General Debate

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

This Government is delivering an economic plan that is benefiting all New Zealanders. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, the trifecta is in: a $5.5 billion surplus has been delivered; we have growth rates approaching 3 percent, on average; and today, we have the release of the household labour force survey that shows New Zealand having its lowest unemployment rate in a decade, of 3.9 percent—3.9 percent. That is built off the hard work of thousands of New Zealanders every day building our economy, and what that is delivering is not just the lowest unemployment rate in a decade; it’s also filtering through to many parts of the workforce who over the last few years have been struggling. For example, we now have youth NEET rates—those not in employment, education or training—down again to 10.1 percent. That is down from 10.9 percent last quarter and 11.3 percent a year ago.

But it gets better, because the NEET rate for women has fallen to 10.1 percent—the lowest since records began in this survey. I know the Hon Willie Jackson is not a man to blow his own trumpet—well, actually, he’s doing it right now at Rātana—but I want to credit the programmes such as Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi, which Minister Jackson is overseeing. I also want to credit Carmel Sepuloni for the work on the industry partnership with MSD that is practically getting young people into work and into training on the job.

This Government can be proud of its economic record. We have put in place the Families Package that’s put money into the pockets of low and middle income New Zealanders, and we have made sure that the focus is on investing in jobs and in employment. Wages are growing. People are getting into work. This is the real data of the economy. This is the real story of the economy and I just wish the Opposition would cheer up. I just wish that the Opposition would say, “Actually, the economy is doing well.” and celebrate that story. But, I can understand it, because I do have one concern about unemployment: Simon Bridges, because he is well on his way to becoming unemployed over that side of the House. I know that when Simon Bridges heard the words 3.9 percent, his heart sank. He thought it was the preferred Prime Minister rating for this month, for him and the National Party. But on this occasion, it’s a good number—3.9 percent is a good number.

He is, however, I know—or I am—very pleased, I would say, about the under-utilisation rate. This is the idea that more people are getting into work—the people who want more hours. Simon Bridges, however, was worried about the utilisation rate: the under-utilisation rate of Judith Collins. Because if she’s under-utilised, we all know what’s going to happen on the other side of the House.

But I can say that, with the polls going the way they are, unemployment is definitely a problem over there. I’d say that whole segment there—out. Gone. Gone for good. I did notice that Nicky Wagner was wearing a name-tag when she came into the House today; probably good practice for Nicky Wagner for the future. All of that lot out. Maureen Pugh is at the bottom of the National Party list, but on this side of the House, we’re with Maureen Pugh’s mum. We’re with her mum, saying, “Maureen, you shouldn’t go.”, but the list will move just a little bit further down the aisle here at the rate National’s going.

But, actually, in the end, I say to the National Party: keep talking the economy down. Keeping doing it, because every time they do, it gets better—every time they do it gets better. Here is a tweet from the Hon Simon Bridges from just a couple of months ago. Simon Bridges says, “It’s started. Unemployment’s up. Is anyone seriously going to debate that this isn’t because of the Arden-Peters Government’s policies? It’s time they acknowledge their responsibility and make serious changes for New Zealanders’ sake.” There is only one serious change that’s required, and it’s Simon Bridges getting out of that seat over there.

On this side of the House, we are proud of the fact that more New Zealanders are in work, that unemployment’s going down, that youth unemployment is going down, that wages are lifting. That is the sign of an economy that’s working. That is the sign of the fact that this Government has a plan for the economy to benefit all New Zealanders. This coalition Government is on a roll.

Well, ministerial discretion, by definition, is specific powers that Ministers have to make decisions that are provided to them by the New Zealand Parliament. These decisions are considered so important that the Minister is given power over anyone and anything else. They’re often difficult, complex, and have multiple elements to them. The Minister must have known that the Karel Sroubek decision would be controversial. Let’s be frank: to most people, it would be abhorrent. So when you’re faced with a decision like that, you cross your t’s and you dot your i’s. You get officials into your office. You dig. You ask every question that you can possibly think of. You think about it in every conceivable way, and then you sit on it for a few days and you think about it some more. Then you think of some other questions that you perhaps didn’t ask. One goes back to those officials and asks those questions again and digs in, because they know this will be controversial. They know that the public won’t understand or agree with it.

There are even times when, as a Minister, you may take an oral item to Cabinet to inform them of your decision so that they understand. We hear the Prime Minister found out—she told us today—about this decision via the media. So his radar wasn’t even working well enough that he alerted the Prime Minister to something that could be this controversial. You do not do the bare minimum—the bare minimum—expected from a Minister. The bare minimum is what this Minister did—the bare minimum. What I am saying to the Minister of Immigration is: you are a Minister of the Crown; you should put the protection and the safety of New Zealanders first, not an individual, and that is not what has happened.

Here’s what we know to date. I do this to help the Minister of Immigration, because we seem to know more about the Karel Sroubek case than, actually, he does.

💬 Hon Member: Everyone knows more.

