General Debate

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

On this side of the House we’d like to, of course, welcome back the Prime Minister from her stint of maternity leave, and what a pleasure it is to have her back. We congratulate her on the birth of baby Neve. But, of course, in New Zealand First you can excuse us for having some mixed emotions, because we really enjoyed having our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, in our Acting Prime Minister role. What a fine job he did—40 years of public service, and it certainly shows. You know on this side of the House that when you’re being endorsed by Mike Hosking, you’re doing something pretty right! But, of course, it was absolutely fitting that it coincided with 25 years of him building and sustaining a political movement, and it did go to emphasis the strength and depth of the leadership available to us on this side of the House.

Of course, now we’ve seen what the public think of Mr Bridges, as he’s had six months in the job and 70 public meetings up and down the country, and he is going down. We on this side observe the slow inevitability of a slide towards a Judith Collins - led National Party in the 2020 election.

And what about Mark Mitchell—what about Mark Mitchell? It’s the worst-kept secret in Wellington, isn’t it—a cynical, cynical ploy to split off a party. The voters will treat it with the contempt it would deserve. I think he needs to reflect and look across at the forlorn spectre of David Seymour, because that would be his future. He too would be at short odds to be having to don the sequins, do the paso doble and the twerk, as he had to try to find some relevance and some profile.

But all the while, on this side of the House, we are getting on with the job. We’re grappling with addressing the big issues that have been denied in this country after nine years of drift. We are going to be a bold and transformative Government—importantly, for all New Zealanders, not just the top 10 percent. Look at our programme: $1 billion in R & D tax incentives, as we look to add value and productivity; modern trade deals—the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and pending deals with the EU and the UK; the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund; and we’ve got the provincial champion “Matua Shane” out there rebuilding and investing in our neglected regions. Economic development isn’t just turning up and promising ten bridges in a by-election campaign. And, of course, there’s the billion-trees strategy—a billion trees, a nation-building project as we seek to meet our international commitments internally, not outsourcing those by spending $1.4 billion of hard-earned taxpayers’ money a year buying carbon credits.

In other visionary stuff, Ron Mark and his defence strategy paper—and wasn’t it good to see a Government finally saying what it meant on defence, delivering on the P-8s and restoring our military capability? Aren’t the military pleased to see one of their own back in charge? While he will be judged, maybe, publicly on the P-8s, I think the real measure of the man is the determination he has had to bring back those fallen soldiers whose families could not bring them back.

There’s housing that we’re addressing in Auckland and Queenstown, and all over New Zealand. We now have housing shortages in Balclutha and Invercargill. Nothing has highlighted this debate more than the overseas investment debate that we’re having at the moment in the House, because while we’re putting 100,000 houses in our KiwiBuild scheme to increase supply, what about demand? We have more levers.

Minister Parker is driving down demand by taking those foreign speculators out of the market, and nothing shows the values on this side of the House and the contrast with that side of the House more than that debate. We have the National Party getting up and defending the rights of some of the wealthiest people in New Zealand, based in Queenstown. We’re on the side of the nurses, the teachers, and the policemen as we seek to make this country the property-owning democracy that that once-great National Party leader Sir Keith Holyoake talked about in the past.

The National Party now are resorting to having to talk down the economy—and the news story from Dipton: “Tractor sales are at a 33-year high in Southland.” Bill’s not coming back, but perhaps he’s buying a tractor. But this is a real story; that’s the real factor in our economy. This is a Government that’s focused on building that and focusing on the big issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m quoting from Stuff: “Either Collins believed in the vast left-wing conspiracy to normalise child rape—which is scary. Or she didn’t believe it but tweeted it anyway because she knew some of the people who read her tweets would have no problem believing it was true.” Anyone in this House can make a mistake, but they shouldn’t double down, and they shouldn’t defend the indefensible. This is a serious issue.

Just a couple of weeks ago on 24 July the House of Commons released its report Disinformation and “fake news”: Interim Report. They said that the “threat [arising] from what [is now called] ‘fake news’, created for profit or other gain, disseminated [sometimes] through state-sponsored programmes, or spread through the deliberate distortion of facts, by groups with a particular agenda, including the desire to affect political [decisions].” We know that that’s happened overseas and that it has been serious in the United States, and in Britain and Indonesia it’s a serious problem. Then they go on to say, “the focus of our inquiry moved from understanding the phenomenon of ‘fake news’, distributed largely through social media,” to what they say is “Arguably, more invasive”, and that’s obviously false information which is being used in “the relentless targeting of hyper-partisan views, which [plays] to the fears and prejudices of people, in order to influence their voting plans and … behaviour.” And that’s what Judith Collins did. She didn’t just do it; she then denied that she had done it, and she misled the media.

