General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Today’s debate is about leadership, something we on this side of the House understand. Once, so did National, when they were led by giants like Keith Holyoake, who stayed close to the ordinary people, or people like Muldoon, who understood the needs of ordinary people—not this ideological lot that’s gone on since they passed.

They’ve never been the same. You know, you’ve got Jim Bolger begat Shipley begat English begat Brash begat Key, and back to English again. They all learnt, as Alan Greenspan said, to mumble with great incoherence.

And what did New Zealand get as a result of their nine years of service: inequality, homelessness, an economy propped up by rampant immigration, and a property bubble, a property bubble fuelled by hot money coming from all sorts of nefarious places. But they couldn’t give a damn, and so what did we inherit—inequality, the premier symbol of an unbalanced economy and failed economic theory.

As the New Zealand Herald reported, the richest 1 percent of New Zealanders received 28 percent of all wealth created last year—1 percent got 28 percent—and the bottom 33 percent got 1 percent. The Ewen McKenzie lookalike can smile and laugh over there, but we regard it as dramatically serious. This is not a rock star economy. It’s not leadership. It’s a dereliction of duty, and the members opposite are responsible for it. They spent their time manipulating the Government’s balance sheets while chronic underfunding happened in every area of the economy. Biosecurity, roads, rail, hospitals, schools, foreign affairs, offshore in the Pacific—underfunding, when we needed to be stepping up to play our role. They’re guilty of total dereliction of duty, and they stand there today, wanting to be on this side of the House.

Can I just say this. What was their reaction to defeat? Well, then, by turning inward and fighting over their third different leader in just 14 months—their third different leader in just 14 months. Now, to use racing parlance, this is not a field with depth or breadth. After 12 years of English and Key, you’ve got five candidates, all with their hands up. Not one of them rates 1 percent in the polls. Five—not one of them rates 1 percent in the polls. They’re all takers, acceptors, bludgers, and bleeders of the party’s persona. They don’t build the party—no, no. They just suck the life out of it. All five don’t rate 1 percent.

But, you know, just shortly after the election, I started giving their odds out, and today I’m bringing the odds up to date. At 500:1, you’ve got the member for Tauranga. Now, I’ll tell you why he remains an outsider. It’s because he’s the type of politician who, because he never believes what he says, is astonished when others do. Then, when he announced his leadership, he started talking like a long-forgotten singer called Little Richard. He started talking in the third person. Now, when people start talking about themselves in the third person, they have an ego problem. [Interruption] Oh yes, oh yes. They have—[Interruption] I know; I’m a psychologist, part-time. They have a recognition-hunger problem when they start talking in the third person. So I’ve had to take his odds out to 500:1 still.

You know, when you get up and you go to a meeting by yourself to announce your own challenge—all lonely—it looks like, “Well, there’s my caucus. I must rush after them. I’m their leader.” George Bernard Shaw, who knew about Steven Joyce’s ambitions, said, “He knows nothing and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.” Mr Joyce has ended up in an $11 billion hole, and he’s digging himself deeper—[Interruption] No, I can handle the polls. We create polls. Mr Joyce, we don’t bleed polls; we create them. Unlike him, all the dirty tricks in the world—that’s what he’s famous for. Behind the scenes, “black ops”, every dirty trick in the world, and I hope he makes it. I hope he makes it. He’s at 500:1.

Then you’ve got Mark Mitchell. He’s playing a real long game. He’s challenging for the fourth and fifth and sixth leadership changes—that’s coming. He should be very careful, because he might get what he wants too soon. But I’ve got to say to him, he has been an experienced hostage negotiator, and in that one sense, he should be out at 10:1 right now, because he’s got odds on him. In his caucus, he’ll need it.

Then you’ve got Amy Adams, who started out strong in the “Rose Garden Stakes”—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

I seek leave for an extension of time.

The member has sought leave for an extension of time. Is there any objection to that? There is.

If this Parliament, or anyone watching it, ever wanted an example of what mumbling with incoherence means, they should just look at Winston Peters’ contribution this afternoon. In many ways, it typifies what the problem is for the current Government. It has nothing else to talk about other than its opponents.

This Parliament has been sitting for quite a number of weeks now post the installation of the new Government, yet, if you pick up the Order Paper, you will notice that of the 43 items that the Government currently has under consideration, 25 of them are National Party bills.

💬 Hon Member: What?

Twenty-five of them are National Party bills. One of them has been unanimously agreed by Parliament, and another five have been recently introduced as bits of work started by the previous Government’s Ministers with no changes. Then there are all the fill-up bills, like the cartels bill yesterday—one simple provision. We don’t agree with it. We’re pleased they put it in front of the Parliament and they’ll do it, but if they were a busy Government, they would not have needed to take the time they did to push that through. It could have been done through other means that are available inside this Parliament.

But no, we have a Government so inactive in actually getting stuff done but very, very active in putting out the spin about the very little they’re doing that we are in danger of having to rewrite the parliamentary programme because there’s not enough to fill it up. I might say, let’s stand by for a whole lot more ministerial statements, let’s stand by for all of the Treaty legislation to be back on the floor of the Parliament during normal parliamentary hours, and let’s also see a whole lot of other inconsequential matters brought before the whole Parliament in a filibuster. I don’t want to be too harsh on these people, but I look at what we’ve got here, and it won’t be long before we get to a list of inquiries and reports from select committees that have been well considered by parliamentarians and don’t usually need the scrutiny of the House because they’ve had so much before, but they will be making their way back on to the floor of the House.

