Address in Reply

Seventy-five days ago New Zealand gave its support to the Rt Hon John Key in re-electing National to office. I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of the Taupō electorate for their increased support for me, and I pledge to continue my hard work in representing them.

National is committed to building a brighter future, where New Zealanders have the jobs, have the incomes, and have the public services that we all aspire to. We started this work in 2008, and with an increase in support in the recent election, we are happy to continue delivering this. One of the four main priorities over the next 3 years is to build a more competitive and productive economy. Really, what that means is growing our exports. That is the focus. It is very appropriate, coming from the Taupō electorate, where the main sources of employment come from farming, forestry, and tourism, that this is very close to my heart.

Part of our 120-point economic action plan is ensuring that we sell what the world wants, but that has to be done at a competitive price, so that is why we have this export-focused economy. What we know from conversations with people up and down New Zealand is that people want to see more jobs and they want to see higher incomes, but actually we know that those will come from having better international trade links, and that will lead to a stronger economy and create more jobs with higher incomes. That is one of the fundamental reasons that New Zealanders voted for a National-led Government.

Part of our strategy around those high-quality relationships is with emerging economies like China and India, as well as our more traditional trading partners. We have had some conversations in the media in the last few weeks about making the most of our free-trade agreements and, in particular, the one with China. Here in Parliament today we are recognising the Chinese New Year, so I felt it important to make sure that we stress this point of how important they are to us.

One of the things that is important to note, though, is that this focus needs to be clearly on the export sector and the tradable sector, because that is where the sustainable jobs will come from over time. We do not want to see what we saw under 9 years of Labour, which was an increase in the jobs in the non-tradable sector, so that is clearly why we have an export focus.

I want to give an example of a company in my electorate, a dairy processing plant that was opened in August last year, which I took the Prime Minister to in November. It is called Miraka, which is Māori for milk. It is a really interesting joint venture, because it combines the Māori landowners with strategic partners and investors that include the Māori Trustee, the Global Dairy Network, and the Viet Namese milk and dairy manufacturing company Vinamilk. Ninety million dollars was invested in the electorate in this absolutely state-of-the-art milk processing factory. The two key markets for its processed goods are customers in Asia and the Middle East. It has been a fantastic example of a local business that is now employing 30 people who would not have been employed otherwise, as well as $90 million that went into the construction of that milk processing plant.

But there are some other aspects of it that I am really excited about, and one of them is the fact that it is powered by renewable steam and electricity from the Tuarōpaki Trust’s nearby geothermal power station, which is a power station that is owned by the trust and Mighty River Power. It is even better from an environmental perspective, because what it also does with its waste water is that it goes on to a neighbouring farmland, and the solid waste is being disposed of on a worm farm.

This is a business, a local business, a Māori-owned business—54 percent of it owned by Māori—there is a connection with a State-owned enterprise, it has a fantastic environmental record, it is exporting our goods to the world, it is employing local people, and that is exactly what we want to see more of, not just in my electorate, but across New Zealand.

We need investment. In this case, some of it has been foreign investment. Again, it is something that has been debated at length over the last few weeks, and I was pleased that our Minister for Economic Development spoke about that more today, because actually we do not talk enough about the benefits of foreign investment. If we continue to have New Zealanders—as we will for many years to come—demanding higher-paying jobs, we actually have to look for foreign investment. That is why it is really important. [Interruption] Mr Mallard might think it is not important to have foreign investment; actually I think that side of the House has not figured out what their position is on foreign investment because it seems to change daily or actually several times a day.

If I look at my electorate, we want to look at foreign investment, we want the opportunities that it brings. Part of it is the sustainability of the jobs. One of the things that I love about my electorate is the fantastic ideas that are generated, and I have just given you some examples with the Miraka dairy plant. It is not just about having ideas and innovation; it is actually about delivering on those ideas. Whether it is in high-value wood processing, whether it is alternative uses for geothermal energy—of which there are multiple examples in my electorate—new farming techniques, creating interesting trading relationships between nitrogen and carbon, which we have seen in the south of the Taupō electorate and which are mitigating environmental issues, or whether it is software development, we have some world-leading businesses in Taupō that are born out of ideas, and they are exporting from their homes, their offices, and their businesses on the side of our great lake.

This side of the House knows what is important to those individuals and to those businesses, and knows that to get some of those businesses up and running and off the ground requires foreign investment. We actually want to encourage them, not discourage them, which is why I am quite staggered by the fact that those on the other side of the House do not seem that interested in what the advantages of foreign investment will bring. We want to encourage those businesses to be based here. We have to make sure that the resources are available to them, and we are looking at some exciting opportunities with geothermal energy. We have got to have the infrastructure available to them to keep things moving, and we need to ensure that our people have the right skills and access to capital for them to make it happen.

There is another example in my electorate of another dairy project that was not quite so successful, or has not been yet. It had the idea, it had the location, and it was looking at jobs during construction and jobs during production. It is very exciting for a small part of my electorate that does not have a lot of jobs currently, and it would be very helpful to have this sort of opportunity. Unfortunately there have been too many people who have been opposing it—the location—and really slowing the whole process down, which creates significant issues.

I did want to touch on the Crafar farms very briefly. For the people of my electorate, it is an exciting opportunity that those farms have finally been sold. So instead of the farms languishing in the hands of the receiver, we will now see investment, we will now see jobs, we will now see the opportunities that that investment in skills, in training, and in capital development will provide. It is so important that that sale means things can get moving and it means that people in my area can be better off. It was quite interesting, because we get the odd comment from the other side of the House about why this was not a good idea. But I think they continue to be confused, because we heard yesterday from David Parker that in 3 years—2006-08—they had approved four times what we have approved in only the first term.

It is kind of puzzling, I do not know whether Labour members want new jobs. They obviously do not want any foreign investment, or at least they do not in this hour. Clearly they do not want better environmental practices on farms. We need to encourage the development of all our opportunities if we are to prosper. This is what will create the jobs that we want long term. This Government is about less spending, less debt. It is about more investment, more exports, and more jobs. That is what New Zealanders voted for 75 days ago, and that is what we will deliver.

I have been paying quite a bit of attention not only, obviously, to the Speech from the Throne but to the Address in Reply speeches that have come since, and in particular John Key’s address to this House. I have been left with one particular question, and that is where has all the aspiration gone? As I recall, back in 2008 the National Government was absolutely brimming with it, but now today we are left with some pale imitation called “muddling through”. That is what the aspiration has been replaced with. It is a hands-in-your-pocket approach to economic management, and despite that member over there saying that they have a 120-point plan, the average New Zealander is feeling no benefit from that 120-point plan. Instead, all they feel is the muddling through. So I think instead that it is timely to remind the National Government of what it is it seems to have forgotten that it promised New Zealand.

We were told that we should not be tenants in our own country. Now, from where I am sitting, it seems to be the Prime Minister who has been inconsistent when it comes to his rhetoric and then his policy. There is no finer example of that than the Crafar farms decisions, which that member has just touched on. That is the ultimate example of where decisions are being made that are not in the best strategic interests of New Zealanders. We had a local group willing to purchase that significant parcel of land, and that member, on behalf of her constituents, claims that they are happy with the decision that has been made around the Crafar farms sale. I would really question that; in fact, I would like to see a survey of those constituents. Obviously I do not believe that member is in fact speaking on behalf of those constituents involved with Ngāti Tūwharetoa, because they take a very different perspective on that sale of land.

In Labour we have been absolutely clear, and indeed we were in the election. We need to start making decisions that allow us to own our own future, particularly when it comes to these strategic assets. We are not a party against foreign investment; in fact, we recognise that in New Zealand, because of our poor savings, we cannot afford to invest in ourselves. When it comes to research and development, in particular, we do need investment from abroad. But there are clear distinctions between the example that the member brought up around a strategic milk project and the sale of this strategic asset. I do not think we could be any clearer.

What else has the National Government told the public of New Zealand since 2008? Well, we heard that education was key—it was key to aspiration and it was key to providing opportunities, particularly to our youngest New Zealanders. And what do we see now? We see now Treasury suggesting that we should have larger classrooms in order to improve our education system—

💬 Hon Annette King: Larger class sizes.

Larger class sizes. And as the member pointed out in question time, who can name one parent who thinks that that will improve educational outcomes for their child? Not only that but the major platform that this Government campaigned on around education was to tell 6-year-olds that they were failing in primary education before they even started. Now we are going to ignore international evidence in favour of a coalition deal by bringing in charter schools. That was the aspiration this Government has delivered in education.

What about the aspiration around building assets? Members in this House may remember that John Key said that that was the track we were going to go down. Instead, we see ourselves paying an extraordinary amount to sell them, with no guarantee as to whom. Not only has that sparked a debate about the future of the Treaty clause as it relates to our State-owned enterprises, but there has not been, unfortunately, enough discussion about the removal of the social responsibility clause. That Government may claim that this is a strategic public-private partnership of sorts—partial privatisation—but when you remove from any dictate around the way these assets are run, anything that says that we will continue to have a public interest in the way these State-owned enterprises operate, that is just a private deal. That is privatisation in costume. We have consistently pointed out to this Government that that is privatisation by any other name.

What about the aspiration that National had to keep families in New Zealand to try to stem the tide of Kiwis going to Australia? You need only ask members like Parekura Horomia how many families have been lost on the East Coast and are travelling abroad for better opportunities. That is because the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia has grown by $32 per week since this Government came into office. How is that aspirational for New Zealand? Not only has our economic credibility been downgraded—we are facing an $18 billion deficit—but this Government’s expectations and aspirations for itself have been downgraded considerably.

I believe it is time New Zealanders asked for what they were promised. It is time they asked where the better life they were promised by this Government actually is. I am not talking just about the most vulnerable New Zealanders—I think their plight is probably plain for all to see. I am talking about the people in the middle. I am talking about the 66 percent of the population who earn $40,000 or less per annum, the people who cannot even save, let alone own their own home. It is time this House acknowledged that we have reached a tipping point in New Zealand. Gone are the days when parents believed that they could leave their children better off than they themselves were. In those days hard work was enough to get ahead. Poverty did not have to last for longer than one generation. Those days, sadly, are gone. Now, according to the Ministry of Social Development’s briefing for the incoming Minister, two out of every five children living in poverty are in households where there is a full-time worker. This is not about just families who are reliant on benefits to survive; this is also about families who are working every hour they are given and still cannot get ahead, let alone give their own children a decent start. Where is the aspiration for those families on behalf of that Government?

We have to also acknowledge that that means that choices are being removed from families. It is no longer a choice for many families as to whether or not one parent works and one parent remains at home. Choices are now being made not necessarily for their own interest or the interests of their children but out of desperation to survive. It is time that we strived to give choices back to those families—choices for them to make in the best interests of their children.

But what has the Government’s response been to the situation we find ourselves in—this dramatic change in the make-up of the way New Zealanders are having to operate, and the fact that many families hold down not just one job and not just two jobs but multiple jobs to survive? What has its response been? Well, in the last term of Government we saw an increase in the most regressive form of taxation we have, and we now see that families as a result are suffering because they spend most of their discretionary income directly on GST. We have seen inflation increase dramatically while income levels stagnate. We have seen the Government tinker around with the minimum wage even though the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that he could not survive on it. So I ask again: where is the aspiration for New Zealand families? This is not a Government, I believe, that is in the process of giving hope. A Government that stands on the sidelines and waits for the trickle-down theory obviously is not a Government that can offer these New Zealand families much hope. That is something that we stand against, and in fact, in direct contrast, we think it is time to tackle these significant issues. It is time to tackle the fact that a full day’s wage can still equal poverty. It is time to tackle the fact that families no longer have many of these choices.

Instead of relying on a ministerial inquiry into poverty, which the Government agreed to because the Māori Party asked for it as part of a coalition deal—and I question whether it will continue if the Māori Party removes itself from this coalition—we want to see more rhetoric. You will hear this side of the House talk about higher wages, not just racing to the bottom; better jobs, not more jobs by one person to make ends meet; a boat that will go faster, not a boat that we are putting up for sale; and a clean, green, clever New Zealand to achieve all of that. That is aspirational and that is what the Labour Party stands for.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kāore au i konei inanahi, ngā mihi o te Pāremata tau hou ki a tātou, tēnā koutou.[Interruption] Huaki i tētahi kura hou i Kawerau, pai tēnā hoki.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not here yesterday, so parliamentary New Year greetings to us all and to you collectively. [Interruption] I was opening a new school at Kawerau. That was a great event as well.]

Well, the political year has started with the Treaty and Māori issues right up front and centre stage, right where they belong. Debate is hot; debate is hot over how the Treaty affects the Government’s plans to partially privatise a number of State-owned enterprises. Once again the issue of Māori customary interests and rights in fresh water has come up. The place of the Treaty in our constitution is up for debate, with national consultations getting under way this year. Meanwhile Māori are working on strategies for language growth and Māori economic development. Whānau Ora is in its roll-out stage at this time.

The big question, is how do all these things make a difference for the people of Aotearoa, who are living in an increasingly divided and polarised society where the rich are getting richer and more and more families are struggling to make it through? The Māori Party is proud to be at the centre of the action. We have come to Parliament to represent our constituents’ views, to take them to Cabinet, fight them through, and to work with the Parliament, as a whole, to make a difference for New Zealand.

