Thursday, 16 November 2017

THURSDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2017

THURSDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

Gareth Hughes was presented to the Speaker, made the Affirmation of Allegiance required by law, and took his seat in the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters was presented to the Speaker, took the Oath of Allegiance required by law, and took his seat in the House.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 1 to Minister, 14 November

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Acting Prime Minister): I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 358 relating to an answer I gave to a supplementary question during oral questions on Tuesday.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In answer to a supplementary question on oral question No. 1 on Tuesday, I stated, “Yes, those costs have been finalised.” I should have stated, “Those costs have yet to be finalised.”

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The House will next sit on Tuesday, 28 November. The Address in Reply debate will conclude on that day. Government business on Tuesday evening and Thursday afternoon will include the third readings of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). Wednesday, 29 November will be a members’ day and will feature the first general debate of the new Parliament.

Points of Order

Amended Answer to Question No. 1, 14 November—Timeliness

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is in fact in relation to the explanation made by Mr Davis.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. That was—

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, it was only simply because—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Mr Davis has made an explanation; that must be accepted by the House. I’m wondering what possible relevance to the Business Statement—I know that his deputy leader is waiting to have a point of order, I think, on the substance of the other matter. She will have priority if that is the subject of her point of order.

Hon Simon Bridges: In terms of Davis?

Mr SPEAKER: I think Ms Bennett, shortly after Mr Hipkins called for a point of order, slightly belatedly called for one that is relevant to Mr Davis. Is that right?

Hon Paula Bennett: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, so she’ll have precedence. Has the member got anything more to say about the Business Statement?

Hon Simon Bridges: No, that’s fine.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to check that if someone has made an error, is it not in the Standing Orders that they actually correct that as soon as possible?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and my understanding is that this has been corrected as soon as the member was aware of the error.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Paid Parental Leave—Flexibility

1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why is the Government opposed to parents having flexibility in how they use their paid parental leave?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I thank the Opposition for bringing forward their suggestion. I personally see merit in the amendment they’ve suggested; that’s why we’ve said we’ll look into it next year.

Hon Paula Bennett: Why doesn’t the Government then send the bill to select committee to consider the changes, given that they do not take effect until 1 July 2018?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The current legislation that’s been considered under urgency has gone through a select committee process twice. That’s why we’ve suggested—[Interruption] That’s why we’ve suggested that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sorry for interrupting the Prime Minister. Who made that interjection suggesting that the Prime Minister might be misleading the House? Who said it?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, that was me.

Mr SPEAKER: You will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The current bill before the House has not been—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s tempting me to use my powers for the first time. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise, and he will not dispute a ruling that I have made or add to his withdrawal.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Paula Bennett: I seek leave to move a motion to refer the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill back to the relevant select committee for further consideration.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? Yes, there is.

Hon Paula Bennett: So this bill is not exactly the same. There is an opportunity, because—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I don’t like getting up and down, as we’re trying to get things to flow, but the member—again, it’s been a while, but members are not allowed to preface a question with a statement. “So x, y, and z” is a statement; it’s not a question.

Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Prime Minister explain, then, why she would not allow this bill to go back to select committee, when there is plenty of time for that to be done? She’s often stated about their preference to have Parliament actually exploring things well. There’s plenty of time for it to go to select committee, and they could actually explore these changes there.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve actually said, I see merit in what the Opposition have put forward, which is why I’ve given an undertaking that we will look into this issue further and use further opportunities when we’re looking at other employment legislation—if it proves to have merit.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she think that her intentions to look at this at a later date are good enough for those families who will suffer financial hardship because they won’t have the opportunity to simultaneously take paid parental leave when there may be causes where a woman is unwell or the baby is unwell and both parents need to be at home?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think parents will appreciate that unlike the last Government, we’re extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks. I think it’s disappointing, given the vehemence that the member’s showing, that she didn’t use the opportunity when in Government to pursue this issue.

Hon Paula Bennett: So does the Prime Minister think she knows what is best for individual families, with all their uniqueness; and if not, why not simply, instead of having good intentions, do what is best and allow flexibility?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: For clarity, again, I have already said I see merit in the idea, which is why we are undertaking now that our first priority is to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. We will then look at the idea that’s been brought forward by the previous Government. I have to again say that if this was an idea that they felt so passionately about, the last nine years would have been a good opportunity to do it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would she and her Cabinet and the Government be so much more wise and informed on this matter had the Opposition put in place this policy in the last nine years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely right; this is an issue that could have been pursued in the last nine years. In fact, I do need to point out we reached out to the member who put up the Supplementary Order Paper and she’s refused to collaborate with us on her very suggestion.

Hon Paula Bennett: Can I simply say, what does she suggest then to these dads and same-sex partners—what does she suggest that they do if they want to support these new mums and their babies but can’t afford unpaid leave, and would benefit from paid parental leave with flexibility?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will say again: we are going to look into this issue because, as I’ve already said, we see merit in it—we see merit in it. Our first step, however, is to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks, which is a milestone we should all be proud of.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does she accept that she’s actually the Prime Minister that could take action and do something—instead of just talking about intentions and whether something has merit, she could actually do something about this?

Mr SPEAKER: Before the Prime Minister replies, I’m going to indicate that there will be an additional supplementary to the Opposition because of the noise made from the Government benches while that supplementary was being asked.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Taking action means, within our first 100 days, pursuing 26 weeks’ paid parental leave, which was an issue the previous Government not only voted against; they vetoed.

Housing—KiwiBuild

2. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Has he received any reports on the forecast rate of house building with and without KiwiBuild?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Phil Twyford, I’ll indicate—I mean, I’m getting a bit sick of it—that the Opposition have just lost the question they gained because of interjections during that question.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes. Advice that I have received from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) shows that without KiwiBuild, the number of houses will peak in 2019 below what is needed and then rapidly fall away. But with KiwiBuild, the rate of house building will continue to increase so that we can start to fix the shortfall of 71,000 houses we inherited from the past Government.

Jamie Strange: Does the MBIE modelling show that KiwiBuild houses will be additional to homes that would otherwise be built?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, it does. The modelling shows that we can build more homes, not displace work that would be done anyway. Indeed, without KiwiBuild the number of homes built would fall, according to MBIE modelling.

Jamie Strange: How do the projections for home construction compare with previous home building levels?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the official modelling, which was available to the past Government, shows that under the policies of that Government home building would have peaked at 34,500 a year in 2019—far below the record of 39,734 set in 1974 by the Kirk Labour Government. Now, with KiwiBuild, the number of houses built will ramp up to exceed 40,000—the largest number ever—and on to set new records. To help achieve this, the Government will invest in more training, bringing in skilled workers from overseas, and backing factory building to boost productivity.

Marama Davidson: What plans does the Government have to ensure the additional houses built under the KiwiBuild programme are affordable for people on lower incomes?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I thank the member for that question. The houses themselves will be affordable. We will build with density, at scale, and using off-site manufacturing to reduce costs. To further improve affordability, under the Labour-Greens confidence and supply agreement we will be developing a rent-to-own scheme or similar progressive homeownership model as part of our KiwiBuild programme.

Marama Davidson: What is the problem our new rent-to-own scheme, or progressive homeownership scheme, is seeking to address?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, homeownership is one of the best paths out of poverty, providing stability of tenure and an incentive to save, and under the past Government, the dream of homeownership has been slipping further and further out of reach. We’re going to change that with KiwiBuild, building affordable homes and providing a rent-to-buy option that will make it even easier for families to own a home of their own. We are going to restore the opportunities for a greater number of New Zealanders to own their own home.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he commit to matching or improving on the record of the previous Minister and Government of a 15 percent compounded increase in building supply year on year?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re going to build 100,000 affordable homes for first-home buyers and restore the dream of affordable homeownership.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand I can’t expect a yes or no answer, but the question was about the rate of growth, not about the number of KiwiBuild houses.

Mr SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member to repeat his question and for the Minister to have another go. He did introduce the rate of growth very clearly into his primary question.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he commit to matching the record of the previous Minister and Government of a 15 percent compound increase in the rate of houses being built under the previous Government?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I will commit to a rate of growth that is needed to achieve our target of delivering 100,000 affordable homes for first-home buyers.

Government Financial Position—Spending Commitments and Debt

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to raise an issue in relation to question No. 3, if I could, and how it has been edited by the Clerk’s office—

Mr SPEAKER: I don’t think the member needs to; I’m well briefed on it. If he doesn’t like what has happened, he can come and have a talk privately, and it would’ve been best to do that before midday, because his office was informed at 11 a.m.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): Yes, actually, the office did go back and talk further with the Clerk’s office, but there was no change to the situation—

Mr SPEAKER: That’s right. I’ll just make it very clear to members: there was an additional clause on this question, similar to one that was allowed yesterday, or the day before. I indicated that I thought that clause was unnecessary to the sense of the question, and the question, therefore, has been truncated to where the question makes sense without additional information. I think the member knows that’s absolutely consistent with Speakers’ rulings—some very good ones.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I could speak to the point of order a little further. I’m just concerned—and I don’t want to prolong this unnecessarily—that the public at home understand the context, and I understand that, certainly, if they’d been watching question time, as I’m sure most people do religiously every day, then they would, of course, be aware of the context from prior days, but if they’ve just tuned in for the first time today, perhaps in this new Parliament, they wouldn’t be aware of the context. We should be, potentially, thinking of them so that they are fully informed as to the—

Mr SPEAKER: And if the member wants to introduce material that is not necessary for his primary question as part of his supplementaries, as long as he can get it within order, he will be allowed to do so.

3. Hon STEVEN JOYCE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he committed to $7.92 billion of additional operating spending on health and $6.214 billion of additional operating spending on education between now and 2022 over and above that contained in the pre-election economic and fiscal update?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government is committed to properly funding health and education, and we will also start to restore the billions of dollars of underfunding in health that has built up over the last nine years. As the member knows, the specific dollar allocations to achieve this will be set out in the Budget documents, but the expenditure levels in his question are our starting point.

Hon Steven Joyce: Is the finance Minister committed to the $850 million of additional spending over four years on R & D tax credits and the $240 million for his Government’s Ready for Work policy, as also laid out in the Labour Party’s pre-election fiscal plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, we’re committed to both of those policies. The exact amount of funding required for them will, of course, be in the Budget documents.

Hon Steven Joyce: Perhaps to short-circuit things, is he committed to all the spending commitments as laid out in Labour’s pre-election fiscal plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will be aware that since the fiscal plan was released by the Labour Party, a Government has been formed involving the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Greens. Perhaps his lack of understanding of MMP explains why he’s sitting where he is.

Hon Steven Joyce: Appreciating the maturity of the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No commentary—just straight to a question.

Hon Steven Joyce: Will he meet, to his point, all the additional spending commitments that he’s highlighted have been agreed between the governing parties—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—from the residual operating allowance that he’s set out in the Labour Party’s pre-election fiscal plan?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member well knows, the final operating allowances are subject to the full Budget process.

Hon Steven Joyce: What, then, is his reaction to ANZ Chief Economist Cameron Bagrie, who commented on Newstalk ZB this morning that “We think they’ll need another $6 billion or $7 billion on top of their debt to meet his spending commitments, which would take his net debt to around $74 billion in 2022, compared to just $56 billion as forecast in the pre-election fiscal update”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this occasion, I disagree with Mr Bagrie; on some occasions, I’ve agreed with him, just as the member has, where I suspect he disagreed with him when he was digging his $11 billion hole.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Respectfully, Mr Speaker, you had Mr Joyce on when he added commentary. We’ve had it now repeatedly from the Minister of Finance. It’s not fair.

Mr SPEAKER: I can see where the member’s coming from, and I will ask Mr Robertson just to be a little tighter in his answers, especially following reprimands, although I think it is fair to say that there were a couple of commentaries from Mr Joyce before I did pull him up.

Hon Steven Joyce: Does the member appreciate he’s been the Minister of Finance for only three weeks and already commentators are saying we’re looking at a net debt forecast around $18 billion or $19 billion higher than was forecast in the pre-election fiscal update?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I disagree with those forecasts.

Tamati Coffey: What are the recent historical trends for Government spending on education and health?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In 2009, Government spending on health and education was a combined 12.5 percent of GDP. By last year, this had fallen to 11.1 percent of GDP. In dollar terms, the health budget has been underfunded by more than $2 billion, which is why more and more New Zealanders have missed out on the healthcare they need. This Government will change that.

Health Services—Policies and Outcomes

4. Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Health: What measurable health outcomes, if any, will his policies deliver?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This Government is committed to improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders. This will happen in many different areas. There are too many examples to list. However, to pick just one, more people will be able to access primary healthcare services.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: How is he expecting to deliver on his promised increase in elective surgeries, when he said at question time on Tuesday that he won’t commit to a specific target?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We will not be including in our statistics things like Avastin injections and skin lesion removals, which the previous Government did. We will be building capacity over time, and we will of course be mindful of the backlog that has been generated by the previous Government.

Dr Shane Reti: When he said at question time on Tuesday that more people would be able to access affordable primary healthcare, what specific health outcomes will that access deliver?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that when people can access primary care we have more prevention in the system, and that lowers their personal experience of sickness but also lowers cost in the health system.

Dr Shane Reti: What assurances can he give that by 1 July next year he will deliver GP visits that will cost the patient no more than $2 and $8 within the $250 million he promised in Labour’s election policy?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That member refers to specific aspects of our policy as announced, and we intend to deliver on it.

Louisa Wall: What recent advice has the Minister received about New Zealand adults’ ability to access primary care?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I regret to advise the House that this is not good news. A report I’ve received today shows that there has been no improvement in the cost of accessing primary care. The New Zealand Health Survey has told us that over half a million Kiwis last year could not access primary healthcare for reasons of cost.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was quoting from an official document, so I ask him to table it.

Mr SPEAKER: No, he did not indicate that he was quoting from an official document at all.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What specific plans does he have to deliver better mental health services for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Our immediate plan is to ensure that a ministerial inquiry into mental health is initiated in the first 100 days of this Government. This was an important area of engagement in the formation of this Government, and I thank her party and the New Zealand First Party for their support in this area.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Which district health boards will the bowel-screening programme be rolled out to in 2018, and what changes is he proposing to the roll-out, given Labour’s previous criticisms?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am glad the member has raised that. I have been advised in recent days that the programme as laid out by the previous Government is unlikely to be able to be delivered. They were suggesting a programme of delivery for bowel screening that they were unable to deliver themselves. This is shocking news. I think New Zealanders will be disgusted to learn that they were promising something that looks very difficult to deliver on. I intend to review this matter very closely. I am surprised that that member is raising it here, because he is the one that introduced that programme and has been saying with great confidence in the past that it could be delivered without any problems whatsoever.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Given the Minister’s last answer, why is medicinal cannabis in the top two of his overall top health priorities as listed in Labour’s 100-day plan, and what guarantee will he give that medicinal cannabis legislation will be introduced to the House before 3 February 2018?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: On the first point, I think the member will know very well that there are a number of nasty surprises in the health portfolio that have resulted from 9 years of neglect under the former Government’s watch.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A very specific question—he made no attempt to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member had made a mistake of putting a preface into it, and the preface was answered.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the mental health inquiry, previously mentioned, address young people’s access to mental health services.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes, this inquiry will be wide ranging and will cover the areas the member has raised. I look forward to working with her and her party in this area.

Minimum Wage—Increase

5. VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Why is the Government planning to raise the minimum wage to $16.50 per hour on 1 April 2018?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): This Government is committed to ensuring that people get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. For most Kiwis, their wages are their main source of income, and they need enough to provide a decent life for their families. New Zealanders have been working long hours for low wages for too long, and this coalition Government is committed to addressing this.

Virginia Andersen: Who will benefit from the minimum wage increase?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: An increase to $16.50 an hour will give 164,000 working Kiwis a pay rise. Women, Māori, and Pasifika work disproportionately in low-paid industries and will benefit the most from an increase. Lifting the minimum wage reduces inequality, and less inequality benefits everyone.

Virginia Andersen: Does the Minister have a view on the relationship between the minimum wage and productivity?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, I do. New Zealand has seen no growth in labour productivity in the last four years. In fact, right now we’re going backwards, with Treasury seeing a 0.03 percent drop in productivity. This Government will work with New Zealand businesses and workers to lift productivity along with wages, including the minimum wage.

GST—Online Shopping

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): To the Minister of Revenue—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: And an extra supplementary question. Thank you, Mr Lees-Galloway.

6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by all his reported statements about the collection of GST on low-value goods purchased from offshore?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: Mr Speaker—[Interruption] I know you’re excited. I stand by my statement that the previous Government did not do enough about the unfair tax advantage given to overseas companies against New Zealand small businesses. I also stand by my statement in response to the question on whether I would “pick up and run” with the work that had been started that I “absolutely will do that.” In my ambition to get on with this work, I may have got a little ahead of myself in response to further questions.

Hon Judith Collins: Did he consult with the Minister of Finance on the issue of GST on offshore low-value goods before announcing it so confidently yesterday morning; and if so, when?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Minister speaks often with the Minister of Finance, and we often discuss how it is that we could make the tax system fairer after nine years of Government neglect.

Hon Members: He didn’t answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I’m—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He did not answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Dr Smith, you know if you’d let me make the rulings, it would make the place run a bit more smoothly. In this particular case Dr Smith is right. The question was not addressed to my satisfaction, and the Minister of Revenue will have another go.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There have been discussions about the policy in question.

Hon Member: When?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There have been discussions about the policy in question. The Minister didn’t speak to the Minister of Finance immediately before his interview.

Hon Judith Collins: Who is correct, the Minister of Revenue, who said yesterday that the Government was “absolutely” going to add GST on low-value imported goods, or the Minister of Finance, who said yesterday that the Government is only looking at the issue?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the Minister said was in a conversation on Newstalk ZB following on from the comments of the Hon Steven Joyce, who said “the good stuff is at least slightly trickier, but actually I think it is a viable solution.” The Minister was then asked, “Presumably you’ll pick up and run with this, Stuart”, and he said, “As the revenue Minister, absolutely.”

