General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I am proud to be the Minister of Education in a positive, pragmatic, future-focused National Government, led by a fantastic Prime Minister in Bill English. This Government is delivering results for young New Zealanders. We are ensuring that every young person in New Zealand can read, write, do maths, and be digitally fluent, and is healthy and able to compete in a modern world. We are united and positive, compared with the Opposition, which is in a shambles.

You cannot understand what its education policy is. Take partnership schools: it is very difficult to understand what it actually believes. If we listen to Chris Hipkins, he says: “Partnership schools are gone. The legislation will be repealed.” Willie Jackson says: “I truly believe in the partnership schools model.” The Opposition’s stance on partnership schools will not get a pass mark from me. Peeni Henare says: “The bottom line is, why would you stop something that is working?”. The reality is that for some of our most disadvantaged students—Māori and Pacific young people who are getting a chance in life—we do not know what the policy is under that Labour Opposition. It is more likely they will not get this chance in the future. These young people deserve better.

Take communities of online learning—again, a positive, pragmatic Government focusing on ensuring that young people get opportunities that they have never had before. What is the Labour Party’s position? It opposes it, on purely ideological grounds. In fact, what is the reason that the Labour Party opposes a lot of this education policy? It is because it is led by Andrew Little, who has a union background. That is the reality.

The reality is that National has a positive plan for education. We are investing more in ensuring that young people are in early childhood education. We are ensuring that Māori and Pasifika achievement is raised—in some cases in New Zealand by more than 20 percent. We had a fantastic previous Minister of Education. Can I acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata for all of the amazing work that she has done.

We are amending the Education Act. We are delivering communities of online learning where there are achievement challenges that we have never had before. We are investing in behavioural services to help those young people who are more disruptive in the classroom. We are investing in oral language development. We are helping more young people than ever before. We are positive, pragmatic, and united, against the backdrop of a Labour Party that cannot even agree on one single policy. I am proud to be the Minister of Education under this Government.

I would like to say that the director of the Department of Conservation said the other day: “We believe our nature will thrive when all New Zealanders engage their hearts, minds, and hands to conserve the natural environment.” And I think that it would be great if the Minister of Conservation actually took that advice, because we have a spectacle at the moment of a Government that, on the one hand, says it is committed to conservation, that it is committed to protecting the kiwi, that it has a strategy in place—that it launched this morning—for our threatened species, and at the same time wants to open up a portion of conservation land for coalmining.

I have to say, I am utterly flabbergasted because it is completely inconsistent to, on the one hand, say that you are committed to conservation—to be a Minister of Conservation and at the same time to even consider the notion of coalmining on conservation estate is utterly absurd. The Department of Conservation looks after a third of New Zealand’s land mass on half a percent of the Government’s Budget. I will just say that again: the Department of Conservation looks after a third of New Zealand’s land mass on half a percent of its Budget. It is right up against the wall. In real terms, its budget has been cut considerably over the course of the lifetime of this National-led Government. And now, you have the spectacle of a Minister of Conservation attempting to defend the notion of coalmining on conservation land. There is no way that you can have a kiwi protection plan, on the one hand, and say that you are going to be coalmining in a kiwi habitat on the other. There is no way to say that you are going to have a threatened species strategy on one hand, and to put a coalmine into a kiwi habitat on the other hand.

Not only that, the Department of Conservation itself—I am going to read this out from its website—says “Climate change poses a significant risk to New Zealand’s native species and ecosystems.”; in other words, the very thing that the Department of Conservation is there to protect. Climate change represents a significant risk to that, and what we know is that if the world burns its existing coal reserves—its existing coal reserves that it knows about—then there is simply no way that we are going to be able to keep global warming to under 2 degrees. In fact, 82 percent of the existing coal reserves on this planet cannot be burnt if you are to have any hope of keeping global warming to under 2 degrees. So the idea of having a coalmine on conservation land, digging up coal to be burned, and at the same time saying that you have got any hope, any hope at all, of trying to keep New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions down and keeping global warming to under 2 degrees is completely inconsistent.

Now today the Associate Minister said that there was a $22 million compensation package from a coalmining company to the Department of Conservation. Well, compensation for what? What is a compensation package for? It is compensating for damaging the environment, which in this case is a kiwi habitat. So the very nature of this pay-off demonstrates that we know that the coalmine is damaging the local environment down there. What is it compensating for? It is compensating for degrading the local environment, which is a kiwi habitat, and that raises the question: how can you possibly, as a Government, on the one hand say that you are committed to protecting kiwi, and, on the other hand, take 30 pieces of silver in return from a coalmining company that we know is going to damage the environment in which those kiwi live. It is an utterly absurd proposition.

The idea that you can have a coalmine in a kiwi habitat and maintain any semblance of a commitment to the environment, as a Government, is completely absurd. I think that none of this conserves the New Zealand environment. If you are going to have a Government that is truly committed to protecting New Zealand’s natural environment, you need to change the Government. And change is coming.

