General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Winston Churchill once said: “I am a child of the House of Commons. I was brought up in my father’s house to believe in democracy. ‘Trust the people’—that was his message. … I owe my advancement entirely to the House of Commons, whose servant I am.” Well, we need to ask the Government members and the ACT Party and the United Future members over there whose servants they are and whose House they serve. This concept of someone else pulling the strings can be seen in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Too little and too late, Fonterra, Federated Farmers, and our primary industries have woken up to the bad deal the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is.

This Parliament has been denied repeated opportunities to have any meaningful debate on the discussions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. If negotiations are indeed in their final stages, my party, New Zealand First, believes it is only proper that Parliament should debate it now, because if we do not it represents a contempt for this democracy and a contempt for Parliament. We cannot debate the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement until it is signed—as ruled yesterday. Yet, after it is signed, no debate can change even one word. That is contempt for democracy. It is a charade that we are going through here. Only this week the Prime Minister said this: “give and take … It depends on the deal and what is negotiated. But from the things I have seen I am pretty darn confident that on the balance of benefits New Zealand is going to do a lot better if they sign the free trade agreement than if they don’t.” Well, why then, is Parliament being kept in the dark until after the deal is signed? If it is good, Mr Key, tell us about it now. In other words, put up or naff off—put up or naff off.

The trade Minister, Tim Groser, has said that for New Zealand the future of Pharmac and dairy tariffs are key issues his team will be discussing. Yet Malcolm Bailey, Fonterra director, head of the Dairy Companies Association, and a former president of Federated Farmers, is on the Farmingshow this very day saying that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is a bad deal. At last they have woken up. They were not saying that a month ago, and there is nothing so antiseptic as the phrase “I told you so.” or “We told you so.”, but we darn well did! We darn well did. Mr Key wants to do the deal even if it means sacrificing our dairy industry and Pharmac to get it. And remember this: he will not be here; he will be in Hawaii, which is a state that has the Union Jack on its flag. He does not even know that—he does not even know that.

Mr Key has finally admitted that some medicines will cost more under the deal, but that it was, he said, “still in the country’s best interests.” American drug companies love Pharmac just as much as the US dairy lobby loves Fonterra. They want it reined in so that their profits are not suppressed, and Mr Key and Mr Groser think that is OK.

So here are some questions. Will a future Government have its ability to restrict land sales, residential or farm, curtailed? Will a US defence giant like Rocket Lab—co-owner, Lockheed Martin—be able to apply for public taxpayer research money on even terms with Kiwi companies? Third, will the Government be able to be sued by corporates if we change our laws in our interests? Mr Key and his National colleagues have spent years denying certain public suspicions about their negotiations, but this month Mr Key has been on a serious damage control programme, trying to soften up the media and the public against the inevitable backlash. Will the Chinese and Koreans be able to join the other 11 Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement partners in gaining access to New Zealand homes and land? Of course they will. Mr Key admitted it in the House today, but in typical style he is going to introduce taxes to reduce and restrain foreign buying of New Zealand land and homes.

That statement is not worth the air it passes on. Has he let Mr Groser act as an economic double agent? Yes. Against our foreign interests? Yes. Has he let Mr Groser commit economic treason? Most certainly. He is dismissive of all opponents as being—this is what he said—“breathless children”. This economic Benedict Arnold should be brought home, and brought home now, and the agreement should be debated before he signs it, so that if we do not like it—or if the MPs for Rodney or Epsom, or the MP who is the list member for Te Atatū do not like it—they can actually change the deal. That is what Parliament is for. But no, no, Government members are a bunch of yes-men. They will be whipped into line and they will pass—

💬 David Bennett: They are the yes-men—yours. They all walked out.

Oh no, no. My colleagues walked out because they do not like a constitutional atrocity. My colleagues do not like constitutional atrocities. That is why they walked out. They are people of honour, unlike Mr Bennett, whose major achievement is to rubber-stamp everything the Government does.

I cannot help sitting in this House and noticing just how grumpy Labour members are getting. Have you noticed that? They are grumpier and grumpier, and you have to think that it is because the factions in their caucus are getting so far apart it is looking more and more like the Grand Canyon, but with one side reducing and looking like a puddle. On the one hand you have the free-traders like Phil Goff, David Shearer, and Clayton Cosgrove, who used to understand that free trade was good for this country. They used to celebrate the success for New Zealand that free trade brought and they hate with a passion the U-turn that Labour is now doing in terms of supporting free trade. Then, on the other hand, you have Claire Curran, Sue Moroney, and Ruth Dyson, who hate the free-traders. They cannot wait to drag New Zealand back into the fortress mentality of the 1960s, because socialism, frankly, has never liked success. But there is one thing they do agree on, and that is that they all hate Phil Twyford. They all hate Phil Stoner Twyford, and why would they not?

I have to say that it is a very different Labour Party from the one under Helen Clark, is it not? It is a very different Labour Party from the Labour Party of 2002 when Helen Clark said this—and I do not often quote Helen Clark: “There was … a time when New Zealand was fearful of cultural diversity and distinctly unwelcoming to migrants of Chinese descent …”. She expressed sorrow and regret that such practices were once considered appropriate and she hoped her apology would give full closure on that chapter in our history. Well, would she not be horrified that it is her own party that has now gone back to picking on Kiwis who happen to have a name that sounds Chinese and is being very unwelcoming to them and suggesting that somehow they should not be entitled to buy a house in New Zealand—that somehow that is wrong. Would she not be horrified? Would she not be horrified to see the demonising of those New Zealanders?