So that leads me to the question of poverty. We are happy that the Maori Party has been able to arrange with National a joint Ministerial Committee on Poverty—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Can we join you?

We will certainly work with you. Minister Turia and Minister English co-chair this committee, and I am a member as well. We have already started with Te Puni Kōkiri out there working very, very hard and showing what a good ministry it is, doing the job.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: That’s right. You’re closing it down. What a disgrace!

Oh, rubbish! Parekura, you know that’s not true. In working with Te Puni Kōkiri, I have already initiated a number of activities in the areas of housing and housing help, of jobs and training initiatives, and education initiatives.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Cuts.

“Developed” is the word. It is in the most early stages at this time, but it is really quite exciting to see that sections of the community are prepared to come forward and contribute, although these are still hard times.

So this brings me to Whānau Ora—that beautiful, beautiful policy that is so admired by all the members in this House. It is so disappointing to see the redneck of racism emerging around Whānau Ora. There have been questions asked about one family of some 180 members who received $6,000, which is a fairly meagre amount when we think of the scale of the transformation that they are commencing. I have to wonder what motivates a man to cast doubt on the capacity of families to turn their lives round. Why would any politician attack whānau who are doing the best they can to improve their situation and, in the long term, reduce reliance on State dependency, especially since I have been informed that the member who raised this issue knows full well that his partner received sizable remuneration for advising one of those Whānau Ora collectives?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it has been a long tradition and a matter that has been reinforced a number of times by Speakers that members’ families are not brought into debate.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is upheld. Can I just also caution the member that he used a term initially, when he raised this particular matter in his speech, which could lead to disorder. I let him get away with it because it was not attributed to a party or an individual, but he did use a word that is unacceptable to attribute to a member or a party. So I just raise that consciousness with him. Continue, Dr Sharples.

What I have seen occurring through Whānau Ora is real change, tangible outcomes that show families taking responsibilities for themselves. This funding is about whānau transformation. The value in that is priceless.

Transforming the relationship between whānau and the State may take a lot of time, but we cannot continue to waste Government spending on interventions that make no lasting difference but just create dependency. Whānau Ora is about bringing whānau together to collectively plan to improve their well-being. The outcomes that we have seen are widespread: they span education, employment, health, and social transformation. We have whānau who have looked at ways to address family violence, others who have focused on rheumatic fever, and others who have looked at rebuilding their lives after the Christchurch earthquake. The outcomes for these whānau show they are getting results. They are turning round trends which decades of failed Government funding have been unable to address.

The Māori Party is about creating real transformation in whānau, not just propping up a system that obviously has not worked for our people over the many decades past. Whānau Ora is the greatest opportunity that we have had to take back responsibility for ourselves. So why would anyone want to undermine that?

Another major activity that the Māori Party is involved with and I am involved with is the constitutional review. This is a review of the constitution of New Zealand, which will take place over 2 years. There is a panel of about 12 people, led by Sir Tīpene O’Regan and Emeritus Professor John Burrows, and members such as Peter Chin, Dr Ranginui Walker, Peter Tennent, Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Hinurewa Poutu, Dr Leonie Pihama, Bernice Mene, John Luxton, Dr Michael Cullen, and Deborah Coddington. So those will be the groups, and they will go out over 2 years and hold meetings with the community. Parallel to this the iwi leaders have set up another team, and they are going to formulate their views on what the constitutional review should look like, and then I guess they will bring the two together and see what happens. So that is happening over the period of 2 years, and it will take time for us to get this back.

We have put the call out to iwi to make sure that they wānanga on this topic, because for years at Waitangi the question of where the Treaty does fit has come up, with protests, and even more recently, the question is really relevant when you consider the State-owned enterprises. The first of these consultation meetings over the State-owned enterprises has been held today in Rotorua. There were over 300 people there—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Paul Quinn was there putting the chairs out!

—and unanimous by the people present—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Paul Quinn was there putting the chairs out.

—the whole lot. Do you want to hear this? The unanimous result by all the people present was that they support section 9 being included in the new bill—that it should remain there. I think this might be a warning for us—

💬 Grant Robertson: Does the Government support section 9A?

I beg your pardon?

💬 Grant Robertson: Does the Government support section 9A?

This might be a warning for us and for the Government that this could be indicative—[Interruption] Yes, that is right. That is why I am in the Government, mate. That is exactly why I am there, so I can sit at the table and challenge them on everything. That is the relationship we have: totally above board. So at the end of the day it will be decided in Cabinet, and Tariana and I, whatever the result is, will be in there in that discussion, full on, acting our part and so on.

Also carrying on at this time, because I am a busy boy, is the economic review.

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha!

You remember last time, I had a task force on Māori economics and we looked at quite a few initiatives, set up trading lines to China, and a lot of Māori initiatives over there, as well as the economy. We reviewed it and found it to be a $36.9 billion asset base, which is growing fast. We are now progressing to phase two, to mobilise the Māori economy asset base by developing a Māori economic strategy, which was announced last year. The objectives of this strategy and action plan will produce strategic recommendations on improving the overall collaboration and infrastructure of the Māori iwi economy, and, secondly, Māori iwi economic developments in the context of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand, and the wider global economy. So the strategic and action plan will actually produce specific and practical recommendations on the following: improving the performance and productivity of the Māori economic sector, clarifying the role and identity and the contribution that the Government can make to improving the performance of the Māori economic sector, and, thirdly, considering the role and contribution of Māori to their own economic development. That team is led by Ngāhiwi Tomoana—I think I have met him before—Greg Whittred, Debbie Packer, Roger Pikia, Graham Stuart, Gina Rangi, Glen Tupuhi, June McCabe, Mark Solomon, and Bevan Graham.

So that is all happening, and, as well as that, there is the language review that we are involved in, totally. You know, we had set up Te Paepae Motuhake, which was a panel by the people, and they are at an interesting stage of this development at this time. I have just been waved down, so thank you for listening and for your support, especially from that side.

I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: With regard to?

With regard to the allegations made by the Hon Pita Sharples.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

In my absence in the last address, Mr Sharples made a number of statements that are demonstratively and palpability false, and I wish to put the circumstances on the record with regard to an associate. This person was asked by John Tamihere of Waipareira Trust to address a senior management group on 12 February 2010, to present management competencies, competencies of a large corporation—that is, J and J—and that was a 3-hour presentation. He was asked also to attend—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a point of clarification: when the member says “this member”, is he referring to himself?

No, I am referring to the circumstances about which this allegation was made, which sought to impugn my integrity and suggest that I was being a hypocrite.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment; I am on my feet. The member cannot relitigate statements that other members make. He has sought leave to make a personal statement that relates to him, and that is what he should do.

It is related to me because I am very much aware of this matter. The next attendance was at a business planning meeting the next day, 13 February, as an observer to provide feedback to the chief executive officer on the competency of senior management. This was a meeting unrelated to Whānau Ora, which I attended myself in the evening. Mr Tamihere asked again in February 2011 for advice on one of his senior managers. Again, this was not aligned to Whānau Ora in any way; it was a human resources issue associated with the organisation and a particular individual, and at no time were there any dealings at all on the issue of Whānau Ora Although Mr Sharples and his party colleagues have made those claims today to the media, they are demonstratively false. I would ask him to withdraw and apologise if he feels he is up to it.

💬 Hon Dr Pita Sharples: Point of order—in response.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the member has made a personal statement. It is not up for debate. He sought leave, the House granted leave, and we will now move on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there was clearly offence taken by Mr Peters about comments made about a member of his family. He did ask for an apology from Dr Sharples, and I think that to give Dr Sharples the opportunity to apologise, all he has to do is to stand up and seek the leave of the House, and the House will grant that leave to Dr Sharples to apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Pita Sharples: I seek the leave of the House to respond.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. The member cannot respond to a personal statement. The only avenue open to the member is if he is seeking to withdraw, apologise, or do something of that nature. The member is not bound to do that; it has been an offer that has been put to him. So if that is not happening, is some member seeking the call?

Kia ora anō tātou. This has been a miserable start for Māori politics in Parliament in 2012. We have had the unedifying spectacle of the three members of the Māori Party, who claim to be the mantle of iwi, scurrying from this House and refusing to face the music on the first sitting day of 2012. Now, it might come to pass that they will use the excuse that they were opening schools, saving the language, finding the stars, and launching rockets, but the reality is that they did nothing to save the education system, which suffered grievously under Anne Tolley. If there is one small thing that can be said about Hekia Parata, it is that she has got every prospect of improving on the dismal record of her predecessor, but that is another matter.

It is very difficult to take the Māori Party members seriously when on one side they are saying to some iwi leaders “OK, we’ll try to find an opportunity for you to buy into the shares in this sell-off, in this creation of a new economic cast of commercial mandarins within Māoridom.” That is the first message they are giving. The second message they are giving is that they did not know about the most signal elements of Māori jurisprudence—section 9 and the Lord Cooke pronouncements of the late 1980s—and they did not realise it was so important that it should have formed a key part of their negotiations as they scurried back to the leather seats of the chauffeur-driven cars in order to prop up this Government. That was the second thing. The third thing was that they have then turned round and quietly mentioned to a number of our leaders “We can’t actually do much. Can you take the issue to court? We can’t actually do much.”

There are members in this House who never particularly got on with those four tōtara trees Sir Tīpene O’Regan, Matiu Rata, Sir Graham Latimer, and Sir Bob Māhuta. I will put my hand up for having the odd stoush with he of Irish extraction in the south. But I will tell you what: those tōtara trees were a massive contrast to these weak, timid, and ill-grown pieces of scrub we see representing our people in the Māori Party. If they have any integrity about the Treaty—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members are honourable members. The member is actually making some assertions that could be interpreted as bringing disorder. I just caution the member to reflect on his language.

I was just showing my botanical prowess, Mr Deputy Speaker. Coming from the north, we know that tūmatakuru and gorse do not generate wealth. There are very few tōtara trees and they are in slim—modest—supply here in the House. That is not to mention anything about the bulky pūriri, kauri, or rimu trees on this side of the House. But that is another matter. Your admonition is taken on board, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I want to come back to the Māori Party. Part of the reason it was away yesterday is that its members are negotiating with Hone Harawira, who announced the formation of a new entity: Mana-Māori. So just as John Key watched the unedifying spectacle of Don Brash trying to take over the ACT Party, I fear that what we are going to see is a collision between Hone Harawira and the Māori Party before the Māori Party members, as a consequence of betraying the people who sent them here on this issue of State-owned enterprise sales. You cannot say “We don’t agree with the State-owned enterprise sales but we expect to be a part of the Government that is going to gorge at the trough as a consequence of the proceeds that will come from this foul policy.” You cannot have it both ways.

It could be that a number of Māori whānau look for some sort of remedy in Whānau Ora, but you cannot say that you are entitled to run a Whānau Ora programme beyond the purview or scrutiny of this House. That is not how the system works. There have been a number of criticisms that perhaps a number of the Māori on this side of the House have been a tad too mute. Well, we are now into a competitive struggle, because with the arrival of the hammerhead shark from Ngāti Wai, obviously there is a big act to follow in that regard. But the man has laid down a kaupapa. If you are going to drive Māori development outcomes and you are going to rely on the budgetary allocation of money on a year-by-year basis, unfortunately these sorts of challenges will come to pass. When Dr Cullen originally made those sorts of invitations for an explanation from Tariana Turia in 2009, she was protected. But this time there is no protection. So if we are going to run with these various policies—and elements of Whānau Ora have found some support from our side of the House. But once those challenges are made, you cannot scurry from this place and not respond to them.

I want to talk a little bit about Te Puni Kōkiri. Te Puni Kōkiri is a modest-sized organisation. It actually held a very important role, with the ability to arotake—to audit—or to check on what other Government departments were doing in the pursuit of Māori outcomes. I think it is very disappointing that the regional managers are telling members of this House that they did not know they were about to be either extinct or liquidated prior to the arrival of the information into the media. That is the first thing.

The second thing is: what is to happen with the functions—and a lot of them are very valuable functions—currently located in that institution, as they are dissipated through other parts of the State? Those other organs of the State will themselves probably identify their Māori programmes as some of the first programmes that need to be shelved as they struggle to deal with the costs of running their department under this very odious approach that Bill English has taken. It is very bad news for a number of the people working in that particular area, and it is an invitation for Dr Sharples, who, in certain aspects of Te Ao Māori, is a peerless leader. But on this question it is not right for him to put Leith Comer up to face the political music. He is a paid civil servant. I do not remember Tau Henare putting up Ngātata Love, although he had considerable bulk that Tau could have hidden behind, had he chosen that course of action. I do not remember Luxton or those Ministers hiding behind Wira Gardiner—no, sir.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: That’s right.

And I certainly do not recall Parekura Horomia inviting anyone to stand in front of him so that he could hide. Unfortunately, that is a physical impossibility, but that is a term of affection. The key point is that Leith Comer has to front and suffer the derogatory language from Hone Harawira—which, unfortunately, is his political dialect—as he calls him a variety of names. The target was Dr Sharples.