I have had the joy this week of getting around many, many businesses, as part of Techweek, where we are noticing and understanding the incredibly important role that the R & D and tech sector has in the New Zealand economy. This is a strong economy that we are living in at the moment—a very strong economy that is robust. It has generated 137,000 new jobs in the last year, and 29,000 in the last 3 months. Unemployment is below 5 percent and we have got good, strong growth in the next few years ahead. Young Kiwis growing up in this country are not leaving in droves like they used to. They know that they have the opportunity to succeed and flourish and reach their dreams in this country because we have a strong economy.

I have also had the opportunity to announce today a pre-Budget announcement of an extra $75,000 million going into Callaghan Innovation growth grants over the next 4 years. They are there to help support and encourage our businesses to invest in R & D, which they have been doing in big volumes over the last couple of years. We have seen a significant increase in investment in R & D over the last couple of years. And so I am proud of that announcement, but it is part of a broader innovation strategy that we have for this country. We want to see our New Zealand companies succeeding internationally and competing internationally around the world as strong, innovative companies.

What can the Government usefully do? Well, actually, the most useful thing that any Government can do is provide that strong, stable, predictable environment where people feel comfortable to invest. When we look across the House, the potential for strong, stable Government in the years to come, if the triple-headed monster on the other side were to get into power, is very slight indeed. When you cannot have the Labour Party even working out whether it supports a basic policy like charter schools, you know that it is internally divided.

We see around the world the consequences of Governments when they have been riven by internal dissension. In this country we have had an absence of that over the last 8 years as we in the National Party, with our coalition partners, have been lock step in unity and understanding, with a single sense of purpose. That makes a big difference in terms of raising the confidence that investors have in this country to invest. It is only, ultimately, people, individuals, making a decision to hire somebody, to start a new firm, to invest in R & D—they are the sorts of things that actually produce growth.

Aside from that, it is also important to invest in infrastructure and that is why we have invested so much money in ultra-fast broadband so that companies have access to high-speed internet. We also have invested very significantly in the science infrastructure that New Zealand companies can draw on. I mean, why do we invest the $1.3 billion a year that we put into science? Well, fundamentally, it is about—when I step back and ask what we are trying to achieve in Government, we are trying, ultimately, to raise the living standards of all New Zealanders. You can do that by strengthening the economy and making it more productive, but you can also do it by delivering better public services.

That is not the only thing that Governments do. Governments also try to preserve and enhance what is special about New Zealand, and that is the quality of our environment. But it is also our way of life, our social cohesion. We also have a contribution to make to the world. When you look at the contribution that science and innovation can make to those things, it is powerful. Good quality science can inform and empower our New Zealand economies to be more internationally productive, come up with ideas, and solve business problems. Science can also inform our decision making in Government, with better research-based and evidence-based decision-making, which is essential to good public policy.

When it comes to preserving what is special about New Zealand, I have had the opportunity over this week to visit some of the national science challenges, which are dealing with very difficult issues that we face around biodiversity about water quality, about housing—all those issues that the science community can help understand and better equip us to deal with those issues. We can also make a global contribution.

So that is why we invest as heavily as we do, and that is why I am so pleased that we are part of a strong economy. We have got so much optimism that, when we look over the next few years ahead, this is a country that is well-equipped with skilful young workers, people who are innovative, entrepreneurial, and determined to do well in this world. We have had a good, strong Government for 8 years and I hope that we will get another 8 years so we can strengthen that foundation for the New Zealand economy. Thank you very much.

Yesterday an open letter was presented to MPs on the steps of Parliament, and we saw very quickly in the response from the Government just how arrogant and out of touch it has become. That was personified in the person of Jonathan Coleman, the Minister of Health, who, today, again ducked and dived and avoided answering questions about the experiences of people within New Zealand’s mental health system. He refused to answer questions that were plain by referring to a previous answer where he said that his target was somebody who had done the compiling of the material and not the actual material itself. When asked about the specifics of that material—the experience of underfunding in the health system, under-resourcing, staff stretched, and people getting very close to taking their own lives—he was silent. He was silent on those matters.

I think that speaks to his inability to wrestle with the issue that New Zealand is facing right now, and that is a 60 percent increase—a 60 percent increase—in people accessing mental health services in the last decade. The system is creaking at the seams. The police are being called into wards. Senior nurses are leaving the service of those acute psychiatric units. People in the community are feeling abandoned. That is the world we are living in, and the Government does not seem to have a response, and, when it does have one, it is flippant—it is to dismiss as left-wing, anti-Government activists those who bring their concerns to Parliament. That is what the Minister said. He dismissed and diminished the experience of those people by dismissing and diminishing the way in which those experiences were brought to this Parliament for us all to see.