The Labour Party of today took a policy of changing our flag and having a referendum on it to the election. Labour members stood up during the election campaign in October and said: “We want to change the flag. We think there should be a referendum.” Actually, they still have on their website today a statement saying that their policy is to have a referendum to change the flag. Yet they send their leader into the House, and in front of the public, day after day, to stand up and completely sell his soul for political expediency. They are doing that with complete craven insincerity because they think there might be a win in it. Well, New Zealanders see through that sort of falsehood—just ask David Cunliffe. How well did insincerity work for David Cunliffe? And they will see through Andrew Little. But if that is not enough, now he is having a crack at the anthem. He is having a crack at the New Zealand anthem. When will it end? How long will it take for Labour members to stop running down this country? How long will it take for them to stop bagging this country, which we love and which we are proud of? Well, I can tell you this: maybe the reason they hate the anthem is because most of the people who proudly sing it hate them. I think that is what it is about. They know that the people who proudly sing our anthem are not supporting the Labour Party and that is why they are not happy about it.

Our party, the National Party, stands for a New Zealand that is positive. It supports this country, it is confident, it is outward looking, and it embraces our multicultural diversity. This is a party that understands that free trade brings jobs. We have seen 211,000 more people employed since 2010 because of the policies of this Government, which knows that it is business that creates wealth in our economy. Our job is to create an environment for those people to get ahead. That is what is working. That is why we see a country that is slashing through the never-ending deficits that were left to us by Labour. Our country has one of the strongest growth rates in the OECD, and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD. It has tripled the average internet speeds, which I am very proud of. In the manufacturing sector it has seen 33 months of month-on-month growth, which began shortly after Labour declared the crisis, of course. Wages are rising faster than inflation. We have solid growth. We have a Government led by an inspirational leader who is proud of this country and will back it every day.

E te Māngai tēna koe, tēnā koutou, e tū ana ki te tautoko i tēnei taupatupatu i roto i te āhuatanga o te wā, Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Ka rongo au ki te kōrero o tērā wahine, Amy Adams, kua whakatinanahia e ia: “Kei runga te kōrero, kei raro te rahurahu.” Tēnā, ka hoki mai ki te whakawhānui ake, ki te whakamārama ake i tērā.

E tika ana me tīmata taku kōrero ki te tuku mihi maioha ki tērā o ngā taonga ki a Anzac Pikia. He matatau i roto i tōna ao pāpāho ahakoa, he rangatahi tonu 35 te pakeke. E tika ana kia mihi ki a ia, e moe kia au tō moe e hoa.

Ko tēnei kaupapa o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori kia whāngaia Te Reo ki ngā mātua, ko au tētehi. Ahakoa e pūmau au kia kōrero i tō tātou Reo i ngā wāhi katoa, i ngā rā katoa, he wāhanga tēnei māku ki te whakatakoto kōrero.

I rongo au ki ngā kōrero i puta mai i ngā taupatupatu pātai o ngā Minita. Me whakatū pou ki roto i te Whare ki ngā āhuatanga e wero ana e mātou ki te Kāwanatanga. E hiahia ana rātou kia whakamōhiotia ki ngā iwi whānui, he mea pai tēnei whāinga o te privatisation. Ēngari, ki ahau nei, mēnā ka āta titiro ki tēnei kaupapa, ka āhua tītaha tērā o ngā waka.

Tuatahi, me hoki ki ngā kōrero i puta mai i a Sam, te Minita Whare Herehere. Kua wero te wero ki taku hoa a Kelvin. Ēhia ngā marama e mōhio ana ia i ngā āhuatanga kei roto i ngā whare herehere? Kei te huna ia ki aua pātai. Kāre i tino whakamārama i te ngako o ngā wero i puta mai i a Kelvin. Ki ahau nei, ahakoa e huna ōna kōrero. Kāre he wāhi huna ki roto i tēnei Whare. Kua kitea ngā kokonga katoa. Ki ahau nei, ko tēnei āhuatanga te koha atu i te kirimana ki a Serco kia whakahaere i ngā mahi whakahaere o tēnei whare herehere. He maha ngā āwangawanga, ngā mate mō tērā tūāhuatanga. Kua kite mai te mamae i runga i ngā pouaka whakaata, i roto i ngā niupepa, i ngā pātai kua puta mai i roto i te Whare.

Tuarua, i rongo au ki ngā kōrero e wero atu ki te Minita Mātauranga e pā ana ki ēnei kura hourua. Kua tū tēnei kaupapa i roto i tērā whāinga o te privatisation hoki. Kei roto i ngā kirimana o ngā kura hourua ngā wāhanga hei whakatinanahia, ngā mahi whakahaere. Ā, mēnā e hiahia ana mātou i roto i tēnei Whare ki te āta titiro ki ngā kirimana, he āhua huna ērā wāhanga katoa. Ki a mātou nei ēhara tērā i te tikanga. Ko te mea hei whakamate i taua whakahaeretanga, ka toha atu te nui o ngā pūtea ki ēnei kura hourua, atu ki ngā kura auraki, atu ki ngā kura kaupapa? E hē ana tērā. He maha ngā wero ki a mātou mō tērā tūāhuatanga.

Tuatoru, i rongo mātou ki ngā kōrero i puta mai i te Minita mō te Ministry of Social Development. Ki ōna whakamārama, ēhara tērā i te social bonds. I roto i ēnei horopaki ko te privatisation. Mēnā ka titiro ake ki ngā rangahau ki tāwāhi, mēnā ka whakaaro ake ki ngā ripoata hei whakamāramatia ngā wāhanga ki a Serco, whakamārama pai te mema o te Roopu Kākāriki mō tēnei. Ēhara ēnei kamupene tūmataiti, i tētahi kamupene pai hei whakahaere i ngā rātonga hei tiaki i ngā tāngata. Koinā te mate o tērā tauira e whai atu te Minita.

Me tīkina e au he kōrero hei whakatautoko i taku kōrero. Tērā paku kōrero e mōhio pai ana tātou katoa: “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata!”. Ēhara “He kamupene tūmataiti, he pākihi tūmataiti, he poari o nga kura hourua”. [Interruption] Koinā te take e hiahia ana. Tika ana—tika ana! Koinā te take e hiahia ana te Pāti Nāhinara, te Kāwanatanga ki te whakatū i tēnei te privatisation, tēnei tauira kei waenganui i ō tātou hapori ki te penapena atu i te pūtea. Ki a mātou nei me tiaki. Me tiakina te hunga rawakore, te hunga ngoikore. Me kaua e tukuna atu tērā wāhanga ki tērā kamupene tūmataiti—

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to you collectively. I rise to support this debate in the circumstance of the moment, which is Māori Language Week. I note the aphorism manifested by that female member, Amy Adams: “Soothing words above but malicious, meddling intent underneath.” Now, I will come back to that point later to expand and explain it.