What did she do? She said she didn’t call out people for fake news herself: “I’ve never used the term to people and I’ve never used it about websites.” Again, another newspaper found that to be incorrect: “[Ms] Collins [earlier] called a Newshub story ‘total fake news’ [herself] on Twitter in February.” Then what happened next? Well, you’d think there’d be a little bit of contrition. You’d think that she might’ve gone back to this website and she might’ve seen other headlines like “Australia To Forcibly Vaccinate Citizens Via Chemtrails”—maybe that’s the conservative party linked with the National Party—“Investigators: Anthony Bourdain … Killed By Clinton Operatives”; “Katy Perry: ‘Human Flesh Is The Best Meat; Cannibalism Got A Bad Rap’”; or “Real Life ‘Vampire Outbreak’ Reported In New Zealand”—perhaps that’s the first one she checked and wasn’t put off by.

There is a serious thing going on here, though. After you had embarrassed yourself, your party, and your leader in that way, why would you double down? Well, that’s what the Hon Judith Collins did. After, when she was asked if she had discussed the tweet with party leader Bridges, Collins said no. Bridges, speaking at the same to time to reporters around the National Party caucus corridor, said he had talked to Collins about the issue. Now, which of those two accounts is correct? They are absolutely irreconcilable. Both of them cannot be true.

Why would you throw your leader under the bus? And if you were Judith Collins, having such made such an obvious faux pas, why would you stick to your guns? Well, actually, Newshub is running a poll on who National’s leader should be at the moment—results: Judith Collins, 40 percent; Simon Bridges, 21 percent. That’s what’s happening. There is nothing too low for Judith Collins. She has proven it time and again in this House—misusing social media. Retweeting ridiculous claims about left-wing conspiracies for paedophilia is unbecoming of any member of Parliament. I say it’s too low even for Judith Collins of Oravida fame.

There are lots of people better qualified for being the future Prime Minister of New Zealand than Simon Bridges, but Judith Collins is not one of them. This latest episode, I think, is well described by the media as being both misjudgment when the original tweet was made, followed by denial, misrepresentation, and poor judgment time and again subsequently. That’s the National Party for you.

I find Labour’s ongoing obsession with Judith Collins rather odd, and I’ll leave it at that. Can I begin by congratulating four young rangatahi of Ngāpuhi—Mr Henare may know them—Maia-Dean Martin, Atawhai Martin, Isaiah Kaiawe, and Purotu Martin, who performed so brilliantly at the secondary school chamber music competition last Saturday. They are outstanding, and I hope to get them down here to Parliament so that everyone can see how good they are. I just think it’s a shame that no Labour Party people were present. I was there. I can out-lovey the Labour Party on the arts any day. They talk the talk, but it would have been nice if someone had been there to support those four outstanding young folk from Ngāpuhi. I say this to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: it shows why we need to have a settlement in Ngāphui, because these are the kids who deserve the scholarships and the opportunities.

I also want to congratulate Tracey Martin this afternoon on her stellar performance in question time, because it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only is this Government incompetent on the big issues, they’re incompetent even on the easy ones. Now, in all my time in Cabinet, I was never once Minister of Internal Affairs, but I looked after quite a number of inquiries, from the whey protein inquiry, the two royal commissions into Christchurch and Pike River, and, more recently, the water problem in Havelock North. I don’t wish to be vain, but I have to say—oh, I’ll be vain then—it was dead easy. It’s not hard to appoint a good chair, to make sure the process goes clearly and expeditiously and a report comes out, but Tracey Martin has shown that even such a straightforward exercise is totally and utterly beyond her. Heaven forbid what she does in her other portfolios, but, really, this is not hard stuff. Other Ministers of various administrations have done it. It’s pretty easy, and she shows that even the easiest tasks are impossible for someone of her calibre.

There is one issue that’s incredibly important, and that is freedom of expression—the ability to have your view. We talk about it time and time again in this House, and it’s why this party is taking such a strong line on the electoral integrity legislation. But I want to commend the Prime Minister for her statement recently, condemning the overreaction by the vice-chancellor of Massey to the speech that was to be given by Dr Brash, because what she said was quite right. I think it behoves every party in this Parliament to make sure that the contagion which has spread to United States universities and has shut down the ability of people to express an opinion on a subject doesn’t extend to New Zealand.

I’ve read the speech of Dr Brash, which appeared in the New Zealand Herald yesterday. Look, for a person who’s a paid-up and founding member of Hobson’s Pledge, it didn’t seem to me to be too extreme. He had a go at me over Treaty settlements, but he’s been having a go at me over Treaty settlements since 2008. But I’d much rather that people like Dr Brash got out there and said, in the politics club at Massey and other such places, what they think on a variety of issues, rather than have the vice-chancellor of Massey University shut down the free exchange of ideas.

I can tell the House this: I had my disagreements over the years with Mr Maharey, but I bet he would not have done it, because he, as a son of the House of Representatives, knows the importance of free speech and knows that that is one of the most cherished things that we have in this country. The best way of challenging a particular view on a subject is to hear that view and then engage in the debate with the same ferocity and intelligence that you’d hope comes from the other side. So I’m very, very disappointed that Massey University have operated in the way that they have, and I call on the chancellor and the council of Massey University to have a little heart-to-heart with the vice-chancellor and say to her that this is not the way we do things in New Zealand, that we cherish freedom of expression, and that we cherish free speech. Engage in the debate; don’t shut it down.

