Address in Reply

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. And isn’t it good to be back in Parliament—my first time sitting on this side of the aisle, at least a little bit closer to the front than in 2014. Can I say again what I said yesterday and congratulate you, sir, on your election to this office.

I also want to acknowledge my good friend and former employee James Meager, who gave such an outstanding speech in the Parliament yesterday. He is going to make an outstanding contribution to this Chamber. My good friend Katie Nimon, the MP for Napier—what a great speech that was, as well. We’ve got a whole range of National Party maiden speeches over the next few weeks and months. It’s going to take quite a long time to get through them all because there are so many more National Party new MPs. It’s been fascinating entering the Government caucus room in the last two or three weeks. We’re overflowing out of it, and it’s quite a contrast from after the events that we don’t talk about after the last election!

Can I acknowledge all new members of the Parliament. This is a special place. It’s the place where we change the laws. It’s the place where we repeal laws. It’s the place where we debate the future of this country. Very few people get to become members of Parliament in New Zealand, and so everyone who has been sent here, whether by their electorate or by their party on the list, brings something to this Parliament. I mean that genuinely.

Can I say that I’ve moved into my office, and one of the first things I did was—I’ve got a framed copy of the entire judgment of Fitzgerald v Muldoon, given to me when I first became an MP, by close friends; a famous law case. I’ve got it framed, and it’s on the entry into my ministerial office. I put it there because it speaks to two things that I always want to remind myself of when I enter the office. The first is the sovereignty of Parliament. Fitzgerald v Muldoon stands for the proposition that Parliament is sovereign in New Zealand. We make the laws. The people who make the laws are ultimately accountable to the people, through the ballot box. That’s democracy. And in our constitutional arrangements, in our system, it’s the Parliament, the people’s House, that makes the laws of the land.

The second thing that Fitzgerald v Muldoon stands for is that the Government is accountable to Parliament. Of course, the famous case makes the point that Mr Muldoon couldn’t just suspend the law of Parliament by fiat or press release or decree. To actually change the law, you have to go to the Parliament to do so. I want it to be a reminder to myself that we as Ministers are accountable to the Parliament, and that’s ultimately what the next three years will be about. We’re going to have robust debates in this place. We’re going to put forward legislation. The Opposition is not going to like it. We’re going to have some good old barneys in the House, and it’s going to be good, but ultimately Parliament is sovereign, and we will as a Government be accountable to it.

Can I also say, in reflecting on the last few weeks, isn’t it fantastic that we had a peaceful transfer of power in New Zealand? Very few countries around the world have transfers of power like we did—very few countries. In so many countries—and, sadly, the trend is increasing—too many Governments take power at the barrel of a gun, or the leaders of the country are in power because they’re the brother or the son of the person who came before and power is exercised through military might rather than through votes at the ballot box. I do want to take this moment to acknowledge the former Government for the very good way they allowed the new Government to take office in a very sensible way. It wasn’t particularly expeditious, but that’s on us!

But it’s New Zealand’s first MMP coalition with three parties in it, and I think it’s worth reflecting on that, because there are a lot of people, particularly during the interregnum period—and members opposite won’t necessarily say this publicly, but I reckon I’m right in saying that they enjoyed the break from being in Parliament and enjoyed the break from their ministerial boxes. And it was good, actually. The country didn’t fall apart without the Parliament sitting and the Government not really in office and the new Government taking office. The country didn’t fall apart. I actually reckon most New Zealanders quite enjoyed the break from politics, but anyway, we come to this new Parliament as the country’s first three-way coalition. It took a bit of time to get there. It took a couple of weeks extra maybe than people would otherwise have liked, but what it speaks to is a Government with the confidence of the majority of the House. And it enjoys a strong majority, and it enjoys circularity between the coalition agreements—National and ACT and New Zealand First signing up to each other’s programmes, putting aside some differences and sharing what we want to achieve as a country and as a Government together.

The Speech from the Throne laid out, I think, the Government’s agenda extensively, and it was good to sit there and listen to a speech on the Government’s side of the aisle. A little part of me did feel sorry for the Opposition sitting on the other side of the aisle—a little part of me—because I’ve been there. I’ve been there, done that, got the t-shirt. It’s not good—it’s not good—and I did feel a little bit sorry for them, because what’s going to happen in the next 100 days is that we are going to repeal some of the legislation passed by the last Parliament under the last Government. And, as I said in response to the shadow Leader of the House in the Business Statement, there is no reason to keep things on the statute book that are bad law.

There has been a bit of a commentary developing from members opposite, and you saw it with the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s remarks: “Oh, well, when’s the Government going to do something? Parliament is meant to do something.”—as if repealing stupid legislation that takes the country backwards is not doing something. And I think it speaks to everything that the Labour Party thinks about Government and about Parliament: that we have to spend more money, we have to do things, set up a new Government programme. The way to achieve economic transformation is to get all the officials into a room and consult with the stakeholders and get the external consultants in to write a glossy document! Economic transformation isn’t created by literally writing a 100-page glossy document, with thousands of officials creating it, called Economic Transformation. Economic transformation takes place by individual decisions by businesses and by individuals and families up and down the country—the individual businesses and sole traders making that courageous decision to hire a new person or to invest in a new piece of machinery or actually to get on that flight and go to Australia or further afield and try to sell their business or their services.

It speaks, I think, to the previous Government’s attitude that economic transformation is all about just issuing press releases and all about publishing glossy documents, and that Government is always about doing things—it’s always about having to create stuff! Actually, I’m a member of the National Party and I’m a member of this coalition Government. I think Government is about doing fewer things. I think it’s about doing the things that Government does well and effectively and being efficient with taxpayer money and getting value for money, but I actually think we’d be better off if Government did fewer things, if Government reduced as a proportion of GDP, if Government got out of the way of businesses and families. And that’s why this Government is committed to cutting red tape and investing in productivity-enhancing infrastructure to get Government out of the way and let Kiwis get on with their lives. We need less Government in this country and in this economy, not more Government.

We’ve seen the outcome of more Government. We’ve seen what a ginormous increase in Government spending does, like we saw over the last six years. We have the official cash rate at the highest it has been since 2008. We have ever-increasing debt. We have deficits as far as the eye can see. The books bequeathed to us by Grant Robertson and the Labour Party are not in good shape, and over the next few weeks and months, and probably beyond that as well, we will be doing an exposure exercise to show to the New Zealand people just what a shoddy job the last Government did and what a terrible situation the incoming Government inherits. Let me tell you: it is going to be a job to turn it around, but turn it around we will, because this country needs us to succeed. Our young people need us to succeed across health and education and law and order. And let me close by saying that we are up for the challenge. I can’t wait to get started.

There’s one good thing about the Government opposite, and that is that the member who’s just resumed his seat has not taken on the role of Minister of Finance, because we’ve discovered in the last week or so that he can’t tell the difference between the number one and the number 35. Chris Bishop seems to think that the outcome of the previous Government’s smoke-free changes was that there would be one outlet in all of Northland selling cigarettes, when in actual fact the publicly available number was 35. That tells you all you need to know about Mr Bishop’s mathematical ability and, sadly, also about this Government.

But I do want to pick up on our Mr Bishop’s comments about the unique MMP three-way that we now have in front of us, because I do want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to what Mr Bishop just said about how proud he was to be part of this Government, how much he shared, how he was part of one entity made up of these three very, very different people. Christopher Luxon hasn’t seemed to quite pick that up, because he’s been saying, with reference to utterances from the Deputy Prime Minister, “Well, that’s not me; I wouldn’t say it that way necessarily.” When Winston Peters calls the Public Interest Journalism Fund bribery, accuses the media of accepting bribes, goes on weird rants about conspiracy theories about the World Health Organization and how they’re going to run New Zealand, apparently Mr Luxon says, “No, that is not me.”, unlike Chris Bishop. Or when Brooke van Velden decides to incorrectly and misleadingly represent the views of Simon Upton, that apparently also is not part of it.

Well, I’ve got news for Christopher Luxon: your circus, your clowns. He is responsible, from this day forward, for every single one of the people on that side of the House, and I can tell you from experience that ain’t easy. To start with, I don’t even know what Shane Jones is saying most of the time, and I don’t think the National Government will be able to tell either—

Hon Members: Details!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Details! Details! But this is a three-way Government that will be the most extreme, the most right-wing Government I think since at least the early 1990s in New Zealand. I’ve heard a lot about the country being back on track or taking back our country from parties on the other side of the House, and I can say with absolute certainty they’re going backwards. That’s where they’re going.

Now, they’re going backwards to different places. I think Nicola Willis wants to go backwards to 1993—she wants to go back 30 years—to the last years of Ruth Richardson, where the cuts to public services were deep, where New Zealand communities right around the country felt the effect of a Government who didn’t care, a Government who cut the services that they need. That’s where Nicola Willis wants to go back to. But I think probably Winston Peters wants to go back to 1983—he wants to go back 40 years—to the years of Muldoon and a monochromatic New Zealand where we didn’t celebrate our diversity, where we didn’t actually reach out to the world and be proud of who we were, where we kowtowed to those from other countries. That’s where Winston Peters wants to go. I suspect David Seymour—and this might surprise him—wants to go back to 1963, which was when Milton Friedman wrote his great treatise for the right wing of the economy. So it might be 1993, it might be 1983, or it might be 1963, but what we have in front of us is a Government that wants to take New Zealanders backwards.