Hon Judith Collins: So if the public can’t believe him when he says “absolutely”, when can they?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The public can believe the Minister when he says that he is absolutely committed to going ahead with this policy. Not unlike that member, he is ambitious.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he now realise that workable changes to the collection of GST on low-value imported goods are just a little bit more complicated than his once-over-lightly approach might suggest?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is no once-over-lightly process at all. We are absolutely committed to getting on with the job of doing this work that the previous Government found so tricky.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did he decline all interviews yesterday and not turn up to his planned media briefing on this very issue, after he had so confidently stated that he would absolutely bring in GST on low-value goods purchased offshore?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The matter had been adequately dealt with by his earlier comments.

Mr SPEAKER: Before we go to question No. 7, I am going to indicate, because this matter has been the subject of a personal explanation today, that I will be a bit more flexible on the supplementaries than I might otherwise have been. Otherwise, it’s a bit unfair on the member asking the question.

Police Resourcing—Costs

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the acting Prime Minister’s answer on Tuesday, when asked if the additional police will cost an extra $40 million, “yes, those costs have been finalised”; if so, what is the finalised cost per year of the additional 1,800 police promised over the next 3 years?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Police: I agree with the corrected statement as provided to the House earlier today, which was that the costs have yet to be finalised.

Chris Bishop: What advice, even if it is indicative advice, has he received from the police about the cost of the 1,800 additional police numbers that he has committed to?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government is committed to striving to add 1,800 extra police to the current force, but the costs of that are yet to be worked through and will be the basis of a Budget bid and appropriation in next year’s Budget.

Chris Bishop: Is he seriously expecting the House and the New Zealand public to believe that when the Acting Prime Minister says “The costs have been finalised.”, he hasn’t received advice at all in the last three weeks he’s been the Minister about what the costs of this flagship policy of the new Labour - New Zealand First coalition Government will be?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I will say again that the new Government, having committed to striving towards 1,800 extra police, is now in the process of working out the costs and preparing the Budget bid so that in next year’s Budget, an allocation will be made to add to the New Zealand Police force.

Greg O’Connor: Why is the Government committed to 1,800 new police?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The police have been underfunded for the last nine years, and, in fact, in 2016, the previous Government signed off on a four-year freeze of police numbers, even though crime was rising. There has been, for example, an 8.3 percent increase in burglaries since last year. This Government is committed to investing in more police so we can deliver safer communities.

Chris Bishop: How has he let his flagship policy get to the point where the Acting Prime Minister said on Tuesday that the cost of extra police is $40 million, the actual Prime Minister said on 24 October that the cost is $100 million, and the Prime Minister, six days later, said the cost is $80 million, and, finally, what is the actual cost of the extra police that he is committed to with New Zealand First?

Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister can answer any one of those four questions.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I cannot speak on behalf of the variety of people that the member has just referred to, but what I can say on behalf of the Minister of Police is that we are committed to striving towards 1,800 extra police. The work is now being done on preparing the costings for that in the usual way that Budget bids are prepared, and, unlike my colleague the Minister of Finance, I am not prepared to create an Advent calendar for the member as he waits until next year’s Budget for that.

Chris Bishop: A very simple question: why did the Prime Minister say the cost would be $40 million when he has turned up to the House today and said that the costings have yet to be worked through?

Mr SPEAKER: OK, I’m just going to rule that one straight out—no responsibility for the Prime Minister’s statements.

Chris Bishop: How frustrated is he on a scale of one to 10, with one being not much and 10 being quite a lot, with his colleague Nanaia Mahuta, when she forced him to backtrack on his promise to recruit cops from overseas with a special visa in order to meet his promise of 1,800 extra police?

Mr SPEAKER: And that question doesn’t fit within the original question or the answers.

Hon Members: What?

Mr SPEAKER: The question is absolutely about the costings, not about the recruitment from overseas.

Erosion Control—Policies

8. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What announcements has he made relating to erosion control?

Mr SPEAKER: I’m just waiting for Paula Bennett to be quiet.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): On the question of erosion control—in particular, in the Tai Rāwhiti district—I will be making numerous announcements. One that the Minister of Forestry has made is to facilitate tree planting to stop the erosion of land. That’s enough, Paula. I’ll accelerate erosion where you’re concerned. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: And pretty unnecessary.

Paul Eagle: What is the current susceptibility to severe erosion in Gisborne and how does this Government hope to improve this?

Hon SHANE JONES: Erosion in the Gisborne district, long since overlooked in terms of the last nine years, is 42,000 hectares—42,000 hectares, etc. And there is another 4,900 that will be remediated under the hard-working Minister for Regional Economic Development and Minister of Forestry.

Paul Eagle: What will be the other benefits of this Government’s forestation targets?

Hon SHANE JONES: By being imaginative and robust with the soil erosion work. In real terms, it will mean the doubling of trees planted every year from 50 million, 100 million—well on our way to 1 billion trees.

Prisons—Prison Population

9. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements in relation to corrections?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes, in the context they were given.

Simon O’Connor: How does he stand by his statement that he is seeking a 30 percent reduction in the prison population given that only 25 percent of the prison population has a non-violent background?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: One of the problems about crime is that we need to address the drivers of crime, such as child poverty, such as the housing crisis left behind, such as unemployment, such as the housing crisis, and the crisis in mental health.

Simon O’Connor: Will he inform the public in advance which violent offenders he will be releasing to meet his target or will he come up with a new target instead?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No. Look, we’re looking at all the options for reducing crime in the first place. That’s really where we need to look instead of looking at letting people out of prison. That’s just absolutely ridiculous, again.

Simon O’Connor: We’re back to ridiculous again. Is it a contradiction—

Mr SPEAKER: Because the Prime Minister wasn’t here when I made my rulings, I will make an exception for her, as I made an exception for Paula Bennett a couple of questions ago. We now let people ask questions without interjecting.

Simon O’Connor: Is it a contradiction that the Minister of Justice is promising to be tough on crime while the Minister of Corrections is promising to reduce the number of people being punished for committing crimes?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The two ideas aren’t mutually exclusive.

Simon O’Connor: Philosopher in the House! Can he tell the House who will ultimately win: the Minister of Justice, who promises to be tough on crime, or the Minister of Corrections, who promises to reduce the number of people being punished for those crimes?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: If we reduce the prison population, all of New Zealand will win.

Tourism—Policies

10. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Tourism: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): Yes, in the context they were given.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does he stand by his opening statement to the Tourism Industry Association conference, where he said that his Government’s programme, outlined in the Speech from the Throne, is ambitious?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes.

Hon Jacqui Dean: How can, then, the Minister have confidence in his Government, when there were no references at all to tourism in the Speech from the Throne?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: You can be very confident, and it’s still early days. I’m keen to hear the views of the tourism sector on the key challenges and opportunities for the tourism sector so that we can work together to address them.

Hon Jacqui Dean: How does he expect tourism to maintain the highest standard of service to our guests, if his Government’s stated policy is going to reduce the number of overseas workers available to work in tourism?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Skilled labour is a key challenge for the tourism sector. I’m keen to hear the views of the people in the sector so we can work together to address that challenge.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve been policing the issue of interjections very fiercely, in respect of Government interjections during Opposition members asking questions. Sir, it’s very tempting to make interjections when the people asking the questions put little irrelevant, snide remarks and insults at the start of their questions and, sir, order will not be maintained in this House if that is not similarly policed.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’m not that happy with the approach and the tone of that point of order. If the member wants to reflect on my chairmanship of the House, I suggest that at least in the first instance he come and do it directly with me. I am trying to be even-handed, but I think it’s fair to say that not all of the answers that have been received have also been within the Standing Orders. If I interfered on every occasion a question or an answer was out of order, we’d be here until about 5 o’clock on questions.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wasn’t meaning to imply that, sir. I apologise if that was implicit in my tone. But I do, sir, make the point that was made.

Hon Simon Bridges: You’re in Government now, son; suck it up.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Bridges, you should not address me in that way. I’m certainly far too old to be your son.

Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

Hamish Walker: How many tourism operators has he spoken to in Queenstown about how hard it is to find New Zealanders to fill tourism roles?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In the three weeks that we’ve been in Government, I haven’t been down to Queenstown yet.

Research and Development, Business Investment—Government Support

11. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: How does the Government intend to support businesses to invest more in research and development, and what are the benefits of this to New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): The Government intends to support businesses by introducing a tax credit that rewards spending on R & D. We have a goal to raise New Zealand’s expenditure on R & D to two percent of GDP in 10 years, and the tax credit will be critical to reaching that goal. Investing in R & D supports economic diversification, raises productivity, creates high-value jobs, and improves social and environmental well-being. I thank that member’s party for their commitment to research, science, and innovation.

Mark Patterson: What is the current state of R & D in New Zealand, and how does this compare to other countries?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Business expenditure on R & D was $1.6 billion in 2016, or 0.64 percent of GDP. This compares poorly to other OECD countries, where the average is 1.65 percent. The member, along with many other New Zealanders, may be surprised to learn that 45 percent of all business R & D expenditure was carried out by just 30 firms that spent $10 million or more on R & D, and 26 percent by just six firms that spent $25 million or more. That’s not the sign of an innovative economy. We can, and must, do better.

Mark Patterson: What reports has she seen showing support for the Government’s R & D policies?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I was pleased to see a report from the business and farming communities welcoming our proposals. I note ManufacturingNZ’s comment that businesses would happily welcome back tax credits, and take on board their comment about the need to minimise associated compliance costs. I also note reports that Federated Farmers is fully behind our goal of boosting R & D to 2 percent of GDP. We look forward to engaging with them and others in the near future.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—Knowledge of Manus Island Detainees

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): To the Minister of Foreign Affairs, can he confirm—sorry, does he agree with all Government policy in relation to foreign affairs?

Mr SPEAKER: Does the member want to have one more go.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: OK. To the Rt Hon Winston Peters, does he—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no—it’s to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Right, I’ll just read it exactly off here. We are in a pedantic time.

12. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he agree with all his Government’s policies in relation to foreign affairs?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): As much as it can be determined in the highly fluid, ever-changing international climate of dangerous and often extreme risks, yes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can he confirm that of the 400 protesting detainees on Manus Island, few are approved as refugees and most have failed to gain asylum seeker status?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can confirm that the present Government inherited a circumstance of the past Government where, in 2013, an offer was made and we are waiting around to see whether or not—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: And he criticised it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We’re waiting around to see whether or not someone’ll put a saddle on that gift horse or go on looking it in the mouth.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can he confirm that of the 400 protesting detainees on Manus Island, few are approved as refugees and most have failed to gain asylum seeker status?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can confirm with exactitude precisely the same information that was given to the Hon Gerry Brownlee when he was in Australia.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The situation that has developed on Manus Island is somewhat more recent than the time that Mr Peters might have been referring to. The issue is that we’ve had a Prime Minister overseas cajoling the Australians—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, OK. I did listen—no, the member can resume his seat. The question that he was asking was pretty specific around whether people were approved refugees or asylum seekers, and unless the Minister of Foreign Affairs tells us there’ve been changes in that in the last three weeks, then I think he’s adequately answered the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has he been advised by his ministry about the known background of the leaders of the 400 protesting detainees?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I can tell this House is that there will be no one coming to New Zealand from Manus Island or, for that matter, from Nauru Island without them being properly, thoroughly, comprehensively screened and vetted.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: If they are going to be properly screened and vetted, wouldn’t it be a good idea for the Minister to be able to tell the House that he knows the status of the 400 protesting detainees and that they are, in fact, not able to get refugee status and not able to claim asylum seeker status either, and then tell us why he would want them in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If that is the case, why on earth did the previous Government make an offer in 2013 to do just that? The difference is the information on which Mr Brownlee seeks clarity today is with exclusively the Australian and other people, and not New Zealand authorities. I want to confirm again: no one will come here who has not been properly vetted and screened by the authorities in the first place, as he was advised just three weeks before he left the job—unceremoniously.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Mr SPEAKER: I want to apologise to the House. I shared Ms Bennett’s enthusiasm to get to oral questions, and we skipped over papers. No petitions or select committee reports have been presented and no bills have been introduced, but Ministers have delivered papers.

Papers presented.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 15 November.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): It is indeed a privilege to rise as a member of a true MMP Government, the product of negotiations where each party was true to its values. It is a Government united in its belief that our country needs transformational change. It is an inclusive and collaborative Government. This is modern MMP in practice, and on the Government’s side of the House we are indeed proud to be part of that Government.

It is a Government that believes that New Zealand is a great place but that it can be even better. We simply will not accept, in this Government, that this is as good as it gets. We have an ambition for it to be even better, to have a Government that is led by a Prime Minister who is doing New Zealand proud on the world stage, a woman of incredible values, a steely determination, and, yes, relentless positivity—something that New Zealand finds refreshing to see. We have a positive vision for our country and also a Prime Minister who is not afraid to talk about one of the values that we do need more of in politics, and that is empathy. We need politicians who understand the lives of everyday people, and New Zealanders are relieved to find in Jacinda Ardern a Prime Minister who is an empathetic person and who makes it her business to understand people’s lives.

The Prime Minister’s vision for our country is inspiring: better jobs, higher wages, affordable housing, decent healthcare, and world-class education. We are not content to see declining rates of homeownership, an economy where productivity is lagging, an economy where innovation does not sit at the heart of it, and an economy where low wages seem to be an economic strategy. We have a vision for a better New Zealand.

Madam Deputy Speaker—and may I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first time I’ve spoken in the House since you’ve taken the Chair, and it is nice to be able, for the first time in my career in this Parliament, to address Madam Deputy Speaker.

We are already making progress. Paid parental leave, banning foreign speculators, moving forward on healthy homes and on pay equity—these are all things our previous Government thought were too hard, but in three short weeks this Government has been able to get the momentum and make progress on these issues. And we have only just begun.

This is a Government that puts people first. It is a Government that listens and then it acts. We are optimistic and we are hopeful. This is in stark contrast to the last nine years of drift we saw from the previous Government. As the PM has said, let the Opposition feel free to talk about the past, about their record, but it is our job, on this side of the House, to fix it, to fix the problems that nine years of the previous Government have left behind. And that is what we are intent on doing.

I want to talk about two areas today where I am especially proud of our Prime Minister’s vision. The first is transitioning New Zealand to a low-carbon economy, one that is driven by innovation and science, by new approaches, and by new ideas. It was my pleasure to talk to the staff at EECA earlier today—the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority—and my message for them was to be bold, because we are embarking on an exciting future, an exciting future where we are transitioning our economy to a modern, 21st century one. It is one that has to be underpinned by science and innovation, and it is a future where we have the opportunity, by embarking on this transition at this stage, to make sure we look after people throughout this transition. We have the opportunity to make sure we have the skills training in place to transition workers and communities to the exciting opportunities that exist along this pathway.

Our Prime Minister is right: climate change is our generation’s nuclear-free moment, and we will act. As the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation, I know we will deliver a more innovative economy, one that lowers carbon emissions, raises wages, and creates jobs. One of the ways in which we will do this—to ensure that we have further investment in R & D in this country, we are going to introduce a research and development tax credit so that we can get New Zealand up with the countries who actually are doing well in the OECD. New Zealand is under-investing in its research and development, and that is not something this Government will tolerate. It is something that this Government is intent on fixing.

One of the honours I have is rising in this House as the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration. It is indeed a privilege to have the opportunity to serve my home town as it recovers and enters the final phases of its regeneration. We won’t waste a single second on that. It has been a very long time for many people in Canterbury who are trying to get their lives back together. As our Prime Minister has said, this Government will have Canterbury’s back. We will bust through the road blocks and delays over the last few years and we will make things happen, because it simply isn’t acceptable, the kinds of delays that we have seen in Canterbury. We will have an inquiry into the Earthquake Commission—

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, let’s have another inquiry!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —so we can learn the lessons from the past, Mr Bridges. I know your Government refused to look at it, but there are important lessons that need to be learnt. Just today, I was very pleased to announce the person who will chair the restoration trust for the cathedral, because we must get momentum behind that and we must get moving. I would like to acknowledge the work that Nicky Wagner placed into that project in her role as the former Minister, and we as a Government are committed to getting further momentum behind that. We are also committed to ensuring that we have anchor projects in Christchurch that are achievable and are deliverable, and that the people of Christchurch know what is happening in their town.

One of the areas that I am most determined to put a huge amount of effort into, as the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, is indeed working with my colleague Dr David Clark to ensure we have a health system that is serving our region. We have a relationship between the Canterbury District Health Board and the Ministry of Health that needs to be healed. It needs to be healed so Cantabrians can get the care they need. To see the suffering of children in our region this many years after our earthquakes is not something that this Government is prepared to accept. It is something that we will take action on, and we will ensure that our children in Canterbury have the chance to flourish and reach their potential, and not be saddled by the events of the last seven years.

Both within Christchurch and within our country, New Zealand, we have amazing opportunities before us. I’m proud to be a Minister of a Government that is already seizing upon them. Excuse me. [Drinks water]

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, oh, oh, 47 to go.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That’s right. Thank you, Mr Bridges. Why don’t you build some bridges? So I am proud to be a member of a Government that is seizing upon these, who has got an action plan, and is putting in place a way in which we can make sure that our country can fulfil its potential.

This is what modern MMP looks like. This is what a Government that is intent on working together can achieve, and we are looking forward to showing the country just what can happen when you have a determination, you have a will, and you have a belief that we can do better. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): What a wooden speech from Megan Woods—wooden by Woods. I don’t know why fresh talent like Ruth Dyson isn’t in Cabinet and we’ve got something like that—Megan Woods—in Cabinet. I don’t know why Jacinda Ardern made some of those choices.

But I will give Megan Woods this: she showed the same dripping-with-intentions kind of content that we’ve seen from Jacinda Ardern, that we’ve seen from the entire Government. All intentions, the best intentions in the world—just ask them. Jacinda Ardern—I think as she said in a media interview prior to the election, while leader of the Labour Party, so not long ago, she would be judged on her intention. But Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker, I should say; I’ll get there—the reality is very, very different.

This is a Government that, despite the intentions, has been off to a rocky start, that has shown—well, let’s be generous to them: they’ve been barely competent. Let’s be generous: barely—a glistening of incompetence here and there in the House, not getting Cabinet committees set up, incohesive coalition arrangements, a situation where Stuart Nash doesn’t know what his policy is several times—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Come on, simple Simon.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —Kris Faafoi, the great hope of the New Zealand Labour Party—and a lot of spin.

