Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

While we’ve been in the House today, the name suppression has been lifted in the case that has been brought by the Serious Fraud Office in relation to donations to the National Party. Unsurprisingly, I think, members will be able to learn now that the people involved are the very people who we heard about last year in the taped phone conversation between Simon Bridges and Jami-Lee Ross. Jami-Lee Ross is one of the people who has been charged, and it is very important for members of this House to remember that he has been charged about activities he undertook when he was the whip of the National Party.

I heard on Morning Report this morning the leader of the National Party try to claim he didn’t know anything about the $100,000 donations to the National Party.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I want to remind the Minister of Finance of Standing Orders 115(1) and (2) and (3), which make it very clear that matters awaiting or under adjudication, or supressed in any court—and it’s not a suppression order any more, but it is under adjudication—may not be referred to in any debate, subject to the discretion of the Speaker and the right of the House to legislate on a matter. If a member wants to refer to a matter that is currently awaiting adjudication, one needs to refer to 115(2), whereby an application is made to me, and my decision, which I certainly have not made in this case.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect, obviously, that ruling. I just would like some clarification around referring to matters that are in the media that report on the case.

💬 SPEAKER: One does not get around the Standing Orders of this House by the fact that some media have reported something. The Standing Orders of the House stand on their own, and the fact that it has been reported that a particular matter—even previously reported, before there were charges—has occurred is not an escape.

Now, the member, and certainly the member on his right and the shadow Leader of the House, will remember that there was at one stage a considerable debate within the Standing Orders Committee on this. There was one member who stood for a different position. That member is currently standing here. He had no support from colleagues on either side of the House. It is my view that the Standing Orders are inappropriate in this case. The member should have the right to comment on cases before the courts if they so wish and they do so in a careful manner, but the decision of this House was, on the review of the Standing Orders, that that right does not exist. As the Speaker, I must enforce rules even if I think they’re not the best rules.

So on Morning Report this morning, I heard the leader of the National Party claim to have no knowledge whatsoever of activities inside his own party. That speaks volumes about the lack of leadership that is being shown by Simon Bridges, and all the more so coming on the back, as it did, of a so-called economic speech given by the Leader of the Opposition earlier this week—a speech that was the most overhyped speech I have seen in my time in this House. It was empty of any actual ideas for how to move New Zealand forward.

But it’s not just me that has been saying this. The Stuff editorial this morning, and all of the Stuff papers across New Zealand, said that “voters will rightly be wary of National’s business-as-usual approach in such rapidly changing times.” It also quoted a very modest man named Grant Robertson, who said “tax cuts always come with a tradeoff.”, and then it talked about what National was doing and said “Nowadays, … we are not swayed by the mirage.” That’s all they’ve got. All they’ve got is a mirage. There’s no actual policy; it’s a mirage.

I look forward to this election campaign, where Paul Goldsmith will have to show me the money, because there is no sign that the National Party understands that if there are going to be tax cuts, there are trade-offs, and we know from the National Party’s history what those trade-offs will be. It means money not going into our schools. It means money not going into our hospitals. It means not enough police officers on the beat. It means ignoring a housing crisis, and going the other way and selling State houses. It means taking money out of the pockets of the lowest-income New Zealanders by deciding that the minimum wage doesn’t need to go up. They are the trade-offs that the National Party likes to make in the pursuit of these kinds of policies. So we will see in this election campaign who has the promises that add up, and who is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders.

It is a great honour for me to be the Minister of Finance in this Government. Everywhere I go around New Zealand, I have the conversations with the business community where we get into the numbers of being the Minister of Finance, and I am proud of the numbers that this Government has—the fact that we do have annual growth of 2.7 percent, putting us well ahead of our trading partners, and, even though as the economy globally slows down, New Zealand continues to outperform Canada, Japan, Australia, the UK, and the euro area. Our economic management approach of, yes, being careful and of making sure that we do reduce our debt as a percentage of GDP—it is less now than when we came in. We’ve just spent $12 billion on infrastructure, and our net debt is still less than when we came in. We have run $13 billion worth of surpluses, and we will run them again in the future. Unemployment is down to 4 percent. We’ve got great numbers coming out of the consumer confidence services index.

So I can spend all day and all of this contribution on the numbers, but that’s actually not what being the Minister of Finance is about. It is fundamentally about people, and making sure that all the people of New Zealand get to share in our prosperity.

