General Debate

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

It’s a great pleasure to speak. On average, 384,000 families are now better off by $65 a week, 64,000 children have been lifted out of poverty, and 26,000 more families now benefit from Working for Families. Under the Best Start scheme, there is $60 a week for newborn babies born from Sunday—actually, born a little earlier if they were expected after Sunday, but because of the nature of these things, sometimes they come a little earlier. One million New Zealanders are now benefiting from a winter energy payment, all because of this side of the House. This Government believes that elderly and low-income people should not go cold during the worst months of winter. That’s the difference between members on this side of the House—this coalition Government—and members on that side of the House, who did not care when they were told, month after month, of people in poverty, people deprived, and people not in their own homes. They did nothing.

I want to say how very proud I am to be part of a Government that has, in a very short space of time, exhibited what it means to be compassionate in Government, what it means to be caring, and what it means to understand the plight of so many ordinary New Zealanders who have only ever asked for a chance to get ahead, who have only ever asked for the rules to let them have a chance to look after themselves and their families—that’s what this Government is delivering.

If it’s not enough just on those income support measures—just on those measures to offer a little extra assistance, to redistribute the wealth of this great country, to give those who have missed out for too long a chance—then let’s look at housing. Isn’t it fantastic that today—just today—when our amazing and very humble Minister of Housing and Urban Development launched the website by which you can register your interest in a KiwiBuild home, within two hours, 1,100 New Zealanders were lining up to get a KiwiBuild house. That tells you what we knew all along: that there was a crisis in housing in New Zealand—something that members opposite spent year after year after year denying. There has been a crisis, and this Government is fixing it. That’s what you do when you’re compassionate and you care and you understand the plight of ordinary New Zealanders.

It has been a great day. We are committed to 100,000 affordable homes over a 10-year period. The counting started on Sunday; we are well under way. I don’t quite know why it is that so many of the first ones are being built in the electorates of members opposite. We don’t normally like to rub their noses in it and say “We told you so.”, but hey, you know, we are generous to a T, and that is us, too.

You see, the difference is palpable. We inherited a country where income inequality and income disparity were getting worse and worse. People could not get pay increases; people’s incomes did not keep up with the real cost of living. Now we’re doing something about it. So I don’t see the expressions of concern now from the nurses and the teachers and others as anything other than an expression of their hope, that now they know they’ve got a chance. Now, they know they’ve got a Government that’s on their side, that’s going to give them a chance, that takes a long view, and that is about restoring the status and the standing of teachers, because that profession is so vital to the future of New Zealand and future generations of New Zealanders.

This is a Government that in nine short months has established an enviable record of achievement. We are putting New Zealand back on its feet. More to the point, we are putting New Zealanders back on their feet, putting them back where they belong, putting them back with a chance to get ahead, and giving them a sense of hope once again. I feel it wherever I go, and I am very proud to have as the Prime Minister of my country and of a Government that I am a part of a woman who has shown what it means to be compassionate, shown what it means to be understanding, shown what it means to be humble. She is doing what tens of thousands of working women have done for many decades—gone off and become a mum—and is still leading this country with values, with caring, with principles.

This is a proud time to be a New Zealander. This is a proud time to be part of this coalition Government. We’re doing great things.

Nine months into this Government, we are seeing a level of arrogance and dismissiveness and know-everything that I haven’t seen in a Government just this early on, and what an appalling attitude to process. This is a Government that thinks it knows so much better than everyone else, that process is a mere inconvenience to be swept aside when it doesn’t suit. The dismissive attitude to anyone who doesn’t agree with them, who’s simply just “wrong”, is appalling and, as I say, contemptuous of New Zealanders who do have an interest in what happens in this country.

Let’s have a look at the examples. You’ve got the oil and gas decision, where the finance Minister didn’t even bother to ask Treasury what the economic impact might be. The energy Minister didn’t bother to take the advice that she was given about the actual emissions profile impact of that. We’ve got a police Minister who hasn’t bothered to read advice given to him by his police commissioner, because, of course, Stuart Nash knows so much more about policing than the police commissioner ever would. And we’ve got a corrections Minister who isn’t actually sure if he’s read the advice. He hadn’t read it; he had read it; he’s not really sure; but, anyway, apparently it doesn’t matter—look over there, there’s a squirrel!

But, actually, one of the worst examples I’ve seen of this appalling approach to process is in this rapidly unravelling situation around Te Ārai development. This is important because you have here one developer of a multimillion-dollar piece of land selling sections almost exclusively to wealthy foreigners being carved out of a piece of legislation. Now, any time a Government says “Actually, here is the law, but this one developer shouldn’t be subject to it.”, of course there are going to be questions as to why. So we asked the questions: well, why is that—why does this Government want to carve out this exemption? And, actually, we’ve heard a number of interesting stories.

But before I get into that, I do think it’s worth making this very clear: on this side of the House, we’ve got no problem with these developments. We do recognise the value of foreign money coming in to grow our businesses, to grow our economy, to build more houses for New Zealanders, and, actually, we also recognise that sometimes having wealthy foreigners coming here creates real prosperity for this country, and it certainly doesn’t impact housing affordability for New Zealanders. So we don’t have a problem. But what we wouldn’t be doing is passing a law saying “It’s not OK for anyone but just this one group that we’ve carved out.” with very real questions around it. That is our concern. No problem with the development, but the process is hugely dubious.

This is a Government that has railed against any sort of foreign money into development, any sort of foreign ownership. So why would you carve out these properties? Well, Mr Parker said on a number of occasions, on Morning Report and repeatedly in this House, that he had to do it to avoid a Treaty breach—this was an iwi settlement asset, so it had to be carved out because otherwise there could well have been a Treaty breach. According to Mr Parker, he didn’t know there were other developers involved in this property for quite some time.