I want to go through some of, I think, the real inconsistencies we’ve got in the Government and across the various parties. I want to start with the Greens, because I think if you look at the Greens, you’ve got a great tragedy there. I’m not talking about Gareth Hughes’ moustache. I don’t mind it; it is Movember—it is Movember. [Interruption] Yeah, well, that’s right—pot calling kettle. I think it’s a great tragedy that we have had—what is it?—18-19 years that they’ve been in Parliament, hugely high-minded rhetoric on the environment, but you’d have to say, when you look at them now, it’s been all intention, it’s been all spin, because the reality is that they are happy to see the Kermadecs—the single largest marine reserve New Zealand would ever know; I think it’s something like the fourth or the fifth largest marine reserve in the world—and to see nothing happen on that. They talk there, right now, but I say to them, “Shame”, because if that isn’t true, how else could we on this side judge their actions in this matter? We know that New Zealand First—with its fisheries interests, with its Māoris’ interests in these areas—has successfully stopped that bill from happening. We know it’s a cynical, dirty little manoeuvre to see it sit there on the Order Paper while absolutely nothing happens in this area. The intentions sound good, but the reality is incredibly hollow.

We actually see the same happening in fisheries, where, despite all the high-minded talk from the Greens—they’re talking amongst themselves because they don’t want to hear this speech—they have done absolutely nothing. They have done absolutely nothing while the GPS, while the cameras, have been wound back again by New Zealand First in relation to this important environmental matter. We’ve heard earlier in this week Eugenie Sage—absolutely missing in action. It is quite clear that when this issue has come up, she and the Greens have done absolutely nothing. I say shame on the Green Party on that issue.

I think the biggest tragedy of all of this, frankly, is that the Green Party, in the lead-up to this election, hated National more than they love the environment. They hated National more than they love the environment. I say that that needs to change, actually, for New Zealanders and for the environment. I hope James Shaw, who I think it is actually, ultimately, in his heart, a fine guy but who’s shown weakness in relation to Metiria Turei and who’s shown absolute weakness in relation to the issues around a coalition—he needs to turn himself and that party into a real environmental party that can work with the National Party. I hope on issues like the Kermadecs, I hope on issues like cameras in fisheries, they will do that and they’ll put aside being Labour Party lapdogs in what has been for them not a first- or a second- but a third-rate deal for “environment New Zealand”.

New Zealand First, who come down to this House full of the big talk of the regions, full of how bad it was before, despite the fact—actually, I challenge the members opposite to find a time in history when we left office when more regions in New Zealand were doing so well and had as high growth as they did, and as low unemployment. They probably won’t be able to. I know numbers aren’t their strong point, but I don’t think they’ll be able to, even if they try really, really hard. That’s the intention. It’s all going to be good in the regions, but they have got policies—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Cheer up, Simon. Cheer up.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, I’m happy. I’m happy on the inside, Mr Hipkins. Most of that’s because of you, but we won’t go there.

They have the rhetoric on the regions and seek to kill immigration, they seek to kill irrigation, they seek to kill transport projects around this country, and they want to, by joining with Labour, with the barmy industrial laws we’re going to see go through this place—

Darroch Ball: You’re just making it up.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and we’ll be seeking to stop those, Mr Ball—kill small businesses right around New Zealand.

Hon Kris Faafoi: This is not a future leader’s speech—Amy’s was better; I preferred Amy’s.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, wait, we’ve got an interjection over here—was that Tamati Coffey? I just want to say to the member Coffey that he comes from a very proud tradition in this house of weathermen, and I hope he has every success, like the last weatherman that was in this House. I wish him all of that success and more.

So I say to New Zealand First: watch your demise in the polls, because the rhetoric doesn’t meet the reality of your—

Darroch Ball: Stop being so negative.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: And we’ll be there with our popcorn, Mr Ball, watching the Jonesy - Ron Mark show as they duke it out. I say, actually, to members in this House: while you’re watching, look out for the dark horse of it all, Fletcher Tabuteau, because he might come through the middle with Darroch Ball’s support.

Then, of course, we come to the Labour Party in this House, where, again, you see the intentions, the big talk, the gesturing, and the virtue-signalling, frankly, on a variety of issues—parental leave, actually. Can I say, personally, myself, having a baby with my wife later this year, possibly by Caesarean, I’m privileged because I’m a member of Parliament: I can take time out. But, actually, they won’t even change the law so that people like me who aren’t in Parliament can spend time with their children. They won’t change the law. They’re leaving fathers—basically, it’s fathers out. The intentions do not meet the reality, and issues like—and we saw it today in the House with Manus Island, where, actually, after all the virtue-signalling from Jacinda Ardern around the world, in Asia, talking to the Prime Minister of Australia: their policy is identical to the National Party’s—our longstanding position.

We have heard, actually, Winston Peters today—to the extent that I could understand what it was he was trying to say in this House; to the extent that he tried to answer those questions—back a mile away, because he knows it’s naive. He knows that it’s virtue-signalling without really any—

Darroch Ball: What are you talking about? You’ve just said it’s your own policy. So your policy’s naive.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The rhetoric, Mr Ball, the rhetoric that we’re seeing—if they’re taking all these things on when they haven’t counted the costs in what is a new issue here, they haven’t done their homework.

So I say good luck to this new Government. I say good luck to them. But at the moment, if we look at what we’ve seen, it’s going to be a long three years for them, because they’re barely competent and because on a range of issues the intentions have not met the reality. We’ve seen already Ministers of the Crown who cannot front up and come to this House, and who have needed to be shielded by other Ministers in the Government. So I say, on this side of the House, we’ll be holding this new Government to account, we’ll be making sure that we do everything we can to ensure that New Zealand doesn’t go sideways, because this side of the House is ambitious for New Zealand.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by congratulating you on your appointment—a very fine one indeed, and I look forward to you presiding over this House.

It is indeed a great pleasure for me to stand here today, to take my call in the Address in Reply debate in this 52nd Parliament. It was an honour to be re-elected to represent the North Shore. I have had the honour of representing that electorate since 2011. It is not one I take for granted and it is one that I take very seriously.

We have such an impressive line-up of new MPs, and what terrific maiden speeches you gave. I welcome you to this House and to our team, and I thank you for being here and adding to the diversity of a very strong line-up in National indeed. Make no mistake about it, we are very strong and we are a very focused caucus team. Our 56 National MPs are absolutely determined to hold this three-headed hydra of a coalition to account, as my colleague Simon Bridges has said.

Yes, of course we wanted to be in Government; naturally we would. It is a disappointing outcome for our supporters and for the one million people - plus who cast their party vote for National and secured 44 percent, ultimately, of the party vote for us. Then to have the outcome—to be anointed at the whim of an MP who was named after a concrete block, to quote David Lange, certainly was not the outcome that the 32,000 voters on the North Shore cast their party vote for. I think New Zealand First attracted around 2,000 votes, and I know from very unhappy constituents who have contacted me that they share a deep and abiding contempt for that party and its leader.

Personally, I agree with the Hon Chris Finlayson on this one—a very perceptive individual—that we dodged a bullet by not going into coalition at the price of our souls and our values. Some things are worse than being in Opposition, and that’s being in coalition with Winston Peters. We have our integrity intact, and the same cannot be said for Labour, let alone the Greens. More on that later.

But that’s MMP. We have to live with it. Let me reassure the people of New Zealand though that we are going to give our all to ensure that the country we love and the people of New Zealand and the strong New Zealand economy that National built and that Labour has inherited are not going to be sold down the river by this big spending coalition.

Do you know, it’s already very reminiscent of the last Labour Government. I was in the media for 30 years and I watched their antics. I watched as they got even more nanny State, with the size of your light bulbs and the size of your shower heads. You remember that? Those were the glory days of Labour in its last dying throes. And we are seeing it again already—the drilling down into detail, the need to control. So they’re back to their old tricks, and while they have their sixth Labour leader in eight years, the song remains the same. They like to control everything.

Look at paid parental leave. That is an example that this House has been grappling with over the last couple of days. Labour, as they always have, presumed to know better than everyone else, including new mothers and fathers, and Simon Bridges spoke very well about that, as did Bill English earlier. Fathers have a huge contribution to make. Labour ignores that. Why? What’s their dogma? What’s their doctrine? Whoever decided that Labour knew best, apart from Labour?

What about the women who have premature babies and those who, for example, have Caesareans or post-natal depression? They need the father there. They need to have that option. They need to decide. But no. Nanny Labour knows best, and as usual will continue to try and control everything because the cradle-to-the-grave dependency that has always characterised that side of the House, the Labour Governments of old, remains very true with this Government.

As a lifelong environmentalist, I would have to say I was thrilled when Bill English gave me back the conservation portfolio spokesmanship role—it is one I treasure; it is one I take very seriously—and this morning I was elected deputy chair of the Environment Committee, which I’m very pleased about. It is my absolute intention to have the commitments that National made in the last Parliament to Predator Free 2050—

Hon Simon Bridges: You will do the Kermadecs?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Do the what?

Hon Simon Bridges: Do the Kermadecs?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Do the “Humanecs”?

Hon Simon Bridges: The Kermadecs.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Oh, the Kermadecs. I was going to get on to that, sorry. I couldn’t hear you. I must be a bit deaf in my left ear, somewhat similar to another member of this House.

Getting back to Predator Free 2050, we launched it in the last Government with a line-up of strong, united senior Ministers who were very focused on that outcome. I believe that the people of New Zealand, through the Predator Free 2050 initiatives that have sprung up all over New Zealand—and credit to the capital. Wellington was the first to sign on to do it. Dunedin and Auckland had pest-free, predator-free envy. They’re all signing on, and people really believe in this because they like birds more than they like rats. There’s a lot of other complexities I could bring into it, but, frankly, songbird or vermin; no contest.

So Predator Free 2050—even if the Greens continue to degrade it, even if Labour doesn’t choose to support it, even if New Zealand First tries to subvert it because they don’t approve of the use of 1080, it is a naturally occurring compound in plants that is actually extraordinarily effective. In a high landscape area like this, in New Zealand, with rocky terrain, we absolutely require it if we want to win the Battle for our Birds, which has been phenomenally successful. Again, I will be holding this Opposition to account on all of these things because they’re important to New Zealanders.

They’re important to people like me and members on this side of the House who love nature and respect it, and know that the environment in New Zealand is something that we treasure. It’s what defines us on the world stage and what makes us different. When we were in Government, we were not prepared to see our Kiwi, our native plants, our kauri, all of our treasures, our taonga species, being run into the ground, consumed to the point of extinction, and the rest of it. So I’ll be making sure that this Government with its strange coalition does adhere to these important things. The War on Weeds is another very important one.

But what do we see with Labour? What did they do with conservation? What did they do with the once in a lifetime nuclear-free moment? They consigned climate change and conservation to outside Cabinet with a limping, tiny, not-even-real partner of a coalition in full control of it.

What do we see in the new Minister of Conservation? Well, well. Yesterday in the House, I asked Eugenie Sage a few questions. She ducked and dived and didn’t answer the question. She’s already sold out. She is already absolutely consumed with the extreme gratitude of finally being allowed sort of in the tent, maybe in the campground—not quite sure. She’s not really in the picture. No one listens to her, including, of course, the hapless Minister of Fisheries. I think he has made three strikes now where he has had to be taken aside and given a wee chat.

Anyway, Stuart Nash opened his beak very wide last week and said that he decided that the electronic surveillance on board commercial fishing vessels was to stop. Now, we were going to introduce the electronic surveillance with the e-logbooks and then cameras next year, but no. The Minister of Fisheries has decided not. I wonder where the fierce in Opposition, on conservation, lion of a Eugenie Sage with the Greens was when that decision was made. Did she advocate at all for nature—this fierce individual who is so concerned about Māui’s dolphins and Hector’s dolphins that she asked regular questions in the last Parliament? On this subject, on this particular thing, I doubt whether she was even consulted at all—and if she had been, would anyone had listened? If she had actually struck out and tried to make the case for protecting our threatened marine species—who cares? What difference does that member make? Not very much.

We have a response already from Christine Rose of Māui & Hector’s Dolphin Defenders New Zealand, who was quick to point out that the decision that was made by the Minister of Fisheries—in complicit, I suppose, agreement, really, with the Minister of Conservation, Eugenie Sage—was a huge setback for conservation. Yes, indeed, the Greens are a big disappointment to environmentalists in the first or second week of their tenure. They are arrogant already. Listen to Eugenie Sage yesterday—that puffed-up sense of entitlement that she must have caught from Labour.

But, I mean, we look at a situation where “Electronic observer coverage”—and I am quoting here from Dolphin Defenders New Zealand—“is essential to properly manage bycatch. Evidence from electronic monitoring trails shows horrific unreported fish dumping and the deaths of Hector’s dolphins.” Research has shown that more than three times as many fish and non-target species are caught and dumped than are landed and recorded in catch records. That’s why we did electronic surveillance. Why the heck didn’t they support it? Why didn’t they do it? Dolphins will die, and it is Eugenie Sage who will have that blood on her hands, because she was ineffectual, she did nothing, and I am afraid she is a huge step back in herself for conservation.

You know, we need to protect our threatened marine species. We need to protect all our threatened species. We need to be absolutely confident that our guardians and advocates for nature do what their job is, and the Greens and Labour do not deliver.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui):

Kia uiu-uia mai nā wai koe,

māu e kī atu e-e, tiro’ia atu e aki ana ki wāhi puna,

ki te matapihi Pūtiki W’arenui,

ko Ngā-ati Tūpo’o

ka piki te ’iwi Taumata Karoro ki Aotea te titiro ki Te Ao Hou.

[When you ask me where am I from,

I will respond, look yonder, at the well spring of wāhi puna,

at the window inland to Pūtiki meeting house,

it is Ngāti Tūpo’o,

clamber up the Taumata Karoro hill to Aotea, peer out at Te Ao Hou.]

To the honourable Madam Deputy Speaker, greetings and congratulations. I open with a pātere composed by John Tahupārae, Whanganui elder and former kaumātua of this Whare Pāremata. Calling upon and inquiring of me, “Where am I from?” The wellspring of wāhi puna on the coastal riverbank lands to Matapihi, the window inland to Pūtiki Wharenui, my tūrangawaewae, my marae, Ngāti Tūpoho. Climbing the hill of Taumata Karoro, the sacred hill and resting place of my ancestors, onward to Te Ao Hou, a marae of new horizons of a new world. Ki ngā hapū o W’anganui—Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi, Ngāti Apa, Ngā Rauri-Kītahi, Ngāti Tamakōpiri, Ngāti Whitikaipeka—ko Harete Hipango, ko au, he uri nō koutou katoa.

[To the subtribes of W’anganui—Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi, Ngāti Apa, Ngā Rauri-Kītahi, Ngāti Tamakōpiri, Ngāti Whitikaipeka—Harete Hipango is who I am, a descendant of all of you.]

I acknowledge my ancestral hapū and tribal collective. I am a descendant of you all.

Ki ngā mana whenua o tēnei rohe, Te Āti Awa, ngā mihi.

[To the mandated authorities of this region, Te Āti Awa, salutations to you.]

To the guardians of this land, here. E ngā kaumātua, whanaunga, e ngā hoa, e te hunga kāinga e haere mai nei e tautoko i a au, e mihi maioha ana—to my tribal elders, family, friends, and relations from home and afar, my warm and sincere greetings.

E te whanaunga, Kahurangi Dame Tariana Turia, ka aroha tonu.

[To you, the relative, the Hon Dame Tariana Turia, my affection for you continues.]

The National Party board and members, our campaign teams—HQ and Whanganui electorate—championed the good cause. To all of you: Neil, Jan, and Warwick, enduring, tireless, and party-loyal. Our Hāwera hands and hearts: Cynthia, Ella, Gerard. Whanganui work-lot: Derek, Michael, Tony, Gordon, Robyn, and Ray, Jenny, Bernard, Charles, Andre, Annie, and Dean, with cake and sparkling delights. Mark and Steve who photo-ed me vote-able; our hoarding helpers and volunteers—a top billings team—and the Hon Chester Borrows, you saw something in me that I am yet to realise. To you all, indeed, I am indebted.

To the diverse communities of Whanganui, south and central Taranaki, those who voted for me, I will carry and represent your concerns and interests, as your elected representative in the general seat to this House, I am told, as the first elected Māori woman National Party representative. I will represent you to the best of my ability.

Her Excellency the Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy and Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, I salute and acknowledge you as women of mana for your part in the commissioning of our 52nd Parliament, amidst which I now humbly take my place. To our House of Representatives, Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister: ngā mihi ki a kōrua [acknowledgments to you two].

To my party leaders, Bill English and Paula Bennett, and our party: E whawhai tonu ake mātou. We endure.

To the members of this House: tēnā tātou katoa. Today, I embrace us all in this moment.

I speak for the first time in this hallowed House, cloaked with the support of many and the protection, warmth, and embrace of my ancestral kahu kiwi, worn by no less than six generations of Hipango. I’m cloaked with the immense expectation of many to carry and bid well their interests. I’m cloaked with a history of service—humbly yet honourably, proudly, and fiercely given—by many amongst my family who have gone before and many yet to come. I’m cloaked with the responsibility to serve to the best of my abilities, and I will seek to honour that.

I am the daughter of Hoani Wīremu Hipango, Ngāti Tūpoho, and Eileen Mary Shaw, third generation New Zealander, County Cork, Ireland. Today, I stand here not alone. My presence follows suit and service of my ancestors, and I reference them for they forged a pathway giving shape and passage to a nation, to the benefit of us all.

Rere-o-Maki, Pūtiki rangatira, mother of Te Kēpa Rangihiwinui, Major Kemp: she was one of only five women who signed the Treaty of Waitangi; her name penned, commitment, and mana etched eternally, at Pūtiki on 23 May 1840. Her son Te Kēpa—renowned, revered colonial military soldier, tactician, and leader of his mother’s Whanganui people—served and fought alongside his whanaunga Hoani Wiremu Hipango in many Whanganui and Taranaki battles in the 1860s. Hipango, with Te Kēpa, were pro-Government Whanganui Māori, cognisant of the necessity for their people’s survival—their rangatiratanga in defence of people, lands, and realm. Te Kēpa was awarded the Queen’s Sword of Honour, the New Zealand Cross, and the New Zealand War Medal in recognition of valour and service. Hipango was mortally wounded in battle in defence of Whanganui. Both died at Pūtiki, each accorded full military honours and buried there.

