Urgent Debates — Rt Hon John Key—Announcement of Resignation as Prime Minister

I have received letters from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Andrew Little seeking to debate, under Standing Order 389, the announcement made by the Prime Minister that he would resign as Prime Minister on 12 December. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility.

Applications for urgent debate are required to be accompanied by authentication, and have been declined in the past because of a lack of authentication. I draw members’ attention to Speakers’ rulings 205/5 and 205/6. The application from Mr Peters was not accompanied by any authenticating—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! However, the purpose of authentication is to verify the facts in an application for an urgent debate, and to make out the case in support of it. In this instance, the facts of the matter are well known and hardly require authentication. I am prepared, on this occasion, to accept the application without authentication. The resignation of a Prime Minister is a very rare occurrence and is deserving of the urgent attention of the House.

Mr Peters’ application for the urgent debate on the matter was the first one received. I, therefore, call on the Rt Hon Winston Peters to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This would be an urgent debate on the first occasion after an event has taken place. The event has not taken place. The Prime Minister has indicated an intention but has not resigned.

The announcement has taken place, and that is the matter that is important here.

I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Being the Prime Minister of a country is an achievement, and holding that position for 8 years is a significant feat. So let us begin this debate by remembering that and thanking the Prime Minister for his service to the country. We wish him and his family well.

Whenever a Prime Minister leaves the stage, we glance back to consider what has been achieved. He has been rated by the media as one of our most popular Prime Ministers. There is no doubt that he had that teflon factor that many of his peers will be coming to envy very soon. But no matter what side of the political spectrum one comes from, many ordinary New Zealanders have been able to relate to him. From the State house in Bryndwr to the ninth floor of the Beehive, it is something that John Key aspired to from the days when he was a young boy, and he can be proud of that.

As a politician he became an astute pragmatist, plotting his moves with his eyes fixed firmly on the polls, which the National Party takes every 3 days. The question that, as time passes, people will ponder is: so what really is his legacy? Is New Zealand in as good a shape as he told us yesterday, or is the reality something very different?

Well, take housing: what has been the legacy on housing? Eight years ago he campaigned on a four-point plan to solve what he called “the housing affordability crisis”. He talked of “the enormity of the problem” and that it was the second-worst housing affordability problem in the whole wide world. He said in 2007 that the housing crisis had got worse, and that the crisis would only deepen. In 2007 he promised to deliver as PM and build more houses. He got his chance, became Prime Minister, and had 8 years to fix it.

So what is the record? Eight years later the housing crisis has seriously worsened. A recent report said that one in seven houses in Auckland is being bought by speculators who already own five or more properties. In most cases, they have taken these homes at the expense of Kiwis looking for their first home. In spite of all the denials from National, the massive flood of immigration into Auckland and offshore buying have shut out New Zealanders and sent the price of housing straight into orbit. The average price for a house in Auckland went beyond $1 million. There have been some corrections later but the reality has not changed. A generation of New Zealanders is growing up and will never, ever own their own homes. For them, the Kiwi Dream of homeownership has been shattered. They have faced the dreary prospect of being renters for life. That is the housing legacy.

And on State houses—well, with 40,000 homeless, families living in cars, and pensioners scraping by in camp grounds, the Government started selling off thousands of State houses. The latest sell-off will be 2,500 State houses in Christchurch—going on right now while we have got massive homelessness in this country. Now the same city where our Prime Minister grew up in a State house has got 2,500 being sold. Rather than selling, the Government should be keeping State houses, upgrading them, and building more. But it is not. Again, that is its State housing legacy.

And on poverty: over the last 8 years poverty has become more entrenched and more apparent, with family poverty frequently wrongly described as child poverty, as some sort of diversion. It is families that are poor in this country, not children; it is families. Under Mr Key’s leadership, poverty has become more entrenched.

And when those people say “Be generous; he’s retiring.”, I want them to look at that homelessness and those people out of work, in despair, with no chance in this country’s future, in poor families, and ask what they would think. We now have 220,000 New Zealand children, or 21 percent of those under the age of 17, living in poverty. At Tautoro School in Kaikohe, the number being fed by the school has doubled in the last 4 years, from 15 to 20, to now up to 45 pupils out of a total roll of 75, and Tautoro School is not unique in this country. Again, that is another part of the legacy for those who care about a balanced, fair assessment.

On youth unemployment: there are 75,000 young New Zealanders who are not in employment, education, or training. Seventy-five thousand. You want to talk about a legacy? This is what the next election is going to be about. If you want to believe shonky, puffery polls, you go on believing them, but that is what the next election is going to be about. Seventy-five thousand—a ticking time bomb that, in the last 8 years, has never been addressed.

To make matters worse, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have been allowed into this country. Many of them are on student visas and are entitled to work. It has driven down wages. It has seen some appalling abuse of work conditions, illegal hours, under - minimum wage payments, wide-scale corruption of export education, and 20-hour work visa conditions breached all the time. All of this has made it difficult for young New Zealanders to find jobs—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop reading the speech.

I beg your pardon?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop reading your speech; say what you really think. Stop reading it.

Well, I am telling you what I really think, Mr Brownlee, because, unlike you, some of us people in this country are concerned—nothing to do with you, Mr Speaker—enough to do something about it. Not get our snout in the trough—not get our four feet and snout in the trough and think that is where life stops. Oh no, and what they are going to do about it—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: He’s up to the elbows in the trough.

—is get rid of you. That is the first thing they are going to do—get rid of him. That degradation in the workforce and the absolute abandonment of fair play amongst the young coming to this country in the workforce—it is a disgrace; it is a legacy.

On the economy, claimed to be a rock star miracle: well, lately a number of economists have described it as nothing like that, but as a mirage. For the year ended—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s that?

A mirage is mainly about your lifestyle. For the year ended June 2016, New Zealand’s current account deficit ran at $7.4 billion. Net international investment position: well, we owe the rest of the world a negative $163 billion. They claim our GDP growth rate is 3.5 percent. That is bulldust, because you have got a 2 percent population growth, and before you start you have got to extract that from your so-called projections. So what is your growth rate? It is 1.6 percent, which is the OECD average. Stop misleading people with rubbish, and I wish some journalists would get themselves a basic understanding of fundamental economics, because when you are talking about the GDP growth rate you have to factor in your population growth. Every idiot knows that, except some whom I cannot name because I am too nice a person to do so. Without this adjustment for the population growth, the numbers are totally deceptive. Again, that is the real legacy.

On the other things: the flag referendum—$26 million needlessly frittered away on a referendum, on a great splash of advertisements, and on the Flag Consideration Panel going to ridiculous meetings at empty halls up and down the country. Even today, the retiring Prime Minister said that he had a hope that that would be his legacy. In this case, there is a flag legacy, belonging to someone else in a different age.

Then the Government hitched its wagon to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) and it railroaded the law through this Parliament to welcome its arrival. And it has all crashed, as New Zealand First said it would in February of this year. We said it in February of this year. We also said that Donald Trump was going to win, so stop wasting people’s money and time. Oh no, they cannot listen. They have got all these experts who know a lot about everything, until he comes to say: “When did they get their forecasts right?”. Millions were spent on the TPPA to achieve absolutely nothing. Put it alongside the Korean free-trade deal, which is heavily biased against New Zealand producers, with tariffs of 176 percent. This is not a legacy.