I just think of three or four of the people I have met in recent times who show how this economy is working more for all New Zealanders. The young woman that I met in Kawakawa, who was working on the Hundertwasser Art Centre, and who had come through to work on that project from Mana in Mahi—from Willie Jackson’s work that he has been doing in Mana in Mahi. That young woman had come from being on the unemployment benefit for more than six months. She did not know what she wanted to do with her life, and because a Government cared about her and this Government cared what happened to her, she’s now on that site. She’s actually running the place, to be frank—a Ngāpuhi woman, clearly, from there; running the show—making sure that that building is being built well, and working with her fellow cadets who are working on that site.

I also think of the school principal here in Wellington, at Karori West Normal School: Janice Shramka, a woman who will soon be retiring after distinguished service in the education system in New Zealand. I went and visited her in January, 12 days before school started, because I knew Janice would be there, because that’s how committed our schoolteachers and principals are. I found her—after walking around the school for a while—standing on one of the paddocks out the back with a local tradesperson, writing down the projects that they would be doing with the $376,299 that this Government have given for her school to be able to do that work. What Janice Shramka told me that day was that she had gone off on her holiday in December the happiest she had been in most of her time as a school principal, because she walked away knowing that the teachers in her school were being paid properly, that we were finally addressing pay issues for teacher aides, that we actually finally had supported the rebuilding of property, and that she could finally do those $376,000 worth of jobs that hadn’t been done in her school. She said, “We now have a Government that cares about education.”, and I want to congratulate Minister Chris Hipkins on his leadership of that work.

Then I think of the community services card holder who wrote to me last year about the fact—she’s an older woman now—that the stress had been lifted from her life by the fact that she could go to the doctor knowing she could afford it, and that she wasn’t making a decision about her health on the grounds of money but on the grounds of how she felt. She finally felt that she had some confidence because of our policy of reducing the cost of going to the doctor for more than 600,000 New Zealanders.

Then I also think of the older New Zealanders who have written, I think, probably to most of the MPs on this side of the House about the winter energy payment, about the fact that those basic decisions about keeping warm in winter can now be made without the fear of the costs, and about the fact that people can heat their homes, not just one room. We all know the story of people who were only heating one room in their home because they couldn’t afford it. The winter energy payment has come along and delivered to those people some security.

So for me, being the Minister of Finance, yes it’s about the numbers, yes it’s about making sure that as a country we prepare ourselves for the future, but it’s mostly about the people, and that’s what got forgotten for nine years. They sat on that side of the House—on this side of the House then—and said, “We’ve got a rock star economy because we’ve got growth rates at a particular level.” Well, the rock star economy was delivering the schools where people were being taught in classrooms. It was delivering the mouldy hospitals. It was delivering the dirty rivers. That’s not success, and on this side of the House, we’re proud that we are taking a different approach to what constitutes success in our society.

We know that as a country now, we once again will face challenging times in our economy created by an external force—in this case, COVID-19. But we know that this Government, as a result of what we’ve done for the last two years, means we are well prepared to face up to that, and I can guarantee New Zealanders that this Government will continue to invest in them. We’ll continue to invest in our people, in strengthening our communities, and in protecting our environment.

By the time we get to September this year, the choice will be ever more stark between a Government and parties of this Government who are looking to the future, who are futureproofing our economy, who when we give speeches about the economy, we mention climate change, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. The choice will be between a Government focused on the future and futureproofing our economy and a Government with their eyes in the rear-view mirror, selling tired old ideas—selling a mirage, as the Stuff editorial said today. That is the choice at this election: whether or not we want to go forward as a country confident, prosperous and sharing that prosperity, or whether we want to go back to selfish individualism on the other side of the House. The choice is clear. A Jacinda Ardern - led Government will be re-elected.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 32/4 and ask you a question with regards to that Speaker’s ruling. It’s a longstanding ruling from 1989 by then Deputy Speaker Terris, where he said that “There are no grounds for ruling against a member making a statement that there is a legal action in existence.” My question there is, really, around the definition of “legal action”, whether the fact that there is a legal action taking place in the court—whether referring to the fact that that is happening is something that members cannot do, or whether that is, in fact, acceptable. I accept that having read all of the relevant Speakers’ rulings around matters before the court, it’s important that the Parliament doesn’t get into the specifics of the case or seek to influence the court in any way, but surely a member must still be able to refer to the fact that there is an action in existence.

I’m sure there’s a random thing with Speaker Terris’ rulings, and on the basis of statistics he would occasionally get one right. This, I think, is probably that one. The fact that there is a legal case in existence can be referred to, but Mr Robertson certainly went further than that previously and referred to detail of it, and that is something which is not allowed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Finance, in Opposition, said “Judge performance by GDP per capita.” The truth and the fail mark for that Minister is that every year that he has been Minister, our country has gone backwards and it has gone to the lowest level in more than a decade.