I want to stand with members on this side of the House and thank the Hon Judith Collins this week for bringing to the attention of the people of New Zealand the important news that is broadcast through the YourNewsWire.com website. And while it may be the case that the absurd suggestion that France was altering its child rape laws has been disproven, there is other very important news that members of the House and members of the public should be aware of.

The one in particular that I want to draw people’s attention to is the extremely alarming piece which is titled: “Real Life ‘Vampire Outbreak’ Reported In New Zealand”. It goes on to say, “Two women from Napier, New Zealand have been arrested after it was revealed that they each performed separate vampire attacks over the weekend.” So alarmed was I by this news that came through to me through following Judith Collins’ Twitter feed that I actually visited Napier on Monday, and I can safely report from a stroll on the town on Monday night that while there are some dangerous cougars on the prowl, there are definitely no vampires on Marine Parade, so we can put that one to bed as well.

I want to move on to some more positive matters and some of the ways in which this coalition Government is delivering some real wins for New Zealanders. This week, I want to take my hat off and acknowledge in this House the incredible work of our beautiful men and women in nursing up and down New Zealand—those people in our hospitals and our medical system who put their skill and their care into caring for our fellow New Zealanders when they are not well. They do such an incredible job, such an incredible public service, but for years and years they have been undervalued, they have been underpaid, and they have not been listened to.

Nine long years of neglect, and this week, this coalition Government, after a year of negotiations, was able to sit down with our nurses and get a fair pay and employment settlement that starts to get us back on the track of properly recognising the incredible work of our nurses in New Zealand. They deserve it, as do our other public servants, and we are going to sit down with them—the teachers, the nurses, the police, and all of those other men and women that we rely on in this country to deliver those public services—and we are going to start to undo that nine years of neglect that they had to go through while continuing to deliver those public services to New Zealanders.

It’s just part of a package of good news about the rising wages that we are seeing under this coalition Government. We only have to go back about a month for the good news about our mental health support workers being included in the pay equity settlement—the pay equity settlement that has been fought for by E tū union members and brave people like Kristine Bartlett. This Government is commencing the work of bringing more people in those caring professions and other professions into pay equity, because they deserve fair pay and fair recognition for their care, their mahi, and their aroha for the people of New Zealand.

Yesterday, I noted the exciting announcement that the workers of Bunnings up and down New Zealand have achieved a living wage by sitting down with their employer and negotiating that. I want to congratulate them, their union, and Bunnings for that. It’s part of a broader movement that’s happening under this Government to ensure that working New Zealanders are paid fairly and can live in dignity when they go and do a fair day’s work.

Last month I was very proud to be part of this Government which fulfilled one of its pledges by ensuring that all our core Public Service workers are paid the living wage. I don’t think there is any case to say that a person in this country who goes to work, who puts the hours in, should be paid less than it costs to actually live on, and that is why this Government is very, very proud to support the roll-out of the living wage to more and more New Zealanders—something that that side of the House has always been hostile to.

At the same time as this is happening, unemployment is heading down: 92,000 more New Zealanders employed as of June this year compared to June last year. The economic fundamentals are good; investment is strong. We have strong fiscal surpluses under the very good management of our Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, which means that we could do things like respond to Mycoplasma bovis when it arose earlier today. Is it any wonder that New Zealanders are feeling positive about the future and positive about this coalition Government?

We contrast that with the other side of the House, who are obsessed, this week, with a bizarre right-wing social media feed. Their own leader couldn’t even put the Hon Judith Collins right about that. That’s the state of disarray that they’re in. That is the lack of leadership on that side of the House. On this side of the House, we are getting on with delivering wins for New Zealanders to make this a better and stronger Aotearoa for all of our people, and I’m very proud to be a part of this Government.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been a member of Parliament since 2011, and in the seven years I’ve been in this House I have never seen a more appalling piece of legislation than what we have seen this week with the so-called Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat while I stand. That matter is a matter which is an order of the day. The member cannot anticipate the debate by speaking about it now.

Can I ask a point of clarification, please? So am I not allowed to speak about the bill at all and what it’s looking to do?

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Speak about the general principles.

The general principles I’m allowed to speak on?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, not even referring to the bill.

So the general principles that are at risk in this House, I think, are of democracy itself: the ability for people to stand in this House and to speak freely and fearlessly without having the repercussions that are inherent in a piece of legislation that is seeking to muzzle us is, I think, a complete travesty. We have a party in this House that is standing against the right thing happening, in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, when I look at what this House is contemplating over this past week and looking to put through under extended hours, I am amazed.

I think, for my point of view, this is a bill that has no place in this House. The principles which it stands for are not principles that I feel underpin what we need to do to safeguard democracy. Breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, breaching the ability for members of Parliament to speak freely and fearlessly, is an appalling breach of why we are all here. I was elected as the member of Parliament for North Shore to represent their interests, and as a member of the National Party. In the last election, I think there was about an 80 percent voter turnout, and I got a reasonable majority, but the point is that this is a very important part of my voters knowing what they are sending me here for, and that is to stick up for them and to belong to a party that will hold this shambolic coalition Government to account.

We see a leader of a party in this House who has been here for a number of years and has had a number of challenges to his leadership. I doubt whether they would stop, but the point of having any kind of overall ruling that muzzles all members of Parliament from being able to exercise their consciences and being able to exercise what they feel is the right thing to do, I think, is a profound breach of democracy.

