General Debate

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

It is a great day to be part of this coalition Government, a Government that is positive, optimistic, and working together to provide strong and stable leadership for this country. I want to acknowledge particularly the Acting Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and thank him for his leadership over the last six weeks. As I indicated earlier, he is a man of great wisdom and foresight, who has led this country—

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Seriously.

—for the last 6 weeks in a seriously well manner. He speaks with great exactitude, and that is something that we are very proud of on this side of the House. I could understand, however, if the Acting Prime Minister was feeling a little deflated and disappointed by his experience over the last six weeks. He may well have been expecting to be put through his paces during the six weeks he was Acting Prime Minister, and instead he got Simon Bridges. So if he’s feeling a little disappointed, that’s fully understandable.

This is a Leader of the Opposition who was upstaged not once, not twice, not three times, but four times during his first National Party conference. First, he had John Key. You know you’re in trouble when they wheel out the last person, to remind you of how good they were. So he was upstaged by him, and then, of course, the great hope for the future: John Howard was the great hope for the future! Simon Bridges decided to demonstrate just how modern and progressive he is by wheeling out his hero, John Howard, to the National Party conference. Then, of course, he was upstaged by Mark Mitchell. “Mark who?” I think most of the country will be saying, but he was upstaged by Mark Mitchell during his conference, and then, of course, he was upstaged by the Prime Minister during that as well.

There is an insight into Simon Bridges’ modern and progressive thinking in some of the comments that he made. For example, he wanted to demonstrate how down he is with young people by talking about his online banking, which he lost the password to six months ago—so he still writes cheques. I didn’t even know that people were still issuing cheques, but Simon Bridges is still using them. Simon Bridges offers a Walkman solution in a smartphone world. But they did come up with what they think—they thought really hard and thought, “We need a bold new policy. I know! More teachers and smaller class sizes.” This was the bold new innovation from the party that tried to increase class sizes last time they were in Government.

As the Minister of Education, I thought, “This is good. This is going to be a good debate for us.” I look forward to getting into this debate, because I also value the role of teachers and want to see class sizes in New Zealand smaller. It’s a position I think all of the parties in Government have held for some time. So I looked up the details of the National Party’s policy announcement, because I was looking forward to the debate on this, and there weren’t any. I could not find any details.

So I listened to Simon Bridges’ interviews. I thought, “It’s all right. It will all become clear as to what it is that the National Party is promising.” So, first of all, what about how much it’s going to cost? How much would it cost for their policy? I thought that was a good place to start. This is an exact quote: “The hundreds ballpark, not billions. Whether that’s 300, 400 500, we’ve got to do the detailed work.” There’s nothing vague about this! There’s nothing vague, apparently, about the difference between $300 million, $400 million, and $500 million a year. The Minister of Finance, I think, would take a slightly different view on that particular assertion.

Then I wanted to know, well, how much smaller would the class sizes would actually be? How much smaller would the class sizes actually be? He isn’t sure—had to work that part out. But then he admitted in an interview that class sizes might not actually be any smaller.

So the grand gesture—the grand, big new idea from the National Party—had no detail. They don’t know how many more teachers they’re going to employ. They don’t know how big the change to class sizes will be, and they don’t know how much it’s going to cost.

What happened to the disciplined and focused National Party that used to be? It never would have happened under John Key, Bill English, and Steven Joyce—never would have happened—but this is the new Simon Bridges National Party. When they’re not being relentlessly negative, they come up with these vague ideas of something they might do one day in the future, but you’ll just have to trust them that they’re going to deliver on the promises they make. New Zealanders deserve better.

Can I also take a moment to acknowledge the Acting Prime Minister, because he has been incredibly successful in securing cash. The reason that the Minister of Education can’t actually promise class sizes is because Winston’s got the cash.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

Winston got the regional—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

It’s because the Acting Prime Minister got the cash. The Acting Prime Minister got the regional slush fund. The Acting Prime Minister has got hundreds of millions of dollars for diplomats, so the reason that the Minister of Education won’t answer the question as to whether there will be smaller class sizes is because he doesn’t have any money because Winston took the cash.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! If the member breaches one more time—

OK.

💬 SPEAKER: —her speech will be terminated.

The Acting Prime Minister has the cash.

Look, Chris Hipkins campaigned on a Valhalla, a heaven—a world of education where everything was free, where all modern buildings would be fixed, where 30,000 buildings would have huge investments, and where donations would be scrapped. He raised massive expectations, and what did he deliver? Nada—zero. Now the commitment around modern learning environments is a vision statement. When he went on Hilary Barry’s show and said “There will be no donations in the first Budget.”, it was there because the reality is that New Zealand First and the Greens are getting the cash in this Government, and it’s teachers who are missing out.

We know also what’s actually happening in the real world when Chris Hipkins says he’s doing a whole lot in education. The first cheque that he wrote out was to the students. That’s why we have parents who will be disrupted and we have teachers’ strikes—because $2.8 billion went to students, to buy their votes, instead of to teachers in New Zealand. To put that in perspective, it’s about double the primary teachers’ package. So the primary teachers’ package on the table that the Minister didn’t want to answer the questions on today—the reality is that he doesn’t want to walk in and tell those primary teachers that you could pay that package twice over because he’s spent it on students.