On the Resource Management Act (RMA) amendment legislation: they did a deal between the Government and the Māori Party to push the RMA changes through, and that has been an absolute disaster. National chose iwi over Kiwi. His Government has forced parallel, unelected, race-based control on this country. In its planning and consent laws—and as more New Zealanders learn about this, whether Māori or European, they will come to bitterly resent this legacy, which some other Government is going to have to fix up.

So what is his place in history? Well, let us be fair here. He has done better than many. But this is not Seddon, Savage, and it ain’t Holyoake—before some of these commentariat, who do not seem to remember even what happened yesterday, think he is up in that league. Look at the fundamentals. There are serious storm clouds gathering: the decline in manufacturing, the decline in exports against GDP. There are millions of people in this country who are disillusioned, and even National supporters are beginning to think twice. At the Tauhei Hall, 16 kilometres from Morrinsville, on Sunday night, we got 220 people out, in a country place that has got no shop but just a school.

💬 Pita Paraone: How many?

220. I know there is a sea change, whether those members know it or not, and this sea change, which you saw in the UK, which you saw in the early elections in Australia, and which you saw in the United States, is sweeping—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, you didn’t.

Oh yes, I did.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s rubbish.

I did. I looked around you—not easy to do—and I saw it. I saw it, and I said so; not after the event, Mr Brownlee, but beforehand. I mean real signs, not shonky polls, which were so badly exposed by Brexit.

But you have got to give it to Mr Key. A bit like Kenny Rogers—you got to know when to hold ’em, you got to know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. He saw the bells tolling. He saw those polls, as we have seen them, and he decided: “We’ll leave it to people like Gerry. I don’t want to be around” he said, “when it all falls apart next year.”

That said, I wish Mr Key—and so do my colleagues—well in his future, knowing with total confidence that his successor will be as worried about his legacy as New Zealand First is.

That contribution was untypically graceless from that member, Winston Peters. He is a member who understands the traditions and—actually, often at times he has been one of the more polite and understanding members of this House when it has really mattered. I would have thought that on this occasion, the first time in, what, a hundred years that a Prime Minister has voluntarily decided to resign the job—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, Holyoake went.

Well, Holyoake was under a pressure that John Key has never been under—never been under. I would have thought the member might be slightly more generous. But he was not, and, actually, that is the difference between him and John Key. John Key would rather work hard and strive for a better country; that member works hard and strives for a bitter country. A better country or a bitter country—and it could not be more exemplified than by that contribution.

The other difference is this: the Prime Minister, who has announced his resignation but not yet resigned, has always believed you get the best from people with confidence, not with divisiveness—with confidence, not with division. That member should acknowledge today that he could have learnt a few political lessons. There was a time when he could fill a stadium in the Trump manner—it is just that that was a long time ago.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: In a small stadium.

No, it was the Tauranga Racecourse, to be fair, and it was a big crowd, and then they were ready for him. But John Key has had the impact of changing the way New Zealand politics works, and his legacy is not the tirade of bitterness that the member thought was appropriate for this occasion—I actually do not think the member believed most it—his legacy is actually the opportunity he has left for this country to achieve so much in the next 5 to 10 years. [Interruption] What state is it in? Of course, there are intractable social problems—

💬 Andrew Little: Oh, intractable. Oh, you don’t claim responsibility.

They have proven to be so in the past—as the members opposite were in Government and spent billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money trying to deal with those difficult social problems such as youth unemployment. But under John Key’s leadership, with the fresh thinking, with the almost unpolitical way he has approached those problems, this Government has developed a tool kit that will allow us over the next 5 or 10 years to finally get a grip at an individual and personal level on the kinds of social challenges that the member outlined. In that sense we agree. Of course there are social challenges. The question is: who has got a fresh view on those old social challenges? John Key did and still does, remarkably, after 10 years as a party leader and 8 years as a Prime Minister.

The member also referred to this odd argument that economic growth should not count people—that if more people want to live in your country that is a problem for economic growth. It is not. Of course if you say “If we take away all the things that make the economy grow, it’s not growing.”—that is true. But, actually, the member may recall that he—and certainly his colleagues in Opposition—campaigned for quite some time that not enough people wanted to live in New Zealand. So they have to answer this question: do they believe that it is better to have people leaving the country, because that drives up per capita GDP, or do they believe it is better that our children prefer to live here, as they have amply demonstrated under the stewardship of Prime Minister John Key?

Just to give a sense of the magnitude of that: in 2012 there was a net outflow of 39,000 people to Australia. That is actually bigger than the number of seats in the stadium where the Prime Minister did the election ad. Last year there was an inflow of 2,000. That is, from my point of view, one of the lasting legacies of John Key. He persuaded New Zealanders with his confidence and his leadership that this could be a country where their children would want to stay and make a living and raise a family. In fact, we keep thinking that the tide must turn, but it has not—but it has not.

So I can quote all sorts of economic figures about where the economy has got up to, but the measure of his legacy is that our children, our families now think when they look at the rest of the world that this is a place where they have more confidence that they can realise more of their aspirations. [Interruption] You know, that is the difference in this House: we are in favour of growth and everyone else is against it. That is pretty much how it is unwinding.

I just want to take the opportunity to make a few comments not just on the Prime Minister’s legacy but on his way of being a politician, his way of working with other people. I must say that the way he has conducted his exit from his position illustrates the graciousness and the consideration that he has shown every single day that I have worked with him as a deputy leader and a Deputy Prime Minister. This is a Prime Minister who, despite the enormous pressures of the job, is always able to turn up to work and deal with people in a confident and cheerful manner, always in a positive manner, always in a considerate manner, and is always polite. The way he dealt with people he met on the campaign trail is the way he has dealt with his colleagues every single day that he has held office, with just a few days left to go.

That has been at the core of his other major achievement—and that is stable and trusted Government. The Opposition members might laugh at that, but in the world as we know it, stable and trusted Government is becoming increasingly rare. We are one of the few countries where that is now the case, and an important part of that achievement of stable and trusted Government has been the integrity of the Prime Minister and his ability to ensure that the Government remained cohesive, that the relationships in it were positive, and that it could continue to make the decisions that are necessary to take the country forward.

So the Prime Minister will not in any way be belittled by the comments of the Opposition. He never let that bother him. And, actually, it does not matter what Winston Peters or Andrew Little say today; it will be as irrelevant as the things they said for the whole 8 years he was Prime Minister. It made no difference. Despite political obsession with John Key—known as “Key Derangement Syndrome”—these amazing political machines never laid a finger on him, never knocked him off track, never brought him down, and never distracted him from the task of achieving what was best and right for New Zealanders.

In that context—that is, the Prime Minister’s performance in the bear pit of politics—he had no equal. [Interruption] Well—he had no equal. OK, so the Labour Party talks about Helen Clark. John Key beat Helen Clark by a long way in an election, and, actually, the Labour Party has not ever recovered from it. In the bear pit of politics the Prime Minister showed that he had the strength and the direction to maintain the position of Government, maintain the trust of the people, and, ultimately, to leave the country in a much, much better state than he found it, despite the challenges that he had to deal with.