The requests in that report are not unreasonable; they are for an urgent funding increase for mental health. We know this Government has underfunded the health sector by $1.7 billion over the last 6 years, and that is a conservative estimate, using Treasury’s own figures, by independent research agency Infometrics. It discerned that when you look into health inflation, a growing population, and an ageing demographic, just to stand still the health system would have needed another $1.7 billion over the last 6 years. So, in that situation, where mental health is often the poor cousin, its funding has been starved. We understand that mental health funding has gone up around 28 percent over that period, while the need has gone up 60 percent. You do not need to be a mathematician to work out that that is a shortfall and that people will fall through the cracks and lived lives will be hit hard by the inability to cope and by the lack of support for those across New Zealand who are facing difficult situations and who are facing the challenges that come with mental health issues.

I think we would have also seen a different response if Labour had been in Government, because Labour is a party that cares about primary health, that cares about people’s lived experiences in the community, and that seeks to support people with early intervention, at a mild to moderate level in the mental health spectrum, to make sure that people receive the need early. That is what we will be doing as a party, and we will be soon be announcing the ways in which we are going to make that a more real experience—the ways in which fresh thinking can be applied to these issues to make sure that New Zealanders can be confident that their mental health system is able to respond to the need that is out there and that is growing.

I know that Andrew Little would have done a different thing if one of the members of his Cabinet had criticised the people who delivered the message—he would have pulled them into line. But we have, with Bill English, someone who has a failure of leadership. He is content to see that thing slide. He is content to let Jonathan Coleman stew in his own juices. He is not providing the leadership required to fix the sector and to address the issues—the independent oversight that has been called for, the additional funding that has been called for, and the review that is urgently needed to make sure that our mental health system is fit for purpose and is there to support the New Zealanders who need it most in their time of need.

Labour will be there for those people in a way that this Government has never been. So I would ask members of this House to consider whether, in this upcoming Budget, the Government could not be a little more generous in supporting those people who need it most in our society, because I think a Government is best judged by how it treats the most vulnerable amongst us.

There is a phrase I have often given in graduations or prize-givings, which is: “Education may be the power, but attitude is the key for change.” I believe that is critically important. I want to announce that I was very proud, nearly 3 weeks ago, up in Auckland, to be able to announce, as the Minister for Pacific Peoples, nine scholarships called the Toloa Tertiary Scholarships for education, which are particularly for graduates, in particular for the STEM subjects: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. We had nine that were awarded—$25,000 scholarships. There were 53 applicants. We now have, for the first time, again, another nine that were put through under this Government, to try to ensure that Pasifika are well represented in their place. It was pride of place for the families to see their young people do well. Why? Because education is critically important to them.

We can also say that, under this Government, its reputation in regard to education is critically important. Before, there were never targets. If you think about early childhood education, I am proud to say that, under this Government, the participation rate for early childhood education for Pasifika is at 92.5 percent—92.5 percent. Why does that become important? Because we know that if our young people, as Pasifika, do not have the opportunity to go through Te Whāriki and the early childhood education system and are not able to have the basic building blocks, then they often lag behind in regard to literacy and numeracy—92.5 percent is critical.

We can also see the results, as they track through the compulsory sector of education, in the NCEA results—80 percent for 18-year-old Pasifika students. That is critically important. I suppose what does become a concern, if we think about the whole phrase around “attitude is the key”, is, I think, the fact that with attitude it is the opportunity to choose. And the announcement by the Opposition that it will do away with partnership schools if it becomes the Government becomes a concern for our Pasifika communities and our Māori communities. Why? Because over 50 percent of those partnership schools—the 10 that are there—and 93 percent of the 1,200 students who are there are Māori and Pacific. Māori and Pacific. Why is it that they have chosen partnerships schools as an opportunity? Why? Because the mainstream system has been failing for a number of our kids.

It is a concern when the Opposition does not choose to support the voice and the concerns of our Māori and Pasifika communities, who are saying: “Give us an option. Give us a choice.” That is as simple as it gets: “Give us a choice.” I have been at the announcement, for instance, when there was The Rise UP Academy in Māngere—when Sita got up and when they got up and they turned around and said: “In Māngere, all we want is the opportunity to choose. Give our children a go. Give our children a go.” That is all they have asked for. The challenge of that is this: if the Opposition talks about how it is for Māori and Pasifika communities, why does it not give them a go? It is a small percentage of the whole of the educational sector, but, you know, 1,200 kids? It cannot even do that—it cannot even do that.

Here are the reasons why it all got a bit twisted: when Andrew Little thought he had his trump card—Andrew Little’s Willie Jackson. He thought he had his trump card, but here is where it got a bit sticky: Willie Jackson’s kura is a partnership school. He is also, too, a supporter of Whānau Ora, so it gets a little bit tricky; it gets a little bit hard. Those are the reasons why. It gets difficult for those communities, and I know that the other member who is here—he is not here in the House, and I cannot mention him, because he is not here—one of the Pasifika members in the Labour Party, over in Māngere, knows the fact is that, in Māngere, the Pasifika constituents there want this partnership school. They support it.