It is apt that I preface my address by making an affectionate tribute to Anzac Pikia, one of those great treasures. He was competent in his world of broadcasting even though he was young in that field, at 35 years of age. It is fitting that I pay a tribute to him. Rest, friend, sleep soundly.

The theme of this Māori Language Week is to feed the Māori language to parents. I am one of them. Although I am fixed on speaking our language everywhere and every day, this is an opportunity for me to deliver a speech in Māori.

I heard the sentiments that emerged from the Ministers during question time. We want to highlight the circumstances why we are challenging the Government. It wants to inform the public that privatisation is a good thing. But for me personally, if one examines this proposal carefully, one of the vessels will tilt to one side and head off in a different direction.

First of all, let us go back to the comments that emerged from Sam, the Minister of Corrections. He challenged my colleague Kelvin’s challenges as to how many months he was aware of things happening in the prisons. The Minister is hiding from those questions. He did not address the real substance of Kelvin’s challenges. In my opinion, even his answers were somewhat evasive. There is no place to hide in this House. Every nook and cranny can be seen. I believe that this situation is a form of gifting Serco a contract to conduct the administration of this prison in the way that it has. There are myriads of concerns and problems in regard to that situation. The hurt has been seen on television, in newspapers, and in the questions that emerged in this House.

Secondly, I heard the comments challenging the Minister of Education about these partnership schools, and this is part of what is being sought in privatisation as well. Contained within the partnership school contracts are parts that relate to what is to be implemented and administered. So if we in this House want to scrutinise the contracts, all those parts are somewhat private. In our view, that is not correct. The thing that makes that process a flawed one is that more funding will go into partnership schools rather than into mainstream and Māori-medium schools. That is so unjust. There have been many challenges about that situation made against us.

Thirdly, we heard comments that the Minister for Social Development made. According to statements credited to her, that was not social bonds. Taking it according to these surrounds, it is privatisation. If overseas research is examined carefully and reports that explain parts that relate to Serco are made accountable, the member of the Green Party has a perfect explanation for this. These private companies are not suitable for running social services. And that is the problem with the model being pursued by the Minister.

Allow me to reach for an aphorism that will endorse my take on this situation. It is a brief one that all of us know so well. “What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, people, people!” It is not “A private company, a private business, a board of partnership schools.” [Interruption] That is why they are craving it. Yes, indeed, and absolutely so—really. That is why the National Party and the Government want to implement this privatisation, this model within our communities to distribute funding. For us, we say: save the funding. Save it to look after the destitute and the powerless. Do not allow that part to go to that private company—]

Order! The member’s time has expired.

What was interesting about Amy Adams’ speech was that the most animated that Labour members have been all week was when she described them as grumpy. The faux laughter that came from Mr Mallard and the people around him was incredibly interesting. I think that Mrs Adams rather undersold the point. In fact, calling Labour members grumpy now is a bit like calling Donald Trump a little bit right wing. They are absolutely grumpy. Why? Well, there is a good reason. Firstly, they do not like each other. I cannot imagine what the caucus room must have been like yesterday. Secondly, they—

💬 Hon Member: Labour doesn’t like migrants.

Well, we will get to migrants in a minute. Secondly, Labour members do not agree on anything. Their caucus is split on whether it wants free trade. Labour wanted free trade a few years ago; half of them do not want it now. They cannot even agree what their policy on a flag referendum is. The ultimate is the issue of whether or not they like foreigners. Mr Twyford has to be National’s secret weapon. My late mother’s maiden name was Lyng.

💬 Hon Member: Ni hao.

Ni hao—well not quite, because it is actually Kilkenny Irish, of Scandinavian origin. But you can bet your bottom dollar that that name would have been on the Barfoot and Thompson list when it was produced a couple of months ago.

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed the National Party’s annual conference in Auckland on the weekend. One of the happiest bunch of people of the nearly 700 people who registered and attended, who were smiling, and who were motivated by policy break outs—do you know who the happiest were? Our Asian members. They knew that they were wanted. They knew that they were appreciated. They knew that this party understands the important contribution that they have made to New Zealand over many generations. That has not changed, and it will not change in the future. So as Minister of Immigration, it was a great privilege for me to stand beside the Prime Minister after the announcement on what I believe are excellent, excellent policies to improve immigration and migration around this country.

I just want to touch on those policies. We have a number of policies that reflect extra incentives for people to migrate into the regions, and they are going to be beefed up. The skilled migrant points are going to be tripled for a job outside Auckland. Entrepreneur visas, where businesses are being set up outside Auckland, will have double the points allocated to them than at present. The labour market test that we have introduced into Queenstown is going to be put around the country because, actually, it makes sense for that process to be streamlined. Above all, I think the one policy that has certainly got my colleagues in the South Island most excited is the growing number of temporary migrants who have been here for a long time but who presently actually have no pathway to residence. Across the South Island almost all of my colleagues have been advocating for our farm workers, freezing workers, and aged-care workers who are making fantastic contributions to that growing economy, and indeed, through that, are creating more jobs for New Zealanders. We think that that needs some kind of recognition and acknowledgment. If they have been here for 5 years or more—5 successive years—and they are prepared to continue to keep their roots in those regions after residency is granted, we say: “Why not?”. We say: “What a fantastic contribution they have made.”