Yeah. Everybody seems to know more. Even today, he had to get a patsy question from his colleagues, saying, “You’re spokesperson on immigration. Please tell me what he knows, because we don’t know anything and it’d be really handy if he kind of let us.”—but, anyway. So he arrived in New Zealand in 2003 under a fake name, fake passport, fleeing from the Czech Republic after some dealings with the Czech police. He gets residency. He stays in New Zealand. Since 2010, he has a rap sheet that would make Tony Soprano think he should be a member of his gang, quite frankly, and one he would be proud of. He was arrested in 2009 on aggravated robbery and blackmail charges.

In 2011, a jury found him guilty of using a false passport and giving false details. He was arrested soon after, as part of Operation Ark, a covert investigation into drugs. I reckon there’s a bit more to come on that, so we’ll keep digging around that one and keep watching that one. That’s a watching brief, because there are a number of people that were involved in Operation Ark and a number that went through that, and the fact that Sroubek is actually part of it just does have another whole lot of links going on there.

In 2014, he was charged with manufacturing drugs. A few months later, he was arrested for importing drugs. He then was jailed for almost six years. The Parole Board declined early release because he’s untrustworthy. So the Parole Board declined release, and then Iain Lees-Galloway cancelled his deportation less than 48 hours later. Yeah—48 hours later. I know it sounds unbelievable—that’s actually because it is unbelievable—but that is the decision that the Minister made, without telling the Prime Minister and without actually going to his colleagues.

Here’s where it gets interesting in the last few days. We’ve got people in witness protection. He allegedly assaulted and intimidated witnesses. The police placed the entire family in witness protection because they were in fear of their lives. Police do not do that lightly. The police actually took this seriously enough. Now we are learning that his estranged wife is having all sorts of dealings to do with the house and that that’s going on sale, and we’ve heard that he’s got caveats on things and everything else. Ironically, when the house goes up for sale, which he didn’t want to happen—because he put a caveat on it—we’re now finding that that house has been burgled. His character is not the type that we want in this country, and that is why he should not have been given residency like he was. There is no way the right decision has been made and no way the right questions were asked of this Minister, and it’s time he took account for it.

I remember two years ago sitting in Opposition where those MPs are sitting now and listening to the deputy leader of the National Party speak, and they were behind her. They were cheering. They were yahooing. At the moment, I listened to the deputy leader of the National Party just talk—not a word. But worse than that, there were 33 National MPs here and I counted 20 of them on their phones. Twenty of them were on their phones. They weren’t even listening, because they know she’s gone. They don’t need to get behind any more—they’re out of there. Chris Finlayson, the most capable National Minister in the last nine years—he was there applying for a job or writing his book. There’s just no energy any more. The life has been sucked out of the National Party, and it’s fantastic, and it’s over here.

I’ve got to congratulate Grant Robertson: 3.9 percent unemployment. That is absolutely fantastic. In fact, as the Deputy Prime Minister alluded to, the last time that happened was when Labour and New Zealand First were in Government. We’re back, and it’s on the right track again. Wages are up by 3.3 percent—fantastic. It’s all going really well. Those over there who said it couldn’t happen, it wouldn’t happen—they’re wrong. Not only are we making it happen; we’re driving it forward in a way that is making a difference for all Kiwis. The thing is that I know they don’t like it, but the fact that we’re not only getting along as coalition partners—we’re all mates anyway. It’s all good fun and we’re getting along really, really well. I’m sorry about that, but that is the reality that they don’t like.

Let me talk about police—let me talk about police. We came in with a promise. We came in with a promise, a New Zealand First - Labour coalition promise to deliver 1,800 more police. The reason we did this is because Ron Mark and I had gone really hard in Opposition, because we knew that between 2012 and 2017, police numbers actually dropped by 70 over those five years. In the meantime, P had gone through the roof, gangs got organised and out of control, and we were in real trouble. Burglary rates were through the roof and resolution rates were down.

I can inform you that since we have been in Government, 852 new officers are out in our communities, preventing our crime and keeping us safe—852. I have been to every single graduation—

💬 Matt King: Funded by us.

—except one, and I can inform the House that the graduates who have chosen the New Zealand police service for a career are phenomenal. They are absolutely phenomenal. I must get you out there, Mr King. I must get you out to the Police College one day so you can have a look.

We made the promise—we made a promise to the people of New Zealand. When we said 1,800 police over three years, one thing we did say is we would not drop the standard of recruits. That was our promise. What I’m seeing now is no drop in the standards—in fact, an increase in the standard. It is going brilliantly.

One of the other things I would like to say is that since we got into power, the prison numbers have dropped by about 850. What we heard is that if prison numbers drop, crime’s going to go through the roof and people aren’t going to be safe. Well, I can tell you, prison numbers are down by 850. Do you know the number of victimisations that are down since we’ve been there?

💬 Hon Members: Tell us.

Over 10,000 less victimisations in the year that we have been in Government. Over 10,000 less victimisations—

💬 SPEAKER: Fewer—fewer.

—fewer than 10,000 victimisations. Now, that is progress. That is developing a police service with the resources and the capacity and the competencies to keep our communities safe—not out there fighting fires the whole time, but keeping our community safe. I thank New Zealand First for the commitment to this. It has been absolutely brilliant, because we are delivering and making a difference for our communities right up and down New Zealand.

