General Debate

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

Another week in this Government, and another shambles.

💬 Hon Grant Robertson: Ha, ha!

Oh, he laughs. Last week, it was the regional fuel tax flip-flop. We’ve still got no idea what’s happened. Was it last week? Was it some other week? We’ve got no idea, and Phil Twyford doesn’t either.

This week: “How about we grant a gangster, fraudster, drug-peddling crook residency in this country? And then, to top it off, why don’t we flip-flop on it?”, because that’s what we’ve seen from the Government today. I’ll tell you what really gets me—[Interruption] Oh, they’re angry; they know they’ve got it wrong. That’s why Iain Lees-Galloway was hiding behind a pillar from the media this afternoon. That’s why he was hiding. What really gets me about this decision is that there are thousands of great people throughout this country, families from early childhood education through teaching through the trades—thousands of them—who work hard, who pay their taxes, and who love their families, and they’re not getting residency from Iain Lees-Galloway. They’re working. They’re not smuggling drugs, they’re not hanging out with Hell’s Angels, and there’s nothing for them, and yet this guy who’s done all that—Iain Lees-Galloway inexplicably granted them residency. I’ve got a question—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why’d you let him in?

You’ll get your turn, and I hope, Mr Peters, that you speak about Karel Sroubek. I hope you give us five minutes on him. He knows how embarrassing this is. He knows how wrong this decision is, how shabby what his Government has done is. But I’ve got a question for the Prime Minister, and it’s simply this: how on earth did this happen? Iain Lees-Galloway, I think I know—he didn’t do the work. He did not do the work. It was an incompetent and naive decision from this Government, like so many we’ve seen before.

Here’s what we know: his basic view is that, well, he might be harmed when he goes back to the Czech Republic. Well, that’s preposterous given the state of the Czech Republic today: a First World, civilized country under the rule of law. But it’s worse than that: he did go back. He went back to the Czech Republic. He was so scared about what happened that he went back.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: They’ve given up.

Oh, Phil Twyford says “No, no, no—we still got it right.” Is that what he’s saying? He thinks they got it right? Then why’d Iain Lees-Galloway look so bad? He looked like he’d had some online bullying from Phil Twyford. That’s what I think happened, because they know how incompetent and naive that decision was.

And there are no excuses. Iain Lees-Galloway should have known. He should’ve had as his priority New Zealanders being safe. It’s pretty simple, actually. Nothing’s changed. He should’ve had all the facts. He’s made a terrible decision. Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister: Ministers make and have to make big calls in areas like this, but they also have to dot the i’s, they have to cross the t’s, they have to look officials in the eyes, and they have to ask the hard questions. The reality is Iain Lees-Galloway got a briefing, he spent precisely eight minutes on it, and he signed it, and in doing so, he made New Zealanders less safe.

I say to Chris Hipkins, who’s barracking over there—who’s gone quiet now because he knows, actually, how shameful the decision is that Iain Lees-Galloway’s made. I say to him: you stick up for those civil servants who provided advice. Don’t you let Jacinda Ardern or Iain Lees-Galloway throw the civil servants under the bus for an incompetent, naive decision from Iain Lees-Galloway.

On this side of the House, we’re ready to govern. We’re experienced, we know what we’re doing, and unlike that side of the House, who’s laughing while a drug-dealing gangster is out on the streets, we’ll keep New Zealanders safe.

I want to talk about a year in Government in which we have built the foundations of fixing the housing crisis that the National Party created and denied at the same time. I am proud to be in a Government that has built the very first KiwiBuild homes, and the first-home buyers moved into those homes on the weekend. I’m proud that after a decade of declining rates of homeownership under the former National Government, 44,000 New Zealanders have hope again and have registered on the KiwiBuild website so that they can have a crack at homeownership. I’m proud that we’re now building—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m just going to ask staff to have a look at the member’s mike, but in the interim I’ll just ask him to swap places with the Hon Chris Hipkins just in case there was a mike failure. I’ve got to admit not noticing that the member’s mike was off, but some members up the back are having trouble hearing him.

OK. I might have broken the mike, Mr Speaker, so—

💬 SPEAKER: And, no, you can’t start again.

I’m proud of the fact that this Government is now building over 9,000 KiwiBuild homes on Government-owned land. I’m proud of the fact that we’ve rescued and sped up dozens of developments that weren’t happening under the old policy settings and now they are. I’m proud of the fact that there are 1,200 extra families who have a public housing tenancy in a year in Government—451 more families in the last quarter alone—and we’re building 6,400 extra State and community houses over the next four years. Compare that to nine years of denial and no action, of falling homeownership rates, and a Government under whom sleeping in your car became a mainstream way of life. Nine years in which the housing crisis was created and denied.

While we’ve been building houses, the foundations of Simon Bridges’ leadership have been crumbling. He hasn’t been able to rein in Judith Collins. First, with Judith Collins, it was that France was changing their laws on paedophilia. She called on the Prime Minister to denounce something that hadn’t even happened, and when she was called out about this, she doubled down. And we saw the same thing yesterday where Judith Collins incited right-wing trolls on Twitter to harass and victimise a young Kiwi couple who had done nothing more than buy their first home—absolutely outrageous. You know what I’ve noticed—you know what I’ve noticed? Judith Collins sets the policy line for the National Party on Twitter before Simon Bridges has even had advice from David Farrar’s focus groups. He can’t criticise her; he won’t criticise her, because he’s terrified that she wants his job. That’s the truth.