The one thing that Labour members could say about those policies was that they had the same policies. Well, I can tell you that Labour is so confused about immigration policy that it does not know the difference between net migration and immigration. Labour’s policy last year did have that; I will grant them that. But it also had that they were going to smooth out the positive net migration. Who is causing that net migration? Backpackers in Queenstown and students in the private training establishments in Auckland. It has nothing to do with the people we really need. What will Labour members do in response to the growing number of working holidaymakers? Stop skilled migrants coming in. Labour members were not going to rule out refugees, and they were not going to rule out the Pacific quota. Goodness me, they did not say it, but I do not know how they would have worked with partnerships—the spouses and the children of people coming home. They were not going to rule them out. So the only thing that they could have done is rule out skills—the very skills that we need. This Government acknowledges that we need those skilled migrants. We need them in the regions. I think that we have announced a tremendous policy, which has been supported emphatically by Mr Nash, among others. I think that he is a very wise man. That probably shows the wrong colours. I support these policies. I think they are a great move.

Tēnā koutou katoa. I just want to start by pointing out that clearly all of the National MPs were told to come to the House today to say that Labour members are grumpy and divided. Clearly those are the lines of the day. But we are laughing on this side of the House because we have never seen those National Government members as solemn as we have seen them in the last 3 weeks. They are rattled; they are solemn. Clearly, they are in trouble and they know it.

The reason we know that they know they are in trouble is that every time they are in trouble, every time there is a major drama and the National Party is in the centre of it, they come out kicking the beneficiaries, kicking the poor people. What have we seen over the last 2 weeks? We have seen the National Party in serious trouble over the Serco situation. We have seen the National Party in serious trouble over the fact that its members are doing nothing about the housing crisis. So what do they do in response to it? Do they do anything to rectify the Serco situation? Not really. Do they announce any good policies to address the housing crisis? No, they do not. What they do is they send Paula Bennett into the National Party conference to announce that the Government will be placing sanctions on Housing New Zealand wait-listers who turn down houses. How important is that for all of New Zealand? Is that important? No. And then Paula came to the House yesterday and said that two people—two people—said no to a Housing New Zealand house because of the décor. Two people—when we are talking about thousands of New Zealanders who cannot get into homes, she wants to talk about two people. We know that National members are solemn, they are desperate, and they know they are in trouble.

Today I want to talk about the privatisation agenda of that Government, and I want to talk particularly about the role that the Minister for Social Development had to play in that. I kind of feel sorry a little bit for the current Minister of Corrections because he has been left picking up the pieces. Very little spotlight, really, has been placed on the person who was the Minister at the time, singing the praises of Serco, that being the Minister Anne Tolley. I just want to quote the Minister Anne Tolley on her view of Serco and the privatisation of prisons. She said: “This PPP”—public-private partnership—“will give us exposure to world-class innovation and expertise.” That is what she said in 2012 when she was the Minister of Corrections. She said that it would provide a modern facility that is safe, secure, and well equipped to rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners. Well, have we seen a safe and secure prison under Serco? No, we have not.

We heard in 2012 from the Minister Anne Tolley that the prison operator Serco had made decent progress in its first year. That is despite the company failing to meet half of its performance targets for that year. Even though Ms Tolley said that Serco had made a lot of mistakes and that she was not satisfied with its performance after two inmates escaped within a year of Serco taking over Mt Eden prison, she resisted all calls for Serco to be stripped of its contract. She said she retained confidence in Serco because she was expecting a much better performance in the second year. Well, did we see a much better performance in the second year from Serco? No, we did not, and poor Sam Lotu-Iiga is left picking up the pieces because of the decisions that that Minister made.

I just want to point out that what really scares me here is not only the fact that she was the Minister for Corrections and that she was actually responsible at the time, and that she basically put poor Sam Lotu-Iiga in a sticky situation, but that she now takes that same agenda over to the social sector. Even though we can all see very clearly that Serco has failed, is continuing to fail, and probably will continue to fail, she still refuses to discount the idea of it having any role to play in our social services. Even today when asked in the House, she said that she could not rule out the idea that Serco might have a role to play in our social services. Despite the fact that when asked, she said that the National Government has no agenda to privatise the social sector, she then stood up to answer the following question, and said that “… if National do decide to go out to the market …”.

She has not ruled out privatisation, yet she has stood here and told us barefaced untruths in the House by saying there was no plan to privatise. There is clearly a plan to privatise. We saw Anne Tolley on Q+A not ruling out, again, that Serco might have a role, and also bringing the current social services into disrepute by saying that there is no evidence that they work. I want to say that there is evidence that Serco does not work. Privatisation is not the way, but it is clearly the National Government’s agenda.

I return from our National Party conference—700 delegates, positive about New Zealand, confident about New Zealand. There were 700 New Zealanders with names that may come from all sorts of countries. There were 700 delegates who included those with names that may sound Chinese, Scottish, Irish, Eastern European, South American, anything at all. There were 700 New Zealanders confident about where this country can go, where we are taking this fine, awesome country, and 700 delegates looking forward to the future, united in our aspiration and in what we need to do to help continue to grow our country.

There were excellent sessions throughout the conference on all sorts of topics. I was particularly intrigued by the one that the Hon Paula Bennett ran, where people were texting questions in, and she kept getting texts from someone called Andrew asking interesting questions. We were not quite sure whether or not it was Andrew Little texting in. I was part of an economic session with the Hon Bill English, the Hon Steven Joyce, and the Hon Paul Goldsmith. We had a lot of wide-ranging discussions but one point was noted, so I should pose it to the next Labour speaker. We talked about the 90-day trial. We were uncertain and unsure about what Labour’s position is on the 90-day trial—whether, if Labour were to form the next Government, it would repeal the 90-day trial or modify it in some way, as Mr Little seemed to allude to the other day.

At the conference we talked about and celebrated trade. We celebrated free trade. We celebrated the advances New Zealand has made over many years as we often lead the world as a small but confident trading nation. We were reminded about the Closer Economic Relations agreement, which the Greens did not seem to know existed. We were reminded about the China free-trade agreement, where a lot of the hard work was done by the previous Labour Government, and which was ratified under the National Government. We went from about $2 billion worth of trade from New Zealand to China to, I think, about $11 billion now, over just a few short years—the China free-trade agreement that helped haul New Zealand out of the global financial crisis.