I think that incompetency in leadership can be addressed in a number of ways. The leader can stand down. The leader can be told by the members of their caucus that they are not fit for purpose. I think that when I look at the enormous amount of change that has occurred in the Labour Party leadership over the years—a plethora of Davids, for example, many of whom have gone from our memories. Struggles and disunity—parties can emerge sometimes with a leader that is their salvation. In the case of other parties, we are seeing leaders and co-leaders—for example, of the Greens—who, I believe, show no leadership whatsoever.

The integrity of purpose of a leader or a co-leader of any party is to represent the philosophies and fundamental values of that party and why it came into being. Any legislation that would ever stifle the ability of individuals to form their own parties, to make their own views widely known, and to cross the floor where appropriate in their conscience is, I think, something that most people in this House, most members of Parliament elected to this House of Representatives, would stand by—not the Greens.

The Greens have, I feel, shown this week their complete absence of values and their shift from the fundamental concerns that the founders of the party stood for. We have heard many members—former members of the Greens—protesting vigorously at the complete reversal of those fundamental values, and I think it’s deplorable. I feel that the Greens are on a very slippery slope indeed, but that’s their problem. The difficulty is, though, if they hold the balance of power which does vote through legislation that is something not the majority of people in this House would want. I believe that this is a travesty.

So when it comes to political leaders and political members of Parliament being able to decide what is in their consciences and what they want, I feel that this is a pivotal week for New Zealand. I think that when you look at the way that elections turn out, I think that when you look at what I would describe as a motley crew holding the balance of power, we do have a problem with the way that the perception of voters is being reflected. But that’s democracy—we live with it. But to sit in this House this week and listen to the level of debate that is applied, and for parties and members of a party to say they would have to swallow a dead rat but they will still vote through something they believe is undemocratic is, I think, a very, very sad day and a sad week for New Zealand Parliament. I would hope that the Greens and New Zealand First might see the error of their ways.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise to speak in this general debate in a short call of about five minutes, and I just wanted to thank the National Party for their ongoing advice this week to the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand. I want to use this call to address the issue of live debate—

💬 Chris Bishop: You’re welcome.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —of freedom of speech—Mr Bishop—with that being expressed, obviously, in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, particularly in section 14, “Freedom of expression”, as everyone having “the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” I note, because I am a philosophy grad and a nerd, that all of this is what’s technically called a freedom right, not a claim right. What that means is that you are able to have your opinion, but having your opinion does not entitle you to a platform. It does not entitle you to be listened to. It does not entitle you to be sheltered from critique, from alternative viewpoints, or from disagreement.

What I’m concerned about with the nature of the dialogue that we’ve seen over the past week is that I feel as though it’s been kind of pressed into this false binary that either people have freedom of speech, or they don’t. To that matter, I’d just like to say that if a private venue declines to host you, they are not impinging on your freedom of speech. If people are coming together to sing waiata and to hold heart-shaped balloons in Aotea Square, they are not impinging on your freedom of speech—particularly, I might add, if it’s in response to your xenophobia, your racism, or your sexism. The focus of this discussion ultimately, I feel, has become one of pandering to the attention of the wounded feelings of those with pretty abhorrent views, where freedom of speech is being invoked as a shield to protect people from the real-world consequences of their aggressive views—and not, I would add, as a vehicle to push society forward, which is what the Green Party believes freedom of speech is indeed supposed to be used for.

Lost in this heated and overly simplified conversation are the voices of people who face colossal, man-made barriers to participation in our democracy—those who have ultimately been marginalised in the dominant culture and by systems that disable and repress. Notably, these are the kinds of people who are actually also often ostracised and targeted by these self-styled, mislabelled fighters for freedom of speech that we’ve seen in the past week, because genuinely fighting for freedom of speech looks like making space for points of view that are neglected, overlooked, or oppressed in the mainstream, and not thinly veiled racism and sexism that actively attempts to take that space or to invalidate others’ freedom of speech.

I think one of the things that I’ve be most proud of in my time in this House in the past nine to 10 months whilst I’ve been privileged to serve is the unanimous support that Mojo Mathers’ Election Access Fund Bill received in its first reading. I want to thank members of the Governance and Administration Committee—particularly the likes of Brett Hudson and Ginny Andersen—who allowed me to sit in on the oral submissions that started this morning, where we heard from members of the Deaf and disabled communities and, actually, beyond, from wider society, about how we remove the barriers that we have unintentionally put up at every step of the process when it comes to engaging democratically. I want to say that I really look forward to the ongoing cross-party work to improve our democracy and to improve access to freedom of speech, because what I really hope comes out of the controversy that we’ve seen over the last week or so is that we progress the discussion forward and we end the conflation of controversy with value of content.

Genuine freedom of speech pushes society forward, it celebrates diversity, and it empowers everybody. Freedom of speech looks like equity. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to just reflect for a moment on the puffery of Mark Patterson in his initial remarks to the House today. I just wondered—and I’m not for a minute trying to undermine his freedom of speech—whether he would be that confident when he got up in Gore, with his 6 or 7 percent support, and said the same thing. I don’t think he would. But, none the less, I think that it’s all relevant and we all have an opinion.