In the real world, this was a Minister—I don’t think there’s ever been a Labour education Minister that has seen the compulsory sector share of the vote in New Zealand decrease under his watch. Why has that happened? It’s happened because the money’s been spent on the students, or it’s been spent on regional slush funds.

We make no apologies. Under National, we absolutely prioritised education. You saw an $8 billion education vote go to $11 billion in the middle of the global financial crisis and with the Canterbury earthquakes, and we unashamedly are saying we now have other choices. National is being very clear: we do want to ensure that teachers are paid more and that we see reduced teacher-pupil ratios and smaller class sizes. We can do that because we have choices that we didn’t have before.

The reality is that when I look at what the Minister has to deliver, we know he can’t confirm there will be smaller class sizes. We know that there are strikes under way because there are more than 18 undelivered, broken promises. He didn’t fully cost his education promises. That’s why there’s a very clear contrast in this House between a party that focuses on the things that matter—resolving teacher shortages, reducing class sizes, paying teachers more—and a Government that came into power with false promises that are being broken and that basically is seeing cash go to his support partners to prop up that Government.

It is only National that can make credible promises in this area, because Chris Hipkins knows he’s run out of cash. He’s prioritised students instead of teachers, and it is National that is focused on the issues that matter in education.

Kia orana e Te Vaa Tuatua. Look, I’m pleased to take a call because we have got the best Minister of Education, who has a vision for the future and who will make sure that the education system will work for every New Zealander—every child throughout the country. Do you know what? For far too long, over the last nine years under the previous administration, we were going down a track where it was all about testing and not about learning. We are scrapping national standards because we know—the information we were hearing back from our schools and our teachers—about all the time that is going into testing and not enough time going into ensuring that our young people in the classroom are learning.

But then we get this policy announcement about class sizes. Well, I remember that in around about 2014, a previous Minister of Education—one Hon Hekia Parata—talked about larger class sizes, not smaller class sizes. So it got me wondering: did Simon Bridges really mean smaller class sizes or smaller classrooms? It’s hard to tell—hard to tell. But I know that under an education system where the Hon Chris Hipkins is leading the way, we’re asking some serious questions about what is the future of education so that all New Zealanders thrive.

In fact, the whole issue around charter schools—and we stood on this issue going into the election. We didn’t believe that it was right to set up a different system of education where money could go to an organisation where you could privatise the benefits and not have the same types of expectations as we do have in the public education system: having qualified teachers, and a curriculum that you can rely on, that is universally taught, and that enables science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching, actually, but doesn’t create a tiered system where you could privatise the benefits. No, we needed a public education system that could work for all, and I’m really proud that not only did we campaign on this but we made good on our word to say that there will be a pathway for those schools who are prepared to operate under the public education system. There will be a bridge, and those schools will be approved.

The Minister’s made those decisions. He has led summits where educationists, teachers, and principals can all contribute to the future space of re-visioning an education system that works for all New Zealanders—all our kids—because right from early childhood education to tertiary, we need to do things very differently and to reorient the skills, the learning, and what is taught to our young people so that they can be ready for now and into the future. That’s the kind of education vision that will take this country forward. Why? Because we know that regional growth and development will matter.

Now, I want to come to the point about Māori participation in this Government. Yes, we are making a big thing about the way in which we contribute to this Government, because we know that the influence across every domain of well-being will be seen under this coalition Government, and we’re pleased about the contribution. In fact, just today, our Minister of Employment, the Hon Willie Jackson, has noted how, in some of the hardest spaces—vulnerable young people—we’ve seen a decrease in young Māori not engaged in education, employment, or training, and that’s so important because we need to find a way where young people can be more engaged with the employment outcomes in their areas. We are creating partnerships with the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs so that more of our young people can have a pathway and seek training and employment opportunities in their community without having necessarily to go to the largest centre.

In the Māori development space, I am really proud because housing is at the core of our development aspiration. When people have a secure place to live—a warm, healthy home—we know that the opportunities are so much greater. Under the mainframe of our housing aspiration, not only will we increase the State housing stock but we will continue to emphasise healthy rentals and also building papakāinga for our whānau so that they can have secure housing.

But wait, there’s more. We have a team of Māori within the Labour coalition Government who are contributing to a vision for education, for a better-functioning health system, for regional growth and development, and for developing Māori land so that it can contribute to the regional economy, to ensure that the very best of who we are as a nation, as a country, and how we represent ourselves in the export market highlights the very best of our identity as a people—our culture that we have here in New Zealand—so that New Zealand can continue to be seen as a country that punches well above its weight.

I was so proud to see our leader, Simon Bridges, announce on the weekend at the National Party conference that we will bring partnership schools back. Yes, when we get elected in the next term, we will bring partnership schools back because we care about students getting the best possible opportunity to do well, especially Māori and Pasifika students. We know that Māori and Pasifika students are doing really well in partnership schools, and the member who just spoke before me, Nanaia Mahuta—yes, she is passionate about Māori employment; she should also get passionate about Māori education and support partnership schools.

I was also proud to see that, yes, we have focused on quality engagement in schools, quality of teaching, and quality teachers. Now, we are focused on smaller class sizes. That is to provide quality engagement between students and their teachers, which is very important. The Government has a very important role to play when it comes to education, because our children are our future, and, along with the Government, yes, of course teachers have their role to play, parents have their role to play, and students have their contribution to make as well.

