has gone out the window today. We cannot rely on the economic plan that the Labour Party was so stringent about during the election, because the Budget is still to be prepared. We can’t rely on any of those figures.

We also can’t trust them on housing. When they were asked today if there would definitely be 100,000 houses built, they could not commit to that. In fact, the Acting Prime Minister today would not commit to building those 100,000 houses, which every candidate out there in the Labour Party went around spouting that they would build. There is no commitment from Labour members to do it, and they are reneging on that promise.

There is also the $1 billion of funding that the New Zealand First Party was promising during the election. They are reneging on that now as well, saying some of that will be existing promises in things that are funded. There’s no commitment there for a $1 billion fund for the provinces, and we even see in the paper today that Wellington is getting into that $1 billion fund that ought to have been for the promises that the New Zealand First Party made.

Then there was education today. There was a renege on education: the promise of a free first year of education. And what actually happens in that? Australian students can now come over here and get their first year of education free. That’s what it means under Labour’s plan. So there are going to be New Zealand teenagers working on the farms, working in the orchards, working in the factories—doing all those hard jobs in the New Zealand economy—and paying taxes for Aussie students to come over here and get their first year of education free. That’s what the Labour Party has promised and that is what Labour is delivering.

Go out to those young men and women that want to make the most of their lives and may not want to do it through a tertiary education, and tell them that they are going to have to pay for some foreigners to come over here and enjoy our education system, because that’s what you’ve agreed to. That the plan that Labour has agreed to. We heard how strong Labour was going to be in dealing with international relations, how they were going to go over there and tell the Australians what they think, and they came back offering free education for the first year for every Australian student that can come to this country, and hard-working Kiwi kids are going to pay for it. Andrew Little shakes his head. Andrew Little, you know it’s true. You know it’s going to happen.

Today we heard in question time the answers were: “We’ll work through this in due process.”, “These things are still to be developed.”, “We’re going to do a budgetary process.” That is not the response that you expect from a new Government that’s had nine years to work out things. That’s not the response from someone that actually knows what they want to do. That’s a response from people that are running and hiding, and that’s what these socialists are doing. They’re running and hiding because they know that they don’t actually know what they are going to do.

If you look at socialism, look at the Waikato for no better example of how it’s going to fail, because in the Waikato there were two things that were promised during this election for the gain of the Waikato region. The first was the continuous expressway to Tauranga. That is now gone. These socialists are going to spend that money on trams in Auckland, going to Auckland airport from downtown Auckland so that the privileged elite of the socialist class can go on their flights overseas, and the good people of the Waikato are going to miss out on that economic growth advantage.

The other thing that was up for grabs in the Waikato in this election was the Waikato medical school, and that’s not going to happen under these socialists either, because the Minister of Health is from Dunedin and the Dunedin university is the one biggest impediment to that medical school happening. They are definitely going to not let this happen. So the Waikato has lost the most out of this socialist agenda. Our farmers are going to get attacked. We’ve lost out in infrastructure that would have grown our strong economy.

I am dismayed that this country has to endure an experiment that is put onto it by one man’s fallacies, and this country will have to pay for a decade to turn around that socialist experiment. It will not work. It cannot work. It has been proven time and time again in the history of the world to never work, and the Green Party can hang their heads in disarray, but when you look at question time and you look at the agenda that your party wants to do, we know socialism is alive but it will be dead at the next election and all of you with it.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand for the first time and speak in this new Parliament. I would like to start by thanking the people of Whangarei for asking me to be their voice in Wellington, and I commit to working hard for them and for the people of New Zealand.

I also want to acknowledge my adversaries who competed in the seat, especially the member Shane Jones, who has been returned to the House, and I want to wish him well. I also want to encourage him to not to lose sight of what matters to Northlanders or, more specifically, not to lose sight of the wood for the trees.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday about holding this Government to account—[Interruption] Yes, eventually you will get to it, but that’s OK. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about holding this Government to account and the benchmarks and the baseline that we will be watching. I would extend that and localise that to Northland. What are the benchmarks that we are looking for in Northland? What are we starting with? Well, during the campaign, the people of Whangarei and the people of Northland told us that jobs and the economy were their number one issue, so let’s look at some of the independent measures of those metrics, and where the Government passed the baton on to the next Government. I use that analogy deliberately because there is evidence to show that in any Olympic race, when you pass the baton on, 10 percent drop the baton, and I’ll come to petrol prices later.

Let’s look at some of those economic metrics for Northland—first of all, the latest ASB regional dashboard. Northland is third overall for economic growth. Of all of the 16 regions, it is third overall, and it has moved up to five stars—the top that you can be, as the ASB regional dashboard assesses it. Here’s the challenge then to the Government. Here’s the challenge. Here’s where we’re starting: maintain a five-star economy in Northland. There’s the challenge.

ANZ job ads in Northland to June this year—176 new job ads. Here’s the challenge: do better than 176 new job ads.

Thirdly, unemployment—very important figures from Statistics New Zealand. They are quite fresh—no more than a few weeks ago. Northland is down to 6.6 percent, the lowest in two years. There’s the challenge: do better than 6.6 percent.

House prices are also somewhat a measure of economic success. As house prices go up generally, confidence goes up and it reflects economic growth. How has that been for Northland? Well, it is really interesting. We’ve tended to be a region that sinks quickly and rises slowly. When we’re battered by various economic forces, that tends to be our trend. So the inclination might have been that if there is any buffeting of the economy, Northland would suffer. But, in fact, if you look at the Infometrics report from two or three days ago, where they identify 10 regions that might suffer adversely from falling houses prices, Northland is not in that 10. Probably for the first time for a wee while, we are not going to be the region that takes the hit first and recovers slowly.

Now, people also told us that infrastructure was important and roads are important, and there are several roads that impact Whangarei directly. First of all is the road of national significance from Pūhoi to Whangarei, and let’s break that into segments because it is actually important. There’s Pūhoi to Wellsford—that has started. Te Hana to Whangarei—that is under consultation.

I want to focus on one part of that: the Whangarei to Marsden link, which is part of the $500 million four-lane announcement that we made. Now, the four lanes from Whangarei to Ruakākā, or Marsden, has a cost-benefit ratio of 1:5, and parts of that are actually quite high—in fact, Toetoe to Whangarei is 3:5. The importance of that is that this is a busy segment of road. It is very busy for several reasons. First of all, we have all the freight coming down from the North that comes down on that road. Secondly, we’ve got explosive population growth in Northland. Quite aside from what one of the other members spoke about earlier in the day, we’ve got explosive population growth, particularly in Bream Bay and particularly One Tree Point. They’re coming to Whangarei, and they are using that road.