Flight officer Porokoru Patapu Pohe of Taihape, my father’s maternal uncle: the first Māori RNZAF commissioned pilot, flew a Halifax for No. 51 Squadron RAF, was shot down, and imprisoned in Stalag Luft III. Uncle Johnny was one of 50 escapees captured and, on Hitler’s command, executed in March 1944 by the Gestapo in Poland, his remains there immortalised immemorial.

Lieutenant Colonel Waata Hipango, my brother, served in New Zealand and overseas, including the Sinai, with the United Nations peacekeeping corps. He was captured, taken hostage by Hezbollah, to all too soon be killed on 6 February 1999 in a hit-and-run car-bus collision while serving as the commanding officer of the New Zealand Defence Force, in Singapore. Accorded at Pūtiki a full military funeral and honours, his casket cloaked in the embrace of this kahu, and Major Kemp’s Sword of Honour placed upon him, Waata is buried on Taumata Karoro alongside our tupuna, overlooking Pūtiki at the mouth of the Whanganui River. Waata’s son Tane, one of four, is here with us today.

Earlier this week at the State Opening, it was special to reacquaint with my brother’s peers and friends Lieutenant General Tim Keating, Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force, and the Chiefs of the New Zealand Navy, Air Force, and Army. Taku tuakana, e moe roa.

[Sleep long, my elder sibling.]

My forebears, I honour you.

I’m one of five children—the middle, born and raised in Pūtiki, a child of the 1960s, raised by a village. Life was simple, we worked hard, we made do and ends meet. Some would say we were poor. We were rich in the essence of family and community. I am the product of parents, extended whānau, and community who nurtured and cared for me. My Pākehā Catholic mother, Eileen, staunch and stoic, valued the importance of education, ethics, and discipline. She instilled my love of art and opera. My mother recognised early in my life the challenges I would be confronted by, she prepared me, and she shaped me to resilience. My Māori Anglican father Hoani, charismatic and enigmatic, treasured people and the importance of relationships, enduring and intergenerational.

Over the decades, I was gently politicised to the issues of the day, accompanying him and his father Hori to many meetings of the late 1960s—from Whanganui Māori land incorporations and civic affairs through to Waitangi Tribunal Whanganui land and river claims in the 1980s and beyond. I was enveloped in the kōrero and whakaaro of the old people. How richly influenced I was, without realising.

My mother’s devout work ethic and discipline, with my father’s sense, spirit, and soul for community, instilled in me the ability to move with poise, humility, and confidence in the two worlds I was raised—Te Ao Māori and Te Ao Pākehā—and destined me, it seemed, some measure of responsibility to public service and scrutiny.

I come to this House from the privilege of whakapapa, whānau, relationships, and values, from the privilege of parents who cared to aspire, inspire, and perspire. I come to this House with diversity. I also come to this House shaped by adversity: judged for being Māori, but not being Māori enough; for not looking or sounding Māori; for being Pākehā—judged simply as a misfit at most times; treated differently. On my first day at law school I was told I was not good enough and would not graduate. I graduated in 1991, the first in my family with a tertiary degree and not the last, and embarked on a career of service in the law in the social, justice, and health sectors, helping and serving others in Whanganui for almost 30 years now.

As a maiden lawyer, I remember well the wise counsel of colleague John Rowan QC: “Harete, you must be fearless in advocacy.” And fearless I was. In 1995, I was a barrister, a young mother, and Whanganui Māori woman treading in the footsteps of those who had gone before, this time into the modern frontier of the court and justice system—a confronting assault to the senses and self by the power of the State, the police, and the justice system during the Pākaitore Moutoa Gardens occupation, a brutal, out-of-balance experience that was challenging, isolating, and hurtful. Advocating for others when no other would and serving in the courtroom as an officer of the court, targeted I was and isolated—a “hollow way” of police action—unlawfully detained, searched, and assaulted, strong-armed policemen imprinting my body DNA on a courtroom foyer wall. I was non-resistant, shoved down the stairs, and tossed out the courthouse front doors into full public view and dismissal.

Duty and service, fairness and resilience, mistreated by the colour of prejudice—this is a snapshot shared, simply that I bring to this House the personal experience of adversity. I have been yelled at, sworn at, spat at, punched, demeaned, ostracised, and abused in my role as an advocate, and with the experience of many others’ adversity from my years of advocating their plight before the justice system, the health system, and the social welfare system, I bring experience. The police cells, the court cells, the youth justice cells, the prison cells, the mental detention cells, the child welfare homes and aged-care homes, the domestic violence, child abuse, people abuse, drug addictions, mental health afflictions—I come to this House with experience.

My voice in this House is an elected voice to advocate fearlessly for those in need of that voice, and here I stand today to fearlessly speak that voice as a voice also for others. I shall advocate my electorate’s business, economic, and environmental issues, tasking and holding this Government to account. I shall also represent fearlessly and with force all issues affecting our Whanganui electorate and of Whanganui south and central Taranaki, for the protection of our coastal and fresh waters and life forces against unsustainable mining and other practices, for our ngahere, forests and trees, fauna, and river; Te Awa Tupua, the longest legal case in New Zealand history, an unwavering, enduring, unrelenting commitment of Whanganui hapū and the legislative innovation and fortitude of the Hon Christopher Finlayson, legally personifying to preserve and protect our life-force resource; and I shall never forget or lose sight of the vulnerable and their interests, our babies, our children, our families, our elderly, our afflicted—the importance of the quality and sanctity of life.

Duty and loyalty—they are the fabric of my family ancestry. Family and community ethics; sufficiency; independence from State dictate, control, oppression, and suppression; and reliance on the very worth, value, and efforts of each other in community to uplift and affirm, to educate and achieve, and to aspire, inspire, and perspire—these National Party values align with those I was raised with and, in turn, my children.

Mr Speaker, with some indulgence please, if I may, I now turn to my family—recognising that my time has lapsed. In conclusion, I acknowledge my husband, Dean, for your quiet, enduring patience and supportive commitment—37 years. We persevered. Our greatest collaboration was our three children. To this day and every other day, I’m quietly proud of who you are.

Paparangi, our firstborn, is fearless, brave, vivacious, and resilient. Like your ancestors, you navigated local and distant waters, at times swift and turbulent, and at others flowing and favourable. You have achieved New Zealand, American, and Australian honours, Papa, in their waters. Row and sail with a force, my girl, strong and sure of who you are and from whence you have come.

Keepa, you bear the name and, with it, the mana of your ancestor. You return briefly to your home shores, continuing to navigate nations united from your base in New York. Strive worthily for knowledge, intellectual acuity, national and international connectivity, and peace.

Roimata, our pōtiki, you oxygenate the home fires, our ahi kā, with thoughtful warmth and tenderness. You navigate your course always with a quiet, yet resolute, disposition. Make and find your way, with guiding support always near.

I share this simply because my children have shared and gained from the privilege and opportunity of purpose, full education and experiences rooted in the values and ways of whakapapa, connectivity, and community. One day, may these same opportunities be the norm for all children and families in our nation.

Finally, I come to this place after having plied and applied the law for 30 years, and am now to help shape the law. I represent Te Ao Māori, I represent Te Ao Pākehā, and this is who I am. Spoken now—a maiden no more—and with your support, I take my place. E tīmata—it begins!

[Applause]

Waiata

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call Jan Tinetti, I do want to remind members of the House that there is an agreement that there is 15 minutes for each maiden speech, and that includes the time for waiata. At the rate we are going, we will be here till 7.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Tuhia ki te rangi, tuhia ki te whenua, tuhia ki te ngākau o ngā tangata, ko te mea nui, ko te aroha. Tīhei mauri ora!

[Write it up in the sky, on the land, and in the affections of people: empathy is indeed the important thing. Behold the breath of life!]

Mr Speaker, I am honoured and I am extremely humbled to be standing in this House today, and I join with my colleagues in congratulating you on your election as Speaker.

I have called the beautiful Tauranga Moana my home for the past 11 years. We were incredibly lucky as a family to have the opportunity to move to this wonderful city. I want to start by acknowledging the Hon Simon Bridges, as the Tauranga electorate MP, and Clayton Mitchell, who also stood in our electorate. Thank you to both of them for looking out for this campaign newbie.

While I love my adopted home and the people who live there, my roots are firmly planted in the South Island. I had a unique upbringing. I was the youngest of six children of a generational West Coast family. My late parents, Peter and Hazel, brought us up knowing that we had their unconditional love and support. When I was still a baby, my father had the opportunity to take up a promotion, which saw our family move to Christchurch. He was appointed as the secretary of Templeton Hospital and Training School, a psychopaedic institution for people with intellectual disabilities, on the outskirts of Christchurch.

At its peak in 1974, 654 people with cognitive disabilities lived in Templeton on a site that spanned over 200 acres, and my family lived in the only staff house, right in the middle of the grounds of the hospital, surrounded by the villas that housed the residents. My childhood was one of freedom of exploring the vast grounds of the institution. It was one where I was surrounded by diversity, with many of the residents becoming close family friends. The tough conditions within the villas didn’t become apparent to me until I got my first holiday job as a cleaner at the age of 15. Even though institutionalisation of people with intellectual disabilities was at the time the societal norm, it was at this time that I realised being the norm didn’t always make it right. I began to struggle with the concept that it was OK to hide people away from society solely because of an intellectual disability, and it was here that my passion for social justice developed.

In the early 1970s, Templeton was rural and isolated and there were no options for early childhood provisions, so I spent those early years at home with my mum. This was a time I loved, but I was desperate to attend an environment with other children. So by the time I was five, I was more than ready to embark on the very grown-up step of attending the local school. It was here that the experience of one classroom sowed the seeds for my future pathways as an educator.

When I was 5½ years old, I transitioned from room one to room two at Templeton School. Room two was every child’s dream. Here was a classroom that was a wonderland: a room with rabbits, mice, fish, birds, a guinea pig called Aunty Alice, and even Ben the rat. And I could never understand why Mum would never let me volunteer to take Ben home in the holidays. We had a stage that was made from old desks with the legs cut off and a piece of carpet over them. It was up the front of the room, and this was where we took pride in performing our creative dramas that in our five- and six-year-old minds were masterpieces.

Cubby holes, where we stored our belongings, were created out of cardboard boxes glued together on the sides. A mat area at the back of the room centred around a piano, where we often gathered to sing at any time of the day. There was a Wendy house and a shop and other learning centres where our imaginations were allowed to soar. This was the early 1970s, so it was innovative and it was a bit radical. It was a classroom like many I have since worked in, where the teacher understood the need to nurture creativity in children through stimulating their inquisitive minds; a classroom where I developed a passion for learning, because learning was magic—a classroom where the needs of each learner were well and truly at the centre; a classroom where compassion and empathy were nurtured. It was here that I developed the belief that I could reach for the stars. So when, having had a successful time right throughout my schooling, it came my time to investigate possible career options, there was only one I wanted to pursue. I wanted to be that magic creator, I wanted to be that magic-nurturer, and I wanted to be that magic-giver, so I became a teacher.

I am privileged and proud to have had a career in education spanning over 27 years in Southland, Greymouth, and Tauranga. Twenty of those years have been spent as a primary school principal, and while I have loved all of my education positions, I am most proud of my time in the last 11 years as principal of Merivale, Tauranga’s sole decile 1 school. I want to acknowledge my Merivale community, who I know will be watching today. Thank you for the privilege of allowing me to lead your amazing community. It really was my dream job.

With high percentages of Māori and Pacific students, from largely challenging backgrounds, the children of this school and their whānau needed a sense of belonging and identity. We could achieve this because New Zealand was world leading. We developed incredible curricula, which educators embraced because these guiding documents were the vehicles that enabled centres and schools to develop localised curriculum with the needs of their students at the heart. Merivale was no different, developing a local curriculum where our children thrived and experienced success based on their individual goals and cultural backgrounds. But maintaining that forward momentum became challenging in recent years. Competing pressures have denied teachers and principals the time to teach and lead across all sectors.

Having the ability to be creative, put the needs of the individuals at the centre, and stay true to the goals of localised curriculum has become more and more difficult for teachers as the external pressures of accountability have increased. Support structures to assist students with special learning and behavioural needs have become difficult to access, and centres and schools are coming under immense strain to do their best by all students.

Students are attending centres and schools with a growing number of high and complex needs. Teachers, principals, and Ministry of Education front-line staff are devastated that they simply can’t access the resourcing they need to ensure that those students receive the highest quality education possible.

Support staff are the backbone of most schools, and these professionals are incredibly talented, but the conditions they are employed under are abysmal: low pay, and lack of security about hours and ongoing employment, to name a few. As funding has become tighter in schools, principals have been faced with the heartbreaking reality that one of the only areas where they have flexibility is by cutting support staff hours, therefore decreasing even more levels of support for our most at-risk children.

Principals are struggling to staff their schools with suitable teachers, and report that they have no answers for this growing crisis. And it is not only schools that have been stressed. Early childhood education has been struggling under funding decisions that have undermined the opportunity for every child to access high quality provisions. I know the value of children starting school having attended fantastic centres delivering high-quality education. Seeing such centres close, as I have this year—because bulk funding and funding freezes in a competitive environment have made them unsustainable—is heartbreaking and it’s just wrong. It’s our children who are missing out.

But despite the low morale, in the past few weeks I have witnessed hope growing within the profession. Announcements such as the abolition of national standards have been widely welcomed by educators who understand the damage that these standards can do. I am proud to be part of a Labour-led Government who wants to engage with the profession by listening to them and valuing their knowledge, their skills, and their professionalism.

On top of the administrative requirements, the effects of poverty have increasingly impacted upon early childhood and school communities. A disturbingly high number of children live in poverty in New Zealand, but when we quote the statistics we become desensitised to the realities of what poverty means. So when I think of the large numbers of children living in poverty, it’s not only the 10 percent of my roll who are living in cars, tents, and garages; it’s also the family of six living in a one-room motel unit for weeks and months on end, applying for hundreds of houses to be turned down time and time again, and the stress of this situation manifesting itself in the behaviour of the children.

It’s the family lucky enough to get housing who won’t unpack or put out any personal effects, because they know that housing is temporary. It’s my school’s 11 children who were hospitalised within eight weeks last year because of cold, damp housing that isn’t fit for purpose. It’s the many children who have never slept in a bed because they don’t have a bed—a bed is a luxury.

It’s the mums who keep their children at home because they feel shame because they have no food to feed them lunch. It’s the children who, when the local business puts on a Christmas party each year, won’t open presents because they want something to open on Christmas Day. Or it’s the ones who in the excitement will open them, but wrap them back up again for the same reason.

It’s the question I never ever asked: —“What did you get for your birthday?”—because the answer was often “Nothing.” It’s even the children in awe of the fuel gauge in the school van because they’ve never seen a gauge above empty. But, sadly, the real face of poverty is the ex-pupil who took his own life because he couldn’t see a way out.

These children deserve so much more. All children deserve to live in secure, fit for purpose housing, all children deserve the right to enjoy their childhood without worry and concern, and all children deserve the right to live their life with hope for the future. But, you know, when I think about poverty I also think of the exceptionally talented educators who, while never making excuses, recognise that children need to feel safe and secure, with basic needs catered for, before optimal learning can occur.

This is seen in the amazingly talented but undervalued support staff who will quietly take that late child to feed them breakfast before entering the classroom; the incredible teacher who recognises that success for a child might not be literacy and numeracy goals but that they spent a whole day in a class without becoming agitated; the social worker who sees that agitated child and takes them to shoot a few hoops so that they can have a talk; and the outstanding sports co-ordinator who attends every single basketball game, driving the van because the children wouldn’t get to play sport unless the school provided the transport. It’s the incredible board of trustees chairperson who houses homeless families in her own home because she cares, and it’s the amazing office manager who finds a new polar fleece for the child who hasn’t been coming with a jersey in the middle of winter.

These educators, and many like them, are amazing and constantly work to minimise the effects of poverty on children. Without judgment, they acknowledge the hideous outcomes of child poverty and they have called, “Enough.” Imagine what we can achieve as a country when we, without judgment, acknowledge the levels of child poverty and, as a country, we call, “Enough.” And, in turn, imagine what these amazing educators can achieve because poverty is being addressed as a nation and they can get on and teach.

The journey to Parliament has not occurred alone, and I am forever grateful to the people who have believed in me and supported me. To our wonderful Tauranga and Bay of Plenty campaign teams, thank you for fighting hard alongside Angie, Tamati, and myself. I want to acknowledge my in-laws Margaret, and the late Dr Don Merton. I appreciate how lucky we were as a family to move to Tauranga and be so close to our sons’ only grandparents.

Before he passed, I learnt so much from Don. With his renowned work of saving our endangered birds, including the Chatham Island robin and the kākāpō, I learnt that you have to stand up for what is right, even when others don’t agree with you or they criticise you. Don’s knowledge, skill, determinedness, and passion saved many of our threatened species. I want to bring those same attributes to fighting for quality public education, and our children, in this House.

I have so much to thank all my siblings for, but I especially want to acknowledge my wonderful sister, Christine, who will be watching in Christchurch today. Life hasn’t been easy for you with multiple sclerosis, but the bravery and positive attitude you live your life by has been an absolute inspiration to me.

To my NZEI Te Riu Roa whānau, my thanks to you for not just the support you have shown me but your willingness to always put the child at the centre and to advocate tirelessly for quality public education. You have been my absolute inspiration and I think you so much. I am completely proud to have been an active member of the institute for 30 years.

To my sons, Liam and Zak—here it comes, Zak—I am continually proud of the wonderful young men you have become. Keep shining your lights for all the world to see. And Zak, make sure you always phone home. To my husband, Dave, you are my constant and my rock. Thank you for being you and supporting me in everything you do. You know how much I love you.

And there’s one more person before I finish. To Dr Ferguson, although you will always be Mr Ferguson to me, thank you for being innovative and a bit radical. You were an incredible teacher and I have aspired to be like you throughout my career. Thank you for showing a shy five-year-old girl that she had the ability to be anything she wanted to be. Like every educator, your influence hasn’t finished yet. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā mātāwaka o te motu: tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the authorities, languages, and kinship clans of the country: salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively and to us all.]

Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your position as Speaker of the House, and, sir, may I say I have over these last three weeks come to appreciate your behaviour modification techniques within our party of the House. I am pleased to see that non-violent discipline techniques are being applied. Like any child needing discipline, members being told to apologise for bad behaviour and losing question privileges will eventually work. However, before respectful dialogue can occur, I anticipate the use of the naughty chair and time out.