The Rise UP Academy is a Pasifika partnership school that is making a difference for these kids. But what will they say when they hear the words from Chris Hipkins? The Labour Party position on charter schools is crystal clear: “We don’t support their establishment. When we are next in Government, the legislation that allows for this creation will be repealed.” In other words, they will do away with it. Theirs is a divided house. Peeni Henare supports it. Kelvin Davis supports it. We know that is there as well. And Willie Jackson on the outside—what happens if he gets in? He supports it as well.

The challenge for that Opposition is this: we know we are doing a good job; the results speak for themselves. In fact, you can see it at Vanguard Military School with 92.7 percent, 94.2 percent, and 88 percent from National Certificate of Educational Achievement levels 1, 2, and 3. The proof is in the pudding. If you are making a difference, if it is successful, why would you take it away again? Why take away the freedom of a community? We are talking about 1,200 children—1,200 children—in the education system, a community of Māori, Pasifika, and others, saying: “Give us a choice.” But you cannot do that, because you are mean-spirited, you are unorganised, you are disordered, and you cannot make a difference. Partnership schools are making a difference for our Māori and Pasifika communities. Thank you.

It is $1.7 billion. That is, essentially, the fiscal cut that this National Government has made in the health services. More importantly, what we see—very sadly, actually—is that this cut hurts our people. The kinds of people who are feeling the full effect of this cut are the people who are the most vulnerable: those who are trying to access our mental health services.

The number of people who are accessing or trying to access mental health services has increased by 60 percent—60 percent—since 2008. It is just unacceptable that while there has been an increase, a huge increase, in those who are trying to access mental health services, at the same time we are seeing funding cuts. What is also unacceptable is what we saw earlier on today: the response of the Minister of Health, the Hon Jonathan Coleman, saying of the folks who actually came and presented the People’s Mental Health Report to Parliament yesterday: “they’re very left-wing, anti-Government protestors.”

The folks who compiled this report, regardless of the party affiliation that they have, are 500 people who actually sent in how they experienced mental health services. Of that 500, 93 percent of them told us of problems and challenges they are experiencing when they try to access mental health services. Only 7 percent of them actually spoke about positive experiences that they are currently having with our mental health services.

We are all here as members of Parliament—121 of us. Many of us were voted in by people from our electorates, and some of us were voted in because our parties were voted in, because of the party vote. In this role, we should listen when people actually tell us that they are hurting. When over 500 people are telling us that the mental health services in New Zealand are not working for them, we should listen. We also had an addition to those 500 people: 12,800 who signed a petition. They signed it because they are calling for better services. They are demanding better public mental health services.

The full recommendations made by the People’s Mental Health Report—and, I must say, Labour supports many of them. The first that we support is the fact that we should restore the Mental Health Commission. This Mental Health Commission, we think, should never have been got rid of. The second thing that we support—one of the recommendations here—is that we should have a national education programme. We think that once we restore the Mental Health Commission, this is one of the things that the Mental Health Commission should look at. The report also calls for an inquiry into mental health services so that we identify what and where the most need is for funding, and we support that we should look into an inquiry about this. The last recommendation from the People’s Mental Health Report, which we also applaud, is the fact that it is calling for an increase in funding for mental health services.

In February of last year there was a call for a cut of $140 million from mental health services. After that call was made, several people actually came to Parliament, and we believe that because of that, the Government backtracked and gave back $20 million, especially to Canterbury.

A few weeks ago I had meetings with teachers, and several of these teachers were from Canterbury. They were telling me that, as teachers now of 7- and 8-year-olds, they are getting young 7- and 8-year-old kids who are still traumatised by the earthquakes. They were questioning why it is that it is so hard for them as teachers to refer these children on to mental health services.

We have a responsibility to ensure that we are adequately serving all of our people—our children in Canterbury as well as mental health service folks who are just trying to access services. When parents tell us that it is only when they say their teenagers are about to commit suicide that they can access services, there is something essentially wrong with that. They should not have to say that they are suicidal before they can access services. Thank you.

It is an exciting time to be part of this Government. It is an exciting time for New Zealand right now, as this Government moves into delivering its ninth Budget and, of course, building on the fact that we have had some very exciting pre-Budget announcements. Why can we do that? We can do that because this is a Government that has brought about a growing economy—growing at over 3 percent. We have continued to diversify our economy, create jobs, and build on our free-trade agreements, building on our partnerships with the rest of the world so that we can trade, sell our goods and services, and create jobs and wealth for our New Zealand families.