The other component to having such a high benefit-cost ratio was the safety factor. It is very sad that in the past week we have had three deaths south of Whangarei on that exact segment of road—the segment of road that we want to turn into four lanes, reflecting the fact that we think infrastructure is important.

My point here is that I would strongly encourage this Government to continue those four lanes from Whangarei to Ruakākā and to Marsden Point. If they truly believe that the port is that important, they will see this segment of road as being fundamental to servicing the port, and so I would strongly encourage them to do that and to maintain that with some rapidity.

Now, in our hands, clearly Whangarei—and I heard it commented that it is one of the towns, or Northland, more specifically, that is a zombie town. That just can’t be possible. It can’t be possible, and I think it shows a lack of respect for people who have worked so hard to get the region to where it is.

We heard the Prime Minister talk about regional development and how important it is, so we’ve got some licence to explore that. First of all, let’s look at population growth. At least 1,500 people a year are moving to Northland. We think this year it is probably going to be 4,000. We’re a popular area now—yeah? Statistics New Zealand is also confirming that that is going to be pervasive.

If we look right through to 2038, in the North Island there are seven centres that will grow or will keep growing their population, and Whangarei is specifically one of those. Now, with a growing population, every 2.7 people constitute a household. Each household spends roughly a thousand dollars of household expenditure in the Whangarei economy, and it cycles through the Whangarei economy. It is spent on housing, it is spent on food and accommodation, and it is spent on transport. Unfortunately, the transport component has gone up significantly lately—particularly, actually, since this Government has been formed. You see, the international environment has seen us as risky in this new Government, and, consequently, the New Zealand dollar has fallen. A consequence of that is that petrol prices have gone up. On 31 October, they were at an eight-month high, and yesterday the main port price was reported as the highest in three years. So that’s going to hurt the household expenditure of people in Whangarei.

What I also want to briefly comment on is rail—clearly, a topical issue for Northland—and I want to reiterate a few things. First of all, if there is a business case for rail, I will support rail. Secondly, the mantra—or the narrative, if you like—that we have from KiwiRail is that if there are commercial quantities of freight at commercial rates, KiwiRail will carry that freight. So those are a very simple couple of parameters that will certainly have my support and, I’m sure, the support of some of my colleagues, taking in mind the fact that the corridor was designated 20 years ago or more, and no Government—no Government—has seen fit to institute that rail. No Government—it didn’t make sense in our hands; it won’t make sense in yours. But again, if you can show that business case, you will have my support.

So it is a pleasure to be back in the House. It’s a pleasure to be on this side of the benches. Looking across, I’d like to acknowledge some of my whanaunga—Willow-Jean Prime, tēnā koe. She is actually wearing the korowai that I wore at my maiden speech, because we share the same hapū. So tēnā koe to you, Willow-Jean.

Again, I look forward to the rest of this term and to holding the Government to account. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The time has come that the House has agreed for there to be maiden speeches. I will remind members that maiden speeches are 15-minute speeches and the bell will ring with five minutes to go.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): “Ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ahau: tīhei mauri ora!” E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rau rangatira mā: tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ko Whakarongorua te maunga, ko Utakura te awa, ko Ngātokimatawhaorua te waka, ko Te Honihoni, Te Popotō, Te Ngahingahi ngā hapū, ko Ūtutewhanga-te-raorao, ko Hokianga-nui-ā-Kupe te moana, ko Ngāpuhi te iwi, ko Te Puketawa te marae, ko Heeni Kingi tōku kuia, ko Lyndon Marcroft rāua ko Helen King ōku mātua, ko Lily taku tamāhine, ko Jenny ahau.

“Hūtia te rito o te haraheke, kei rā te komako, e kō? He aha te mea nui? Māku e kī atu: he tangata, he tangata, he tangata!” Nō reira, e ngā iwi e tau mai nei: tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[“The tītī cries, the kākā cries, and I lament as well: behold the breath of life!” To the authorities, languages, esteemed ones, and others: salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively and to us all.

Whakarongorua is the mountain, Utakura is the river, Ngātokimatawhaorua is the canoe, Te Honihoni, Te Popotō, and Ngahingahi are the subtribes, Ūtutewhanga-te-raorao and Hokianga-nui-ā-Kupe are the seas, Ngāpuhi is the tribe, Te Puketawa is the marae, Heeni Kingi is my female elder, Lyndon Marcroft and Helen King are my parents, Lily is my daughter, and I am Jenny.

“Pluck out the centre shoot of the flax clump, and where then will the bellbird be, love? What indeed is the greatest thing? I will say: it is people, it is people, it is people!” And so, to you, the people seated about here: salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively and to us all.]

Congratulations to you, Mr Speaker, on your appointment to this new role. It is a privilege to stand in this House of Parliament before so many esteemed and honourable members, and, more so, before the peoples, tongues, and tribes of Aotearoa New Zealand. I stand not for myself but for those who have invested their time, effort, and energy into the body and soul of the person before you. As a recipient of their efforts I feel duty to serve to the best of my ability, and with the strength and determination that I have.

There are many to thank for the opportunity to stand, to speak, to represent, and to work for the progress of the nation. I firstly thank the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his leadership, political vision, and uncompromising quest to hold true to the New Zealand First values. My talented caucus colleagues and my fellow kapa haka mum from all those years ago, Tracey Martin: for shining the light on my political pathway. The New Zealand First board and my electorate team: Lee, Sarah, Julian, Lee, and our volunteers; to my brother Paul, my sisters Marian, Claire, and Gabriel and their families, for their support in all ways; to my aunt Gillian and uncle Michael Harris; and to my heart, my daughter Lily—thank you all. To my family and my dear friends in the gallery today: thank you for being here with me.

There are other people I will thank, people whose presence is powerful and abiding. I pay first homage to my mother Helen Marian King, an artist and teacher from Wellington. Helen was a passionate advocate for the arts and pioneered the establishment of the Rotorua Art Society, which has since become part of the Rotorua Museum. Mum filled our home with paintings, pottery, and sculpture, and networked with many artists of her era. While she hung paintings for exhibitions, I spent hours exploring the dusty sulphurous chambers of the historic Rotorua Bathhouse, which, at the time, had fallen into neglect.