I am humbled to be in this position, and yet determined to be the change I wish to see in this world. I am a feminist woman in all I do, and all that I am anchored to is in the desire to see this world and our nation treat women and girls equally. The personal is political, and I stand quietly determined to ensure that we become equal in all things to our male counterparts. We women hold up the sky. It is time we were valued more. It is time for equality here in this House and across the motu.

Maiden speeches are about why we have come to Parliament and what we hope to achieve during our time here. In sharing my moemoeā for my time here, I begin with my upbringing. I am proud of my roots, steeped in rural Aotearoa. I was born in Murupara in the shadows of Maungapōhatu. I was raised in Tai Tokerau in the Mangamuka, Utakura Valley in the Hokianga, and Ōkaihau, a small town that was once famous as the most northern stop on the main trunk line.

Growing up in a small rural community, I learnt great life skills and I experienced the freedom of being a child—no helicopter mums for us. I have fond memories of jumping on my bike with my best friend for ever (BFF), Mellie-Fay, and spending the days swimming and exploring the countryside. We’d pack our lunch—no need to pack water; you could still drink from a stream then—tie our mono FM tape decks to the front of our bikes, and head off, only returning home to watch Ready to Roll. I spent every second weekend at the house of Mel’s parents, Harry and Bronwyn. It was Harry who taught me how to fish, and seacraft, and Bronnie, how to fold a towel with precision. And Mellie-Fay: nearly 40 years later, I am blessed you are still my BFF and here today.

I grew up in Northland, where my family still lives. All are involved in the silviculture industry, Dad having left college at 15 and headed straight to woodsman school. Dad has been in the forestry industry for over 50 years, and today is your birthday, Dad—happy birthday! Forestry contracting, Pinus radiata, and logging are the craft of my family. I am, of course, delighted that the target of one million trees will be planted and that value will be added to the raw log, and that Northland and the regions, including my own Bay of Plenty community, will gain a much-needed boost for our people and our economy.

Having lived in the beautiful regions of Northland and Bay of Plenty, it is fair to say that I care about our environment. As a recreational fisher, I am passionate about the health of our coast and our fisheries. We must ensure that the childhood I experienced, with teeming seas of fish, abundant birdlife, and plastic-free seas, becomes a reality again. I think we should be able to swim in our rivers again. I think food waste in our country is harmful to our environment, expensive to dump in landfill, and a senseless waste when people are hungry. Let us explore how models of sustainability, kindness, and charity can be extended to feed our families in poverty. Fifty percent of landfill is construction waste. Let us ensure, when we build homes, that we use sustainable products, that recycling is a norm, and that we explore alternative building techniques. In all things, let us try to leave our earth better than how we found it.

To my parents, Linda Hahn and Noel Clark: thank you both for being here today, for teaching me the value of hard work, of kindness, and of community service. Thank you for ensuring that I knew that education was a pathway to transformation. I owe my completion of two degrees and my qualification as a barrister and solicitor to this value. Thank you also for teaching me that all people are equal, regardless of who they are or what they earn, and that we all put our pants on one leg at a time.

My guests here today know that I have worked in the field of domestic violence intervention for the last 15 years, formerly in the Ministry of Justice as a domestic violence adviser and latterly as the manager of Tauranga Women’s Refuge. Indeed, my own childhood has taught me the hard lesson that domestic violence affects all walks of life. It is my hope that everyone who is affected by violence knows that there are alternatives to choosing that violence, that you do not need to stay if you are unsafe, and, finally, that lasting change is possible. My family is proof of that.

One in three women is affected by violence in their lifetime. One in four women and one in seven men are affected by sexual violence in their lifetime. Violence in our country is common. It costs us billions of dollars a year. This cycle is perpetuated generation upon generation. We must do better. We must eliminate violence as a way of life in our country.

To my guests here from the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, the National Network of Stopping Violence Services, Te Ohaakii a Hine—National Network Ending Sexual Violence Together, White Ribbon, It’s Not OK, Louise, and my own Tauranga Women’s Refuge: I call on you to keep it real for me, to remind me of that flax-roots intervention work, which is so very complex and expert. I want to continue to be part of the solution, to address our shameful statistics, to address the failure to adequately resource crisis intervention and prevention services, to support second-tier services, to resource health, police, corrections, justice, and the social sector to get this work right. I cannot promise that reducing our burden of violence in this country will be easy but I can promise it will be worth it, and I will commit to this work.

Working in a refuge, a front-line crisis intervention service, has changed me. The faces of the women we walked alongside—the bruises, the broken bones, the tears, the loss of self, their unrelenting fear; this will never leave me. The children with vacant eyes—fear and grief for their mothers, their injuries, and the neglect their fathers and stepfathers showed them breaks my heart. This is one of the reasons that I have come to Parliament. I represent those women and children, and my heart turns over at the work needed for these families to thrive again. How wonderful it will be when this work is no longer needed.

To my children, Danah and Jasmine, neither of whom could be here today: blended families can work, and I am proud that in raising you we never raised a hand to you or taught you that it’s OK to be hurt by your parents in the name of discipline. It is possible to break the intergenerational cycle of violence. My Danah-Sian, my little Squeaky, who I love beyond words, I am proud that you are kind and funny and clever and sassy, and Mama loves you. And to you, Jasmine, not born of my body but my child nevertheless, I am privileged that your mum shared you with me. I am proud that you are feisty and talented, and your brave choices and determination to be true to yourself are inspirational. I love you, child of my heart.

To my husband, Blair, who may or may not be here yet: thank you for the 20 years, on and off, that we have been together—the laughter, the adventures, and the fishing. My husband—the builder, the fisher, the diver, the hunter, the gatherer, the kaitiaki of our family, wicked clever, and my partner in life. You are a good and safe man. You are not known for being on time; you were once late for Christmas by three days, and I don’t see you here now—oh, hello, Husband!

To the Blair clan, far away in Scotland and scattered about the country and to those of you here today: thank you for embracing me as part of your family. To my Clark family, my Zontian sisters, my friends here from the Ministry of Justice: ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. To my Bay of Plenty and Tauranga Labour electorate committee: thank you for supporting me, especially the time Russell, Nancy, and Sherri mimed the answers to me from the floor of our meet-the-candidates meeting, when I was so sick that I could hardly stand and had a brain fade. Bless you.

Thank you to my campaign manager, Sophie Rapson, who somehow managed to genuinely laugh at my corny jokes throughout the campaign, despite, I might add, the fact that I only had one joke and used it every day. Thank you, team, for all the doorknocking, phone-calling, hoardings, fund-raising, pizza, sausage rolls, and coffee, and for being kind and supportive and, finally, for backing me 100 percent.

To all my guests and family here today: thank you for coming. To my nana, who is listening from Hamilton: I wish you were here, Nana. I have always been particularly close to my nana. She showered me with unconditional love and helped raise me. Nana and Grandad lived on the West Coast of the South Island; indeed, both sides of my whānau hail from there. I spent just about every holiday during my school years in the rugged splendour of the Coast. Nana and Grandad Jack gave us lovely memories: stocking up on our favourite Snowflake ice cream, making us swings, the tinkering in Grandad’s shed, taking us on large family picnics at Matai, gold-panning, swimming in the river—events all over Ahaura and the Grey Valley and coast.

When I told my nana that I was going to mention her in my maiden speech, she forbade me, saying that I could say only that she wasn’t here today. I’m sorry to disobey you this one time, Nana. You are worthy of being recorded in Hansard. You are kind, gentle, and loving, and, should I reach 91, I hope my granddaughter can say the same of me.

Growing up as I did, as a child in Northland but also a kid on the West Coast of Te Wai Pounamu, it is only fitting that I mihi to the families who have lost loved ones to the Pike River mine. I call to my cousin, who lies cold in the depths of that mine: wait just a little longer; you will be home soon, if we on this side of the House have anything to do about it. I am proud that my party and the Hon Andrew Little and our coalition partners have committed to doing all that is possible to bring our men home.

The elimination of violence, the preservation and strengthening of our environment, and the return of our men to their families—large goals, and I am but one small voice, a backbencher here only by the count of the special votes. I am privileged to be here, humbled by my community and my Labour Party’s faith in me. I will do my best.

In concluding, the words of Anaïs Nin best describe my hīkoi to Parliament: “And the day came that the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.” Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause]

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): E ngā hau e whā: tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa! E mihi ana ki tō tātou Kīngi, a Kīngi Tūheitia me tōna whānau ariki nui; pai mārie ki a rātou.

[To the four winds: salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you all! I acknowledge our King, King Tūheitia and his royal family; a pleasant peacefulness to them.]

‘Oku ou fakatapu ki he ‘Afio ‘a e ‘Otua Mafimafi ‘i hotau lotolotongá, Fakatapu heni ki he kelekele ‘eiki: Te Atiwa Taranaki ki te upoko oto ika, Ngāti Toa, Ki he Palēmia ‘o e Fonuá, Sea ‘o e Falealeá, Fakatulou atu ki he kau memipa ‘o e Falé ni. ‘Oatu ‘a e faka’apa’apa makehe ki he fuka ‘oku vilingia ‘i he ‘api ko ‘Atalangá. Kuou ta’imālie ‘i he ‘ofa ‘a e ‘Otuá, pea ‘oku ou fiefia ke fakamonū hoku koloá, ko e fuofua kau he lea, ‘i he Fale Alea, ‘o Aotearoa Nu’usila.

‘Eiki Sea, tukumu’a keu fakahoko atu hoku ‘uhingá: Ko ‘emau tukufolau mai mei he Vailahí, Niua Fo’ou mo e Vai-ko-Niutouá, Niua Toputapu, ko e tukui motu ia he ‘OtuTongá, ‘oku nau talanoa, ‘i na tou lea koula! ‘Oku mau nofo pe he Sia-ko-Veiongo, Taunga Peka, moe ‘Api ko Hofoá: hono toafá, mo e kakalá—ko e tali fatongia ki he Hau ‘o Tongá.

‘Isa, ko e teuaki hoto kake’i ki he nofo Aotearoá: ko e lōkeha he loto melinó, faka’ahú, ko e loto fo’ou, pea kiekie he loto fakapotopotó. Ko hoku kakalá, ko Mafi-to-he-Sopu ‘o Taufá, kuo no’o he ‘Otua mo Tonga ko hoku tofi’á, fungani he loto ‘ofá, mo e faka’apa’apá, manongi he loto toka’i.

Eiki Sea, ‘oku ou loto māfana mo loto vekeveke he teuteu atu ki he ngāue lahi, mo mālohi he fai fatongia ki he Pule’angá, Tangatawhenua o Aotearoá mo e fonuá hono kotoa.

Mr Speaker, I echo the congratulations of my colleagues. To you and your team of Speakers, we look forward to your experienced, focused leadership in this House.

There are many people who I need to thank for putting me in this privileged position, and I take this opportunity to acknowledge them. Let me start by thanking the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, for her astute and determined leadership, which continues the legacy of women in this country. I joined the standing ovation and cheers of the Labour Women’s Council celebrating her success as the second Labour woman Prime Minister of Aotearoa New Zealand. She has realigned the focus on people above all others. She has brought our team together and echoed the Labour Party’s spirit of people caring for each other. Thank you, Prime Minister.

I extend my thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—Ngāti Wai, ka tū ki te uta; Ngāti Wai, ka noho ki te moana [Ngāti Wai is established inland and by the sea]—for his sincere and serious approach to the negotiations for the decision about forming a Government.

I would like to acknowledge the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, the first Tongan New Zealander to enter this House. Thank you for your ‘ofa ki Tonga leadership, when you introduced lea Tonga and ta‘ovala into this Chamber. The Hon Jenny Salesa, the member Darroch Ball, and I have since followed suit, and so will the many Tongans who will follow us into this House.

Around my waist is Tonga’s cultural wear—ta‘ovala—signalling my respect to Aotearoa, who afforded me this privilege in giving Labour their party vote. It is my intention to dress in ta‘ovala every time I’m in this Chamber because, for me, each day I sit here is duty to the whenua o Aotearoa, responsibility to her people, and that is honouring God. Thank you, Aotearoa New Zealand. Our God defend New Zealand.

To the Labour Pacific sector, and my mentor, Lau Afioga ‘i-le sa’o ‘usuoali’i, Lau Afioga Aupito Tofae Su’a William Sio. Faamalo ilou agalelei mo a’u, ma lo’u tau mafai mai ile sa ole Labour Party. Lea ‘ua ‘ou palemai.

Ua moni ai le upu a Samoa pale ‘ua pale! ‘Ulae ‘ua ‘ula! Faafetai le alofa!

Ua e faati’eti’e a’u ile ma’asalafa. Ua malie le fagaipuna, ‘ae faamalo le faga-‘i-eeaa. Ia manuia, pe lau nofoa’iga faaminisita o Tagata Pasefika. E-le galo atu fo-i ‘afi’a ‘i-siona vao: le aiga-e ‘o si-a’u manamea, Utufiu male ‘aiga sa-Suisuiki i Satapuala, Samoa ma Aotearoa nei. Ie paia ‘i-le ‘afio ‘ole Sa’oali’i ma Satuala, ala alata’i Vaili male mamalu ile Fale ‘a’ana. Ua faamalo le tapua’i male tatalo. Se ua ta inu i Malie ai le malie pei olea opu. Oute teu mau pea lau tapua’iga ile va olo’u fatu ma lo’u mama. Faafetai tele!

Along with the three people watching from the campaign headquarters at 127 Rowandale Avenue, Manurewa, can we extend our heartfelt thanks to the member for Manurewa, Louisa Wall, for her courageous leadership when the State empowered all New Zealanders with the choice to marry the one they love. Our country has led the way by putting love first, realising that our strength lies in the critical beauty of difference. And to the Manurewa Labour electorate committee, we have just begun, ‘oku ou ‘ofa atu.

As a migrant to Aotearoa New Zealand, my stories still resonate with many stories told by migrants who are now living as established New Zealanders in Aotearoa. In search of a more meaningful life for my kāinga, armed with Christian beliefs, my kāinga are here. We live here. We learnt about work ethics. We toiled hard in our work. We also learnt about policies that worked against migrants from the Pacific and their descendants.

Labour’s policies are ideas that are inspirational and transformative in bringing about change to end the marginalisation of people from the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Kiribati, to name a few. I am hopeful that those transformational changes will enrich our daily lives.

There is no doubt languages are the essence of culture and are the carriers of wisdom, knowledge, and ideas. In this sense, we are obliged to equip all of Aotearoa—Māori and non-Māori—with the opportunity to learn, share, experience, and practise their languages and cultures as a basis for Te Reo Māori me ona tikanga in Aotearoa New Zealand culture. Through schooling in English and maintaining Tongan values, languages, and cultures, and practising in my home and at the Fakafeangai Mā’oni’oni Tongan Methodist church, I am bi-literate and bicultural in the Tongan and English languages and culture. Through Tongan languages and practices, I am learning Te Reo Māori me ona tikanga. I am grateful to have benefited from the dreams of the South Pacific pioneers that had arrived here before me.

I am hopeful that this 52nd Parliament is robust and vigorous. To honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi as migrants to Aotearoa, nothing is a given. We have to work hard, understand the tools of colonisation and the politics of marginalisation, and fight for justice.

I am grateful that the Labour-led Government restored education as a right. I am hopeful quality education will fill our children’s hearts and minds with wisdom. I am grateful that the Labour Party is lifting the minimum wage and having better support for collective bargaining. I am hopeful employers will understand that it is about fair pay for a fair day’s work. I am hopeful that in-depth understanding of evidence will influence Labour’s transformation for our country and that when we do look at evidence, we critique our views and see it from the source, as told by the source, understanding that leadership is a pathway to genuine caring and to impacting and lasting positive change.

I am grateful to the groups—one of whom is here today, P.A.C.I.F.I.C.A. Inc.—that have been part of my mission to make a positive difference to the marginalised and less privileged groups. I am grateful to have the māfana and the mālie of the spirit of Mate Ma’a Tonga, as a concept to identify the Kakai Tonga and Kakai Tonga migrants and their descendants. I am hopeful that New Zealand understands that Tongan New Zealanders are proud to call and make New Zealand our home.

I am grateful for the opportunity to dedicate this maiden statement to my late grandfather, ‘Isileli Latu Isoa Kanongata’a, who passed away when I was seven years old. It was Isoa’s dream that I would one day be a member of Parliament in Tonga. I believe he is smiling from heaven with his sister, Seini-Toa-Filimoe’unga, in agreement with the repositioning to the New Zealand parliamentary context.

Ko ia ai, Vai ko Lomoloma, Finealafia, Ngoto’umu ‘a Veka; Fala-’o-Tuku’aho, Fā ko Pā’anga Lau; Maka ‘oku ‘ikai hua ‘aki hono hingoa; Nukuma’anu, Hofoa Tahi, Hofoa ‘Uta, Hofoa Mu’a; Sopu ‘o Taufa, Tohonanga; Polo’a, ‘Alakipeau, Tufaka, Niumui; Lotokolo, ‘Ana, Fakamokosia Ho’atā; Fine’ehē, Feinga Fono, Tafangafanga; Tali ki Langi, Matofa mo Manono; ‘Api Mama’o, Hau’ā, Kumifonua ua, Fonu moe e Moa, ‘Api ko Hofoa—mou tu’u mai. Mou tu’u mai, Ke tau talia mo kaungā poupou ki he fatongia kuo tuku falala mai ‘e he fonua ni, kia kitautolu—ko e fakalahi ia hotau kakalá. ‘Io, ko e ta’u eni ‘o e fakakoloa ‘a Aotearoa, ‘aki ‘a e Nofo-‘a-Kāinga. This is the year of enriching Aotearoa with Tongan culture, with Tongan values.

In closing, ke tekaki hotau lotó, mo e ngāué, ki he ‘Outá, pea mo’ui hangē ko e fonú: tau faka’utumauku, pea tau kātaki lahi, mo e ‘amanaki ke tau ikuna. Leveleva e malanga kau tatau atu.

Hymn

[Applause]

Mr SPEAKER: I just point out to Mr Coffey, who is attempting to influence the Chair, that that clock has been stopped for some time.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. As the first Dutch-born woman from Indonesian descent, I stand in this House. Mr Speaker, I too congratulate you and your fellow presiding officers on your new roles. I look forward to getting to know the rules of engagement and serving under your direction for the duration of the 52nd Parliament and, hopefully, beyond.