There’s just one area I’d like to talk on, and it’s something that I’m very proud of. In the tax area, we passed a bill. It was called the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill. It gets quite complex, but what it’s actually about is ensuring that all the multinationals who operate out of this country pay their fair share. One thing that we know really gets under the craw of New Zealanders is when people rip off the system. One thing that we really know is that when multinationals don’t pay their fair share when everyone else does, it is fundamentally wrong. We’ve changed that. The base erosion and profit shifting bill means that everyone is paying their fair share of tax.

Well, we could also talk about the R & D tax credits. That is going to drive growth and—we need 15 minutes, not five. That’s going to drive growth in a way that we haven’t seen for a long time. It is an absolute privilege and a pleasure—

Order! [Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the House in the general debate today. Can I just say, firstly, to the Minister of Police: be very careful about the statements that you’re making in this House, because, yes, I think you’re doing a good job, and you certainly started with the confidence of the front-line police officers, but you’re in great danger at the moment, standing in this House and making statements like that, especially around standards which aren’t just a concern, actually, with the public; they’re a concern within the police service themselves. Stay focused on standards, Minister. I assure you.

The other thing I want to say is this: you don’t stand in the House and talk about how phenomenal everyone is when you’ve just had the Minister of Internal Affairs carry out an inquiry at the highest levels of the police leadership and you’re not being transparent around it. If you want some feedback from the front lines, I’ll give it to you, because I was with our local police in Warkworth at a function on Saturday night, which the Minister actually failed to attend—

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I was there in the back row, you ninny!

—and I’ll let you know. I’ll let you know what they said.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I can accept that the member was not trying to call me a ninny, but she, effectively, did. I do require the member to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: I withdraw and apologise, sir.

So I’ll just finish by saying to the Minister quite simply this: Minister, they have to go out every day, and they face the scrutiny—and they should face the scrutiny—of the public and also the officers, the sergeants, and the officers in charge of them. They face the Independent Police Conduct Authority. They have to deal with all of that. They’ve just had one of their senior leaders come into this Parliament as part of a process like that, and there’s no transparency around it. Their Minister doesn’t even have the report. So be very careful what you do when you stand in this House—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

—sorry, Mr Speaker—when the Minister stands in this House and starts talking about front-line staff when, actually, you need to show some leadership and be transparent around things that are happening at the highest levels. Just to let you know, Minister, that that’s actually—get in touch with the front line and what they’re thinking and what they’re feeling.

In relation to Karel Sroubek, can I just quickly read to you a letter that was sent to the Minister of Immigration: “Dear Minister. This letter relates to the decision taken by you to grant permanent residency to Karel Sroubek. I believe that the briefing documents provided to you would have clearly shown that you should never have granted a residency pathway to Mr Sroubek. I can make myself available for a meeting with you on this case, but must make it very clear it will be an unconstrained meeting, and although I will respect confidentiality regarding specifics and individuals, I reserve the right to be able to speak publicly and indicate after the briefing whether my position has changed at all. As you know, there is a very high level of public interest in your decision, and I’ve been very clear about my own position and the need for transparency.” That letter was sent to the Minister this morning, so I’ll be very interested to see what his response to that is.

The reason why this is so serious, and the reason why this calls into direct question the Minister’s ability to be able to make decisions that relate to New Zealand’s public safety—and there’s actually two things that, inherently, a Government must pay close attention to: national security and public safety. There’s been an abject failure on the part of the Minister. When you hear him say in response to the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s question at the start of this process on 30 October in this House—he came in here and he said, “I’ve taken the opportunity to reflect on the decision that I made and to consider the information that was available to me at the time of making that decision. Having done that, I absolutely stand by the action that I took.”

So even after the New Zealand public had come out very clearly, along with the Opposition, and said, “This is a very poor decision. On the face of it, we can’t see any reason why a convicted criminal from the Czech Republic and New Zealand has been granted a New Zealand residency and is actually protected from a deportation process.”, he then had time to go away and actually ask additional questions. He was on notice. He was put on notice. He came back into this House after being put on notice, after having the time to go away and seek more information—he came back into this House with a very arrogant attitude and told us all that he was going to stand by the action taken.

Not only that; it gets worse. The Prime Minister comes into this House and stands up and says, “Read between the lines.” Her message to the nation was, “Read between the lines.” But it gets worse. Then the Deputy Prime Minister, who normally is quite sensitive to this type of thing, comes into this House and stands up and he says, “I have reviewed the file, and I back the Minister on his decision.” You’ve got three people in New Zealand that believe that Karel Sroubek should be given the right and the honour of having a New Zealand residency—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I almost feel a little bit sorry for members opposite who have stood up and spoken today. Such flat speeches, so much doom and gloom and grasping at straws. You would think that we have nothing to celebrate, but on this side of the House we absolutely do.