Finally, the measure of the Prime Minister and his legacy is that he has left a team in great shape. We have seen what has happened to political parties when leaders stay too long. The Prime Minister has left this talented, energised team with a clear sense of direction, and the best way to fulfil his legacy is to build on those achievements.

I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister and aspiring Prime Minister about one thing, at least, and that is that on the occasion of the resignation of the Prime Minister it is appropriate to be generous in one’s offerings about not only the departing Prime Minister but one’s colleagues in Parliament. But the aspiring Prime Minister could not even do that. It did not take long for Mr English to descend into the usual bitter, angry, nasty tirade that he is reputed for.

In answer to the question “What do Governments most fear?”, Harold Macmillan said: “Events, dear boy, events.” Yesterday we had an event, and today we have seen the faces of the Government, and they are in fear. They are in fear. They do not know what is going to happen, they do not know who is going to win, and they do not know what the outcome is going to be. So on the occasion of the resignation of the Prime Minister, who has served for 8 years, let us acknowledge that that is a significant event: constitutionally, politically, and in a variety of other ways. Let us accept that serving in high public office is tough. Let us also recall that having checks and balances in our constitutional system is meant to constrain, and that being under daily, if not hourly, scrutiny is meant to enlighten and call to account. That is our system. That is what makes it tough—and it is tough.

It is right, sometimes, to put political differences aside and say to a political opponent: “Thank you for the service that you have given to our country.” It is not for me to conduct some sort of panegyric; that is for the historians—the real historians—who will have the benefit of the distance of time at some point in the future to decide what John Key’s legacy is and how that has served New Zealand. I just say that it is right for the House to acknowledge the leadership that John Key has given over the last 8 years. But right now, in the present circumstances, who replaces John Key is a question for only the National Government members. They sit over there; it is their choice. It is not necessarily what New Zealanders expected. They expected that having elected a party to Government with a Prime Minister, he would serve out the full term, but now that is a matter entirely in the hands of the National caucus.

One thing remains unchanged throughout all of this, and that is that too many New Zealanders are still missing out. John Key was quoted in a Listener article in June this year as saying that voters only really care about four things: health, education, law and order, and the economy. So let us have a look at health, education, law and order, and the economy, because the track record ain’t that flattering.

When we have a look at health, $1.7 billion was cut, effectively, from the health budget: the health budget that has failed to keep up with population growth and a changing population profile; the 45,000, mainly elderly, New Zealanders last year alone, who were told by their GPs: “You need hospital treatment, skedaddle up there quickly, get up to your hospital, and get your treatment done.” They turned up to their local hospital, and the hospital said: “We can’t afford to treat you.” That is what they were told—45,000 New Zealanders who needed hips replaced, knees done, and other minor surgeries. We have a health system that can no longer afford to treat New Zealanders when they need it. We have got surgeons now being told by their hospital management: “Don’t do follow-up appointments.” What is that about? How can you have surgery and not have a follow-up appointment to see how it is going, to see whether there is an infection, and to see whether you need other treatment? That is the state of health in New Zealand today, and it ain’t good enough.

That was health—what about education? Well, what we have seen now is a freeze on education funding. Schools are struggling to do the job we expect of them, struggling to give our kids a chance to succeed in a rapidly changing world. We saw the report last week, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study report, that sees New Zealand going backwards: larger class sizes, more pressure on teachers, and—would you believe—a freeze in funding. How does that happen with a Government that says to New Zealanders that it is committed to a brave new world of the future but will not give a chance, will not give opportunity, to young New Zealanders when they need it?

So what about law and order? At a time of the most rapidly growing population in New Zealand, and at a time when crime is rising—now 2 years in a row, with burglaries, assaults, robberies, and serious crime—we have a freeze on police numbers. We have declining police morale. How does that work in a country that is on the cusp of something special?

Then there is the economy. How is it that in this great economy of ours, which the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister says is now burgeoning and doing well, one out of every five wage and salary earners—get that, one out of five—earns only enough to mean that more than 50 percent of their income goes on either paying their rent or the mortgage. That is how expensive the cost of living has become. That is why so many families are struggling—working families, people out there toiling away, trying to get every hour of work they can: terrified when they have to renew the warrant of fitness because they are terrified they might have to replace the tyres or the brake linings; terrified when that winter power bill comes because they do not know how many hundreds of dollars bigger it is than the summer ones. That is the lived existence of too many New Zealand families these days. That is not a successful economy. That is not success for New Zealand.

Labour has a plan and Labour is ready. Labour has a plan for New Zealand. We are going to build houses. For all those New Zealanders who do not have their own roof over their heads—the 41,000 homeless—Labour has a plan. For the thousands of young couples who cannot afford to buy their own home, Labour has a plan: we are going to put you in a home; you are going to be able to afford to buy your own home. For the parents wondering how much more they are going to have to fork out for their kids at school, we have got a plan: we are going to restore that funding for education and we are going to have an education system that is modern, fit, and equipped for the modern world.

Labour has a plan for health, and it is about restoring that funding. We will not be able to do it straight away, but we will, over time, put back that funding—so that if you are elderly and your hips have given out and you cannot walk and you cannot do the shopping, we will give you a chance. You will get your hip operation. You will live a decent life, a dignified life, because that is what New Zealand stands for. Labour has a plan.

We have a plan for law and order. We will put more police on the beat. We are going to put an extra 1,000 cops over 3 years, and New Zealanders will feel safe in their communities again. That is our pledge. We have costed it out; we can do it. The Government could do it now. I am going to give you a bet—I am prepared to put money on it—that between now and the next election the next Prime Minister, whomever that may be, will announce that they will put more cops on the beat, because they know they have got it wrong. The truth is this is a Government that is out of touch, arrogant, and tired. It has lost touch; it does not know what to do any more. Everything it does now is responding to Labour’s plan to lift New Zealand and make it better.

Here is the thing. We are a country that has always celebrated the chance for its people to get ahead. When you do the right thing, when you work hard and you pay your taxes the least you expect is the Government to be there to back you, to make sure you can have a roof over your head; that if you cannot afford to buy one, that if you cannot afford to rent one, there is a Housing New Zealand house there for you—not being sold down the river by the current Minister responsible for Housing New Zealand.

We are a country that believes that if you do all the right things we will have an education system there that will make sure that your kids are prepared for success. We are a country that believes that if you want a chance to get ahead—to do well, to work well—we will have a health system that is there to make you get better when you fall sick. That is what we stand for. That is what New Zealand is about.

We are a land of opportunity; we have always celebrated that, but for far too many New Zealanders, that opportunity is going. We can do better, and Labour is about a better New Zealand. It is about harnessing the resources of Government, of backing our people, of backing them in their dreams and their ambitions for themselves, their children, their families, and for their communities. Labour is about stronger families and better communities. That is what we are going to go to the country on next year.

Labour has a plan, and Labour is ready. We have known this was going to come. We have been prepared for this. It does not matter when the election is; we have a plan for New Zealand. New Zealand deserves better, they are going to get better, and New Zealand is going to be a great country with Labour backing hard-working Kiwis every step of the way.