The Dutch have a saying. It goes: “Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg.” Translated, it means: just act normal; that’s crazy enough. But nothing about standing here feels like normal, and it’s a rather surreal experience.

Surreal as it may be, I’m honoured to stand here today as one of the “class of 2017”. I’m humbled to be in a place so full of tradition, history, and politics, in front of my whānau, friends, and my parliamentary colleagues. But I’m only here because the majority of New Zealanders voted for a change of Government, so I would like to begin by thanking the people who supported me in getting to this place.

To my husband Shane and our son Max—Max, it was fun having you on the campaign trail. I’m also really glad you’ve now got your black belt in kempo. It might come in handy in 2020. You probably never thought that for your 16th birthday party we would be watching the general election on a big TV screen in Ōrewa. Thank you Shane for keeping the strands of life together at home base. I’m so grateful for the job you do. I know it’s tough on you. Thank you both for being there for me, when so often I’m away and I’m not there for you. I’m very proud of you, and you are my stars.

I acknowledge the Labour Party for its confidence in me, and in particular I extend my thanks to our president, Nigel Haworth, and our general secretary, Andrew Kirton, for their guidance and commitment. I would like to thank Young Labour for their contagious passion and energy, and everyone in Fraser House for their incredible support.

I am Labour’s candidate for the beautiful Rodney electorate. The electorate has for many years been referred to as “blue on steroids”, but I am proud to say that for the very first time ever, Rodney now has its first Labour list MP. That means we now have four MPs in Rodney, so I’m expecting that together we will be achieving great things for Rodney as well as the country.

I would like to give my special thanks to my hard-working Rodney campaign team, Labour Auckland North, our passionate volunteers, and my friends in the aviation business and the trade union movement, especially my union, E tū. Many more have shown their support, and some of you are here today, sharing this experience with me. There are simply too many of you to name, but you know who you are and my aroha to all of you.

Finally, a happy 98th birthday for yesterday, Nana. Your positive attitude, despite a life that has been far from easy, is inspiring. I know you will be tuned in to your beloved radio. I just hope it’s on AM 882.

I was born in Holland, the Netherlands, and I started my life as the eldest child of Valentin “Tijn” and Nel Lubeck.

My father’s maternal ancestors travelled from China to Indonesia, where his grandmother, Oei Hoat Nio, married into a well-off family. But then, during the Second World War, the family was put into Japanese war camps and they lost everything. They experienced terrible hardship, and my dad, as a young boy, lost his father. My grandmother would tell us stories about frying up banana peel when there was nothing else to eat. After the war, the family moved to Holland and worked hard to make a new life for themselves.

My mum was a very young child in Holland during the Hunger Winter of 1944, when fuel and food were blocked by the Nazis. Everyone was very cold and very hungry. I remember stories of my grandfather walking for days in search of food for his young family. I acknowledge both my parents for raising four kids under five, filling our tummies with good food and our lives with unconditional love. Papa and Mama, it’s a 12-hour difference where you are, but I know you are watching right now.

In this very public way, I want to thank you for giving me a start to life where I’ve felt loved, safe, and secure. You’ve made many personal sacrifices to give your children the best possible start in life, and I will be forever grateful to you for giving me mine.

Growing up in a small town in Holland, I had a quote on my bedroom wall and it said: “I don’t know what I’m looking for and I don’t expect to find anything definite; the important thing for me is to keep moving.” It was that kind of curiosity that took me to the other side of the world, to a place first discovered by Europeans 375 years ago, by Dutch explorer Abel Tasman in 1642. I didn’t know much about New Zealand, except that a Dutch map-maker named it after the Dutch province of Zeeland. I knew it was the first country to give women the vote, and that it was clean, green, and nuclear-free—all seemed pretty good reasons to go check it out. I arrived in New Zealand in 1989. Unlike Abel Tasman, who did not have a good first encounter with New Zealand, I fell in love with the Kiwi way of life.

For me, the Kiwi Dream meant opportunities, a good job, fair wages, and a safe, affordable place to live. But things have changed. The truth is, many of the opportunities I was granted 28 years ago no longer exist, and the Kiwi Dream seems out of reach for many. Too many hard-working Kiwis are not getting ahead. They see their working conditions going backwards, and they’re finding it harder to make ends meet. Many people work longer hours, sometimes multiple jobs, for an income that’s barely enough. Last year, 45 percent of New Zealand working people didn’t get a pay increase. So a big chunk of people are missing out. The top 10 percent of people now have 10 times the wealth of the bottom 10 percent. It is the biggest wealth gap for decades, and it’s low and middle income earners who are losing out. To make things worse for working people, we’ve seen a systematic erosion of our protections and rights over the last nine years.

During that time, while working as a flight attendant, I served four terms as president of the flight attendant union. I became determined to learn and understand the law; not to become a lawyer but to use that knowledge in my union role to better serve my members and working people. So, in my spare time, I studied and in 2014 graduated with a law degree. Now, one might associate flight attendants with a glamorous lifestyle, but I have dealt with members unable to make ends meet on their wages and relying on accommodation grants. I have witnessed the impact that work restructuring and redundancies have on people—on their livelihoods, on their dignity and pride. I have seen the gap between rich and poor grow and the erosion of manaakitanga.

Mr Speaker, on your very first day in your role, you quoted Helen Kelly, and I too would like to repeat her message: “If people could just be kind to each other.” When I repeat her words and think of her, I reflect on how much the notion of collective responsibility has been eroded and the negative effects this has had on society, especially the growth of inequality. I spoke earlier of the time that my grandparents could not feed their families, a time when they were cold and hungry, but that was in wartime. I would not expect that more than 70 years later I would be living in a country like New Zealand where people find themselves cold and hungry. Every corner of New Zealand is affected by poverty, even Rodney. A food rescue service was set up last year by the Warkworth Rotary and Lions clubs. Organisations like Love Soup on the Whangaparāoa Peninsula are feeding over 1,000 people in need every month. It is disgraceful that in a rich and bountiful country like New Zealand we have widespread homelessness and people struggling to feed their families. This is not the great Kiwi Dream and it certainly is not the Kiwi culture and way of life I fell in love with 28 years ago.

So what has changed? We are seeing a race to the bottom, profit before people, and the erosion of longstanding protections from employment agreements. People’s working conditions are being undermined, their pay packets raided, creating uncertainty for working people and their families. This has damaging consequences for our communities. It needs to change, for if we don’t change, we will see more adversarial clashes like what we are seeing today with the Wellington rail network. Rail services were contracted out to foreign multinationals last year and, as a result, rail employees are the big losers. It is unfair that the rail operator’s profits are boosted by undermining its staff’s pay and working conditions. When there is industrial strife, it would be easy to blame the unions, but the unions I have experienced are made up of decent, working New Zealanders—people who care and want to make a difference to the lives of working people and their families. It is much more than just dealing with jobs; it is about protecting the basic human rights of workers: the right to be treated fairly and with dignity, to feel respected and to be valued.

Uncertainty of work translates to uncertainty of income, and for many people this has meant the removal of choices in the way they live their lives. Jobs are critical, but the quality of those jobs is even more important when it comes to the impact on people’s lives. Low quality employment means less time with parents, partners, and kids; not being able to buy birthday or Christmas presents; pressures on rents, mortgages, and day-to-day finances. Working life for too many ordinary working people is tough, and making ends meet is a real struggle. In the drive to create flexibility and cut costs, many New Zealand employers have been undermining job security, wages, and terms and conditions. They have also been undermining New Zealand. To stop this race to the bottom we need fair policies that allow hard-working people to get ahead. Because of years of successive weakening of our employment laws, many good employers now face unfair competition. Weak employment laws mean that bad employers can drive down costs by slashing pay and working conditions.

We currently have a very unbalanced system. Cost competition has done little for raising productivity. It has helped create the working poor. Forty percent of our children who live in poverty now live in working households. This needs to change. We need employment law that will bring balance back to the relationship between working people and their employers, creating an employment relations system that lifts everyone up. Contrary to what some seem to believe, the balance is not about strengthening adversarial systems between unions and employers; it is about parties working together collaboratively to find solutions to the issues they’re facing.

High Performance High Engagement is a workplace democracy model. It makes employees part of the decision-making process in their workplaces. At Air New Zealand, for example, for the last five years we have worked under a model where those closest to the problem in the workplace work together to find sustainable long-term solutions, and, as a result, everyone wins. It’s about companies, their employees, and unions working on shared interests, building trust and relationships. People are treated respectfully, treated decently; they’re engaged; there’s positive energy. It translates to higher discretionary effort, productivity, and efficiency. It is a balancing act to improve the working conditions of New Zealand’s workers and their families while also ensuring that businesses can thrive. It requires hard work and an open-minded approach on the part of both unions and employers.

I am proud to be part of a forward-looking Government and part of a modern union movement, and I firmly believe we can have strong unions, well-paid workers, and a highly functioning economy. These things are not mutually exclusive; in fact, we need all three to drive a fair, inclusive, and productive economy. We need all three to build a better quality of life for New Zealanders.

I am proud to be part of a Government that is not afraid to care—to have empathy and well-being as measures to inform Government policy—a Government that values people over profit, kindness over dollars and cents.

I am proud to be part of a Government that has already shown it is serious about its commitment to support working people and their families. Only last week the first bill was introduced, extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks. Parenting is the most important job we can do, and I’m proud to be part of a Government that is committed to giving our children the best start in life.

I’m so impressed to see you, Mr Speaker, demonstrate determination to create a more supportive environment to working people, working parents. I also believe that at the same time, the choice regarding whether and when to become a parent is one of the most private and important decisions a person can make. Our ability to control these decisions means control over our own bodies, destinies, and the path our life will take. Anything less is an attack on our freedom as a human being. We cannot say women have equal rights, nor true freedom, with offensive and outdated anti-choice legislation still in place. I hope I will be able to do my part in achieving true choice for women.

I stand united with working people and their families. They stand with me in this House. To you all, I pledge my energy and determination to be a loyal and hard-working member of Parliament. I pledge to do my part in creating a New Zealand where everyone shares in prosperity. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause]

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Let me begin by congratulating you on your new role. It wasn’t so long ago that you were visiting us in Invercargill, but so much has changed since then—not only for everybody here in this House but also for our country.

Maiden speeches are often times when we tell that story of our journey to Parliament and what we hope to achieve here. But today I actually want to tell a different story: it’s the story of our country. Not the official history, but rather the story seen by me, as a child, as a doctor, and, later, as a kind of statistical undertaker for our country’s children and young people.

At times it’s a dark story, but it’s also a story of hope because, with the election of a Labour-led Government, we can now start to make some changes on all the things I’ll be talking about today.

My story starts back in 1873, when my great-grandparents William and Rachel Marsden arrived in New Zealand. William was a carpenter, and he bought and then subdivided some land in Dunedin, and was very soon mortgage-free. But 17 years later, William became seriously ill, and a few months later the family ended up in rental accommodation. William was in hospital, and the family had come under the care of the Otago Benevolent Institution.

A few months later, William died, leaving Rachel a widow with nine children under the age of 15 years. Back then, there weren’t many social safety nets. There were a few benevolent societies providing aid to the deserving poor. My own father managed to track down our family’s case records for that time.

All of the Otago Benevolent Institution’s visiting records had a similar format, where the rent was up on the right-hand side and the children’s ages and wages were on the left. The first entry reads, “girl, 14: 3 shillings a week; girl, 13: 3 shillings”, and then the non-earning children: “girl, 10; boy, 8; girl, 5; boy, 4; boy, 3; boy, 14 months”. Then, in the margins, the case worker would make their assessment of our family’s needs. The initial entry read, “They have nothing coming in apart from earnings of the two girls, and I think some relief necessary.”

Over the next seven years, the files chart my family’s progress, and the aid rising and falling in relation to the case worker’s whim. For example, June 1891, when it was mid-winter in Dunedin and my recently widowed great-grandmother had, still, four children under the age of six: “Mrs M has had a mangle provided by the Church and she says she earns 2-3 shillings per week. This woman might do a great deal more to help herself than she does if she tried. I think the relief given … too much”.

My grandfather’s memory of this time was that he was always hungry. He once told a story of getting a job as an assistant to a gardener and being so hungry he picked an apple off a tree, only to return the next morning to find the head gardener had been sacked because the elderly lady owner always counted her apples and she’d found one to be missing. The toll on the rest of the family was also significant. Four years after my great-grandfather died, Annie, who was then 17, was admitted to hospital with nephritis, dying seven weeks later. Then Harry, aged 14, was admitted with malignant endocarditis and died within days. Both conditions we now know are associated with substandard living conditions.

We fast-forward to the Great Depression, when my own father was born. With widespread unemployment, it became just too inefficient to assess the moral fibre of every welfare recipient. So the incoming 1935 Labour Government decided that they would put an end to the stigma associated with social assistance and they would make an end to poverty, and, in doing so, they established our modern welfare State. They brought in the support provided to widows without children, to orphans, and to the sick. They introduced free healthcare and education, and they improved wages and working conditions. This led to a prolonged economic recovery, with the welfare State remaining essentially intact for the next 40 years.

However, things started to go wrong in the 1970s, with a global economic downturn. Our growth declined, unemployment rose, and large deficits emerged. While the 1980s were turbulent and we remember them, it wasn’t until the 1991 “mother of all Budgets” that our social safety nets started to unravel. We had benefit cuts, market rates for State houses, and the Employment Contracts Act, which decimated the unions, and child poverty soared from a maximum of 16 percent in the 1980s to 33 percent by 1992.

The year 1991 was also a significant year in my own life, because it was the year I graduated from medical school and started work as a house surgeon at Taranaki Base Hospital. I decided I wanted to be a doctor very early on. Our family had lived in New Guinea for a few years, and we’d often visited hospitals and clinics, where the suffering was starkly visible. So, 15 years later, I was working in the hospital where my brothers and I were born. I think my first few weeks as a doctor were much like my first few weeks as a politician—everything’s unfamiliar, you don’t know how anything works, and all the stuff you deal with day to day is never in the training manual. But somehow you just wing it, and over time you get steadier on your feet.

Except for me, there was an additional factor, in that Taranaki Base Hospital was also the place where my brother Peter had died. Peter was born by caesarean section, and was what we would call “flat” at birth, and so the on-call doctor had been called to resuscitate him. But just as he entered the resuscitation room, he got a call about another emergency, and so he quickly got in and got my brother breathing, and then rushed off. Some time later, my brother Peter was found unresponsive in his cot. A code was called, and after a prolonged resuscitation, they managed to bring him back. But his brain damage was so severe, he never really recovered, and he died of seizures about nine months later.

As a child, I didn’t fully understand Peter’s death, although at times I felt a profound sense of grief, as perhaps as a child you absorb the emotions of those around you. But once I was a doctor, it was with me every time I entered that delivery suite to do a newborn resuscitation—not only the grief of his loss but also how it must have been for that doctor who had done the initial resuscitation.

But, fortunately, death is an infrequent visitor to the children’s wards, and in my years in clinical medicine I only ever looked after a handful of children who died, but I still remember to this day very many of them.

Being a junior doctor, you’re on the wards at all hours of the day and night, and you get to know your families very well, and yet, irrespective of the country I worked in, the pattern was always the same. The child was deteriorating and the medical team were frantically working to save them, and then the child would pass. And then, after that, there was always just this stillness, and in that stillness I would often go back over it in my mind, thinking about what it would have been to have been able to save that child, and where we could have reached back into that child’s history and made the changes. But modern medicine being what it was, it was actually seldom in the hospital ward that those changes could have been made. We would have had to reach back many weeks and many months into that child’s life—a bit of extra money so that the milk wasn’t diluted so far, or a bit of extra support to that young mum, who was struggling with an unintended pregnancy.

So, fast-forward another decade, and I’m running the research unit that monitors the health of our country’s children and young people, and it’s my job to count the thousands of children hospitalised for poverty-related diseases and the dozens dying from preventable conditions, and, occasionally, after the hurly-burly of getting the reports out, I’d think about what those little dots on those graphs mean—the 20 children dying from pneumonia, the eight beaten to death by their parents, the 50 babies dying in their sleep, and the fact that most of these children come from the poorest areas, where their parents are already struggling to make ends meet.

Fortunately, our brains aren’t big enough to comprehend grief on such a scale. We can grieve a lost brother or a child we’ve looked after on the ward, but how do we grieve for a hundred children or for the thousands hospitalised each year, struggling to breathe, or for the harsh, uncaring place that our country has become? Again, I found myself going back over it in my mind, trying to identify at what point our country’s trajectory had changed, and in this case all roads led back to the early 1990s, when a single Budget doubled child poverty almost overnight, resetting the baseline for future generations.

I concluded that if it was in this House that the decisions were made that set us on our current path, then it was in this House that the remedies must be sought. I thus joined Labour in 2010 to help write our children’s policy, and stood as a candidate in 2014. I’m proud to be part of Labour’s 2017 intake and the policies we ran on this election, which for the first time in many years will begin to turn the situation around. But what will success look like, particularly for us in Invercargill where we have a strong community spirit but where many of our families are living in cold, damp houses; where many are struggling on low wages and insecure jobs; and where it can take up to nine months to get an ultrasound scan?

The closest analogy I can think of is my former colleague’s cot death research. In the early 1990s, it was found that putting babies on their backs to sleep reduced the risk of cot death, and over the next few years, the rates dramatically declined, eventually saving about 200 babies every year. But I never recall people going up to my old boss Ed and saying, “Thanks, Ed. I never died as a baby, as a result of your research.” But, nevertheless, the lives saved were real.

In the same way, I don’t expect anyone will ever walk up to Andrew Little and say, “Thanks. Your Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill saved me from growing up in a crappy rental that ruined my lungs.”, or to Annette King and saying, “That extra 60 bucks a week you gave my parents when I was little meant Mum could stay home with me longer.” But instead, over time, as our policies are rolled out, the bad stuff will just happen less and less, and our young people will start to focus on their futures more and more, rather than just on struggling to survive.

But doing all this will take a team effort, and I’m proud to be part of such a team, with Jacinda taking the lead from the front on child poverty reduction; Phil Twyford making sure every child gets a warm, dry home; Chris Hipkins—that every child gets a decent education; Carmel and Iain—that every family has enough to get by on; and David Clark—that they can access the health services they need. I’m also proud to be part of the “class of ‘17”, and to enter Parliament with such incredibly talented people. The calibre of my colleagues bodes well for our country’s future.