I wanted to talk today about a couple of things, and I think one of the reasons I came to Parliament—and we just heard the last speaker, Chlöe Swarbrick, say why she came to Parliament, and I thought she made a very good speech on some very interesting points. One of the reasons I came to Parliament is to ensure our children’s future—and I don’t care whose children they are; they’re all the same to me. But I think we all have an opinion on how our children should live in the future and what opportunities they should have. If you think about New Zealand, throughout our history, thousands and thousands of New Zealanders have gone to war and other things to fight for the freedom of New Zealand and our right to stay and be what we want to be, as best we can within the law.

I want to just speak for a minute about integrity, because there’s a lot of discussion about integrity in this country and a lot of discussion about integrity in this Parliament. We’re sent here by people from all over New Zealand, and they expect us to uphold the integrity of this country, the integrity of the things we believe in, and I think it’s the most important thing. The moment this House undermines people’s belief in our integrity, we run a serious risk of losing credibility, and I think that’s a great shame for us as a Parliament. I know we come under a lot of criticism, a lot of it justified. I think we also put ourselves out there, in whatever we believe in, for a very good reason, and that’s because we came here, as I said earlier, to fight for our futures. So I think that we’re put here by electorates, parties, and people, and, indeed, we come here to fight for ourselves, amongst other things. We’re charged with expressing opinion, and a collective opinion, in the end, forms the legislation that we put in place to enable people to get on with their lives.

A couple of weeks ago the Mayor of Auckland made a decision, which I thought was flawed, to, I guess, interfere in what I think is people’s ability to speak. You can’t tell me that council property is not public property. You can’t tell me that university property is not public property. It is there for everybody, and I think it is most important. Just this week, a vice-chancellor of a university that I have a lot of time for, in fact, made a decision that I don’t understand. I think, as the Hon Chris Finlayson said earlier, it’s an extraordinary decision, in my view, to stop people from having a platform to put their view. I think that when we get to that point, we are running some very serious challenges with our freedom and our ability to express our opinion of where we want to go to in the future.

We have a very good law and order system in place. One of the reasons that law and order system—our police and the many other parts of it—is put in place is to enable us to feel safe in our communities. I guess, when I talk about feeling safe, I really mean it enables us to have no fear of whatever. I think when you have no fear, you do feel safe. Those police and our law and order system is put in place to enable people to have an opinion, to enable people to live a safe and fearless life, and to enable people to feel safe in their own homes. I think it’s hugely important that we uphold those principles and that we fund and ensure we have a system in place that enables people to feel safe to express an opinion, to live a life they want to live, and to actually—and, contrary to what the previous Labour speaker, Michael Wood, said, I do think people have a right to a decent income. I think everyone on this side of the House thinks people have a right to a decent income. It’s how we attain that decent income that’s most important to us.

That takes me on to another topic I want to touch on very briefly. Our economy is hugely important to us, and when you think about a car—those of us who are old enough to remember having to push-start the car quite often; I, fortunately, lived on a hill, so you could get it going down the hill quite quick, but the thing about push-starting a car is you don’t let the blimmin thing stop until you know it’s going to go again, and I think that’s the challenge we’ve got with our economy. It’s all very well to stall an economy; it’s hugely difficult to push-start that economy and get it going again. I think that that’s the threat I see in provincial New Zealand right now. I think we have some people who are concerned about the fact that we may not push-start this car again readily, and I think that’s what’s driving business confidence down a little and causing some of the challenges that I think we have, in our provincial communities particularly, because I think that’s where a lot of this lack of confidence is coming from. So I just hope we don’t slow that car to the point where it doesn’t go any longer. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

They just don’t get it, do they? They just don’t get it, and they can’t get their heads around a very simple principle. The National Party are still packing a sad over the election result. Even today, we see someone who normally oozes positivity—the Hon Maggie Barry—touch on the election result and, essentially, complain that it was unjust.

But it’s not just Maggie Barry; it is “Honest John”. “Let’s bring John Howard to the National annual conference—what a good idea. Let’s get the former Prime Minister of Australia to say the messages that we know New Zealanders are sick of hearing from ourselves.”—that has to have been, surely, the conversation that the National Party executive came up with when they were planning their annual conference. Here comes John Howard, and he says the messages that they want to say, but can’t say themselves—that this was an unjust result.

They just don’t get it. A majority of voters elected a Government and this is the Government that is working for New Zealanders, and, instead of holding that Government to account, the National Party sit there and whinge and wish that things were different. If it’s not on display just today, you only needed to see what Maureen Pugh had to say on Twitter.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Is she on Twitter?

She is on Twitter—she is on Twitter. Despite the National Government’s previous poor record on establishing rural broadband, Maureen Pugh is on Twitter, and she complained about the Government, saying that it was illegitimate. I couldn’t believe it that a list MP—an MP who is here by virtue of MMP, just like myself—was complaining about the very rules that brought her into Parliament and neglecting the fact that the previous Prime Minister, Bill English, was also a list MP. What I put to you is that the National Party cannot have it both ways. They can’t say that MMP works when it suits them, and they can’t sit there for 10 months and whinge when it doesn’t.