We talked about the Taiwan closer economic partnership, which took a 20 percent tariff for New Zealand apples off the table overnight. New Zealand apple growers now no longer face a 20 percent tariff going into Taiwan. What better example is there of a free-trade agreement, helping regions such as Hawke’s Bay into Taiwan? There is the Republic of Korea free-trade agreement, which wipes 45 percent tariffs from New Zealand exports. And Labour seems now to be opposed to free trade.

We talked about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. It is very close, down to the wire, and I most certainly hope we get there, because the logic, or the illogic of the arguments on the other side against the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, if they were to be true, should apply to all the other trade agreements we have. If we do not export, we cannot deliver this country’s social and economic aspirations. If we want to pay the bucks, we have to earn the bucks.

What has happened to the Labour Party that was strong at the peak of Helen Clark’s Government around 2002, fresh after the apology to the Chinese community, pursuing free-trade agreements around the world, and aspirational, trying to move up the OECD ladder? Listen to the Labour members now—anti-trade, stirring the racial pot. It is disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful. But as TV reporters have said: if they want to play that card, they have got to own that card. Interestingly, they seem to have quietened down on it. Come out and actually apologise to all New Zealanders, whatever the sound of their names, for the disgraceful lurch the Labour Party took into the gutter of politics. Thank you.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe; tuarua, ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare; tēnā koutou katoa; tuatoru, mihi atu ki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker; secondly, salutations to the members of our House; and, thirdly, I acknowledge Māori Language Week. So greetings and accolades to you all.]

I am normally quite a positive person in this world. I love this country. I love our wild places and where I grew up, managing to explore, and I love our people and our cultures. I love the vision of the Green Party and what I believe it can offer this country. But the Government is pointing out that some people on this side of the House seem a bit grumpy. I have got to say that personally I am grumpy. After question time today I was shaking at the fact that this Government will not rule out contracting social services—the protection of our most vulnerable children—to a company that has been responsible for putting children in cages overseas. That does make me furious. It makes me furious in terms of the well-being and the preciousness of the people of this country. I believe that is worth being angry about. The fact that this Government, for the ideology of privatisation, is sacrificing the well-being of our people and environment does make me angry.

A month ago we heard from the Minister for Social Development that she was open to considering Serco—the Guantánamo Bay of the corporate world—as a provider of community care for our most vulnerable people: young people, victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Let us unpack this. The Minister for Social Development said that she was open to allowing a company with the track record of Serco to provide social services to some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

Maybe that should not have been a surprise to me, considering that she gave Serco the contract for Mt Eden prison and defended Serco when it was failing 40 percent of its targets, and then just continued to dismiss the concerns that were being raised with her about prisoner safety. Yesterday, when she was questioned about the revelations around Mt Eden prison of drug rings, fight clubs, concerns about a suspicious prisoner death, and the broken legs of prisoners within Serco prisons, she still said: “I think with any of them … actually the quality of the contract is the really important thing.” Maybe she was admitting that, actually, she had not done a very good job in setting up the contract with Mt Eden. Maybe she had learnt those lessons and she thought that the contract would solve it in the future for social services, but, really, she is telling us that the track record—the ethics of a company—does not matter in the face of the opportunity to privatise our public and social services. This Government would rather do business with Serco, the Guantánamo Bay of the corporate world, than properly partner with our community organisations or strengthen our Public Service, and this is part of a pattern that we are seeing from this Government.

In education we have an equally problematic privatisation agenda playing out in chaos and uncertainty for children and families. A number of these charter schools with serious problems have been in the media. The Ministry of Education raised concerns about Whangaruru School and the Middle School West Auckland before the contract was granted by the Minister, who was hell-bent on privatisation and was overriding the concerns raised by the ministry. Maybe the Minister, again, thought that a tight contract would offer protection, no matter the risk to the children and their families or the eventual cost to the State of their failure—the cost to the State and the removal of funding that could have been used constructively within our public school system.

Of course, we are also seeing the sell-off of State houses. It was initially promoted by the Government as supporting community housing providers—something that most New Zealanders and the Greens would certainly support in addition to State housing—but it now seems to be yet another opportunity for the Government to help out its mates the property developers, and the Government will not even be putting the profits from that back into housing.

What we are seeing is a Government that has been quietly opening up prisons, State housing stock, Work and Income, schools, social services—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Ā, huri noa, tēnā koutou ki ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata. Kai te tautoko au i te kaupapa o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori i tēnei tau, ā, whāngaitia Te Reo ki ngā mātua.

[And so, acknowledgments to you all, the members of Parliament House, throughout the House. I support the focus of this year’s Māori Language Week: feed it to the parents.]

I want to support my colleagues by saying just how much of a wonderful conference we have had. It was one of the best conferences that I have attended. It was amazing because of the wonderful—full of foresight—announcements that were made by our Prime Minister this weekend. I can tell you that the one around immigration—and I am going to talk about immigration because in the list seat that I sit in in Christchurch East, nothing is being done by the sitting MP. That sitting MP in Christchurch East is doing nothing about immigration or helping people with immigration issues. I can tell you this now, because they are coming to my office. Therefore, some of the questions that are coming out from these people around employment, employers wanting skilled migrant workers, and skilled migrant workers looking for residency—all of those questions are coming to my office.

When I look across at Te Rōpū Reipa, I start to wonder about how much of a plan it has for skilled migrants. Its plan would fit on a piece of paper of this size, but its plan has nothing on it. It is like this pad here—it has got absolutely empty pages. There is nothing—nada—that Labour is doing to help skilled migrants. Therefore, when the Prime Minister stood and delivered his speech on the immigration area, I was so pleased because this will actually help the migrants in the South Island to gain employment and to stay in our country. Skilled migrants bring labour to this country. They bring in skills that some New Zealanders do not have. They bring with them their capital wealth, they bring with them their families, and they bring whole new ways of life and ways of life that fit into this country, and I am really pleased to see that the Labour Party has actually supported our immigration announcements.