Firstly, of course, we stand alongside New Zealand Indian communities, who are celebrating this week, across Aotearoa, the festival of lights, Diwali. They are celebrating the triumph of light over darkness that symbolises the triumph of knowledge over ignorance, truth over falsehood, strength over weakness, and hope over despair and fear, and this Government is doing so much to dispel the darkness that is poverty and that is inequity with the light of good economic management and compassion for the many who have been locked out of the benefits of a strong economy over the last nine years.

Today we’ve heard that unemployment is down to 3.9 percent—the lowest level since we on this side of the House were last in office. A strong economy delivering strong surpluses, more jobs, and lower debt—surely, that is a cause for celebration. More people in work and more young people in employment, education, or training. The economy is going well—and it’s hard for the Opposition to swallow that pill—and it’s having an impact on the lives of families and communities, and that must be celebrated. In its entirety, when you look at what this Government, a Government that I am so proud to support, has done through the Families Package, through lifting the minimum wage, through the KiwiBuild programme that will deliver on large-scale, affordable housing through the shared equity schemes that this Government is working on for those on lower incomes who wish to own a home, through more State housing and more emergency housing, through making doctors’ visits cheaper for 600,000 New Zealanders, and through the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, that passed recently, as well—with our Government’s plan, it will ensure that we lift children and their families out of poverty.

In my last couple of minutes, I want to focus on what we have also done in terms of addressing family violence. Just last night in this House, we passed two bills that will make a huge impact on reducing what is really a scourge on this nation. Our family violence rates and family violence homicide rates in New Zealand are sky-high, and it is absolutely something that this Government is focusing on to address. Now, very recently, the Social Services and Community Committee spoke to officials, to Government members, to MPs, to NGOs, and to researchers in Australia. At every single meeting we had with them, they recognised that family violence is not just something that occurs as well and contributes to poverty and homelessness, but is, in fact, a driver of those things.

If we are to ensure that we improve the well-being of our communities, it is imperative that we address family violence, as well. The two bills ensure that we take into consideration the fact that family violence affects us all but that it affects us differently. The recognition that we must expand the definition to include dowry-related violence and make things like forced marriage—that the sector has been campaigning on for decades—an offence shows that on this side of the House, we get it and that there is the will to ensure that we address family violence so that everyone is lifted out of it.

This, coupled with the joint-venture approach that was recently announced—the fact that we will have an integrated system, a whole-of-Government system, where every Government department will contribute to addressing and lowering family violence rates and, eventually, ending it. The fact that we have a Parliamentary Under-Secretary—for the first time, internationally—under whose leadership this will happen, along with the Minister of Justice, to ensure that we have leadership in that space so that everyone contributes, where they can, to address our horrific rates. The fact that in Budget 2018, there was $76 million announced to boost support services that hadn’t seen that in a decade. The fact that just today, an announcement was made of $15 million to fund whānau resilience services to break intergenerational cycles of abuse, because we know that that happens. I’m proud to be supporting a Government that gets it and that is acting to improve lives.

If there’s any measure of how quickly out of touch this Government has become with the mood of the people of New Zealand, it was in the opening comments of both Mr Nash and Ms Radhakrishnan, who indicated that because the National Party benches weren’t cheering and baying behind their deputy leader, somehow we’re all morose and sad. We were listening carefully to one of the most important issues facing this Government and this Parliament in the last year, and colleagues were taking it extremely seriously. And so they should, because 10 days into the publicity over the Minister’s decisions around Karel Sroubek, the extraordinary revelations just keep coming, and so does the butt-covering and the throwing of officials under the bus.

Let’s just start with those revelations and the Minister’s reaction. Last Tuesday, he told the House that he had carefully reconsidered the file and that he stood by that decision. But less than 24 hours later, he claimed that new information existed that appeared to directly contradict the information which he relied upon to keep this thug in the country. By Thursday, an investigation had been announced, and that was it. The shutters are up. No questions are being asked. And, ever since that, no comments, no explanations; just, actually, a thinly veiled attack on Immigration New Zealand officials—people who I know extremely well and have worked with very closely for around five years.

The code from the PM: read between the lines. Well, this open and transparent Government wasn’t going to ask the public to read between the lines; they were going to give the public the lines. They were going to be more upfront and more honest with them. These are stories of criminal records, of witness protection, of intimidation, and of the denying of parole.

The Minister actually gives us the impression that this was somehow a difficult decision and that, had he had this new information, he might have made a different decision. Remember, this is information that is actually coming, mostly, from the National Party—a National Party that did some basic research: fundamental due diligence. I’m going to be really interested about when, actually, this file is finally revealed. Because of the terrible things that have been said about public officials, it is absolutely necessary that at some point that happens, because I know that the information that the Minister is now inferring is new information would have absolutely been put before him in the initial situation when he made his decision.

The PM in Dunedin on Saturday again threw officials under a bus. She was asked: does she back the Minister? The answer: yes. Does she have confidence in Immigration New Zealand? The answer: let’s wait and see what the report has to say.