Speaking of time frames, let’s look at the last six weeks. For the last six weeks, the Prime Minister was on maternity leave. What a wonderful opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to take advantage and get his brand out there—to get his message out—so people would get to know who Simon Bridges was.

💬 Hon Member: He went right around the country and talked to 10,000 people.

And one of the only gentlemen of the House, Ian McKelvie, mentions the road tour. Simon Bridges’ medicine, what’s going to get him in the headlines—this is the silver bullet—is 60 to 70 meetings across the country: “Come and meet Simon. Once you get to know him, you’ll like him.”—but what have we seen? We saw in the Hawke’s Bay a prime example of what these meetings were like. Leading up to the meeting in Waipawa, there was lots of social media activity. There was lots of flurry and excitement. “We’re going to Waipawa with the Wairarapa MP, Alastair Scott. This is going to be a great meeting. Let’s do videos and posts about it.” What did we see on social media after the meeting? Nothing—not one post. Could that be because no one turned up? Could that be because those that did turn up wanted to talk about Alastair Scott wanting to sell our hospitals or about Alastair Scott wanting to sell our schools?

Could it be that the messages that the National Party, under the leadership of Simon Bridges, no longer resonate in what used to be their true-blue heartland? Could that also be why in the One News poll announced on Sunday, after six weeks of the Prime Minister being on maternity leave and Simon Bridges getting out there and talking to as many people as would listen, he went backwards—he went backwards. He was 12 percent—and even then, he was criticised for being 12 percent—and now he’s 10 percent, and 10 percent is actually a lot worse than 12 percent, so now he wishes he was 12 percent.

What a wasted opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the things that resonate with New Zealand. I think it is a clear message to that Opposition to stop looking inwards, stop talking about things that don’t matter, and actually get behind the Government that is working for this country.

Mr Speaker and members of the House, the general debate is an opportunity to talk about things in general, and I’m going to seize that opportunity this afternoon and really start on a lighter note to just share with everybody here that this week, apparently, is International Cat Week. I mention that because in the House every now and then there’s quite a few spats that go on, and one could term it as being somewhat aligned with cat fights.

But I’m going to move on. Keeping in that sporting vein, I happen to be the MP for two sporting teams, the Central Pulse netball team, who have made it into the finals of the franchise league this weekend—I’m the MP for the electorate, so I’m skiting a bit here. As a former franchise netballer from some 30 years ago, to see daughters of former team-mates—Waimārama Taumāunu’s daughter and Leonie Leaver’s daughter, who’s about to take the court for the Tactix on the weekend—makes me realise how aged I am. But in being aged, it’s about the level of experience that one brings to the House.

Just on that sporting note as well, I note that two of my colleagues, the Hon Amy Adams and Denise Lee—they’re sporting some netball injuries, so I’m looking somewhat suspiciously across the House, knowing that. The benefit and the joy of these sporting teams—on a lighter note—is that we do have that cross-party engagement and collegiality, but I hope that they weren’t the victims of anything untoward coming from the Government benches.

Just a final note around the sporting element, as MP for the Whanganui electorate, reaching up Wanganui into the Taranaki boundaries: Ranfurly Shield. That game—the challenge was played in Hāwera on the weekend, and I think it’s a rare occasion and opportunity to be an MP for the defending team but also the challenging team, which is Wanganui. The title-holders, Taranaki, held that Ranfurly Shield—the old log o’ wood. In the 1970s, I remember watching the games with my dad and my brothers on the old black and white TV, so to be there as the MP was something quite special.

I’m just going to move along now to acknowledging the New Zealand firefighters that have gone over to northern California. I say that because what came up on my Facebook stream this morning was a benefactor towards my daughter’s rowing team. She attended Paparangi, and went to the University of California, Berkeley. The university is near the areas that our firefighters have gone to to quell and extinguish the massive life-threatening fires and the damage and devastation they’ve done there.

Moving on to damage and devastation as well, my thoughts turn to Lombok, the people there in the earthquake. I mention that because I attended the Ranfurly Shield match in the company of South Taranaki district Mayor Ross Dunlop. His wife and his daughter are over there at the moment, and they’re caught up amongst a number of international tourists but also the local people. We know what devastation is, back here in Aotearoa New Zealand, with what we’ve been through, so I acknowledge the people there.

I’m going to move on to something more on a heavy note, and it’s been addressed and canvassed in this House: the importance of freedom of speech. As a young student, I went to Auckland University, and it was about being exposed and the mind being challenged with alternative views, and I take the view that it is important. Irrespective of what we may not like to hear, it’s better the devil we know than that we don’t, and the devil is sometimes in the detail. So I say that, having been interviewed earlier this week by a Taranaki radio station, Radio Hokonui, asking what my views were around that, and I think that it is better that we do put it out there and we have robust, hearty debate.