Let us have a look at what Mr Stuart Nash, the MP for Napier, had to say in Hawke’s Bay Today, which was “Key plan has merit—Nash”. Even he actually supports our plan, so that just tells me that, you know your empty plan, Labour? There is not much in it. It is empty. So what he said was: “I thought about it for a while, and I thought, well, let’s give it a go.”—let us all give it a go. Let us go down to Minister Woodhouse’s electorate down in Dunedin, where the Mayor of Dunedin, Dave Cull, again said that he welcomed measures to give prospective immigrants to New Zealand greater incentive to go to the provinces—to go to the regions to work. Half of the migrants that are coming into New Zealand are staying in Auckland and it is causing a lot of pressures there. We need them out in the regions, we need them in the South Island, and that is exactly where they are going. That is great for the regions. It is going to grow the regions, and it is certainly going to help the rebuild in Christchurch.

Recently I went on to a construction site where the majority of the workers there were skilled migrants. The call for skilled migrants on that site is very, very strong, and I am proud to stand here to support those construction companies down in Christchurch. Again, let us have a look at what Grey District mayor, Tony Kokshoorn, said. He also welcomed the immigration package. These are all people, all mayors and, actually, MPs who sit on the left side.

We are a focused Government. We take—now, how would you say this—we are punching above our weight. That is what we are doing—we are always punching above our weight. I want to get our words right, because it is right that we get the sentence right.

Many Kiwis are actually voting with their feet and are coming home. They are coming home because this Government has provided a solid platform on which they can come home and get work and get good salaries, and there is plenty of employment here. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ka nui ngā mihi atu ki a tātou katoa e w’akahuatia ana i tō tatou Reo rangatira kei roto i te Whare nei.

[Huge congratulations to us all for mentioning our esteemed language in this House here before us.]

There is a joke going around about the reason why Sam Lotu-Iiga is called the Minister of Corrections, and it is that he is having to correct mistake after mistake after mistake. It shows a man who has a very limited time as a Minister because he is no longer taken seriously and is instead becoming the butt of jokes. Why on earth would anybody want to privatise anything? We have had Minister Tolley here today defending—or not even able to say that the Government will not engage Serco in any more contracts. Keep Serco away from our kids—that is the message I have. It cannot be allowed to go anywhere near our children. It has made such a stuff-up in the prisons.

Contraband in Mt Eden prison is so easy to come by. Drugs—I mean, nobody would really be surprised if a little bit of cannabis was found in a prison. But we do not have a little bit of cannabis being found in Mt Eden Corrections Facility; we have a full-scale meth ring being organised out of Mt Eden Corrections Facility. Tobacco—I am told that a 50 gram pouch of tobacco is worth $800 on the inside. A packet of cigarettes is worth $1,000. Weapons are brought in with barely any check, and I believe that in terms of cellphones, there are so many cellphones in Mt Eden Corrections Facility that the inmates are considering setting up their own call centre. And I believe the dysfunction in Serco is so great that the inmates are considering contracting Serco to run their call centre, but then they have got more brains than that because they know that anything that Serco touches is doomed to failure and they would not bother with that. I believe that you can get anything in Mt Eden Corrections Facility at the right price, and I believe that for the right price you can even get some of the hidden texts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership from inmates in Serco prisons.

The fight clubs—we have all seen the videos of the fight clubs. How that was able to go on under the National Government’s nose for so long? We had Minister Tolley saying: “Oh, we’ve known about fight clubs for yonks.” Well, if those members had known about it for yonks, why did they not do something about it? They were able to hide a riot in May of last year. They downgraded the language so that it was called a prop. Well, I have heard of props only when you are talking about rugby players. They have downgraded a riot where the crisis response team from Pāremoremo had to come in and quell things down and where prisoners had barricaded themselves in cells, but this was not a riot; this was a prop.

Then there is the issue of people being thrown off balconies. We heard the Minister say today in the House that he heard of a report about the incident involving Alex Littleton only in the last week. Well, Alex Littleton was thrown off that balcony on 2 February of this year. But let me tell you a bit about what happened. Ray Smith pre-empted the report that is going to come out. He said there is so much attention being paid to this case that he better pre-empt it. In his press release he said that Alex Littleton was chased by one other inmate and he fell. He fell over a balcony. Well, I ask anybody, how on earth do you fall up and over a balcony? It seems like the law of Serco is greater than the law of gravity. Alex Littleton hit the ground, and with two broken legs dragged himself in front of a glass guardhouse, where the inmates who had thrown him over—four inmates, not one inmate—came down and started kicking him and bashing him, and the solitary guard intervened only when he was getting his head stomped on.

The ratio of guards to prisoners should be about 1:15. Instead, in Serco is about 1:50. If we want to know why it is that people can bring in contraband and why all these things can go on in the prison, it is because Serco is cutting costs because it wants to give its stakeholders a profit. It is cutting costs on the staff, and that in turn is not only endangering other staff but also endangering inmates there. If we do not address this prison violence, it is going to spill out into the community, and we are going to see more community violence. Kia ora.

This Government was re-elected last year because the National Party has a plan and has policies that are relevant to New Zealanders and to their aspirations. We are working hard to remain relevant to New Zealanders. On the weekend I was fortunate to join more than 700 people focused on us remaining relevant to New Zealanders and their aspirations. At the National Party annual conference there was enormous positive energy—enough to power a nation, and sustainable too. I had the privilege of joining a number of break-out sessions where members were engaged and bursting with positive ideas to even further improve prospects for Kiwis and their families. I am proud to be a New Zealander. I am proud to be a member of a party that looks outwards, not inwards, and backs New Zealanders to be successful.

Let us contrast Labour. Its conference would be its members patting themselves on the back in a telephone box, looking in the White pages for policy ideas based on people’s surnames, and taking their political advice from an ageing rock star. Well, Gene Simmons may very well be “Dr Love”, but if Labour got elected, the only thing he would be singing is “All Hell’s Breakin’ Loose”, closely followed by “Rock Bottom”. Watching Labour members’ performance over the last couple of weeks, I was mindful of Will Rogers, a former syndicated newspaper columnist, who said, and I will paraphrase for their benefit: “I don’t make jokes; I just watch the Labour Opposition and report the facts.”