I got a visit from a former resident of Mount Roskill a few years ago. I say “former” because she lived in Mount Roskill for several years, but because of a situation in her family, she needed housing help, and she has been put in an emergency house that is in South Auckland. This person has four children. She has now been in an emergency house for the last three months. So every morning what she does is bring her four children to Mount Roskill. Two children she drops at a primary school, then one at intermediate school, and the fourth one at one of the colleges in Mount Roskill. That’s the level of commitment I see from parents for their children when it comes to education.

When she was talking to me, she had tears in her eyes. This was because what she does after dropping her children at their respective schools is spend her time until 3 p.m. in her car because she can’t afford to go back to South Auckland and come back again at 3 o’clock to pick up her children. That is how hard it is for families, especially low-income families, under this Labour-led Government, and the regional fuel tax is hitting such families hard.

After picking up her four children, she takes them to their respective sports and extracurricular activities. By the time she gets home, it is 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. That is her life, and she cannot afford to drive back to her home before 3 o’clock because of the regional fuel tax.

I remember Minister Phil Twyford and Mayor Phil Goff saying that it’s equal to a coffee. The cost of this is going to be equal to a coffee? Yes, it might be easy for Minister Phil Twyford and easy for Mayor Phil Goff to grab coffees from cafes, but it’s not easy for ordinary people to grab coffees from cafes. Ordinary people go to cafes for coffee only on special occasions. That was the level of arrogance we saw from this Government, and also from Mayor Phil Goff. There is no consideration from this Government for low-income families.

A few weeks ago, I hosted a volunteers’ morning tea. This was to mark National Volunteer Week. There was an elderly gentleman there. He was so agitated. He said that for the first time, his daughter is saying that she is planning to move to Australia. This is the first time, he said, that they have been having this kind of conversation in their family. I can understand that because, as an immigrant myself, it’s not easy to leave your home country and start all over again, and I can understand the frustration that he had. This is because this Government doesn’t care about our children. This is because this Government doesn’t care about our future, but we, on this side—we do. And that’s why I am really proud of those announcements that we will bring back partnership schools, and also we will reduce class sizes.

Business confidence is important, because that is about the future that we can give to our children, and we have seen the same thing happening in the R & D sector. With the R & D tax credit policy, the only publicly available submission, which was from NZTech, expressed critical concerns. There were critical concerns from NZTech, which represents more than 800 organisations. What does that tell you? Thank you.

Tēnā koe. Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It is yet another great day to be part of this coalition Government with Labour and New Zealand First, with support from the Green Party. What a fantastic Government we are. I too want to add my congratulations to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who’s been absolutely superb in his Acting Prime Minister role—the great hammerhead shark from Ngāti Wai. He has led from the front.

Contrast that, though, to the other side, and it’s not so impressive. I could rattle off a few little miniature ornamental fish which could characterise the Leader of the Opposition, because the National Opposition is drifting. They are lost in a sea of despair in Opposition. It’s almost sad to see how the once-mighty National Party are now taking on water. Their waka is very shaky. They are being battered by Tawhirimatea and they are taking on water, and what is their kaihautū leader doing? He’s doing nothing. He has no new ideas—no new ideas—and is just flashing around his cheque book. He does not know how to lead an Opposition, and it is very sad, but I do have some words of advice for Mr Bridges.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Stay! Please stay!

Yes, stay! Thank you, Mr McAnulty. But also my advice to Mr Bridges is “When you least expect it, expect it.”, because that is where Judith “Crusher” Collins is coming in. Judith “Crusher” Collins is out for his job—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I warned members on this side to address people by their proper names, not colloquially.

Thank you, sir. We know that there’s a mutiny brewing in the ranks. There is a mutiny with the Hon Judith Collins, and we know who is in cahoots with her. We know “Poison Ivy”, the member for North Shore, Maggie Barry—oh. In advance, Mr Speaker, I withdraw and apologise. We know that there is a mutiny afoot. We know there is disarray in the ranks, and it’s very sad to see, but that’s what you get with an Opposition that is lost in a sea of despair, unlike this side, where we are a superfine-tuned, MMP, magnificent maritime waka of great America’s Cup - winning potential.

We are charging ahead—charging ahead. We have the strongest contingent of Māori MPs. We are putting Kiwi homebuyers before foreign buyers, we are building 100,000 new homes over 10 years, and we are putting more rangatahi into tertiary education. Just in my own patch of Otago Polytechnic, there is a 57 percent increase in enrolment, all down to the policies of this Government. It doesn’t stop there—we are racing ahead, as I said. Our Families Package is delivering millions of dollars’ worth of support to hard-working Māori parents, and this Government is putting its weight behind Te Reo Māori with our Minister of Māori Development, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta.

It’s sad. We know that under the last National Government, they were record-breakers. Under the last National Government—nine years of that Government—we became world leaders in homelessness, and that is shameful as a country. The unemployment rate for Māori doubled—it was double the rate across non-Māori under that last National Government. But I have good news. The figures just came out today: Māori unemployment is the lowest it’s ever been. More Māori are in work. That is to be celebrated, and I acknowledge the great work that is being done by our Ministers in racing our waka, racing ahead. We want everyone on board our waka because we want to keep everyone afoot, unlike the terribly lost and Gilligan’s Island - like lot over on the opposite side.