Well, I find that incredibly hard to believe, because let’s run through what we do know: Shane Jones told this House that in the middle of January, he was meeting with those very developers—meeting with John Darby, meeting with Ric Kayne—and he knew absolutely that they were involved in the development. The Finance and Expenditure Committee submission on 15 February made it very clear that John Darby and Ric Kayne were involved in this development. The New Zealand Herald article that came out on 5 March made it very clear that this was a Ric Kayne development, and yet the Minister in charge of the legislation claimed no one bothered to tell the very Minister in charge of the law about any of that until, apparently, mid-March, when Treasury, we understand, told Mr Parker, “Oh, yes, there are some other developers involved in the land. Not really sure how much they own. By the way, we don’t think the exemption should go ahead.” And yet, still Mr Parker is claiming that the reason it went ahead was to protect an iwi asset, to protect against a Treaty breach, and apparently it was the Treasury advice he relied upon in reaching that decision.

So I’m going to be very interested to see that Treasury advice and see exactly what it says—and isn’t it interesting how long it’s taken to come out? So even when Mr Parker found out there were other developers involved, which was before the paper went to Cabinet, did he then ask the obvious question: how much of the land is iwi-owned; how much is owned by developers? No. Today, in the House, he admits, himself, that that is not up to the standard we should expect of our Ministers, and that’s the only thing I agree with Mr Parker on—that is not up to the standard we should expect. This is a process that has a lot more questions to answer.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is just the beginning. This is a compassionate Government that is making meaningful change; making meaningful difference to make people’s lives better. That is an Opposition that is desperate; that is tilting at windmills. This is a Government that has delivered a transformational Families Package, which follows a foundational Budget, which will build a stronger economy and restore critical public services. This is a Government that is doing its job. This is a Government that is doing the right thing.

On the Prime Minister’s Facebook page this week, following the transformational Families Package, comments from the members of the public: “Leading by decency.”, “Wow!”, “Thank you, it’ll make a huge difference to families including ours.”, “Finally, a Government that cares.”, and “So impressed. Thank you for helping us out, Jacinda. Much love from my family of three kids, five pets, and a hard-working fiancé while I look after the home.”

This is a Government that cares about people. It will deliver for parents with the Best Start payment; for children by increasing the rate of the orphans benefit, unsupported child’s benefit, and foster care allowance; students, with the increases in accommodation allowances; superannuitants, with the costs of heating their homes over winter with the winter energy payment. And it will be done while taking account of our ambitious programme, which will meet Budget responsibility rules.

What does the Opposition say? Simon Bridges says he’s for the Families Package but also that he opposes it. He criticises the main elements but won’t commit to removing them. He says it’s not targeted enough; he also says it’s targeted to only a few people. The National Party also doesn’t support the universal winter energy payment, but does support universal superannuation payments. They need to say what they actually stand for.

I want to refer back to why it is so important that we have this winter energy payment. I want to refer back to 2011—seven years ago—when a fundamentally important piece of research was released out of the University of Victoria and the University of Otago which revealed that a quarter of New Zealand households were estimated to be in fuel poverty. They said, “New Zealand has a poor history of housing regulation, so existing houses are often poorly insulated and rental properties are not required to have insulation or heating. Average indoor temperatures are cold by international standards and occupants regularly report they are cold, because they can’t afford to heat their houses. Fuel poverty is thought to be a factor in New Zealand’s high rate of excess winter mortality—16 percent, about 1,600 deaths a year—and excess winter hospitalisations, at 8 percent.” What shame that was. That was seven years ago. Now, making money available for insulation is absolutely important, but addressing the issue of fuel poverty—people not being able to afford to heat their homes—is absolutely critical. That’s what this winter energy payment delivers.

I’ve lost count of the homes I’ve visited where the elderly stay in bed until the afternoon, where children are admitted to hospital every single year because there are holes in the walls, because there are gaps between the windows and the outside, where there’s mould on the walls, and where people air their homes. They air their homes and there’s still black mould on the walls. That is why the winter energy payment of $450 for singles and $700 for couples is so critical to begin to address these issues—to keep those 40,000 children that are admitted to hospital every year out of hospital. This is just the beginning: a warrant of fitness for rental housing, more State housing, more affordable housing, an increase in the accommodation supplement, which will benefit 135,000 households, and the urban renewal of poor-quality housing. This is a compassionate, determined Government that knows what it stands for.

Last week, I raised in the House matters involving the Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB) and an internal audit into unauthorised and excessive uses of public funds at the DHB, dating between 1999 and 2016. I’m going to continue raising questions in the House about that audit and how it’s been handled by the Minister and the Ministry of Health. These are not so much allegations; they’re questions based off reports that I hold in my possession.

On 15 December last year, the then chair of the Counties Manukau DHB, Lester Levy, wrote to David Clark, highlighting concerns about management and financial practices which the board had commissioned an internal audit on. Dr Levy’s memo to the Minister outlined that the board was concerned about a range of matters, including how salary increases, allowances, and benefits paid to a former senior executive were authorised. The internal audit report was subsequently reviewed by a Ministry of Health - led review carried out by forensic accountants Beattie Varley, Deloitte, and the former Solicitor-General Michael Heron QC.

On 12 December, Dr Levy had also written to the State Services Commissioner and Ministry of Health asking for assistance. Dr Levy wrote that “Because of the very serious and troubling nature of these issues, we consider it of the utmost importance that the review process gains greater momentum.” In reply to Dr Levy, the State Services Commissioner wrote back on 20 December, saying, “The scope and nature of the review relies on utilising the Director-General of Health’s powers.” This is an important point.