My father, Lyndon Harrison Marcroft, had served firstly with the J Force and then with the K Force with the UN in Korea—now, 67 years later, a nation still in the news. He returned to civilian life as a school teacher and then an accountant. Dad was born in Utakura in Hokianga, but grew up in Ngongotahā, on the shores of Lake Rotorua. Both his parents had come down from the North to take advantage of the timber opportunities that were opening up in the region.

The Marcrofts were Albertlanders, a group of non-conformists who came to New Zealand in 1863 on board the Matilda Wattenbach seeking a new life but who ended up in dire straits. They would have perished if it hadn’t been for the manaaki of the local iwi from Ōruawharo who fed and housed them.

My poppa, Hubert Lyndon Marcroft, worked at the Fletcher sawmill in Ngongotahā. He would be chuffed about New Zealand First’s forestry and billion trees projects. My nana, Heeni Kingi, also known as Jeannie from Utakura, came down with her sister Carrie to work as tourist guides at Whakarewarewa. My grandparents’ first house was a tent—but they had a wooden floor. Nana was a matriarch of the most gentle and loving nature and her sponge cakes were legendary. For her, family was everything.

My maternal grandmother, Marian Lydia Shaw, was born in Kaponga. Her family were early arrivals sailing from Plymouth to New Plymouth on the Amelia Thompson in 1841. The school dental nurse married Jack King, an aspiring architect and engineer with Dawson and Cooke, which went on to become King & Dawson, a Wellington company still in existence today. Jack became a leading coolstore designer in the 1950s, a life fellow of Standards New Zealand, president of the New Zealand Institute of Architects, and recipient, in 1966 of a CBE.

According to our family history, Jack entered a competition to design the Wellington cenotaph. Although he didn’t win, his entry included lions at the base of the design. Grandpa King’s lions, as they came to be known, were later added to the base of the cenotaph as a World War II memorial. When you leave the House today, make sure you stop at the cenotaph and get a selfie with Grandpa King’s lions.

My parents, Helen and Lyn, created a loving and secure family for their five children. I’m the middle child, and I have many precious memories of the love and fun we had: tramping in the bush, swimming in the Blue Lake, beach holidays at Pukehina, church on Sunday, and mucking about with our cousins and the McDowell Street kids.

Our family was devastated, however, when my father suffered a fatal heart attack at the age of 48. I was 11 years old and my youngest sister was just 18 months old. Unexpectedly, our Ngāti Ngāraranui whanaunga asked my mother for dad’s body. She agreed, and so my father’s tangi was held at Waiteti Marae on the shores of the lake. He did not go home to rest in Ngāpuhi, so the dislocation from our hapū, our iwi, stretched out over many years to come.

This knock back, however, was soon followed by another. About a year and a half later, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and our family, like many others, went through three years of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, doctors visits and blood counts. Her slow demise was hard to endure as the cancer took its toll.

I pay particular thanks to my foster families, who welcomed me into their homes: the Hill family of Rerewhakaaitu, Marianne Saxton of Turakina and the Sweets of Tihi-o-Tonga. Also to Granny King, a Kiwi matriarch of a staunch sort, who swept in and scooped up her beloved grandchildren. For her, family was everything.

I note here New Zealand First’s policy to increase free breast screening for women up to the age of 74. This forms part of our two-party coalition agreement with Labour. Our next challenge, I believe, is to include the screening of younger women. My mother was in her 30s when breast cancer rocked our world.

The events I’ve described shaped my views on the importance of family and extended family to staunch the gaps that life sometimes opens up, leaving children vulnerable. However, families are not what they once were, and sometimes there’s nobody to pick up the pieces, at which point the State must step in. For such a relatively affluent Western country, 5,600 children in State care is a pretty poor statistic. Do we have the moral courage to discuss the real underlying cause of it? I hope we can. Instead of just asking if we have a healthy economy, we must also ask: do we have healthy children; do we have healthy families?

My political beliefs and the values I hold stem directly from my personal experience, not from an external ideology. They happen to be more traditional than radical, more centrist than extreme, because that is what has worked for me. I believe that trust underlies all beneficial human interactions and that trust is a two-way street built on mutual cooperation. These experiences make me sympathetic to the social, family, and mental health issues that result from people under financial stress.

I believe there is a shadow over our land, a shadow not cast by a long white cloud but an invisible shadow, felt most acutely by those who live in poverty and debt. Poverty overshadows all aspects of life, not just financial but social, cultural, and intellectual, thus creating a poverty of the imagination for those affected to find ways to help themselves. This kind of poverty can be just as paralysing for those afflicted in 21st century New Zealand as it was during any feudal period. Political freedom is one thing but financial freedom is quite another. Liberty can be whittled away in many different ways, frittered away a percentage at a time, dollar by dollar, rule by rule, and clause by clause. When liberty is lost, the accompanying losses of self-determination, self-esteem, and self-respect are all compounded. There’s a well-known saying that “Without hope the people perish”, but the problem with perishing is that it’s painfully slow and it affects children, who often grow up damaged.

Now the media industry, where I have spent almost 30 years, is going through a series of crises as it adjusts to a dynamically changing news and media environment. The advent of smartphones has put technology into the hands of citizens, who now have the tools to create their own content and completely bypass gatekeepers of the established media. This is an echo of a pattern that occurred in the late 1970s when magnetic tape cassettes put recording technology into the hands of rock and roll wannabes. What these enthusiasts lacked in technique and production values they more than made up for in attitude. Armed with second-hand instruments and a garage, somewhere distant like Dunedin, they set about conducting their jangle-and-drone experiments, which simultaneously delighted their peers and dismayed their parents. The same nonconformist, give-it-a-go attitude has been adopted by media-savvy millennials and Gen Xers, who are simply bypassing the establishment and creating their alternative punk media. Citizen journalists with no overheads, no oversight, no style guides, no ethics policies, and no advertisers are able to create and publish content in competition with the mainstream. The quality of the content produced is of course highly variable. The mainstream media has been pushed into a losing battle for views, and clickbait journalism has resulted. For all its faults, this new-wave journalism does sometimes deliver doses of honesty, and in a world jaded by spin doctors, euphemisms, and McCarthyist slogans, the ring of truth will always find a listening ear.