Let us talk a little bit about this constitutional review. At a time when Māori boys are not being well trained, far too many are going to jail, and those who have got some money from the whānau are going to Australia and not finding jobs, the focus of this man’s talk is the constitutional review. Now, I do not want to deprecate the importance of language, etc., but if you want language to survive, use it at the kitchen table. If you want language to survive, use it as an ordinary part of daily life. Do not use those projects to obfuscate the fact that very little, if anything, is happening to deal with the real tragedy facing our whānau and facing New Zealand: there are far too many brown young men ending up with a poor set of skills, which is sending them only one way, to Ngāwhā. And that is not for a hot bath; that is into hot water, which scars them for the rest of their lives. Let us hear some plans; let us hear some commitment from our friends in the Māori Party to deal with that particular issue.

It might be said that you should not raise these issues, because you can end up either being negative or diminishing the status of Māori. The diminution is taking place, and this diversion into a debate about a section regarding the Treaty overlooks the fact, I say to our colleagues from the Māori Party, that if there is no privatisation, the issue does not arise. Find the courage and find the technique to stop the privatisation! The economic rationale has been laid out—by the co-leader of the Greens, much to my disappointment, but that is another matter—that there is no upside to the overarching structure of the Crown statements for the sale of these assets. We know that, in the event that these assets do get sold—as we learnt in the Finance and Expenditure Committee; it took the Audit Office using an enormous amount of power to get Air New Zealand to come and front before that particular committee—once the 49 percent transfers to a host of Kiwi and possible foreign owners, rest assured that control and influence will lie there, and it is only one small step further along that inexorable slope towards full privatisation.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Come back!

He has, no doubt, gone back to Kawerau, which actually means “to carry too many things at once”.

This reflects the fact that this is an opportunity to have this policy stop. The key people who can prevent that sit over there. They will not do that, because they mistakenly believe that there is a host of social concessions, and a host of other cultural opportunities, but I say that the real opportunity, which is being overlooked, is to grow the human capital. You can have a million Treaty reviews, and you can have a million constitutional reviews—because you cannot change the constitution via fiat; you have to actually enable it to come as a consequence of organic change, and of people being willing to focus on it because their other needs have been addressed. Like that famous Ngāpuhi saying goes, “Pluck the tender shoot of the flax bush, and where will the bellbird call? It will say, from the coast to the land, the greatest gift of all is people, is people …”—it is time for the Māori Party to remember people. Kia ora tātou.

Can I say happy New Year to all members, and can I say to the Hon Shane Jones: awesome speech, bro. It is a pity that that sort of speech was not around when he was a Minister—a pity that that speech was not around when Labour was in Government—but it was a good speech none the less, apart from the last 2 minutes of drivel on State-owned enterprise sales.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You’re for it now, are you?

Sorry?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You’re for sales now?

Absolutely. Do you know why? Because we are in charge. I do not know where that member has been in the last 3 years, and I do not want to know, but the fact is that this is the first time that we have actually had a sale of State-owned enterprises in a way that we will keep ownership of 51 percent, and 49 percent is sold to mums, dads, and whomever.

Here is something else that has not been parroted about the State-owned enterprises sale: no one is going to be able to buy, own, or control more than 10 percent. Is that not a good thing? Is it not a great thing that we are still able to control 51 percent? Just imagine if we had been able to do that with Telecom. Just imagine if we had been able to do that with the New Zealand Railways Corporation. My old man would have still worked on the railways, instead of being let go by none other than that lot over there.

I do not bear any grudges, but I tell you what: what can we look forward to in this term of the National Government? Well, only one thing: back in black by 2014. At least, that is our target, and we will stick to that target. Issues that have to be dealt with along the way on that journey are these: the Treaty clause, obviously; the State-owned enterprises; mining; and Waitangi Day, our country’s birthday. If nobody was listening the other day, I say happy birthday, New Zealand. Not happy Waitangi Day, but happy birthday. If those are the words we are looking for, then I implore people in this House to, next Waitangi Day, wake up and say happy birthday to our beloved country.

I tell you what: this is the best country in the world, and I ain’t going anywhere. Some of us will be going somewhere to look for better opportunities offshore. But here is the thing. The Opposition loves to say that our people are going off to Australia, where there are better opportunities. Well, here is something to realise: the Australian mining industry is a $400 billion industry. Why do you think—sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Why do people think that our young people go to Australia? It is because there are jobs there. All of those people in this House and outside it who protest against drilling, mining, and creating opportunities are the reason—they are the reason—why our young people are going overseas. They do nothing to employ those young people, and employment opportunities in the Public Service are not going to get us out of the situation that we are in.

I understand the Greens’ position in terms of the environment—absolutely—and I believe that we should do everything in our power to keep New Zealand green and pure, but also I have to say this: you are dealing with between 16 and 20 percent of the population, who just happen to be the indigenous population of this country. Those people are looking for a job and an opportunity. I can guarantee that there would be those people up and down the East Coast, and people in the north—two zones I think we should actually call “special economic zones”, where we should do our utmost to help those people. So I believe that we do need to have a look at what is under the ground, and I believe that we do need to drill. I think we do need to do all of those things to make sure that our—

💬 Grant Robertson: Schedule 4? Schedule 4 lands?

You know, schedule 4 is not the whole of the country, OK?

💬 Grant Robertson: Are you ruling that out?

I do not rule anything out. Hell, I am not even in Cabinet, mate; I am on the backbench. I cannot rule anything in or out these days.

But I tell you what: the other thing that I want to talk about is foreign investment. I tell you that, for a small country of only 4 million people, we need foreign investment. We need everybody around the world investing in our country, investing in our young people, and investing in the two zones that I have spoken about. Now, I would love for Heinz to come to the north. I would love it, because that would offer some of our people some jobs. I know that the north is the jewel in the crown of New Zealand. Well, let us get in behind it. Let us make sure that we open up opportunities for our young people and their families.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Go to Ōtorohanga. They’ve sorted it out.

Yes, absolutely—absolutely. There are schemes that abound around New Zealand that are good for people. But I have to say to those who protest against mining and protest against drilling, and who turn up in their big four-wheel drives saying “No drilling!” and “No mining!”—and it is OK because they want to be able to use the resources of Australia, Singapore, and everywhere else except here—that I find that hypocritical, just as I find hypocritical, xenophobic, and verging on racist the attitude towards the Crafar farms.

💬 Grant Robertson: From whom?

From those who oppose the Crafar farms—those who oppose the sale of the Crafar farms. I am appalled, but I also laugh at the same time, at those same people, who are saying “We don’t want the Chinese to buy.” That is what they are saying; that is what it comes down to. If it was an American or an Australian, not a problem, because we have been there, we have done that, we have bought the T-shirt, and we sold the land for a golf course—we sold the land for this, that, and the other thing. But when the poor old Chinese person wants to buy it, they say “Oh no, we don’t want any part of it.” So look deep inside your hearts when you say you are against the sale of the Crafar farms, and look also at whom you are supporting: the Michael Fays of this nation.

💬 Hon Members: Tūwharetoa.

That is right. No, not that member. No, not that member; those guys over there. I know how that member feels about Sir Michael Fay, but let us not go back into history.

We have an opportunity. We have an opportunity in this country to do good for our kids, our grandchildren, and the generations after.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: In China.

Hang on. Let us not put too many roadblocks in front of them so that they cannot succeed where we should have been able to allow them to succeed. Mining is a good thing. Mining practices these days do not resemble anything of the past 30, 40, or 50 years.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Tell that to the West Coast.

You know, the West Coast wants jobs as well, and if the member got off her backside, had a look at the West Coast, and went and asked all those unemployed people what they want would to do, it would be this: “I want a job.”—“I want a job.” And do you know how to get the criminal statistics down? Give the person a job. That will sort them out.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, first of all, may I greet you and say happy New Year and welcome back to that position in the Speaker’s Chair.

The Prime Minister’s speech at the beginning of a parliamentary session should be visionary. It should provide leadership. It should provide the outline of a plan that will navigate this country through some of its most difficult years. And yet all of that was lacking in the speech that came from the Prime Minister late last year.

Our economy has been downgraded twice under this Government’s watch. The Government’s own forecasts for our economic productivity have had to be downgraded. We have moved from 4 percent 8 months ago down to 3.5 percent and then down to 3 percent, and I get the distinct impression that the Government is simply trying to make sure that the country is warmed up to the fact that there will be very little growth in the next 3 years under its stewardship. The Government’s projections are being downgraded by Treasury in the same way that our economy has been downgraded by international agencies under its watch.

I want to address a couple of issues in particular that demonstrate some of the paucity of leadership that was shown in the Prime Minister’s speech. First of all, we come to the vexed issue of the sale of State assets. This is the only plan that the Government would seem to have, and it is one that most New Zealanders do not approve of. Regardless of the outcome of the election, it is not inconsistent to say that although the Government won the number of seats it did and managed to cobble together a majority, it did not win the hearts and minds of people over the issue of the sale of State assets. People oppose this. And why do they oppose it? It is not to do with xenophobia. It is not to do with some kind of racism, which the National Government has latched on to in order to frighten people away from debating the issues of ownership and sovereignty in this country. We will not be deterred from talking about sovereignty in this country because Ministers opposite wish to blacken and besmirch the argument with accusations of racism, which none of us, of course, wish to be tarred with, because it is not true; we in this country are not racist by practice or racist by inclination.

But there is no sense in what the Government is planning. The economic sense is not present. Why would we sell or partially sell State assets that over the last few years have been delivering double-digit—15 percent—dividends, on average, and use that kind of revenue to pay off debt? If we are going to pay off debt that comes in at around about 4.5 percent, on average—4 percent generally for short-term loans, and 6 percent for long-term loans—if we are going to sell assets that bring us dividends, on average, of 15 percent in order to offset debt that is costing us somewhere between 4 percent and 6 percent, there is no sense. There is no superior economic acumen applying here, and there is no plan for recovery in that proposition.

The other thing that is important about this asset sales debate—which also goes to the question of the Crafar farms, which is a different issue, in that that is about private property—is the underlying theme that makes this a touchstone for New Zealanders. It is the underlying point around sovereignty, around ownership, around control of our own destiny, and around owning our future. That is the fundamental point.

Can I just say that this is an argument that is not isolated to New Zealand. It is not isolated to New Zealand. It is something that New Zealanders may feel more strongly about now than they did in the 1980s, because we have seen the effects of the sale of assets, and not liked them. We have also tuned in to international conversation about the sale of national assets—and the sale of land, in particular—that is occurring in Argentina, in Uruguay, in Brazil, in Hong Kong, and clearly in Australia as well, but in any number of places around the world, as nations look to what they can retain control of in a world that is increasingly globalised.

New Zealand is in a unique position because of the Treaty of Waitangi, and this is something that makes our consideration of sovereignty even more pertinent than in other parts of the globe. We have a Treaty that has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and we are in the process of righting those historical wrongs. So how is it that the Government can be so inept as to foreshadow the cancellation of section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act and the non-application of the Treaty to any private investor in State-owned enterprises on the eve of Waitangi Day? Either that is cynical in the extreme or malicious and wishing to stir up racial foment, or it is inept. I do not wish to characterise this Government as malicious, because that is dangerous territory. If we have a malicious Government, then God help us all. So I will opt for the inept theory.

It is completely inept that this Government should have ignored what happened in 1986—should not have learnt the lessons from Sir Graham Latimer and the Māori Council in taking the case against a Labour Government at the time, which had not thought the issue through, to the Privy Council for settlement. As a result of that, one of the things that came out of it was the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, so that the land could not be sold out from under the forests, but the forests could be sold. The trees could be sold, but not the land, because the land and the ownership of it was still in dispute under the Treaty of Waitangi. What does this Government not understand about the last 26 years of history that made it provoke such outrage against the Government on the eve of Waitangi Day?

The Government should be leading. The Government should be providing a vision for people that we are moving forward as a united country, through difficult times, to a place where there is more hope, where there is the hope of jobs for young people, and where there is a hope of family incomes that families can live on. The Government should be aspirational, which was its code word 3 years ago. However, it is nothing of the sort now. The Government should be leading, it should be aspirational, and it should be visionary. The pity of it is that this Government is none of those.

I rise to take a call in this debate, and start by just reflecting on the economic illiteracy of the Opposition, particularly in that last speech by the Hon Maryan Street. I do not say “economic illiteracy” lightly, because what we see again and again and again from the Opposition is a tactic of trying to confuse people around the sale of State-owned assets, and particularly the return of dividends from energy companies.

So let us reflect on that for a minute, because what the Opposition wants us to do is to treat as the same—to put into the same barrel—income earned, with revenue from the sale of power less expenses being that income, and the sale of a large asset, which was Southern Hydro; a capital sale. The Opposition wants the public to believe that the sale of an asset, Southern Hydro, when added to the genuine profit of those companies year on year, is what now reflects the dividend, and that that is providing a 15 percent return.

Well, that shows exactly the economic illiteracy that we are talking about. They are two totally different returns, and if that side of the House wants to include capital sales into the dividend stream, well, you know, that shows exactly the economic illiteracy that we are talking about. It shows exactly why the New Zealand public voted National into Government, and made it very clear that they did not trust the Labour Party to be the governors of this country, to be in the legislative seat of this country for the next 3 years.