I raise these particular considerations because the Minister of Health has stated in the House that the acting Director-General of Health, Stephen McKernan, raised the Beattie Varley review with him as Minister. I’ve consistently asked in this House what steps the Minister took to ensure any conflicts of interest were appropriately managed. I’m going to continue asking those questions.

The Beattie Varley review that Mr McKernan discussed with the Minister was a review of the DHB’s own internal audit. Some of the very serious and troubling issues in that audit involved salary transactions that were not properly authorised or were excessive or inappropriate. Part of the suite of documents making up the internal audit was a document I tabled today, entitled “Salary and Allowance Validation”. It’s essentially a list of every salary and allowance change relating to a senior executive that was audited. This document highlights every time a salary or allowance did not properly comply with the board’s internal procedures or standard accounting practices. There is a specific column where the auditor notes if the salary or allowance received authorisation properly. For each year between 2002 and 2006, the auditor found salary increases that were approved by Mr McKernan and were not properly authorised. In 2003 and 2005, the auditor found at-risk payments that were approved by Mr McKernan and were not properly authorised. In 2005, the auditor found that 168 hours of annual leave and education leave for the senior executive were cashed in with approval from Mr McKernan, which, according to the auditor, a legal opinion did not support. In 2006, the auditor found a one-time payment approved by Mr McKernan for the senior executive, which the auditor labelled “unusual” as well as not being properly authorised.

We know that all these issues were being reviewed by Beattie Varley, because in the letter I tabled yesterday regarding terms of reference, they specifically state that they believe their instructions to include “review the remuneration of the senior executive, including the receipt of additional allowances, travel allowances, and other vehicle leasing arrangements without proper authorisation”. These fundamental questions must be answered. If Mr McKernan was the chief executive during the time in question and he was named in the audit documents, and those documents were then reviewed utilising the powers of the director-general, when he became director-general, did he take any measures to ensure the conflicts were managed appropriately?

We also need to know why the Minister, who was apprised of these issues as far back as December by Lester Levy, did not ensure conflicts were properly managed. We need to know why Mr McKernan was discussing the review with the Minister, given his name appeared in the audit documents.

I’ve consistently asked in the House whether the Minister took steps to ensure conflicts of interest were appropriately managed. Dr Levy raised these with the Minister in December, the Auditor-General raised these with the Minister in January, Rabin Rabindran raised these in person in the Minister’s office in March, and Mark Darrow, a former board member, raised these in a letter with the Minister in April. The Minister knew as far back as December. The Minister has received information about the internal audit. The Minister has a responsibility to New Zealanders to ensure conflicts are properly managed. I submit that he answers these questions to New Zealanders.

Madam Speaker—Mr Speaker; I forgot boys can be Speakers too in this House. I ask the House: when is income not income? And the High Court this week, in the past couple of days, has ruled: when it is debt, that is not income.

Ms F has challenged the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for eight years—eight years of scrutinising and intrusive looking into her life and her financial transactions—to come to a common-sense outcome that debt is not income. Ms F—we protect her identity. I’m very glad about this, in the public environment now, on this news, yet for eight years, her privacy has not been protected at all. Five years of having every single financial transaction judged because MSD wanted to—they smelt blood and they were out to get her. And they kept moving the goalposts. Whenever it turned out that there was nothing to see here, they moved on to something else, and they kept doing this. And, for eight years—living under a dark cloud of threat of crippling debt on top of debt that Ms F already had—MSD were trying to make her pay back over $100,000 of debt.

This is a hangover from nine years of a punitive National Government who directed public agencies to be punitive, to hunt for scalps, to search for blood. This is the outcome of a public agency spending a lot of time and money to go after one of our citizens where there was nothing to go after.

Now, we’re going to change that. We are going to ensure that we overhaul that culture of Work and Income and of all of our public agencies and ensure that the public have faith and confidence in our Public Service organisations. We don’t want to keep hearing consistently about decisions that have been made by our public agencies that have imposed hurt upon trauma, and we need a system change and attitude change.

I am very grateful to Ms F for even having the tenacity to put up with years and years of court to push it through. We know she wasn’t just the tip of the iceberg of who this has happened to; she’s the pin on top of the tip of the very large iceberg of who this has happened to. Many thousands of people over many years, even at the threat of being taken to court, have instead just said, “I will pay.” Even when the payments have been unjust, they have just had to give up and say, “I will pay.” So I have huge appreciation here today in this House for Ms F, for beneficiary advocates, for the work of We Are Beneficiaries, for the work of Auckland Action Against Poverty, for all advocates, but, most of all, for people who have ever received a benefit at all in their lives—and that’s a lot of us, by the way, in this whole country—who have put up with the dehumanising treatment for far too long, led through by the previous punitive Government, and have even managed to stay afloat at all.

But I have faith in the Ministers and this Government to turn that around, and I am so proud that the Green Party negotiated it in our agreement—to overhaul that very culture, to remove the sanctions. And I am so proud to have Jan Logie pushing that through on behalf of all of us, because our country needs this. Being cruel is not sustainable. Being cruel is not sustainable for people or communities or land or environment or our future, and so this Government will pull its socks up and will overturn that culture that put harm on top of harm.

What we want to hear about is a system that treats beneficiaries with respect and dignity—a system that is inclusive, rather than trying to separate out beneficiaries as a separate group of New Zealanders. They’re just us, and many of us have been one at some point in our lives. But, in actual fact, the way that society operates is that we are all beneficiaries. We all benefit from the interconnected help and support that we give each other at some point in time. Not one of us stands alone independent in this life. Beneficiaries, people who receive a benefit, people on low incomes—they’re just us, and I am so thankful that the High Court made a common-sense decision and said debts are not income. Thank you.