The shift and tone of the media has been accompanied by a shift away from neutrality. This shift is the result of the pursuit of a commercial imperative and the scaling back of public broadcasting. As public broadcasters now compete in an environment of clickbait commercial media on the one hand and blogger-based journalism on the other, it’s hard to maintain the standard of impartiality that is essential for this public service.

New Zealand First values certain foundational principles that are fundamental to our Westminster-style democracy. One of these is the independence of the courts. Another is the importance of the fourth estate in communicating with the people. Both require rules to work effectively, both require funding, and both require the support of Government. I contend that though the court of public opinion in Aotearoa New Zealand does not meet at a certain time and place like this court of Parliament or a court of law, the court of public opinion is nevertheless a space where important discussions about our nation are aired. Public broadcasting performs an essential service to the nation that cannot be served by commercial media nor by independent volunteers. The role of public broadcasting in the 21st century, I believe, is to shape in the minds of its people not only the trajectory of our nation but also the tenor of its flight. For these reasons, I support the strengthening of public broadcasting, Television New Zealand, Radio New Zealand, and the depoliticisation of Māori Television.

My path to Parliament was unexpected, although I had a background interest in politics from a news context. I was soon to realise there was a role for me. A few years ago I was called to reconnect with my Māori heritage, which brought me face-to-face with the deprivation in the North. Our valley in north Hokianga is a place where extension cords stretch from windows across to lichen-encrusted caravans, where there are old buildings leaning in the wind, half the weatherboards fallen off, and the silent poverty that blows through the region, and yet it was a place steeped in political history. My tupuna, the Ngāpuhi prophet Āperahama Taonui, had a deep interest in politics and often expressed his ideas in visionary terms. His father, Makoare Te Taonui, signed He Whakaputanga, the declaration of independence, in 1835 and then Te Tiriti o Waitangi at Mangungu on 12 February 1840. My new-found Utakura cousins Kay and Rudy Taylor, and Papa Manuwera Tohu QSM, drew me into the whānau and into the heart of Ngāpuhi politics.

I was given the job of pumping up the volume of the voice of Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi on our Treaty settlement journey. I believe there’s hope now that we can and must move forward together for the benefit of all our families. It is time to heal; it is time for Ngāpuhi.

So here I stand in this House of Representatives with the korowai of my ancestors on my shoulders, only too aware of the history, the intellect, and the pressing needs of the nation that all come together in this place. I may not be the loudest voice in the room, but I will bring a strong and compassionate voice for all the people as I seek to serve this amazing nation. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Kia ora tātou. First, I want to thank the voters of Ōhāriu for electing me as their MP. Mine is the electorate that probably best understands the power of the MMP vote, and they once again used it wisely, electing a Government MP. I’ll work tirelessly to ensure they will not be disappointed. I also look forward to my electorate continuing their comfort with long-term incumbents, as I acknowledge the 33-year career of my predecessor, the Hon Peter Dunne, and wish him well in retirement after a distinguished career.

My election was a tribute to my small but effective campaign team. I want to especially acknowledge Glen Labrum and Judi Fergusson, who kept the Labour flame burning through some pretty lean years and finally got to enjoy the election of a Labour MP—kia ora, guys. I acknowledge my wife, Desley, who kept it real for me in the best possible manner, by paying the bills while I campaigned and, of course, advising me to harden up when I was wavering in any way. We’re a good team.

Preparing this address has presented an opportunity to reflect on those significant factors and events that had the greatest impact on my decision to stand for Parliament, and on what I hope to achieve here. The singularly most important contributor to what and who I am was being born into a large rural family, a house full of love, books, and knowledge, and where a constant stream of visitors exposed me to a world beyond the confines of our Buller farm. My late father Eamon—who would have been proud to join my mother Kath and some of my siblings in the gallery today—spent six years training for the Catholic priesthood before leaving and, with my mother, established a small, marginally productive West Coast dairy farm, which relied heavily on the nine children they produced for farm labour. He often commented that he and my mother were more fertile than the farm.

Both my parents were heavily involved in community activities, and at one stage my father was chairman of the West Coast hospital board while my mother was the chair of the Buller High School board. We siblings understood community service and involvement, even if milking cows while they were off farm was our early contribution. Later, I came to understand the value of a good start, a tūrangawaewae to retreat to, and a yardstick against which to measure my post-farm progress.

I was to require such a retreat when, during my early years as a police officer, I was deployed deep undercover where, armed with a new identity—a black leather jacket, a beard, long hair, and earrings—I was despatched into the underworld to detect criminal offending first-hand. Becoming immersed into a world where the values I took for granted were largely absent, where might was right, where the protection of the State was negligible, and where the lives of most people I met were rendered powerless by dependence on violence, drugs, alcohol, and welfare, had a profound effect. I returned to the farm at the end of my deployment as a chain-smoking, exhausted individual with a deep pub tan, racked with guilt over having betrayed people I had come to know well during my deployment.

It was only in retrospect I realised that having a stable place in the world to call home was a privilege denied even some of my fellow undercover operatives, who struggled, and in many cases failed, to transition back to the police world they had been despatched from. I recall one colleague lamenting the fact his parents’ marriage had split while he was deployed, and both were with new partners and in houses in which he didn’t feel he could comfortably put his feet on the furniture—no resting place for his soul. Whereas, back on the farm milking cows, possum trapping, attending the local church, and playing rugby re-geared and reconditioned this prodigal son.

I realised how privileged I was to be able to opt out of that underworld and to return to the fold—an option not available to most of those I left behind. I also reflected on the talents, skills, and resourcefulness of those I’d encountered “in the scene”. Those skills were put to use organising drug deals and other criminal enterprises, often requiring a considerable degree of sophistication, planning and, yes, even courage, given the consequences of failure, which ranged from lengthy prison sentences to severe violence. Many would’ve done well in the legitimate world, given the opportunity, education, and, more importantly, the role models to do so, instead of becoming largely net users of welfare, justice, and other State resources and, more sadly, creators of victims and perpetuators of the cycle of alienation from mainstream society.

Later, as a detective dealing with the victims of those I’d previously rubbed shoulders with, I often had to reconcile my empathy for their victims, with a degree of understanding of the lack of ability for even serious offenders to act in anything other than the manner normalised in the world they grew up in. Our efforts to protect victims by diverting and steering people away from crime must involve realistic alternatives as well as punishments. You can’t get back onto the straight and narrow if you never knew what straight and narrow looked like in the first place.