I want to talk about a year in which the coalition Government brought compassion back to housing in New Zealand. We’ve set out on the road to fix the national housing crisis. Now, KiwiBuild is ramping up. I want to be very clear about what KiwiBuild is and what it’s not. It’s a homeownership scheme. It’s about promoting homeownership and giving an opportunity to middle New Zealand, who were squeezed intolerably under the policies of the last National Government. Housing became incredibly unaffordable in our country’s biggest city—

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: Oh, this is boring.

Maggie Barry finds this boring. She finds it boring that middle-class families in New Zealand cannot afford a chance at homeownership. Yeah, that’s very boring, Maggie! It’s very boring—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

—for people like you, but for middle New Zealand and young people all over this country, they just are desperately wanting a Government who will give them a chance. Under National’s policies, families who earned between $80,000 and $180,000 suffered the biggest drop in homeownership over 10 years. That is middle New Zealand. Those are the people that members on that side of the House want to victimise. They don’t think they deserve a break.

For my seven years in this Parliament, this is the first week that I’ve seen the country truly become unified behind an issue.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Behind Simon Bridges.

If the members opposite are going to make comments, I’m quite happy to put them on the Hansard today. This is in relation to Karel Sroubek. When I say the country became unified, I was shocked and surprised when I put out my first press release in relation to this with my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse. We had a huge response from the general public. We had retired immigration officers, we had retired police officers that were involved in the case that were very familiar with the case, and we had people that were very close to both court cases that this guy was involved with. Every single Kiwi that touched this case, without exception, said that they didn’t accept the sob story that was put up about the fact that he was in danger if he returned to the Czech Republic. They thought that his integrity and his character was in serious question, and we had a Parole Board finding, recently, saying that he is manifestly untruthful, that he uses long-winded answers, and that, actually, he’s not safe to be returned to the community.

So when we raised this issue and we came to the Minister of Immigration and we said “How did you come to this decision?”, this is the answer we got: “Nothing to see here. We’ll not be coming in front of the New Zealand public. We’ll not be explaining why we made this decision.”

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah, “Read between the lines.”, it was.

Then we had from the Prime Minister “Read between the lines.” That was the response back to the country: “Read between the lines.”

There appear to be only three people in New Zealand—and maybe there’s someone else in the Government; I would be very happy to hear from you if you support the decision that the immigration Minister has made—that accepted Karel Sroubek’s explanation that he wasn’t safe back in the Czech Republic. The three people were the judge that heard the hearing around him stealing someone’s identity and a false passport to actually get into New Zealand and get his original visa, and for some reason—we don’t know why—he gave him a very, very light sentence and gave him another chance. The only other two people that accept his story appear to be the Minister of Immigration and the Prime Minister. Every single person that has touched this case that has had anything to do with Karel Sroubek has not accepted his lies, has said that he’s been untruthful, and has not accepted his story in terms of is he unsafe being returned to the Czech Republic. Actually, when he comes out of jail, this is the first real chance that the Minister has had to deport him. He should just go back to the Czech Republic.

I want to debunk one of the issues that it seems they’ve been trying to get up through the media, and that is that he’s some type of police informant—that he’s somehow helping law enforcement agencies. I can tell you right now from my own experience in my own policing career—and before I went into the dog section, I was involved in the undercover programme. I was trained in electronic monitoring. In fact, my best friend that I went through Police College with ran the undercover programme in Auckland. I can tell you now that we would never in a million years, as a country, trade our New Zealand residency for any information that might be passed to assist an investigation. I can tell you right now and be 100 percent confident that this guy’s never helped in any police investigation. He’s never been an informant, and so I want to debunk and put that rumour to bed right now.

This is a guy that’s been involved in criminal activity and criminal gangs in the Czech Republic. He’s stolen an identity to get away from there because he has been committing crimes—and of course the police are after him. This is a world-class police service. It’s not a Russian gulag, third-country status; this is a country that’s part of the OECD, part of the EU, and is a NATO country.

They’re wealthier than us. They’ve got a world-class justice system and police service. He stole an identity to get away because he is wanted by the police because he’s committing crimes. He decided to come to New Zealand, where he’s become associated with gang members, and he’s embarked again on organised crime—importing drugs into this country. I don’t know how long he’s been doing that. It appears he’s had a supply chain open for 10 years. He’s been importing drugs from the Czech Republic.

He’s about to come out and can be deported, and the Minister—and he still hasn’t backed down, although he’s indicated, now, he’s got new information. Of course he has—it was obvious. He was naive in his decision making. Mr Speaker, thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to contribute to the general debate. I would like to acknowledge my colleague the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, the Hon Phil Twyford, and commend him on the tremendous amount of work that he has put into the area of housing.

We came into Government 12 months ago. We were faced with many challenges, and housing is one of those challenges that we faced. We were faced, on the lower end, with the highest rate of homelessness when compared to other OECD countries, and when we came in, in terms of the housing portfolio, the honourable Minister of housing has several things that he’s doing.