There has been much talk today by the Government about their successes in changing the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership to a new document. It is not a new document. What we are seeing released today is a new agreement that agrees to set aside, or suspend for now, some provisions in the 2016 text—only some provisions. What people need to understand is that all of those provisions can go back by a majority of countries any time after the 8 March signing. So there is a whole lot of hoodwinking going on because while this side of the House supports that agreement because it will mean an extra $4 billion dollars into the New Zealand economy in a relatively short time, that side the House opposed it but now know that without it the New Zealand economy is in severe difficulty.

Then we come to the issue about “Oh, we found some tricky way to get over the overseas buyers coming in to buy homes in New Zealand.” This is another complete nonsense. The bill itself, when it goes through the House, will have three tracks in it—three tracks that allow foreign buyers to buy assets, to buy land, and to buy residential houses in New Zealand. And, worst of all, the second track actually encourages foreign investors to invest in residential building projects in New Zealand at what is known in the industry as the wholesale point so that they can profit, ultimately, and speculate, ultimately, and take their profits on the completed developments—a whole track in the bill to allow that. So what we’ve got is a whole lot of suggestions and good intentions coming from the other side about what they want, but no delivery when you start to look at the really hard stuff.

And I noticed, too, the Deputy Prime Minister just saying, “Well, there’s so much that’s got to be spent across the New Zealand economy in all sorts of ways.” That means taxpayers have to pay for it. So that will mean also that we can look forward into successive Budgets—knowing how much they’ve committed of the freeboard that exists so it can be seen four years out—to extra taxation being put upon New Zealanders. No question—they will need to do that or they will need to severely trim their policy pictures.

So for this Government to start saying that they are so good, so clever, so progressive, and so out there is completely wrong. And, in my last second, might I ask why are they now hiding Ministers from the House?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and might I just say that it’s been an absolutely fantastic start to the year for this Labour-led Government and for our coalition partners and our confidence and supply partners. It’s actually been a fantastic first 100 days. We have a Prime Minister that appeals to all of New Zealand—to men, to women, to young people, to children. We have implemented a raft of changes to make New Zealand a better place for all in housing, in health, in mental health—which has been sadly neglected—and in education. Now, the best education Minister in the last 10 years has just launched a package that’s going to make changes to education that are going to lift educational achievement. We’ve made changes to the paid parental leave. We’ve introduced the Families Package. We’ve introduced student allowances, the winter energy payment, one-year free tertiary, and, most important of all, we’ve introduced child poverty reduction targets.

But let’s go to the start of the year, and, from a Māori perspective, I just want to talk on the fantastic day that we had at Rātana—the day when the Government walked on together, surrounded by hundreds of supporters, looked on by hundreds of other supporters. I have to apologise to all the people that came on with us who couldn’t all fit in the tent. They had to spill over out into the sun and sit on the grass. But it was a fantastic welcome, and the Prime Minister was roundly welcomed. We did have the opportunity to see the Opposition be welcomed on after us, and I’m sure all 10 of them had a fantastic welcome as well.

Then we go to Waitangi, and the Prime Minister was there for five full days. Now, I read the Leader of the Opposition’s newspaper reports—his comments in the newspaper—about how it’s going to be a total flop, or how the Labour Party’s going to turn up to Waitangi and we’re going to have a horrible reception from the Iwi Chairs Forum there, and we’re going to go there and dictate to the iwi chairs. I saw that the Leader of the Opposition got as far away from Waitangi as he could—in fact, he got down to Bluff. The only reason he wasn’t on the Auckland Islands was because there were no Waitangi Day celebrations organised down there.

But, instead, what happened? The Prime Minister turns up, and peace breaks out at Ngāpuhi. The Prime Minister was welcomed with open arms. We went to the Iwi Leaders Forum, where we didn’t dictate to them. We didn’t talk about what we’re going to do to them. Instead, we spoke about our shared priorities and how we’re going to work together to achieve them.

The Prime Minister met with real people. She met with the Māori Wardens. For the first time in history, a Prime Minister has turned up and had a pōwhiri from Māori Wardens, just to recognise the fantastic work that they do in our Māori communities, and you should have seen the look of joy on their faces. We met with the Māori Women’s Welfare League.

The Prime Minister diverted for two hours—a side trip—to meet the waka crews, and it was the Prime Minister’s idea that her Ministers and the MPs serve breakfast to the people, instead of what Prime Ministers previously have done, and that’s having an invite-only breakfast for the elite. That’s because our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is a Prime Minister for the people. She’s warm, she’s generous, she’s authentic, and the nation loves her.

Then we look across at the National Party and we look at their problems. Well, their problem is themselves. Who do they have to appeal to the masses? Who is warm and kind and generous? Well, Judith Collins is putting her hand up to lead the National Party, and “warmth” and Judith Collins’ name shouldn’t be mentioned in the same sentence, unless, of course, you’re talking about the heat that the members of the National Party caucus who don’t support her are going to feel.