So I suggest that, if you are going to have a debate about State-owned assets, fair enough. There are no problems with that. We certainly had that in Hawke’s Bay, loud and clear. However, make sure you tell the public the facts and make sure you are clear about that, because I believe that the scaremongering and the way you have approached your politics over the last 3, 6, 9, 12 years is one of the key reasons you find yourself in that position now.

Mr Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your elevation to the role of Deputy Speaker; well done. It is a real privilege to be elected as a member of Parliament in this Government, and to have been elected on the platform that John Key laid out clearly throughout the election process, well in advance of the election. To say that we do not have a mandate for State-owned assets is, frankly, absolute rubbish. That platform was laid out a year before we went to the polls—a year before we went to the polls.

There were four key platforms that we stood on: responsibly managing the Government’s finances, building a more competitive and productive economy, delivering better public services, and, of course, one of the key priorities is rebuilding that beautiful city of Christchurch. These are messages that resonated strongly in my electorate.

I spent my campaign doing 30 jobs in 30 days. Throughout the period of the last 30 days of the campaign I spent that time working out there in businesses, for at least a morning every day. I got to meet all manner of people, many of whom were working in low-paid and low-skilled jobs. It was a fascinating experience to spend time with those 30 businesses. I want to thank the people whom I had the opportunity to work with, and I reflect on companies like East Coast Lumber in Wairoa. I worked on the chain at AFFCO—

💬 Hon Craig Foss: The pie shop.

—and in the pie shop in Maraenui. I worked with the wonderful owners of that shop and talked to their customers about the future of New Zealand and of Napier and the Hawke’s Bay. It was an absolutely wonderful opportunity.

I am proud to be returned to Parliament—it is an absolute privilege—and to see National lift its party vote majority in Napier to nearly 7,000. In saying that, I do want to acknowledge my opposition in Napier, Mr Stuart Nash. He fought a hard campaign, and I want to acknowledge that. It is a shame, and unbelievably politically illiterate, that Mr Nash now does not find himself on the Opposition benches of that party over there. It is a privilege to be back in Parliament, and I am honoured to have the opportunity to become a Minister in this Parliament.

I want to acknowledge the whips, though. It is a role that I was involved with for about 4 or 5 years. I say to Michael Woodhouse and Louise Upston that it is a big job taking on that role of half sergeant major, half pastor of the local church; get into it, go hard. I also want to acknowledge Rick Barker for his efforts, and also—not many have acknowledged him—Darren Hughes, who left this Parliament in the last term. I thought he was an outstanding parliamentarian and he certainly did an excellent job in that whip’s role.

💬 Hon Craig Foss: Easy, chief.

Yes, he is going “Easy, chief”, but I did want to acknowledge that.

With my new ministries, they present a wonderful challenge, and I am looking forward to that. In fact, when I received the warrant as a new Minister I almost had a baptism of water. Coming in on the Wednesday, it rained down in Nelson on the Wednesday night and Thursday, and I found myself in my civil defence role down in Nelson. I want to acknowledge the fantastic job that civil defence did in that flood. Certainly the mayors down there, Aldo Miccio and Richard Kempthorne, led the community exceptionally well, and Jim Frater, who was the controller in Nelson during that flood event, did a superb job. I think that the community of Nelson should be proud of the efforts of civil defence in response to the flood, and the recovery efforts thereafter.

Shortly after that, obviously, we had the 23 December earthquakes in Christchurch. Again, I went straight down to Christchurch to be involved with the recovery there, and to spend a day with people in the community.

To demonstrate that it was a baptism of water, one of my new roles is also within transport, and we had the event in Tauranga with the Rena coming apart, so I found myself up in Tauranga having a look at the recovery response of Maritime New Zealand.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: More than looking. The Minister had his sleeves rolled up.

Yes. Once again, I just want to acknowledge the efforts that are going on in Tauranga to make sure that the recovery process works exceptionally well. Over half the number of containers have now been removed from the ship. It is an extremely trying situation that the salvors are working in, and I think they are doing an absolutely fantastic job to get us to where we have got to today.

In terms of the two key portfolios, civil defence and consumer affairs, they are going to play a small, but key, part in taking the Government’s agenda forward. I want to reflect on those in the last few minutes that I have in my speech this afternoon. In terms of civil defence, the key opportunities there are to learn from Christchurch, and there are a range of reviews, which are being undertaken as I speak, to consider how civil defence responded to the events in Christchurch—the two key earthquake events—and how we worked there. In doing that, we will reflect on a review of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Plan, and look at whether we could have had a better recovery framework, which could replace the likes of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in future events.

The other thing we will be focusing on over the next few years is that we have 16 civil defence regions around the country. A capability assessment was done of those in the last couple of years, and there was significant variability amongst those regions. I want to make sure that the capability in all of the regions is at a level where the civil defence authorities in each of the regions can adequately come up to the task in a significant event.

In consumer affairs we have a range of activities going on, which I am looking forward to playing a key part in. The Consumer Law Reform Bill has been on the Order Paper since last year—I acknowledge John Boscawen and Heather Roy, who played parts in bringing this bill to the Table—and we will be focusing on bringing that law through. That is the 20 years’ law, which it will be important to change and bring forward for the country.

I also want to focus on some legislation that Sam Lotu-Iiga has been working hard on, and, actually, Carol Beaumont on the other side of the House too, and that is the focus on third-tier lending, and the credit law reform. We are in the process of drafting legislation around that as I speak. I am hopeful that that will be available for consideration at the end of February or early March, and then I am going to make sure that it is well considered before we get it into the House for review. If there is any borrowing community out there that needs more protection, it is the Pacific Island, Māori, and Pākehā community who depend sometimes on those third-tier lenders. We want to make sure that there are checks and balances in place to ensure that borrowers are well protected.

This Government has a big plan, a huge economic agenda, and 120 points that we aim to get into place over the next 3 years. I am excited about the future of this Government, and where we are taking this country. My 30 jobs in 30 days period, working through the election, got me close to people who supported this Government. I am proud of what we are doing, and I am looking forward to the next 3 years. Thank you.

I te taha o taku matua, ko Bolton rāua ko Birman aku waka. I te taha o taku whaea, ko Tākitimu te waka o tana whānau whāngai. Ko Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara te maunga, ko Waingongoro te awa, ko Waimārama te marae, ko Taupunga te whare, ko Ngāti Kahungunu ki Heretaunga te iwi. Ko Ngāti Whakaiti rāua ko Ngāti Kautere ngā hapū. Ko Tiakitai te tangata, ko Mohi te whānau. Ko Anne Williams rāua ko Burnett Martin aku mātua. Ko Tracey Anne Martin taku ingoa.

He mihi atu ki ngā atua i hanga i ngā mea katoa. He mihi atu ki te whaea o te ao, ko Papatūānuku e takoto ana ki waho. He mihi atu ki tēnei Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E tū ana ahau i raro i te korowai o ō tātou tūpuna.

[On my father’s side, Bolton and Birman are my ships. On my mother’s side, the Tākitimu canoe is her adopted family’s canoe. Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara is the mountain, Waingongoro is the river, Waimārama is the courtyard, Taupunga is the house, Ngāti Kahungunu of Hastings is the tribe, and the subtribes are Ngāti Whakaiti and Ngāti Kautere. Tiakitai is the man and Mohi is the family. Anne Williams and Burnett Martin are my parents, and Tracey Anne Martin is my name.

I acknowledge the gods who created everything, mother Earth, Papatūānuku lying out there, and this House. Greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to you all. I stand beneath the cloak of our ancestors.]

Mr Speaker, firstly, can I congratulate you on your reappointment to the Speaker’s Chair. And I will take this moment to acknowledge this House and to recognise its importance as a Whare where vital discussions are held and binding decisions are made, but recognise also that those gathered within it are no more important than the people who placed us here, and that all of us collectively are here to represent the people of New Zealand.

I will take a moment to pause and to thank the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who, through their votes, requested that New Zealand First once again stand in this House to speak on their behalf. I will take a moment to thank the thousands of party members who never gave up, and who provided, in the final days of our election campaign, the volunteer assistance that was forthcoming from every corner of the nation. My thanks go to those who gathered in February 2009 and made the commitment to keep New Zealand First alive and viable. Their efforts since that time have been unsung and unpaid, and we owe them a debt of great thanks.

I will take a moment to acknowledge the leadership of our rangatira, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, whose spirit and commitment to the principles of New Zealand First have led us out of the wilderness and back into Parliament.

I will also take a moment to personally acknowledge the support of my family, friends, and community, from those on parent teacher associations and school boards to kapahaka, Te Whānau O Mahurangi, and my respected colleagues and staff from the Rodney Local Board of Auckland Council.

As a sixth-generation New Zealander, my Pākehā ancestors arrived on the Bolton and the Birman in 1840 and 1842, respectively. You could say that I am returning to my roots, with the Tonks family having built and operated one of the first brick factories, flour mills, tram tracks, and blacksmiths shops in Pōneke, now known as Wellington. Not far from where we sit is the newly restored Tonks Grove, with cottages originally built by William Tonks for his employees. Even then we believed in good-quality, affordable housing.

My maternal grandfather and his second wife, Maude Mohi, have provided me with the gift of blood ties to Ngāti Kahungunu of Taupunga marae at Waimārama in Heretaunga. My brother-in-law and nieces and nephew proudly connect me to the New Zealand Chinese community, a community whose historical contribution to the building of our nation is under-represented in the pages of our history books. As a wood dragon baby of 1964, beginning my term in Parliament in a water dragon year augers well. I like to think that in this sink or swim environment this combination gives me a floating edge. Ji xiang ru yi. Gong xi fa cai.

The birthplaces of my mother and husband connect me to the mainland of New Zealand, and through another brother-in-law our links stretch out into the Cook Islands. Kia orana tātou katoatoa i teia ra.

Like many New Zealanders, our family has a proud history of giving service to this nation, with specific mentions of my late grandfathers, Lieutenant Kenneth Martin, and his pivotal role at the Featherston prisoner of war camp during World War II before, during, and after the Featherston riot, and warrant officer James Williams, who saw service in the Egyptian desert and Italy as a New Zealand engineer with the 2nd New Zealand Division.

But although I acknowledge being a beneficiary of others’ efforts and struggles, for me it has been the actions of strong, determined women that cleared the path down which I walk—women from New Zealand’s past, such as Kate Sheppard and Fran Collett of the press gallery, and strong determined women from my family’s past: Martha Anson, Mariah Swaddell, Mary Martin, Beverley Williams, and Maude Mohi. The last few metres of this particular path have been carved by Anne Martin, continuing that line of women with character, strength, and quiet wisdom—a woman to whom both I and New Zealand First owe a great debt. Neither of us would be here without her, and we continue to value her commitment, contribution, and support.

However, while recognising those that made this journey possible, it would be remiss if I did not acknowledge two men—at least—who are, in very different ways, also instrumental: firstly, my late father, who held very strong views on many topics and, not unlike his daughter, expressed them often, but he also instilled a sense of personal truth and loyalty along with a resilience of character; and, secondly, my husband. It takes a very brave man to live with a very strong woman. As I have explained often in recent days, I am merely part of a team—at home as well as here in Parliament—and there is no one’s opinion I trust or value more than my husband’s. I like to think it was good planning and exceptionally good taste that landed me such a man, but, whatever it was, I am extremely grateful.

To my children—each committee I joined while supporting your growth and education built on my abilities and helped me gain the confidence required to live by the motto of Mahurangi College: Māhuhu ki te Rangi, reach for the heavens. From the playcentre and kindergarten committees, Warkworth School parent teacher association and board of trustees, and Mahurangi College board of trustees to kapahaka and Te Whānau O Mahurangi—they all gave me the courage to put my hand up for a bigger stage. So thank you, my children, for having the good grace to let your mum be all those things without being so embarrassed you asked her to stop.

For the first 15 of the last 17 years I was a stay-at-home mother. It was not until my election to the Rodney Local Board of Auckland Council that I re-entered the paid workforce proper since leaving credit control to raise our family. But those who know me are aware that very little of this time was spent watching The Oprah Winfrey Show or attending coffee mornings—these are somewhat of an urban myth to the women I have had the great pleasure to work alongside. To those women—the women who are the backbone of our communities, who do for their communities as they do for their families, while many of them also hold down part-time or full-time employment—please know that you continue to amaze and inspire me. So when a reporter asks me how I am going to manage my workload with family and housework, I shake my head in disbelief and a small amount of amusement because, ladies, it would appear that they still have no idea what we do on a daily basis. It puts me in mind of the movie Made in Dagenham. The central character, Rita O’Grady, is asked by a member of the press “How will you cope?”. “Cope?”, she responds, “We’re women. Now stop asking such stupid questions.”

So to the real question of the moment: what does a wife, mother, credit controller, community worker, volunteer, member of the National Council of Women, local government official, and list member of Parliament sitting on the Opposition benches do? Well, here is a definition that I believe sums it up: “The opposition, which consists of all parties not in government, has the role of holding the government to account. The opposition usually opposes the government’s policies, questions its actions, draws attention to issues, promotes alternative policies and debates proposed legislation.”

The Opposition is responsible for challenging the policies of the Government. So that is my job: to challenge, question, draw attention to issues, debate, and propose alternatives. Sometimes that might mean a challenge to individual members, such as the elected members for Helensville and Northland. It might be a challenge to work with those communities and elected local government representatives to address the high social deprivation scores of seven and eight in those electorates; to implement solutions to the lack of alternative education, access to tertiary or trade education, and high youth unemployment these communities suffer; and to help those business communities push forward and gain recognition as satellite and regeneration towns, so they can encourage greater economic development and, through that, employment.