I’m also incredibly lucky to have shared my journey with so many wonderful people. To my parents, Bill and Dorothy, and my brothers, Barry and Deane, who’ve supported me from the beginning; to my sons, Nick and Jack, who’ve always been there for me; to Dave, who first got me involved in politics; and to Phil, who’ll see me the rest of the way; to my colleagues in child health, who’ve taught me so much; and to the Labour team at head office and in the southern hub; and my Invercargill team, the Wednesday group, and all those who’ve worked so hard on our campaign; and to my mentor Maryan Street—we all share a common vision, but none of my journey would’ve been possible without you, so thank you.

In 2009, when the global financial crisis hit, a number of us in child health got together to monitor the impact of the recession on child well-being. At the monitor’s launch, we asked a little girl called Natalie to light a candle, to symbolise our commitment to shining a light on our children until their economic position improved. At the monitor’s fifth anniversary, we asked Natalie to re-light the candle, but instead of a timid two-year-old, a confident seven-year-old strode on to the stage, and, in that moment, I realised that in the intervening years another whole generation of New Zealand children had just spent their first five years in poverty.

So wouldn’t it be wonderful, when Jacinda launches her child poverty targets, if we ask a child to light a candle? And when they light it again in five years’ time, a whole generation of New Zealand children will have grown up in a better place. Thank you.

[Applause]

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mr Speaker, it’s tradition in this House that I congratulate you on your election, so I do. Ha, ha! I thank you in advance for the gentle and subtle direction you’ll give me, although that does give me disturbing recollections of thanking a headmaster for correction he once gave me.

My next thanks go to the people of Christchurch for placing their trust in me. I’m really proud and humbled to have been elected by the people of Christchurch Central to represent them. I hope that I’ll be able to live up to that onerous responsibility. It’s a critical part of my past to represent Christchurch. They elected me; I am here for them.

I know it’s usual to sing the praises of the city we come from, to have a bit of banter—as Paula Bennett would say—about rugby teams and about the weather and the drive home, and what have you, but I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to bluster. I’m here because Christchurch is not OK. Regardless of what we would like, the earthquakes define Christchurch. Anyone who was there has vivid recollections of that day—my own is extraordinary, but no more extraordinary than thousands and thousands of others.

I was there contemplating a lawyer’s lunch at 1:51 p.m. on the 14th floor of a building when it started to shake and sway violently. A filing cabinet burst through a wall. I hovered under a doorway—as if that would do any good—and when it stopped I was confused because when I looked out the window there was nothing but dust. When it cleared, I saw the cathedral decapitated, and when I looked across the other side of the building I saw worse: I saw the Pyne Gould Corporation building, a mangled, collapsed wreck, and I knew then that people had died. I didn’t know then that people I knew had died in there.

The rest of the day is a series of vignettes: me waving down a car, getting a lift home, and trying to find my children, who are here today. I found Lewis at school, with a field full of liquefaction, and Albert at home, having avoided the kitchen cabinet that had fallen on to the table. And then it was a matter of finding my third, Felix, who was at school camp. I struggled across town, with my children on bikes. I remember cycling through water on subsided land to my parents’ to borrow the car—thanks, Dad; it was the first time. I drove across some 70 kilometres to get Felix, and there was a whole lot of anxious and stressed kids, and I was pretty anxious and tired myself. It was late and dark. I found him with the kids and rushed over, and he put me in my place. He turned to me and said, “Daddy, you’re here to see me in this camp show.” So it was good to get a bit of reality there.

But, look, that earthquake caused immense devastation in my electorate—others, too, but Christchurch’s heart stopped beating. There, that day, the army moved in; the city was closed. Buildings were demolished; thousands of homes were damaged. The disaster of the Christchurch earthquakes didn’t stop on that day. They have continued. They have continued through delay, through denial, through distress, and sometimes despair. That is why I am here.

I was a lawyer at the time, and I believed that we had a Government—a Government according to law—we had insurers and insurance contracts. I believed that we would sort this out, that things would be OK, that we would work out this long process, and that people would get their just deserts. But I was shaken: my trust in the law was shaken; my trust in Government was shaken. It just didn’t happen.

This society’s built on a social contract. We expect others to adhere to their obligations. We live under the shadow of the law, not the sword. That social contract was torn. Insurers in the Earthquake Commission didn’t look to their legal obligations; they looked to their risk exposure. They used the law not as a guide but as a weapon; not as what was fair but what they could get away with.

Ordinary people have been failed by Government, failed by justice, and failed by law. A good democracy has a process for this: it’s called the courts. We vindicate our rights there. It’s why we have it, so we don’t have recourse to other means. But that let us down too. The court put insurmountable hurdles in the way of ordinary New Zealanders: the cost, the procedure, the threats, and the delays. So we have a system of layer upon layer of obstructions.

Let us learn from this. The earthquakes did not create this problem; it was there already. The earthquakes just put it into stark relief. While the place that this happened is Christchurch, it’s a signal warning: rights are easy to respect when times are easy; the vulnerable are easy to care for in times of plenty.

I am here because what I saw shook me. And in New Zealand today, we need to remember that. We need a system that will protect the weak, the poor, the disenfranchised, and the vulnerable, at any time and in any circumstances. I am here because it is the role of this Government to change this. This isn’t just about Christchurch or Kaikōura or Edgecumbe. This is about anyone who is overwhelmed or who’s faced by an imbalance of power, who’s been spoken down to or patronised, or been treated not as a person but as a bottom line. We need to stop, think, and change this.

I know we’ve all got here through our own trials and hurdles and hard work, but I want to pause for a moment and not dwell upon those things. What I want to do is celebrate that each of us here is here, and has got here because of something: some special advantage. For myself, I had a raft of advantages: probably first, a loving and stable family. My mum and dad are up there today—and thank you so much for coming. They took me from a nondescript suburb in South-East London and brought me here to this young country, a country that even when I was six I could tell was young and vibrant; a country where it wasn’t stupid, it wasn’t ridiculous, to think that one day I could go to university, one day maybe be a lawyer. I never dreamt of being here, but those dreams were possible. I just want to say, firstly, what were you thinking, but, secondly, thank you so much.

So those advantages that we each have, let’s reflect on those and remember that there are many who don’t. We hear a lot about equal treatment and personal responsibility in this House, but that gospel, the gospel of equality and personal responsibility, makes no sense when we don’t start equal. I want to call out that other shibboleth of the right, “common sense.” Arguments prefaced with “common sense” are far too often cover for the fact that there is no argument underlying it. It’s too long been the shelter of conservatism and a roadblock to clear thinking and to progress.

Our task as Government is to ensure that everyone is able to lead a flourishing and meaningful life, one that they choose, in which they can realise their potential as they define it. So we need to move past the measurement of success in mere money terms and economic activity, and to think very carefully about what will make this nation flourish.

What makes a flourishing family and a flourishing person? What profits us if we have more money but if we have a community that is unhappy, culturally impoverished, and deprived of recreation and art, where every spare hour is spent working to make ends meet and family and friends are put to one side. So, against that background, it’s pretty clear I belong to the Labour Party: a party that has democratic socialist principles at its heart. I am a socialist.

It’s worth pausing—the word causes fear and loathing in some, but it shouldn’t, because it’s not anti-capital.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Only with the simple.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No heckling in maidens, Faafoi. Do I get an extra supplementary for that?

Mr SPEAKER: No, you lose time.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The market is a tool to create and distribute wealth, but constant vigilance is required to ensure that it operates fairly, that undue power is not accumulated, and when power exists it’s not abused. To say the market should be free is just a cloak for an assertion that the rules should favour one party and not another. Socialism seeks to strike a balance, a balance that rewards risk and enterprise but ensures there’s no abuse of position, that work is fairly remunerated, that society is geared not only to the creation of wealth but to the fair distribution of that bounty, and the recognition of social justice as a critical value.

We each stand here as representatives of a community, or sometimes communities, and I just want to identify and thank some of those. I am really grateful and humbled by the task that Christchurch Ōtautahi has given me. It’s a great city with great diversity. Ngāi Tahu welcomed the settlers in the 1850s, and since that staunchly English overlay there’s been a flood of diversity: Pasifika nations, refugees, and people from all over the world.

But, more directly, I know I have a huge group of advocates out there, people I might not even have met but who have known of me and have spoken well of me, and I thank them for that. Also, there’s some of my campaign team here. They gave so much. I think everyone gave what they could, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the enormous work that you did. It’s really gratifying to think that you believed in me as the right person for Christchurch and the right person to further the mission of the Labour Party here.

And, finally, my family: my family’s had a tough year or so, and my new job’s not made it any easier. You know, one thing I’ve learnt is that you can’t really define a family, but our family is held together by ties of love and of blood. I’ve got my three teenage sons here and also my brother Ken—and Simon and Sarah Mark, my other siblings, had better be watching.

You know, I’ve got a household of really fine men, and I admire them greatly. I know we don’t often use our words like we should, but I know you’re proud of me.

Lastly, you begged me not to say any dad jokes in Parliament, and I’ve got no beef with that. I won’t mince words; I’ll put a stake in the ground. Dad jokes are a medium-rare well done. Thank you.

[Applause]

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa, ko Waitakere te maunga, ko Manukau te moana, ko Whau te awa, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Salutations to you all. Waitakere is the mountain, Manukau is the sea, and Whau is the river. Therefore, greetings, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively, and to us all.]

Kia ora, kia orana, talofa, malo e lelei, namaste, salaam, ni hao, mabuhay, and good evening. Congratulations, Mr Speaker, on your new role: poachers, gamekeepers—seems to be working out well so far. I’m honoured to stand in this House today, and it is a great privilege to enter the House with the “class of 2017”.

In my mihi, I spoke of the mountains and river and sea where I now live. We are perhaps not accustomed to thinking of urban Auckland as a place of great beauty, but I assure you that is only because more of us need to travel west to the Waitakere Ranges, home to magnificent kauri. There is another mountain that is precious to me: the mountain I grew up under, Te Maunga, the Mountain, Mount Taranaki. Whenever I travel up and down Te Ika-a-Māui, I look for Taranaki and when I see him I feel joy. I have lived in many places in our country, but Taranaki is my oldest home. I love its bush and its black sand beaches, so much like Pīhā and Karekare.

I was born in Whangamomona, in the backblocks of Taranaki, to a farming family. Many of my family are farmers still and, being a Labour MP, I am perhaps the family disgrace—or perhaps not. The support of my family as I have worked to become a member of this House has sustained me—especially from my farming cousins. I’m also very grateful to my Labour whānau, people from Palmerston North and from Rangitīkei and Auckland, who have travelled to be here today and who have supported me throughout my campaigns. I’m deeply appreciative of the support from people who are now my colleagues, especially the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway—

Hon Member: He’s behind you.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —always—who was the first to suggest that I should run, and my neighbours in Auckland, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and Phil Twyford and Michael Wood.

Mr Speaker, following my mihi, I greeted you and everyone here in just some of the languages that people in my electorate speak: Te Reo, Cook Islands Māori, Samoan, Tongan, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, Tagalog, English. People come to live in New Lynn from all over the world; over 40 percent of the people in the electorate were born overseas. It’s incredibly diverse. Its representation in Parliament has perhaps not been quite so diverse: four white men, and now one white woman. Rex Mason, Jonathan Hunt, Phil Goff, and David Cunliffe served New Lynn and the country well—all of them as Ministers and excellent electorate MPs. Thank you to Jonathan Hunt for his support of my campaign, and to my old friend David Cunliffe. David and I have been friends for over 30 years now, since we were both students. He is held in great affection and very high regard in New Lynn. David, I very much doubt that I will do things exactly the same way as you—red hair aside—but I do hope to emulate your service and your kindness as an electorate MP.

I am somewhat of an intellectual, as these things go in New Zealand, but it does take all sorts to form a Government. As I prepared for this moment, I thought of the people who have guided me and taught me and helped me to form my own ideas. From my mother, Marie Russell, I learnt feminism. I am an only daughter, and Mum taught me to stand up for myself amidst the rolling maul of my three brothers. She taught me the value of independence, of being able to provide for myself so that I might operate as a free woman, and she taught me the value of speaking out and, in a very practical way, found the money for me to have speech lessons so that I could speak out. Later on, I learnt the word “feminist” from my Auntie Marie, and from many conversations with my fabulous feminist friends I learnt about structures of power in our society and how we might make things better for everyone.

From my father, David Russell, I learnt integrity. Dad was a very successful primary sector accountant, and one of the reasons for his success was that he was very honest. He would always work to get the best outcome for his clients, firmly within the law. For Dad, if it was a bit grey, it was black, and he simply wouldn’t go there. He was often a counsellor for his clients, talking them through personal issues, always taking the word “professional” to mean so much more than just “technical expert”. I admired my dad so much that I followed him into accountancy, working in both the private sector and the public sector and running my own small consulting company.

But I’ve always had a hunger for ideas, so I returned to university to study philosophy. From Dr Andrew Brien and Professor Philip Pettit, I learnt the ideas that have driven my commitment to Labour. I am absolutely committed to equality. Not the thin, formal version of equality, where each person is theoretically equal before the law, but real, substantive equality, where each person can look the other in the eye, when no one is the master, when no one must bow and scrape and ingratiate in order to get by. If we believe in the fundamental worth of all human beings, then we must aim for real equality. A person who is truly equal is a person who is free to make choices, a person who can flourish and live to the best of their abilities. That might sound highly individualistic, as though we are all little atomised units living in some libertarian paradise, but the theory I studied recognises another crucial fact about human beings, one that comes to us from as far back as Aristotle: human beings are social animals, living in the warp and weft of communities. We need to find ways for each person to flourish, for each person to live their own life as they choose, while at the same time understanding that we do this collectively, together.

So how do we achieve this? We do it by law and we do it by institutions. We create freedom, not freedom from the law but freedom by and through the law and freedom guaranteed by our institutions. We must actively enable people to be free and to be equal. We do what Labour parties have always done. We ensure that each person has a decent education, so they can participate in our society. We make sure we have a proper health system, so that illness and accident do not mean disaster. We have a welfare system, so that we can tide people through the bad times and they are not reduced to living on the capriciousness of others’ charity. We support unions, so that employers and workers can negotiate together as equals. We ensure that people don’t live in fear of others.

In June this year, I visited a young woman in New Lynn. She aired out her house, she cleaned, she heated the one room she could afford to heat, and still her ceiling was black with mould and her baby was in and out of hospital. But she didn’t want to ask her landlord for assistance, for fear that she would be evicted. That is why we need the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act.

To put these ideas into a phrase, it is the difference between subjects, who are bound to obedience, and citizens, who are free and equal. When a young mother doesn’t dare ask for basic repairs, then she is a subject, not a citizen. When a worker can lose his job because he talked to the union, then he is a subject, not a citizen. When we say to a woman who was raped, “But what were you wearing?”, then she is a subject, not a citizen. When we decline to take action on the coming catastrophe of climate change, we treat our children as subjects, not citizens. When an LGBTQI+ person fears to go into Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) because they have been treated as less than human, then they are a subject, not a citizen.

There have been many stories about the difficulties people have had with WINZ in recent years, and it’s tempting to blame the individual staff, but I know, myself, as a former public servant, that people who work for the Government take those words “public” and “servant” very seriously; they are there to serve the people of New Zealand. I’m sure the workers in WINZ are proud to be public servants, but through the policies and procedures that have been set up there, we have forced our public servants to turn their fellow citizens into subjects over whom they rule. That is demeaning to both, and a fundamental failing of Government.

We need to make people citizens again, not just producers in an economy or the objects of data analysis for social investment but people, individuals who matter in their own right, free and equal citizens in a society that cherishes everyone.

When I wrote my doctoral thesis, I used these ideas and applied them to the problems and opportunities of living in multicultural societies. That multicultural society is a reality in New Lynn, where people from so many different cultures and ethnicities live together in tolerance and respect. I especially want to work on ways of helping people from all the different communities to participate in Government, at the local level and at national level.

And I want to bring that understanding of subjects and citizens to my specialist area of taxation. I learnt about tax through working with the extraordinary public servants in the policy advice division at the Inland Revenue Department, through teaching tax at Massey University, and through writing about tax with Terry Baucher. Having a fair tax system is part of enabling citizenship, both in terms of how we collect taxes and how we use them to pay for the institutions that let us flourish.

There is another person who taught me: my beloved uncle, Tony Russell. He was my third parent. Tony was a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, although eventually he left the church altogether. He wrote his doctoral thesis in liberation theology, and he was the first person to suggest that I should study at doctoral level myself. When he was diagnosed with cancer, he wrote a last testament distilling the wisdom he had learnt over many years into a few words. I read that testament aloud at his funeral. He said that the greatest value he had learnt was compassion; that we ought always to remember the humanity of the people we deal with and to treat each other and ourselves with compassion. That is how I have tried to work with my students, and how I will now try to work as the servant of people in New Lynn and in this beautiful country.

There are four people here today who are the world to me. I am so proud of my three beautiful daughters, young women of good heart and compassion, who reach out and look after other people, who are the great joy and delight of my life. Ruth, Sophia, and Bridgid, thank you for all the support you have given me.

And my husband, Professor Malcolm Wright. We’ve been together for nearly three decades now, but we kept a secret from each other until well after our wedding, when we eventually discovered that we are both Star Trek fans. We both love Star Trek for the science, the wonder, the hokeyness, the humour, and the belief in a better world. It’s what we both aspire to. Malcolm: thank you for your belief in me. Because of you, I’m setting out on this continuing mission to explore new ways of doing things, to seek out new ideas and new visions, to boldly go and make New Lynn, this country, and this world a better place. Thank you for journeying with me.

[Applause]

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Ko te mihi tuatahi ki Te Atua, ko te mihi tuarua ki Te Whare e tū nei, he mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[The first tribute is to God, the second one is to the House standing here, and a warm tribute to all of you. Therefore, salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you collectively, and to us all.]

Ella suhrithukkalkum ente sneham niranja ashamsakal. Ellavarkum ente nanni areekyunnu.

I believe that is the first time my mother tongue, Malayalam, has been spoken in this House. I extend my heartfelt thanks and wishes to everyone, to all those who have supported me on my journey to Parliament, including the Malayali community in New Zealand.