One experience as a small town detective provides an illustration of the difficulties of escaping gang life. I received a call at home late one Friday night from a gang leader, informing me that he intended to go straight and religious and to come to his house to pick up his illegal firearms. As I walked into his house, I was assailed by a large group of his female companions who, having clearly joined him on his new religious journey, replaced the expletives I was used to being regaled with at that place—suggesting that I make love elsewhere—with their new mantra of “praise the Lord”. Surrounded by this enthusiastic posse, I struggled back down the drive heavily laden with a large cache of firearms, as a car load of rival gang members pulled up outside the address, intent on mischief. Seeing me, they hesitated long enough for the accompanying throng to divert their attentions from trying to convert me to focusing on the new arrivals. It is one of the abiding memories of my time in the police: looking over my shoulder as I opened the car boot to see those bewildered gangsters surrounded by a large posse of women entreating them to “praise the Lord”, while I, who they recognised as a local detective, dumped my armload of firearms in the car and left quickly. Sadly, those conversions did not last long.

My next venture into a completely unknown world was heralded by the birth of a son with high and complex intellectual disabilities. This was a stark lesson that there will always be those in our society who will be totally dependent on others for their existence and development. I’ve often described Michael, who joins us in the gallery here today—joins us in the gallery here today—as being like a blond stallion racing through life, with the family huddled together on his back with no saddle or bridle and, at best, a piece of rope just to keep from falling off. Having to suction and tube-feed him at home between frequent emergency hospital visits did introduce Desley and I to a very new world.

Our relief came when we discovered an organisation called Hohepa, which was prepared to take in a boy who could not communicate, was not toilet-trained, was running away at every opportunity, was tipping out every fluid container he could access, and was assaulting his sister. I discovered there are people in this country who, for very little financial reward, work tirelessly and with a humbling devotion to not only keeping our disabled dependants safe but also giving families like ours our lives back. Our journey into the unknown with Michael was as poignant as the undercover one had been. The existence of a largely State-funded disability sector that supports organisations like Hohepa and others like it ensured the best outcome, not only for Michael but for the whole family, especially his siblings, Isaac and Eve, who could not be here today as they are playing rugby in Ireland and sitting an exam in Dunedin, respectively.

In continuing the rather dramatic nature of my life lessons, I was to get another life-changing “opportunity” in my late 40s when diagnosed with advanced bowel cancer. Sharing the radiotherapy and chemotherapy clinics with a very diverse range of fellow patients at Wellington Hospital proved that, like intellectual disability, cancer is no respecter of postcodes. At this traumatic time, one has to have faith in the expertise of others. Access to life-saving treatment at such times must remain a right and a commitment provided by a caring society. Cancer does not respect postcodes; nor should those providing the treatment.

I’ve arrived at this spot where so few are privileged to stand, representing my Ōhāriu electorate, armed with a diverse range of life-changing experiences. Other learning experiences have been helping establish and lead the international body of police unions, heading the New Zealand Police Association—and I acknowledge some of my colleagues there—and sitting on the boards of companies variously providing insurance, providing residential homes for the intellectually disabled, and importing farm machinery. I highlight these aspects of my journey to provide a backdrop and a context for what I’m convinced needs to happen for New Zealand to get the balance right between the need to empower and incentivise all citizens, to maximise their talents and create wealth—whatever that wealth looks like—and, at the same time, accept that for any number of reasons, as varied as genetic limitations, medical and intellectual intervention, and what I colloquially refer to as unlucky sperm and ova, there are those who will always require the assistance of the State.

A pure market-led philosophy—ironically, exactly what I encountered in the criminal world—will leave an increasing number of isolated and alienated people in its wake. A society that purports or even desires that all its citizens have the same opportunities to contribute and participate can demand its Government have effective strategies, policies, and allocated resource to do that, because, especially in the case of those on the periphery of society, if we don’t provide those opportunities, others will—and are. This country has a severe gang and methamphetamine problem—very apparent if you live in poorer communities. That untapped resource and talent, of the sort I encountered during my undercover years, has been directed into forming some very lucrative and extremely sophisticated criminal syndicates, which have penetrated virtually every community in New Zealand. If you grow up believing that involvement in these gangs and syndicates represents the only way you will ever acquire wealth or rise from your circumstances, however naive that belief may be, of course many will take it.

Our prisons are now overflowing with those supplying methamphetamine and those who have committed, usually violent, crimes associated with its use, but the supply of willing recruits to replace them is endless. Cutting off that supply is as essential as any other strategy to combat crime. We know how important education is in ensuring everybody, including potential gang recruits, leaves school work- and life-ready, but that’s only part—albeit an important part—of the solution.

I believe much of the solution lies in creating opportunities for people from different strata of our society to gain some empathy with others, essentially by mixing—in the case of the better-off, knowing it’s not poor people’s fault they are poor. Conversely, people like myself who are born to advantage need not feel guilty but do need to understand the advantages such birth confers on us in the journey of life. It’s far too complex a solution to address in the short time I have, but can I say that I intend to leverage off the experiences that I’ve had to work towards making New Zealand a more egalitarian society.

My decision to stand for Labour surprised many of my contemporaries, but when I explain my belief that only Labour Governments were able to make the fundamental changes to the status quo that will be necessary if we’re not just going to keep building prisons for an increasingly alienated sector of society, they generally understand. It’s not more laws and prisons required; it’s options for the next generation of potential jail bait, to divert them. Make sure the local drug dealer isn’t the only person they see with flash cars and that they can go to the authorities when victimised without being labelled a nark.

Egalitarianism, where Jack is as good as his master, was the cornerstone of New Zealand. It can be again, but it will take a commitment and a strategy to achieve it. I want every New Zealander to know that whatever happens, they can have trust that when they need a safe place to go, the State will be their metaphorical farm that they can go to.