In terms of putting it out there, I will just hearken and reflect that, regrettably, the Green Party have sold their souls to the devil by turnabout, where their founding member of the party, Jeanette Fitzsimons, is firmly of the view that the stance that’s been taken by the Greens with this toxic decision to support the “Electoral (Integrity—Not) Amendment Bill” is something that will draw into question the level of support that Green Party members will have towards their party.

Just on another contentious note, it’s interesting that the co-leader Marama Davidson is talking about trying to normalise the “c” word. One has to question the integrity of those open-debate discussions and, really, the relevance of that.

So I’m just going to wrap this up, in conclusion, by sharing that “integrity” is very much a key word and focus this week, but it continues to be. I will just acknowledge that next Tuesday, Dame Tariana Turia—her official formal investiture will be done at our local marae, Pūtiki, and I’ll have the privilege of attending that in support of many. Integrity—Dame Tariana Turia represents that. Kia ora koutou.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It would be rude of me not to comment on the last speaker, Harete Hipango. I think the netball comment is about how there are some members of the National Party who are injured. I think the netball injuries came from some party jostling for position: “Go, Judith Collins!” Anyway, let me get back to my speech.

It’s a privilege and an honour to stand here and take the stand on the general debate. My kōrero today is inspired by this whakataukī. It says, “Nāku te rourou, nāu te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi”—with your basket and my basket the people will thrive. It is accompanied by two four-letter words. The first word begins with the letter “f”, and it is about fair. The second word is about nine. I’ll talk about that later.

It is nine months since 8 November, when the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern in the Speech from the Throne talked about the coalition Government. I’d like to read it, because I think we need to be reminded on how the coalition Government came together. And I quote: “This new government was formed by negotiation … it was a negotiation that allowed each party to remain true to its values and honour its core election commitments. This Government will not be a Government of parties acting separately, it will act clearly as one Government in the best interest … of [New Zealand].” So then you say, “Well, what does that look like?” What does that look like? We have just settled the pay settlement for nurses, and it was done in a way that was fair and good.

I just want to remind people what the meaning of the word “fair” is, because we sometimes forget the meaning of little words that mean a lot to New Zealand. Fairness means treating people with equality, without favouritism or discrimination. Despite the nine years that we’ve inherited from the last Government, despite the nine years of overworked hospital health staff, we came to a good, fair pay settlement for nurses. Why? It is important.

In my field—I come from a field where past behaviour is a judgment of future behaviour—it is the beginning of fairness to New Zealand. It is the beginning. In this coalition Government, what did we achieve? We achieved 500 more nurses—500 more nurses—with a commitment to staffing levels. Pay equity for nurses—I think that’s a foreign language in the last nine years. This coalition Government has doubled National’s offer—has doubled what National had offered and started to make up for the last nine years.

Nine years ago I was working as a loyal diligent public servant, as a youth justice manager in Child, Youth and Family. And it was then that I realised the difference between a National Government and a Labour coalition Government. Why? It inspired me to take action. Because, all of a sudden, the things that matter: how we treat people with fairness, provide homes—and when we talk about homes, I want to acknowledge the inheritance that we inherited from the last Government.

I used to know the name of the homeless person on the street where I worked. I used to work in Auckland Central, and her name was Margaret—Margaret. The homeless person was Margaret. And then I think in Wellington it was Blanket Man. The reason why we knew them as people was because they were few and far between. Now there are so many homeless because of what we’ve inherited from the National Government that we cannot name them all. We do not know who they are. That’s because that is an inheritance that New Zealand did not deserve—because this is a country where fairness means having less discrimination, and caring.

I must end my speech now. I want to commend the accident and emergency staff at Wellington Hospital for the experience I experienced last week and how they did everything they can to make everybody that came into A & E feel like they mattered. This speech is dedicated to Ben Hana and Margaret. Bless their souls as they rest in peace, because I knew Margaret personally. Malo.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking in the general debate. I thought today that I might talk about building and construction.

As some of you may have noticed, I questioned the Minister for Building and Construction earlier in question time. I think the issue that’s very much at the forefront of everyone’s mind at the moment is the issue around procurement. It is a very, very important issue around the way that governments, both at central level and local council level, and also the way that companies and individuals go around procuring building and construction projects.

I do acknowledge that the Minister is at least looking at better procurement in the government sector, but the issue I really wanted to raise is that I just think if you spent 10 minutes talking to the construction sector—as I have done on more than a few occasions—it doesn’t take long for you to hear from them about what the real issues are in this sector. I think for the Minister to pick up one cudgel, which is around procurement, and, particularly, to be talking about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Government procurement guidelines—which I’ve read, and they run to probably a hundred pages—and to say that that is the panacea for the New Zealand building and construction sector at the moment and that is the most important thing we need to focus on, I’ve got to say that I think it is somewhat misguided.

For me, taking into account all those conversations I’ve had with business owners and developers and people who are actually putting their money on the line and picking up the risk of doing those projects, whether as the person writing out the cheque or as the building constructor who hires carpenters to do the project or, in fact, the contractor who is helping to lay a road—those issues that affect those people are numerous. The first one, I think, is that in that sector alone—the building and construction sector—all they want to hear from you is the issue of certainty, certainty, and certainty. The first thing that a Government can do is actually help with its procurement time lines in terms of very clearly setting out what its procurement is over the next few years.