John Key, the retiring Prime Minister, never put children and families first. At every opportunity John Key refused to put the needs of families and children ahead of the interests of the wealthy few. This is actually the legacy of John Key. I am surprised by Bill English’s response tonight in this debate, because there are thousands and thousands of New Zealand families who know that they are doing worse than ever under the leadership of John Key and the National Party. For 8 years John Key has had an opportunity to turn life around for the families who need him the most. At every point he has refused to help them.

Let us not forget that the first thing he did when he became Prime Minister was to give tax cuts to the rich. That was his first decision. It was to give tax cuts to the very richest families in this country—leaving working families who were subject to the harms caused by the global financial crisis right out of the picture. It was the rich who did the best out of John Key when he first took the prime ministership, and it is still the rich who are doing the best from John Key 8 years later. The families and children of hard-working New Zealanders were left out by John Key and left out by this National Government.

New Zealand, the only way we can put families and children at the heart of Government decisions is to change the Government in 2017. Because even though John Key has gone and his leadership is now over, the National Party continues with that evil programme that denies the rights of families and children to a decent life in this country. It has been shameful watching John Key make decisions that leave families and kids out in the cold.

John Key was heard saying this morning that New Zealand is largely the envy of the world—the envy of the developed world in terms of job creation and job growth. No, it is not. No, it is not for the New Zealanders who live here who are struggling to pay their rent and put food on the table and pay their power bills. This is the reality for thousands of New Zealand children. They are not envious. This is a shameful legacy that John Key leaves us. There are so many things that could have happened under John Key’s leadership that he ignored because New Zealand families and their children were never at the core of his decision making.

I would like to deal with the issue of children going hungry at school. It was scandalous and it is still scandalous that thousands of New Zealand children are still going to school hungry and are hungry at school because we do not have a comprehensive school food programme in our schools. When I asked John Key about that today in question time his excuse was that there is a programme and there has been a bit of Government support for it. There are still hungry children at school, so what about them?

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Seven million breakfasts.

So some are getting fed, and what about the ones who are not? What about the ones who are not getting fed and are still hungry? Do they count, for John Key? Do they matter to John Key? Or is he happy that only some kids are getting fed in this country and some are still hungry? That is what is happening for thousands of New Zealand children. They are still hungry at school because John Key and National would not support a comprehensive food in schools programme. They had the choice. They had the money to commit to that, but there are still thousands of children who are left out. These are the choices of this Prime Minister. That is his legacy.

What about the children who are still being admitted to New Zealand hospitals because of the illnesses that they suffer from cold, damp, mouldy houses? What about the 40,000 hospitalisations of New Zealand children because John Key and the National Government refuse to put in place a warrant of fitness to warm up, to dry out these homes for these kids? What about the 15 children who die every year under John Key’s leadership because they live in cold, damp, mouldy houses—houses that John Key and his Government could have fixed; houses that could be safe for those kids and their families to live in? Did those kids matter to John Key and the National Government? No, they did not. Nothing has changed that will protect those families and those 15 children.

This is the legacy of John Key, the retiring Prime Minister. Despite all of the rhetoric and all of the lovely stories we are going to hear about John Key from lots of different places, this is the actual impact of John Key being Prime Minister for 8 years and the National Government being in Government for these 8 years. This is why we have to change the Government. We cannot allow National to continue with the reins of power and with the financial resources and have it divert those resources and use that power for the wealthy few when our families and our kids are suffering every day.

What about the 40,000 New Zealanders who are homeless? What about them today? What about the families and the children who tonight will be sleeping in their cars? Where do they fit in John Key’s legacy? That is who he is leaving behind when he finishes. Those families are being left behind by John Key. Earlier today he talked a lot about housing policy. There are still thousands of New Zealand families who are homeless, who are sleeping in garages, who are sleeping in their cars, and who are sleeping in motor camps in caravans that are in appalling conditions—cockroaches, damp, and mould. Those families matter. Those kids and those families matter. They are important citizens of this country too, and they deserve better from John Key.

What did he spend his time on? Giving Skycity Casino the opportunity to put in place more gambling machines so it could make more money—that is what John Key spent his time on. Defending the dirty Saudi sheep deal—that is what John Key spent his time on. The tax cuts for the very wealthy is what he spent his time on. Keeping foreign trusts going in New Zealand is what John Key spent his time on, to enable the very wealthy to hide their money—those things were his priorities. We only need to look back over the last 8 years and see for ourselves the legacy that John Key leaves.

It is time now in New Zealand that we take back the reins of Government and put in place a Government that will put families and children at the heart of the decisions that it makes. If we are not here to fight for and work for them, what is the point? I am glad John Key is going. Good—he should go. He has not been a good Prime Minister. He has left these families to fend for themselves. He has had the resources and the opportunity to make a real difference and he chose not to. Good. Go. And take the rest of them with you because this is not a Government that puts New Zealanders at the heart of its decisions.

In 2017 the Greens will be part of a new Government that will put children and their families at the heart of every decision it makes. That is what we will do. That is why we are saying: “New Zealanders, we have to change the Government. Losing John Key is not enough. They all have to go. You’ve got 6 months—8 months—let’s make it happen.” Those kids need us; they certainly do not need National.

This is a special debate called for by the Opposition parties so that they might debate the occasion and the circumstances of the decision by the Rt Hon John Key to resign as Prime Minister, effectively next Monday, and for there to be new leadership in the National Party and, therefore, as Prime Minister as well. So it seems a little bit odd, having decided that they would request this time of the House, for these parties to then spend it trying to push policies that have been roundly rejected in the last 8 years, through two elections—three elections in fact—by voters in New Zealand. Why would we ever imagine that it would be a good use of the House’s time to debate the policies of the 2008, 2011, and 2014 elections all over again? That is the problem with the Opposition in this country: they have no moment where they are in the present.

That speech from Metiria Turei was nothing but nasty garbage that is not even slightly reflective of how New Zealanders see the performance of the current Government—let alone the status that they hold John Key in and the way in which they consider him to be a great leader for this country.

They went on about so many different things that it is hard to cover them all; I will try to cover some. But I make the point that if an Opposition is going to go from being an Opposition into Government, then it should stop insulting 50 percent of the voters who do not think that they are up to it and start trying to persuade 50 percent of the voters that they can offer something a little more hopeful than the dismal rubbish that we have had pouring out of Winston Peters, Metiria Turei, and Andrew Little this afternoon.

Let us just look at a few of these things. Firstly, that rambling speech from the Rt Hon Winston Peters: if that was not a request for an urgent transfer to a retirement home, I do not know what it was. That was the sort of rose-coloured nostalgia that worked for Mr Peters 20 years ago. It does not reflect [Interruption]—not in New Zealand. That is one of the things that New Zealand First is going to have to come to terms with in the next several months if it is going to be anywhere near competitive in the next election. It is that moving on, that recognising the situation of today and finding solutions for today and for tomorrow that John Key has been so very good at.