Then you have Simon Bridges. I like him. I like Simon Bridges, and I’d back him. He’s a Māori, so us Māoris have got to stick together, and he’s a genuine “Mar-ree” from Tauranga. All he has to do is work on his Te Reo. Other than that, he’s tūturu as. And, in fact, the National Party needed him at Waitangi because they missed the briefing. They turned up, they sat down on the taumata, and the part under the gazebo that was reserved for the kaumātua and kuia was taken up by all the hangers-on MPs in the National Party, and it didn’t go unnoticed.

Just quickly, while I have time—Mark Mitchell. Now, here’s a man with warmth and authenticity. He’s got a great back story, he’s a truly decent bloke, and he co-captained the Parliamentary “Golden Oldies” Rugby Team at the last Parliamentary Rugby World Cup. That alone should lift Mark Mitchell’s stocks, and I wish him all the best in the leadership thing that’s going on with the National Party.

Well, I mean, listening to that, I feel pretty sorry for poor old Kelvin Davis, actually. I mean, he was talking about the first 100 days of the Labour Government. He’s been pretty much asleep for 98 of them, but has just woken up in the last two to face up to a massive conflict of interest.

This is the Associate Minister of Education who, of course, is supposed to be opposed to charter schools, but he will meet with his favourite charter schools based in his own electorate. I think there’s going to be more and more questions about poor old Kelvin’s muddled thinking. I’m very much reminded of when we were in the same rugby team about 30 years ago, when Kelvin had to move from flanker to prop because he couldn’t remember the line-out calls. And that’s the reality of it.

I would have thought they could have found someone better there to fill their number two slot. But look, this is a light and fluffy Government, and I urge everyone to go out and buy a copy of American Vogue this month, because it’s the most substantial document you’re going to get out of this Government this term. It says it all—you’ve got the Prime Minister there, surrounded by a sea of incompetent Ministers.

We’ve heard from David Clark today, struggling away to try and explain why, in answering a direct question on a matter of incredible significance to people in Waikato, he says it’s not in the public interest to answer it. I couldn’t find any reason to do with an individual’s privacy; any issue of commercial consideration, considering the proposal for a third medical school is just at a very conceptual stage; and certainly not any issue of national security that would mean that David Clark could not answer a direct question. I can see by the look on Mr Speaker’s face, as well as the look on many other Labour members’ faces, that they’re pretty much in agreement on that.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member knows he doesn’t bring me into the debate like that.

But look, health is a serious matter, and that’s why it’s extremely concerning that today David Clark has gone back on his promise, made in September, for a $20 million rare diseases fund—$20 million to fund medication for rare diseases. Of course, there were thousands of families right across New Zealand that were buoyed by the news that $20 million was going to fund drugs for rare diseases—families struggling with crippling diseases like Pompe disease, and families with young children with genetic disorders. David Clark gave them hope. Some of them probably voted for Labour on that basis, and today, he announces it’s been scrapped. Well, that is an act of political treachery, which the electorate will not forget.

This Government, in health, is all about cancelling things and rolling them back. What we heard about today—we had the Bay of Plenty District Health Board before the Health Committee. The bowel-screening programme in the Bay of Plenty is being delayed by a year, but the officials there, the chair of the district health board (DHB), said they were ready to go, and they could not understand why the Minister has stopped that programme. They said it was, actually, not something that they had any line of sight on, but they were ready to go. That’s a similar story we’ve heard from other DHBs who want to be able to roll out that screening programme. They’ve got the resources. They’ve got the organisation. But the Minister still can’t explain to the House why that programme is being delayed for up to 10 DHBs, when it’s gone ahead for many others.

The problem with this Government—it’s not confined just to health. If you look at education, why won’t Chris Hipkins stand up to the union bullies and say, “Yes, charter schools are delivering for some of the most needy children in New Zealand.”? Why is this Government cancelling charter schools? Why are they scrapping national standards? They are not in touch with what the public wants. They are not in touch with what is going to work for the children and the families of New Zealand. I can tell you, as a parent myself, getting that report from the school that tells me how my children are doing has been a source of great reassurance. Labour needs to tell us what they’re going to do instead.

Winston Peters—he was complaining about the state of the economy. Well, in actual fact, he’s been handed the greatest economic conditions in a generation. It’s up to this Government to explain what they are now going to do with those great economic conditions. So what I would say to them is that the ball is in their court, but I’m pretty sure they don’t know how to play with it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. First, can I just acknowledge the whānau out there who have come through the storm, weathered the storm. We wish them all the best with their recovery. Also, I’d like to pay tribute to Te Raumoa Kauiti, the direct descendant of Kauiti, signatory of the Treaty of Waitangi, who currently lies in state on Kauiti Marae, Waiōmio, Ngāti Hine. I bid him farewell.

Well, that was interesting. The former Minister of Health Jonathan Coleman actually spoke about needy children, and the needy children on that side of the House now are the National Party backbench. I think of Simeon Brown. All of a sudden, members on the backbench have the loudest voices they’ve ever had. Not only are they scrapping at the front door for the leadership; they’re scrapping at the back door. There are members on that side of the House who, I’m sure, are wondering, “Oh my gosh! I’m back here for another term, under a leadership I do not want to be with.” There are members—and I think of them—good members in a former Government, now all of a sudden wondering, “Where is my place in the National Party moving forward?”