Now, I want to mention two or three areas where this happens, and one of those I want to start with because I don’t want to miss out on doing it and because I do want to make it a very serious point. One of the great privileges of my life has been the fact that I was fortunate to marry well—Minister Jackson knows about this, one of his whanaunga—into the iwi of Ngāti Porou, and one of the great joys of my life is being welcomed in to te ao Māori, welcomed in to a whanaungatanga that is an exceptionally enriching experience for me and for, I think, a lot of the people who are around me as well. One of the things that has given me great heartache over the last week or two has been to see the way that this coalition Government have somehow managed to turn something that is unique and positive and life affirming in New Zealand into somehow being a negative. How is it that we have found ourselves as a country where we’re discussing te reo Māori as if it’s a bad thing? Put yourself in the shoes of a young Māori person who’s hearing on the news that it’s a bad thing that a Government department has a Māori name. What do you think that young person—

Hon Member: What about the Pākehā kid?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —takes away from that? See, I hear from the ACT members at the back, “Oh, what about the Pākehā kids?” They’ve got both names. It’s a Māori name and an English name, and guess what! They’re both languages that are spoken in New Zealand and te reo Māori is an official language, and we should be proud of it. I am deeply distressed that we are seeing a Government come forward who will make those young Māori, the tamariki, the rangatahi in this country, feel somehow that they are second best. That is the message they are getting. Kieran McAnulty said it very well in this House last night: the problem that lot have with the Māori Health Authority isn’t the last two words; it’s the first word. Finally, we had a Government in the last Government that’s doing something about the health inequalities for Māori, and this lot want to come in and take that away.

I’ll have more to say about these issues in the future in this Parliament, but what I want to do is mihi to all of the Māori colleagues in the Labour Party and across the House and say that the Labour Party will stand up to make sure that all New Zealanders do get access to the services that they deserve, do get access to being able to learn te reo Māori, and are supported in their journey within te ao Māori. I think it is a great shame that something that New Zealanders have pride in—when we see the All Blacks do the haka, when we sing the national anthem in both te reo Māori and English—is being undermined for political reasons by this Government.

The other area which I want to mention where the Government is taking us backwards is in climate change. Climate change remains the single most important issue for New Zealand, not only from an environmental perspective but also from an economic perspective. If it doesn’t matter to the members opposite that we are degrading the planet and that we are leaving to our mokopuna a planet that will be less healthy for them and more dangerous for them, they can just take the economic argument. If New Zealand wants to sell its goods into the world, we have to be doing the right thing by our planet. Every single exporter in New Zealand knows that. That’s why companies in New Zealand have been responding to when this Government has stood up and said, “We want to help you reduce your emissions. We want to make sure that the products we’re selling into the world genuinely are clean and green.”, and that reputation is at risk under this Government. The future of our exporters is at risk under this Government, because they are not taking climate change seriously.

The other area that I want to mention as a way in which this Government wants to take us backwards is the way in which these agreements give comment towards our gender diverse community here in New Zealand. We should be proud as a country of our diversity. We should celebrate our diversity. Now, I’ve had problems in this House where I’ve heard people talk about the notion of tolerance of diversity. I don’t believe in tolerating diversity; it sounds like you’re putting up with it. Actually, we embrace it and we celebrate it, and we’re a much, much better country for doing that. But what is worse here is that in these agreements, we’re not tolerating; we’re saying to those gender diverse people, “We don’t want you to know—and we definitely don’t want your classmates to know and understand and respect—who you are.” I hear a lot from the Government about things like respect and responsibilities. Well, my challenge to this Government is: show some respect to the diverse people in our community. Support young people in their journey to be able to be exactly who they are, because I tell you what: we’ll all be the better for it. If people grow up being confident in who they are, be they Māori or be they someone from our gender diverse community, the rest of us benefit from that. We benefit from moving forward together, not dividing ourselves up, and that’s what this coalition Government seems to be hell bent on doing.

I am proud to be part of a Labour Party that achieved a lot over the last six years that we were in Government. There are many, many issues that more work needs to be done on, and we will be preparing ourselves to come back into Government and be able to do that, but in the meantime, we will hold this Government to account. We will make sure that they do not divide New Zealanders up and they do not drag New Zealanders backwards. So much has been achieved; we cannot afford to go backwards.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’m happy to offer the previous speaker my pocket square, because he has a large dollop of sad sauce right there on his face. But cheer up, Mr Robertson; it is time to accept that the public have spoken. They have resoundingly told us here in this House that the Labour Government was a failure. Time and time again, this Government—the previous Government, I should say—let down the country.

We saw Kiwis up and down New Zealand changing their minds at the polls, and thank goodness they did, because there are so many examples, so many cases of this country going backwards. I heard it consistently in the mighty Waikato on the campaign trail. People were worried that their groceries cost too much, that their kids weren’t learning what they should be at school, that their parents couldn’t get the hospital care they needed, and that the local dairy kept getting ripped off. It was that simple. Across the board on those key measures that matter to Kiwis, they were being let down. Thankfully, change is here. We have a Government now—a coalition Government—that is ambitious for New Zealand again, that has a plan and will actually deliver outcomes.

That’s one of the big things that I think was missing in the previous Government. Sure, as we heard earlier on in the debate before question time, everyone comes here with good intentions, but they simply did not deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders. And, ultimately, that’s what Kiwis want. Most Kiwis don’t follow politics too closely. They just want to know that their lives are being improved over time because they have more opportunities themselves. They have the ability to get a good education, to get the healthcare they need, to feel safe in their communities, and to have a prosperous career or a successful business because of the environment that the Government of the day has helped to enable.

It’s that enablement that a Government should do. It is not up to the Government to tell people how to live their lives, to give them the solutions, but to actually offer them the opportunity to succeed. That is what this Government is absolutely committed to, and I am very encouraged by that. Especially in the Waikato, the beautiful Waikato, we have a lot of opportunity ahead of us under this Government. When we look at some of the ambitious projects that have been outlined under our 100-day plan, and indeed in the broader policy suite, the Waikato will be in good heart.

The continuation of the Waikato Expressway is a fantastic and much-needed project that will help to save lives, help to reduce congestion, and grow the economy. Ultimately linking that through to the Bay of Plenty with my colleagues Tom Rutherford and Sam Uffindell will be a fantastic piece of infrastructure that this country needs, linking our fourth- and fifth-largest cities and up the road to Auckland as well. This is the sort of infrastructure that a Government needs to provide for the country to be able to prosper. That’s where we’ve been let down. And we can see that with the few significant infrastructure projects the last Government put forward, none of which actually commenced or progressed at all. They just didn’t have that same ambition to achieve. That is where we are very focused on actually enhancing outcomes, delivering outcomes for New Zealanders.

It has been fantastic over the last nearly two months since the election as I’ve gone to a wide array of events around the electorate, and building into the Christmas period there’s always a lot of those sorts of community events on—the level of optimism is magnificent. Everyone is positive about the opportunity ahead of us. That, for me—well, it’s humbling because it’s up to us. We have the opportunity now to deliver for New Zealanders, and I’m confident we can. But, actually, it’s more like what I remember of New Zealand—a place where people are confident that if they put in the hard yards they will succeed, that their communities can succeed, that all of New Zealand can succeed off the back of that.

I don’t think we’ve seen that for a number of years now. I was increasingly sad when time after time, as constituents over the last few years came in with a broad array of complex challenges, many of which had been exacerbated under the previous Government policies, it was simply—well, it was really sad. It just was. Because these were people who really wanted to get ahead and, in many instances, it was around housing-related issues—and we’ve seen that wait-list for public housing go through the roof, an extra 20,000-odd under the previous Government, despite them saying that housing was going to be one of their key solutions that they first came in on. Of course, we all know about KiwiBuild and how that was an abject failure. But, actually, what we saw time and time again in these areas was just a failure to deliver, and Kiwis got despondent off the back of that. I think we’ve seen that morale lift significantly.

We’re not out of the woods. There are tough times. We are still not seeing the economy in a position where we would like it to be. We have work to do in that space, but we’re committed to that work. And that’s why we’re seeing the first piece of legislation coming through next week helping to get the Reserve Bank back, focused on that core mandate, so that we can get the economy back under control, get that cost of living under control, and help people to be better off—simple things that make a difference in people’s lives; direct outcomes. And that’s how we will be holding ourselves to account on this side of the House: are we delivering better outcomes than what Kiwis had before the election? I have every confidence that we will be able to answer with a resounding yes in that regard.

Now, I’ve mentioned the expressway and, of course, the Waikato heart of farming. It’s the biggest dairying region in New Zealand, it’s the land of milk and honey; it’s a wonderful place. I can’t advocate strongly enough for it, and we are very delighted to be able to bring forward a range of solutions for our rural sector as well. Of course, there are many great rural sectors in New Zealand, and I do want to acknowledge my colleagues in the House, returned and new members—actually, we have a lot of members now with a farming background, and that is fantastic to see. We represent a broad array of electorates across the country and that farming backbone of New Zealand is absolutely critical. It’s what New Zealand was founded on.

And when you think about not just the economic contribution but the spirit of Kiwis, the sense of community, those things that you see underpinned so well and represented daily in rural communities—

Mark Cameron: Fantastic rural caucuses in the House now.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Absolutely. There’s a whole range of rural representatives here on this side of the House, and we are delighted to be able to advocate strongly for them. So I am confident we will be able to help get rid of some of that red tape. That was one of the key drivers for me getting into politics. It was to reduce the red tape and compliance. As a business owner and a farmer, I’ve seen the impact of that. We need to shift the dial so that people can succeed. Our productivity has continued to decline for some time and now we are focusing on addressing that.

I am confident we are going to have a fantastic three years and make some really meaningful change. Of course, health and education are another couple of big areas. And I do just want to touch briefly on health, because in the Waikato we will be in our first 100 days signing a memorandum of understanding with the University of Waikato about establishing a third medical school. That is a wonderful project that will actually deliver meaningful outcomes. I keep talking about meaningful outcomes, because actually that is what matters and that is what we have not seen over the previous six years under the Labour Government. So I am confident that we will start to see that. It will take time to turn that dial, of course, but we are working on it from day one.

In education, I have young children at primary school. They love going to school and the teachers are incredibly passionate, and I am just delighted that we are bringing out some policies that will help our kids across the country to achieve to the level that they should be able to. Basic things: an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths. That’s still only half the school day. A lot can be done if you have a good education. And we’ve heard from the education Minister, Erica Stanford, around the terrible Programme for International Student Assessment results we’ve just seen and the ongoing challenges we’ve seen across education. There is so much to be done in that space and it is so important. If we don’t get education right, we are setting ourselves up for a massive failure down the track—an economic failure but also a social failure. If Kiwis aren’t contributing, if they don’t have the ability or the innovative mindset, the basic understanding of education to succeed, then our country will be worse off for it. So I’m delighted to see that.