One of the things that the right honourable Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the Minister of housing announced in May of this year was an additional $100 million to house those who are homeless, to ensure that there are more housing places for those who are needing emergency housing and transitional housing, and for those who are needing to be housed in what we call Housing First. There are so many of our folks who are homeless who also have mental health issues or addiction issues, and they need to be housed first and to have all the other social services surrounding them.

One of the things also that we’re facing is we’re told by a report by Counties Manukau District Health Board that in South Auckland alone, in the area that they serve, there are over 110,000 people who are living in overcrowded conditions. Now, the housing crisis was one that took nine years to develop, and it was not developed under our Government. It took more than nine years to develop—the housing crisis—and it will definitely take more than 12 months to address.

One of the things that I’m really proud of over the weekend, which is historic for our coalition Government, was when we went to Papakura and we were seeing some of the first families go into a KiwiBuild home, because when we’re addressing housing, not only are we looking at addressing homelessness but we’re also ensuring that we are assisting families to get into affordable housing. When you see families who, say, only 10 or 20 years ago would have been able to afford a mortgage, families who are IT workers, IT developers, teachers, those who are—one of the ladies, who is a doctor with a partner who is in marketing, told us that they only have a hope of owning a home now because they feel like they’ve won the lottery with KiwiBuild. Now, what is wrong with that picture?

The fact is that in Aotearoa, over just a short period of time, we have professional families who are not able to get into homeownership. That is absolutely wrong. We have the largest city, Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland—where homeownership is over a million dollars.

What I can’t understand is the fact that as a Government, we’ve come in, whereas the Opposition now, the previous National Government—when they were in Government and we were in Opposition, we were making speeches from that side of the House saying that there is a national housing crisis. So many of the folk that were on this side of the House denied, denied, and denied that a housing crisis even existed. Let’s not forget that for so long, who was in Government over those last nine years and denied that there was even a housing crisis?

I go back to around about April or May of 2016, where in South Auckland and Ōtara, we were covering families that were living in cars and living in garages at the time—families that we are seeing right across Aotearoa New Zealand now. Even then, when we showed families who were living in their cars, and when we went to parks and there were half of those people who were living in cars and in parks who were working full-time, the people that were on this side of the House at that time still denied that we had an issue with housing.

We’ve come in as a Government and we’re saying that we’ll build more houses. Yes, we’re building more State houses because when we do not have enough houses, we build houses to make sure that people are housed. The National Government, when they were in Government, they sold off State houses—sold off over 6,000 State houses. We are building 6,400 State houses because we need to house our families who need to be housed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I’m a firm believer that the first and foremost duty of a Government is to protect the people. Now, we can muck up the small things, we can have 160-odd working groups, but, fundamentally and foremost, we protect them from tyranny, from enemies, and from harm, and in that fundamental duty, the Government, and its Minister of Immigration, Iain Lees-Galloway, have manifestly failed in that duty by allowing a fraudster, a gangster, and a convicted drug dealer to remain in New Zealand.

Now, let’s just remind ourselves of the track record of this person. This is a person who has admitted to identity theft, who was found guilty of immigration fraud, who was charged with aggravated robbery and got off on a technicality, who is known to associate with Hell’s Angels, who was convicted of drug importation—Ecstasy—and jailed for six years, subject to police forfeiture applications, and who was refused parole for another year because of his behaviour in jail. And what is the consequence of that? In consequence of that, Iain Lees-Galloway allows this fellow to stay for ever. He tells us that that he does so under “strict conditions”—that the “Do not commit a crime.” condition is, somehow, something strict. That’s what we expect of everybody.

In fact, the conditions laid out by the Minister of Immigration in his letter of 19 September are weaker conditions, not stronger conditions, than every other new resident. Here’s why. He has made a decision which is—and I quote the letter—to “then grant you a resident visa under section 72(3) of the Act”. That is, essentially, the first day on which this fellow will be legitimately resident in New Zealand and the Immigration Act requires him not to commit any serious crimes for 10 years from that date, and yet the conditions the Minister lays out say he doesn’t have to do that for longer than five years from the date of his release from prison, so you could say six is a maximum. He’s actually reduced the obligation, not increased it, and we ask why.

Please explain, Minister, because there are plenty of facts on the public record. The fact that the individual has committed serious offences is on the public record. The fact that he was rendered liable for deportation—it’s a matter of record. The fact that the Minister has cancelled that deportation liability is a matter of record. The widespread public concern is a matter of public record. So what’s not in the public record is why the Minister made the decision he made.

He refers to “longstanding conventions” that somehow the privacy of this individual trumps the public’s right to be safe and to know why he made that decision, and that is a scandalous action or inaction on the part of this Minister—who in Opposition was a lion. Remember, he said of other cases, “That’s the problem with the use of ministerial discretion. It’s not transparent.” He then said, “I think every news outlet wants nothing more than for the Government rep to front up. There’s a wall of silence.” He was a lion in Opposition; now he has the opportunity to show leadership in a matter of great public concern, and he folds and goes quiet and hides behind pillars and equivocates—an outrageous response to a very important public issue.