The investigation itself suggests some kind of degree of independence, but let’s remind ourselves what’s actually happening here. The Minister is investigating his own decision. He’s actually going back and asking for some kind of apparent third-party examination of a decision that he made. In order for that to be transparent, he needs to show this House and the public what information he relied on when he made his first decision and what information now exists that was either put before him or should have been asked by him in that straightforward examination of what I believe is a straightforward case.

I have seen a number of these cases. I have seen some pretty amazing submissions in support of what I call a Hail Mary request to stay. A lot of it is relevant but not determinative. I don’t actually care if Mr Sroubek has found God and been nominated for a Nobel Prize. He has committed serious offences, and in this country the right of residence and citizenship is a privilege that we should hold dear. The price of entry into this country and the price of being able to stay in this country has gone down, has been cheapened, by this decision. Other members are going to talk about how hard it is to gain that prize, that privilege, and it’s been cheapened by this Government.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Can I start my contribution by just acknowledging the Toastmasters of Warkworth and the great debate that took place on Friday last week. I’m not sure what the local member, Hon Mark Mitchell, was talking about. I was there. My husband was in the team. The moot was “Should New Zealand invade Australia?” The police team were in the negative, and they resoundingly won the evening. I apologise to my husband now, but they showed more wit, they showed more stamina, and they had shiny medals, which I think actually swayed the women in the audience, which was their rebuttal.

The other thing that the police informed me of that evening was the fact that the Warkworth police station is going to go 24/7—24/7—in the next so many months. And that is because of the increased police numbers referred to by the Minister of Police just earlier this evening. They were thrilled to know—and so were the people of that community—that they are now going to have police officers on the beat 24/7, ready for them and available for them.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: When was the last time?

I don’t know when the last time was, Mr McAnulty, but I know that it wasn’t the reality over the last decade. I’m fairly confident about that.

Can I move on to another topic? Just quickly though, I am very interested in the conversation coming from the Opposition benches that was raised by the Leader—sorry, just a bit quick there—the Deputy Leader of the National Party, and that was around a series of dates that the member put forward: dates around being let into the country, dates around residency, dates around crimes being committed, dates around people being arrested. All of those dates were in the period of time that she was in Government. All of those dates—all of the dates—that have been articulated by the Opposition were during the period of time that they were in power. So it’s an interesting argument that they’re running, but let’s hope they continue to run it.

On the weekend, the Prime Minister announced $217 million over the next four years for the first tranche of 600 learning support coordinators to be inside our schools. This was not a fly-by-night political announcement; this was a piece of work that Catherine Delahunty and Chris Hipkins and I started back in 2016—and if the Hon Judith Collins was here, I would acknowledge her also. This piece of work came out of the dyslexia, dyspraxia, and children on the autism spectrum inquiry at the Education and Science Committee in that year. There was a majority report that came into this House, but the Government of the day decided that no more money would be put inside this sector—no more money. Any recommendation that came from the majority of the select committee had to have a zero price tag. This Government and the members of it—Minister Hipkins, myself, and, as I say, Catherine Delahunty, who we, unfortunately, no longer have in this Parliament—put in 26 further recommendations that we made sure we started to work on the moment we sat in the seat—the moment we had the opportunity to move forward.

This, however, is only step two of a five-step process. The first step was to actually change the delivery model. The system for supporting our young people with complex and even moderate learning needs is completely broken. There is no point continuing to pump money into it. Even though we knew the need was so neat, we placed funding in as immediately as we could during the Christmas period, and then began work on changing the delivery model. The delivery model has been trialled for the past year and is currently being rolled out across New Zealand and will be across New Zealand by the end of 2019. The learning support coordinators now have a financial commitment for the first tranche, and they will be in place in 2020.

The next thing we are working on is screening tools: to screen at school entry and to screen at seven years old for dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculics, and those on the moderate end of the autism spectrum, because we have no data to tell us the need. So we’re also developing a way to essentially collect that data. We can then use that data to create workforce planning so that we do not run into the shortage that we have run into after a decade of neglect.

I am thrilled that we were able to make that announcement on the weekend, but it is only a part of a longer piece of work, and I will commit to making sure that the further five steps are in place before we get to 2020. Kia ora.

It’s a privilege to take a call in this general debate, and normally I have some degree of admiration for the member from New Zealand First that’s just resumed her seat. Normally she’s well-briefed, well on top of her case, but today, I’m sorry, she really wasn’t. She was completely off the boil.

Maybe it’s because there are things afoot amongst the coalition Government at the moment that they don’t really want anyone to be talking about. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d be saying that all the beleaguered aggro that’s going on with the Minister of Immigration is all part of a smokescreen and a deliberate ploy to stop him talking about his other portfolio responsibility as Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety. Iain Lees-Galloway has been charged with guiding through this Parliament the opportunity to the new Government to repay its political debt to the trade union movement. And they thought that when they introduced the workplace relations changes back in January of this year, that it would be plain sailing. They thought, “Aha! Here we go. There’s our opportunity to increase union membership, to give unions more power, to make them a bigger player in industrial relations in this country.”, and it hasn’t quite worked out the way they thought.