And, of course, law and order—unfortunately, as lovely as the Waikato is, we are still impacted by law and order issues that are experienced across the country. We need to shift that dial and I’m confident we will do that. It’s about sending the signals in the first instance, but actually delivering meaningful outcomes, and we will be doing both of those things. So, all in all, it is a very exciting time. I was just so pleased to be listening to the Speech from the Throne and to have heard our commitments as we’ve progressed through developing the coalition agreements to a point where on this side of the House there is a high level of ambition. The enthusiasm, the energy to deliver, is massive, and I am just so pumped for a successful three years ahead under this Government, helping to right some of the wrongs that we’ve seen over the last Government’s tenure, and actually to deliver significant change in those areas that have been let down.

So, on that, I am very pleased to continue the successful Address in Reply we’ve heard from this side of the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Congratulations on your appointment. It is a huge privilege for me to stand in this House at the beginning of my fifth term, for the first time as the member of Parliament for Rongotai and the Chatham Islands. It’s a huge privilege for me to represent my community and to have welcomed, also, so many Green MPs who have joined us in our caucus—a caucus of 15 MPs, the largest it has ever been—and in my neighbouring electorate, Wellington Central, Tamatha Paul has been elected. For first time ever, a Green MP—a wahine Maōri MP—for Wellington Central. In both Wellington Central and Rongotai, I am happy to say that the Green Party won the party vote.

How did we do this? Because we consistently put out positive, practical policies that will give effect to a vision of an Aotearoa where everyone can live in dignity, and we are protecting nature—te taiao—and our climate, and I am somewhat appalled, and I’m sure many of my constituents would be, to see the environment Minister and the climate Minister now outside Cabinet. It is a clear signal from this new Government that they do not intend to take the environment or climate change seriously, because it conflicts with their policy agenda, which is largely about representing vested interests who want to maintain the status quo.

I’ll speak very briefly to some of our amazing policy that led to us achieving this historic result, like ending poverty together. We can pay for critical public services for everyone. We can ensure that no child in Aotearoa is growing up in poverty or in a cold, damp, mouldy home where their parents are paying so much on rent that they can’t afford to heat the building, or they can’t afford to put kai on the table. No one in Aotearoa should have to make those choices. We could pay for all of that if we had a tax system that was truly fair. I’m sure that there are members opposite in the Government benches who truly believe in achieving equality of opportunity. That’s a value they hold dear. But, unfortunately, the policies that they support do not promote equality of opportunity. That is the sad truth.

New Zealand’s tax system has ranked 136th out of 162 countries for promoting equity—that is the reality. If we want to truly encourage people to work, why is it that income from capital assets is not taxed, whereas work from labour is? It’s wrong, and it’s an inequity that this Government could address, but they will choose not to because, ultimately, they represent the elite interests of the landed gentry—those who own property and want to continue to have the benefit of untaxed capital gains where that wealth becomes concentrated, and that means we can’t afford to invest in public services. It means we can’t afford to end poverty; yet we could. That is a political choice that this Government will make, and I would say it’s a political choice the last Government also made, hence why the Green Party was not a member of a coalition in the last Government.

While I’m sure many members of this House agree on the outcomes that we would like to achieve, we have to be guided by the evidence, and the evidence is there are certain actions that we must take if we believe in equality of opportunity. If we want to enjoy the benefits of living in a society where we’re investing in our people, rather than spending the money to build prisons to lock them up, to punish them for being poor or for being addicts, it’s not right. I come from a country that has gone down that sad road of promoting inequality. While a small percentage of hundred-millionaires and billionaires enjoy their private jets, we have a society that is increasingly divided. We see it in the United States, where 50 million people can’t afford healthcare, and they’re spending more money on prisons. It doesn’t make sense.

So, sadly, while I would like to say that I was encouraged by the comments in the Speech from the Throne, I was mainly appalled at how backwards they were, how totally detached from evidence about how to build an inclusive and prosperous and a just country. The members opposite—many of them may not actually believe in human-caused climate change, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are facing it, and it will totally change our way of life and our way of doing business in the world. The sooner we jump on board with a truly sustainable way of living and doing business, the better off we will be as a country.

Now, in the Speech from the Throne, I saw the comments on infrastructure and transport, and I wonder how the rural caucus in the National Party feels about the fact that the priority of the Government is spending money on motorways in our five largest cities, where they will make the least difference, if anything—

Andrew Bayly: Come to Pukekohe and see how you can get to Auckland Central.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I know. Look, members opposite have grown up in a car-dependent culture. They don’t understand that it’s possible to have economically rational investment that improves people’s options to alternatives, but the reality is—and we have 50 years of data on this if any of the members opposite would like to see it—that urban motorways do not reduce congestion; they make it worse; that the billions of dollars spent in central Wellington on an extra lane, an extra kilometre of lane is not going to make it easier to get to the airport; and that those billions of dollars spent in central Wellington and on the fringe of Auckland, and in Christchurch, are billions of dollars that this National-led Government will not be spending on the rural roads in the regions that actually need investment.

Not even $500 million was spent in the entirety of Northland on roads over the 11-year period—nine years of that was under the National Government, and they are planning to spend over $2 billion for an extra kilometre lane in central Wellington because they believe that it will make it 30 seconds faster for them to drive from the airport to the Beehive. Sadly, we know that’s not true, because of induced traffic.

But the question is, if this Government truly represents the economic concerns of the people living in rural areas, why are they proposing to spend billions of dollars on highways in the urban areas where they are more expensive, where they make traffic worse? It’s because they’re ignorant. They are ignorant fools, this Government, and I would love to be able to say that we could work with them to propose some economically rational projects that would actually improve the economic productivity of our cities, that would improve the health and wellbeing of our people and of our children. It would be entirely possible for a National-led Government to do this, but they choose not to. They choose not to. They choose to go down the failed roads of the past that will make congestion worse. Perhaps it’s because the direct beneficiaries of these highways are the greenfields land bankers who probably donated to all three of these parties, and that is the truth. However well-meaning many of those individuals might be, the reality is this is a Government that was bought and paid for by vested interest by the super-rich who want to continue to maintain a hierarchy, who want to roll back the protections for workers because it means that they can have cheaper labour to make bigger profits.

This is the story of the late 20 century and the early 21th st century in many English-speaking countries. I think that after three years of this group of—sorry, I can’t help it—dinosaurs being in power, the public will see that in fact they do not have the real solutions that will address cost of living, that will address degradation to our natural environment, that will address climate change, and that will truly enable people, no matter where they’re born, no matter what colour they and their parents are, no matter what their circumstances, that they actually, truly have an opportunity to grow up in a warm, healthy home with enough kai and an opportunity to get a good education, because the reality is that in order to do that, in order to have equality of opportunity, you have to have redistributive policies that ensure that wealth does not become unfairly concentrated in the hands of an oligarchy.

Suze Redmayne: Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah, equality of opportunity cannot be achieved if you do not tax income from capital at the same rate that you tax income from work. You don’t believe that because you’re a bunch of landlords who want to keep getting richer at the expense of everyone else. That’s the truth. I’ve been here 12 years; I call it as I see it. I’m happy to work with you at any point on an economically rational approach to infrastructure and transport, but the people of New Zealand need to realise, sooner rather than later, that there is a true alternative, that the Green Party is here with practical, proven solutions that will help address the issues that are most important to our people. Kia ora.

Thank you. Just before I call the next speaker, interjection is great, but there’s been a lot of conversations and walking around going in the House this afternoon while speakers have been speaking. I would just ask—and it’s been both sides—and I would actually ask you just to be a bit limited in your private conversations, but interjections are fine because it is one of those heated debates. With that, I’ll call on the Hon Andrew Bayly.

Hey, thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I’d like to congratulate you on your appointment. We came into the House together at the same time and it’s wonderful to see you sitting up there administering this debate.

Wow, that was an interesting speech, wasn’t it? I’ve got to say that is someone going back in time, I think, and I think I’d just say to the Hon Julie Anne Genter, maybe she should come up to Franklin, just south of Auckland, and try and get on the motorway and drive to work at 6.30 in the morning and tell all those people who are struggling to get on the motorway, let alone drive along the motorway, because it’s absolutely congested, that they are ignorant fools, because I’m not sure that they’re going to agree with you. I would suggest that they might say that you are delusional and that we do need good infrastructure.

By the way, investment should be balanced, which means you should have a mixture of rail and good roading networks. We are having to spend $500 million extra on fixing up some of the potholes—won’t fix it all. But your issue and your comments about infrastructure, I think, are out of order. I think many people out of Wellington CBD, because that’s where you seem to put your focus, would find that it’s particularly out in the rural communities where we do need to see a lot more infrastructure investment.

So, first of all, it is interesting being on this side of the aisle. I’ve got to say, it’s a better view over here; not so good when you’re sitting over there. I’ve sat over there for the last six years. I can see them all looking at their phones, looking down here, but it is a nice perspective. It’s a very nice perspective over here.

I also want to acknowledge all the brand new MPs from across the House, but particularly from this side of the House. We’re surrounded by them. There are fleets of them here. Many of them have won their seats, their electorate seats, got out there, spoken to their communities, and the communities have put their trust in them, and that’s the main thing. They have chosen to choose these people to come into the Parliament and to represent them strongly. Of course, we saw some of the amazing maiden speeches yesterday, and I’m sure we’re going to see more today.

But I tell you, I’m going to talk about the Speech from the Throne. It’s interesting—I went back to the 2020 speech. Just to cast everyone’s mind back, Labour came in with this crushing absolute majority and the Governor-General said, on behalf of the Government, “Crises do not form an orderly line waiting to be addressed.”, then went on to wax lyrically about accelerating our economic recovery and to lay the foundations for a greater future. What a hash they made of it—what an absolute hash of it.