What makes us so angry about this is the fact that right now there has been a massive drop under this Government in the number of visas being granted for residence. From June 2017 to June 2018, there was a drop of nearly a quarter—despite increasing demand for skills—for partnership visas. The parent category visa is closed—and let me tell you there’ll be another speech next week on this case and the parent category visa. Stand by for that. And yet this guy somehow is worthy of the Government’s largesse, their generosity.

Every single one of my colleagues on the side of the House, and probably most on the other, are dealing with cases where they want to get people temporary or permanent residence in order to be able to contribute meaningfully to New Zealand. Harrie and Pawan Chander down on the Taieri Plains—a great farming family; she’s a registered nurse. The Minister hasn’t even changed the policy to allow them to stay that the previous Cabinet had approved. There are hundreds—thousands—around the country, and the public and this House have a right to know why this man’s rights trump their right to stay and our right to know. I say this: somebody’s got to go. It’s either Mr Sroubek or it’s Mr Lees-Galloway.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. First, if the House would indulge me, I want to say happy birthday to my father, who would have turned 65 today had he still been alive. I think that’s rather timely, given today we celebrate 15 years of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, a particular fund that would see the future security of our country and those retirees of the future supported in whatever they might choose to do. I just wanted to acknowledge that today.

I also wanted to acknowledge that next week will mark the 100-year commemoration of the vision Rātana had with the spirit, which led to the Rātana movement. We, on this side of the House in particular, know that the strength of the relationship between the Rātana movement and the Labour Party has been strong over many years, and I’m sure as people across this country descend upon the pā of Rātana next week, I want to wish them all safe travels, enjoy the commemorations of Rātana’s vision with the spirit, and I say to them all that I hope to see them next week.

Can I also mention the earthquake yesterday. While Mr Ngaro might think it was him who brought down the House, I want to acknowledge all of the people out there who were affected by the earthquake, and also the good work of the Minister of Civil Defence, the Hon Kris Faafoi, to make sure that members of this House, and indeed the general public, are well-equipped for whatever might happen in the circumstances of a natural disaster. The earthquake did shake various parts and many parts of this particular country, and I know that the Minister, the Hon Kris Faafoi, is working really hard—

💬 Chris Bishop: Yeah, great Minister.

—to make sure that we have a civil defence system—

💬 Chris Bishop: Should be in the Cabinet.

—that will be there to support our people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

💬 Chris Bishop: Should be in the Cabinet.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Tedious repetition.

I’m often thinking of The Three Little Pigs, and while it might be apparent—and that’s not because I like pork—that the National house is, clearly, built on sand, it’s clear from the speeches from this side of the House today that the KiwiBuild programme is solidly built on rock. We are setting the country up for success into the future.

Now, we’ve had to swallow some dead rats. One is acknowledging that there is a housing crisis in this country. Some of the unintended consequences of a housing crisis in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau, in particular, are a teacher shortage, a shortage of health professionals to serve the communities of Tāmaki Makaurau, and a shortage of workers in Tāmaki Makaurau, who are forced out of the city because they simply can’t afford to live there because of high rents. They can’t afford to purchase a house there to raise their families. These are the unintended consequences of a housing crisis—a housing crisis that this Government inherited.

Well, I’m proud. I’m proud that in the past few days, this side of the House has got on with it. The announcement of KiwiBuild homes to families in Tāmaki Makaurau and Papakura is monumental.

I can say I’ve spoken to the young couple who, sadly, have been mistreated by a member on the other side of the House. They have been mistreated and—I’ll say the word—cyber-bullied, and I think that behaviour is disgusting. I’ve spoken to the couple. While they are hurt, they are still extremely happy. They are extremely happy because they have the opportunity to own a home—extremely happy because they have the opportunity to raise a family in Tāmaki Makaurau in a warm, dry, safe home—and I’m happy for them, too. I am also excited, not just for that family but for the many families in Tāmaki Makaurau and, indeed, across the country who will have the opportunity to tap in to the KiwiBuild programme, a strong programme that will set this country up well into the future.

At the beginning of this speech, I talked about 15 years of the Superannuation Fund. I want to acknowledge the good work of Sir Michael Cullen in establishing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and, of course, this Government for reinstating contributions to the Superannuation Fund to secure the security of future retirees in this country. I want to acknowledge all of the people who made sure that the Superannuation Fund is what it is today: a strong contributor and a strong leader in this country on economic standing to make sure that one and all and, in particular, my generation, as we get a little bit older—although I will say that I am far from retiring. But when we grow up and when we get older, we can look forward to a safe and secure retirement.

In a time when our Prime Minister talks about a different way of Government, one who serves with love and empathy, I want to put on the record my disgust at the member opposite who has belittled the family who received a KiwiBuild home.

The last time I spoke in the House, the House did rock and it did shake. It came also too from a passionate speech that I made outside to a rally to which a number of people came along to talk about the foundation of this place—that was on 26 May 1854. The very first debate in this House was about whether Parliament should start off with a prayer. I won’t go into deliberating that, but I wanted to say that for the 2,500 people who were out there, they were chanting and they were also too wanting to ensure that their voice was heard in this place as well.

My debate, and my speech, takes me back to 1982. One of my favourite singers at that time was actually George Benson, and he wrote a song, a love ballad, called “The Greatest Love of All”. But, as good as George Benson was both on the guitar and in song, actually it was Whitney Houston who made the song very famous. It simply said this in the lyrics of the song:

I believe the children are our future.

