General Debate

I would like to begin my general debate speech by congratulating and acknowledging Bret McKenzie. For those at home who do not know who he is, he is one-half of the Flight of the Conchords, and earlier this week he made us all proud as Kiwis when in Hollywood he took the stage and took an Academy Award, an Oscar, home for the best song in a motion picture. Mr McKenzie is a Wellingtonian, so he is carrying on the recent tradition of bringing Oscars back to Wellington, and we congratulate him.

The award-winning song was Man or Muppet, and it served as inspiration for a cartoon in this morning’s New Zealand Herald. In this instance I think my former colleagues in the media have got it 100 percent right, and for those at home who may be watching, this is the cartoon that Rod Emmerson put in the New Zealand Herald this morning. It shows Kermit the frog asking Paula Bennett whether she is a Minister or a Muppet. I think it is a little bit unfair that Mr Emmerson has actually singled out Mrs Bennett, because I think there are a number of Ministers on the other side of the House who could be put at that piano. In fact, there would be a number in Cabinet who could have a good old singalong around that piano. It does pose a serious question, and, as I say, I think Mr Emerson has hit the nail right on the head around the performance of some of our Ministers that we have in our Government at the moment. They had a swagger about them after the election, but as a couple of months have passed that swagger is starting to disappear.

What is a muppet in this context, we say? If we go online to the Urban Dictionary, a muppet is “a person who defies explanation with regard to common sense and logic, exhubing an air of confidence that is mutually exclusive to that of their accomplishments or ability”. So let us have a look at some of the potential candidates whom we could put in this category for Minister or Muppet, as Mr Emmerson has pointed out, because do not forget—

💬 Chris Hipkins: It’s only a 5-minute speech.

It is; I wish it was a 10. Do not forget this is a Government in which John Key said he expected high standards from his Ministers and said if they did not meet the high standards that he set, then obviously he would take the necessary action.

Let us look at Mr McCully, the gift who keeps on giving—the gift who keeps on giving. He is the Minister who had his private email account hacked by “Anonymous” and what was in those emails? In those emails was the public revelation that the Government is worried about resisting China, and that will cause us as a country severe diplomatic embarrassment as we go forward. As Mr Goff had pointed out in his contribution, this is at a time when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is looking at reducing its staff by 350 jobs. This is also a Minister who is presiding over a ministry that is considering spending almost $1 million of taxpayer money on a pool in our embassy in Tokyo. This is a Minister whom John Key is still backing, and still has confidence in.

Can I move to Maurice Williamson and Jonathan Coleman, because they are the Ministers who have a duty under the Overseas Investment Act to ensure that overseas purchases of New Zealand farmland, amongst other things, have to have substantial and identifiable benefits to New Zealand. But that decision was wrong. In any sense they got a smack-down from the High Court, told that their decision was wrong, and went back to square one. That was very, very embarrassing for the Government, but these are Ministers whom John Key still says he has confidence in. These are Ministers whom John Key still has confidence in. Again, it is an example of the rhetoric of the Government not meeting the reality.

Let us look at the evidence of the failure of National since it came into office in 2008: 40,000 fewer jobs under the National Government since it came to power, and 36,000 jobs promised in the year to March 2012. How many were delivered? Ten thousand, which is 30 percent of what it has promised us—another example of overpromising and under-delivering—and 60,000 more jobless Kiwis under National.

I would like to go back to Bret McKenzie, because in his post-Oscar speech backstage he said: New Zealand is “a great place to grow up. You can do whatever you want there. Whereas in America I think everyone’s obsessed with their careers, in New Zealand you get to just live your dreams.” Well, not everyone’s dream is to win an Oscar. That is a great dream, but a lot of Kiwis’ dream is to have a job, to have a safe community, and to make sure that their kids can grow up in a great country. That will not happen when our Ministers are behaving like muppets.