We have just, over the last few years, and, particularly, the lifetime of this Labour Government, six years of crises. Luckily, New Zealand is under new management—

Hon Member: Back on track.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Back on track, and how desperately do we need that? New Zealand faces long-term economic issues. We’ve got social challenges and, particularly, the division that is so strident across New Zealand now. The public voted for a change, and, thankfully, they trusted us, and we have a requirement and an obligation to fulfil that.

So the coalition Government is going to set about—and this is set in the agreements. Our objectives are to provide stability. We want to grow economic prosperity, because when you do, that means everyone in New Zealand benefits—everyone. We want to restore national unity, and that’s probably going to be the hardest thing to do, with all the division we’ve got. And we’re going to boost social cohesiveness alongside the rights and responsibility of being a New Zealand citizen. Those are the right principles.

This coalition Government’s priorities for this term include rebuilding the economy, improving the quality of Government spending, and, gee, we have witnessed just an avalanche of spending—much of it wasted. Some of it was all right, but most of it was wasted—blown into the ether. We’re going to reduce regulation and we’re going to lower the cost of living for ordinary New Zealanders, because that is what is hurting so many people now. They’ve got no money in their back pocket. They can’t buy the shoes for their kids. They can’t afford to pay for the membership for some sporting organisation—

Hon Scott Simpson: Or put petrol in the car.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Or put petrol on the car; that’s right. You’ll see them in your electorate, Mr Simpson, where people go to the fuel bowser and only put in $20 worth.

People are hurting out there, and it’s our obligation to try and improve their lives. One way is about tax cuts, but it’s not just that; it’s about providing a framework where Kiwis want to get ahead, where people, business owners want to invest. Because it involves risk—it involves huge amounts of risk. You often have to borrow money against your house. It means you have to get out there and work 24 hours a day, often for quite some periods of time, before you turn a profit, and we want them to do that. We want them to feel like they have the opportunity to do that, because when they do, they hire people, and it means more people and good jobs, not sitting on benefits. As James Meager said yesterday, it’s about getting people back into jobs, about creating a lifestyle for themselves, that they feel confident, to give them a sense of purpose, and they choose to do it, not because some Government tells them to do it—they choose to do it. That’s what we’re about.

We also want to support our small businesses, because they are the powerhouses of our economy. Unfortunately, that Labour Government over there, for the last six years, just saw them as a cash tool and they imposed heaps of regulation on them without properly considering the nature and the cost and the burden of that regulation on small businesses. That is why New Zealand is in such a parlous state. That is why we have got a turn-around job, as the Prime Minister so correctly describes it—a huge job. So I’m very grateful that the Prime Minister has asked me to look after small businesses, commerce, and the stats portfolio.

But the other portfolio he’s asked me and trusted me with is a brand new one: Minister for manufacturing. The industry has been crying out for a Minister of manufacturing. What people don’t realise: manufacturing accounts for 230,000 people employed in this economy—230,000 people; about 10 percent of the economy. It underpins about two-thirds of the value of all our exports. So it’s a privilege to be able to do that. In our agreement with New Zealand First and ACT, we have a raft of things about how we’re going to improve the lot for our small businesses and manufacturing.

Now, I’ve only got a few minutes left, but regulations: we’re going to make sure the quality of regulations are good, they are based on sound principles, and they drive economic growth. I’m looking forward to working with Minister Seymour to achieve this in his new role as regulation Minister.

We’re going to make it easier for small businesses to employ people. We’re going to repeal that dreadful proposal, the fair pay agreement, by Christmas. We are going to commit to moderate rises in minimum wage. I know when I employed lots of people, to be able to budget for increases in minimum wage—and we used to do roughly about 50c when we were last in Government every year. Everyone knew it; everyone planned for it. We want to see continuity. We want to see stability. We want people to have predictability so they can plan for it and budget for it.

We want to reform the health and safety regulations. We want to reintroduce the 90-day trials, because we believe that is a good way—in fact, an enhancing way to get people who you are going to take a risk on, to see if they can work in your factory. We’re going to look at how we simplify personal grievances arrangements, particularly removing the eligibility for remedies where employees are at fault.

We’re going to increase or improve the immigration settings, and we are going to do a whole lot in commerce, which is one of my portfolios. We’re going to have an inquiry into the banking competition. We’re going to expand the role of the Grocery Commissioner. We’re going to rewrite that dreadful credit contracts and consumer finance Act that that Government there implemented. We are going—

The member’s time has expired.

Madam Speaker, may I congratulate you—and your colleagues who are presiding officers—on your election to that role. I have admired the contributions you have made in Parliament, and I also admire all of those who step forward to be presiding officers. It often involves putting the custodianship of our Parliament and our democracy ahead of one’s own personal ambitions in Parliament, and I’m grateful for the fine line-up of people we have seen take up those positions, so thank you for your continuing contribution. It was a pleasure to join with other members of Parliament to hear the Speech from the Throne and hear the new Government outline its plans yesterday; congratulations to those who have been able to form the Government.

I have been listening carefully to the contributions from the other side during the debate, and in particular to those by Mr Bishop. And Mr Bishop, I think, took exception at some of the criticism that has been made of the new Government and the Speech from the Throne: that it seemed to be about very little. And I think he tried to project an idea of “Well, that’s what it’s meant to be”, as a believer in small government. But I have a different hypothesis about why the Speech from the Throne sounded like a series of repeals and a long list of what would not be done. I think it’s because those three parties can agree on very little, and that’s why their agenda is not one that is framed in the positive of common aspirations, but one framed in the negative; one that will take us backwards.

It was an unusually political Speech from the Throne in parts, including reference to the Government’s talking points of strong and stable Government while actually being the most unstable Government arrangement ever agreed under MMP, and we have seen evidence of that—and we will go into that in more depth in my contribution.

Since the formation of the Government, I, like many New Zealanders, have been absolutely shocked by the idea that smokefree legislation is intended to be repealed, and a law that was not campaigned on by the National Government—a law that would have had tremendous impact; will have tremendous impact for young people. It is a law that is incredibly popular: surveys released yesterday showed over 70 percent of young people are happy with the changes that are proposed, and, in fact, it is—

Simon Court: Not with smokers.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: And to the member opposite, I can also reassure him that 70 percent of smokers also want to quit. These laws would have been tremendously beneficial, and I was shocked, like many New Zealanders, to hear that the Government proposed to repeal these laws in order to fund their tax cuts. I am outraged by this change, and I will not stop holding the Government to account, and there will be no letting up in the pressure.

In his first day in the job—in fact, before he even got the job—Dr Reti has managed to mobilise the entire health sector against him. To be honest, I almost feel sorry for him, because I’m not sure if the Minister of Health has ever had such a bad start to his job. Māori and communities oppose him. Those people who hold up our community—the Cancer Society people, the health workers, the principals of our schools—are opposed, and many of them have mobilised in a rally that will be held here in Parliament next week. So unpopular were these changes on her first day on the job—Nicola Willis did a Q+A appearance and she started to introduce this change as if it was New Zealand First and the ACT Party’s idea. I think she had no idea that they were a Government and needed to collectively take responsibility for this. It took a while for Dr Reti to front up for interviews on this issue, but he did, for at least one—but only to try and pass the blame to his coalition partners. And that’s what you saw in the House in question time earlier today: further efforts to try and dodge responsibility. Don’t they get it? They are responsible now. They are responsible for the lives they will harm—for the amputations, for the strokes, for the heart attacks, for the health costs, for the congested hospitals. I will not stop reminding you of this while I have a seat in this House.

And I am also going to call out the casting of doubt on these measures, because that is a typical tactic from the tobacco industry: to say that something won’t work, to say that there’s some minor objection that means it can’t be implemented when the policy benefit that comes from the implementation is just so great—this Government needs to take responsibility for this.

And they know, over there, that they are the laughing stock. Within 24 hours, the internet has named the Minister of Health “Dr Cigareti” and named the finance Minister “Nicotine Willis”. On the way in in the taxi this morning, I was pleased to hear Jono and Ben talking about how the country plans to raise youth smoking, and comedian Chris Parker—I saw his contributions on Instagram. Members from Hastings will be interested—actually, this is this is advertised on the Napier City Council website: in Napier and Hastings they are hosting a play called Make Cancer Great Again!, and this takes aim at the health Minister and the Minister of Finance. Ordinary people up and down the country are laughing at you because of the ridiculousness of funding your tax cuts by making more people smoke. Another example: today, the cartoonist Yeo shows Luxon slipping on a banana made out of smoke-free. On Tavlova’s account claims the Government puts pressure on Wellington Rugby to change its name to “Durricanes” before the footy season. I don’t think the National Party caucus—the grown-ups in the room—wants to be the laughing stock of this country, but that’s what you’re going to hear this summer when you go to your barbecues back in your electorate. Ordinary people will be saying, “Why are you doing that? Because for 50 years, we’ve known that smoking’s no good. Why are you bringing that back?”

We want to see the Government change course on this, and we will give them every opportunity to do that. But we will not stop holding them to account and there will be a relentless series of opportunities for them to prove that they have taken evidence into account and changed their mind. This is so shocking as well because of the campaign that we heard of the pressures on the health system. It is true that our health system has faced tremendous pressures and we want to see, as the Opposition, Government held to account on its commitments to improve it, in particular its commitments of matching the Labour Party’s health funding promises at the election. I am deeply worried about the concern that those promises will not be met because of the Government’s unfunded tax plans, and we will be watching the contributions to health cost pressures in the Budget and earlier budget reports incredibly closely.

We’ll look closely at the commitments made to the health workforce, about how new health workers would be trained and retained, and our health system. In particular, we are eager to see that there is close scrutiny of arrangements that will lead to more medical students being trained for New Zealand medical students that we desperately need, but which during the election campaign we saw the light—“light” would be giving it too much credit—the non-existent scrutiny by the National Party health spokesperson in developing that policy. It was written by the Vice-Chancellor of Waikato University, not by the National Party.