When Mr English spoke he talked about the Prime Minister’s relentless optimism. I have never seen him anything other than optimistic about the future of this country. I have never seen him daunted by a problem that this country has, but I have seen him apply himself and demand the same rigour of others in his ministry to solving some of those problems. So when Metiria Turei talks about poverty in this country—where were the Greens for 9 years when the Labour Government did not lift benefit income for any poor New Zealander? That took a John Key Government to do that. Where were they around things like the family tax credit? No—they were opposed to it. Where were they around all of the various types of job creation that comes from expanding trade or that comes from freeing up the way in which people can do business? Nothing. We had high unemployment in 2008, we had an economy that was in severe trouble in 2008, and we had interest rates for people who were in houses in 2008 topping 10.5 percent. And that, apparently, was good for poor people. That was a disgrace that that can be offered as any kind of recipe going forward for the coming election.

That brings me also to the proposition that Andrew Little put out there: saying Mr Key has failed to house New Zealanders. Well, we have never seen the likes of housebuilding in New Zealand at any time compared with what we have got now. That is a programme that is not propped up by some sort of mad Government scheme that says “subsidise, subsidise, subsidise”. It is a programme that enables people to get hold of land, allows building companies to go ahead and do those subdivisions, and is backed by finance packages that people can avail themselves of. In the end it is all about supply; no one disagrees with that. But how that supply is created is crucially important. The once-proud Labour Party claimed, through Michael Joseph Savage, that homeownership was the big deal, and having a home was a big deal. Nowadays it is only if the Government—according to them—lets you have it. That will not be a recipe that New Zealanders will be impressed with in the coming months.

I also want to make reference to the idea that incomes are going to rise should there be a Labour Government. One thing John Key has done throughout his tenure as Prime Minister is say that if we want basic incomes in this country to rise, then there has to be the economic incentive for jobs to be created and for good wages to be paid. That has meant the relentless pursuit of trade deals. It has meant taking regulation out of our business activities. It has meant finding new markets and encouraging people to diversify the economy. When we had, just these last couple of years, the dairy price falling away, what was the impact on the New Zealand economy? Dreadful as it was for some farmers it did not tip our economy up, because of that diversification and because of that relentless focus on trying to raise incomes for New Zealanders.

At a basic level, every year the minimum wage was raised under a John Key Government. It never happened for 9 years under Labour. Where was New Zealand First? Where were the Greens? And where were the Labour backbenchers while their Ministers were refusing to raise incomes for the poorest of New Zealanders? This is the record of John Key. He is a very compassionate man, and a very pragmatic man. He knows what it is like to grow up in a household that is not advantaged. He knows what it is like to see others with more but he has never let that get in the way of his drive to improve himself, his family’s lot, and to desire that for all New Zealanders as well.

We heard them say that under Labour education will be completely free—completely free. I think we heard that from Labour during the 1980s when it introduced the fees for students in tertiary education. I think we heard it from Labour when it said Tomorrow’s Schools would be some kind of nirvana: where you just walk in the gate, you get conferred with qualifications, and you walk out for a wonderful life.

This is a Government that has focused on educational achievement. John Key said to his Cabinet: “We cannot have young people who cannot read and write. We cannot have young people who have problems with numeracy. We have to have a better focus.” So through successive education ministries, his Ministers, and his particular commitment to that portfolio, we see the Programme for International Student Assessment results today coming out—those international comparisons for literacy, numeracy, etc.—and New Zealand is once again on the rise. That is a bit of a turn-around—a significant turn-around, in fact—from where we were just a few years ago—

💬 Chris Hipkins: That’s not true.

—and largely due to the fact that a Government has a right to demand standards in education.

💬 Sue Moroney: It started sliding under this Government, Gerry. It was going up under Labour.

That is what has happened, and the beneficiaries are young children. What we have got over there are all sorts of claims about “Oh, it’s not good.”, “Don’t listen to the stats.”, and “Blah, blah, blah.”, but if it suits them, they will use statistics against us any time. I think they need to just have a bit of a look at that particular portfolio, because their record is not tidy.

Finally, let me just deal with health. There have never been more people getting healthcare when they need it in this country than there are now. There has never been a time when the commitment to healthcare dollars has been as strong as it is at the moment. Mr Key has, once again, been making sure that although there is this focus on having a sound economy that can provide jobs—that will provide bigger incomes for people—he is still insisting that this Government spent in core social services.

His legacy is a remarkable one: he will be in history, I am sure, recorded as one of the great Prime Ministers of this country; he is most definitely one of the greatest leaders of the National Party. Although he has now decided to exit the stage, the scene that he has set and the culture that he has put in place will endure, and the fundamentals of what has been achieved under his ministry, his prime ministership, will continue, and will be well regarded and well received by New Zealanders in the coming year.

There has been a lot said in this debate about John Key’s legacy and what it will be, and I think that in itself is quite telling: that people have to discuss and debate and decide what John Key’s legacy as Prime Minister of this country for 8 years will be. It is strange, because there is nothing that stands out over those 8 years that will be a legacy for John Key as Prime Minister. Great Prime Ministers are remembered in history. John Key will not be remembered in history. He does not have a legacy. He does not have any great thing that he has done, and I challenge any member on that side of the House—or this, come to that—to name two great things that John Key has done in his 8 years as Prime Minister that will go down in history and that will leave him as a household name the likes of Savage, the likes of Holyoake. He is not a man of that ilk.

We have been criticised in this corner of the House for being, perhaps, less gracious than some other speakers in noting the departure of a man who has spent 8 years in the top job. I think the response has been appropriate. In 2008, when John Key came to power, I voted for him. I was not a member of New Zealand First in those days. I had sat through the Helen Clark years and been so tragically disappointed that, having grown up as a Social Crediter, I changed my allegiance to National because I felt it offered hope. I listened to John Key on the hustings and I listened to what National was saying and I thought it offered a great change and a great hope for New Zealand, for the future, for me, and for my kids. I was so sorely disappointed with what was delivered that I joined New Zealand First, and here I am. Because there is a party in this House that says the things that the National Party of old used to say, and it is New Zealand First. There is a great leader in this House who will be remembered through history, and that is Winston Peters.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

You may laugh now, but change is sweeping the world. We have seen great upsets. In Canada the Liberal Party went from being a third party to being a majority Government. In the UK Brexit triumphed. In the United States Trump has triumphed. And at every turn they have confounded the pundits and confounded the pollsters. It has been the real people who have spoken up and spoken out. In the election coming next year that is what will happen in New Zealand, and John Key knows it. He has seen the writing on the wall. He has seen the juggernaut approaching. He has seen the size of the dead rat that he would have to swallow, and he cannot stand that size, and he is not going to do it.

He is a trader first and foremost. The man is a trader. He knows when to buy; he knows when to sell. He knows that for him this is the time to sell; this is the time to get out. He is cutting and running while it is a good time for him. You can say anything you like. Members on the other side can say anything they like about it being a strategic decision. They can say that he is leaving a party in good shape. At the end of the day he is leaving the party, and he is leaving it 2 weeks out from the Christmas break. He is leaving it, effectively, 6 months of campaigning with a new leader, coming into an election when its popularity has peaked, when it is on the slide, and when the chickens are going to come home to roost.