It is with great pleasure that I take this first opportunity to speak in a debate in the House, and speak to the issue, which is very important to this nation, of welfare reform. As a former police officer in Northland I can assure you that this is something very much at the forefront of this country’s future. I just wonder whether the member opposite who just resumed his seat, Kris Faafoi, was able to turn his attention from the pictures that he saw in the paper and alluded to, and to flip it over. He would note that there is a very, very positive editorial headed “Reforms aim to break welfare cycle”, which shows some very, very positive affirmation of the steps that the Minister for Social Development is making. Although pictures often paint an interesting story, if the member took time to read the editorial he might find out an entirely different picture.

I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development for the commitment, dedication, and passion that she shows for this role, and which no one can argue she does not have for this area. Welfare reform is a “must-do”, on two levels: firstly, because it is financially unsustainable, but, more important, because the welfare system has become a welfare trap. The net result of this is that too many people in our nation, often through no fault of their own, are missing out on the opportunities to build a life and a career.

A key focus of our reforms is to provide early and effective intervention to those people who are at the highest risk of long-term welfare—those who are essentially on a collision course with a benefit—and, in particular, those aged 16 and 17 with no education, training, and employment, and teen parents who, tragically, are in a position where most of them will move on to an adult benefit by the time they are 18. I say that we can and should do better for these people.

These young people are no different from so many others in New Zealand. They have hopes and dreams, and when we ask what those dreams are, we know that they will always struggle to achieve those while dependent on a welfare cheque. We owe it to them and to New Zealand to do better, and that is exactly what this Government proposes to do.

One of the fundamental failures in the lives of so many of those young people is the lack of parental guidance, and, importantly, personal responsibility seems to play a very minor part in the lives of these vulnerable young people. So many of these young people lack even basic life skills and a sense of personal responsibility, not to mention the education and training, all of which significantly diminishes the opportunities for these young people.

These reforms are aimed to provide wraparound mentoring, support, education, and training to fill the gap that so many of these young people’s parents did not. It also provides good-quality child care, to provide young teen parents with an opportunity to go out and strive for that life. These reforms will help young people to take control of their lives and their destinies again. An essential in achieving this is the youth support providers helping young people to manage their budgets, helping young people to pay essential bills such as power and rent, and giving them an allowance and a payment card to meet their living costs.

I want to say that this is a vital circuit-breaker on two levels: firstly, because it helps give young people control over their lives again, and, secondly, because it ensures that the support that the State is providing is going towards helping them get into work, and not simply perpetuating dependence. This is a tremendous investment in the lives of some 1,400 young people currently not in education, employment, or training, 3,000 of whom are currently on benefits. These reforms are about investing in these young people and believing in them and their potential, rather than writing them a welfare cheque and hoping for the best.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, kia ora tātou katoa e hoa mā i roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi. I ētahi wā i a au e noho nei i te Whare Pāremata ka āta wānanga ki roto i a au anō he aha tāku i konei, he aha te pūtake o taku noho ki konei, ka pērā anō hoki mātou o te Pāti Māori. Nā te kaha o te iwi, āe, nā rātou tonu mātou i tono mai ki konei, ka mutu, nā runga anō i te here ki te Tiriti o Waitangi e mōhiotia nei e tātou ko te tāhūhū kōrero mō te whenua nei. Arā, ko te noho tahi, o te Kāwanatanga, o te Karauna me kī, me te tangata whenua. I tonoa mātou e ō mātou ringa raupā, te hunga e noho mai rā i te wā kāinga, ki konei kia noho hei waha kōrero, kia noho hei rōpū motuhake mō te Ao Māori i roto i te Whare Pāremata, ka mutu, kia noho hei kaitiaki, hei mea akiaki i ngā kaupapa tuku iho, ngā mea i waihotia mai ai e kui mā, e koro mā, ā, kia noho motuhake nei a Aotearoa mō ake nei.