Or it might be to challenge the elected member for Rodney to remember his verbalised support for the projects of Penlink and the Pūhoi to Wellsford highway with full retention of access at Pūhoi; to remember north Rodney and that it was a National-led Government that took it into the amalgamation of Auckland with relatively no consultation; and to recognise, with the intended economies of scale that are being pursued with some vigour, that these communities and businesses find themselves being starved of tender opportunities and economic development incentives. These communities and businesses are under stress; they require that member’s attention and his commitment to truly understand and assist in the solutions to these issues.

Or it might be to challenge this Parliament to recognise that we have done it all before: we have seen asset sales, we have seen a youth wage, and we have seen a test-driven education system. Look back—many in this House were here the last time these were tried. They did not work then, and they will not work now. The challenge is to have greater vision and to work to a 100-year view rather than knee-jerk reactions.

I draw the attention of the House to the message of Corinthians 13, verse 11: “When I was a child, I talked like a child; I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I put childish ways behind me.” These are not the times for political games. These are not the times to allow our egos to get in the way of positive solutions that will benefit our people. These are not the times to say “I won’t work with that person or this person.” because we do not like their personal style. These are the times to act like grown-ups and put away childish things, because we have all been placed here to represent our people, the citizens of New Zealand—not the citizens of Europe, or Australia, or China, or America, or any other country that comes a knocking. Our job is to represent New Zealanders first, to get the best deal for New Zealanders first, and to put the interests and well-being of New Zealanders first.

But, as I close, I also challenge myself. There is another saying that goes “If you have not done enough to be criticised, then you have not done enough.” My personal challenge is that by the time I leave this House I hope to be highly criticised.

Āpiti hōno, tātai hōno, te hunga mate ki te hunga mate; te hunga ora ki te hunga ora. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Join and link the descent lines with the dead to the dead, and the living to the living. Salutations and greetings to each of you collectively and to us all.]

Honourable members, before I call the next member I must say I feel I have been remiss twice. I should have made clear to any viewers and listeners that we are embarking on a set of maiden speeches and that they are of some real significance. Secondly, I apologise to the member who has just completed her speech that nor did I ring the 5-minute bell, which I will do to let members know that when they hear the bell they have got another 5 minutes—it is not that they should finish then. But I congratulate Tracey Martin that she did not go over time at all, despite my having failed to ring the bell.

Mr Speaker, honourable members, fellow New Zealanders: kia ora. It is a great honour to be here in the New Zealand Parliament, our nation’s House of Representatives, as a New Zealand First member of Parliament. It is no wonder that the Beatles song “The Long and Winding Road” is one of my favourite tunes.

As a fifth-generation, proud New Zealander the journey, however, spans more than just my lifetime, going back to the pioneering days of the 1830s and 1840s, when the likes of the Welsh Captain John Williams skippered an early vessel to this country, when Robert Williams arrived and was the first doctor and coroner in Otago, and when the Forbes, the Stewarts, and the Fairbairns journeyed from Scotland to a new land of opportunity. Those family names live on with my third name, Forbes, and my children’s third names all still honour the Forbes and Fairbairn names. I also honour family members who fell in both World War I and World War II to uphold New Zealand’s democratic principles and those of the Commonwealth.

Growing up in a family of five in the country town of Waipukurau in Central Hawke’s Bay, I have very fond memories of endless hot summers—oh, we all have endless memories of hot summers; I wish we had them again—riding on our bikes everywhere along those hot tar roads, swimming in the holes in the river or at the baths and having competitions to see how many times we could peel over the summer, and listening late at night on a walkie-talkie to Radio Hauraki, out there on pirate ship Tiri, on the late-night airwaves.

Our family had a strong community focus, with my father, Bruce, a stock and station agent in Waipukurau alongside my mother, June; they both worked at Wrightson’s. Both followed the footsteps of our forebears, with Dad serving on the Achilles in the Pacific during the war, and Mum a wartime farm girl—she and her sister taking care of their parents’ farm at Wyndham.

Those were the days when the New Zealand economy was in boom times. Dad would be down at the saleyards as an auctioneer, and they would put through 60,000 ewes at the Waipukurau ewe fair. Stock trucks lined up for miles coming into town. Our parents organised the local A and P show, the largest 1-day show in New Zealand, while Dad was a trustee of the Pukeora home for the disabled and served for many years as a borough councillor. He very proudly used to tell me how Waipukurau was the first town in New Zealand to have a concrete footpath on every street.

In those days New Zealand was No. 2 in the OECD, surpassed only by the United States of America. The New Zealand dollar was worth more than the US dollar. Everything we could produce was shipped over to mother England. Full employment and job security was expected by all, as was a good, free education, free health care, and social security.

But the New Zealand bubble was about to burst. New Zealand became embroiled in the Viet Nam War, and with the introduction of television, we had war in our living rooms for the first time. Very sadly, in 1969 my brother Jack was killed in action in Viet Nam, fighting with the New Zealand Army on those shores. He was one of the 37 young soldiers who gave their lives for this country. I am very proud to be in this corner of the House, where the Viet Nam crest is on the wall; I was here in Parliament in 2008, when Prime Minister Helen Clark delivered the formal apology from the New Zealand Government to the Viet Nam vets for the terrible way they were treated.

We as a family never got over that tragic loss. In 1971 we visited Terendak Camp in Malaysia, where Jack is buried, and we were very proud to be there to see his grave. Flying back on the Air New Zealand DC8 from Singapore, I can recall as a teenager the pride I also had in our national airline, Air New Zealand. Our airline—part of my heritage. At the time New Zealand had an army battalion based in Singapore, and we gave support in many ways to Singapore. Who would think that now, 40 years on, when we see where Singapore has gone compared with this country?

Having been in debating clubs at my prep school, St Peter’s in Cambridge, and then at Central Hawke’s Bay College, my journey was to have been in the field of law; I always wanted to be a lawyer. I recall visiting the Auckland District Court and seeing a lawyer in full flight—his booming voice totally dominating the courtroom, his huge physical presence. Even the judge was mesmerised. That, of course, was David Lange before he entered politics. “Oh, to be a lawyer like him”, I thought.

But as fate would have it, a six-pack of Hutton’s sausages was to change all that while I was attending a barbecue on the North Shore with the uncle of two Hawke’s Bay friends. That was the late Ross Finlayson, a pioneer in the meat industry, with sales to Russia and the Middle East. He wanted a young export trainee, and offered me the job because I brought along the Hutton’s sausages to a big meat exporters’ barbecue. What a choice: be a poor law student at university, or travel the world with a credit card and have an exciting life seeing exotic places. So by the age of 20 I was going to amazing places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman, and travelling throughout Asia.

However, New Zealand’s bubble was about to burst, with Britain joining the EEC. No longer could we rely on the huge UK market, so exporters pounded the pavements in exotic new markets, trying to diversify hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sheep meats. My journey on the long and winding road moved into farmed venison for Wrightson’s, taking this wonderful, low-fat meat to Japan, Asia, the United States, Canada, and Europe, and then managing its perishable airfreight and shipping side for Challenge Freight Services, part of Fletcher Challenge.

In those days The Terrace, as we all know—The Terrace in Wellington—was the commercial hub of corporate New Zealand, with head offices for Fletcher Challenge, Crown Corporation, Dalgety’s, Brierley’s, and many other famous New Zealand company names. The Think Big projects saw the likes of the Clyde Dam being built, the methanol plant being built in New Plymouth, and our container ports being developed. New Zealand was really going places.

However, in less than a decade or so, much of corporate New Zealand was totally transformed and carved up. Head offices moved from Wellington to Auckland or offshore. Corporates downsized or disappeared. The New Zealand Railways Corporation, BNZ, and Air New Zealand were sold out. What a mistake we would all come to regret!

I then joined the Belgian trade service as trade commissioner here in New Zealand, and I was also appointed honorary vice-consul. What an interesting 10 years, involved with a dynamic European economy that was in the centre of the heart of Europe. It was historically important, of course, to New Zealand, when you see the names of Passchendaele up on the wall here, and when you see Messines on the wall over there. It was also economically important for the distribution of so many New Zealand products such as kiwifruit, apples, and meat—all entering the EU via Belgium.

But somehow those 10 years were also disappointing, to witness the comparison between the results of Belgium with its 11 million people and New Zealand with our 4 million people—its huge investment in education, research and development, technology, science and innovation, public transport, city infrastructure, and the list goes on. The gap widened between Belgium and New Zealand in the last decade and it was very, very sad to see.

This was one of the factors that inspired me to get more involved in local government—becoming a councillor, a community board member, and then the mayor of North Shore City—to try to bring some of that European flair and innovation to the Shore and to the Auckland region. My sincere thanks go to the council and staff of North Shore City during my 9 years of involvement with them. We achieved so much as New Zealand’s fourth largest city, with cutting edge technology and innovative thinking leading the way in New Zealand. Our council was recognised both here and internationally.

We put in place the first 15-year long-term council plan of any council in the country. We sorted out the 18-year-old Pak ’N Save supermarket wrangle on Wairau Road, the Birkenhead library fiasco, and the ever-looming risk of the commercial airport at Whenuapai Air Base. My thanks go to the Whenuapai Airbase Action Group, which saved the North Shore from the environmental effects and safety risks of the commercial airport in its urban region. My thanks also go to the Long Bay - Ōkura Great Park Society and the Chelsea Estate Heritage Park society. In both cases we secured hundreds and hundreds of acres of land—pristine land and native bush—taken into public ownership for all time and for this and future generations to enjoy.

So much was achieved in a short space of time, only to have the rug pulled out from under us with the Auckland super-city. The 800-page royal commission report was tossed in the bin and replaced with a 34-page handout within 10 days of the commission reporting. The Shore is not the same today, and is a shadow of its former self. It is a tragedy, really, that 230,000 people have effectively been disenfranchised, with corporate Auckland in the form of the council-controlled organisations now in control of the city. The North Shore sewage treatment plant, worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, developed by the ratepayers over decades, was given away for a peppercorn dollar or so—handed over to a board of directors. Gone are the annual arts competition, the Wag ‘n Walk dog fundraiser, and the Body Art Awards. The weeds are growing taller in our city, as the honourable member Jonathan Coleman, from Northcote, will attest to, as he was in the paper talking about it just a week or so ago. Services are declining and the rates and costs are going up. That was not the way we expected the North Shore to become; that was certainly not why I moved to the North Shore.

But a mayor’s role is very much a 24/7 position—always on call and in demand. It must encompass the needs of all sections of the community. I would like to pay tribute to all mayors, regional chairs, councillors, and community board members throughout the country. They do a fantastic job and deserve far more recognition for the important framework they provide throughout New Zealand. I look forward to working to assist local government through my appointment to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

The principles of New Zealand First align with the social, environmental, and economic actions of a mayor—in line with the principles that the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the New Zealand First members have had all these years. I am very proud to be able to apply what I have learnt in local government to my role as a New Zealand First member of Parliament—factors such as the seniors, who have greatly benefited from the SuperGold card with free off-peak travel; support for the Returned and Services’ Association with $1 million of funding going to it; introducing child visits for under-6s. My wife, Jane, a former Plunket nurse and now child health manager, will attest to the importance of that. The disability support; the owning, building, and maintaining of community assets; and economic policies focused on export-led recoveries are all New Zealand First principles that we should all aspire to.

My thanks, in closing, go to my wife Jane—we have been married now for 31 years—who stood by me through this lengthy journey. She was a great mayoress and will be by my side as a member of Parliament. Thanks too to my children—Sam, Nicky, and Bryony—who no doubt have had a very colourful father, but one with the family and New Zealand’s interests always at heart. Thanks go to the New Zealand First supporters, and all other supporters too, who have supported me over the years. It has been wonderful to know that you are behind me.

It has been a long and winding road, but at the end of the day, like the Williamses, the Forbes, the Fairbairns, and the Stewarts, who came to this land of opportunity, our aim in this House must be to strive to make this a better place for us all. New Zealand must lift its act, we must improve on the economic ladder, and we must do the very best for our country and its people. The last six or seven generations deserve more from this current generation to ensure that we do not sell ourselves down the river and become tenants in our own land. There needs to be a fair go for all.

Mr Speaker, may I add my voice to those who have offered you their congratulations on your re-election. We are all of us, here in New Zealand, either migrants or the descendants of migrants. Some of us have been here longer than others but we all belong to this land, and we all call it home. Many of our forebears arrived here by varied and circuitous routes. My own family story is one such tale. It is a tale largely of two grandfathers, neither of whom I had the opportunity of knowing as well or for as long as I would have liked.

My mother was born on 8 March 1940 in the city of Odense on the island of Funen in the kingdom of Denmark. My grandfather, Hans Christian Hansen, was born in Denmark in 1900 and spent his 20s and early 30s in America and Canada, where he learnt to speak English. In the mid-1930s, as the Great Depression swept through the United States, Hans returned to his homeland where he married my grandmother and the couple soon had two children. Watching the rise of Nazi Germany through the 1930s, my grandfather feared for the safety of his young family, and when the Second World War began he resolved to take them away from the troubles of Europe and to a better life on the other side of the world.