Teach them well and let them lead the way.

We’ve had the Hon Tracey Martin, who got up at a conference actually just yesterday. I need to commend her because as she stood, she said this: “Part of the vision and the desire of this current coalition Government”—this Labour-led Government—“is to ensure that the Government will reform and transform the care and support of children of Oranga Tamariki in New Zealand.” I think I’m paraphrasing a bit, but the intent was right. That’s actually the intent of what was talked about. But I want to say this: the word “Oranga” means “well-being”. “Tamariki” actually means not just “children” but is to remind us of the descendancy of the greatness in which children come from. I know that that’s the intent.

But one has to say this: when one thinks about those words—when we say we believe the children are our future—why is it that a 12-year-old boy from Hastings who was last month charged with aggravated assault escaped the agency’s care three times in one week? If we say that we believe the children are our future, why is it that a 14-year-old boy with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder was left to roam Dunedin whilst staying in a hotel and was not given the conditions of medication or care, to the point where he ended up sleeping in a picture theatre? If we turn around in this place, saying “Oranga Tamariki, the children are our future.”, then why is it that a care agency that is now commissioned to play a role to transform and care for children is not doing its job?

Now, one will turn around and say, from the opposite side, “Well, actually, it was the previous Government.” There’s an old saying that says “Now the shoe is on the other foot”. Now, we know what that means—in other words, it’s the reverse effect. I’m not going to leave it here, because part of our culture means I won’t do that—just to show and to make the point. In other words, it’s been one year now since that Government has been in power. What it means is this: now the shoe is on the other foot, we don’t want to hear their excuses of saying “What we inherited” or “What we are planning to do”; we want to know what you are doing. Therefore, here’s the reality: if you’re going to turn up and tell the community that the children are our future, then put your actions into words that make a difference.

Here’s what the community is saying: when we have got a mother who turns around and wants to read the Oranga Tamariki vision statement that’s here—and I’ll read it out so she can hear it back at home—this is what Oranga Tamariki says: “We put tamariki first. We will challenge when things aren’t right for the child.”, then why is it that this mother of the 12-year-old child went to Oranga Tamariki and asked them for help, and here’s what they said to her: “By the way, your child is not sad enough, not bad enough, or not mad enough.” What sort of care is that for the whānau? What sort of support is that to wrap around this child?

When we say that children are our future, why is it that of the 6,350 children in care, the health report from the Ministry of Health has indicated that almost 50 percent of them will have some form, over a spectrum, of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder? So if that’s the concern, then we know through the Official Information Act that the Minister actually had that report submitted to her for consideration. I know and I’m sure she’s probably going to take the opportunity to speak to that—and I hope she does—to answer these questions. In the report that was actually before the Minister in February of this year, it talked about these very issues. It talked about the concerns in which there are gaps in the system. There is a combination of health needs that makes these children vulnerable to poor outcomes.

I have to say this: now the responsibility—the shoe—is on the other foot. I want to encourage this community. I actually very much respect the Minister, but as the Minister knows, what I’m putting forward here is what the community are saying. This is not politicising; this is about being an advocate for the things that are important. When mothers, when care professionals, when counsellors, and when social workers turn around and say “Put your money where your mouth is if you believe that children are our future.”, then show it with your actions, not just your words.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I want to talk about the elephant in the room. Often, it’s not really an elephant. It can feel like a black dog that follows one around, sucking the oxygen out of the air, slowing down time or fast-forwarding the clock at such a pace that everything feels like it is going at lightning speed around your ears, blurring shapes and out of grasp. It can bring paralysis, self-doubt, and cold sweats. You can feel it in your head, but you cannot easily lift the lid and show it to other people, let alone find the words.

In this House, we don’t often talk about the breadth and depth and human face of mental health. We talk about statistics and we talk about data. Mental ill health, however, disproportionately affects our poorest, our most vulnerable, and our young people. But it directly or indirectly touches all of our lives—everybody in this country, everybody in this room. We don’t really talk about it, though. We don’t talk about the messy complexity and nuance. It makes us uncomfortable. We don’t tackle it head on, because we don’t have all of the answers. No one does. We don’t like to talk about it because it reminds us that the structures organising our society and, indeed, our economy are hurting our people, and radical change is required to fix things. And that’s scary too.

This week we’ve received media reports of a devastating loss of six lives in Porirua. My love and deepest sympathies go out to the whānau, friends, community, the people of Porirua and across Aotearoa New Zealand whose hearts are breaking. Today, we have also heard that there has been a 25 percent increase in tertiary students accessing university counselling services in the past two years. One in four adults in New Zealand will be diagnosed with a mental health issue in their lives, but many more will struggle with it and never receive a formal diagnosis. These are the people and communities whose suffering is unconscionable—people and communities who need our support.

These people are not broken. It is our systems and the society of those systems that govern us that are. It’s not empty political rhetoric. That’s what the mounting literature and studies tell us—that the causes of mental illness are from the same thing. The majority of mental health issues are triggered by environmental causes, and even those with pre-existing conditions, with chemical imbalances, have those conditions exacerbated by environmental factors, and, surprisingly, those environmental factors are not as complicated as we sometimes may like to think. We know who gets sick: people who are isolated; those who are under financial pressure, in insecure employment, and abusive relationships; those who are living in transient or substandard housing; and people without a home; people who feel displaced, who grapple for identity, or who cannot see a safe and secure future in their grasp. These are the people who are most likely to experience mental illness.