I ngā marama tata kua hipa ake ko te kaupapa nui e kōrerohia ana, ko tērā ko te Tiriti o Waitangi. He pakanga i whakahaeretia mai ai kia whakairi te Tiriti o Waitangi ki te taumata tiketike e tika ana mō tēnei take. I kōrero pakanga i te mea koinei te āhuatanga kua roa te Ao Māori e pakanga ana kia kitea mai ai te puāwaitanga o tērā moemoeā, ā, kia whakanuia te Tiriti o Waitangi, ka mutu, kia eke ki ngā tūmanako, i tūmanakohia e ngā mātua, e ngā tūpuna. Kai te mōhio tātou i te pōti kōwhiringa pōti kua hipa ake, i puta te kōrero i a Nāhinara, ko tāna hiahia ki te hoko i te whā tekau mā iwa paihēneti o ngā kamupene e whā. I kaha whakahē te Pāti Māori ki tērā whāinga, ka mutu, i tuhia tētahi kirimana ki waenganui i a māua ko te Nāhinara, arā, te kōrero e kī ana i te reo Pākehā “The Māori Party does not support partial asset sales. The Government agrees it will not put partial asset sales in confidence and supply measures.”

Nā, koinei te pūtake o tērā kōrero. Ko tā mātau e whakapono nei, ko ngā rawa o Aotearoa me noho ki Aotearoa nei. Kaua e hokona ki wāhi kē. Ko tā mātau, ko te kī atu ahakoa kai a Nāhinara ngā pōti, arā, ki te taha ki te ACT me te United Future, ka eke panuku tērā kaupapa, kaua mā runga i te āhuatanga o te pōti o te Pāti Māori. Ka kaha tonu mātou ki te whakahē i tērā kaupapa, ā, koinā tā mātou e kī nei, hei tiaki i ngā rawa a Aotearoa, ki Aotearoa nei. Ēngari, mēnā koia tērā tāna e tūmanako nei, ko tā Nāhinara e kōrero nei au, kei te whakaaro ake mātou, ko wai i tua atu o ngā iwi, o ngā hapū o Aotearoa, kia noho hei hoa haere i te mea ka tiakina paitia ngā rawa e te Ao Māori i te mea nō konei, mēnā ka pā anō rā ki ngā rawa ā-awa, ā-maunga nō konei. Ka riro mā te Māori, mā ngā iwi tonu ērā e tiaki. Nō reira, koinei mātou e kī nei me noho ēnei rawa ki konei, me whai wāhi te Māori i roto i ngā nekeneke o te hoko ā-rawa.

I ngā wiki tata kua hipa ake, e hia kē nei ngā Māori kua eke atu ki roto i ngā hui i karangahia mai e te Karauna, e Wiremu English mā, ā, ka mutu, ko tā rātou ko te kī, ā, kāo, kei te whakahē mātau i tētahi paku kōrero, e whakaiti nei i te mana o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nā wai rā, nā wai rā, ka puta tētahi kōrero i te Treasury, te Tari Pūtea me te kī atu, ā, he mahi huna pea tō ētahi ki te ūkui i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Waimaria ana i kite mai ai e te Pāti Māori, ā, he mahi huna tō tēnā rōpū, ka mutu, i pērā anō hoki te tirohanga o te tangata whenua. Āhua whakakeke nei te Ao Māori i tana noho i waenganui i tērā hui, nā runga i tērā mahi huna a te Kāwanatanga, ēngari, i kōrerotia wā rātau kōrero mō te mamae, mō te pōuri o ngā kerēme Tiriti, ā, mō te mamae ka hokona ētahi rawa. Hoi anō, ko te katoa i kī mai, kāo, kaua e ūkui i ngā kōrero katoa o te Tiriti o Waitangi, kaua e whakawaiwai, kaua e whakaiti rānei i ngā kōrero mō te Tiriti. Kua rongo a Nāhinara i te kōrero o te Ao Māori mai i ngā tōpito katoa. Puritia, tiakina, whakawhānuitia ngā here o te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Nā, kua kī mai te Wiremu English nei, ka āta whakawhitia atu te wāhanga o te Tiriti ki roto i te Public Finance Act, tērā pea, kua eke panuku te hiahia o te Ao Māori kia pērā rawa te āhuatanga o te Tiriti i roto i ngā nekeneke o te Tiriti.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ka huri ki te reo Pākehā mō tētahi wā poto kia mōhio ai he aha te tikanga o taku kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, and salutations to my colleagues in the House this afternoon. There are times, as I sit here in Parliament, when I really have to ask myself what I am doing here, and what keeps me here. All of us of the Māori Party think that, too. The people have been strong about that, yes, because after all they were the ones who sent us here, and, furthermore, because of the obligation to the Treaty of Waitangi, which we know is the founding document of this country; and hence of the Government, the Crown, and, presumably, the indigenous population living together. Our people on the home front, the ones back there, sent us here to represent them and to be an independent party in Parliament for Māoridom, and also to be a guardian and one to urge along policies handed down relating to things that our ancestors left to ensure that New Zealand remains independent for all time.