Finally, as the most senior member of the “class of ‘17” entering the 52nd Parliament, I’m conscious that I may not have as much time as many colleagues to make a contribution. However, being part of a new Government that is already breaking new ground in the MMP environment and is committed to ensuring a fair go for all, I am eager and willing to do all I am able to ensure all New Zealanders, including those in my Ōhāriu electorate, feel welcome at, and can afford to attend, the concert where the rock star economy is playing. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour):

Kāore te kī patu te makere no-a i te ngutu-u,

He pōrutu wai hoe i a Kāwana i runga e-e;

Mātau ana roto i te hau kōrero-o e

Herengi-a koi-ā te rākau ka whiria e-e;

Te ā-ta whakarangona ngā mahi o te arero-o;

Ko to-o tīnana rā i waiho atu i tawhiti e-e;

Ko tō whai reo kau ka tuku mai ki ahau-u,

I ahu ai atu e-e aro kau mai ana e-e;

ka-a te tiriwa-a, te ripa ki a au, kara ma-a;

ka pu-a te ā, te rai ki tautoro-o

ka whakamutua nō ngā whata rangi o te whakarongo e-e i!

[The intent to kill won’t necessarily slip from the lip,

But merely a splash of paddled water upon the Government, indeed;

Cleverly within the tenor of the talk,

That the tree considered be restricted;

And that deeds of the tongue be carefully obeyed;

That body of yours was abandoned there in the distance, indeed;

Your owning a language unreservedly,

And then submitting it to me;

Went elsewhere and then came back directly, indeed;

Space and boundary back to me glows, oh friends;

The urge blossoms as do the rye that stretches forth and terminated as an elevated storage of obedience, indeed!]

The words of this waiata are from a letter sent by Hone Heke to Governor Grey, where Heke is reprimanding the Governor for moving the capital away from Ōkiato in the north—away from the people—and where Heke is reprimanding Governor Grey for his messages said from afar. Empty words that fall so easily from his lips.

Empty words—that’s something I am not here to indulge in. I am here with a purpose. I know why I am here. I know who I represent. I am a child of Te Tai Tokerau, the birthplace of our nation, where our founding document Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed. I am the daughter of a Pākehā mother and a Māori father. I am proudly bicultural. I am proudly bilingual. I stand here in the House of Representatives proud to represent all New Zealanders. I am here to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is who we are. It is all of us.

There is a whakataukī: “Tangata ako ana i te whare, te tūranga ki te marae, tau ana.”

[“A person taught at home is a sheer joy to behold when he/she stands upon the courtyard.”] It basically means that a child who is well taught at home stands collected on the marae. Today I stand here in our Whare, and I stand collected because of my mum, and because I was taught well by my mum. My mum is somebody who has always had the courage to do what is not always popular, but what she feels is right. She wasn’t afraid of anything. She would chase a dog back down the street to its owners with a stick, and warn them if they didn’t tie up their dog, she would call the pound. She would tell you off for spitting; she would tell you off for littering. She would stop hoons hooning up and down our streets. She would not allow drinking or drugs around children. And she would call the police and report domestic violence. Not even gang members or teens full of attitude could intimidate her. She was not always popular, and I was so shame. But this is something I appreciate now, as an adult and a mother myself. I now know it was because she cared about our community.

Today I stand here in our Whare, and I stand collected because I was well taught by my nana. My first memory was of walking up the hill to visit my nana. I just loved visiting her. She’d sit in the corner in her chair and we would talk and talk and talk and talk—and anyone who knows me knows I like to talk. It was she who taught me how to work through my words, how to use my words to create understanding, and just how important words can be.

Today I stand here in our Whare, and I stand collected because I was well taught by my people and our history, people like our whaea Dame Whina Cooper, a woman of conviction whose image and message is still carried deep in our hearts. Slight in frame, headscarf neatly tied below her chin, thousands of people in her wake. Using her walking stick to hold the ground in place below her, one step after the other, she walked from the top of the North to the steps of Parliament to deliver a single message: “Not one more acre of Māori land.” As I make my own journey from the top of the North to the steps of Parliament, I look to this incredible Māori woman from the North as inspiration.

Today I stand here in our Whare collected because I was well taught, and I continue to be well taught, by my whānau: by my dad, who is always smiling; by my amazing husband Dion, who is always there to support me, holding it down at home so that I can do this mahi here—I love you, Dion, for all that you do for me, for our girls, and for our community; by my sister Season-Mary and my brother Lloyd; and by my babies, my two beautiful election babies, Hihana Mairehau-Belle Te Tau o Taku Ate, and Heeni Hirere-June Te Kare o Nga Wai Prime. You have taught me so much, and we have so much more to learn together. I love you. Mama loves you both.

Today I stand here in our Whare, and I stand collected because I was well taught by Moerewa. I am really proud to come from Moerewa. Despite our hardships, our community has remained strong. We have so much heart. We support each other and we try to lift everyone up. I am privileged to be lifted up here today. As with each and every one of us in this Whare, I recognise that privilege, and I recognise that when I stand here, I stand as my mum, my nana, my people, and my community. This is great responsibility, but it gives me great strength. Like I said, I know why I am here; I know what I am here to do. In the words of our whaea Dame Whina Cooper, and in the actions of my mother: “Take care of our children. Take care of what they hear, take care of what they see, take care of what they feel. For how the children grow, so will be the shape of Aotearoa.”

But Aotearoa is not in good shape. We have not been heeding this advice. We are not taking care of our children. I have travelled from the top of the North to the steps of Parliament so that, like Dame Whina Cooper, I can be in Parliament and deliver my message: not one more child should live in poverty, not one more family without a home, and not one more young New Zealander without a dream.

I now want to share a personal story with you—a story that motivated me. Because of it, it was probably inevitable that I was going to end up here today. As a student many years ago, I opened the newspaper and there was a two-page article on wanted or convicted criminals. Many of them were young. Almost all of them were Māori and Pasifika. Many of them, I could tell from their last names, were Ngāpuhi, and one of them even carried our Ngāti Hine rangatira’s name: Kāwiti.

I was so deeply saddened, angry, and frustrated. How could the descendant of an ancestor whose signature is at the top of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, whose reputation as one of the most powerful military leaders, strategic thinkers, and peacemakers, be in this situation? This is not supposed to be his destiny, or anyone’s destiny. I thought to myself: we can’t just point the finger and blame. We have to do more. We have to try harder.

I believed then that if we just addressed our history, our colonisation, and the wrongs of the past; if we had a proud sense of identity; if we were more connected and took collective responsibility as whānau and communities; if we were caring and supportive not just of our own whānau but of others; if our children played more sports and had no time and energy to be haututū and get up to mischief; if we could all do well at school, then surely—surely—it could be better than this.