In February 1940 rumours were rife of the expected German invasion of Norway and Denmark. By 18 March, when my mother was just 10 days old, Hans could wait no longer. He took my grandmother, with my mother as a babe in arms, and her two older siblings to the local airfield from where the family flew to Germany. From there they took a train to Italy, and in Genoa they boarded a ship that was bound for Australia. Barely 2 weeks after Hans and his family made their escape, Germany closed its border with Denmark and 6 days later, on 9 April, the Germans invaded and Denmark was occupied.

The Italian ship the Romolo, carrying my grandfather and his family, docked in Brisbane at the beginning of June 1940, where the captain discovered that its sister ship, the Remo, had been impounded in Fremantle as war between Australia and Italy was considered imminent. Knowing that his vessel was about to be seized, the captain disembarked passengers, then broke the moorings and headed back out to sea, attempting to reach safety in Japan before war was declared. But when the Romolo was intercepted by the Australian Navy a few days later, the crew scuttled her, along with everyone’s possessions that were still on board.

My grandad applied to stay in Australia, but the lucky country decided it did not want him. Australia at that time had no great tradition of migration from Scandinavia, and the nervous wartime authorities there were distrusting of a would-be migrant from Europe who had a German-sounding name and who spoke unusually good English with a suspiciously American accent. Fortunately, however, New Zealand did have a tradition of Scandinavian migration and in July 1940 my mother’s family arrived in Auckland with little more than the clothes they were wearing, on the Union Steam Ship Company’s freighter the Limerick, which was destined to be torpedoed by the Japanese in 1943.

My grandfather was a carpenter and a builder by trade, and a no-nonsense, hard-working individual, unused to asking for handouts. His first action on arriving in what would be his new home was to roll up his sleeves, borrow a hammer, and go to work. My grandmother spoke no English at all, and so, alone in a strange new land with three small children, she learnt. Hans kept his American accent until he died in 1973, by which time he had become a proud New Zealander, and with two sunken ships behind him he was not going anywhere else anyway. Never much concerned by rules and regulations, he did not bother to obtain a driver’s licence until he was pulled over and asked to produce one by an Auckland City traffic officer in the early 1960s. Hans provided the officer with the only form of licence he had ever held. It was a permit to operate an automobile, which he had purchased from Chicago City Hall for 50 cents in 1921. Hans, who had never had an accident, reasoned his licence had worked perfectly well all these years and he could not see the point of getting another one.

My father was a somewhat later arrival, stepping off the boat here in Wellington at the tender age of not quite 20 in 1956, having completed his service in the Royal Air Force. By coincidence, my paternal grandfather was born in the same year and died in the same year as did his maternal counterpart. Stanley Prosser was too young for the First World War and too old for the second, but he fought in them both anyway. In 1916 he lied about his age and joined the Pioneer Corps. After his demobilisation following the armistice, he left his native Wales to seek his fortune in England. When war broke out again in 1939 Stan had become a successful drainlaying contractor and had the option of spending the war getting rich from emergency civil works contracts. Instead, however, my grandfather, who regarded service to the nation as being nothing less than his sacred duty, rejoined the army as an officer in the Royal Engineers. With his father in the army and his mother battling ill health, my father David and his older brother were sent to boarding school. Stanley Prosser was a fine baritone and a good Welsh Baptist, but although he was a lay preacher in his local church he was also a betting man who was fond of a flutter on the horses, so he sent his boys to a Church of England school. Dad believes that was because he wanted to have a pound each way, just in case God turned out to be an Anglican after all.

In 1959 my grandfather followed his sons to a better life in New Zealand, where he carried on laying drains and backing horses, ending his days in Waihī in 1973. The values inherited from his father, and the traditions of, first, the Haileybury and Imperial Service College, and then the Royal Air Force, instilled a profound sense of duty and discipline in my father, qualities which I am proud to say he did his utmost to pass on to me and my two sisters. After Dad’s mother died when he was just 6 years old, he was forced to make his own way in the world, quite simply because there was not the option of doing otherwise. To this day, battling his own demons in the form of Parkinson’s disease, my father remains a thoroughly fair and decent man, gentlemanly in his conduct, reasoned and reasonable in his approach to all things, and unafraid to stand up for what he believes to be right.

It is this last conviction that provided the foundation for my own beginning of the journey into politics. My father worked tirelessly for many years to promote the cause of the political party and philosophy that he supported, probably, in truth, in terms of time and effort, to the detriment of his own business interests, but he did it anyway because he thought it was the right thing to do. He and my mother lived a simple life, putting their energies not into the pursuit of material wealth, but rather into a quest for some greater reason and purpose to life for themselves and their children. Through organic gardening, alternative therapies, and a degree of self-sufficiency they sought to instil in us the value of self-reliance and of having an open and inquiring mind. It was an upbringing that encouraged curiosity, learning, and a thirst for knowledge. We did not have PlayStation games or shiny plastic toys, or even television, when I was a kid. We did have books and the experience of a different view of life, and the insights provided by my parents’ many fascinating acquaintances. Above all, they taught us the worth of forming our own opinions based on observation and verifiable fact, to take good advice, and learn from the experiences of others, but also to have the courage of conviction and the strength of mind to have a voice and to make a stand when that is what is necessary, and not to simply blindly follow the herd just because the herd is going in a particular direction. It is a philosophy that I have followed for most of my life, and one that has often courted controversy, recent events being no exception to that.

In 2001, when the then Labour Government scrapped the combat wing of the Royal New Zealand Air Force, like many observers I was concerned. To my mind, that was an act that was deeply flawed on many fronts, and it required a response. I was concerned that people in positions of high office and great responsibility could make such decisions that in my estimation, and that of others, flew in the face of both military reality and the lessons of history. I was very concerned that both the counsel of expert advisers and the overwhelming weight of public opinion could be disregarded in what appeared to be a somewhat cavalier fashion. And I was deeply concerned that the decision could be justified to the public without adequate media scrutiny or the option of recourse to statutory investigation by claims of fact and statements of account that, in my view, were, and remain to this day, entirely questionable.

That action was the turning point that persuaded me that I needed to become involved in the political process and that it was no longer an option to simply be an observer. I was convinced by that event that certain aspects of the New Zealand political system needed to be changed. It was the beginning of a road that has culminated in my presence in this esteemed House, which is in itself, I believe, the beginning of yet another road. It is not enough that 11 years after the fact the folly of the aforementioned disbandment of the combat wing still requires to be corrected. The Government still needs to realise and accept that the adequate defence of the nation is its first responsibility.

It is my belief that members of this House do have sufficient courage to be accountable for the decisions we make on behalf of the nation and its people, not just once every 3 years at election time but every day in between. And if we are true to ourselves and to the principles of democracy we should not fear the voters being allowed to exercise a continuous right of recall. Equally, I hope the day will come when members from all parties enjoy the freedom to follow the mood and instruction of the electorate, as members of the New Zealand First Party do, in supporting policies that reflect the clearly expressed will of the people.

It is my belief that members have a responsibility to speak up and speak out when they know that their concerns are shared by the voters whom they represent. It is of paramount importance, in my opinion, that the presently unchecked authority of the executive be made accountable to the electorate through the mechanism of binding citizens initiated referenda, which I am proud to say has been the policy of the New Zealand First Party since its creation 18 years ago and is the desire of our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who, might I say, stands as an inspiration to us all.

The achievement of these goals will not be accomplished quickly or without effort, for the wheels of change grind uncommon slow and there is much work to be done. I intend to throw myself into that task, and to that end I bought myself a new pair of boots to go with my new suit. They are a bit more flash than the ones I am used to, but they are work boots none the less. Every morning over the next 3 years, and beyond, should the people choose to extend my contract, I will have a constant reminder of what I am coming here to do and who I am coming here to do it for.

As I pull on my boots for work, as I have done almost every morning for the past 27 years, I know that all over New Zealand hundreds of thousands of my countrymen and women are doing the same thing. They may be engaged in industries that I myself have experienced, or in those in which I have not had that honour. They may be truck drivers, tractor drivers, or orchard workers. They might be farmers, soldiers, police officers, or forestry workers. They could be employed in workshops, machine shops, warehouses, or on production lines, or in wineries, cool-stores, and fishing boats, and they could be wearing steel boots, spike-soled boots, tramping boots, or gumboots. But whoever and wherever they are, they need to know that here in this House honourable members are also working together and in the best interests of those workers.

I feel enormously privileged to be allowed the honour of serving in this House, and that the first-generation, New Zealand - born son of migrants, one half of them penniless refugees from a war-torn continent, can grow up to become a member of the House of Representatives of the people. That is not something that can happen in many countries of the world, and I make no apology for proclaiming that I believe this one to be the best of them all. I have come here to advance the progress of democracy, to enhance the security and sovereignty of New Zealand in every sense, including military and economic, and to improve the lot of my fellow man, such that I may make my country and the world a better place for my children and grandchildren, in the safe and healthy environment of a clean, secure, and wealthy nation. I look forward to working with all members of this House towards what I am sure is that common goal. I am convinced that we all share in the desire and intention to build a better world and a better New Zealand.

I would like to pay tribute to my partner, Mel, the great woman who stands behind and beside me—no doubt rolling her eyes—who is stuck on the other side of the world, in the United Kingdom, where I spent the summer adjournment waiting for the arrival of our second daughter, who was meant to arrive early and is now officially late. It is for them and for all the families in New Zealand who call this wonderful country home that I am driven to make this effort.

Mr Speaker, may I end as I began, by congratulating you on your re-election to office. It is with sincerity that I say that in my estimation you have restored a dignity to the role and, through it, a sense of decorum to this House that I have not otherwise witnessed throughout all the years of my lifetime that I have observed this noble institution from the outside. If I may similarly endeavour to advance the better functioning of our parliamentary democracy by working in the best interests of this House, the people, and the nation through all the days I am given here, then I will consider that I have made a worthy contribution to our country and its future. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tēnā anō tātau i huihui mai i runga i te āhuatanga o tēnei rā, ko te kaupapa, ko taku whaikōrero tuatahi i roto i tēnei Whare o ngā raiona e tū ake nei. E mihi ana ki a rātou mā kua ngaro ki te pō, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Tātou ngā kanohi ora, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings once again to us gathered here today in respect to my maiden speech in this, the House of the lions, standing before us. I honour those who have passed away; to them I say farewell, journey on, goodbye. To us, the living ones throughout our House, greetings to you, greetings to you, and greetings to us all.]

Ko Pirongia te maunga. The mountain of my Māori ancestors is Mount Pirongia. Ko Waipā te awa. The blood and bones and therefore the spirit or wairua of my ancestors starts in the Waipā River. Ko Tainui te waka. The canoe of my people is Tainui, of which Hoturoa was captain. Ko Ngāti Maniapoto te iwi. My iwi is Ngāti Maniapoto. Ko Ngāti Hikairoa te hapū. Ko Pūrekireki te marae. On my European side I am descended from Orm, a Viking. On his way to Britain he lost his leg in battle, but had the presence of mind to save it, keep it with him, as no warrior could enter Valhalla unwhole. When close to land he threw his leg on to the shore and thus by Viking law claimed that area. That is why the Ormsby coat of arms proudly displays a severed leg and the motto “He is brave who is prudent”.

As I child I nearly did not make it. At 2 years old I was hospitalised for 7 months in Waikato Hospital. My parents lived in Whakatāne, a 6-hour drive in those days over the then unsealed Kaimai Ranges. I flatlined three times and had the sacrament of extreme unction administered. So I will always have immense respect and appreciation for nurses, doctors, and caregivers—and priests. I would like to acknowledge my mother, who cannot be here because of ill health, but without her love and support I would not be here today. Growing up in Whakatāne I was blessed with great friends, and together we fished, surfed, played sport, and learned to live with and nurture the land that supported us. Because amenities were affordable we regularly visited the local swimming pool and developed civic pride. Entry cost only 20c—the price of a Jelly Tip. Compare that with my local council swimming pool, Baywave in Tauranga, where entry and hydro-slides cost $8 for local children. It is no wonder that children struggle to swim, and one of my goals is to have gold-coin entry to all swimming pools for all New Zealand schoolchildren.

But I digress. Back to my childhood and Whakatāne, when we were also blessed with great male role models, men like Mike Beeching, George Ferguson, Bruce Scott, Co Baart, and Monty McGoughan. They taught us to swim, to surf, to fish, to connect with the land, and to fiercely compete in sport, arming us with the confidence to back ourselves and a solid work ethic, and they taught us the value of having perfect basics in our sporting disciplines. Many young men and women from Whakatāne have represented New Zealand in sport and travelled the world as I have done, thanks to men like this. I would also like to acknowledge their wives, as behind every great man there is usually a better woman, in those times telling him what to do and feeding him, and in those days, me too. So for me, childhood was a golden time. I could have become another statistic: a child from a broken home in an era when single-parent families were rare. But thanks to men and women with the heart and courage to care for all of the children in their community, I am the man I am today, because to them community mattered.