I want to pay respect to former Minister Nicky Wagner on that side, who I’m sure is one of those who’s actually sitting there, thinking, “By crikey! If this person takes over, I could be out the door.” I think of other Ministers of the past who actually think, “Well, I’ve made my contribution. Do I need to sit around and watch the blood spill across the floor in the National Party caucus room?”

I’m sure some of those former Ministers, right now, are looking around, troubled by conversations happening between Alfred Ngaro and Todd Muller right now, doing the numbers—doing the numbers amongst themselves, thinking, “Don’t worry. The first night we’ll let them kill each other off, and we’ll come in and sweep up the mess and take over the leadership.” So I want to say to Alfred Ngaro, “Slippery tuna [eel], my friend.” We mentioned it yesterday—you and Todd Muller. I’d be scared to see you two sitting next to each other.

I want to take the words of my uncle, the member the Hon Shane Jones, who said the start by this Government has been “blistering”—blistering. The member for Te Tai Tokerau, Kelvin Davis, has talked about the great achievements made by our Government. We have spent most of our time fixing the problems ignored by that side of the House—by the former Government, the National Party.

Mental health is one of the biggest issues affecting our people. As Minister for Youth, I’m really encouraged that the current Minister of Health heard the voice of the young people, installed a young person on that commission of inquiry, and is really keen to make sure that the future generations of this country get the services that they need, by doing a full inquiry and making sure that rangatahi, into the future, are strong, resilient, and also prosperous. And I’m excited by that.

I look at the current Minister of Education, who has a clear vision, a clear package detailed today for all of the country to see—knowing that our people don’t simply learn in silos. In fact, the lifelong journey of education goes from the cradle to the grave, and I want to acknowledge the current Minister of Education and his efforts in that sector.

So where are things going? As Minister for Youth, I’m excited about what we want to do for rangatahi. There are key priorities for us: youth recognition, youth engagement, youth representation, and youth transformation. What we saw from the last regime was a lot of happy dinners and backslapping, telling them how good they were at making sure that young people were prosperous. What we noticed when we took over was, actually, that was simply rhetoric. There was nothing transformative for these young people—nothing whatsoever. So what we’re committed to do is actually push for young people’s voices across all of Government. What my job and my office do for the Ministry of Youth Development is actually increase the quota of young people on boards and represent our people across not just local government but central government, business, community boards, and sports boards, and we’re encouraging our young people to find voice there.

I’m also excited by the work that the sector is doing. There are some great organisations out there who are doing good work for rangatahi. I want to make quick mention of Dean Lawrence from the Spirit of Adventure Trust, who hosted me, and I look forward to working with them into the future to make more opportunities for our young people. Very shortly, I’ll be hitting the road to places like Murihiku, where I’ll be engaging with Māori and Pasifika trusts down there to talk about opportunities for rangatahi.

I’m inspired by this Government and the work that we are doing meeting the lofty aspirations set by our country, and I know that everyone on this side of the House is working hard to achieve it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would also like to acknowledge the storm recovery that’s going on out there, and I am thinking of all the people that are doing the clean-up today.

I would just like to thank the previous speaker, Peeni Henare, for his offer of the lessons on party leadership—because that party over there are experts on that—but I just want to say, no thanks—not thanks, we’ve got it all under control. On that note, I would like to acknowledge our current leader, the Rt Hon Bill English, who’s put in 27 years of fantastic service, not only for our party but for this country and for the Government of New Zealand over that time.

There are some things in the House this week that I’ve found rather interesting, and the first one of them was around the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA). We’ve heard a lot—it doesn’t matter whether you talk about health, whether you talk about education, whether you talk about DIRA; whatever you talk about, all we hear about is reviews. So it was really interesting, the other night, to hear that another review is being done, of one that was done only two years ago. We don’t know what the terms of reference are of this review, but one thing I do want to pick up from the other night—I think we did have a good exchange around the rural-urban divide. James Shaw added a lot of value to that contribution when he said he was making a commitment to work together to help close up that rural-urban divide, and I am going to work and hold James Shaw to account on that one.

The other thing that’s come up this week is the conversation about the third medical school. We heard Dr Coleman say before that the Minister said that it’s not in the public interest to talk about this. Well, I can tell you that the people who work in rural health, the rural health association of New Zealand—they have a lot of members from all around the country, and they’ve made the case that rural health involves 600,000 people. So 600,000 people make up New Zealand’s largest city, which just happens to be scattered all over the place, and I’d like David Clark to explain to us at some point why this is not in the public interest. These public, these 600,000 people, are very interested in their primary healthcare, and we see these proposals for the medical school as some way of moving forward to get more doctors in our rural areas.

The biggest thing—the biggest thing—of the last week is that we have had issues in biosecurity with the stink bug, we have had issues in biosecurity with M. bovis, and there’s a number of other things going on like myrtle rust, and we cannot get any answers out of the Minister. We have been asking questions. We have been trying to get funding on behalf of people who are looking to find out where they head to next on the whole M. bovis thing. I went down to the Southern Field Days last week, and I spent some time with the very good local MP, Hamish Walker, and he has been trying to get answers. Nathan Guy and I have been trying to get answers, and these farmers just simply do not know what the rules of the game are.