I said earlier that we don’t often talk about mental illness in this House, but the things that we do talk about—housing, the economy, drugs, healthcare, crime, welfare, education, the corrections system—all are conversations about mental health, because these are the fundamental drivers of mental ill health and the epidemic in our community. The conditions for the epidemics and the anxiety and depression have been manufactured here inside this political system because political decisions have made that environment, but we don’t easily acknowledge that. Usually, we talk about individual resilience. Our education system removes difficult children from their classrooms. Our health system is primed to medicalise. This makes us more comfortable than confronting decades of decline in State services and community and the rise of competition and isolation and inequality.

Mental illness is messy and complex. There are no simple solutions. Words cannot do justice for those who’ve lost a loved one. Words alone will never do justice. Action is necessary, and it is urgent. In November this year, this House will receive recommendations from a wide-ranging mental health and addiction inquiry. That will present us with a road map. I am calling out to colleagues across this House to work together to implement those findings to improve New Zealanders’ well-being. It’s our job.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a big happy Halloween to you and to the House, all right? Nobody’s mentioned that so far. The kids around the country will be getting all dressed up. Some of you lot don’t have to get dressed up; you’re already scary enough, all right. Mr Speaker, you’re well-dressed up, sir, and you do look a little bit scary in that outfit, I have to say. We have had a little bit of Halloween over the last nine years of the previous Government, in actual fact—nine years of trick or treating but without the treating, just trickery. In fact, the last 12 months have been quite refreshing because we have had a lot of treating, and I’m going to talk about that as part of my contribution.

There’s a lot of doom and gloom over that side, but we are quite buoyant on the direction that we’re taking, this Government. The trickery I talk of is the previous Government talking about their strong economic leadership. Well, what absolute trickery that is, because in the nine years that they were in Government, they only managed one—just one—Budget surplus. How appalling is that for people that actually say that they can actually deliver strong economic outcomes?

They talk about looking after New Zealanders, but in their term of Government they managed to give the top 10 percent, the very wealthy in our country, a $440 million payback. It worked out to be about $440 million that the former Government gave back to their rich mates—not looking after the most vulnerable. I’ll talk about what we have got that we’re working on, that we’re actually implementing, and that we’ve got well and truly under way.

That’s not to mention the $24 million that that previous Government wasted on a flag referendum that was a vanity project for their leader, that the entire country railed against and didn’t want to take any part of. What about the $11 million that that previous Government threw to Saudi sheep farmers to build an abattoir so we could send all of our livestock over there, creating jobs in the Middle East and taking away opportunities for our Kiwis to get real jobs? That’s the trickery that we saw for nine years.

But wait—but wait, there’s more. I actually think they’ve given up. I think the people over there have given up. They want to go home. Last night, we were in the House and we had three bills on the Order Paper, and it was the committee stage for three of those bills, which would normally take up enough time. Now, we went through nearly 18.5 hours’ worth of committee stage in 4½ hours flat, because they didn’t want to take calls. Their lips were down, their heads were down—I’ve never seen such a sorry sight in all my life.

💬 Chris Bishop: Where were you, Clayton?

Oh, the man down the back, Mr Bishop, pipes up. What was it—it was “tedious repetition”, I think, that you were just referred to as, by the Speaker. I just about commended you, sir. I wanted to take a point of order just to thank you for that, because I’d been thinking the very same thing: tedious.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! No. I’m going to take it off the member’s time. I just want to warn people that it is a five-minute speech. I hit the wrong button on the clock, so those people who think it’s been a long time, or it’s going to be a long time—it’s not going to be that much longer. But the member will not refer to my rulings after they’ve been made.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take that on board, but I don’t know what time I’ve got left. Can you give me some indication?

💬 SPEAKER: The member just did it again.

I was just looking at the time. Sir, thank you. So in the time that I have got left, I’ll talk about the wins that we’ve had, because time is going fast and the people in New Zealand want to know what sorts of things we’ve done. We’ve given free GP visits for under-14-year-olds—thank you very much, New Zealand. Thank you very much—you’re welcome. We’ve increased research and development to $1 billion, and we’ve taken it from 12.5 percent to 15 percent—that’s right. What about the $1 billion for our Provincial Growth Fund in the last 12 months that we’re extending to $3 billion over three years.

All this and a lot more, and we’ve still got a surplus in our first 12 months. So people back home are absolutely, outstandingly pleased that we’ve got 1,800 new police on their way, coming up; we’ve got a billion-tree programme on its way—

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: One billion trees.

One billion trees, that’s right. We’ve got a commitment to increase police numbers, which I’ve talked about. We’ve got $1 billion going into foreign affairs to open up new embassies and to help out those countries and to develop trade and create wealth opportunities for our Government and for this country moving forward. We’re cracking down—there’s a $34 million funding boost into Immigration New Zealand, and we’ve doubled the Limited Service Volunteers from 800 to 1,600.