I know that a maiden speech is not supposed to mention anything too controversial, but there are things that are happening in our country now that are so wrong, and I cannot countenance a philosophy of silence. “Evil thrives when good men and women stand by and do nothing.” So I ask now, how can New Zealand have the highest child brutality and murder rate in the OECD? How can this possibly be New Zealand when we start the year with a baby murdered in a small town, a 16-year-old boy assaulting and raping a 5-year-old girl, and a young father being stabbed to death whilst sitting in his car waiting for a medical prescription? The foul stench of these crimes lingers over our entire nation, but, in particular, those of us in Parliament, as it has happened on our watch. This is not the New Zealand that I grew up in. This is not the New Zealand I wish to bequeath to my children. The protection and safety of all New Zealand children must be paramount. We are all aware of the need, and decisive action must be taken. If we have to step on a few toes and offend the politically correct, then so be it. The next New Zealand child to be murdered will leave blood on all of our hands, if we fail to act.

Ko Brendan tāku ingoa—my name is Brendan and I stand before you today in this House, a product of my ancestors, respectful of all they have achieved and mindful of the new paths that I must forge to honour them. I am a proud representative of the New Zealand First Party, but am humbled by the support and hard work of the many people who sacrificed hours of time and effort to see New Zealand First back in Parliament. I would therefore like to thank everyone who voted for New Zealand First: the parents who remembered New Zealand First securing free medical care for children under 6; a policy protecting children and saving lives. I would like to thank the small-business owners who remembered when New Zealand First lowered business tax from 33 percent to 30 percent. I would like to thank the many Māori who voted for New Zealand First, conscious of the many settlements and concessions that New Zealand First and Winston Peters have secured over the years. And let me not forget the SuperGold cardholders, who possess tangible evidence of a party that serves New Zealanders, some of whom voted accordingly. To those New Zealanders who had that brilliant epiphany on election day and smile when they think of New Zealand First back in Parliament, thank you.

We are a growing party, strong in our beliefs, and to all 147,544 people who entrusted us with their votes we will represent the beliefs that we hold as vital to the prosperous future of our nation. Beliefs that are the founding principles of our party: to put New Zealand and New Zealanders first and to have an open, accountable Government. We believe in one law for all New Zealanders regardless of race, age, or colour, and a country that belongs to all New Zealanders, not foreign boardrooms whose only interest is a quarterly financial statement. I believe in wealth creation; wealth creation through a sound and practical long-term economic plan with short-term key performance indicators to make sure we are on track. The New Zealand First economic plan will operate in the absence of secrecy.

These beliefs are not new to New Zealanders. In fact here is a quote from one of the great former leaders of our country: “… I believe in New Zealanders owning their own industry, all industry, wherever practicable … This country is growing up, and I want to see it owned and controlled by New Zealanders in every possible sphere. … There is, of course, also an economic reason—the bleeding away of overseas funds and the paying of tribute to people overseas, … I, for one, want to see New Zealand mature, to grow up in its own sense, have its own soul, develop its own character, and have control of its own destiny in all spheres of economy. … This is my simple faith.”

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who said that?

That was said by none other than former National Party leader and Prime Minister Sir Keith Holyoake. What would he think of our country today? How will history view us in 20 years’ time?

I live in Tauranga—well actually my family live there and I am now bi-regional by vocation. On top of the many challenges that we face in New Zealand, Tauranga has the added burden of the Rena and its effect not only on our environment but also the economic damage to businesses both small and large, and the long-term effects that have yet to be fully realised. Another major concern is the Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (Psa) virus, which has wiped out over half the golden kiwifruit crop, and that equates to close to $500 million out of the Tauranga and Bay of Plenty economy. This disease is having an impact across the entire industry, from individual growers, contractors, and seasonal workers to Zespri. All levels of the industry are having to change and adapt their businesses to survive. Promisingly, there is a pathway emerging out of the Psa damage, based around a new variety known as Gold3. I believe that with time and Government support our industry can recover.

I believe that Tauranga has the potential to be a great city, the best in the world. And to those people in Tauranga, you will understand this vision. Imagine if we built a 25,000-seat stadium at the Domain, above the central business district, and if we constructed a walkway around our stunning harbour. People of Tauranga, envision the potential of fast, passenger rail from Auckland in under 2 hours? And what about if we cleaned up our water and marketed ourselves as the cleanest city in the world? What a vibrant, exciting metropolis we could become. Any one of these projects would provide the opportunity for on-the-job apprenticeships and long-term employment.

I believe that as a country it is time we believed in ourselves. I believe that our most important asset is our people, and we must invest in New Zealanders in health, education, and emerging skills and competencies. The world is now immersed in a mobile digital revolution. Now New Zealand is justifiably proud of its pioneering tradition. At times we have led the world on everything from nuclear physics to powered flight to climbing the highest mountain. Our people are the most creative, innovative, and forward-thinking to be found anywhere. But currently we are marking time, and, quite frankly, we need to embrace, support, and speed up the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. The mobile digital revolution is accelerating at an exponential rate. Countries with established broadband are rapidly going mobile, and that is having massive implications for business, education, and the health sector. In the last quarter of 2011 the number of smart phones purchased surpassed the combined number of personal computers, laptops, iPads, and tablets sold. Handheld computing is here to stay, and the high-powered, browser-enabled, high-definition, video-ready device is already revolutionising the way businesses market, trade, and do commerce; the way people learn and educate; the way health services and caregiving are provided; and growing the way we collaborate in politics—if only we could get reception in the 75 metres between the Beehive and Bowen House! These services are now operating in an always connected world. The upskilling with new skills and competencies in New Zealand’s workforce is a priority. It is my intention to see that the professional development required happens. It is our choice and opportunity to catch this wave, rather than to let it swamp us or pass us by.

The tie I wear today was chosen carefully for the colours represented. The ochre symbolises the blood, sweat, and tears that our forefathers have invested in this land. The green stands for the fertility of our soil, growth, promise, and the hope for a better tomorrow. We once led the world in social and economic standing, and by working together I believe we can do so again. My pledge to all New Zealanders is that I will strive with integrity to combine the values and community standards of my childhood with the digital, forward-thinking, economic ownership and environmental consciousness of this generation. I will work with any other member or party supporting ideas that are good for New Zealand and oppose those that would do us harm. This is what I believe and what I intend to do.

My final acknowledgment I give to my wife, for she holds my heart. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, honourable members, I feel privileged to be elected to this Parliament and to have this first opportunity to address you today. I want to begin by extending greetings to New Zealand First supporters throughout the country, and especially to my friends and supporters in Christchurch to whom I also extend my sincere thanks.

My home town is on its knees—Christchurch is bent, buckled, and broken in everything except spirit. My first objective as a list MP for New Zealand first, and as a proud Cantabrian, is to do all I can to assist with the recovery from earthquakes, and also to seek better governance for the city, so I will speak about those issues first. Secondly, I will speak about egalitarianism as my driving force in politics, and, thirdly, I want to talk about environmental sustainability as a strongly held personal mission.

First, Christchurch. Magnitude 6.3 on the Richter scale for the February 2011 earthquake does not adequately describe it. In my home on the Port Hills, directly above the fault, I felt the indescribable force of vertical ground acceleration, 2.2 times the force of gravity, the largest ever recorded anywhere in a populated area. But it was the great rolling waves following the initial shock which threatened to turn my home on to its side. Luckily, it came back to vertical again. On top of all that was the severity of the shaking, for nearly a minute.

I helped neighbours out of shattered homes and looked across at the white cloud of dust rising over the central city, 1,000 feet high and 4 kilometres wide. Then came the exodus from the central city. People abandoned their cars on unpassable roads covered in liquefaction, and were exhausted even before reaching the hill, often with cuts and bruises and tears streaming down terrified faces, searching for children at the local school, or rushing home to loved ones.

Those terrible experiences are now all in the past, but the effects are not. We who live in Christchurch will rebuild our homes and our city. It is still New Zealand’s second-largest city, essential to the nation’s economy, and especially to the viability and progress of the South Island.

The Government’s initial response was welcome, even though many have reservations about home valuations and a raft of other issues. It is what happens next that really matters. We must turn adversity into advantage. There are 6,600 homes in the red zone, 1,000 in the orange zone, and thousands more elsewhere requiring demolition and replacement, or reinstatement. Too little is being done, and much too late. While nobody wants bad, hasty decisions made, neither can the current uncertainties and delays be allowed to continue. For many people, these are worse than the earthquakes themselves.

The Earthquake Commission has been too slow, as have the insurance companies, with the reinstatement or rebuilding of homes and businesses. The commission has paid too much attention to administration, and too little to getting the work done on the ground. It is clearly under-resourced, and is unable to reach its statutory targets. It needs to put more resources where they are most needed, especially in the rebuilding and reinstatement of homes and businesses, and towards the funding approvals needed for those purposes.

And we all want to know what will happen to the red-zoned land. As the thousands of houses are demolished we must not be left with vast areas of dusty demolition deserts to add to the problems we already face. I call upon the Government to urgently establish and fund a plan to turn these areas into properly maintained grassed parklands that will enhance the environment of the city while final decisions are made on how to deal with this land in the longer term.

Central city building owners also need certainty. Much good work has been done to develop a plan for a bright new central city for Christchurch, but when will it be done, and who will pay for it? A few have taken the punt that the central city will recover soon and have started rebuilding. Many others are not so sure, and some capital is taking flight.

Leadership is called for, and more resources are required, because insurers, developers, and the council will be unable to fully fund the rebuild and the implementation of the plan in a timely way without assistance. So I call upon the Government to quickly establish a major urban renewal fund for central Christchurch, provided over a period of years, designed to assist the rebuild of both public and private structures by building owners and businesses, and by the city council for public space and transport enhancements. This would go a long way to encourage an early rebuild at a standard all New Zealand can be proud of.

Another urgent issue for the Government is insurance. Many thousands of homeowners in Christchurch cannot get insurance for new homes, or cannot get insurance for their existing properties. Some companies have departed the market altogether, leaving significant insurance gaps. Without insurance, people cannot get mortgages, blocking rebuilding. I call upon the Government again to establish a Government-backed insurer in New Zealand with a mission to provide cover for everybody who needs it. Kiwibank has been a great success—so could “Kiwi Insurance”, too.

But more is needed for Christchurch. I was a councillor there for 15 years, but the Christchurch City Council now is dysfunctional and deeply unpopular. Part of the problem is its failure to establish adequate governance systems, delegations, accountability, and transparency. An underlying cause, though, was the unwise decision of the Local Government Commission in 2004 to reduce the number of councillors from 24 to 13 while at the same time greatly increasing the size of the city.

Small councils for large populations are not viable or democratic. On top of this was the sacking of the regional council in Canterbury. Its poor performance, especially over water issues, did, I think, justify its replacement by commissioners, but it is obvious now that Christchurch needs a new broom to clean up the whole local government mess, and local democracy must of course be restored.

It is time, I think, for a new unitary authority for Christchurch to be established for election in 2013. Unitary authorities for all of the Canterbury local authorities are needed, with no need to change boundaries but with an adequate number of councillors for good governance and effective representation of residents. The time for the Government to act on this is now. Delay will serve neither the need for certainty nor the need to restore effective democratic governance.

Moving on to other matters, I am, as I said before, an egalitarianist, and being born in 1946 I am one of the first of the baby boomers. I want to restore the best of the New Zealand I grew up in: a country that celebrates personal achievement, but not by the strong benefiting at the expense of those less able; a country that does not have the great gap between rich and poor we see today; and a country that not only keeps its important strategic publicly owned assets—especially power generation companies—but develops them for the benefit of all, not for the benefit of only those who can afford to buy shares.

I want to do all I can to remove prejudice, division, and greed, and I want to close the income gap. Already in this country incomes are too low for most, and too high for some. The trend under successive National and Labour Governments has been in the wrong direction. We must progressively raise the minimum wage to a level capable of adequately supporting a homeowning family, but instead our system encourages greed. The huge salaries received by some are not really earned; they simply exploit the system.

The tax system must be used to help close the income gap. It needs comprehensive review by an independent commission—yes, once again—with terms of reference aimed at a fairer system, and the Government must actually act, and implement those findings. GST has been increased too much as a proportion of the total tax take. It should be reduced. It impacts unfairly on the poor. But the tax system must also be broadened, including appropriate capital taxation measures, and it must be more progressive. Most of all, it must eliminate the tax-minimisation methods by which high earners currently pay much less than they should.

With regard to superannuation, the main parties seem to see the elderly as a problem. To me and to New Zealand First, they have earned superannuation at a level to provide a reasonable living income, along with a range of SuperGold card services to make retirement easier. Baby boomers were told during their working lives by successive Governments to rely on the taxation system as a source for their retirement incomes, but now, much too late, they are being told to rely on savings. And they were told to rely on 65 as the qualifying age, but now the message seems to be 67 or even 70 years. This would be a gross betrayal, and effectively a breach of the social contract that resulted from the acts and policies of past National and Labour Governments. The qualifying age must remain at 65 years indefinitely, but with an option for individuals to delay it in return for a higher pension.

Now something about sustainability. New Zealanders have failed to live within the natural constraints of the physical environment. Only our low population has saved us from its worst effects. We are not just degrading our own world; we are robbing future generations. New Zealand needs a practical, achievable, honest approach to sustainability issues, not ineffective “greenwash”. Much more attention needs to be paid to employing green technologies for future development.