With our accounts in surplus, it means we are, as a country, more resilient, and that gives us choices. As I said, this means it is a very exciting time for New Zealand and very exciting for us to continue to develop our social investment programme and invest in all New Zealanders, including our youth and our young people. As a mother in the Government and having two children, I find this extremely important. When we have children, we must invest in them, because they are going to be our future leaders, they are going to be the ones who continue to lead our country forward to greatness and make sure that this is an environment where all New Zealanders can thrive and achieve their dreams.

I am particularly pleased with one of the pre-Budget announcements, which is $40.7 million over 4 years to be invested into our education system, targeted at a cohort of young people who are at risk. So $34.7 million of this $40 million package will be invested in children with behavioural issues. We know that if these children are in school and they have issues, they cannot concentrate properly if these issues are left unaddressed. Not only do they put their own learning at risk but the disruption in the classroom means that other children’s learning is at risk. So this package is going to go towards better supporting them, putting supports and teaching around them that is specialised, to get on top of these issues and help them achieve, especially in the core subjects, so that they can go on and decide what they want to do in the future and build towards that, again, to achieve their hopes and dreams.

There is $6 million of that package going towards communication, to help children who have issues at an early age communicate better. That money is going to go into developing early childhood education teachers to better identify children who have communication issues, so that, again, we can get on top of those issues, help them communicate, which in turn helps their learning, so that they can go on to primary school, secondary school, earn their NCEA levels, and, again, achieve their hopes and dreams.

That is what this Government is all about: investing in education—over $11 billion in education, one of the biggest education budgets ever seen in New Zealand, to make sure that our youth are well supported and can learn and gain the skills to equip them for life in the future.

To end with, what I would like to do is celebrate some of the fantastic educators whom I liaise with in the Invercargill electorate. I would like to celebrate and acknowledge again, for the second year running, Invercargill Middle School. The teachers there have been named again in the Prime Minister’s Education Excellence Awards for their teaching style. Katie Pennicott and Stan Tiatia there have absolutely thrown deficit learning out the door, and they believe in tailoring programmes to meet children’s needs. They spend extra time with them, they look at their needs, and they wrap what is needed around them to make sure that every single individual student achieves. For that they are recognised and for that they are celebrated, and I cannot wait for them to do well, moving forward, as their students continue to achieve.

I would like to acknowledge also Oban school, which came to visit me today, a long way from Stewart Island. But, again, through the remoter communities package, it is doing well, and I celebrate its achievement.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I am thrilled to rise on behalf of “team New Zealand First”. I think what we have seen here in the House—and the public needs to notice it—is that the National Government is still stuck in the first-past-the-post environment. It continues to refer to “the Opposition this” and “the Opposition that”. That is the Labour Party it is talking about. The New Zealand First team is cohesive and we are future-focused, not just in here but also out there, as we climb up the polls.

This is a three-way race, this election. Have no doubt, this is a three-way race, and while those two parties are bickering, New Zealand First is getting on with the job. New Zealand First is getting on with talking about and creating education policy that actually works for education, and creating economic policy that actually works for our businesses. We are not buying into this back-and-forward slanging rhetoric; we are actually on the hustings, talking to those businesses, and talking to the real-life, practical solutions that we need to do to make Government work for New Zealand.

Last week I was at Warkworth Primary School. Many other members of Parliament were also asked to walk a day in the shoes of support staff, and I was at Warkworth Primary School. I find it fascinating—and Ms Dowie just remarked—that there is now another $34.7 million somewhere that this Government pulled out of a bucket after cutting, in 2009, all the specialist support staff for schools because it wanted to put in national standards.

💬 Sarah Dowie: You didn’t listen, again—two ears, one mouth, Tracey.

You may not know this, Ms Dowie. That is all right. You may not know what has actually happened, but in 2009 your Government cut the funding, and now the failures are showing. It left children out there.

We have got a little 5-year-old at Warkworth Primary School who has got type 1 diabetes. He gets funded by your Government for 21 hours. He is at school for 30 hours. He will go into a diabetic coma if he is not monitored all the time, but, somehow, Ms Dowie, your Government believes it is appropriate to fund him for only 21 hours.

💬 Sarah Dowie: Eleven billion dollars into the education budget—$11 billion.

Your Government has no idea what it is doing. That $11 billion is for property, Ms Dowie, and for charter schools. Nearly $1 million—$900,000—was taken by the sponsors of Vanguard Military School and given to a private company. How do you justify that, Ms Dowie? You make statements, platitudes, inside this House while knowing nothing and while walking around and swallowing the rhetoric that Mrs Kaye and Ms Parata feed you. Invest in your own education, Ms Dowie. Invest in your own education, because that is what New Zealand First will be doing.

Let us talk about the intensive wraparound service that this Government says—and Ms Parata stood up in this House and said that there is nobody on the waiting list for the intensive wraparound service. What she neglected to tell Parliament and the people of New Zealand was that, actually, at the beginning of this year the intensive wraparound service sent a message out to all the schools in New Zealand and said: “There’s no more room. Don’t apply.” So there is no waiting list because “There’s no more room. Don’t apply.”