We had a speech from Andrew Little that was quite interesting because he had a bit of gravel in his voice. He had this undertone. He almost sounded like Chris Stapleton, who’s a country blues singer, singing “Tennessee Whiskey”. He thought that if he could give it that growl, if he could give it that bit of gravel, somehow it would have prominence to it and people would believe it, because he thought that power in his words would make a difference. We heard the slogan saying, “It’s a great day today.” We can celebrate all the good things that the Government’s been doing, but one thing that’s really important is that all of those words need to be held to account.

Today, we had the Rutherford College kapa haka group come up here, and I was honoured to be able to take them around Parliament. This is one of the questions that the students were asking me. They said to me, “Mr Ngaro, what’s the most important thing in your role here in Parliament, as a member of Parliament?” I said to them, “It’s the power of your words.” You see, I said to them that for all of the things that we say inside this House, there’s Hansard that records those words. When you are in Government, or even as an MP in your local electorate, you then have the power of your words. When you declare a statement or you’re saying “This is a vision, this is what we’re going to do, and this is what we want to achieve.”, your words are held to account. You can give a bit of gravel, you can give it a bit of undertone, and it can sound, you know, sort of sexy and cool, but, at the end of the day, it’s all held to account. That’s what’s important.

I want to hold to account this Government, because one of the promises that it has made is around children in care—the welfare of children, the issues around poverty that impose upon children, and the harm and the well-being of children, which has become critically important to this Government, as it has declared. I want to read out here that in this House, on 11 April, the Hon Tracey Martin said—these are the words that she said when I asked her a question—“we have a large body of work under way, which includes continuing our social worker recruitment … developing new ways to recruit kin carers by working in partnership with iwi and our Pasifika community, … 24/7 caregiver support and inquiry line … improving inductions for caregivers, increasing the number of safe and loving places”. Those were the words that were proudly declared in this House by the Hon Tracey Martin. I have a lot of respect for her. Her intent is right, but, like all things, all intent is held to account in regards to what you achieve.

So why is it, with these words that were declared quite openly both before the election and while in Government, that we’re hearing a different tone from our community? Let’s think about what that tone is. Nothing reflects it better than down in Otago, where Roxburgh’s Stand children’s camps were delivering services for traumatised children—children who are the most vulnerable. And the Minister has declared there are about 6,000—in fact, 6,100—children that are currently in care. When the community came together, this is what they said: for all the talk that this Government talked about—“When we are the Government, children’s welfare will be the priority.”—here’s the reflection of the truth, here’s the walk of that talk: Roxburgh children’s camp closed. And here’s what the children said: “We’ve missed out in the general lolly scramble, unlike the America’s Cup and other lucky people.” In other words, for all the talk, that’s not the walk that’s coming.

In the declaration by the Minister in regards to kin carers, why are we having Kate Hawkesby declaring this: “There are carers that are quitting in big numbers.”? In fact, there is a huge decline, and the reason for that is—from the caregivers themselves, they say this—the system is broken. Here’s from one of the caregivers: “I just got tired, worn down, and broken, because it wasn’t really the children; it was the system that broke me—the system—because there’s no help there.”

When your words declare that you want to fix a system that’s broken, when you haven’t given the support—in fact, I want to quote here from the national care standards for Oranga Tamariki that were set, and this is from the Cabinet paper. Here’s what it declares on page 26, here’s what’s come out through the Cabinet, and they all agree with this: “to provide caregivers with support or assistance to access support including where a caregiver requests this, ensuring training is available for caregivers.” Why is it that our caregivers are stating for themselves that they are struggling?

I want to finish off with this quote that’s come from another caregiver who’s saying that they want to provide the best service and care for our children. And here’s what they say: “Regular contact, checking with us, and seeing our emotions would be great, but we don’t see it. It’s literally like the movie Hunt for the Wilderpeople. I laughed when I saw it. They drive up, they dump the child, they stay for about five minutes, and then they leave, and that’s the last we ever hear from them.”

Your words are important. The community will hold us to account. It’s great to be able to see that we’re holding them to account for the things that we see aren’t happening in our community.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak in this general debate because these are positive times. I agree with Alfred Ngaro, the previous speaker, that it’s important that you do hold to your promises, and, as a brand new Government, we announced our Families Package in December 2017 and then, two days ago—on 1 July, actually; three days ago already—we rolled it out. This is our Government’s major response to child poverty.

I know the Hon Andrew Little has already mentioned the numbers involved, but I think it’s important that we’re really clear on how many people are actually benefiting from this Families Package, so I want to repeat those numbers: 64,000 children will be lifted out of poverty as a consequence of this package, 26,000 more families will be eligible for Working for Families assistance, and 384,000 families with children will be better off by an average of $65 a week, which is the biggest boost in household income in a decade. Let’s also not forget that we have 1 million people that will be warmer this winter. It’s a winter energy payment that will look after 700,000 senior citizens, and 275,000 families will be getting help to stay warmer in their homes this winter. We’ve seen a lot of people getting sick and even being taken to hospital over the winter months because they can’t stay warm. We’ve even seen people die, and this Government believes that that is simply unacceptable. That is not the New Zealand that we should be settling for.

Our Prime Minister took the time out over the weekend to make the announcement of the Families Package on Facebook, and the post so far has hit over 16,000 likes and loves and has been shared over 3,000 times. There have been lots and lots of comments made, and I’d just like to read a couple out that are specifically touching: “Thank you. This will make a huge difference to so many families, including ours. Finally, a Government that cares.” and “Thank you, and as a grandparent raising grandchildren, thank you for the additional clothing allowance for our mokos. I found out about the increase on Friday, and I cried straight away because of the struggling lately.”