But this afternoon, I want to talk about déjà vu of a slow-motion train wreck of another Labour Government over big secret donations to Mr Peters. We have a Deputy Prime Minister who has been caught out not complying with our electoral laws—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

—now lashing out—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat when I stand. The member knows that he cannot accuse a member in that way. He knows that he cannot. I’m listening very carefully to him, as I listened to the member before, and the Standing Orders will be applied strictly, including to that member.

I seek clarity, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, the member will continue his speech.

The language I used was identical to—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I said the member will continue his speech.

The Electoral Commission has concluded that Mr Peters did not comply with our electoral laws.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The member will withdraw that statement unless he can provide me with the writing, in writing, to that about that member of the House, naming that member. If he cannot, he will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. The New Zealand First Party has been found by the Electoral Commission to have not complied with our electoral rules, and he is now lashing out with ugly attacks on the media, on his own previous party officials, on the Opposition, and even on respected institutions like our Electoral Commission. The worst part of this whole debacle is that neither the Prime Minister nor any member opposite will stand up for the core Kiwi values that underpin our democracy.

Now, Grant Robertson has made mention of the issues involving Jami-Lee Ross. I’ll totally observe the ruling that you have just made, Mr Speaker, but here’s the interesting part: why did the Labour Party substitute on to the Justice Committee, on the issues of electoral law, that member when such serious conduct was in question? And why does the Labour Party continue to exercise the vote for that member when, frankly, every member of this House—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. It’s not generally the rule that the Speaker intervenes on matters of fact, but when someone is making an allegation as to who is exercising votes in the House, it is the obligation of the members to tell the truth. The member will—

The whips for the Labour Party have been exercising the votes for that member. But let’s go back to—

💬 SPEAKER: No. Look, again, it is not my role to make sure that the member observes the facts, but when he is making incorrect statements—and he knows he’s making incorrect statements—

No, he doesn’t.

💬 SPEAKER: Well, the member has been in the House hundreds of times when votes have been exercised for Jami-Lee Ross, and if he cannot tell the difference—the member will resume his seat.

You’re running a protection racket.

💬 SPEAKER: I call the next member.

Oh, Mr Speaker. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’ve terminated the member’s speech.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has sat and tolerated that member blaming the New Zealand First Party, not accurately reflecting that it is the foundation that is being studied. Secondly, he has misrepresented—

💬 SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume his seat, OK? I have dealt with Dr Nick Smith. He has made an exceptionally unparliamentary reference to me, and I have terminated his speech. Is there another member who wants the call?

Apologies, sir. The way in which it was reflected, I did not gather that you had terminated his speech. I apologise.

This is a dark day in terms of how low the National Party are prepared to go. They are losing support with this form of smear, deviousness, stigmatisation. They have no friends here. They are losing support amongst garden-variety Kiwis who are not interested in the National Party taking up the cause of the media. The media is not made up of shrinking violets; they are key contributors to the democratic process through the fourth estate. They don’t need Paula Bennett to conveniently forget the last nine years of history. They don’t need Nick Smith to overlook his own patchy record on such matters pertaining to judicial appearances.

I want to come back and talk about what Kiwis are genuinely interested in. Let us speak about four things. Today, they raised the question as to why we are maintaining the right of silence in matters pertaining to child abuse—and I will not talk about a case that may or may not be currently being investigated by the police. The right of silence is an ancient doctrine. The police currently have a host of other options available to them if they want to squeeze people who should be talking and make them talk.

Secondly, how many times over the last nine years have we seen this pattern, sorry to say, too disproportionately amongst my own community, the Māori community. I say to the people, the gangs, the gang hangers-on, up in Hawke’s Bay and other places: when children are traumatised, assaulted, if you do not speak up, you are cowards. Don’t blame Oranga Tamariki when the remedy lies within yourselves. Stand up and shine the torchlight of honesty on the affairs of their own whānau. People who act in that cowardly fashion, we call them, in the Ngāpuhi country, kutus—they are a type of social head lice—and I condemn all the people that are hiding behind either legal doctrine or manufactured excuses called colonialisation so as not to take responsibility for this awful social disease afflicting many of the members of our Māori community, where little ones are punished and older people who ought to be held responsible are evading those responsibilities.