That is a little piece of information the New Zealand public should know, and the reason why? The reason why this Government decided to reach into this bucket over here, which suddenly, magically, has got all this money in it, even though National has said for almost a decade now that there is no more money. It reached into this bucket because parents realised. Parents came with their special-needs children to the select committee and said “The system is failing. The Government said ‘We’re not putting any more money into it.’ ”, and those members over there know it because they articulated that statement. The Government was putting no more money into it. Suddenly, there was an uproar. Parents got up on their feet and started to make noise, and, suddenly, this Government found $34 million.

We had Pat Newman up in Northland making a call to newspapers because we have got children with knives threatening to kill themselves and others, and this Government originally said: “Call the police.” It originally said: “Call the police.” Now it has found some money, but is that not a shame? The polling—the polling.

I say to the New Zealand public that New Zealand First is the cohesive team that you need for the 2017 election. We will lead this Government after 23 September, so keep coming to us, voters of New Zealand. Keep coming to us. Look to our policies. Talk to our people, because both of those parties have let you down.

A very wise political leader once said that a house divided against itself will not stand. What we see when we look across to the Labour Opposition is confirmation of a modern truism, in my view, which is that a party that is divided against itself will never lead. I repeat that for all of you who are wanting to hear it: a party divided against itself will never lead.

I have looked across at the Labour Party and assessed those members over the last 2 or 3 weeks with their list debacle, both in terms of trying to get somebody with slightly independent thought on to their list—then to demote him against his expectations—and the management of that within their party; and the charter schools performance in the last 24 hours, where they have two or three people in their party who hold the view that, actually, you know, it is quite right to have children and parents at the centre of their thinking. But, no, the captain’s call has come over the top and said: “No, we’re going to back the teacher unions and the unions over the parents and the students.” And, of course, we have heard the suggestion of Māori prisons. Again, that has been kiboshed from the top. I am sorry, there is no—

💬 Louisa Wall: You can take it. You can implement it. Go for it.

You can put on a forced smile when you come here, when the Labour Party speaks here for every hour at question time. You can feign energy to the extent that, as a caucus, you might have it, but at the core is the fundamental truth that you are divided within yourselves. You do not have leadership, you do not have a united vision, and the rest of the country can see it.

The National Party, over the last 8½ years, can be defined by competence and professionalism. To the New Zealanders who may be watching this today, I accept that not everything we have done over the last 8½ years will have got your support, but I bet that in your heart of hearts you know that when you apply the challenge and criteria of competence, professionalism, and the ability to navigate the country through difficult times and deliver for the majority of New Zealanders, there is only one party that can deliver, and it has delivered over the 8½ years. In your heart of hearts, those who are watching will know that the Labour Party simply does not have the inherent coherence and collective view to be able to mount an effective campaign.

I am very, very proud of the record that this Government takes into the election, and that in particular is going to be enforced by what we hear over the next 2 weeks, when the Budget comes out. The fact that we can sit here after what the world has gone through, and what a number of economies are still going through, and talk to the second or third year of surpluses and a number of surpluses going in front of us; the fact that we are able to spend an extra $11 billion on infrastructure, which will mean $23 billion of infrastructural spending over the next 3 years on roads, on hospitals, and on schools; the fact that we have 252,000 New Zealanders involved in the construction industry and we have got 45,000 New Zealanders involved in apprenticeships; and the fact that we have an economy that is performing in the top two or three in the world—that gives us choices. The fact is that this Government—the National Government—can apply those choices to the benefit of all New Zealanders, we can look to retire debt, and we can look to invest in the social needs of this country. We are not underpinned by an old idea of the winners on the social stage being those who spend the most, but we are a party that can apply a logic around how to invest, from a Government agency perspective, in partnership with NGOs, to actually deliver a real outcome.

This is a party that is prepared to be able to put its money where its mouth is in that respect and to be able to do it in a considered way that delivers real outcomes. When you overlay that—the level of competence and professionalism that we have seen as we have run through into the start of this year—I think the contrast is extraordinary. When you pivot to the city that I, along with Simon Bridges, have the privilege of representing, which is Tauranga and the wider Western Bay of Plenty, the sense of momentum and optimism and ambition that the city is experiencing at the moment is extraordinary. There are high levels of migration, high levels of employment, high levels of labour participation, and some of the lowest times of applicants for jobs that we have ever seen. It is an extraordinary time to be part of a community that is so upbeat, so confident about their future, and I am very sure of and very supportive of another 3 years of a National-led Government. Thank you.