You know, just a few months ago I literally saw the same thing on my back doorstep. The helicopter was circling, cops were searching with torches and dogs, roadblocks—all for a Māori boy who ended up handing himself in. And you know what? He carried the Kāwiti name too. I was absolutely gutted. We have got to change this. Forty-nine percent of our children in Northland live in poverty. Our youth unemployment rate is over 20 percent. We have one of the lowest average incomes in the country. That is not right.

But it’s not just Northland; for too long, our nation has been shaped to look after the few, and it has come at a cost to the many. We have allowed the economy to take the place of the people. It’s back to front. I am here with my people—my whānau, my colleagues in Government—to change this; to bring people and our communities back to the centre of everything we do. This is our nation. It belongs to us as a people: to Māori, to Pākehā, to our brothers and sisters who have joined us since the first footprints were laid down in sand.

But what does it mean? Well, it means finding ways to rebuild the communities we have been losing. It means protecting and growing our rights as people, not just as economic units, health clients, or clients of any kind. It means nurturing our children by nurturing their whānau, their mums and dads, and their grandparents—all of those around them. It means nurturing them through decent education and health, right from the start, with a focus on community and not just individuals; to be loved by all of us and not turned into metrics.

I want to say a bit here about mental health and suicide, here. It touches all of us—my own house; my own street. If our statistics weren’t bad enough, Northland has the highest youth suicide rate in the country. We have a crisis, and this has to stop, urgently.

This nation belongs to all of us, and it should be for all of us. That means good jobs, jobs that pay well and give people the freedom to live their lives, to take part in their communities, and to be part of them—to have warm, safe, and dry homes. It means finding our way back to who we are as New Zealanders. That’s why I could never have been anything but a Labour MP, because no other parties speak so strongly to these values and to the way that I was brought up.

Just as I bring my people to this Whare with me, so too do my colleagues bring theirs. I want to echo our leader Jacinda Ardern. We are a Government for all New Zealanders and we will get this done with all New Zealanders. This is the House of the people. This is not a place for empty words. It is a place to do right for our people, with our people, together. Kia ora.

[Applause]

Haka

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour):

E tū, e tū, ngā pou o toku-u whare, pouwhenua, poutaiohi, tipu-u tua-hākiri e-e.

Kirikiri rangaranga, tukutuku kōrero, hei here i ngā pou ō toku-u whaere e-e.

Kamōkia e-te iwi kia whangō, kia kai i te reka ō hu-a e-e!

[Rise up, arise indeed, the pillars of my house, pouwhenua, poutaiohi, tipu-u and tua-hākiri.

Stories handed down in the ornamental lattice and panel work will indeed secure the pillars of my house.

Blink at it, oh tribe, until you are hoarse so that you may indeed devour the sweetness of your outcomes!]

He tino hōnore ki te tū i roto i tēnei Whare o Te Paremata, mai tēnei uri o Te Pirirākau o Ngāti Ranginui, o Ngāi Te Rangi, o Tūwharetoa, mai i ngā waka o Te Tākitimu, Mātaatua, Tainui. Ki a koutou e ōku nei rangatira i roto i tēnei Whare, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou.

[It is a real honour for this relative of Te Pirirākau of Ngāti Ranginui, of Ngāi Te Rangi, and of Tūwharetoa, of the canoes Te Tākitimu, Mātaatua, and Tainui to be standing in this House. To you, my esteemed ones in this House: salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively.]

First, Mr Speaker, may I acknowledge your elevation to the bench, sir. It wasn’t that long ago that I heard your remarks in the closings of the 51st Parliament, where you put forth your aspiration that you might have the opportunity to have wee Heeni and Hiwaiterangi on your knee in this Whare, as Speaker of this House in the 52nd Parliament. To see that vision come true last night during our first legislation going through its first couple of readings—the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill—it was truly and indeed an honour to see that, so congratulations, sir.

To my friend, colleague, and contemporary, who unfortunately just had to leave, the Hon Anne Tolley from the mighty, mighty East Coast, who too has been elevated to the bench in the role of Deputy Speaker, I want to acknowledge her. My whanaunga Adrian Rurawhe from Rātana Pā and my colleague Poto Williams: ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, ā, e ōku nei rangatira [much appreciation to you collectively and to you, my esteemed ones].

Like many monumental events in my life, you could describe my entry into this House as somewhat accidental. As a high school dropout of the age of 16, I entered into the full-time workforce at KFC, with the aspiration to work in every single KFC in this country so that I might see the world! Incidentally, I might add that I joined my first union at that time. I didn’t really know what it was at that point, but that was the Service and Food Workers Union, and that began my journey into this place.

The hint of the adventure and the thirst to know New Zealand beyond the small confines of my humble East Coast beginnings of the mighty Paengaroa led me to taking a job as a cherry picker in Blenheim, when I was 17 years old. With dreadlocks flying, 50 bucks in my pocket, a second-hand backpack on my back, and a borrowed tent strapped to my pack, I commenced my first long-distance hitchhike down country towards those cherry fields. En route I came through Wellington. I remember walking down to the ferry terminal, gazing up at this odd shaped building to my left, kind of compelled to take that little meander up that track, and sitting outside on that forecourt outside this House, gazing up wondering: wonder what they do in there. I said to myself that day, I’m going to find out, and I kind of want to work there.

I could not have anticipated that that would come in the form of being a member of this House. So to those in my party that have put your trust, your confidence, your faith in me to represent our values and our vision for a greater New Zealand, I thank you.

I’m one of 10 children, from a relatively mixed family that transcends race, class, and geography. My dad—up there in the gallery—is a son of a solo mother who raised four boys in Gore to be resilient, hard-working, and decent men. Her ancestors arrived here in 1848 aboard the vessel the Blunder, landing in Port Chalmers from Scotland. My father’s father was the son of migrants from Aberdeen that came via Sri Lanka, where they were the owners of a tea plantation.

My mother’s father: a fisherman and World War II veteran. Her mother: a Pirirākau princess who was raised in the centre of our universe, Te Puna. And I just briefly want to acknowledge the member Todd Muller, who was the first member of this House to be from that centre of the universe, and I’m proud to join him as the second.

I have the honour of carrying my grandmother’s name: Kiritapu. Now, my nana spoke only Te Reo in the home until the age of five, when she entered into the native schools system. On her first day at that school, her name was changed to “Kitty”, a name that she would carry for the rest of her life, and she was strapped for speaking Te Reo Māori. Whatever the intention, it was nevertheless the effect that my nana’s cultural identity was whipped out of her at that school, and so too, some might say, was her voice.