So I would actually make a call out to the Hon Damien O’Connor to please answer our questions. I have been very upfront with Damien O’Connor and I have told him that biosecurity of a serious nature like we currently have in this country on a couple of issues is no place to play political games. I’m not interested in playing politics in this; I’m just interested in getting answers for our industries with M. bovis, with the stink bug. I don’t want to play games. I’m saying, “Hey, we’ve got to fix this.” This is a national interest thing.

Now, we know that that party over there, who are currently calling themselves the Government, made up with two others, are very seriously going to run out of money for the 51 promises and wish lists that they’re up to. We know that money’s not hugely available after giving it all to the students. It should be available for things like M. bovis, but we’re not getting answers out of that one. So I would call, again, for the opportunity to stop playing games over something that is so serious for New Zealand and for New Zealand’s economy, because biosecurity is not a game. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging the work of all the emergency workers around the country yesterday. We had a very peaceful day in Wellington. The rain was falling straight down, which is very unusual here—no wind, but it did pick up by the evening. But elsewhere in the country, people were working hard all day, working hard all night, and working hard again on into today to look after their neighbours and to keep themselves safe. There were about 1,300 calls to emergency services, so our congratulations to all those people who worked so hard. We live on the edge in this country—close to the edge—and we need to be prepared for those disasters. The people who worked yesterday showed us how it’s done, and our thanks to them.

There is another group of people living on the edge in this country at the moment. It’s somewhat sad, as I look across the House at the shattered, shivering shards of the National Party—shattered into factions, shivering in fear because they don’t know what’s coming, and shards flaked off, useful for nothing except, perhaps, as tokens for counting the votes. They are factionalised and split.

For years and years, they told us that they were united. They told us that they were holding together, but it turns out to have been paper-thin. There are deep fissures in that party—five of them, in fact, that we know of so far. It’s quite unclear as to which unknown fissure is going to come out of the cracks. You know, we’ve got Amy Adams and Simon Bridges—or “Who?”—who have been dodging interviews with the media. There’s no one endorsing them in the mainstream media, and it’s not quite sure who else might be endorsing them either. It’s quite clear that they are no match for our own media-friendly PM, who never refuses an interview. I don’t know why they think they’re putting themselves forward.

Then, of course, we have Mark Mitchell and Steven Joyce, who came out of the blocks late. I’m not sure if they’ve got any support at all. I think, possibly, neither of them can count. I mean, that’s old evidence in the case of Mr Joyce—possibly 11.7 billion-year-old evidence—and then there’s Mark Mitchell, who thinks that two words equal one. I’m going to give them a hint when it comes to counting, and it’s something that all these invisible candidates need to remember: your imaginary friends don’t have a vote.

Now, of course, Judith Collins—well, she’s probably got no delusions about how many friends she’s got. She’s counted them all up and figured that she’d better come out of the block straight away with the blunderbuss approach—sweep them all away in her path.

It’s an unedifying group of candidates, and I’m sure it will be an unedifying spectacle in the next week. There they are: divided, self-obsessed, dragging themselves into fighting in contumely. It is such a contrast with this side of the House, a side of the House that is a united team with a leader and three parties working together for the good of all New Zealanders.

And what have we achieved working together? You know, we’ve been accused, this afternoon, of the light and fluffy approach. But I tell you: is this list of achievements light and fluffy? We’re helping families. We have passed our Families Package and it’s going to help about 385,000 families. That’s not fluffy; that is committed work for New Zealanders. We have passed the extension of paid parental leave, so now parents will get 26 weeks’ paid leave. That’s not light and fluffy; that’s a real achievement for parents.

We are increasing the minimum wage to $16.50. I guarantee you that minimum wage workers don’t think that is light and fluffy. We are tackling the housing crisis that that divided lot on the other side ignored for nine long years. That is not light and fluffy; that is serious action to help New Zealanders. We have restarted the New Zealand Superannuation Fund contributions—that’s serious money; nothing light and fluffy about it—making up for the $20 billion of foregone profits in the nine long years of that team over there. We’re getting health back on track. We’re getting that mental health inquiry going, and we’re making sure we’ve got that medical cannabis legislation in place.

And, just today, we have announced a major review of the way we do education in this country. The old approach has been there for 30 years. It was time for something fresh and new and solid—a real Government, a real team that is achieving real things for New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

On one hand, this Government talks about being kind, about being caring—take note, debaters—and also about being responsive to our young people. On the other, it gives the most vulnerable a kick in the guts when it shuts the schools that have just got them excited about learning—when it shuts partnership schools. The schools of New Zealand have already failed those young people, and now the Labour Government is failing them again.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I just want to say to Dr Webb, I may have closed quite a few schools, but I don’t think I’m responsible for the group that’s being discussed, and he should not indicate that I was.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The school system has already failed these young people and now Labour is failing them again. These kids are devastated, and I know how they feel, because I worked with so many of them when I was a teacher in Christchurch at Hagley High School and Hornby High School. I really enjoyed teaching these kids. I found the job challenging, I found it motivating, and, at times, I found it frustrating. The vast majority of young people can learn, and they learn well. You can inspire them, you can motivate them, and you can cajole them into learning. The key here is being children-, pupil-, and student-focused—focused so that you can engage them and their families. Successful schools will always be student-focused. The day that they get more concerned about how they run the school, how they have the systems, what their conditions are, and too rigid about what they think young people need is the day that they fail.