Now, you can sneer about these struggles, but in my previous role as president of the flight attendants’ union and, later, as the head of aviation at E tū union, I’ve seen those struggles first-hand, and I’ve seen how over the last nine years, because of changes made by that previous Government to employment law, we’ve seen a decreasing share of the economic growth going to working families. It has created the working poor, and that’s really important to think about, because the majority of the children in poverty are actually in families where both parents work. Both parents do shift work. They work their butts off. They hold multiple jobs, they work shifts, and they still have no time to look after their kids. They still have no money to provide for their families. They’re locked out of the housing market.

Now this Government has changed all that. We’ve changed it. We’ve given New Zealanders hope and a chance to get ahead, and we’re doing that with the Families Package and we’re doing that with KiwiBuild. We’re opening the door to affordable housing for so many families and people, and we’re addressing what has been a real housing crisis. The Hon Andrew Little told us that there have been 1,100 people so far that have registered for this scheme, but I was told just before that we are already up to 2,000 people that have registered for this.

So, like our Prime Minister, we are most proud of the fact that we are not scared to have empathy and well-being as measures to inform our policies. We have compassion, and this Families Package, like the Prime Minister said, is one of our proudest moments. Under the leadership of our right honourable Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, we finally have a plan to fix the neglected problems of the past. We have ambition that things can be better, and we have the willingness to try new things.

But instead of being constructive, the Opposition are negative and they seem confused. Simon Bridges is for the Families Package, but, at the same time, he opposes it. He has plenty of criticism for it, but yet, at the same time, he doesn’t want to commit to removing it, either. On Morning Report, he called it “not targeted enough”. But then he went to talk again about his tax cuts for all, which are the most untargeted things you can think of, because the money will go to the top 10 percent, whereas this Government’s Families Package delivers for middle and low income families.

We are proud that we are rebuilding the foundations, growing the economy, and creating a New Zealand where everyone gets a fair go.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What is quite remarkable is the complete disjunct between the words that we hear from Government members and their actions. They’re actually scrambling around. They already seem like a tired, worn-out, old Government that’s desperately trying to sell a message of greatness and hope to New Zealanders, but what New Zealanders are experiencing doesn’t match up with the rhetoric, because what they’re experiencing in reality is a Government—a centre-left Government—that doesn’t appear to care.

It certainly doesn’t care about hard-working Kiwi taxpayers, because what do they do? They come into office and they legislate away some tax relief and benefits that the previous National Government had put in, just to leave 1.7 million Kiwis worse off—worse off. Many of them are worse off by a thousand dollars a year of tax relief that they were legislated for under the previous National Government. They try to say they care and their actions are different, but that isn’t enough for them. It isn’t enough for them. They really want to sock it to New Zealanders.

They talk about helping New Zealanders to stand on their feet. I actually think they may mean that, but the only reason they want to help New Zealanders on to their feet is because that makes it easier to get to their back pockets, because what are they doing? What are they doing? They’re imposing more taxes and lifting the cost of living so that New Zealanders are worse off.

What have we seen? They cancelled those tax changes. The Amazon tax, making Kiwis pay more for the goods they consume; the brightline tax changes; and that dog’s breakfast of a bill that will change the Overseas Investment Act—those changes are seeing rent rises. What’s more, on top of that—because that’s not enough for them—there are nationwide fuel excise increases that, over three years, will see hard-working Kiwis paying 12c a litre more for their fuel.

But that’s not enough. Regional fuel taxes—Auckland have got theirs already. Fourteen other regional councils around New Zealand are expressing an interest to get a piece of theirs just as soon as they can, including the Greater Wellington Regional Council. They’ll get it. They’ll apply for it, they’ll get it, and on 1 January 2021, Wellingtonians and many other New Zealanders will also be paying an extra 11.5c a litre for their petrol on top of those excise increases, and it all adds up. It all adds up to a higher cost of living for New Zealanders, not even just in the fuel for their vehicles but also in the goods they buy—particularly food.

Rents going up and the loss of tax cuts all make life that much harder for the people in New Zealand that they’ve always claimed to represent, over that side. They’ve completely lost their way because here’s the thing—particularly with these tax changes around fuel. It has been acknowledged by the Minister responsible that it is a regressive tax and that it will hurt lower-income New Zealanders more than the wealthy, but they proceed with it anyway. What is his answer to New Zealanders who struggle to get by and who will struggle even more because of the actions of that Government? What is his answer? “It’d be good for them in the long run.” How patronising. How patronising of a Government that has been in office for only nine months and that purports to care for the poor and needy of New Zealand and then smacks them every which way they can. It’s an absolute travesty.

On top of that, we have to ask why. Why would they do this to these people? Apart from a lack of care and compassion, why would they do it? It’s because of poorly targeted and wasteful spending elsewhere. The Government inherited the books in great shape, with massive surpluses and an economy that—until they got their hands on the levers—was looking to perform exceedingly well for the coming years. They waste $2.8 billion to get 900 fewer students, they give Shane Jones a $3 billion slush fund, and then they suddenly find the larder’s empty. So what do they have to do? They have to find other sources of revenue to make up for the fact that they’ve wasted so much elsewhere.