So we are racing ahead. We’ve got so much more to do. I’m really looking forward to playing my part within our coalition Government to achieve our agenda and keep on delivering for New Zealanders, because they are very proud of the way that we are working and uplifting everyone. Kia ora tātou.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand and rise and take a call in this, the general debate. Like my colleagues, I would like to focus on the theme of education—in particular, the theme of broken promises. We heard at the time of the Budget that in relation to education, there hadn’t been broken promises so much as promises that had not yet been delivered. Promises that had not been delivered, but which, no doubt, in due course, will be at some stage—“The cheque’s in the post.”

We’ve heard, for example, about the subject of school donations. The Labour Party, among others now forming the Government, said that donations would not need to be paid by parents of students in relation to school, but it’s a broken promise, or, rather, a promise not yet delivered. The only relevance that donations have to Labour Party policy is that the union pays them to the Labour Party and they make the policy based on that.

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s a serious breach of Parliament’s rules—what the member has said. It’s not a trifling one. It’s actually a very serious allegation the member’s just made.

💬 SPEAKER: It’s a new member and I think he won’t do it again.

Mr Speaker, certainly I didn’t intend to—

💬 SPEAKER: No, no. We’re going on now. We don’t go back when we do that.

Understood. In relation to broken promises, it’s clear that the political will has been replaced by the ministerial “won’t”.

Ladies and gentlemen, the people of New Zealand really want the Government to focus on the things that actually matter to them. In education, ladies and gentlemen, this actually means doing the things that they said they would do: making good on the promises that they made, instead of breaking them. Getting the basics right means, for example—to choose a topic off the top of my head—class sizes. So it’s not good enough merely to talk about them or to talk about them in detail that’s been boasted about as a matter of policy. How about actually doing the things that the Government has said that they will do? Talk is cheap, and it’s only words that we’ve had so far.

In relation to class sizes, on a local parochial note, I note that in the north-west of Auckland, in the electorate of Helensville, class sizes are increasing, whereby schools are fit to burst. This has been an ongoing problem for many years, and it will continue for many years in the future if the Government does not listen to the pleas of the north-west to actually do something about investing in schools in that part of the world, matching the population growth.

Various Opposition candidates, as they then were, who are now on the Government side made all kinds of statements along those lines in the education campaign—excuse me, in the election campaign. That was a Freudian slip, because so much did focus on the subject of education. So much was said before the election and so little was done after the election that I challenge the Government—in particular, the Minister of Education—to make good on some of those promises and, indeed, to back up some of that rhetoric, to turn the political will into ministerial will, and to turn the talk into action and actually do something about that.

In particular—Mr Speaker, if you’ll indulge me one more moment on the subject of the local needs—I would encourage the Government to consider the fact that it takes quite some time to build, plan, and implement new schools. That work needs to be done now by the current Government, and they should not simply wait until the population increases such that they say “Well, now it’s time to start the process.”, by which time it will be too late. I would encourage the Government—and, again, as I say, the Minister himself, in particular—to take seriously the needs of that community as I have been relaying them, and, indeed, that community has been presenting to both sides of the House over many years to actually get on and do these things. These are the basics. These are the things that they must get right. These are the things, indeed, that they have promised and that they must start to deliver upon.

Finally, we hear a lot on the subject of payment of teacher’s salaries. Of course, it goes without saying—or, rather, it might go without saying, but I’ll say it for the purpose of avoiding any doubt—that all people in this country recognise that teachers do a wonderful job for our children and, therefore, for us as a society. We must support them but we must also, in thinking about paying them more, actually consider ways that the might best be achieved.

Now one of these ways is to allow a flexible education system, whereby if a school has the resources and is able to make those teacher payments higher than they would otherwise be, then that is something that should be embraced. In the case of charter schools—or partnership schools, as they are correctly known—this is something that’s already provided for. This is something that’s already available. This is something that’s being taken away. So the Government, far from delivering on its actual promise to make things better, is in fact, in that respect and, indeed, in many others, making things much worse.

Before I call Ron Mark, I say to Jami-Lee Ross—the member could settle down, I think.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start by congratulating the Rt Hon Winston Peters on his leadership over the last six weeks, a task that I know he was happy to take on board, and he’s completed it with the distinction that we always knew he would. It sort of rides on the back of his sterling performance when he was the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer between 1996 and 1998, when he became renowned internationally as the best Foreign Minister that New Zealand had ever had, and between 2005 and 2008—a reputation which has only been enhanced now by his return to that portfolio. But I know that he too, like the rest of the New Zealand First team and the coalition Government, is looking forward to welcoming back the Prime Minister because, actually, we’ve missed her. It’ll be good to have her back with the team, and also it’ll be good to be able to see the Rt Hon Winston Peters get back into that area of the portfolio that he loves and that he does so well at, which is foreign affairs.