Now, New Zealand, of course, has many, many successful schools, and we have really high-achieving young people at that top level. But we have had, for many years, a long tale of underachievement, particularly of Māori and Pasifika kids. Now, that is not good enough. We have to do something about that, we have to lift their achievement, we have to motivate them, we have to engage them, and we have to get them learning. This is what partnership schools are doing right now. They are making that happen for these particularly vulnerable children. They have been particularly successful for Māori—particularly successful. We can ask Peeni Henare. We can ask Willie Jackson. We can ask Kelvin Davis. These schools are giving kids a learning experience that they’ve never had before, and, to quote Mr Henare, a “blistering slap and shutting the schools is not what we want to do.”

From my teaching experience, I know that every kid can and actually wants to learn. No kid is a lost cause. It’s just low expectations, inflexible systems, and not giving them the right support at the right time that lets them fall through the cracks. Now, Labour says they’re getting rid of partnership schools because they don’t have registered teachers, they cost too much, and they don’t follow the curriculum. That is not right. The real reason they’re getting rid of partnership schools is that they are bulk funded and they can contract teachers at different rates. And that is the kiss of death—bulk funding and contracting teaching rates are absolutely non-negotiable for the unions and Labour and teachers’ unions.

I support partnership schools. I support them because they’re life changing for some of these most at-risk children—absolutely life changing and remarkably effective in getting them into learning. Every New Zealander deserves a good education and that education needs to be specific for those needs, and partnership schools are another way of delivering that. It’s about being kind, it’s about being caring, and it’s about being responsive to young people. Labour needs to walk the talk. Talk is not enough; you have to do the action. These young people deserve our care, they deserve our support, they deserve our investment, and they deserve the opportunity of learning, even if it’s in a partnership school. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I apologise for my misstep earlier on, but—

💬 SPEAKER: No. The member doesn’t refer to points of order that have been dealt with.

—there I go again—I was furious that the member on the other side who has just finished speaking, Nicky Wagner, suggested that this Government was closing schools, when she presided, herself, in her former electorate, over a school in one of the most impoverished communities, and she said nothing. She stood by, she let them struggle on for years by themselves, and, ultimately, the last Government did close it down, as it did a whole lot of other schools.

💬 Hon Member: We haven’t closed one.

We have closed no schools, but this is not about that.

This general debate is about what is going on here, now, and where we’re headed into the future. This party, and this Government, is headed somewhere exciting, under a real leader—a leader that brings a breath of fresh air. When I look over the other side, I must say, it’s with some dismay. I can understand, of course, why they’re down in the mouth.

💬 Hon Member: No, look. There’s Mr Yule.

But for Mr Yule, with his absolute optimism—which I worry about sometimes; he must be missing something—there’s a real disappointment; there’s a lack of substantive engagement. All they can talk about is the Order Paper. The fact of the matter is that this Government is making real steps. Now, while they’re just disorganised and, as Dr Russell said, fractured—they are shards flying everywhere; icy shards, at that. Whilst some of them might be doing some organisation—there they go, Mr Ngaro in the corner organising again—the fact is that this is a party, and over there that party has forgotten how to make an argument. They’ve descended into petty squabbling.

It was disappointing to hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee earlier, who was entirely misrepresenting the overseas investment legislation. The fact of the matter is we do want investment into building in New Zealand, and if foreign investors want to build our houses for us to sell, then that’s a good thing, and that’s what the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill does. It’s entirely appropriate.

But, you know, when you do look at what we’ve got on offer on the other side, it’s a real worry. What a collection of awkward bedfellows. It’s surprising they’re a single party themselves. They’re probably not. You look at what they’ve got: the queen of conservatism from central Auckland, the emperor of individualism from Epsom—well, the member based in Epsom, anyway, for now—and, of course, the prince of pro-life puritanism from Pakuranga. There’s a tragedy. I suspect there are no big gay rainbows over the latter electorate any more. As for the leadership, well, this party has been speaking in broken English for five months, you know, and I can understand that—broken English.

I wonder about the leadership debate that they’ve got on their hands. Is it going to be “Bluffer” Collins? I don’t think so. “Morticia” Adams? Probably not. “Bridges to Nowhere”? Oh, you know, maybe that’s the best choice for you.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will refer to members by their proper names, please.

Thank you, sir. But this is to be expected. This is to be expected of a party that ran out of ideas. The fact is that that party ran out of ideas and ran down the country. That’s what you’d expect of a party with an insidious ideology, an ideology that really is Randism ramped up far. The fact of the matter is that this Government has got a lot of work to do because of the decay that happened.

This Government is rebuilding families. The families package that is being passed by this Government will start there, by putting money back in the pockets of genuine hard-working New Zealanders—not this dog-whistle hard work that we hear from the other side, but people who are doing our cleaning, people who are building our houses, people who are driving our buses. They’re hard-working New Zealanders, and you know what? This Government’s taking a leadership position on wages with looking at CEO wages in the State sector. We need to even that out. We need more transparency, and we’re focused on education from top to bottom. This is about real learning and real teaching in real classrooms. I’m very proud to be part of this Government. This Government is taking New Zealand on a leading role in the way it measures how we’re doing and the way it engages with the world, and I’m very proud to be part of it. Thank you.