So while the Labour Opposition is making a fool of itself, this Government is focusing on the things that matter for New Zealanders and their families: creating an economic platform of growth that will deliver more jobs and higher paying jobs. The economy has been growing at 2.6 percent—as fast, or faster, than most other nations in the OECD—and it is forecast to continue to grow at over 2 percent over the next 4 years. Over 190,000 jobs were created over the last 4 years, and a further 150,000 are forecast over the next 4 years. Unemployment is forecast to reduce to under 5 percent over that same time period. Inflation in the last quarter was running at 0.3 percent, keeping the cost of living down for Kiwi families. We have had lower interest rates for longer, which is also creating incentive for businesses to invest, to grow, and to employ more people.

Crime is at 30-year lows, more children are participating in early childhood education, and more are succeeding at National Certificate of Educational Achievement levels 1 and 2. In Budget 2014 we gave a half-billion dollar package for families that included free doctors visits and prescriptions for under-13s, which came into force at the beginning of this month. In the Budget this year we further increased that with an additional $790 million package to help children in hardship and help our poorest families, including a $25-a-week increase to benefits, the first increase to real benefits in 43 years—43 years and two Labour administrations, I may add—as well as increases for low-income families under Working for Families, and more childcare support for low-income families also.

This is a Government that is focused on prosperity for Kiwis and their families and a Government that is focused on creating a diverse and rich environment for businesses to thrive and for Kiwis to thrive. At the moment dairy is a little bit off its recent historic highs, but if dairy is 5 percent of the economy, tourism is 7 percent. Tourism is 7 percent of the economy. It is larger than dairy. The information and communications technology industry alone is a further 1.7 percent of GDP, and I will add there that over the last year information communications technology exports grew to $930 million in our economy—a fantastic result for my old industry. International education is worth $2.85 billion, and that is 1.3 percent of the New Zealand economy. The wine industry exports $1.3 billion, and that is up 8.2 percent over the past year. We have a richly diverse economy from a Government that is working hard to remain relevant to New Zealanders and that is working for New Zealand.

I thank the member Brett Hudson for the long list of dad jokes. If only he had the bod to go with it. I am proud to stand in a New Zealand that is strong and free—the third-freest economy in the world. We are a country that believes in, and is committed to, free trade. We are a company that should be much more open to direct foreign investment.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Company? We are a company?

We are such a country—I correct myself. As a result of our being a country with free markets, we are a country largely with free minds—diverse, tolerant, and harmonious. I wonder what Jacinda Ardern really thinks about her party’s recent shaking of the race tree in the past few weeks. We are a country of strong civil liberties, and we are doing so well in the global economy against that backdrop of sound public policy. But, having benefited from that policy, we should be committed also to relentlessly and continuously improving our public policy environment.

When we turn to the agenda of the current Government we see a mixed bag. The Government wants to introduce tax holidays for companies that are doing a certain amount of research and development, measured by labour, and that are companies of a certain size and domiciled in a certain place. Frankly, by the time you attempt to administer and comply with that policy, it would be cheaper to take a helicopter filled with money equivalent to the administration and compliance costs and to drop it over some area that may be filled beneficially with research and development, because that would be more efficient than what the Government is proposing. What the Government should be doing is saying “We will devote $120 million a year of new spending.”—of which there is over a billion dollars each year—and saying “We will commit to dropping the company tax rate, because we recognise that New Zealand has comparatively high taxes on capital in the OECD, even after you consider the imputation credits that New Zealand has.” That is what the Government should be doing. It would be simple, it would be effective, and it would send a message that we wish to attract investment in foreign capital to New Zealand.

The Government is caving somewhat to the foreign-buyer pressure, aforementioned by the Labour Party, and is introducing a new brightline test for taxes and an effective foreign-buyer register. What the Government should be doing, rather than caving to those basest instincts of the Opposition, is reforming land use regulation, which is demonstrably the cause of overly expensive housing across the OECD. We should be taking away the bubble and taking away the constraints that have led to so much concern about foreign ownership, rather than introducing an additional layer of regulation that will be nearly impossible to enforce.

So the theme continues. The Government is having a referendum on changing the flag. I have to say that I have still not seen a candidate flag that I can really get excited about, and I suspect that unless somebody else does very soon—or at least a large portion of New Zealanders do—there will be no change. What the Government should be doing is having a referendum on an issue that is also requiring of cross-party support, that will be with us for a long period of time, and that no one party will be able to lead on, and that is making superannuation sustainable for future generations of New Zealanders. When current university students retire, we will no longer have five workers per retiree but only two workers per retiree.

There is one last thing that the Government should be doing politically, legally, and ethically, and that is legislating on assisted dying. It is politically the right thing to do, because when you are in a democracy and 70 percent of people want something, you should do it. It is legally the right thing to do, because the High Court has said that Parliament must act on assisted dying legislation, and it is ethically the right thing to do, because, as the Canadian Supreme Court has said, it is a cruel choice to leave somebody in egregious suffering from an irredeemable condition; to either wait until they die naturally and painfully or to attempt to take their own lives in solitude. I leave the House with that thought. Thank you.

E te Mana Whakawā, e mihi atu ki a koe, ā, huri noa i te Whare tēnā koutou katoa. Ka mea nui ki te mihi atu ki tō tātou Matua Nui i te raki, ā, ko Ia te tīmataka me te whakaotika o tātou katoa. Nō reira, ka mihi au ki Te Kaihōmai mō ka mea katoa. Ā, ka maumahara mātou ki a rātou ngā aituā kua wehe ki te taha wairua. Nō reira e koutou rā o ia marae, o ia iwi, o ia waka, haere i ruka ki Te Ara Whānui a Tāne, ā, ko tua o te ārai, haere, haere, haere.