I can keep going on. It goes on and on. We’re enhancing defence force capabilities with our great Minister Ron Mark down here in front of me—$367.7 million over four years, and $42.3 million in capital funding for modernisation. Not to mention the time that I spent in Opposition battling just to get some extra dollars and funding from the Hon Maggie Barry over here, who underfunded—[Time expired]

Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute privilege to be the 10th speaker today. I want to begin my contribution today—I’m not going to sing the waiata, but I’m going say the waiata, because that is what I believe this coalition Government is all about. It’s:

Te aroha,

Te whakapono,

Me te rangimārie,

Tātou tātou e.

[It’s the love, the faith, and the peace, all of us united.]

Love, hope, and peace for us all.

On 16 September, I was at the Auckland University of Technology facility in Auckland, where the Prime Minister spoke about our plan for New Zealand as a coalition Government. What I took from that was her statement, and I’m going to quote it because my contribution is based on that. She stated—and I quote—“We decided that there was a place in Government for concepts like compassion and kindness.” How do we measure that? So then you say, how do we measure compassion? How do we measure caring? How do we measure that? Well, she also followed up in her speech with the values of New Zealand. Everybody in this House spoke about the enduring values of New Zealand. So what are those values, you ask. My question today is: how do we measure compassion, and what are New Zealand’s enduring values?

Can I remind the House that one of those values was to live in a country that entitles people to respect and dignity—all are entitled to live meaningful lives; all are entitled to care and compassion. So how do we measure that? It is through our actions. So what did we find through our actions in response to the previous Government that was in for nine years? In response, what did we find? We found people that were homeless, and I’ll speak about housing. I’ll speak about the enduring value of having a roof over our heads. We built houses instead of selling off State houses. In our plans, we have provided for not just hundreds; we have provided for those who cannot buy their own homes, rental accommodation—over 6,000 community and State-owned rental accommodation for those who are unable to purchase their house.

Last weekend, we provided for those middle New Zealanders who could not afford their first home. We provided for them. Last weekend, we heard the story of the couple—and I want to reiterate how someone who lives in South Auckland, in Māngere, who is of Māori descent and Samoan descent, a young couple, can actually afford to buy their first home. That is what compassion is all about. It is about listening to New Zealanders. They can’t afford to buy their first home on a decent income—couldn’t do that—so what did this Government do? With compassion, KiwiBuild came about and did that.

How do we measure kindness? We talk about enduring values of having food, a roof over your head—I just spoke about that—and a table to put your food on. How do we measure that? Through the Families Package. It was one of the things that I got feedback on. I received it from people when I was on my travels throughout New Zealand, and what they said was—and I quote—“Anahila, could you tell Jacinda thank you for the winter energy payment? Thank you from my father.”—she said to me, this person—“He can turn that heater on. We can turn that heater on.” That is how we measure compassion when people are saying, “We are cold. We cannot afford the electricity.”—that’s what this was about. That is how you measure compassion. How do you measure compassion? You can do that.

I’m looking at my time. You have a roof over your head and food on your table—what next? Your health. We heard New Zealanders say that they couldn’t go and see a doctor because they couldn’t afford to. So what did we do? We provided provisions for people to go and see the general practitioner by reducing the fees from as little as $20—$20 to $30—enabling them to look after their health.

I go back to the waiata that I started my contribution with, “Te Aroha”. If we want peace, we’ve got to be proud of where we live. We’ve got to be happy about that. This is a country where we’re happy and we’re going to be—and I quote—“the best place to be a child”: this country, Aotearoa New Zealand. Tēnā koutou katoa. I’m done; thank you.

Three thousand, two hundred stolen user names and passwords—that’s what David Clark has kept quiet. David Clark has quite simply put out the welcome mat to hackers and said, “Come on in. The door is open.” When they come in, what are they going to do? They’re going to destroy our health system and they’re going to take patient data. I need to tell this story, but first, let’s set the background. It’s a background, with this Minister, of decreasing cyber-competence and increasing cyber-risk.

Earlier this year, I revealed that Lakes District Health Board had been under cyber-attack 2 million times per day and poor Bay of Plenty District Health Board had been under cyber-attack 1 million times per day from Russia and the Ukraine. This Minister knew nothing about this. He simply doesn’t care about cyber-security. So that’s 3,200 stolen user names and passwords associated with 60 New Zealand health organisations—why didn’t the Minister tell us this? Well, on 19 December last year, on his watch, he received a memo from the Ministry of Health, and the purpose to this memo was “to brief you on the possibility that up to 60 organisations within the New Zealand health and disability sector may have been, or may still be, at risk due to the exposure of leaked credentials on the internet.”

So what happened? Well, at the end of last year, 1.4 billion stolen user names and passwords were put on the dark web. The Ministry of Health became aware of this and made a search through it to look at what New Zealand organisations might be involved, particularly in the health space. They determined that there were 3,200 New Zealand user names and passwords belonging to 60 health organisations in New Zealand.

💬 Denise Lee: That’s a lot.

That’s a big number, I agree. They quantified the risk and they said this: “Within this context, the primary risks facing the ministry are a malicious actor accessing online services and impersonating a member of the MOH staff.” They talked about mitigating the risk. They said, “For a large amount of what we do, it’s OK, because we have two-factor authentication. However, there are four national programmes that we have that are public facing that do not have two-factor authentication.” That includes the Pay Equity web portal and the In-Between Travel web portal, to name some of them.