We will hold the Government to account on its commitment to have modern medicines more available in our communities—yes, for cancer, but also available medicines being delivered by pharmacies, as we have done by removing the $5 co-payment across the country. That type of access to medicines needs to be maintained. We were interested to see that the very important commitment to primary care—which is the backbone of our health system—made by the ACT Party, didn’t make it into the coalition agreement, but they dangled a 13 percent funding increase for general practice in front of them during the campaign. Well, while in Opposition, we will keep being the voice of the need to improve primary care, so that people get better services in their communities.

And finally, we are going to hold the Government to account for its targets. Targets are not an ability for the Minister to turn around to the system and say, “You’re not measuring up, you’re not good enough”. The Minister has to deliver on targets, and we will also make sure that the targets are representative of the wide breadth of service people expect from our health system. But finally, I want to say that one thing that seems unbelievable is hearing those people over there—when they were sitting here going on and on about outcomes—say that they are bringing smoking back. It’s a disgrace.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to speak in the House for the first time in the 54th Parliament. I’d like to welcome all the members that have come back—every one of us in here today knows how hard we have to work to get here—and I’d also like, especially, to welcome the new members, including Jamie Arbuckle, who lives in Marlborough, in the mighty Kaikōura electorate, who represents the New Zealand First Party. Welcome to Parliament, Jamie—it’s good to have a couple of people from Marlborough representing the good people of Kaikōura.

Actually, I must mention all of the newer members. I’m looking forward to hearing all the maiden speeches that I’m able to, and I certainly enjoyed the two yesterday; what a very high standard they set. Everyone has their own story, and that’s what we’re all interested in hearing: what brought these people to this place and what drives them. It’s really important, I think, that we all get an idea of that, so I’m really looking forward to that. I’m particularly looking forward to hearing Dr Vanessa Weenink, who grew up in Marlborough and is known to many of my friends, so I’m really looking forward to hearing her speech later on this afternoon, and I know she has a very interesting backstory that people will want to hear.

But we’re here in the Address in Reply debate, and, look, it’s been quite interesting this afternoon. I thought that speech before was more self-reflection than anything else, but someone whom I greatly respect on the other side of the House is the Hon Peeni Henare, who spoke yesterday. I thought he made an excellent point: this is a debating Chamber; this is where we come to debate the issues of the day—I’m sort of paraphrasing what he said, not as well and as eloquently as he put it. This is where we put our ideas, and it is a contest of ideas. We don’t all agree, but that’s the point: the best ideas might not always make it, but those that do, if you’ve got the numbers, that is how laws are made, that is what democracy is for, and that is how it works. So I think, as Peeni Henare said, we can disagree without being disagreeable, and I think that is something we should remember.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter—you’ve got to admire her passion, but she sometimes lets that get away with her, and just controlling her emotions a bit more might make her points a lot more marked than they were. Calling people fools is not a way to win an argument. Just because they disagree with you does not mean they don’t have a valid point of view, and I think we should all just remember that when we’re making our speeches.

Out on the street, and on the farm—

Hon Scott Simpson: Vineyards!

STUART SMITH: —vineyards—there’s a great sense of relief with the change of Government. A change was needed, a change was wanted, and we have change. The thing about change is sometimes it can be difficult to accept. Because of the changes that we all campaigned on, through the campaign, and we’re now administering, it’s difficult for some people to accept that. But that’s the contest of ideas that Peeni Henare alluded to yesterday, and I think we should remember that.

The economy and the cost of living is one of our core things that we campaigned on and one of the things we’re going to do a lot of work on, and quite quickly. But I was just talking to my good friend here the Hon Andrew Bayly about an example of wasteful regulations and rules. We rushed through, after the terrible event in Christchurch a few years ago, some firearms legislation, which was well intentioned but has had far-reaching and adverse effects that, hopefully, we will be able to unwind. I have a constituent who has a high-end hunting operation where high-end tourists from overseas come in and hunt on this property—they pay a lot of money to do that. They want to site their rifles in when they get there, which is a reasonable thing to do—make sure that they’re efficient at what they do. But he’s had to go out and go through a very expensive process to set up a legal range on his property. On the property, they’re going to walk off the range and start shooting animals. This range doesn’t need this licence—it’s needless, it’s pointless, it’s wasteful spending, and it’s all those sorts of things that my colleague the Hon Andrew Bayly was talking about before—how businesses are being dragged down by those needless costs.

It’s well intentioned, I get that, but all the shooting ranges—there’s quite a lot of perverse regulation in it whereby the owner of the gun has to be the licensed person transporting it in a vehicle, for example, so that those people in firearms clubs can’t transport firearms easily between clubs for shooting competitions. These are law-abiding people who own firearms for sport, not for crime. They are not the people we should be pursuing. So it’s all those sorts of things that have had a bad effect on our economy.

One of the other things that I think is going to be really good is we are going to reverse the union-inspired, innovation-stifling, productivity-lowering pay agreements, also known as the fair pay agreements—that’s the new name for it, by the way. It was going to be a real drag on the economy, and one of the things that people are really concerned about, so that will be really good to get off the books.

We also today had a question in the House about Lake Onslow. I think my colleague the Hon Simeon Brown neglected to mention that Lake Onslow is very expensive—there’s no doubt about that. Again, it’s a well-intentioned idea. I know the landowners down there—they’ve been very concerned about Lake Onslow and what impact it would have on their property—very concerned about it. And I did quite a bit of work with them, and I know Joseph Mooney did as well. What’s been forgotten is it was going to cost $15.7 billion. And you may not be aware, Madam Speaker, but, actually, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment did some research on this and they looked at large hydro projects around the world. The average cost overrun of a large hydro project is 98 percent.

Hon Andrew Bayly: How much?

STUART SMITH: 98 percent. So—

Hon Andrew Bayly: Wow, that makes $30 billion.

STUART SMITH: Yes, that’s right—$15.7 billion will be roughly $30 billion by the time it’s built. And it wouldn’t be built until the middle of next year.

Hon Member: Like light rail.

STUART SMITH: It’s exactly like light rail, but it’s also had a perverse effect on the electricity prices today, and we’ve seen the forward prices in electricity much higher than the market would suggest otherwise they should be. But it’s because of this sword of Damocles hanging over the market—being the Lake Onslow scheme—and also the 100 percent renewables target that the Government had in place. Again, a well-meaning objective but it was never going to deliver on what it was intending to do, and it had other consequences that were not taken into account. Those sorts of things have to be dealt with properly in the early stages. That’s why we’re bringing in cost-benefit analyses for all the policies that we bring in. That is an absolutely sensible way to go about making policies; we should all do that.

But it is the farming sector that is most relieved about what is going on. They have literally been ground down, and the relief from them—they were set up as public enemy number one, and it actually really hurt those people.

Hon Andrew Bayly: Vilified.

STUART SMITH: And they were vilified. And then all of the costs—again, well meaning, but they were piled on top of those people in their everyday businesses, which made it much more difficult for them to get on and farm. And, actually, they didn’t have that spring in their step that they would normally have, getting out on their farms and doing the work that they do. Actually, without the farmers—they literally carry us on their back—and without the income that they earn through their exports, this country would be a much poorer place than it is today. So all of our standards of living are underpinned by those people who get up at 5 o’clock in the morning, sometimes earlier, and go out and milk the cows, who are out there in all weather looking after their animals. They are literally the backbone of New Zealand’s economy, and, actually, they should have our respect, and we’re going to rebuild that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. Just following on from that previous speaker, Stuart Smith, firstly, congratulations for your position. Yes, we do appreciate the farmers—50 percent increase in export revenue in the primary sector when we were in office, through COVID and many other challenges. Thank you very much.

Can I just say we were supposed to have a Speech from the Throne that was back on track. Well, there’s one excess word there. It should be “backtrack”. If anyone rides a motorbike or maybe just a push bike, you’ll find that, actually, it’s all about balance: rights and responsibilities—a bit like us in the community or as a family or as a Government—the balance between rights and responsibilities. If you’re going forward, it all works. If you stop, only the very skilled or the very lucky can stay upright and survive. If you want to go backwards, it’s virtually impossible to maintain things. So I put to you, let’s get moving forward, and we might make some progress. This is a backtrack Speech from the Throne from a backtrack Government.

Let’s go through and look at some of the things that they’re talking about, because most of it’s taking stuff back, not putting stuff in or moving us forward at all. There is quite an extensive list of things. We’ve had reference there, of course, to the Onslow project. The concern there about Onslow from the electricity companies that were half privatised by the previous National Government is that, actually, this is a lever to keep electricity prices down in the long term. Yes, it’s expensive. Yes, a lot of work is still to be done, but just tossing it out is handing to the existing electricity generators and gen-tailers, monopoly, monopsony rights to make super-profits—and we’ll wait and see.

“We’re going to cut public sector expenditure, including consultants and contractors.” Very interesting. In fact, the ACT Party and the Taxpayers’ Union brought out someone saying that the 29 percent—or might be about 30 percent now—is way below that in the UK under a Conservative Government of 49 percent. Forty nine percent of GDP is spent through the public sector. We’re actually in a pretty good position, as he said.

“We’re going to take away funding from the maintenance of roads and put it into 12 new roads of National Party significance.” We saw that before. What happened when we came into Government? We had suffered underfunding in road maintenance because the previous National Government had increased the weight of trucks and had a sweat-the-assets campaign that resulted in underfunding and a degradation of our roading network that continues today in spite of the huge amount of increasing money that we in Government put on.

There’s going to be a removal—again, this is the backtrack Government—of the Clean Car Discount at a time when we’re seeing rapid growth of hybrids. In fact, you know what? The Ford Ranger now is coming out as a hybrid.

Tangi Utikere: Really?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes. And the farmers will be taking that up, I am sure. In fact, what we’re doing—and I spoke to a Ford executive in the US that said, “Please be consistent with your policies when it comes to this area.” They will be alarmed at what this incoming Government is going to backtrack on and, indeed, may stop producing cars for our right-hand drive market. That’s the backtracking that we’re seeing.