On the back of hearing how great the economy is for New Zealanders, I want to lay down a challenge for this Government: I want it to turn its economy to working for women. When this Government first came to power, one of the first things it did was shut down the gender pay equity employment unit within the State Services Commission, and it stopped plans to end the underpayment—otherwise called “exploitation”—of school support staff, amongst other women workers in the Public Service. There was a brief moment ahead of the 2011 election, in the wake of public outrage over a business leader suggesting that women get paid less because we bleed and have babies, when John Key strode through the outrage to say that National would have a look at the bill I have in front of the House this evening.

But then the Government intervened on behalf of the employers when it came up against Kristine Bartlett and her union and other caregivers wanting equal pay. It was only when court after court ruled in favour of those women that the Government decided it was time to start negotiating their fair pay. So we need to be clear that, up to this point, this Government has been no friend to women.

The Government was forced to settle with caregivers, and there is no mistaking that this is a phenomenal victory that will go down in the history books—a victory for working women. But I have to say that it is not pay equity, and that is explicit in the agreement in the settlement. The money will still be phased in over 5 years, and this is despite the Employment Court ruling that economic arguments were used to justify slavery and, as such, were not appropriate considerations when it came to ending the exploitation of women’s labour. The Government ignored that point and all of the options that were available to it to immediately end the exploitation of those incredibly hard-working people.

But on the heels of all the amazing energy around that settlement and the public congratulations, the Government has now put out the draft for its new equal pay legislation. And you might hope that that would continue on in the vein of that settlement, but no. What it does is make it harder for women coming afterwards to get equal pay. This bill overturns a key court ruling. It introduces an additional criterion that women will have to prove in order to be able to make their case, it only allows women access to employer information once they have proven the merit of their claim, it removes the standard right for back pay if the dispute is resolved by determination, and, not to mention, it restricts the right to strike for pay equity.

The Government says it wants to make it easier for women to claim pay equity without having to go to the court, but it is neglecting the fact that this settlement for the Kristine Bartlett case was not made in the court. It was made through negotiation, proving that the decisions of the Employment Court actually work in the environment of the Employment Relations Act. So why is the Government messing with this model, which has delivered? This ruling is how the 55,000 women got paid more, and now the Government is seeking to undermine those very rulings that are delivering for women, just like it did with family carers.

So tonight, in this House, my member’s bill is coming up for a vote, and tomorrow consultation on the Government’s dodgy draft bill will close. The Green Party is fighting for women to be paid more, with real solutions that will make a difference. This is an opportunity for the Government to do something to be on the side of women for once. The Government had to settle the equal pay claims of Kristine Bartlett and 55,000 others—it had no choice. Now the Government has a choice on two bills, and the choice needs to be for women.

Well, the last few weeks have been utterly disastrous for the New Zealand Labour Party, and I take three key things away from the debacle over partnership schools and its list. I take away that, first, Labour is hopelessly internally divided; secondly, Andrew Little has absolutely no authority over his own caucus; and, thirdly—and most importantly—Labour is not ready to govern this country.

Let us start with internal division. Nowhere is this better evidenced than in the absolute debacle over partnership schools. It is easy to forget that this controversy inside the Labour Party has a long history. It is not just from the last few days and weeks. Kelvin Davis lost his associate education spokesmanship for attending a partnership school fund-raiser in defiance of his leader. Peeni Henare went with him, as well.

Why is it that a lot of Māori MPs inside the Labour Party want to support partnership schools? Because they know they are making a difference. They are working. They are targeting young Kiwis who have traditionally missed out on the educational advantages that others enjoy. It is a new model of school and an innovative approach to tackling educational disadvantage, and it just staggers me that the social democratic party—or, at least, the allegedly social democratic party—that is the Labour Party cannot get on board with something as progressive and as equitable as partnership schools. The biggest proponent of partnership schools worldwide was Barack Obama. They have been implemented in democratic states around the United States, and the Labour Māori caucus knows they are working.

Then we get to Willie Jackson, who said “I truly believe in the partnership school model.”, and who criticised the Labour education spokesperson, Chris Hipkins, and gave him an E for his bill that purported to shut down partnership schools. As Peeni Henare said, why would you want to stop something that is working? He said that that is the bottom line. So Labour is hopelessly internally divided.

Chris Hipkins said: “Don’t worry; the policy is crystal clear.” Well, it is clear as mud. Willie Jackson, who is going to potentially—if is he ranked high enough—enter the Labour Party caucus after the election, runs a partnership school and Peeni Henare goes to fund-raisers for partnership schools, but Chris Hipkins says they will be closed down and Andrew Little says: “I can’t answer that for you. I just don’t know.” So those members’ policy is not crystal clear. It is as clear as mud.

But it is not just about partnership schools. Whether it is Māori prisons, with Adrian Rurawhe and Peeni Henare and Kelvin Davis backing the policy and Andrew Little going against it, or whether it is Poto Williams writing press releases with public relations companies against Labour Party candidates—I will just repeat that; a member of the Labour Party caucus hired a public relations company to write a press release about a future, putative member of the Labour Party caucus—those guys are hopelessly divided. They are a festering cesspit of hate and hostility.