So Nana, I stand here in this House to honour your name, to give voice to the voiceless, who, for whatever their circumstances, cannot speak for themselves.

Growing up, central government politics wasn’t really a part of our daily discourse, but standing up for what was right and honourable was of absolute fundamental importance. Now, I swear I didn’t swap notes with my colleague here, Willow-Jean. This was truly epitomised by my mother, Gail. During my formative years, I saw my mother lead a walkout from our community, a community that we loved and that we cherished, but nevertheless whose leadership she perceived to be abusing its power. It was a stance that took courage and the support of my dad.

Mum, for standing up for what you believed in, in the face of all adversity, I thank you for giving me, in turn, the courage to stand up for what I believe in.

I’m an extraordinarily proud New Zealander. Now, we come from a country that punches above its weight; a country that in 1893, in a movement led by Merepeka Mangakahia and Kate Sheppard, became the first country to give women the right to vote; a country that stood for being clean and green by taking a nuclear-free stance when it was politically unpalatable; a country that has been bold enough to face its past, and embark on a process for reconciling of our history by, in part, trying to establish the Waitangi Tribunal and engaging in the Treaty settlement process; a country that is the home of Weta Workshop, Flight of the Conchords, Lorde, and—my cousin by dint of marriage—the director of Thor: Ragnarok.

In 2016, I was fortunate enough to marry my best friend because this Parliament was one of the first in the world to recognise marriage equality. I am indebted to the members of this House, from both sides, and particularly Louisa Wall and the Hon Grant Robertson for championing something so simple as the right to marry the person you love.

We are a small but mighty nation. However, despite our proud history, there is still an incredible amount of work to be done. During the course of the campaign and indeed throughout my electorate, the East Coast, I met with people that share their stories. In the words of one of my constituents: “There is ugliness in the shadows, if you take the time to look.” Indeed, I look.

I saw the family of seven living out of their cars at the beach in Thornton. I saw the working-aged man in Ōpōtiki who’d waited four years for a heart operation. I saw the nine Gisborne families who in a period of just a few weeks lost loved ones to suicide. I saw the kids who are left parentless by their mums and their dads who are lost in the irrationality that is P. I saw the strain on the face of the full-time working mum in Kawerau who can’t afford the gas to get the kids to school, to sport, to participate. I saw the forestry worker from Ruatōria who passed away in a workplace accident exactly one year to the day from his first cousin. There is ugliness that lurks in the shadows but, sadly, this is not unique to the East Coast.

They say that it is easier to invest in building strong children than it is to fix broken men and women. I am committed to giving my all in this Government that invests in ensuring that our kids reach their true potential. I am not one of those people that think that Government has the answers to everything, or can do everything. But I believe that the role of the Government is to work collaboratively with the communities that we serve to enable the many, and not just the few, to reach their full potential.

The law—it’s a funny thing. Although we don’t actively think about it when we go about our day to day lives, the law sets out the parameters and rules by which we collectively live. The law touches many aspects of our lives, from telling us to stop at a stop sign, to influencing the way in which our economy performs. The impact of the written word of law is pervasive, and deeply felt when it is working well, but it is much more so when it is not.

As a lawyer, I learnt to operate within the confines of the existing words of the law. But as a member of this House, we are privileged to influence and determine the content. This is not a privilege I take either lightly or for granted. I am filled with genuine hope entering into this House, as part of the sixth Labour-led Government, and particularly under the leadership of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Prime Minister Ardern has compassion and empathy and connection to the people that we seek to serve, and under her leadership, and indeed the leadership of our executive, I feel like we are on the precipice of true change.

Recently, I met a young man from Tāneatua who had just finished high school, and he came up to me on the street and said, “Oi, Kiritapu, if I vote for you, will you help fellas like me get a job?” This is the type of kid who is all too easily written off as being a future burden on the system, and not an asset to invest in. I am proud to be a part of a Government that will give kids like this—and indeed, really, kids like me—a shot. We know that to do this, we must do the basics, and do those basics right: by stimulating our economy—and in particular our regional economies—by focusing on our core industries and nurturing community buy-in to our local workforce, and ensuring that the infrastructure is there to support such growth. While it’s positive, I’m not talking just about the growth of the shareholders’ bottom line. I’m talking about the successful growth of people in meaningful jobs and industries, and community that works together for the benefit of all.

There are many people on my journey that have helped me to reach my potential. First, I want to acknowledge my constituents of the East Coast, and in particular my members who worked doggedly for nine months on our campaign for change. You all know who you are, and I am deeply indebted to you all. In particular, to my campaign chair—campaign mentors—Sir Michael Cullen and Lady Anne Collins, sitting here in this gallery today, I embark on my journey in this House and I am indebted to you both for the wisdom, patience, and guidance that you have graciously bestowed upon me. To my mum, my dad, my aunties, my uncles, my brothers, my sisters, my cousins, and to, you know, a few of you fellas up there, thank you all for grounding me, holding me, and loving me, because we are but a sum of each other. Finally, kai koe e te tau [to you, my beloved one], who’s probably had to step out with our baby—she’s somewhere. There she is. Natalie, for the love, guidance, wisdom, patience, and everything else that you give to me and our whānau: ka nui te mihi aroha ki a koe [much affection to you]. And I know I owe you for this one, mate.

I commenced my remarks in this House today referring to my 17-year-old self stumbling across this Parliament. On that same day, that young girl penned a short spoken-word piece outside on this lawn that seems appropriate as I stand in this House.

We are raising a nation

of beautiful babies.

This is our generation,

where we lift our heads high.

Be gone the days of our forebears,

where they were taught to be shy.

Because this land,

yes, Aotearoa,

it is our promise,

and that is for sure.

Being strong in our identities,

fostering visions of equality,

strong people

and strong communities.

Yeah.

We named our daughter Hiwaiterangi. Hiwaiterangi is one of the nine stars of Matariki and it is the star that we cast forth our dreams, hopes, and aspirations to for the crop of the year ahead. My prayer is that the work I do in this House, alongside my colleagues, lays the seeds so that my daughter, and indeed all children in this nation, will fulfil the dreams and aspirations of our forebears for a fairer, more equitable Aotearoa New Zealand. Nō reira, e te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.