I have to say, if there’s one thing about the National Party, it is that they are predictable. When you have an Opposition that is predictable, it’s like beating up someone who’s only got one arm. It’s like driving a Ferrari and racing someone who’s driving an 850cc Austin A30. Watching the Hon Simon Bridges doing battle and duelling with the Rt Hon Winston Peters is like watching a chihuahua that won’t let go of the bottom of your trousers. It’s like watching one of those rather bizarre young sheepdogs when you’re out in the hills and you’re watching a shepherd working the dogs, and there’s one young one that’s just all over the place. And what does he have to do? He has to hook its collar to the most experienced dog that he has so that when he whistles, the experienced dog leads and the little one learns and trails along until he finally gets it into its head.

In watching his performance, I understand why Mr Simon Bridges is worried about business confidence, because business is worried about him. If they’re looking for the reason for their flagging confidence, it’s that when they look at the Opposition benches, they say to themselves, “My God, these are the people that we gave all of that money to to win the election, and they’ve put this young man in charge and he’s simply not up to it.” Mr Mark Mitchell’s sitting there smiling. We know why Mr Mitchell is smiling: because he’s another one of those contenders who’s delighting at Simon Bridges’ failure to get any gravitas to win hearts and minds.

Most of the people I talk to in the Wairarapa who are National Party people—13,000 of them—agree on two points. They agree on two points. They agree that Alastair Scott is the worst representative they’ve ever, ever had ever, and, two, they’re saying that Mr Bridges isn’t cutting it, and they’re wondering how long the National Party caucus is going to allow him to continue to make them look silly.

See, there are two great myths out there in the ether. One is the myth that the National Party Government is the best manager of the economy. That is an absolute—well, the members protest, so let me give one little example. If the National Party was a great manager of economy, if they were efficient, if they were productive, if they were prudent, and if they were economic and effective, then please explain the cost-effectiveness of their election campaign. You see, the National Party spent $3.97 per vote compared to New Zealand First, who spent $2.92 per vote. So don’t go preaching to New Zealand First about fiscal prudence and economic management, because the National Party actually is a failure in that area.

Look at the mythical surpluses and this huge social deficit and, by the way, the other myth—the other myth is that the National Party is the best steward of the Defence Force. Well, that is wrong, and Mr Mitchell should stand up and apologise to the country for doing absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing. He wails and he whines and he worries, but I’ve not had one question from Mr Mitchell on the strategic defence policy, not one on the P-8 decision, and not one on defence since we announced that policy. This Government is hitting the hard questions and providing the answers.

The House was witness this afternoon to an extraordinary event, where the Minister of Internal Affairs, Tracey Martin, came to the House and claimed that she had just been informed that Pauline Kingi had resigned from the position of chair of the independent inquiry into the appointment process of Mr Wally Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner of Police. I want to set out for the House the process—frankly, the debacle of a process—that has led to the point where, members, it appears we may need an independent inquiry into the appointment of Pauline Kingi, who was herself meant to be conducting an independent inquiry into the appointment process—

💬 Nicola Willis: What a shambles.

—behind Mr Wally Haumaha. My colleague Nicola Willis says “What a shambles.” and, indeed, that is the case.

Mr Haumaha was appointed on 28 May this year. The interesting thing about that appointment process was that the vacancy for deputy commissioner was advertised on 7 May and closed on 15 May—just eight days—and then a very quick appointment process was done. After that, later on, the news broke in the New Zealand Herald by Phil Kitchin and Jared Savage about comments made by Mr Haumaha to the Operation Austin inquiry in 2004. Many members in the House expressed some disturbance with these remarks. Immediately—the next day, 29 June—the Acting Prime Minister, Winston Peters, ordered that an inquiry be undertaken, and a few days later, at the post-Cabinet press conference, Tracey Martin was announced as being the Minister responsible for that inquiry as per the Inquiries Act.

Here we come to the first problem, which is that it is inappropriate for Tracey Martin, as a New Zealand First Minister, to be the lead Minister on an inquiry into someone who has ties to New Zealand First. I specifically do not say that he was a candidate, because Winston Peters has taken strenuous objection to the idea that he was the candidate for Rotorua in 2005, but I think it is fair to say that Mr Haumaha has ties to New Zealand First because he was certainly announced as the candidate in the Rotorua Daily Post.

Then, finally, after 3½ weeks, we had the terms of reference into the inquiry released. It is interesting that it took 3½ weeks to find someone to conduct the inquiry and 3½ weeks to finalise the terms of reference. Here we come to problem two. The terms of reference are manifestly inadequate. They do not deal with the question of what Mike Bush knew about Mr Haumaha’s remarks. Did he, in fact, know about the remarks that Mr Haumaha made to the Operation Austin inquiry? Secondly, what did Stuart Nash know? Did Mike Bush tell Stuart Nash about those remarks? More importantly, did he tell the Prime Minister about those remarks, because this is a statutory appointment? It’s the Prime Minister and Stuart Nash and Cabinet that sign off on this. Most importantly—and this question hangs over things still to this day—would Cabinet have made a different decision had they known about those remarks that Mr Haumaha made? So that’s the second problem.

Then we come to the independent inquiry and the news that broke earlier this week about Pauline Kingi and her connection to Wally Haumaha. I want to make it clear that this is not to besmirch the integrity of Pauline Kingi. I have never met Pauline Kingi, but it is manifestly clear from the public record that she has endorsed him 23 times. All of Wally Haumaha’s characteristics and attributes listed on LinkedIn—every single one of them—have been endorsed by Pauline Kingi. In return, Wally Haumaha has endorsed Pauline Kingi. There is a relationship, and that makes her inappropriate to lead an inquiry. It is odd that Tracey Martin defended her so robustly in the Parliament yesterday, and it is right and proper that Pauline Kingi realises that her appointment is inappropriate.