The top priority is water—the gold or oil of the 21st century. I currently chair the Central Plains Water Trust in Canterbury. Its plan and consents for irrigation with water from the Rākaia and the Waimakariri rivers are based on protecting the natural character of the rivers through compliance with a robust regime of minimum flows and protecting aquifers, and on avoidance of pollution, using a mandatory sustainable farming protocol built into the consents and into water-use contracts. That approach must be entrenched through tougher regulation everywhere in the country.

But without the large-scale water storage taken at times of plentiful flow, the reliability and sustainability of such schemes is compromised. The $400 million or so that has so far been announced to assist sustainable schemes with storage is a drop in the bucket. A much greater commitment by the Government is needed if we are going to achieve sustainable agricultural development and greater diversification.

Energy, of course, is another top priority. The fossil fuel age has peaked and is already in decline. New Zealand is rich in renewable energy opportunities. Hydroelectric power, geothermal power, wind power—these and other methods require Government leadership and investment. There is no need to take the risks associated with deep-sea drilling or fracking.

Waste issues still need urgent attention in New Zealand. I was proud to lead the Kate Valley regional landfill project in Canterbury, achieving a much better environmental protection. But landfills will never be sustainable. It is essential to recover much more of our wasted resources. With others, I set up the Recovered Materials Foundation and two commercial companies for these purposes, only to be frustrated by the inept policies and practices of local government and inaction on the part of Labour and National Governments alike. Comprehensive regulation is needed to ensure the diversion of recoverable materials away from landfills.

Lastly, I want to talk a little bit about the emissions trading scheme as a valid concern for many in this country. I do not believe it is the way to a sustainable future, but it is the way to economic disaster, especially when our production forests are harvested a few years from now. It is a deeply flawed system, expensive, limited, and uncertain in its effectiveness, and it will make some people rich, without achieving its goals. We can achieve much more, I believe, with well-developed strategies, excellent planning, well-targeted incentives, and comprehensive regulation for the sustainable environmental outcomes we need.

In closing, my work list is long, but I pledge to work with members of any party who genuinely wish to work together for egalitarian policies, for environmental sustainability for our country, and for the special support Christchurch needs so desperately at this troubled time. Thank you very much.

Mr Speaker, I join the previous speakers in congratulating you on your appointment as Speaker of the House, along with your Deputy Speaker and Assistant Speakers. Honourable members, my fellow Pacific members of Parliament, in reverence and humility as the only Pacific woman in this 50th parliamentary term, I acknowledge our Father, our Creator.

E tū ana ahau i raro i Te Taumata o te Atua. Ko ia te tīmatanga me te mutunga o ngā mea katoa. Ko ia te ārepa me te ōmeka, kia tau te rangimārie. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā me rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[I stand beneath the resting place of God, who is the beginning and end of all things. He is alpha and omega, indeed, so let peace prevail. To the authorities, languages, four winds, and leaders of a hundredfold, greetings, greetings, greetings to you and us all.]

I stand forthright before you, beneath the mantle and auspice of the Creator, for he is the beginning and end of all things. To our special guests, the many languages and nationalities gathered here, the people of the four winds, all leaders, chiefs, and orators who are able to watch through satellite networks—greetings, greetings, greetings, one and all. Malo e lelei. Fakalofa lahi atu. Kia orana. Ni sa bula vinaka. Talofa kotou. Taloha ni. Fa’atalofa atu i le pa’ia ma le mamalu o si o’u atunu’u pele Samoa. Le pa’ia i Tama ma Aiga, o Aiga foi ma o latou Tama. Le usoga a Pule ma Tumua, o Ituau ma Alataua. Aiga i le Tai ma le Va’a o Fonoti. Tulou, tulou, tulouna lava.

I acknowledge the honorifics and salutations, as well as paying tribute to my brave, committed, and determined ancestors. There are many days of historical importance. Today is one of those days, not only for my parents but also for the villages where I was born and raised, Safa’ato’a Lefaga and Safune Toamua Faleata, and the island of Samoa where I spent the first 17 years of my life, embracing the importance of our cultural and community values. I acknowledge those who have passed—our ancestors, our forefathers—whose spirits I know are sharing our pride today.

Resolute, I stand in awe of the traditions and integrity of many great leaders who have stood in this House before me.

I come from a long line of high chiefs—to be specific, my father, Maiava Lole Masinalupe, and my mother, the late Leono Feao Fānene Peī’u, who insisted that my future is dependent on the choices that I make. My dear, stern grandfather, the late Masinalupe Maiava Saeli, of Lefaga and Leulumoega, forever lectured me that I should embrace our traditional values and incorporate them into our wider societies. He said that in order for me to serve others well, it is important that I embrace and respect my own identity. I will do my absolute and beyond to serve those traditions. My presence here today and for however long I am a member of Parliament will never change this.

I do not intend to dwell on my humble upbringing or my humble beginnings. What I can say is this: I did not have the privilege of being born in a State house. However, my upbringing as a proud Samoan village woman has taught me the value of basic things in life.

This campaign has been one of true perseverance, hard work, and commitment. It is on this note that I would like to sincerely thank Haydn Solomon, Jerry Ho, Mahesh Bindra, Noeline Evaroa, and our campaign team, along with our community in South Auckland: Rev. Paulo Ieli, Fa’apaiaga, and the Samoan Methodist Church in Papatoetoe; Taniela Vaka and the Tongan Hephzibah community of Ōtāhuhu; Fepuleai, Sene, and family of Māngere; Mary Ama and Tiana Epati of Waitakere; Ionatana and Auomala Pouli Lefale of East Tāmaki; Ahmadiyya Muslim community group of Manukau; of course, our student supporters from the University of Auckland, St Mary’s College, and De La Salle College; our local Pacific media networks; my friends Pita Paraone and Bruce McCarthy; Noella Rimmerswaal and the Whangarei community; and, of course, the then Samoan High Commissioner, His Excellency Afioga Asi Tuiataga Fa’afili Blakelock and Letelesa Helen Blakelock. Thank you for being part of my journey.

To my aiga potopoto, and in particular, my father, Maiava—who, unfortunately, could not be here today due to ongoing illness—I will never forget the sacrifices that Mum and you made in order to ensure that your whānau did well. You have bestowed on me the matai name of Le’aufa’amulia in order to remind me of who I am. I am truly honoured. Fa’afetai tele lava tamā. To my sister, Esefaiga, and brother-in-law, Lepale Tusani, it is a blessing to always have your support at every public event. Finally, to my dear husband, Dennis, thank you for your patience and tremendous support. It is good to have you here today. I acknowledge my daughters—Fleur, for your assertiveness and hard work, and Amy, for your endurance during the footwork of the campaign, including our doorknocking adventures—and Nathanael, my dear 11-year-old son, who was more of a whip when it comes to time management and events coordination. I love you all dearly.

To the people of Manukau East and, of course, the New Zealand First supporters, thank you—we have made it. I never set out to be a politician; politics found me. And today I stand here as a New Zealand First member of Parliament who believes in true representation for all New Zealanders. We are so deeply honoured that 147,544 New Zealanders voted for New Zealand First. With your support we should be able to restore democracy in our country. O le tele o sulu e maua ai ni figota, e māmā se avega, pe a tatou amo fa’atasi—my strength does not come from me alone but from many. New Zealand First made it back, and if the truth be told, probably just in the nick of time.

I bring with me experiences in many different areas that are spread across the spectrum of public service and community development—from the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Justice, local government, district health boards, and various departments within the tertiary education sector. I have done the groundwork before becoming a member of Parliament, and not just through paid employment. Actions speak louder than words, and it has been through the leading of and involvement with many community organisations and initiatives that I have truly seen the importance of this.

My work life before Parliament has taught me a few things about the impact of crime on our communities, on our families, and on individuals. Indeed, living in the Auckland region reveals a number of things about the insidious nature of crime in New Zealand today. Recognising the complexities of our justice system, and as a member of the Law and Order Committee, I would like to make one statement: we need short, sharp sentences for repeat offenders. That is right. Although the term of imprisonment is shorter, the offender would be required to work hard. They will undergo extensive community-based rehabilitation programmes and compulsory supervision upon release. Prisons need to deliver a sharp reminder to offenders that they are not in holiday camps with Hi-de-Hi! programmes.

Short, sharp sentencing is more cost-effective, based on the simple reason that it reduces the need to build more prisons, it reduces the prison population and time spent in prison, and it reduces the potential for reoffending and unnecessary bureaucracies. Short, sharp sentences will ensure that we do not have to build a billion-dollar prison that will provide huge profits to offshore privateers. We need short sentences in the sense that the deterrent is not the length of time that you are prison; the deterrent is the fact that you are in prison and have to work hard like the rest of us. The ostrich mentality of locking them up and throwing away the key does not work.

The cost savings from this policy would free up spending for the engagement and delivery of community rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. It is our communities that hold the key to reducing crime in our society. I say this with conviction to building safer, stronger communities so that New Zealand is recognised as being the safest place in the world to live in and to raise our families.

There are many of us who are residents of South Auckland. It is a sad day when ill-informed and repugnant comments made by current MPs refer to the people of South Auckland as pornography-watching criminals or support local transport roading plans for the reason of secluding South Auckland criminals from the rest of Auckland. Those comments are not only naive but pernicious in their nature. It is time for these members of Parliament to recognise that being part of this Parliament in turn means that we represent all New Zealanders.

South Auckland communities have produced a number of well-known leaders in various areas, as well as being responsible for the education of sons and daughters of some of our past and present members of Parliament. Not all prisoners in prisons or white-collar criminals come from South Auckland. To sit there and pass judgment on a part of New Zealand that clearly holds significance in this country is, clearly, alarming and contemptuous. Yes, there is the need for better support towards education in South Auckland, and it is imperative that we stop using South Auckland as a laboratory for window dressing trials like charter schools.

There is a need for Māori and Pacific wardens to be better resourced in order to carry out the wonderful community work that they do for people. There is a need for better control of alcohol distribution, in order to decrease alcohol-related crime. RSA and Cosmopolitan Clubs should be given better support through Government funding to improve resources that would facilitate and host events, which will provide safer social environments for the public.

The Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs needs to be given a fair go. The ministry cannot be expected to work in a silo; it needs to be given the tools to work across the spectrum of all Government departments and agencies.

Right now, in New Zealand the rich continue to get richer and the poor get poorer. This cannibalistic greed that currently permeates our country will, if unchecked, reduce our country to a third-rate backwater. This will bring us back to the dark days of the worst of colonisation. The brightest future will always be based on a forgotten past. How quickly has the Government forgotten the lessons of its past and the principles it was founded on?

I want to congratulate, commend, and acknowledge le afioga Vaovasamanaia Rt Hon Winston Peters, who continues to remind us all of the true principles of those very important lessons. He is one leader of many qualities who has not forgotten the work of our past great leaders.

I, along with many other proud New Zealanders of Pacific Island heritage, believe in hard work and an honest living. We did not leave the land of our ancestors to come to New Zealand in order to be statistics on its welfare system. Whether a New Zealander by birth or immigration, each one of us has the responsibility to find and implement effective solutions. No one should bring a sense of moral superiority to this debate. Complex issues require simple solutions, and sorry, it is not called charter schools.

New Zealand First is here to restore accountability and transparency to the New Zealand public. We are here to bring a sense of responsibility and reason to the development of policies. We are here as people motivated by inherent humanity and decency to reach out to the most vulnerable in our community. Our restitution for this lies in our determination to address disparities that expose the most vulnerable in our society—our children. Asset sales are not a remedy for child poverty, let alone financial stability. Asset sales are not a panacea to cure the social ills of society. I mourn for our ancestors who fought hard to build this country. These generations considered their responsibilities to their country and one another as most important. Theirs was a mesh of values enshrined in God, hard work, and the belief in something greater. The negative impact of asset sales will inevitably and invariably come back to bite.

There are so many challenges involved with the global financial debt crisis. Financial downgrades or mysterious emails to the contrary are not going to insulate us from the impact of this global crisis. Retention of our assets would have. Baroness Thatcher once said: “If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.” New Zealand First will hold this Government to account.

There are difficult times ahead. To rebuild our country that has been badly weakened by the greed and irresponsibility of others will take time. The first step is to restore accountability and transparency to our decision making, so we can once again bring market reality closer to the ideals we all hold. The second step is to adhere to the values of our forefathers, for therein lies the solution.

On that note I think it is fitting that I start my term as a member of Parliament by ending with words that reflect aspirations we can all pursue and uphold in this House. “May the peace be widespread”, “May the sea glisten like greenstone”, and “May the rays of prosperity shine.” Soifua ma ia manuia.

I think a number of us want to congratulate now—because we did not want to disrupt the debate earlier—the maiden speakers while they are in the House. I seek leave of the House to adjourn now until 7.30 p.m., because I think any speech would be pretty disruptive now. I seek the leave of the House to adjourn until 7.30 p.m.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the debate to be interrupted and the House suspended until 7.30 p.m. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

I move, That the debate be now adjourned.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No. The Noes have it. No one voted yes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will repeat the call.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The reason why I am repeating the call is that I did not allow time for anyone to respond. It is my fault that this situation arose, and that is why I will repeat the call. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. A division has been called for, and I will ask the Clerk to conduct a party vote.