It now seems, after a Cabinet meeting on Monday, that changes are afoot, and that the bill as reported back from select committee is going to be significantly and radically changed, watered down—a flip-flop back-down. And we knew that some of this was coming, because a few weeks ago, senior members of the trade union movement decided to have a flick—indeed, actually to launch a full frontal missile attack on Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party. Those leaders—Richard Wagstaff and a fellow by the name of Robert Reid from FIRST Union—decided to have an attack on Winston Peters, because they saw him as having had a play in this industrial relations legislation, in a way that was going to water down the union-friendly, pro-union changes that the new Government wanted to introduce.

Well, I think, actually, it’s a question of New Zealand First having listened—just like the Government is having to listen too—to the opposition that the National Party has put forward on this bill. At every inch of the way, at every turn, at every corner we have opposed it, and we’ve opposed on the basis that it is fundamentally and absolutely wrong in terms of growing the New Zealand economy, of creating better workplace opportunities for New Zealand workers, that it’s bad for employees and it’s bad for employers.

But I think that the New Zealand First Party has actually decided to listen to what the National Party has been saying. They’ve listened to business, they’ve listened to the Employers and Manufacturers Association, they’ve listened to Business New Zealand, and they have listened to the chambers of commerce and their submissions. At select committee, all those organisations made very staunch and strong submissions about how bad this piece of legislation was going to be—that it was going to take us back to the militant trade union scenario and landscape that we had back in the 1970s. Every indication we’ve had this year—the last 12 months—has been that that’s exactly the course upon which the trade union movement wishes to take New Zealand at the moment. In fact, it’s fair to say, in my opinion, that when this bill comes back to the House, probably in the last sitting block, just before Christmas, when the public’s attention is diverted away from it, we will see a significant backdown in terms of the big promises that the Labour Party made to their trade union friends, and they will have to swallow a very significant dead rat. I think we’re on the eve of seeing an embarrassing and humiliating backdown from the Government in terms of the promises they’ve made to trade unions.

And why is this important? Well, it’s important because this is a Government that relies on the leveraging of New Zealand First in order to get any legislation passed. And when Winston Peters said a few weeks ago that this was “a work in progress”, we all know around this Parliament that that is Winston Peters speak for “I’m going to have a fiddle. I’m going to have a play. I want to use it as a branding exercise.” And so that’s exactly what I think is going to occur.

And when the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions president Richard Wagstaff says “We are incredibly disappointed by New Zealand First’s attempts to duck the commitment they made.”, we know, in fact, that that is a concession from the trade unions that they’ve heard from the Labour Party—“We’re not going to be able to deliver on everything we promised to you.” Winston Peters has decided to have a play, has decided to have a fiddle, and we can just hope that the worst, sharpest aspects of this have been softened by New Zealand First in their input.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Not even a clap.

Ha! Not even a clap. Mr Simpson, you usually make a bit of sense, but today, alas, the conspiracy theory that you’ve brought up is, indeed, a sad indictment on how far the party has sunk. It’s not possible to just stand here and make stuff up in a way that actually creates your—it is amazing and cute, and please don’t use the term “fiddle” any further.

Look, I’m delighted to stand today. I had real trouble with my speech today in that I wasn’t sure—we had so much to talk about, right? I wasn’t sure what I wanted to speak about. Yesterday I missed the opportunity for the passing of the Family Violence Bill, as I was speaking in my own home town in regards to fund-raising on behalf of the refuge and an organisation called Homes of Hope, and so I missed that opportunity. I feel that the member Priyanca Radhakrishnan has covered that extremely well, however.

I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin. I’m going to speak and pick up on your theme today. I mean, there is so much—

💬 SPEAKER: Her theme today.

Sorry, sir—her theme today. I’m going to have a talk about education today.

So over the weekend, our coalition Government announced 600 new positions in the Special Educational Needs Coordinator position. Not only have we acknowledged 1,500 more teachers and hundreds more modern classrooms—my own local Ōtūmoetai school received $65 million to fix its leaking and mouldy classrooms to create a modern learning environment—but we have 8,000 more children accessing learning needs and special support. The reason I wanted to talk to this today is that it affects me personally and my family personally. In fact, all of us are teachers in some way, are we not?

So over the weekend, 600 learning support coordinators—I have listened to the stories of families for a very long time, talking about how difficult it is to access support and services. Our Government has listened. Our children deserve better. They have spent the last 10 years fighting, and these teachers and parents have spent the last 10 years trying their hardest to find the funds to support these children.

Now, in my own experience, I had to personally fund $800 to enable my daughter to access dyslexia, dyspraxia, and dyscalculia assessment. I had that $800. There is no place in this country—no place—for cheque-book education. Her friends fell by the wayside because those parents were not able to afford that. My daughter was able to access those services. As far as I’m concerned, as a Government, we’re actually listening to those parents.

It’s also about our gifted children, who deserve to be uplifted more than they are. It’s about our children’s teachers, who shouldn’t have an additional task stuffed on the end of their already busy, busy workloads; our principals having to do this job alongside our deputy principals or another senior teacher. These children deserve—and we desire as a Government to actually address that.