The risk here is obvious. Two-factor authentication is something you have and something you know. It’s a standard security measure. Something you have: you have a cellphone; something you know: a password—a very important security measure. In fact, this month, in Cyber Smart Week, the Government very correctly said that there are four important cyber-measures, and one of them is two-factor authentication.

So here we are—last year we had these four Ministry of Health servers that do not have two-factor authentication. They are at risk with these stolen credentials. Let’s jump forward a year. Have they been fixed, because we’d sort of hope, having pointed them out, that they’d be fixed. Well, I asked the Minister these questions, and, in fact, there is no evidence at all that any of those four servers have been fixed. It’s actually worse than that. There are actually 10 times more systems now—a year later—under David Clark, that do not have two-factor authentication. A written question asked him “Minister Clark. How many sector and internet facing IT services does the Ministry of Health operate that do not require two-factor authentication?” What he said was “I am advised that the Ministry of Health operates 39 IT Services that do not require two-factor authentication.” A year later, he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get that we can be attacked by air, land, sea, and cyber, and he’s putting New Zealand data at risk.

Why are there nearly 10 times more publicly facing IT programmes that are not controlled? How many of the stolen credentials were used to hack New Zealanders’ data? I think these are reasonable questions for the ministry to ask. And why does the Government-recommended two-factor authentication not apply to David Clark? Why does it not apply to the Ministry of Health? It applies to the rest of us; why does it not apply to him?

Here are the actions we need: we need him to fix two-factor authentication on those 39 public-facing programmes, we need him to reassure Pay Equity users and In-Between Travel users that their data has not been hacked, and we urgently need to review cyber security across the health sector, and David Clark and his ministry are not the people to do it, quite clearly. CERT NZ are well-qualified. They should take this task up. Shame on you, David Clark. You’re getting worse and not better. You’re putting us at risk. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. I want to talk about the priorities of this Government in investing in the long-term future of New Zealand, and I do so from a position of understanding that our prioritisation has been around ensuring that people have the opportunity to own their own homes. So I want to congratulate the Hon Phil Twyford for our KiwiBuild homes becoming available to New Zealanders. It’s a huge achievement and something we’re incredibly proud of. I also want to focus on the fact that our Families Package has empowered our families to ensure that they can pay their power bills—how about that? And what about putting food on the table? So we are very clear about what investing in the future looks like, and I want to take a particular aspect now of that investment, in terms of the review of the criminal justice system.

The review of the criminal justice system is about rethinking justice. I want to congratulate Minister Little, his associate Jan Logie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Justice with regard to family and sexual violence issues, along with Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash—and, particularly, the appointment of the Hon Chester Borrows, who will chair the criminal justice reform advisory group. The intention of that group is to be smarter than we have been before and to say that, actually, we need new ways to work with offenders to navigate and to mitigate the causes of crime, because the reality for our country is we have over 10,000 people in prison and our recidivism rates are shameful. So I want to agree with the Hon Chester Borrows and his stand in opposition to tough-on-crime policies like three strikes, like longer sentences, and like stricter bail rules.

Actually, I’ll quote from him: “Political parties’ self-interest in staying in power have driven those particular pieces of legislation.” So it’s time that we get smart, and I think this smart aspect of the reform is actually about investment. How are we going to invest in these captured audiences, to some degree—how are we going to help transform the lives of the people who are in our prisons, and what does a good life for people mean? From my perspective, it means that people are actually being happy. Happiness is something that’s underestimated. To be happy, you have to be satisfied, you have to be content, you have to have a feeling of joy, and you actually have to have a sense of meaning in your life, and herein lies the whole issue about investing in the future, because spending $100,000 per prisoner per annum is not an investment if, after five years, 80 percent of them are back in prison. That is a terrible waste of money.

So, for us, what does that look like? It actually looks like a programme that a woman called Whiti Timutimu, who is the Māori responsiveness adviser with the New Zealand Police, has been working on with the Department of Corrections. So on Monday, with my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri, with Prue Kapua, the president of the Māori Women’s Welfare League, with Whaea Mamae from our Waikato-Tainui rōpū, and with Jenny-May Clarkson, we went into the South Auckland women’s correctional facility. What did we do? We actually had a whakawhanaungatanga event. They have what’s called a mana wahine programme. Within that facility, they’ve created a mirimiri te aroha group, and it’s actually based on cultural identity. So what they’ve taught these women to do is to be proficient in Te Reo and to be proficient in kapa haka, with the goal that when they leave that prison, they have the resilience to never return.

So I see a transformation already within the criminal justice system because—guess why? We were actually allowed to go in. It’s not about punishment; it’s actually about investing in the women and men who are incarcerated in our correctional facilities and investing in their ability—as I outlined before—to be happy. So I want to commend corrections—Lyn O’Connor is the manager of that facility—I want to commend the police, and, actually, I want to commend our iwi, because I know that Ngati Porou and I know that Tainui are putting up their hands and saying, “We want our women to come home. We want to support them. We want to ensure we break the cycle.”

That’s what investing in New Zealanders looks like, and I’m incredibly proud to belong to a Government that does that. Kia ora.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.