We know this in New Zealand First because we talk to the people. The Rt Hon Winston Peters fills halls up and down this country—220 in Tauhei last night. We had 300 in Rangiora, 350 in Levin, and 220 in Gore. You never hear about that in the mainstream media, but you know when you are there, and you hear about it from people who were there, and you read about it on social media. That is what people are saying around the country right now. That is the undercurrent that is flowing through. It is what happened in the UK, it is what happened in the US, it is what happened in Canada, it is what happened with the election in Australia, and it is going to happen here. John Key—credit where it is due—is no fool. He can see what is going to happen, and he is getting out while the going is good.

Every political career comes to an end one way or another. Most of them end in ignominy. To be able to choose the time that you go is, perhaps, a credit to the man, but it cannot be said that he is leaving his party in the best of state. He should have announced a year ago that he was not going to complete a fourth term. He could have led his party into an election and told the people and told his party that he was going to pull out a year or a year and a half or 2 years into another term if he won. That would have been a more honest thing to do, but no. Instead, after 8 years of lots of horse-trading and very little else, lots of noise and nothing to show in the way of a tangible achievement, he has decided this is the time to cut and run, this is the time to hit the silk, and he is bailing. He is getting out. He will go off to Hawaii and play golf with Obama, and they can talk about the old days when they used to be in power.

I suppose in a year or so’s time he will pick up a knighthood, and that will be the end of it. But I will say this again: great Prime Ministers are recorded in the annals of history. Their names will be known for a long time. Love her or hate her, in 10 years’ time, in 20 years’ time, people will still be talking about Helen Clark. In 50 years’ time they will still be talking about Rob Muldoon. A hundred years from now people studying history will learn about the Rt Hon Winston Peters. But 5 years from now, people will be saying “John who?”, because he is a grey man, because he is a lightweight, because he has had a nice long hold of the tiller while the sea has been calm. Do not quote the global financial crisis. It did not affect New Zealand or Australia. Our backs were not exposed to that. He has had no real challenges and he has achieved nothing. His legacy will be that he will be forgotten.

He does not even have the flag change, because nobody wanted that. He could not see through that campaign at the beginning to see that that was going to be the result. The clever thing for a good political operator with a good brain and a good political sense of nous to have done would be to recognise that that campaign was doomed to failure early on in the piece and pull the pin. That would have shown some grace. That would have shown the people that he was listening, but no. He pushed on with it. He pushed on with it regardless of the fact that it was never going to succeed. He spent $26 million of taxpayers’ money on it that could have been much better spent on hip operations or fixing the roads or schools or any one of a number of other things, but $26 million to a multimillionaire money trader is just chicken feed, particularly when it is somebody else’s and when you have a vanity project that you want for your legacy. Well, that will be his legacy: the fact that nothing happened and nothing changed.

Next year things are going to change. The tide of change that is sweeping the world will sweep through New Zealand. They can scoff on that side of the House. They can scoff, and they do scoff, because they are not in touch with the real people. They are not in touch with heartland New Zealand. We are. New Zealand First is, and we will be the alternative. We will go into the 2017 campaign, New Zealand First, part of a three-way race, standing on our own, behind the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I think a lot of people all around—the pundits, the pollsters, people on that side of the House, and even people around us—are in for a great surprise.

They could take the message now. They could heed the warning. But the indication is that they are not going to; the indication is that things are going to unfold here exactly the same as they unfolded around the rest of the world, because the people who are currently in charge are every bit as out of touch here as they were over there. We will see change come, and I am afraid to say that John Key’s legacy will be that he is forgotten as a man who, as Prime Minister for 8 years, achieved nothing, changed nothing, and will not be remembered for anything. Thank you.

Well, that speech by Richard Prosser was a speech from a member who lacks so many things, and now we know that he has a profound lack of graciousness. It was from a list MP, who would never be in Parliament had he not been put on a party list—nobody knew who he was—running down one of the great Prime Ministers of New Zealand.

I have had the great pleasure over the past 2 years of working with John Key up close, and I would characterise him as being one of the most affable, unflappable people I have ever known. At certain times—in meetings, and at Cabinet committees—I have said to myself “That guy is the Prime Minister of New Zealand, dealing with very serious issue X, and doing it in a way that does not show a hint of being flapped under pressure, or of panic.”, and that is why so many people who have worked with John Key have found him such a pleasure to deal with. On behalf of the ACT Party, I would like to thank him not only for myself but also for other ACT leaders who have had that relationship with John Key over the past 8 years.

In light of saying that, there is no question that although John Key is one of the best, most affable, and most popular day-to-day managers that a country could hope to have, just like in any period of conservative Government—whether it is 1960 to 1972 or whether it is 1975 to 1984—long-term problems have a tendency to accumulate in such a way that change must eventually come. But it will not come—I say to the member who just resumed his seat—from Winston Peters or New Zealand First, because to solve serious problems you actually need serious thinking and serious bravery to confront those challenges. When you turn to New Zealand First, and when you turn to Winston Peters, you get an awful lot of sizzle, but, at the end of the day, a very small sausage. You get an awful lot of piffle, but a real big shortage of porridge. New Zealand First members do not have what it takes, and that is why their only real selling point is that they believe they will surf a wave of change that has occurred in other countries, while ignoring what is actually happening in New Zealand, which is that, actually, New Zealand is doing pretty good.

It is those longer-term issues on the horizon that we need to tackle, and one of the most acute, when it comes to the retiring Prime Minister John Key, is the question of superannuation. Every 4 years the Treasury publishes its long-term fiscal outlook, and it says—depending on the year; the wording does not change much—something like this: that the Government has options, but if it does not take them soon things will get much, much harder. It predicts that, by the time current university students retire, they are going to find themselves living in a country with 200-odd percent public debt. That would be worse than Greece, worse than Italy, worse than Portugal, worse than Spain—worse than any of those so-called PIGS countries.

That is an issue on which just about every other country is moving. John Key said he would not change eligibility or the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation. It is an issue where young people are saying “We know we’re not going to get it ourselves at 65. Why can’t we have the conversation?”—and now we can. There are so many people out there, in my generation of New Zealanders, who are finding it damn tough in the housing market. But they are now being joined by their parents, who are saying: “I’m quite pleased that in some parts of Auckland my house is worth $2 million or $3 million However, I have three kids, and I don’t want to give them $6 million or $9 million to get into the market themselves.” We find ourselves with two large issues there, which are intergenerational, and which a future Prime Minister and a future Government will have to take account of.

I am very proud to lead an ACT Party that has been playing a constructive role in Government over the last 8 years. Much of the debate and change that has come around in the housing market, in particular, has come from the Productivity Commission, which is an ACT Party initiative. We have recently seen, after evidence that it deters criminals, the first third-striker under the three-strikes law—something that New Zealanders want. We are also going into a round of prize-givings and commemorations for partnership schools or charter schools, which are changing kids’ lives for the better.

The ACT Party salutes John Key. We are proud of what we have done with him, and when it comes to New Zealand’s long-term challenges, we believe that we have got a lot more to contribute. Thank you.

On a day like this, I too want to join those who wish John Key well in his retirement. It is a time to thank him for his 8 years as Prime Minister of New Zealand. Anyone who has ever been close to a Prime Minister will know that they work incredibly hard, they make a huge commitment to the country, and it takes a great toll on them and their families. I wish him well in his years ahead.