So this is a Government that is the architect of the misfortune of New Zealanders and the architect of its own misfortune. They want to tell New Zealanders that it’s all rosy under the coalition Government, but that’s not what New Zealanders are feeling, it’s not what they are experiencing, and it’s not what the horizon looks like for those hard-working Kiwis. Just nine months into a change of Government, every day and in every way this Government is trying to make Groucho Marx look like a wise man when he said “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere”—

Order! Order! The member’s time has expired.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I 1 Hūrae, i whakarewa ake tō mātou kaupapa, te kaupapa mō ngā whānau, arā te tohatoha i te moni me te tautoko ki ngā whānau. I a au i te kāinga i noho ahau, i mātakitaki ahau i te kōrero o tō mātou Pirimia, a Jacinda Ardern, e awhiawhi ana i tōna pēpi a Neve Te Aroha. E kōrero ana ia i runga i Pukamata e pā ana ki tēnei mahi, hei ko tāna ko tēnei te mea e whakahīhī ana ia kua tutuki i a ia i Te Pirimia. I kōrero ia e pā ana ki te pupū ake te whakaaro o tēnei kaupapa mō ngā whānau, nā, e tino whakahīhī ana ia kua tae mai te rā kia whakarewa i tēnei kaupapa. Nā i kōrero ia, kua piki ake te wiki kua hoatu ki ngā whānau kia noho ki te kāinga me te pēpi ki te 22 wiki anō hoki. Kua tīmata te tohatoha, te hoatu i te $60 ia wiki ki ngā whānau kātahi anō te pēpi ka whānau mai ā muri mai i te tahi o Hūrae, mō te katoa o te tau kotahi—mō ētahi o ngā whānau, rua tau, toru tau. He aha te mea? He aha te take? Nātemea hei tiaki i ō tātou pēpi, ā tātou taonga tuku iho, kia māmā ake te whakatupu i ngā pēpi, i ngā tamariki, nātemea ko te piko o te māhuri, tērā te tupu o te rākau. Ko ā tātou tamariki tērā.

Nā i kite ahau, neke atu i te 16,000 ngā tāngata i hoatu i te kōnui, te manawa nui anō hoki ki tōna kōrero, ki tōna karere i runga i Pukamata. Ki ahau nei, he Pirimia manaaki tangata kia hoki mai te manaaki ki roto i te mahi Kāwanatanga. He Pirimia aroha ki te tangata, awhi, tautoko anō hoki.

Nā e hiahia ana ahau ki te kōrero e pā ana ki te tohatoha i ngā moni mō te wā o te hōtoke, mō te wā e kaha nei te makariri. I tēnei wiki, i kite ahau i tētahi kōrero i runga i tōku ake Pukamata mō tētahi māmā i Moerewa, tētahi pouaru, e rua ana kōtiro, e amuamu ana ia, e tangi ana ia mō te makariri o tōna kāinga. He kāinga rēti tōna. I taua rā tonu i haere ia ki te toa ki te hoko i ngā mea hei whakatikatika i tōna ake whare kia mahana tōna whare mō ana kōtiro. I tangi taku ngākau. E mōhio ana ahau ko tēnei moni e hoatu ana ki wēnei whānau, ka ora ai wēnei tamariki, ka mahana ai wēnei whānau. Kia kaua koutou e wareware, ko te ture kua whakature i tērā tau anō hoki arā ko te Healthy Homes Guarantee tētahi atu ture hei whakapai ake, hei whakamāmā ake i tēnei tū āhuatanga.

Kotahi meneti e toe ana, e hiahia ana ahau ki te whakautu ētahi o ngā kōrero o tērā taha o Te Whare. Hei ko tā rātou, e hē ana tō mātou hoatu i te moni, tō mātou tautoko i ētahi o ngā kaupapa. Nō. Kāhore. Kāhore ahau e whakaae ana ki tērā. Nā koutou te hē. I te heahea koutou ki te tuku atu i te moni ki te 10 paihēneti o ngā tāngata, ngā tāngata whai rawa, engari te nuinga o ngā tāngata ka noho tonu i roto i te rawakore, i te pōharatanga anō hoki. E kore rawa ahau e whakaae ki tō koutou whakaaro, ō koutou kowhete i a mātou mō tō mātou mahi hei tautoko i ēnei whānau i tēnei wā taimaha.

Nā, e tika ana te kōrero o tō mātou Minita mō te taha pūtea. Hei ko tāna: he aha te mea nui o tēnei ao? Tāna i kī atu he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. Nā ko tērā te mahi o tō mātou Kāwanatanga.

[On 1 July, we launched our Families Package, which is an allocation of money to support families. While I was at home, I watched the news item where our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, was cuddling her baby, Neve Te Aroha. She talked about this programme, the Families Package, on Facebook, and how proud she was to be the Prime Minister when it was introduced. She described how the idea for this package for families came about and how proud she was that the day to launch this initiative had arrived. She talked about how the number of weeks given to families to stay at home with their baby had increased to 22. The distribution has begun, giving $60 per week to the families of babies born after 1 July, for the year—for some families, for two or three years. What for? What is the reason? The reason is to nurture our babies, our inherited treasures, to bond with the babies, with the children, because it is the looking after of the sapling that makes a tree grow strong. Our children are the same.

Now I saw that more than 16,000 people gave her Facebook speech and message a thumbs up or a heart. In my view, a Prime Minister who cares for people will bring caring back to the way Government works. She is a Prime Minister who loves people and who will embrace and support them.

I want to talk about allocating money during the winter, when we are beset by the cold. This week, I saw on my own Facebook a report about a mother from Moerewa, a widow with two daughters, who was complaining and crying about how cold her house was. She had a rented home. That very same day she went to the shops to buy what was needed to improve her house so her home would be warm for her girls. My heart wept. I know that this money that we are giving these families will benefit these children, it will keep these families warm. Let us not forget that the legislation that was passed last year, the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act, was another law which improved and eased this type of stress.