The Government must start again, realise the significance of this appointment and the inappropriateness of their previous appointee, start again, and find someone genuinely independent, and it must also ask itself how it got itself into a situation where, after 3½ weeks, Department of Internal Affairs staffers are seemingly unable to use Google to find the connections between the subject of the inquiry and the inquirer herself.

Tēnā koe te Māngai o tēnei Whare kōrero, ki a rātou kua wehe atu ki te pō, puta noa i te motu, haere, haere, haere atu rā. I te 31 tau ki muri i whakamanahia te Pire Reo Māori, arā ko te Māori Language Act 1987. Ā ko te hua o tēnei pire, i kīia he mana tō Te Reo Māori, he mana anō hoki tō te tangata e kōrero ana i tēnei reo ātaahua rawa atu. I whakamanahia tēnei reo i raro i te maru o te kāwanatanga o tērā wā. Mai rā anō kua whakapau werawera te tini me te mano ki te whakarauora i tō tātou nei reo, nō reira rau rangatira mā tēnei te mihi maioha ki a koutou.

[Greetings to the Speaker of this House of debate, to those who have departed to the place of the spirits, throughout the country, go, go, rest in peace. Thirty-one years ago, the Māori Language Bill was passed—namely the Māori Language Act 1987. The result of this bill is that the Māori language has legal effect, and that the people who speak this incredibly beautiful language also have status. This language was recognised under the auspices of the Government of that time. Ever since, many people have expended much effort to revive our language; therefore, my esteemed leaders, this is an appreciative acknowledgment of you all.]

Thirty-one years ago, Māori language became an official language of New Zealand. Although it was 31 years ago, we are still pushing for a very official status of our reo. It doesn’t come easily, but we are champions for it now, and it’s time—31 years later—for us to remember those whose shoulders we stand on, as they too were pioneers in this field. It’s at a time like this that I want to cast minds back to the time of Koro Wētere’s tangihanga and how far we’ve come because of the moves that he made here in this very House.

Koro Wētere answered in Te Reo Māori in this House of Representatives and he was ruled out of order. Now, today, Te Reo Māori is not only spoken but also sung right here in the debating chamber. At times, it’s also expected to be sung too. I wait ambitiously for the time to arrive—maybe not in my lifetime, but some time in the future—when the majority of members of Parliament in this House are apt enough to be able to stand and speak in both languages: the language of our tupuna, and also English as well.

We acknowledge those people who have gone before us. We are not complacent, however. We owe it to those champions of Te Reo Māori from those days but also to those ones today who continue to grow Te Reo Māori and also invest in our nation’s reo journey. It’s with that said that I would like to absolutely shout about the moves that this Government is committed to in terms of making Te Reo Māori something that we can integrate into our daily lives, starting with early learning and starting with our schools. That goal has been set by this Government as being 2025.

Having Te Reo Māori interspersed into our schools and early learning and to our primary schools—I’ve canvassed this issue widely throughout my electorate, and when we talked about it, it was often talked about as in compulsory Te Reo Māori in schools. I was pulled up by one of the kuia at one of the marae I went to out in the backblocks of Te Waimana. She said to me, “Stop calling it compulsory. Our language is a taonga, it’s to be respected. We never want to think that we’re shoving it down anybody’s throat. As we move forward as a country, I’d like to think that you had a bit more respect for it, and, actually, just put it into our schools. Treasure it for the treasure that it absolutely is.”

Based on that, this year’s Budget was the start of the Government’s work towards this. We are giving $16 million over four years to two reo Māori initiatives, with the first one being Te Ahu o Te Reo Māori, which will support teachers to deliver Te Reo Māori in the classrooms. It will support all teachers: those already teaching Te Reo and those who have the potential but may not have the confidence right now.

The aim of the second initiative, which is Te Kawa Matakura, is to develop a programme and qualification for secondary students who exhibit excellence in Te Ao Māori, and, more specifically, mātauranga Māori—Te Reo me ōna tikanga.

Recently, I heard our Minister—Minister Davis—talking about a bilingual Aotearoa. It reminded me of a couple of kaimahi that I’ve got, and I will spend the next 50 seconds talking about them. One of them is very fluent in Te Reo Māori—me ōna tikanga, and I got great pleasure when at a recent marae hui, the koroua asked me who she was. I managed to say, “She is Ngāti Pākehā.” She’s somebody that goes to hui regularly and goes to tangihanga. She’s immersed herself in Te Ao Māori, and ahakoa he Pākehā tana toto, he ngākau Māori tāna.

[She’s immersed herself in the Māori world, and although her blood is Pākehā, her heart is Māori.]

So she’s one person down one end of the spectrum.

The other one that I’d like to talk to you about is my kaimahi back in Rotorua who has just started on her Te Reo Māori journey. She looks forward to every Monday because she gets to go to her Te Reo Māori class, which she’s put off for so long. It is a treasure, and I will always be a champion for it. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I want to confess. Some days I temporarily put aside my parliamentary duties so I can drop my kids off at school and pick them up. It’s a juggle. I don’t always do it elegantly. With four to squeeze in the back seat, it’s true that occasionally one drifts from the group. But when I do this dropping off at school and picking up from school, I have the opportunity to chat with teachers and to chat with mums and dads about what matters to them, and my kids love it.