My Prime Minister, when she made this announcement—it was amazing. Six hundred—and that is only the first tranche. That is only the beginning of what we here in this Government are doing. We have heard you, parents. We have heard the children’s stories, and we have acted. So Tracey Martin and our coalition Government, I absolutely applaud you, as a parent, and I also am so proud to stand here today and to acknowledge what we are doing for children in this country.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will acknowledge what the last speaker, Angie Warren-Clark, said around the dyslexia and special needs, and we have welcomed that announcement, but we are carefully monitoring its delivery, because we would like to see that all that has been promised has been delivered. But that’s not going to be the main focus of my speech today.

We’ve heard a lot of comments from the other side of the House, the Government, this afternoon about the mood of the National Party caucus. Well, let me tell you that the National Party caucus is just fine, but we don’t consider this issue around Karel Sroubek to be a laughing matter. We were subdued because we understand the seriousness of what is going on here. Starting right through from Minister Nash to all of those others that have commented on the way through, we’d like to make it clear that we would like the Government to realise that this is a serious situation, as we do. So we are not cheerleaders in some TED Talk; we are actually listening to the conversations, we’re listening to the seriousness of the situation, and it is serious. When a Minister receives some information, it’s really important, when they’re asked to make a decision, that they dig into the information and do the homework, because sometimes the information can be complete. Sometimes, the information may in fact be incorrect—not intentionally, but it happens. It happens that sometimes it’s misinterpreted, and so, as a Minister, nothing should ever be assumed.

We’ve heard the Prime Minister making statements about reading between the lines. We just think, on this side of the House, that reading the lines would be a good piece of advice. Reading the information, reading the lines—don’t worry about what’s in between the lines, because a lot of the time, that’s actually blank. Reading the lines is as important as anything, and it might help.

Now, the other thing that I do want to touch on today—because, following this general debate, we are going to be debating the third reading of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. This would have to be the worst case of not listening that I have seen in—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. It is absolutely against the Speakers’ rulings and the conventions of this House to anticipate a debate which is on the Order Paper for that day. The debate happens during that debate and not before it. The member can’t refer to it.

Apology, Mr Speaker. So, just to clarify, it’s OK to speak about yesterday’s debate on the same issue?

💬 SPEAKER: No, not if the member’s talking about the bill—no.

OK—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: The member’s a whip. Come on!

Excuse me.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I’m actually not the whip.

Yes, thank you Mr McAnulty for your piece of advice. So, look, it’s really important, I think—and we’re focusing a lot this week on the competency of this Government and the focus on information and the focus on how we receive it. It’s very important, as we go and we talk about what’s been going on in this House over the last week. I’ve seen some legislation when Mr Stuart Nash also got up and spoke, when we were speaking about the country of origin labelling bill the other night—I saw some interesting dynamics where Mr Gareth Hughes was sitting in the chair during committee stage and Minister Stuart Nash got up and spoke. Gareth Hughes actually said to him “I wish I’d had a chance to speak to that Minister before he took his call.” So when we’re looking at three parties in a coalition Government where one person gets up and speaks and the other one says “I wish I’d had the opportunity to talk to that person before they got up and spoke.”, then I think it’s probably a good opportunity to talk to each other about what’s going on.

I also saw some angry behaviour in the House the other night from Andrew Little around some members’ bills—in fact, Simeon Brown’s psychoactive substances bill—where the Minister got extremely angry because the support around that piece of legislation wasn’t going his way.

So we’ve seen some really interesting and different behaviour from this Government, and we’re questioning their competency. We would like this Government to step up. Thank you.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. The synthetics crisis, as was just referenced, continues to grip this country, and today I invite all members of this Parliament to live up to their rhetoric. There is consensus here, at least as far as words go, that we do not want to criminalise users. We want to see harm reduced. We want to stop unnecessary deaths. So let’s prove that with action. I am calling on MPs across this House in all parties today to support sensible drug regulation that stops harm and prevents unnecessary deaths. If politicians aren’t willing to do that, then we cannot pretend that we are treating this as a health issue.

Let’s be honest with ourselves: increasing penalties, the punishment pathway, the war on drugs, simply has not worked. In 1998, when I was four years old, member States of the United Nations signed up to eradicate all drugs by committing to strong, unsympathetic penalties. We told ourselves that if we played by this rulebook, we would get rid of drugs on planet Earth by 2008. That was 10 years ago, and drugs still exist. While we’ve been ratcheting up criminal penalties, we’ve done nothing to reduce the harm that drugs are causing in our community. Drug use flourishes in the shadows, providing billions of dollars internationally in funds for violence and organised criminal activity, leaving destruction in its wake.