But I need to tell this House that Labour is ready, we are organised, and we are hungry for the election, whenever it will be. We are committed to addressing the challenges that face this country, because we know that there is work to be done. We cannot cover up the fact that there are many New Zealanders out there who are suffering at the moment. They might not be obvious to some opposite, because, for many of them, they are out of touch with what is happening around our country.

For us, we are ready, and maybe now the air will be clear so that people will be able to hear our plans as to what we want to do for a better New Zealand. We are going to go out, and we are going to ask the questions of New Zealanders. We are going to say: “Should young New Zealanders miss out on owning their own home? Should older New Zealanders miss out on getting the healthcare that they need?”—people like Trixie Cottingham, who is 96 years old and had hours taken off for her home help. Why would we do that to a 96-year-old in a land of plenty? We are going to go out there and ask people, if they are going to work, whether they should not get a decent wage and decent working conditions. We are going to go out there and ask parents whether they should be paying for the education for their children, when they are dipping into their pockets every day to meet the expenses. We will be putting forward those questions, but, more importantly, we will be providing the plan to address them.

This resignation, in my view, has exposed a National caucus for what it is: a bunch of independent sole traders who are interested in themselves. We see the discontent. We now see the disbelief at losing their leader. We see the disaffection growing, and the envy and the resentment—and the resentment about John Key leaving will grow, because he was their ”get out of jail free” card. He was the person who was going to ensure the fourth term, and now he is gone.

I believe that we are now seeing that the knives are out. The new suits are being bought, the flash ties are being put on, and the people who would like to be the next Prime Minister are going round and sitting next to colleagues. In fact, colleagues on the other side have told me that they have never had so many phone calls from their caucus in their lives. You see, the knives are out, and what is going to be interesting is which knife will be the sharpest one. Will it be Judith Collins’ stiletto—you know, the one that slips in very, very easily? It slips in when you are not watching. It is called “the silent killer of ambition”.

Then we have got Jonathan Coleman. Well, he will have the scalpel. He will be wielding it with a total lack of precision, because he knows how good he is, even if everybody else does not. We are going to see, between him and Bill English, what has been called “the battle of the mustards”: the Colemans and the English mustards are going to be now battling over the leadership.

And then we have got Bill English. The knife that he is going to have is an old rusty carving knife. It has been in the back drawer for 13 years, and I have to tell Bill English that it is actually beyond sharpening. So then we have got Paula Bennett. She has not put her name in, but she is looking for a position. She has got a boning knife, you see. She is expert at removing meat from the bone, and she practised it first on beneficiaries, so she is certainly very skilled with the boning knife. And then, of course, Steven Joyce has got the utility knife. He has got the knife that goes across all portfolios, and especially portfolios where there are lots of stuff-ups. So what we know is that, across there, the fight has begun.

Do you know that they have got two ABCs already? They have got “anyone but Coleman” and “anyone but Collins”. They have got two ABBs—no, three ABBs: “anyone but Bill”, “anyone but Bennett”, and “anyone but Bridges”. So the battle is on.

As I said, the phones are running hot. We are here, watching, but what we are telling New Zealanders, while National members fight amongst themselves, is that we have a plan to take New Zealand forward and make this a much better place than it is now.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Pēnei te āhuatanga o te kōrero i runga i te marae. I te wiki kua hipa ake ka pā mai te āhuatanga o aituā ki Te Ao Māori i roto o Tauranga Moana, ka mutu, i Taranaki anō hoki. I te wiki kua hipa i tae mai a Taranaki ki konei, me poroporoaki ka tika, ki tērā o ngā whaea a Whero Bailey, ka mutu, ki a Awanui Black i mate i roto o Tauranga Moana, me te kī atu: haere koutou ki te pō uriuri ki te pō tangotango.

Kia hoki mai ki a tātau e hui nei i tēnei ahiahi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa. Kei te tū ake kaua ki te whaiwhai haere i ngā kōrero o tētahi atu, kāo, ēngari ki te mihi ki Te Pirimia, ki a John Key, mō te āhuatanga o tana piringa, otirā, tana hononga ki Te Pāti Māori i ngā 8 tau kua hipa ake. Me pēnei te kī, mai i te tīmatanga mai o te noho o Te Nāhinara hei kāwanatanga mō tēnei whenua, i tuku te tono ki a mātau o Te Pāti Māori mō te noho hei hoa haere. Ēhara i te mea me pērā rawa ka tika—kāo. He tono. He pōhiri ki a mātau o Te Pāti Māori kia noho atu hei hoa haere mō Te Rōpū Nāhinara.

I hangaia tētahi kirimana e mea ana, āe, me pōti Te Pāti Māori ki te taha o Te Nāhinara, o te kāwanatanga o te rā, mō Te Tahua Pūtea Nui, ia tau, ia tau, me pērā ka tika kia tau ai te āhuatanga o Te Whare Pāremata, otirā, o Te Kāwanatanga. Ka rua, e āhei ana mātau ki te whakahē i te kāwanatanga mēnā koirā te tikanga, ē, kāore he raruraru ēngari, me whakapā atu ki te kāwanatanga kia mōhio mārama a ia ki te āhuatanga o te noho. Ka toru, kia whai wāhi mātau, ka whiwhi i ngā painga, ko Whānau Ora tērā, ko Ngā Take Tiriti tērā, ko te Kermadecs, ko te Mātāwai, ko Te Ture Whenua Māori. Ēnei take katoa kia taea e mātou te kōkiri ki mua i te aro o Te Whare Pāremata, mā reira ka taea te kōkiri ngā take o Te Pāti Māori. Ka toru, kia noho tētahi hei Minita. Ka whā—he aha rānei—ka mutu, ka whiwhi i a mātou ngā moni mai i Te Tahua Pūtea ka taka mai ki Te Pāti Māori.

He aha i pēnei ai taku kōrero? I te mea ēnei āhuatanga, kua puta nā runga i te āhuatanga o te noho o John Key hei Pirimia mō Aotearoa me te āhuatanga o te hononga ki a mātou o Te Pāti Māori. Nō reira, koinei te tū ake ki te mihi ki a ia, kaua mōku ake, kaua mō taku tuahine e noho nei ēngari, he kōrero anō rā tēnei. Kāore e kore, kai roto i te ngākau o Tā Pita Sharples i te wā i a ia, o Kahurangi Tariana Tūria i te wā i a ia. Nō reira, hei whakamāmā i te āhuatanga o ngā meneti kei mua i a au, ka huri ki Te Reo Pākehā mō te wā poto.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This contribution is similar to a delivery on the marae. Last week Māoridom was affected by the circumstance of death in Tauranga, and then in Taranaki also. In the week just gone Taranaki arrived here and, quite aptly, one of the aunties, Whero Bailey, was accorded a farewell tribute, and afterwards one was accorded to Awanui Black, who died in Tauranga, and with due respect I say to them: go forth to the dark and immensely dark void.

Allow me to come back to us assembled here this afternoon, so greetings and salutations to you collectively, and an appreciation to us all. I rise not to follow on in the tenor of the contributions by others, no, but rather to compliment the Prime Minister, John Key, on the circumstances of his allegiance and connection to the Māori Party in the past 8 years. Let me put it this way, from the beginning that National remained the Government for this nation, an invitation came to us of the Māori Party in regard to becoming an associate alongside of it. It was not as a right though—no. He asked. It was an invitation to us of the Māori Party to remain as an associate with the National Government.