I have the honour of being the first Indian-born woman Labour MP, possibly the first who has grown up in Singapore. I acknowledge the role that both countries have played in shaping my perspectives in life. I acknowledge former Labour MPs Dr Ashraf Choudhary and Dr Rajen Prasad, who also have links to South Asia and in whose footsteps I follow.

Sir, congratulations to you on your election as the Speaker of this House, and to your presiding officers. I also congratulate our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. It is truly a privilege to stand on this side of the House and be part of a Government that I know will create a fairer New Zealand for us all—a Government that will bring kindness and justice back. This election campaign, there was a palpable mood for change—change from the status quo to a Government that puts people first. There was a clear appetite for a more collaborative style of politics that focuses on the well-being of the people who elected us to serve over scaremongering and political point scoring. I’m proud to be part of a Government that has these as its priorities.

On the campaign trail, I met many who struggled to find a house that they could afford to rent or buy. The housing crisis was a defining issue of this election, as were the mental health crisis and shocking suicide statistics. I’m told that in Maungakiekie, the electorate where I stood, 10 young people took their lives over a period of five months this year. I am proud to be part of a Government that will bring about change that will benefit the lives of the many.

I believe that everyone, regardless of ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, religion, or gender should have equitable access to good quality, affordable housing, healthcare and education. Everyone should have access to decent, secure work that allows for a decent standard of living. Everyone should be able to live with dignity, and the State has a duty to protect, provide for, and invest in its people. The connection between the personal and the political is why I’m here. Decisions that are made in this House have the power to turn people’s lives around.

Becoming a member of Parliament is a surreal experience for most, I’m sure, but it’s particularly so for someone like me. I was born in India, grew up in Singapore, and I moved to New Zealand as a young adult, at a time in my life when I wanted to step outside my comfort zone, move to a country where I didn’t know anyone, and build a life for myself. It was the best decision of my life, and I am grateful for the opportunities that New Zealand has offered me, opportunities that should be equally available to everyone.

It’s often said that the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its most marginalised. I’ve spent most of my working life advocating for those whose voices are rarely heard: ethnic women survivors of violence and, more recently, migrant workers who have been exploited. Just last year, I supported a young man who had come to New Zealand to work and was given as accommodation a room with no ventilation that was just larger than a single bed. On average, he was paid just $4 an hour. This is not an isolated case, and it needs to stop.

My first job in New Zealand was with a national refuge organisation called the Shakti Community Council, which supports and advocates on behalf of Asian, African, and Middle Eastern women survivors of violence. Shakti was the first to fill an important gap—culturally appropriate services to women from our growing ethnic communities—and it plays a crucial role in our national response to domestic violence, because a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. It’s important that we talk about domestic violence to lift the stigma that many women still face and to ensure that they have the support and the justice that they deserve. It is also important that we don’t tar entire communities with the same brush. Domestic violence cuts across ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, and educational background. Religion and culture should never be used to justify violence against women, because it’s not promoted by any culture or supported by any major world religion. Domestic violence is a product of patriarchal structures.

I have also worked as a policy analyst with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, as it was known then, focusing on domestic violence prevention. I pay tribute to my former colleagues from the Public Service, who are here today, and thank all public servants for the work they do behind the scenes.

New Zealand has the highest rate of reported domestic violence in the developed world. Almost 50 percent of homicides in New Zealand are domestic violence murders. Women are disproportionately represented as victims of intimate partner violence. These are facts, and they hold true regardless of ethnicity. We need to change the way we think about, and respond to, this epidemic if we are serious about addressing it in a way that is meaningful and sustainable. We must consider the benefits of a truly integrated system that ensures no one falls through the cracks. We must challenge gender norms and stereotypes that hold women back and work towards a New Zealand that is truly meritocratic. We must also better support those who do the work in these sectors and ensure that we support their well-being and pay them a decent wage.

I’m generally an excellent sleeper, but when I first started supporting survivors of domestic violence, I went for months without being able to get a proper night’s sleep. The women I worked with had experienced horrific levels of abuse, and I struggled to cope. I lived alone, I was relatively new to New Zealand, and I was working within communities that tended to shy away from talking about domestic violence. I’ve been stalked in shopping centres and had to call the police on drunk, angry husbands who turned up at my office looking for their wives and children who’d escaped their violence. Everyone has the right to feel safe in their homes, at work, and on the streets.

Last week, I was mugged, here in New Zealand. It happened just after 4 p.m. on a Friday on Ponsonby Road, a busy road at a busy time in broad daylight. The police said it’s becoming more common, and we know that from the statistics. We must not become that society, where people clutch their handbags in fear and look over their shoulders when crossing the streets. I was more shaken by that incident than I initially thought I would be. I spent most of that Friday night feeling unsettled and unsafe, but, for me, it was just that one Friday night. Too many of our small-business owners have experienced far worse. They live with that fear day in, day out. Many have told me that when they open up their shops in the morning, they wonder whether that will be the day that their attacker returns to finish the job. That kind of constant fear is debilitating. We need to stem the tide, the rising tide of crime, and, indeed, to reverse it. I’m proud to be part of a Government that will prioritise this.

I’m also proud to be part of a Government that is truly aspirational for all New Zealanders. Having grown up in multicultural Singapore, I’m very comfortable with different cultures. That’s great news for me, since we have over 200 ethnicities represented and over 160 languages spoken in New Zealand. My vision for New Zealand is for us to celebrate our cultural mosaic, to celebrate what makes us unique as New Zealanders and not strive to be a melting pot, a New Zealand where we respect Māori as tangata whenua and acknowledge that it is our responsibility as a nation to keep Te Reo Māori alive, because if we won’t, who will?

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding document for New Zealand, the basis on which the partnership between Māori and the Crown was established. This is the foundation upon which we celebrate that which makes us unique as New Zealanders. Now is the time to build on that platform. I want us to be a nation that also values heritage languages. Language connects us to our unique histories and identities—a truly egalitarian nation where everyone is valued regardless of where they come from or what they sound like, where migrants don’t feel that they have to change their names to be considered for jobs that they are qualified for, and where people from different ethnic communities are well represented in leadership roles. Our collective strength lies in our diversity. We are strong because of our diversity and not in spite of it.

It is often said that we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. I acknowledge the role that my extended family has played in shaping who I am today. My maternal great-grandfather was a unionist and a proud member of the Socialist Party in India. Both he and my maternal grandfather were medical doctors who treated for free those who couldn’t afford treatment.

I’ve been brought up in a family that for generations believed that it is our duty to value everyone equally and to serve those who are less privileged. I stand in this House recognising that it’s a privilege, and with privilege comes great responsibility. I also come from a matriarchal community and a long line of strong women who stood up for themselves and fought for what they believed in. I hope I do them all proud.

Only time will tell what my contributions in this House will be, but I didn’t get here through hard work alone. I had the support of many, and I thank my campaign team, with Ben Ross and Robert Gallagher at the helm, guided by Carol Beaumont. I thank the volunteers and my Maungakiekie Labour electorate committee. I thank former MPs who have acted as formal and informal mentors. I congratulate Denise Lee, who won the electorate of Maungakiekie. Denise, I look forward to working constructively with you over the years to come.

When you move to a country without any support networks, your friends become surrogate family. To my friends who are here in the gallery and those who are watching from afar, you know who you are and I thank you for your friendship and your love.

Last, but certainly not least, my family. To my in-laws—some of you are here today and some are watching online—thank you for your love and for keeping me grounded. To my husband Ewan, thank you for your strength. Thank you for being my strategist, my best friend, and my rock. I love you. I could not have done this without your support.

Finally, my parents, Usha and Raman Radhakrishnan, who couldn’t be here today in person, but will be watching from Chennai, India where they live. I owe everything to you both. Your love, support, and guidance have made me the person I am today. You taught me that I could be and do anything I set my mind to. Most importantly, you instilled in me the values of honesty, integrity, and a passion for social justice. These are the values that make me Labour through and through, and these are the values that will guide my time in this House and, indeed, the rest of my life. To you both, thank you, and I love you.

I end with a whakataukī that I love: “Manaaki whenua, manaaki tangata, manaaki wahine, manaaki tamariki, haere whakamua.”

[“Show respect for land, person, women, and children; go forward.”]

Care for the land, care for the people, care for the women and children, and together we will go forward. Thank you.

[Applause]

[Traditional drumming]

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai, “ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ahau!” Ki te mana whenua o te rohe nei, e Te Āti Awa, tēnā koutou. Ki a koutou i roto i tēnei Whare o Te Pāremata, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, “the sooty shearwater laments, the parrot laments, and I lament as well!” To the mandated authority of this region, to you Te Āti Awa, salutations to you. To you collectively in this House of Parliament, salutations, acknowledgments, and accolades to you all.]

Gidday, Mr Speaker. I start with an apology. I am afraid the Masterton District Dancers could not make it here tonight, so you’ll just have to put up with my speech. But it is indeed a great privilege and an honour to stand here to deliver my maiden speech as a Labour member of Parliament, based in Wairarapa.

The Labour Party has placed its trust in me to represent the values and principles that have guided our party for over 100 years. We are a party of fairness, opportunity, solidarity, freedom, sustainability, and equality. These are the values that will forever guide me and will influence the decisions I make for as long as I am a member of this House. I wish to thank the Labour Party for the trust they have placed in me, and to thank the people who voted for us for giving me the honour of being elected as a member of Parliament. I am truly grateful.

I am a proud Wairarapa man. It is where I have lived my whole life and the place I hope to draw my last breath. My family has lived in Wairarapa for 171 years. My great grandmother’s great grandfather Henry Burling was the first settler in what is now Featherston, and that means a lot to me. There was only one place I was going to come back to after a couple of years of rugby and high jinks in Ireland, where I met my wife, Suzanne. I told her on the first night we met that I wanted to return here to be a voice for my region in Parliament. And she laughed at me. But that she decided to return with me and choose a life to support me in achieving this goal is something for which I am incredibly grateful.

A special moment occurred recently, which could have occurred only due to my election to this House, when we were able to meet Uachtarán na hÉireann, the President of Ireland. Seeing Suzanne meet her president and speak to him in their native Irish was the kind of thankyou I would have never been otherwise able to give, and I am pleased I could do that.

The reason I was so clear in my aspirations so early on is that Wairarapa is part of my identity, it is part of who I am, and if I was clear as to my aspirations then, my resolve has only become clearer as I have had the chance to campaign around the electorate, visiting towns, feeling its problems, and seeing its potential. I am sure it is an experience we all share in this House: that it is the moments we spend out in contact with people within our communities that finally form our resolve to be here, in a place to make changes to realise the potential of our community and this country. That is certainly the case for me.

The opportunity to be another voice for Wairarapa here at Parliament means a lot for me. I am one of three members in this House representing Wairarapa. I acknowledge the National MP for Wairarapa, Alastair Scott. I understand you made a special effort to come here tonight, and that is appreciated. I also acknowledge the deputy leader of New Zealand First, the Hon Ron Mark. The three of us exchanged pretty robust views throughout the campaign, and, frankly, I am pleased that’s out of the way, because now we can get down to what is actually important. You both have my respect, and I pledge to you, this House, and the people of Wairarapa that at every opportunity I will work constructively with you both for the betterment of our region—but just to be clear, I still want your job.

The Wairarapa electorate is not just the Wairarapa region; it comprises three distinct communities: Wairarapa, the Tararua District, and Central Hawke’s Bay. Each community has a different identity, with different perspectives and issues affecting them. It is vital that any representative—list or electorate MP—acknowledges that the Tararua District and Central Hawke’s Bay is just as much part of our electorate as Wairarapa is.

My love of the Wairarapa community is one I share with my parents, who are here today. Mike and Marie McAnulty have taught me much in my lifetime. Much of what I have achieved in my life can be put down to the love and support that I have received from them. I am truly fortunate.

During the campaign, they were out helping with hoardings, delivering pamphlets, and knocking on doors. Party officials might be alarmed to learn that my mother not once stuck to the approved script for door knocking. Her approach was simple. She’d knock on the door, she’d wait for someone to turn up, and she’d say “Gidday, I’m Kieran’s mum.” It was unorthodox, but it did the trick. Thank you both.

One benefit of being an Irish Catholic is that you have a large family. This comes in handy when there are a lot of pamphlets to deliver in a rural seat. To my family here today, my auntie Maureen, my cousins Raelene and Bungle—that’s not his real name—Addison, Lockie, Karen, and Bryce, thank you. I want to make special mention to my little cousin Maia, who, at nine years of age, took a real interest in this election, seeming to stop everyone she met on the streets of Pahīatua to tell them quite clearly, “You’d better vote Labour.”

This is the kind of support that I have. It’s total and it’s unconditional and it’s appreciated. To my 85-year-old nana, watching at home—the news hasn’t started, so she probably is watching—thank you for your support and guidance over the last 32 years.

Family has played a big part in my life, and it was my late grandfather who once told me something I’ve never forgotten. He once said to me, “When the working man is doing well, the whole country is doing well.” That is something that I have reflected on often. It has inspired me, and I deeply wish that he was here to see this day. He wouldn’t admit it, but I suspect he might be proud.

I’m grateful to volunteers, friends, and family who have worked so hard to bring me to this place. You’ve all worked hard to see a change of Government and to get me here. It is in this moment of taking stock of where I’ve arrived that I must reflect on the support that I’ve received. I’m indebted to you all.

To those who are here from the various groups and organisations that I’ve been involved in: the Golden Shears, Wings Over Wairarapa, the Bottom Paddock Cricket Club, the Gladstone, Waikaia and Muskerry rugby clubs, Chanel College, and the volunteer fire brigade—thank you all, for being here to share this moment with me.

It’s about five hours’ drive from one end of my electorate to the other, and, given that I drive a ’97 Mazda ute with no back door, it sometimes takes longer than that. We have five district councils, three regional councils, and three district health boards. There are nine newspapers covering our area, and we have three rugby teams: Hawke’s Bay, Manawatū, and the mighty Wairarapa Bush. I am a fanatical supporter of Wairarapa Bush, and have headed along to Memorial Park in Masterton to cheer the boys on ever since I was a kid. My personal email refers to my love of the mighty Bush—I must admit, when I joined the Labour Party, that did raise a few eyebrows, but it was easily explained.

I am a big believer in the benefit of participating in sport. Its potential value is particularly so for our most vulnerable and underprivileged children. The rewards and lessons of hard work, participation, collaboration, and commitment are ones that set people up for a life of contribution. But these skills, none of us are born with. They must be taught. For some, sport offers a chance to learn these skills when perhaps they would not have otherwise been able to.

Not every child had the upbringing that I was fortunate enough to receive. The one thing that we cannot choose in life is our parents, nor the life that they are able to give us. Our start in life truly is a lottery. I believe in the need to work hard in order to achieve results. However, I still look and wonder at the views of some in this House who seem to be content with leaving things to chance. I wonder why, for some, there seems to be an incapacity to comprehend the concept that not every child is born equal and no amount of hard work will give them the gains that they deserve.

I’ve worked hard to get here, and this seat in this House and the privilege of contributing to making progress for New Zealand is my reward. But I have worked no harder than a cleaner in Masterton Hospital; I have worked no harder than a small-business owner in Dannevirke who is continually finding it harder to get ahead; and I have worked no harder than the farm workers across my electorate from Waipaoa and Waipukurau down to Featherston and Martinborough, be they sharemilkers or shearers, who slug their guts out and continue to see their dream of farm ownership drift away, as it has done over the last nine years.

Every single one of us in this House is lucky. We’ve all worked hard, and we all continue to do so, but somewhere along the line, something has fallen into place that has given us this chance to be here. None of us is here through hard work alone, and this House must never lose sight of that. There are people working harder than us, yet through no fault of their own, they are not getting their due rewards. This House has an opportunity to address that, but it is up to us to grasp that opportunity.

I’ve been here only a few weeks now, but already I can see how much we are in a bubble in this place. I’m sure members would agree how easy it could be to lose touch with the diverse realities of life around the country—how easy it might be to forget how we got here or where we came from. As members of Parliament, we are treated to benefits that other working people will never experience.

I am reminded of a quote from Sir Charles Upham, one of the great New Zealanders. He was a staunch advocate for egalitarianism—the belief in a fair go for all, regardless of who you are, what you do, or where you’re from. It’s reported that he once said, around the time of receiving one of his many accolades, “I am better than no bastard, but no bastard is better than me.”

This idea of equality and of fairness touches at the heart of what the Labour Party is about. My colleagues and I have a firm belief that the State has a responsibility to ensure that every child has the chance to reach their potential and that everyone is treated with fairness. We all have something to offer, but not all of us gets the chance to offer it. What this takes is a bit of kindness. We are all kind; we just choose who to be kind to. If we were less subjective and more collective, fewer opportunities would be overlooked or, indeed, dismissed. If our starting point is one of kindness, our vision might be so much better when it comes to realising those values of equality and fairness, and I can see how such a vision might be brought to bear in a rural and regional environment.

I am proud to be a product of a rural upbringing. Both sides of my family have farmed for many generations. I support the primary sector and acknowledge its importance to regions like mine and, indeed, the need for the Government to support it, but all too often, the communities that support primary industries are overlooked and neglected.

When I look back at the opportunities that were available to my parents, or indeed their parents before them, it simply does not compare to the lack of opportunities available to our youth in Wairarapa today. A hands-off approach—this belief that the market will deliver—does not benefit rural New Zealand. Job opportunities are consistently centralised in the larger urban areas, regional manufacturing is too often struggling, and the young in our regions are leaving and are unexpected to return. What we need is sustainable rural communities, strong communities that are supported by Government in recognition of their importance to our economy, society, and identity as a nation. There is only one way in which to achieve that, and that is what this Labour-led Government is committed to—investment from central government that will provide a chance for our rural communities and the people who live there.

Wairarapa has so much potential. Our people are innovative and hard-working. They want to dive into things and make good, not just for them but for their region as well. The three regions that make up the Wairarapa electorate can achieve a lot, but they need the Government to give them a go. We’re underfunded in terms of health—particularly mental health—education infrastructure, housing, rural broadband and mobile, the Manawatū Gorge, the Wairarapa rail line, and initiatives for jobs and growth. I am proud to be of a party that believes in investing in our regions, and I am excited about what this Government can deliver for rural New Zealand.

I’m honoured to be standing here today as a Labour MP. It is a privilege to be here as a voice for my region, and however long I am here, I will be eternally grateful for this opportunity. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.