Thanks very much to the “fluoride front runner”, Duncan Webb, over the other side for those interesting remarks. There are a few things that characterise this Government. Number one is backflips. It is galling to hear members of the Government stand up and laud the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. I’m a relatively new member in the House, but I have been around long enough to remember Labour members opposite and New Zealand First members opposite marching outside electorate offices, marching down Queen Street, and standing next to Jane Kelsey and saying that this was the worst trade deal in New Zealand history, that it compromised our sovereignty, that it destroyed Pharmac, that it didn’t allow New Zealand to regulate in the public interest, that Jane Kelsey’s analysis should be listened to, and that we must reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. And then, a few months later, what happens? Twenty-two changes out of a 5,000 word document, and all of a sudden it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. All of a sudden we hear David Parker standing up in Parliament saying that it’s a progressive deal, that it makes good market access gains for New Zealand for our avocado industry and for beef. And he’s right; he is exactly right. It just would be nice to have some consistency.

He paid tribute to Ministers and to our trade negotiators, and I want to echo what he said. I do want to pay tribute to Todd McClay and Tim Groser, who spent so many years negotiating this very complex deal. I want Labour members to be consistent and endorse what Jane Kelsey says now, because do you know what Jane Kelsey says now? Jane Kelsey says that, fundamentally, this is exactly the same deal. You can add the words “comprehensive” and “progressive” in front of it all you like. This deal is pretty much exactly the same deal as was negotiated by the National Government, and they should endorse it.

💬 Hon Andrew Little: Another backflip.

So that’s number one on the backflips front. Then we hear Pike River, and we hear the Minister of Justice talking over there. Well, I remember during the election campaign, and before, the deeply obnoxious politicisation of this issue, and I hear members opposite saying, “We’re going to go in.” In fact, Winston Peters offered to be the first down the tube—first into the drift. “I’m going to go in.” Now what do we find? Now we find that, actually, they received exactly the same advice in Government as National did, which is that it’s an extremely dangerous, toxic working environment, and the new position is, “Oh, we’ll only go in if it’s safe.”—we’ll only go in if it’s safe. Well, that is the position of the National Party. We all want to go in there, but we can go in only if it’s a safe environment. So the Labour Party is now endorsing exactly the position the National Government had.

Then we hear all the claims around open Government. Clare Curran and the Ministers opposite say this will be the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand history. That is a very bold claim. I just want to repeat that: the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand history. Well, that lasted probably, I don’t know, 45 seconds before the questions for written answer started to not be answered, before they refused to release information about people they were meeting with, and before the Official Information Act denials started. This is not the most transparent Government in New Zealand history, and if they start as they mean to go on it will only get worse.

The second thing that characterises this Government is incompetence—absolute incompetence. You’ve seen this every day in question time. You see it with Kelvin Davis standing up and Grant Robertson whispering the answers to him. It’s just embarrassing for the deputy leader of the Labour Party. You see it with Willie Jackson, the Minister of Employment who doesn’t know how many jobs we created in the New Zealand economy in the last year, doesn’t know the unemployment rate, and doesn’t know how he’s going to decrease youth unemployment. You see it with the verbal diarrhoea from Willie Jackson in response to Paul Goldsmith every single question time.

The third thing that characterises this shambolic Government—and this is the most important—is lofty ambition and rhetoric that is actually matched with regressive policy that punishes the people Labour claims to stand for, and nowhere is this more evident than around charter schools. They are furious about charter schools. One thousand kids, failing in the traditional system, most of them, who have gone outside the traditional mainstream system—actually gone to schools set up by Labour members, set up by Peeni Henare and Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis—who are now largely succeeding outside the mainstream system, and nothing angers them more. Isn’t it weird? There are 1,000 kids at Vanguard Military School and at South Auckland Middle School, kids that Labour claims to care for, kids that have failed in the mainstream system. Isn’t it weird that 1,000 kids—

💬 Hon Andrew Little: You don’t believe in them. You never did.

—1,000 kids, most of whom are now succeeding—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I just want to ask my learned colleague to stop bringing me into the debate.

There are 1,000 kids in schools that are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations, and the Labour Party wants to shut them down for no other reason than ideology. I find it disgraceful. I find it disgraceful.

I like a bit of politicking as much as anybody else in this House, but if I can just take us to the forest for a little moment here. Everything is political, though. Everything is political, and we have a political responsibility to respond to one of the greatest biodiversity crises of our time. Yesterday, Auckland Council voted unanimously in favour of supporting the Waitakere rāhui, led by Te Kawerau ā Maki, the iwi of the Waitakere Ranges, who placed the rāhui in a response to kauri dieback, which is killing our tūpuna rangatira—killing our trees. I am so relieved to see that Auckland Council finally came to the right decision to support the rāhui, for all of our sakes, for the forest’s sake, and for the generations to come’s sakes.

The rāhui is put in place to protect kauri. The rāhui is providing a protected sanctuary status. It is not a restriction, it is not an exclusive tool; it is about understanding that we need to give the forest time to heal. We need to give the forest space for the scientists and the mātauranga Māori to work out what the best way is of making sure we have even got kauri for generations to come. My speech today, therefore, is focusing on a celebration of the leadership of Te Kawerau ā Maki in persevering through and making sure that they did all they could to rally the community to protect the kauri in the Waitakere Ranges. We all have to follow that leadership here in this House. We now have to look honestly at what we can do and what has and has not happened where the kauri have become so sick today. Could this have been prevented, and what do we need to do from here?