I have one minute left, and I want to respond to some of the comments from that side of the House. In their view, we were wrong to give this money and to support some of these initiatives. No. No. I cannot agree with that. You are the ones who are wrong. It makes no sense to give money to the top 10 percent of people, of the wealthy people, while most people remain destitute and in poverty. I can never agree with your thinking, or with your objection to our actions to support these families at this tough time.

Now, our finance Minister is right. He asks: what is most important in this world? His answer is people, people, people. And that is what our Government is about.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last month, I had the honour of attending Fieldays up near Hamilton, Mystery Creek, and what was really nice about this particular Fieldays was just walking around the different stalls, seeing the innovation from the agricultural sector and seeing the young people. There were a lot of young people there. I want to talk about those young people, and I’ll come back to them later on, but we need these people joining the agriculture sector, because if we want to increase our exports, we need to attract more young people to this space.

I just want to talk about some of the Government’s decisions and their impacts on Clutha-Southland. It’s not all doom and gloom. I do want to congratulate them—despite being a lion in Opposition, they’re a bit of a lamb in Government, and one of those areas where they were a lion was the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I want to acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay, who’s in the House today, and also the previous Minister of Trade, the Hon Tim Groser—absolute stellar job for New Zealand. For New Zealand to increase our standard of living—we’re a small country at the bottom of the Earth—we need to trade more. So I just want to congratulate the Government on passing the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. If they didn’t pass that, that would have really hurt Clutha-Southland.

You would’ve also noticed at Fieldays the Minister of Agriculture came out with a rural-proofing policy—a rural-proofing policy. Now, let’s have a look at some of their policies and how they’re affecting Clutha-Southland. Immigration: Labour campaigned on cuts of 25,000 to 30,000. New Zealand First campaigned further to 10,000. Well, I’ve got restaurants in Queenstown—take the Lone Star, for example. They struggle to open some lunchtimes because they can’t find staff. I’ve got a restaurant in Te Ānau, the Ranch Bar and Grill. If you go there, it’s a wonderful restaurant. They can’t even open up the upstairs of their business. They’re functioning at 70 percent of their business. How are they supposed to make money?

We also saw during the Budget the Primary Growth Partnerships, which led to some really innovative projects and value-added projects being cut. The oil and gas decision—this is a decision which will cost New Zealand hundreds of millions of dollars. This decision didn’t even go to Cabinet. Irrigation—just cut off. Biological emissions into the emissions trading scheme—this is going to cost, on average, $5,000 per farm.

Another example of the Government being a lion in Opposition and a lamb in Government: the Minister of Agriculture was forced to go around with his begging bowl for the Government Industry Agreement for Biosecurity Readiness and Response agreements, which were put into force in 2013 by the Minister for Primary Industries at the time, Nathan Guy, where, basically, if there’s a biosecurity incursion, the industry forks out up to 12 percent. The Minister of Agriculture, a month or two ago, went round with his begging bowl and increased it to 32 percent. Take M. bovis alone—this is going to cost the industry a couple of hundred million dollars more.

Take the regional growth fund, or the “New Zealand First survival fund”: just under $60 million was applied for from Northland—$62 million given out. That’s right—less was applied for and more was given out. The rest of New Zealand: $250 million was applied for, and only 42 percent was given out, so over 62 percent of that fund was given out to Northland.

I just want to talk about Labour campaigning on looking after vulnerable children. On Monday this week, in a small rural town in Otago, the Roxburgh children’s camp had a celebration—well, it wasn’t really a celebration; it was a bit of a farewell. Over 70 members of the community turned up, because it’s closing down. This is a camp that looks after some of the most vulnerable children in Otago and Southland. These children have been sexually abused, physically abused, and mentally abused. I just want to read out a comment from the Central Otago mayor, who called the closure “an absolute bloody outrage”: “I’m just heartbroken … the Minister for Children Tracey Martin … [needs] to look at herself in the mirror and ask if she has any integrity for what she’s done to the children of the South.”

While I’m on it, if we want a strong farming sector and a rural community, we don’t need to cut essential health services. We took office in 2008 amongst a global financial crisis. We had the Christchurch earthquakes—some of the most expensive disasters, GDP-wise, that any country in the world’s ever faced. We borrowed more to keep these services going. Labour took office late last year, and what do you know? Roxburgh children’s camp, no more; Lumsden maternity hospital—probably gone; we’re trying hard—and 600 grand out of the Rural Health Alliance. This Government needs to start listening to rural New Zealand.

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Could I just, before I respond to that contribution, take the opportunity on behalf of New Zealand First to extend our condolences to the Jones family. Of course, the Hon Shane Jones is a highly respected member of our caucus and, I know, someone who has many friends and is one of the great characters in this House, and I know that you will probably all join me and us in extending our condolences and showing our respects to his family on the passing of his father.

I guess the contribution we’ve just had from the member for Clutha-Southland, Mr Walker, actually follows on from that funeral theme. It has been emanating from the Opposition benches over recent times. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was actually borne out by some facts, and we’ve just seen the forecast from the IMF: the 3 percent GDP growth, out for five years; unemployment trending lower; and, importantly, real wages beating inflation. That is the challenge: to get a growing economy where everyone benefits, not just everything going up to the top 1 percent. As we look at the egalitarian message we’ve done around this, we’re taking foreign buyers out of the housing market so our citizens get a better shake of the stick. But there’s an old maxim “Don’t listen to what people are saying about the markets; listen to what the markets are saying about themselves”, and oh what a story they’re telling. The sharemarket, where actual people put real money and invest, is at record highs.

I want to highlight off the back of Mr Walker’s contribution the fact that the latest quarterly update from the Ministry of Primary Industries on primary industry exports is up to $42.2 billion, up 10 percent, at a record level. We have challenges of growth, not stagnation. Dairy revenue is up 14 percent, and, encouragingly, that’s off the back of value-add. It’s not on more volume. We’ve actually got 200,000-odd less cows than we had two years ago, but we’re starting to trend in the right direction in that value-add.