A contract was created, and it stated that, yes, the Māori Party would vote alongside of National, the Government of the day, for the Budget each year, and that it should take into account circumstances that relate to the House of Parliament but at the same time to those circumstances that relate to the Government. Secondly, we were able to oppose the Government if that indeed was procedure, and there was not a problem, but we were to contact the Government so that it clearly understood the circumstances regarding our position. Thirdly, it stated that we be involved, and that we reap benefits, being from Whānau Ora, matters relating to the Treaty, the Kermadecs, Te Mātāwai, and the Māori Land Act. We the Māori Party will be able to champion all these matters before the House of Parliament, and by doing that we will be able to champion matters of concern to us. Thirdly, it stated for one of us to remain as a Minister. Fourthly—or whatever—to eventually receive cash from the Budget that will trek down to the Māori Party.

Why has my address gone this way? Because these situations have emerged as a consequence of the situation as to why John Key has remained as Prime Minister for New Zealand and because of his relationship with us of the Māori Party. Therefore, this is why I got up to acknowledge him, not for me personally, not for my colleague sister sitting here, but this again is indeed another conversation. Without a doubt, it might have been in the heart of Sir Pita Sharples in his time here and in the heart of Dame Tariana Tūria when she was here. And so, to ease the circumstances pertaining to the minutes that I have before me, I will turn to speak in English for a brief moment.]

I stand to acknowledge the Prime Minister, not necessarily getting another opportunity to do it on behalf of the Māori Party to the Prime Minister of the day, John Key, and thank him for his willingness to work with the Māori Party.

People have to remember that the Māori Party has an arrangement that comes about from a tono, an invitation, to sit next to National. In the 8 years that we have been here—actually, longer than that—but in the 8 years that we have had a relationship with the National Party it has come about from a tono, from an invitation, from the Prime Minister to the Māori Party to sit as a partner with Government. Why? Because, for whatever reason, the Prime Minister felt that we brought something extra, something dynamic, something unique, something wonderful, something mana-enhancing, something beautiful, something—

💬 Marama Fox: Advantageous.

Advantageous, that is right.

💬 Marama Fox: Valuable.

We brought something valuable—all of those words, my sister—to the country. But also, strangely enough, he allowed us to vote against the Government if we wanted to. He, as well as other Ministers, has acknowledged that sometimes that is not always the best thing, from their perspective. But for our part, and certainly for me, from Marama my colleague—and from the Hon Dr Sir Pita Sharples and Dame Tariana Turia, I am sure that they bring a huge amount of respect for the Prime Minister John Key for what he has done with this mana-enhancing relationship. It has always been on the whole ingredient of an element of integrity, of being straight-up, of being true to your word, and being trustworthy in the words that you say to one another. Even as recently as 5 minutes ago we acknowledged that in his office, by saying thank you for the contribution, not only to the country, but certainly for allowing the Māori Party to be with the National Party, when he has never ever needed us but he has believed in us as bringing something absolutely extra to the relationship accord with the National Government.

And have we achieved things? Hell, yeah! If it had not been for the ability to sit next to our Government, Te Mātāwai, Ture Whenua Māori, the Māori Purposes Bill, Whānau Ora—all of these programmes would not be in front of us. So we have, as you would understand, a huge amount of respect for him. We wish him well in the future. We understand that his whānau is important, and we allow him to go back to his whānau with our best interests. We wish him well.

There are times in life when it is appropriate to be gracious. I want to associate myself with the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Bill English, and the Hon Gerry Brownlee. In particular, I want to acknowledge the very warm and generous tributes of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, David Seymour from the ACT Party, who spoke before him, and also the Hon Peter Dunne who, although he has not spoken in this debate today, made similarly complimentary remarks yesterday.

It does not mean that any of the leaders of those parties endorses everything that the National Party leads on and decides—far from it—and that is a matter of public record. But we have there the leaders of three parties who have shown that through relationships where there is mutual respect, a genuine desire to focus on the issues that matter to New Zealanders, and a realisation that under the MMP system of politics at times compromises are necessary, we have enjoyed, over the last 8 years, a highly successful period in Government. I warmly salute all three of those parties for their significant contributions to that. What a shame, therefore, that we have not seen the same degree of graciousness from members who have spoken from across the House, although I do acknowledge the remarks that the Hon Annette King commenced with and I thank her for that.

So, like most New Zealanders, I did not wake up yesterday expecting the Prime Minister to announce his resignation. But after I got over the shock of what had occurred and thought about it later in the day, I realised that, actually, it was exactly what I have always expected—that John Key would choose the timing and the manner of his departure, and that he would have the opportunity to leave this House with his head held high and enjoying the appreciation and admiration of an overwhelming number of New Zealanders. And that, in itself, is a very rare achievement for any politician.

Despite the cheap and churlish attacks that we heard, particularly from the New Zealand First Party today and also from the leader of the Greens, the fact of the matter is that our Prime Minister has always—and unrelentingly—focused on the things that matter most to New Zealanders. One of the reasons why I have been so proud to be a member of the party while he has been our Prime Minister has been that we have made a significant difference in areas that matter, through some of the most challenging times that our country could possibly have imagined. No one else in our lifetime has governed through a global financial crisis of such magnitude. No one else in our lifetime has had to lead a country through the devastating Canterbury earthquakes and, more recently, the Kaikōura earthquake, its impact on Wellington, and the long period of instability and huge fiscal impact that those events have had.

We have also seen a number of other major challenges—the Rena disaster, Pike River, floods, and you name it. So it goes on. On every one of those occasions, the Prime Minister and the team he has led have stood beside the people who were affected, and have been there to provide the support that is necessary. That is why he has maintained the gratitude and the respect of so many New Zealanders.

In 2002 John Key and I were both new candidates for the National Party. I have to say that his campaign, as the candidate for Helensville, was considerably more successful than mine was that year, in the devastating election that saw me absolutely hammered in Tauranga. But I enjoyed getting to know him then, hugely admired watching his progress during the next few years, and was very pleased to see him take the leadership of the party when he did.

I believe that New Zealanders, generally, will acknowledge him warmly. Contrary to what Mr Prosser said, the historians will look back on some of the issues that I have just referred to, and the really significant role that our minor party supporters have played—particularly over the Treaty settlement process—and they will judge him highly, as he deserves to be. It is never possible to please all of the people all of the time, but to have retained the level of support that he has done in the polls is no coincidence; it shows that he has been somebody who has been there focusing on the things that matter. And he has achieved wonderful things with the delivery of Better Public Services; the Treaty settlement process, which I have referred to; the focus, in particular, on vulnerable New Zealanders by raising benefits, introducing free doctors visits for children under 13, measures to deal with our problems, particularly for emergency housing—the list goes on—and his unrelenting focus on raising standards of achievement in education.

He has been an outstanding Prime Minister, he leaves a legacy that will be admired—and is admired—by international leaders, and I am incredibly proud to have been a part of that team. I salute him and I thank him sincerely on behalf of my constituents and all New Zealanders.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.