Let me tell you that a fortnight from now, those very same mums and dads will be scrambling. They will be scrambling because for the first time since 1994, teachers will be on strike. Those parents will be scrambling because their kids will be having a day off school. They’ll be scrambling for childcare. Some will have to take time off work. Others will have to pull a favour from grandma. Others will have to spend the money that was meant for new shoes on a babysitter. And those parents will be stressed out, but they won’t blame teachers for their stress—they appreciate the hard work that teachers do for their children and the efforts they put in. I’ll tell you who they’ll blame for their predicament. They will blame this Labour Government. They will blame this Labour Government for not sorting out the pay arrangements for teachers.

They expect this Government to have its priorities straight, and they are very sceptical when Labour says there’s no money for teachers. And sceptical they should be, because we just saw this very same Government shed billions on free fees for tertiary students and, as Nikki Kaye pointed out today, that sum alone would pay for the teacher pay claim twice over. They have watched this Government shed money on more diplomats and a play fund for its coalition partner. So we can forgive the parents of New Zealand when they say, “Why hasn’t this Government got its priorities straight and sorted out this teacher pay claim?”

The parents I speak to don’t actually ask for much. They didn’t ask for a grand education hui, bringing together every man and his dog—they didn’t ask for that. Their priorities are simple. What they say to the National MPs who listen to them—to people like me—is that they want their kids to go to school without teachers striking. They want to see teachers paid more. They want teachers to be treated as the respected professionals they are. They’d like smaller class sizes so that their son or daughter can get just a little bit more attention. They want smaller class sizes so that their child’s teacher has a more manageable workload and can do their best teaching every day. They would like to be able to send their child to a day care or a kindy without worrying about the quality of the care that they will get. They’d like to know the Government is investing in the Education Review Office so it can do a better job of checking centres are following the rules and caring properly for the well-being of children.

To the mums and dads of New Zealand, I say that National is listening. We understand your priorities, and they will be our priorities in our education policy, because we know that you’re not asking for what Chris Hipkins is serving. You’re not asking for a grand education vision statement to unite them all.

Parents are not asking for multiple reviews with reference groups, advisory committees, and focus groups. No, they are not. But is Mr Hipkins listening? It may come as a surprise to him, but most parents don’t want to go to Auckland or Christchurch for the day for a hui. They don’t want to have to get a babysitter so that they can go to a seminar on the big questions in NCEA. They want to get on with parenting, and they want their simple priorities listened to.

Now, while I’m on my feet, it’s important that I take this opportunity to address the issue of Victoria University. Mr Hipkins went there. I went there. I’m a proud alumnus, and I think many members of this House are. I value that university for the experiences it gave me, for the husband I found there, and for the debating club I debated for. That name “Victoria University of Wellington” resonates for me and it resonates for thousands of students and former students and Wellingtonians, and yet that university is proposing to bin that name, and to throw away the 120 years of history, of heritage, that goes with that name, because some branding experts have said that they’ve got a better idea.

Well, I put it on the record today that the Minister of Education must reject that bid. When the decision comes to him to sign off on a change to the name of Victoria University, he must be on the side of valuing the past and the heritage it represents and maintaining the good name of Vic—Victoria University of Wellington.

Tēnā koe, e te Māngai, māku e tū ana ki te tautoko i te wero, te kōrero a taku tungāne a Tamati i tēnei ahiahi. I tēnei rā he tino whaka—

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, I stand to support the challenge, the speech of my brother Tamati this afternoon. On this day a very—]

💬 SPEAKER: Tamati—Tamati Coffey.

Tamati Coffey, taku tino hoa, te mema o Paremata mō te rohe o Waiariki, he tangata tino kaha mō tō tātou nei iwi Māori o Te Waiariki. Heoi anō, he rā tino whakahirahira ki a mātou ngā iwi Māori, otirā, a tātou ngā iwi o Aotearoa mō tēnei tau e 31 te whakamana o te pire, ki te whakamana a tō tātou nei reo. Nō reira ki a koe e te rangatira, otirā kei a koe e hoa, tēnei te mihi.

[Tamati Coffey, a great friend, the member of Parliament for the Waiariki electorate, a person of much strength for our Māori people from Te Waiariki. And so this is a most important day for us the Māori people; in fact, for all peoples of New Zealand for this year is 31 years since the passing of the bill to make our language official. Therefore, to you my esteemed leader, to you my friend, I acknowledge you.]

It is an auspicious day, but before I get to the fantastic accomplishments of our history on this day, 1 August, I just quickly want to cast my attention across the aisle, because we’ve heard some shambolic speeches this afternoon, and I think you only get that kind of tone of woe and sorrow and confusion and frustration in a party that is still wallowing over a decision that happened about 10 months ago, when they failed to make this side of the House. They failed to secure the benches of power. They’ve done that because they forgot that in an MMP environment, you got to make some mates.