Last year, synthetic drugs were implicated in 27 deaths in Aotearoa New Zealand, and this year the death toll has risen to at least 45 lives lost. If these deaths were caused by anything else, anything other than those evil, scary, illegal drugs, we’d be stepping in immediately to regulate harm. Instead, we’re stuck in this punishment feedback loop. We’re seeing more of the same political thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

So I want to appeal directly to members’ consciences on this issue. Every few months, MPs in this House are asked by the media when they last smoked cannabis. There’s a wee chuckle and a few “ums” and “ahs”, and then we all gaze off into the distance and refer back to our university days. But what about our fellow New Zealanders? What about those who weren’t so fortunate to go to university? What if you can’t choose to leave illegal drug consumption in the mists of time? What if those drugs had killed us? What if we were strapped with drug convictions? What if it took away our future? But it didn’t for us, and we’re here, a substantial number of us who have personally admitted to breaking the law and consuming illegal drugs, and now we preside over that law which penalises people who engage in exactly the same behaviour for doing what we did. Some people are ending up in jail, and now some people are dying, but we are in Parliament with the ability to do something. So what are we going to do?

We can, of course, continue to pretend that everything is fine with a criminalisation that is applied on an ad hoc basis and disproportionately against the poor, against the young, and against Māori. But what exactly is the purpose of penalising drug users? Is it that we want to stop people using drugs? Well, if that’s the case, we’re failing—big time. New Zealand is reported to have amongst the highest drug-use rates in the world, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Is it that we somehow think that illegality will spur people to access help for abuse and addiction issues? Well, Ministry of Health data shows that 16.5 percent of New Zealanders who sought help for drugs couldn’t access it for fear of law or the police. Is it that we think that we’re somehow getting cost-saving measures out of locking people up who use these drugs? Well, the evidence in independent fiscal modelling released today shows that criminalising drug users alone costs between $34 million and $83 million a year.

I am calling on MPs across this House to move to support an end to punishment for people who use drugs and to provide them with resourcing and support, because if politicians aren’t willing to do that, we cannot pretend that we are treating this as a health issue and we cannot pretend that we care about people who use drugs and the harm that they experience. If we continue to criminalise drug users, we are condemning them—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —for not living up to the moral standards that we ourselves admit that we are not able to meet. Kia ora.

A little over 10 days ago, I was flicking through my news feeds and I read this rather disturbing story about this Czech criminal—this gangster—who is in jail in New Zealand for drug dealing. The Minister of Immigration, Iain Lees-Galloway, had granted him residency, and I could not believe this. I thought that there must be some sort of mistake and the media must have got it wrong—that’s not uncommon, in my experience. But we were asked to read between the lines: maybe he’s at risk if he’s deported, or maybe he’s not that bad—he’s just a little bit misunderstood. And then we asked a few questions and we found out that, no, he’s been back to his homeland twice, that witnesses that are involved in the case that he’s involved in are on the witness protection programme, and that his estranged wife has taken out a protection order against him. So this gangster—this criminal gangster—is a nasty piece of work, and I’ve met a few of them in my time. I’ve arrested a few.

It made me think about some of the constituents that have come into my office. I thought of a Filipino woman called Juliet Garcia, who has had 11 years in New Zealand and works at the Switzer rest home. She’s just shy of her residency points because they won’t take into account a couple of years of her work experience in New Zealand, so she’s been told that she can’t get residency. So they’ve advertised her position in preparation of the fact that she’s going to be kicked out of the country, and they’ve had no applicants—for two years. They cannot replace her, and the Minister has the authority to grant a waiver to let her stay in the country. There are about an estimated 3,000 Juliet Garcias in this country, and aged care is in crisis, so I would imagine that she’d be a great case in which to grant a waiver.

I have the English woman—a sole child, who came here as a resident. Her mother has died and her father is alone in England. He has the means to come out here and the means to support himself. That’s her only surviving relative—it’s just her and him on this earth. She wants him to come out and live in New Zealand with her in her house, and he can support himself. He’s a little bit old and they won’t give him a waiver. He can’t get residency. He doesn’t qualify under any categories, but they can let him in—this is heartbreaking stuff.

We’ve got a Fijian Indian farm manager. He’s been here eight years. His employer values him and is desperate for him to stay. He’s paid international fees for his son to go through university here. He’s bought his own house. He is two years over the age limit. The Minister has the ability to give him an age waiver to allow him to apply for residency, but they refuse to intervene.

We’ve got South African people wanting to escape South Africa because of the violent crime there. Their Government is seizing their land without compensation, and they want to get out of that country—they have good grounds. One of them, he owned a business over there. The sales rep that delivered the chainsaws to his factory—his truck got robbed and he got shot dead. A couple that they have a barbecue lunch with every second weekend—intruders broke into her house while the husband was away, shot her eight times through the bedroom door, ransacked the house, and left her for dead, basically. She lifted her son—her three-year-old son—out of the window, and he ran the kilometre down the road to get her help. Stories like this are genuine. They’re happening right now in South Africa, and we’re turning a blind eye. We have the ability to accept these people.

Now, I’ve got people that come here on visitor visas from South Africa looking to make New Zealand their home. They are professional people—doctors, teachers, chefs, engineers—but they can’t get residency. It’s heartbreaking stuff, and I see it every day. I understand that we can’t open the floodgates and let these people in willy-nilly, but we certainly can kick an oxygen-thief of a Czech gangster out of this country—hell, I’d do that job for free.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.