I want to talk about the rāhui as a tool, as an attempt to do the right thing. That is all that the rāhui is, and Te Kawerau ā Maki have been working for five years with leading scientists to answer the question: what is it that we have to do to make sure we are stepping up to our whakapapa obligations? Those scientists and community experts came back and all said the same thing: “We must close the forest.” They all said the same thing, and Te Kawerau ā Maki put their cultural whakapapa tool in place to do exactly that.

Now, if there is any doubt about the science of what is happening here, can I just be very clear that it is irrefutable that most of the disease that is killing the roots of our kauri is within 50 metres of tracks. It is soil-borne pathogens that are carried by shifting soil. Yes, there are other factors, including animals, that can also carry the disease, but most of it is human-borne and human done. We need to take that responsibility to fix it, and on this the mātauranga Māori and the science align.

We have such an incredible opportunity here to make sure that all of our workings are with iwi at the table, not as an afterthought, to make sure we have got the best conservation plan for Aotearoa that we need. The infected kauri have more than doubled over five years. This is a crisis of epic proportions, and we can do something about this. I want to acknowledge those who have known to do the right thing, even without being told by an Auckland Council closure. They even had consent, but they put off their events—the Hillary Trail, the Whatipū Lodge; they knew that they also needed to do the right thing and they stepped up. Those leadership community initiatives can be seen, and they took the lead of Te Kawerau ā Maki.

We have an opportunity here in this House to look honestly at our systems, at our funding, and at our support. How could we have helped the Auckland Council to come to the right decision earlier? How can we help here in our departments to make sure that we are giving kauri their due?

We have to think about respecting Te Tiriti, respecting mana whenua, respecting mātauranga Māori, respecting our generations of children to come, respecting the trees. Respect the rāhui. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’d like to begin my contribution by acknowledging and congratulating the organisers for the Pyeongchang winter Olympics and Paralympics, who have helped grow cultural understanding and the spirit of international friendship across the global community. I had the distinct privilege of attending the opening ceremony at Pyeongchang, and it was an absolute honour to see the joint entry of the two Koreas, united under one united flag. I guess, the word—I was moved—“moving” was the smallest word that I could possibly find. I mean, it was absolutely emotional for everyone who was actually present and, I’m sure, for millions of people watching around the world, and long may the peace in the peninsula prevail.

I also want to take a moment to speak about my motion at the start of question time today. For many people around New Zealand, acknowledgments of this nature are incredibly important. Members do not always get informed that a date is coming up, because many days are important to many different people and different ethnicities, and some dates do in fact shift depending on the lunar calendar, for example, from year to year. We as members in this House have a duty to get their voices heard on important views and news and anniversaries, particularly when the Government is not listening, perhaps, to them or celebrating their occasions in person or in action.

Talking about action, I’d like to follow up on the comment that my learned colleague Chris Bishop actually commented about. This Government and this Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government), the Hon Clare Curran, have actually said that this Government will be the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand’s history. For reference, I guess, she has in fact used the phrase “open and transparent” about 16 times since she entered Parliament, “transparency” on its own about 54 times, yet we are not seeing it come to light in this Government, which appointed her as the Minister for this very matter. Through her actions, the actions of this Government, holding up ministerial briefings and secret documents that govern their agreements—they’re betraying the people of New Zealand and the transparency and accountability we all believe in. Actions actually speak louder than words. Actions have far more substance than their words, and this Government’s word seems to only be “spin”.

Just to clarify, just an example today, this morning, the Hon Clare Curran had to correct her answer to her reply to written question No. 19129 (2017), a question she actually answered five days late of the due date, which was about 63 days ago when it was due. Tail between her legs, months after, she should have given the full story to this Parliament and to this country. Now, she didn’t front up today despite being front and centre this morning, just down the hallway in Parliament, at the Parliamentary digital showcase, where she was actually there. The people of New Zealand were wanting to hear about these serious issues from the Minister herself—she didn’t front up.

The thing is it was a very simple question. The question was “Has the Minister met with Board members or staff of TVNZ or RNZ since 1 December …?” That was a very simple question. “Did she or did she not meet with the head of content of RNZ?” was not the question; it was “Who did she meet with?”, and she failed to declare the meeting that actually happened, and she was seen. If there was nothing there, if there was nothing discussed, why would she omit to disclose the meeting? I mean, it seems to be the habit of this Government to sort of claim that a meeting isn’t really a meeting. I mean, you know, when you meet someone, I guess, Mr Assistant Speaker—if Mr Assistant Speaker and I met at a coffee shop, for example, will we actually declare that we met? The question was: did she meet? “Who did she meet?” was the question, and she failed to disclose it.

It seems that failing to disclose and do the prep work is the trend of this Government, and this Minister had to go back and do the job again in issues such as the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer as well. Like the question that she had to amend, she is now going back because she did not find, among the 60-odd people from international leaders in the technology world—she says there was no one suitable for the Chief Technology Officer. She really is—she’s a shambles.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.