But they’ve come off the back of their wee conference that they had in the weekend, when they wheeled out some people from 2008. Most people in the modern generation have no clue who they are. The poor old Leader of the Opposition over there—and I hear those knives sharpening. I know that they’re coming for his back. “Don’t worry. We’re running a campaign.”—hashtag the Hon Simon Bridges.

But look, his big platform was education and so in they come in today. They charge because it’s the general debate. They come in charging and, gosh, they sent in their big hitters. Gee, they sent in their big hitters: Parmjeet Parmar, then they turned to Chris Penk. Gee, by the time they got to Christopher Bishop, they couldn’t be bothered. They flagged it, they changed tack, and even they couldn’t find the steam to keep going to bolster their own party leader’s bastion—plank—which was bringing back the Labour Party’s 2014 education policy.

But enough about them, because today is an auspicious day: 31 years ago in this very House, tō tātou nei reo rangatira, Te Reo Māori [our esteemed language, Te Reo Māori] was made an official language in this House. One year ago, Jacinda Ardern took over the reins, the helm, of our party, and today we get to farewell the Rt Hon Winston Peters from the fantastic job that he has done at the helm of our country for the past six weeks.

Look, last night I had to sit in this House and listen to—like I said, they’re in a bit of a time of sorrow, so we’ve got to forgive them for that. But our comrades across the aisle, they were so sad and down and out, and when it came to the appropriation debate about Vote Māori, all they could do was sledge my colleagues over this side of the House. So it’s incumbent upon me on this day, and I want to acknowledge my colleagues who sit in the Māori seats. I want to start with the Hon Kelvin Davis. On this day last year, he too stepped into the role as deputy leader of our party. He has been a champion for the people of Te Tai Tokerau. He sits there are the helm, he is third in charge of our country, and we are proud of the work that he’s doing in transforming the corrections system. We are proud of his work that he’s doing at the helm of Crown-Māori relations.

In Tāmaki Makaurau, the Hon Peeni Henare. The eloquence that that man has in tō tātou nei reo rangatira [our esteemed language] and in English, and with a passion for our kids, our youth, and the work he’s doing in Whānau Ora. I want to commend him.

Of course, we turn to our queen, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—the first ever wahine Māori to hold the role of Minister for Māori Development. It is a privilege to stand behind her right now. I know she’ll be going red-pink in the cheek. The first woman to wear a moko kauae in this House—a champion—and there are so many others. Nō reira, I love my team and I want to thank you for your time, and thank our team for being blooming awesome.

I can see the Labour Party brought out the big guns today in Kiri Allan, Ron Mark, and Rino Tirikatene.

This Government overpromised in education and it has failed to deliver. They talked a big game about caring for teachers and for the betterment of our children, but their actions do not reflect their aspirations or their rhetoric. They talked about improving teachers’ pay, reducing class sizes, and addressing teacher skill shortages and workload management, but the feedback from the people in Northcote and the schools that I’ve heard from is that they’ve done nothing, zilch, diddly-squat—next to diddly-squat. The results are that I fear for our future. I fear that our kids will not reach their potential, that our education system will fall behind, and that we will not, ultimately, have an economy fit for purpose and increasing the standards of living that we all want for our country.

The National Party backs these communities and our teachers and our students. We’re an aspirational party who believes in the power of education to transform lives. If your kid can’t succeed in the mainstream education system, we back community approaches where your child can and will succeed, and that is what partnership schools are all about.

Let me tell you about partnership schools. We’ve got 10 or 11, and they have a unique approach where they’re bulk funded and there’s flexibility in the curriculum and the way it’s delivered. We’ve got one just outside my electorate called Vanguard Military School, but most recently, on Monday, I was privileged to attend the South Auckland Middle School with my leader and, hopefully, Prime Minister in 2020, Simon Bridges, and the Hon Nikki Kaye. Alwyn and the team out in this middle school are doing fantastic things and getting great outcomes for over 150 students in areas like math, education, and science and technology, and these kids were not achieving well in mainstream education.

There is demand for schools like these, where the roll of this particular school, in particular, is well oversubscribed. Parents want to send their kids to these schools.

These are the kinds of schools that we want to roll out to improve the engagement of our Māori and Pasifika and those who have not succeeded in education. One of those is me. I left school at 15 years of age with no qualifications—nothing but a sense of my own destiny and a belief that my own life would be a hell of a lot better than in mainstream education. Had one of these schools been around, maybe I would have stayed in longer. Maybe I would have been able to go on further in my life than what I have done.

So why is this Government continuing to bash partnership schools, and not continuing with these? It can’t be because they’re not achieving great things for our kids, because we’ve proven that they are. It can’t be for cost reasons, because they’re actually a hell of a lot cheaper than for kids in the mainstream. There can be only one reason: ideology. Labour don’t like it when the State isn’t providing education. They don’t believe in communities and private enterprise, who know their area and their kids a hell of a lot better than this Government bureaucracy can ever do. In fact, Labour thinks it knows the best pathway to success, and that is why they’re getting rid of charter schools.

I just want to say that if re-elected in 2020, our leader, Simon Bridges, is committed to reinstating the partnership model. Unlike this Government, we back communities and these kids, and we’re not prepared to let these kids and their potential be squandered.

National is committed to ensuring that every Kiwi kid has the opportunity to succeed and to do their very best in life. That is why I am very much a proud member of the National Party, and why we’re working hard to bring partnership models back. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.