Horticulture is up to nearly $7 billion, up 4.7 percent. Arable is up 20 percent, and a lot of that is based on herbal remedies and natural remedies that we’re manufacturing and adding real value to. And forestry is up 11 percent as we embark on our nation-building 1 billion trees strategy.

Of course, Mr Walker alluded to the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund. He may be sceptical about that, but I can tell you his mayors and his constituents are very excited for the first time in a number of years to actually have some money available for their infrastructure and their projects. There’s the $1.1 billion tax credits that came in the Budget to help us innovate, help that value-add. There’s the trade deals, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, as Mr Walker alluded to. There’s the EU trade deal. We were at the British High Commission this morning—and I know Mr Walker was there as well—and they’re enthusiastic about a UK trade deal.

We have been there for those farmers in Clutha-Southland with the M. bovis, and, yes, they should contribute some themselves, but we’re putting up $886 million, the vast majority of that coming from the taxpayers of New Zealand. But, of course, the industry that I do want to highlight is the red meat sector, and isn’t it great to have a $9.2 billion industry, up 10 percent. But, of course, one of the challenges that we have as an industry is the pipeline of synthetic proteins—this disruptive technology coming down the pipe at us. We must respond as a nation.

But imagine my shock and surprise, as a farmer as much as a politician, when I saw our national carrier, our national champion, highlighting and showcasing the very threat that we face, the Impossible burger—and not just putting it on the menu but showcasing it, putting videos out, and talking a big game. It’s paying journalists to go overseas. The Air New Zealand charter in its guiding principles actually says that one of their aims is to promote New Zealand companies, and in this case they have badly let their rural constituency down. Those constituents that only have the choice of Air New Zealand have no choice to take their business elsewhere—the tens of thousands of meatworkers, the farmers, and the truckies. They all have to—

Order! The member’s time has expired. Before I call Nicola Willis, there’s been a box that’s been sitting in that area without a member behind it for the vast majority of this time. It’s to be taken down off the bench. Thank you.

I’m standing up today to talk about the state of the Minister of Education, to talk about the growing gap between his words and his actions, the growing gap between his intentions and the reality of what’s going on in education, and the growing gap between his ideology and the results for our children. This is a Minister, who in February this year, told us that his approach would be one that was respecting, engaging, and drawing in educators; that his approach would be about broad engagement and shared results; that there would be a lot of co-design, consultation, and collaboration—and all of this was used to justify the fact that that Minister wanted to have 13 different reviews in education.

So then we ask ourselves: if those were his intentions, what is the reality in education right now? We have primary teachers striking for the first time in 24 years. The engagement’s not working so well for them, Mr Hipkins. We have school principals, respected, longstanding, experienced leaders in our community—37 of them—taking a full-page ad in the New Zealand Herald to protest the Minister’s approach to the review of NCEA. And, don’t worry, they’re not backing down from that. Twenty-three more principals have joined them to say, “We’ve had enough of this Minister’s approach, too.”

As if that’s not enough, today we had respected educators of more than a hundred years’ combined service and Māori leaders of great standing in our community—Sir Toby Curtis and John Shewan at the Education and Workforce Committee—telling us why they were making a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal following that Minister’s decision to terminate the agreements with partnership schools. I want to talk about that, because if there is one action that throws into high relief the gap between the words of this Government and what it actually does, the hypocrisy of this Government, it is the callous disregard for the students—

💬 SPEAKER: When I stand up, the member sits down. She used a word which is on the proscribed list, and she will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I stand, withdraw, and apologise. If there is one action that throws into high relief the disregard this Government has, it is the way that they have approached partnership schools. Because those are schools that were set up to target those often let down by mainstream schools—Māori, Pasifika, and students from decile 1 to 3 schools. Those were schools that were embraced by communities determined to do better for their own people. They were schools that were innovating—that were having the courage to do things differently. They were schools that were delivering results: less truancy, more achievement, more engagement from whānau, fewer suspensions. They were schools that, in the words of Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, had a kaupapa about what is good for our children. They were staffed by people working hard to make a difference to the lives of disadvantaged kids.

So what does the Minister think? How did he engage, collaborate, and cooperate with those schools? Did he visit them? No, not a single one. Did he talk to the students achieving in those schools? No, not a single one. So did he engage with the whānau? Did he engage with the leaders? Did he engage with the teachers at that school? No, he didn’t consult a single one because their ideology didn’t match his and, therefore, they weren’t worthy of his listenership. It is to the shame of the Government that they have been prepared to terminate the agreements of partnership schools without any consideration to the 1,500 children whose parents and families have chosen those schools because they believe they deliver better for their children.

So how does that action match up with the words of the Minister? Well, I won’t say it for myself. I’ve already got myself into trouble for that approach in the House today. I’ll use the words of others. I’ll use the words of John Shewan and Sir Toby Curtis, who were before our select committee today, who said that what they think the Minister’s approach amounts to is a clear case of bullying—totally unacceptable. They say that they think it’s one of the most skilful forms of bullying they have seen. They said they think the actions are manifestly unjust, that there was no evidence base for them, and that the decisions swam against the tide—the tide of action against inequality, the tide of doing things for those who are disadvantaged.

So before I sit down, let me say that when I talk about partnership schools, I’m not just concerned for those children. I’m concerned for every child and family affected by the 13 reviews in education, because of the callous disregard this Minister is prepared to show when actions don’t fit his ideology. He needs to do better. He needs to listen. He needs to live up to his words of engagement, because if we want our education system to improve, the voices of all should be heard.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.