Ko tēnei Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, otirā, o te 40 mai i tōna tīmataka. I taku tamarikatanga ēhara tōku whānau i te whānau kōrero i Te Reo i tua atu i tō mātou poua. Nā tō mātou matua i ako kia tū kaha mātou hei Māori, heoi, tōna wawata kia puta mātou i te ao o te Pākehā. Hei ko tāna, kia taunga ki te reo Ingarihi kia puta ai mātou ki te ao o te Pākehā, heoi, ko Te Reo Māori te utu. I aua tau i te tāmia tonutia Te Reo Māori i te nuinga o ngā kura. Ko taku waimarie i tonoa ahau ki Te Kāreti Tama Tāne o Tīpene, i reira, ka tīmata taku ako i Te Reo.

Ka mutu te kura ka hoki au ki Waitaha, ka mutu taku ako, taku kōrero i Te Reo. Ka haere ahau ki tāwāhi ki te mahi, ka ako i te reo Wīwī o France me te reo Itāriana o Italia. Nā wai, ā, ka ngaro tōku ake Reo. Kia hoki rawa mai ahau ki Aotearoa ka uru ki ngā kaupapa o Te Rūnaka o Kai Tahu, ka ako anō i tōku Reo Māori kia noho ai au ki runga i te pae kōrero o ōku marae o Rāpaku o Te Raki Whakaputa.

Hari koa taku ngākau ki te whakarongo ki ngā mema o te Whare nei, e kaha ana ki te kōrero i Te Reo i te wiki nei me tā rātou whai kia tika te whakahua i ngā kupu me ngā ingoa Māori. Ka rawe hoki ka kite me te rongo i Te Reo Māori e whakamahia ana i te ao pāpāho. I hoki mai ahau ki Aotearoa i te tau 1998, ā, mai i taua tau kua hiki te whakahua me te kōrero i Te Reo Māori puta noa i Aotearoa. Kei te kite atu au i ngā tāngata ēhara i te Māori e aro nui ana i Te Reo Māori hei reo ōkawa, i nārā, ko te reo taketake o tēnei whenua, kāore i kō atu, kāore i kō mai. Kei te nui haere ngā kupu Māori kua whai wāhi ki te kete kupu o te hunga kōrero Pākehā.

Hāunga tērā, kei reira anō ngā wāhi raru, kei te heke haere te hunga ka taea te whitiwhiti kōrero i roto i Te Reo. He wāhi nui tō Te Reo i roto i wā tātou tikaka ki te kore Te Reo, ka kore te ahurea Māori. Āe, he nui ngā Māori ka whakanui i tō tātou ahurea Māori ēngari, kāore i te kōrero Māori pēnei i tōku whānau. Whakanuia tō tātou Reo. Hāpaitia Te Reo ki wā tātou tamariki rangatahi. Huakina ngā tatau kia ako ai rātou. Ka nui ngā mihi ki a Hōnore Hēkia Parata mō tana whakautu i aku pātai i roto i te Whare nei i a ia ka whakamārama, he aha ngā mahi whakatairaka i Te Reo Māori i ngā kura rīroa me te hōrapa i ngā kura Reo Māori. E whakapono ana au, mā te whanaketaka o ngā Kura Reo Māori me te nui haere o ngā kura riroa kei te ako i Te Reo ka taea Te Reo te whakaora me te tūmanako ā ngā rā kei te tū, ka tini mano te hunga kōrero i Te Reo ka ako i Te Reo ki ā rātou tamariki. “Kikoraki te tai, kahuraki te taoka!”

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone throughout the House, greetings to you all. Just as importantly, I acknowledge our Great Father in heaven. He is the beginning and the ending for all of us, and so I thank the Provider for everything. We remember them, indeed, the dead who have departed to the spiritual domain. And so to you, the dead of each marae, iwi, and waka, go forth on the Great Path of Tāne to beyond the veil, depart, journey on, farewell.

This is Māori Language Week, but at the same time its 40th since it began. My family was not one that spoke Māori, apart from our grandmother during my childhood. Our father taught us to stand proud and be staunch Māori, however, he wanted us to succeed in the non-Māori world. He wanted us to be proficient in the English language to ensure that occurred, but the Māori language was penalised. The majority of schools in those years continued to suppress the Māori language. I was fortunate to be sent to St Stephen’s College, and it was there that I began to learn the language.

When I finished at the college I went back to Canterbury and stopped learning the language and speaking it. I went overseas to work and began to learn the French language of France and the Italian language of Italy, and soon I lost my very own language. When I eventually came back to New Zealand I got involved in Te Rūnaka o Kai Tahu projects and began to re-learn my own Kai Tahu language so that I could sit on the speech-making benches of my Rāpaku and Te Raki Whakaputa marae.

I have been absolutely overjoyed within as I listened to members of this House attempting to say something in Māori during this week and to pronounce Māori words and names properly. It is truly wonderful, as well, to see and hear the Māori language being used and promoted by the media. I returned to New Zealand in 1998 and since that year the pronunciation and use of the Māori language has gone up throughout New Zealand. Increasingly I see non-Māori New Zealanders recognising the importance of the Māori language as an official language and, indeed, as the indigenous language of this nation. And that cannot be denied. More and more Māori words are now finding a place in a non-Māori’s vocabulary list.

That aside, there are problem areas. The number of Māori who can hold a conversation in Māori is steadily declining. Our Māori language has a vital place in our customs, and without it Māori culture will cease to exist. Sure, there are plenty of Māori who celebrate our Māori culture, but, like my family, they are not talking Māori. Celebrate our language. Foster it amongst our young people. Open up the doors so that they learn it. I have much admiration for the Hon Hēkia Parata in regard to her responses to my question in this House, where she explained what is being done to promote the Māori language in mainstream schools and how Māori-medium schools are being extended. I believe that it is possible to recover the Māori language through the development of Māori-medium schools and by increasing the number of mainstream schools teaching the Māori language, with the hope that in the future myriads more of those who speak Māori teach it to their children. “A blue tide, a treasure!”]

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.