The second takeaway from the last few weeks is that Andrew Little has no authority over his caucus. He has been writing cheques to people that they cannot bank. He told Willie Jackson he would be ranked in the top 10 on the Labour Party list. Well, that did not come true. He told Trevor Mallard that he would be ranked in the top five and he is only in the 30s—that has not come true. He has been rebutting Kelvin Davis. He has been rejecting the advice of all of his spokespeople. Kelvin Davis is the Labour Party’s corrections spokesperson, who feels it is OK to freelance on corrections policy and have it denied by his leader, but that has not stopped other members of the Labour Party caucus coming out in support of him.

These guys cannot run a coherent policy, they cannot run a stable Opposition, and that is actually the third and most important point—the Labour Party is fundamentally not ready to govern this country. I echo what my colleague and friend Todd Muller said earlier, which is, basically, that if you cannot run yourselves, how can you expect people in the country to vote for you?

The New Zealand people are not going to vote for the rabble that is the current Labour Party. I will just repeat what has happened in the last few days: you have Labour Party spokespeople issuing press releases about candidates for office, opposing them; you have complete internal division over what those members’ policy is on partnership schools; and you have spokespeople criticising other spokespeople. That is not a party that is ready for Government, and that is why on 23 September, I am confident that the New Zealand people will vote for the return of the strong, stable Bill English - led Government.

I seek leave under Standing Order 358 to make a personal explanation in relation to matters raised by the previous speaker in relation to me.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection for that personal explanation? There is not.

Chris Bishop, when he was speaking, indicated that Andrew Little had given me a specific undertaking with regard to a list position; that is not true.

I thank the member.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak as the last speaker in this general debate. I actually want to start with a quote from our Prime Minister, Bill English, and it is about social investment: “intervening early to help the most at-risk people lead better lives and become more independent.” That is the social investment philosophy, which then begs the question: who is the most at risk?

I would like to highlight some information from Youthline that was presented in 2016. What Youthline told us was that 150 young people a week are missing out on help. That is 7,800 children and young people who are calling Youthline every year, who are missing out on help. Those who are suffering from extreme depression have risen from 6,909 to 14,996. That is a 117 percent increase. Those who are suicidal have gone from 7,241 to 8,291. That is a 15 percent increase in young people who are suicidal.

Interestingly enough, if you look at who supports Youthline, 60 percent of its funding comes from grants and philanthropic donors, 20 percent from partners and sponsors, and 20 percent from general fund-raising. The Government is not mentioned there. I would have thought that people who ring Youthline are actually those most at risk. And why is it relevant? It is relevant because 579 New Zealanders between July 2015 and June 2016 committed suicide. New Zealand has a shocking suicide rate, and some, like Nicky Stevens and Shaun Gray, unfortunately, died in mental health wards within our district health boards.

We have got a huge problem, and it seems that the Government will only intervene if you fit its criteria. Markers for being at risk, from its perspective of its social investment, are that you have some sort of Child, Youth and Family involvement; that you are supported by a benefit from birth; that you have a parent in prison or on community service; and that you have a mother who has no formal qualifications. Well, I wonder how many of those 7,800 children and young people who ring Youthline every year, whose needs are not met, meet that criteria. At the moment, the Government does not care. It does not care about those 7,800 young people not receiving the support that they need.

I want to highlight ActionStation—particularly, Marianne Elliott—and its people’s review of the public mental health system. It actually launched it on 5 September last year, and it launched it because it wanted to find out about people’s experiences of our mental health system—family’s experiences, people themselves, and mental health professionals. It had over 500 people take the time to make a submission to say how the mental health system treated them. For 93 percent of those 500 people, it was a shocking experience, it was a terrible experience, and their needs were not met.

What did some of them say about that? Well, actually, one of the women who was contacted, Lou—whom we all know; some of us are Facebook friends of hers—said that she got some pharmacological support. They gave her some mental health drugs, but she was offered no counselling and got no support. I know that in her experience—and she has shared this publicly—there were times when she wanted to end her own life. She ended up at the Wellington public hospital and waited for hours on end before she had access to a mental health professional. Lou is still with us, but she is with us, I believe, because of people who are passionate about the mental health service in New Zealand. The people from ActionStation and the people who have participated in the people’s review are standing up and making a stand and holding this Government to account.

I think that our suicide statistics are something that is a national shame, and it is a shame that we continue to ignore. I agree that we should have and we should reinstate, as the Mason report recommended in 1996, the Mental Health Commission. We disestablished that commission in 2012. We ended up with the Mental Health Commissioner, who is attached to the Health and Disability Commissioner, and, to be fair to him, he is looking at individual cases. But that is not reforming the system. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.