Repeal of the Water Services Entities Act 2022—already we have councils around the country saying, “Well, these are the rate rises you’re going to face.” That’s because Government will step back. The National - ACT - New Zealand First coalition has offered no support and no idea how they’re going to support councils to put in place vital water infrastructure that each and every New Zealander needs. Nothing.

Significant natural areas—“Oh, yeah, we’ll get rid of those. What do we need those for? Biodiversity. What’s biodiversity?” Actually, if it comes to our biological systems, it’s about pollination. It’s about biodiversity in a natural environment that more and more people around the world are demanding because they want to see their food production systems and they want to see the environment in which they live in a better and healthier system.

But there’s one, of course—you know, there’ll be a ban on gang patches. Really interesting. How will you tell who are gangs? What will you say to the Ulysses Club? A bunch of guys get together, have a patch on—are you going to ban them? Are we going to ban people in rugby clubs who might have a patch on the back of their jersey? I’ll wait and see what happens in that area.

We are in an unfortunate situation: having been through a number of challenges, having invested in infrastructure, having some amazing progress in all areas of society, we now have a backtrack Government. There’s a couple of things moving forward. Let’s look at one of the things that are moving forward: it’s a memorandum of understanding with the Waikato University to think about and investigate a medical school.

Hon Members: Yeah, that’s right.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Oh, really? A very good investment by Waikato University in Steven Joyce—$1 million paid to him over three years. Well, isn’t that a great investment of taxpayers’ money to Steven Joyce to lobby for a medical school that has been investigated and in fact is just not viable because of the scale. But, anyway, we’ll wait and see what happens there.

But can I come back to the one that our spokesperson on health gave a great speech on—one of the things—and that is the amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act. Outrageous. Do you know what the landlords have got? It’s a new saying: “Puff away and pay our way.”—puff away and pay our way, because that misery from emphysema and cancer that as an Associate Minister of Health in the past I was helping to reduce has now been reversed by tobacco lobbyists and by money people who want to pay less tax and pay for it through the misery of people who take up smoking. That is outrageous, unethical, and it’s a measure of the backtrack Government that we now have in place.

We’ve got the disestablishing Te Pūkenga. When we came in, actually, Tai Poutini Polytech on the West Coast was broke. We had to step up. We wrote out a cheque for $35 million just to keep them afloat, and in fact there were other polytechs up and down this country—up and down this country—that were going broke. The model had failed, and so what we attempted to do was bring some alignment and some economies of scale. Te Pūkenga’s only just starting. It’s not perfect, and, indeed, it’s going to be gone. Let’s see us go back to the failed, dysfunctional, disjointed polytech model that we have. That’s what this Government will do.

They’re going to set five major targets for the health system, including for wait times and cancer treatment. Amazing. Well, all I say is: let’s see you be honest, because last time, those waiting lists were manipulated so the figures looked great but the patients didn’t.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Careful—careful.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We have put a considerable amount of money into the health system, and it’s not perfect—no one would claim that; health is a bottomless pit. But can I tell you that I’m sure that this incoming backtrack Government will not make the progress that we’ve tried to make, particularly in the difficult areas of healthcare. I’ll wait and see. I’m happy to be in this House in 2½ years’ time making judgment on the performance of this incoming Government.

I’m proud to have been part of a Labour and Labour coalition Government over a six-year period. We had to address major issues of infrastructure. They’re going to set up an infrastructure agency now—well, I wonder if it’s funded. Oh, they’ll start to set it up. Let’s see what happens on the ground, because the big ideological approach that people should pay less tax is the one that leaves this country a huge hole and deficit in infrastructure, as we’re seeing, as we’ve seen in transport, as we’ve seen in water care. We don’t even have any idea from this Government as to how they’re going to work through with local councils, with local government, to relieve them of the burden of the ongoing infrastructural development this country needs.

We will keep this backtrack Government honest, if we can. It’s going to be almost impossible, and all I say to the media who might be watching is “follow the money.” Just do an analysis in a few months’ time of where the donations came from, who donated, and what resultant policies have come into this House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Might I take this opportunity to congratulate you again, but in terms of being in fact in the Chair now, as I take my first call with you presiding. I look forward to your guidance in the House. I might just take the opportunity as well to congratulate the new members. There are a few of you in the House taking rowdy positions, as the backbenchers are meant to do. Welcome.

I’ll just start with something else—accidentally and unexpectedly positive—that happened in the House today, which is that a Government in Aotearoa New Zealand quite unexpectedly recognised Palestine’s right to self-determination and Statehood. It wasn’t quite in the motion by the Minister—and I’ll acknowledge my friend the Hon Phil Twyford, who’s in the House, moved an amendment. I don’t think anyone listened too closely, but it was accepted by the Minister and voted for by the Government. I hate to point this out, but the Labour Government didn’t do it for six years, and they did vote down my motion on Statehood, but it’s nice to see us all by consensus recognise that Palestine exists.

It’s not so nice that it took a genocide for us to do it. It’s not so nice that it took the deaths of 7,000 children—that we know of—to do it. It’s not so nice that it took—and I’ll say it as I did in the week that it happened—a war crime by Hamas. It’s not so nice that it has taken a couple of months now—a couple of months of silence—while aid, including cancer drugs, including water, including food, has not made it to the 2 million civilians in the Gaza strip. It’s actually heart wrenching, and I know that it’s heart wrenching for every single one of us in this House.

So what I want from this Government—because I know, and I’ll continue to hold for as long as I advocate for human rights, which will be my whole life, that we share those human values. I refuse to believe that we don’t. Our solutions are different, but that time is over now. It’s over because every 10 minutes in Gaza a child is murdered. So our solutions have to be united. We have to stand together. We have to stand strong, as Aotearoa New Zealand has done in the past, on an independent, principled platform calling for immediate, permanent, unconditional ceasefire—calling on our friends, on our allies, on our trading partners, on our Five Eyes network, on the family of nations in the Commonwealth, and on our Pasifika neighbourhood to do the same.

Because our voice actually does matter. We’re not a wee, little, small, insignificant nation. We do punch above our weight in international forums and on the global stage. We are looked to as a moral, principled voice, but right now we are absolutely failing at a moment in history that matters. It matters for the next 10 minutes. Whose child is that? What were they hoping to achieve? What were their little pet peeves and hobbies and likes and interests? Who were their brothers and sisters that don’t get to grow up with them? Because, actually, those little kids in Gaza have more in common with the Israeli babies that got affected by the Hamas attack. And we have to hold that they have more in common with the kids that we know, the little ones that we hold close in our lives, than they have in common with the likes of Brian Tamaki, with the likes of the Biden administration, and little comms people writing up statements that fall short again and again—fall short to uphold our humanity.

The time for stepping slowly with our allies—as the Prime Minister keeps telling us we’re doing—is over. It’s time for leadership. It’s time to put our humanity front and centre, as New Zealand has done in the past. It was a National Government that stood up for Palestine in the General Assembly of the United Nations and gave Palestine official status in that forum. It matters because Palestinian voices—the voices of any victim population; the voices that have been muffled and silenced—matter. It’s only been with decades upon decades of dehumanisation that this current atrocity is able to happen with so much silence. It’s come through decades upon decades of us looking away.

I said it before in this House earlier today, I’ll say it again: I lived, as a Middle Eastern child, in a war, up to the age of nine. I lived in Iran while we were engaged in a bloody, 8-year war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. We for sure didn’t think our lives mattered. We suffered the sanctions as we had to get coupons to buy butter and to buy fuel. We didn’t have cancer drugs; and we had those sirens day after day. That war was nothing compared with what Gaza is seeing right now.

You know what else? The war that we all stood up for in this House last term, as we should have immediately, was the one that was waged by Russia against Ukraine. That war has not been anywhere near as bloody as what we’re seeing happen in Gaza. Nowhere near. In the first four weeks, we surpassed the death toll of children that we’d seen in Ukraine in almost a year.

So the time is now for this Government, for this House of Representatives, to stand up for New Zealand’s values—the values that we see in protest after protest held by our people out there in the street. I’ve never seen it as strong and as loud as it is for our values. We have to say that we treat every war, every victim population, and every perpetrator of war crimes and genocide the same, no matter if they are our trading partners, whether they are our so-called allies, or whether the war, the genocide, the war crimes, or the atrocity happens in Europe or whether it happens in the Middle East, because it matters when you’re a wee child, living with those sirens, living under those bombs, watching the absolute sea of amputees pour into your community—as I did—to feel like it matters to someone. We know that we have trading partners and we have allies who are profiting from the atrocities happening in Gaza. So it is time to say to Mr Biden, to say to every one of our Five Eyes partners, that enough is enough. Because we, as a small South Pacific Island nation have a voice, and that voice matters.

The Business Committee decision has been, at this time, inside the Address in Reply debate, to hear maiden speeches. Accordingly, I call on Dr Vanessa Weenink.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Nau mai, haere mai e ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira, tēnei te mihi ki te hunga katoa e huihui mai nei i tēnei rā. Nō reira, nau mai, haere mai, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Welcome, welcome to the powerful, the representatives, the noble leaders, this is a greeting to all the people who are gathered here today. So welcome, welcome, greetings to all of you.]

I’d first like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker. I’ve known you not very long and I’ve valued our conversations very much and I look forward to many in the future, hopefully not with you counselling on my bad behaviour.

To the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, I’m so very proud to be on your team. I can tell you love New Zealand and have the energy, intellect, and character to deliver on what you promise. Since the election I’ve felt the mood in my electorate change, and I really want to thank you on behalf of the people of Banks Peninsula, for the hope that we’ve got.

It’s a little intimidating to follow on so closely behind the excellent speeches of James Meager and Katie Nimon. Congratulations to you both.

I’m here because New Zealand voted for change, because the National Party represents stability, careful Government spending, and management of public services. People needed hope that the cost of living would improve and that the economy would be fixed so we could have decent health and education.

To the people of Banks Peninsula who have bestowed upon me the honour of representation for this 54th Parliament, I express my deepest appreciation. With unwavering fidelity and diligence, I pledge to serve your interests both within this House and in our community. The remarkable 99.5 percent enrolment and roughly 86 percent voter turnout reflects our politically active constituency’s understanding of the MMP system.