I think the greatest uncertainty at the moment is that, unfortunately, the Government has ripped $5 billion of roading projects out from the regions and is putting it into a new tram in Auckland, which will, in reality, take 18 months to be worked up and designed before it’s even tendered. That $5 billion that’s been ripped out of our regions, including the $500,000 that’s come out of my Mill Road project south of Auckland—so we’ve got what’s now called Redoubt Road, not Mill Road. As my good colleague down in front here, Jami-Lee Ross, the spokesperson for infrastructure, has quite rightly highlighted, ripping that type of procurement away from people is unbelievable, and you can see it in a number of the big roading projects—the one in the South Island, going from Christchurch to Ashburton. It’s already started, and now has stopped in its tracks. So the first thing this Government should be doing is being much clearer about the procurement pipeline that it’s putting forward and to work with parties to achieve that.

The second thing is around skills. The Minister has made some announcements, and one of the most recent announcements was around micro-skills. Well, I’ve got to say, first of all, that was trialled and piloted under the National Government, so it’s great that this Government wants to present a New Zealand National Party initiative. But, yes, it’s good for the industry—the micro-skills. But I understand the Minister’s got a working party looking at the skills deficit, and all that sort of stuff. Nine months into this Government, she should know what she’s going to do.

I haven’t heard anything about consenting issues around the country. We’ve got 78 councils. We all know that the issue around the time delay in getting consents is still a perennial issue that hasn’t been resolved. But worst of all is the time cost of those consenting issues, because when developers put their money on the line and they have to sit around for months waiting for the consent, that affects the project viability and, ultimately, the cost of houses that are built or the building that is built.

Then, also, it’s the issue around new products. So I haven’t heard anything about new products. I’m very concerned about it, and I wish this Minister would focus on the important issues in the industry.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to begin my call by actually clarifying something that a colleague of mine said in his general debate speech just a short while earlier. My colleague Michael Wood talked about the fact that he went to Napier and he determined that there were no vampires loose in Napier. Look, I can attest to that because I went with him. He also mentioned something about cougars, and I just wanted to clarify—before, there were a whole series of tweets from the opposite side; namely, Judith Collins—that that wasn’t me. That wasn’t the cougar—I wasn’t the cougar that he was talking about.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Are you sure?

I’m absolutely sure. In this climate of fake news, it would be disastrous if I let that go and there was a whole news story about that.

💬 SPEAKER: The member’s too young. Move on.

What I’m going to talk about, though, is what this Government stands for. We’ve talked about the fact that this Government stands for a fair go for everyone, but what does that really mean? It means—and we’ve heard it before—equitable access. It means that all of us can have a warm, dry, affordable home. It means that we get good quality healthcare when we need it. It means that we have an excellent education system and the best start in life for every child in New Zealand. It means that we have decent, secure work that allows all of us to lead a life of dignity.

But what have we seen? What has this Government inherited that we’ve got to fix? I won’t go into a lot of detail, because I think we’ve heard that in the House before, but there are a few aspects of changes that have come about recently that I’d like to focus on.

Let’s talk about the fact that on this side of the House, we want to stop our Kiwi homes being used as gambling chips by wealthy foreign speculators. We’re in the midst of a housing crisis. Over 70,000 houses—that’s the shortfall that this Government has inherited. Record homelessness, the fact that rentals are too high, the quality of homes that have been inherited—and yet, what are we doing? We’re allowing people who just want to gamble with our houses to buy them.

On the opposite side of this House, members said that we couldn’t do that—they wouldn’t support this—but we’re doing it. We are ensuring that our society is fair for everyone.

We’re an inclusive Government—that’s the other point that I want to make today. What does that mean? Our Families Package that this Government passed will ensure that 380,000 families are better off and that low and middle income families have a boost. We decided collectively that tax cuts for the 10 percent at the top is not what was a priority. What was priority for us is that everyone gets a share of the prosperity.

The Best Start payment that will ensure that every child has the best start. The winter energy payment ensures that our senior citizens can actually afford to heat their homes. How many times have we sat in the living rooms of constituents who tell us that they pile on layer after layer and that they have to dry their clothes inside because the place that they lived in didn’t have—this is an actual example; I was sitting with somebody. They didn’t have an outside space and had to dry their clothes inside. In winter, that added to the cold, damp house that they were living in, and they fell sick. That’s what an inclusive Government does.

The fact is that we want to, and we will, close the gender pay gap. The fact that we are adamant that everyone will have the opportunity to be in leadership roles, should they choose to—and that is important, because a number of the ethnic communities that I work with and that I engage with feel and have been very vocal about the fact that we are under-represented at every level of decision making. From the school board through to local government and central government, if we’re not at the table—if our people don’t have the opportunity to sit at that table—they cannot continue to be part of the conversation that shapes our country that is growing in diversity.

That is why promotion of fake news is such an issue, because those websites promote anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic nonsense, stuff that is racist—just news that is untrue and that threatens the fabric of our society and the very fabric of our democracy. That’s why it’s important to stand against that when we want to ensure that everyone in our society has the information they need to be able to participate. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.