In recent months the main talking point was the Treaty of Waitangi. A battle raged over the elevation of the Treaty of Waitangi to where it should be in respect of this matter. I say “battle” because Māoridom has fought for a long time to realise that dream for the Treaty of Waitangi to be celebrated and hence fulfil the hopes yearned for by parents and ancestors. We know for a fact that during the election just past, National promoted the notion that it wanted to sell off 49 percent of four energy companies. The Māori Party strongly opposes that aim, and as a consequence an agreement was written between us and National, which says in English “The Māori Party does not support partial asset sales. The Government agrees it will not put partial asset sales in confidence and supply measures.”

Now, the reason for that statement is this. We really believe that New Zealand’s assets must remain here in the country. They must not be sold offshore. We say that regardless of the fact that National has the votes, alongside those of ACT and United Future. The sale is a foregone conclusion, but not as a consequence of the Māori Party vote. We will continue to vigorously oppose that policy, and that is why we are making this statement: protect New Zealand’s assets; keep them here. If indeed that is what National is hoping to achieve, I am thinking to myself, who better than the tribes and subtribes of New Zealand to be in partnership with? Māoridom will do a fine job of looking after assets, because they are from here. If the assets concerned relate to rivers and mountains from here, Māori and their tribes will take charge of those. That is why we are saying these assets must stay here. Māori must be at the bargaining table for the sale of assets.

Over the weeks just past, many Māori have attended meetings called by the Crown, by Bill English and by others, and there they have said to them no, we oppose a small statement that belittles the status of the Treaty of Waitangi. And then information eventually emerged from Treasury that some may have been secretly trying to delete sections relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. Luckily, the Māori Party spotted this and found this group working away covertly. Local people also discovered this happening. Māoridom became somewhat muted in the midst of that forum due to the secretive actions of the Government, but chose instead to confine their remarks to expressing their hurt and sadness in respect of the Treaty claims and the hurt at the intention to sell off some assets. Nevertheless, everyone said to us no, do not delete all references to the Treaty of Waitangi, do not water it down, and do not belittle the statements about the Treaty. National has heard the message from Māoridom across the country: retain, protect, and extend Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

Now, Bill English has said to us the part relating to the Treaty will be carefully referenced into the Public Finance Act as a means of fulfilling Māoridom’s aspirations in terms of Treaty involvement.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will switch momentarily to English, so that the meaning of my address is understood.]

I am aware that pretty much most of the speeches by new members have been given, and in light of the fact that that is complete now and that almost in a sense we are almost starting with everybody on a clean slate, I just perhaps draw your attention to possibly tomorrow or some other time asking members to look hard at the pronunciation of the Māori language in the House. I say that this is a matter of order because I am aware that it states in the Standing Orders that members must try as best they can. The part for me is simply to remind members—in fact, to ask you if you could remind members—about that, because unless we actually talk about it and put it in front of the House, it might not be well known to new members. So I raise that in the hope that that might be considered for tomorrow.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his explanation. I am sure that members who are listening will take cognisance of what has been said. And the member is correct—people should try to make correct pronunciations in Māori. Thank you, Mr Flavell.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.