I want to acknowledge Tracey McLellan for her time as our MP and for her graciousness during and after the campaign. I’m also looking forward to working with Lan Pham and Laura Trask, the list MPs from Banks Peninsula.

A special tribute is due to our veteran community and to all those who served and did not return. As the first female ex-regular force veteran from the New Zealand Defence Force, whose service is memorialised within these walls, I take great pride in this moment. The significance of this occasion is amplified by the appointment of the first woman Minister of Defence and of another veteran who is serving as our Minister for Veterans.

I’m here through the efforts of a lot of people that I want to thank. My husband and children, who could not be here today, provide the strength and purpose for all my ventures. Their absence doesn’t diminish their impact and I’m grateful for their role in shaping who I am. To my sister and extended family and friends present, thank you for being an integral part of my journey and for coming here to be with me today. To Sylvia Wood and the rest of the National Party board, thank you for believing in me. I’m glad you saw that I have enough redeeming features despite some questionable life choices. My heartfelt thanks to my campaign chair, Lincoln Platt, a loyal party member who has become not only a trusted ally but a true and valued friend. His unwavering support and commitment were evident in every aspect of our campaign, and I’m immensely grateful.

To my volunteers who delivered flyers, put up hoardings, attended events, waved signs, and knocked on doors, your support was invaluable, and I hope we have a lot more fun together over the years. Thank you to the Young Nats, whose energy and enthusiasm made sign waving on cold afternoons a whole lot more enjoyable. Thank you to our regional chair and to all of the support and campaign staff at National Headquarters.

I also want to extend my gratitude to the Hon Dr Shane Reti for his encouragement and support throughout the candidates’ college and the campaign. His guidance has been invaluable and his clear understanding of the health system and vision for the future has been inspiring and it gives me hope that we can wrangle something positive from an otherwise unmitigated disaster that is the health reforms.

I would also like to especially thank the Hon Matt Doocey for his unflappable and relaxed support and the clear analysis of the requirements for the campaign. He kept the Greater Christchurch group of candidates as coordinated as they could be throughout the campaign, and it was key to our success.

Now, I believe that it’s acceptable to be unashamedly parochial about one’s electorate. In my opinion, Banks Peninsula is the most interesting electorate in the country, and I have some examples to support this. I have some experience persuading people to change their minds and habits, and I intend to be the kind of politician who backs up statements with evidence.

Firstly, in matters of gender representation, Banks Peninsula stands at the forefront. As the seventh woman elected as an electorate MP in this region, we hold a distinctive position in history, having elected the first woman MP, Elizabeth McCombs from Lyttleton in 1933—and it has elected the most women to this House.

Banks Peninsula, a microcosm of New Zealand, boasts both rural and urban landscapes. It serves as the jewel in Canterbury’s tourism crown, the recreational haven for Christchurch, and a hub for diverse industries. Arguably, Banks Peninsula embodies the soul of Christchurch, as evidenced by the creativity of our artists and musicians.

Our historical roots were integral to the foundation of this nation. I want to highlight the brig Elizabeth affair. In November 1830, a British ship captain was complicit with Te Rauparaha in tricking the local chief Tama-i-hara-nui aboard to trade harakeke. Once aboard, the chief and his family were kidnapped and the Ngāti Toa warriors that night crept into the pā and massacred the locals.

When news of this crime eventually made its way to the British authorities, it was met with shame and horror, and was one of the events that spurred the British to send Busby and then Hobson to oversee the British subjects in New Zealand and to eventually sign Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Today, the memorial at Takapūneke stands as a symbol of truth, healing, and partnership. Included in the vision for a national reserve on this site is the somewhat neglected Britomart memorial, honouring the ship whose captain planted the first British flag on that site and kept the French from claiming large sections of the South Island—something I think we should all be very grateful for.

We’re also at the forefront of future industry. As an avid science fiction fan, the fact that we are building an aerospace launch site on Kaitorete Spit makes Banks Peninsula more interesting to me than 97 percent of the other electorates.

Our peninsula’s ecological significance cannot be overstated, with native flora and fauna evolving on a volcanic island that later merged with the mainland. We are world-renowned for regenerative conservation, with Hinewai Reserve the best example of this. The peninsula has gone from an estimated 1 percent indigenous forest early last century to 16 percent now. Fundamental to this success was the empowerment of landowners to covenant their land and have control over this process. I was delighted to join with members of the Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust last weekend as they celebrated the 100th covenanted piece of land, which joins over 2,500 hectares of perpetually protected land.

It’s also appropriate that I share with you all who I am and where I come from. The Weenink family, of Dutch heritage, arrived in New Zealand in the 1850s. Despite the Dutch name, I am more Scottish. My grandmother was a McArthur, a clan originally from Argylle and Bute. On my mother’s side, my ancestor Thomas Cane arrived in 1872 and was the architect behind the Lyttelton Timeball. I’m proud of that connection to Lyttelton, and I can also see what a visible monument to colonialism such a building represents. Living in the picturesque Port Hills, I find myself connected to the land where my wider family has continuously resided since the 1870s.

I spent my childhood in Canvastown. I am fairly certain I’m the first MP to have attended that school. Playing in the bush and swimming in Te Hoiere / Pelorus river, we forged a connection to the land, and we had a unique upbringing. My father had an entrepreneurial spirit, trying to earn a living through pig farming, goat farming, mussel farming, and eventually horticulture. He was a pioneer of the cannabis industry in the 1980s. Despite legal challenges and a stint under Her Majesty’s hospitality, he instilled in me a love for books and a rapid reading ability. He died suddenly when I was aged 18—he was 52—of a blood clot to his lungs, which had also tragically killed his own father at the age of 36.

My mother, a nurse, raised my sister and me solo and faced many hardships. But she also taught me to focus on a goal, visualise it clearly, then believe deeply that I had already achieved that goal. That way I didn’t need to be anxious about the outcome, but just focus on the process of making it happen: planning carefully and then grittily executing it.

Mum was also a strong feminist, as part of the women’s division of Federated Farmers, the Country Women’s Institute, Zonta, and the National Council of Women. I have many fond childhood memories of those meetings, and I suspect that’s why I love meetings so much now. Mum passed away last year, but she knew I was going to be an MP because she knew I had set my mind on it.

I studied medicine in Otago, and while I was there, I joined the Territorials, and all up, I served nearly 22 years in the regular force and Territorials. During that time, I was deployed three times in a very intense period over two years. I did two winter tours of Afghanistan, and a stint in East Timor in 2006 in between. My son was six months old when I first deployed; I missed his first Christmas, and he turned three while I was away on my last tour. My already shaky first marriage didn’t survive. I lost friends and colleagues in Afghanistan, and so the withdrawal from there and the state of that country and the fate of women there breaks my heart.

Post military service, I spent a decade in private general practice in Papanui. That career got off to a shaky start because of the Christchurch earthquakes. Leading a resuscitation team at the Pyne Gould building site, alongside medics and civilian doctors, I witnessed the strength and unity that emerged in the face of adversity. The challenges faced by our people in the aftermath, compounded by inequities in insurance and the inadequacies of EQC, fuelled my outrage at injustice and commitment to rebuilding Christchurch.

My political ideology transcends easy categorisation. I’m socially liberal and fiscally conservative and I’m a blue green.

As the daughter of a solo mother on the DPB, I lived through the effects of the benefit cuts of the 1990s. And I don’t think that miserly austerity works, but I equally detest wasteful Government spending and the blatant disrespect of taxpayers when money is spent carelessly. I believe that only a National Government with evidence-based, prudent spending and with a social investment approach can turn around the fortunes of our country and deliver the public services that we need.

Last year in March, I had a total hip replacement. I took eight weeks off to recover, and in that time, I conducted what my son called a mid-life crisis. And whilst numerically accurate, it does not reflect the careful process I undertook. I analysed all of my options, and I considered going back to the army, but my hip blocked that path. So the next was politics. I researched the major parties and considered where my values most aligned.

It turned out there were a couple of values that were important to me that pulled me towards National. First: competitive enterprise and reward for achievement. As a business owner, I know the value of skin in the game and the risks taken for the benefit of a business and the people working for you. Without competition we have stagnation and limited innovation. The other thing is personal responsibility. This is about believing in the autonomy of individuals and their ability to do for themselves. Personal responsibility is not about victim blaming as some might believe; it is about empowerment.

As for all of us, it took a lot of grit and determination to get me here. I am loyal; I am faithful—especially when it’s hard. I don’t expect that many people will understand that, but I hope that my friends and colleagues on all sides of the House will see who I am and what I bring with me to this place so that we can be respectful of each other even though we might disagree.

In summary. I bring all that I am to this House—all the experience and knowledge from a life lived halfway through. I will be evidence-based, respectful, and diligent in all I do. I will represent my constituents faithfully and aim to be civil and gracious in dealing with all my colleagues and friends in this House.

May our shared endeavours propel New Zealand forward and may the legacy we create be one of resilience, unity, and prosperity. Tātou, tātou.

I’d like to end with a quote from the author David Mitchell. This is the revelation of Sonmi-451: “To be is to be perceived, and so to know thyself is only possible through the eyes of the other. The nature of our immortal lives is in the consequences of our words and deeds, that go on and are pushing themselves throughout all time. Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present, and by every crime and every kindness, we birth our future.”

Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was recently driving down the Waikato Expressway at 110 kilometres per hour, on cruise control, listening to the uplifting harmonies of “Thunderstruck” by AC/DC. The sun was coming in through the window, and it was gently warming my face, balancing the cool air conditioning on my arms. Blue skies stretched to the horizon, and I thought, “How great is this?” as I pondered my upcoming maiden speech. But the road is so smooth, so efficient—frankly, so delightful—that I got to my destination before I could even complete my contemplations. So bear with me as I continue on.

Congratulations, Mr Speaker, on your role and your position—certainly very well deserved—and I look forward to your guidance and counsel in this special place, based on your vast experience.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa—to the authorities, to the language, esteemed ones, to you all, greetings, greetings, greetings. Kia whakahōnoretia te kīngi Māori, Tūheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero Te Tuawhitu—let the Māori King be honoured, Tūheitia Potatau Te Wherowhero VII. Kia tau iho ngā manaakitanga ki runga ki a rāua ko tana makau ariki, me te kāhui ariki nui tonu—may his wife and the royal family also be blessed. May our Commonwealth King and royal family also be blessed.

I would also like to acknowledge our new Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, for your new role and your leadership of both our party over the last two years but also your leadership through the campaign and a work ethic which was tireless. You give personification to the relentless pursuit of excellence. May you, your wife, Amanda, and your family also be blessed.

I also acknowledge our party president, Sylvia Wood, and the board and their commitment to the party and the wellbeing of New Zealand; and our party leadership, particularly Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop, and the role Jo de Joux has played.

To the coalition and the leadership of Winston Peters and David Seymour, thank you for your integrity and unity to work together cohesively. I look forward to working with you and your MPs as we unite under a broader korowai of mutual values and aspiration for our country.

To my brother, the dark knight of Hamilton West, that super Māori fella, now the Hon Tama Potaka, I wish you every success in your portfolios and the wero and challenge of reconciling and uniting the National Party values with Māori and iwi aspirations. If anyone can do it, you can, and know that I am here to support you also. Kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui.

Salaam alaikum, kamusta, namaste, dajia hao, kia orana, talofa lava, mālō e lelei, ni sa bula vinaka—just a few of the greetings of the over 160 ethnicities that make up Hamilton East, one of New Zealand’s fastest-growing electorates. I would firstly like to thank the people of Hamilton East, the 17,950 people who entrusted me with their vote, and to those who didn’t, know that I am still here for you also. My aim is to be an MP that you will get to know and that is accessible, hard-working, and advocates relentlessly for our awesome patch of New Zealand. I acknowledge my predecessor, David Bennett, who held the seat for the longest in history and has set the door-knocking bar impossibly high.

To all party members and volunteers, thank you for your tireless support, but in particular the executive—Sarkaw Randhawa and her husband, Jay; Ron Williams; Ian Black; Anne Aitken; Bernard Powell; and to Ella, Sun, Q, Barb, Joshua, Marilyn, Jan, Antoinette, Veronica, Nathan, Liam, Jim, Tony, and to everyone else—and, of course, New Zealand’s fastest-growing digital billboard company Globox. Thank you. Our work is just getting started, but I could not have done this without you.

Hamilton East is home to the world famous Hamilton Gardens, a 54-hectare public garden that was once a rubbish dump but now has 23 international gardens, 1.2 million visitors a year, and is in the top 1 percent of Tripadvisor’s international travel experiences in the world. Or Tainui Group Holdings: one of the real success stories of the Jim Bolger Treaty settlement in 1995 is the Ruakura Inland Port, a project of national significance—a 490-hectare development of logistics, industrial, commercial, and future residential. Long-term projections forecast this site to remove 65,000 long-haul truck journeys off the road—with an associated 66 percent reduction in carbon emissions for each container movement—for international companies like Maersk, and, of course, New Zealand’s distribution hub for Kmart—which moved out of Auckland, just to comment on that—and New Zealand’s own Waitomo Group.

The University of Waikato’s Artificial Intelligence Institute has created some of the world’s most popular open-source tools for machine learning, and imagine, if we can, housing New Zealand’s long overdue and first graduate medical school.

Only last week, I had the privilege of attending the opening of New Zealand’s first accessible and inclusive playground in Claudelands, which removes all barriers for those with physical and neurological disabilities, by the Magical Bridge Trust.

BCD, Fosters, Stark Property, Momentum, and more—our city is transforming. If anyone wants to visit the new Made Market, which is a food market with glorious river views, I’ll shout the coffee, and, depending on the time of day, the wine.

Hamilton, the city of the future, the Goldilocks of New Zealand, in the wider, mighty Waikato region, is an integral part of the golden triangle and a city and region to watch. Hamilton is keen to see a sensible return to law and order, where people are made accountable for stealing and damaging property that is not theirs. Business owners and shop keepers have had enough. Residents are keen to feel safe again in their own communities, and, indeed, this is one of our party values and part of our policy plan to deliver on, which we desperately need, not electronic bail with very little accountability or resource to support. Equally, supporting prisoners on remand with their rehabilitation they need straight away is a proactive measure which will no doubt help those that are prepared to choose a different path.

New Zealand has had a short-term view on infrastructure—roading that has been built just in time, too little too late, or simply not at all. I am so pleased we are proposing a national infrastructure agency that will have a long-term and evidence-based approach to what investments we need to make to take New Zealand forward, to support productivity, livability, and employment, not driven by ideology with unintended consequences and unmanaged financial waste.

As to the interrupted and long overdue Southern Links connections, Hamilton says, “Thank you, yes please, and about time.” Tama and I say, “Chur.” Waters infrastructure and other essentials that address our estimated $200 billion infrastructure deficit will now start to be pragmatically addressed under this National-led coalition Government. We are moving on from the binary rates and development contribution models that have stymied our ability to unlock growth faster, and we will now enable special purpose vehicles, infrastructure funding and financing tools, tolls, overseas investment where appropriate, and value-capture models, which can be appropriately deployed on a case by case basis.

City deals present a unique opportunity to additionally add to this mix of tools, with the proviso that local government and regional councils can align and articulate a shared value proposition and investment strategy that unlocks growth for employment and housing opportunities. I will work hard for Hamilton East and, indeed, our region, to foster and advocate for these types of opportunities, utilising my local government expertise and relationships for maximum yield.

I believe we are well positioned with the fantastic groundwork of Future Proof, Waikato Housing Initiative, our economic development agency Te Waka, with Hamish and Fiona and a vocal and vociferous chamber of commerce led by Don Good.

Born to Kiwi parents in Canada in 1979, with my brother and two sisters I came to New Zealand at the tender age of eight with a very cute accent. I’ve attended Frankton School, Southwell School—and acknowledge my mate Ben, who is here today; friends since standard 4, 1990—one year at Hamilton Boys’ High School where the legendary Susan Hassall was my English teacher, and then four glorious years at Fraser High School, where I had the privilege of becoming head boy.

I have chaired Te Whare Korowai, Hamilton Christian Nightshelter, and turned a non-existent business with a $2,000 start-up loan from my dad into a million-dollar enterprise. Shout-out to the good buggers at Grime Off in Hamilton and Tauranga, improving your place in the world. To all the small-business owners out there, I am one too. I can relate. You are the backbone of the New Zealand economy. Help is coming. If employers are doing well, then employees have the opportunity to thrive also. We can’t penalise one and not expect it to impact on the other.

More recently, as a Hamilton city councillor, I understand the challenges of local government and I have seen how central government has disrespected local government for the last six years with disingenuous engagement and how we must do it differently and work together to achieve good and sustainable outcomes.

My father, Dr Graeme Hamilton—born to a Kiwi mum and Irish father; his mum, my nana, living to 100 years old and only passing three years ago—a civil engineer from Ōtāhuhu, he was in the same class as David Lange, although they shared different views, had an extensive overseas career and business journey. He taught me the value of community, having spent decades as part of Rotary groups all over New Zealand and the world, but would also extend his hand in greeting people, and would pull over to the side of the road if someone had car trouble. Look someone in the eye when you shake their hand and give them a firm handshake, he taught me. I know he struggled to put me through private school, which I had the privilege of going to for three years. I hope the investment has paid off, dad.

To my mum, who passed in June this year but got to see me win my nomination—I know she was very proud. She was a staunch National Party supporter and community advocate, and, like me, an ex-Hamilton city councillor. She had a key hand in ensuring the internationally acclaimed Balloons Over Waikato remained, by pursuing sponsors when things were drying up. As a Hamilton librarian in the late 1980s and early 1990s, she started up a local reading programme, sponsored by Hamilton’s first McDonald’s franchisee Brian Old, in several low-decile primary schools. I shared in her eulogy how she would be proud of our party’s policy of one hour of reading, writing, and maths in the school curriculum. Former Hamilton West MP Tim Macindoe was the celebrant at the funeral, and, although he has officiated many funerals over the years for people with strong political connections, he said he’d never before seen a policy announcement woven into a eulogy. I know she would have approved.

To my children here today: Anika-Skye, Beckam, my future son-in-law Jordi, and Diesel. Thanks for your support. Know that I am very proud of you all.

My sister Ashley—been a big year. Thanks for being here also.

To my parents-in-law—as far as in-laws go, they don’t come any better.

To my wife Marie, who has stood unwaveringly beside me for 23 years, and this being my 10th political campaign, counting local government and local board campaigns—by the way, my success rate is improving. Thank you. I am truly blessed by your love and support, even when politics was the last thing you wanted to be involved with.

We all want a better brighter future, one where our children and tamariki are loved and cared for and can develop their full potential.

I believe in less government, personal choice, and responsibility—a Government that sets up the right macro policy settings that enables success, and then gets out of the way. Of course, success means different things to different people.

Please don’t misunderstand me. For those that can’t fend for themselves, we absolutely need to provide the resources and supports to help them—assist them for as long as it takes. And we have a sacred duty to look after our most vulnerable and those that fall on hard times. But to those of us that can, we should; we must. What’s wrong is always available, but so is what’s right.

Ultimately, though, it still requires the individual to foster hope for a brighter future—a desire, even a mustard seed of faith, ambition, and desire for more or better—and they must be the ones that pursue it. They must push ahead. They must choose a different path. And I know some people don’t start at the start line, and I know some people aren’t born with the same opportunity. But if they have that desire, the coaches, the mentors, the community leaders, and the aunties and the uncles, the business community will emerge. If that person, regardless of their background, holds on to that hope within their soul, I do believe they can and will find a better way. A way forward. Because this is still a beautiful country with endless opportunity and support structures. To that end, with my ability, resources, and positions, I commit myself in service to helping those individuals rise. Because when one individual rises up and breaks through, it gives those around them permission and courage to do the same. Thank you.

The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 December 2023.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.