Let me now talk about the gangs. The gangs are a social cancer, and partly what I’ve heard from the other side of the House, I cannot but agree, but I say to the other side of the House: over the last nine years, you allowed the police resources to shrink in proportion to the growth of the P-fuelled gang mayhem. As the gangs sent back people, either willingly or unwillingly, from Australia to New Zealand, that’s when we needed a massive increase in surveillance and statutory power and in police numbers. So excuse me if we think “crocodile tears” when the other side of the House all of a sudden wants to borrow some Schwarzenegger approach of wandering around South Auckland and other such places in souped-up armoured vehicles. The reality is: follow the money, honey. That is a famous expression, and it is what we must do in order to curb and bring these gangsters—the gangsters with muscle and bling are creating the most destructive image amongst the rangatahi, the young people, that we are endeavouring to work for.

So, be under no illusions: the gangs have no friends amongst our party. That’s not to say Christian reformation is not possible, but if you want to take the Christian route, get your gang patch, dig a hole, and burn it. Don’t try and pretend to be Christian, turning up at Waitangi but whilst you’re secretly continuing to deal the lifeblood of gangs, which is cruelty, menace, money, and death.

I want now to talk about what the people of the North have been saying today. They are glad that they have a champion—not the sitting member, who thunders back home and whimpers when he’s in Parliament, not the trolls that continually seek to undermine the work of our stakeholders and various leaders in the North. They are happy that a Government, within a remarkably short period of time, has provided a remedy to a Zimbabwe-like problem of water access in Kaikohe and Kaitāia. The council should not be allowed to get off scot-free as we have announced $2 million to ensure that our senior citizens, our kōhanga children, our schoolchildren, our businesses, garden-variety households can enjoy what you and I expect to enjoy every day in urban New Zealand: access to volumes of quality water. We have solved that problem in the short term today.

You don’t solve those problems unless you’re prepared to take risks, and we didn’t come from the North into Parliament without the ability to absorb risk and manage risk. Now, I know outside of the North there are other places that central government should look at, but the Northerners today can breathe a sigh of relief that in myself and the other three Ministers, we have made a robust decision that will ensure that they enjoy access to water.

Recently, I was privileged to catch a ride on KiwiRail, and we went to the Waiotira tunnel, built in 1920. It has taken the Jacinda Ardern - Winston Peters duo of leadership, a hundred years later, for a Government to go back and fix up that tunnel. What we are finding in KiwiRail is that they’re not relying on the Australian-based, overpriced consultants. They have had the ability to draw and harness talent long since neglected and overlooked by the other side of the House to fix up the infrastructure ourselves. All they ever needed was some pūtea, some self-belief, and a clear direction, a pathway of hope. That’s what KiwiRail, as a key feature of an integrated and robust future transport system, has by working with the current Government.

There are five things—if you look at a star, it’s got five points. Of course, now there’s a thing called the “Northern Star”, and I don’t claim to be that; I’m talking about the five-pointed political policy star shining in the North. The first point of that star is the revitalisation of rail north of Auckland into the North. Thank you, Rt Hon Winston Peters. The second point of that star is the creation of a world-leading dry dock facility owned and operated by Babcock in association with the navy. The third point of the star is the four-lane highway. To demonstrate that our party, our Government, is willing to take a risk, bring forward $12 billion worth of expenditure. There will be a four-lane highway from Whangārei to the new, expanded Northport in Ruakākā, Marsden Point.

The fourth point of the star is that the Ports of Auckland will move. The Prime Minister has identified that the current location of the Ports of Auckland has outlived its social licence. It will go. Work is being done as to whether or not it goes to Tauranga, to Northland—or whether or not, as certain consultants would like, we’re going to build a massive island in the Manukau Harbour and hope that the ships of the world will go over the most treacherous bar in New Zealand, or we’re going to build a massive island in the Firth of Thames. I have very, very dim views about both of those options.

The fifth thing which we ought to bear in mind is the longstanding challenge that goes back to John Banks’ days of relocating the naval resources out of Devonport, freeing up that estate for housing, providing an opportunity for new entrants into the navy to be able to afford to live as they join the forces as ratings. The pathway leads north. That’s why all of the mayors, all of the civic leaders, all of the community advocates, and all of the senior business identities have joined a programme called Kia Kaha.

The five-pointed star of progress and development is a navigational star, and we have set our course by those five things. Thank you very much.

Look, I rise to take a call on this Prime Minister’s statement, and I want to begin with a quote. The back of this quote is in response, actually, to the Hon Shane Jones, by Walter Cronkite: “Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy.” My second quote is actually by our Prime Minister: “Around the world, democratic values and institutions are under threat in a way that many of us … expected to see in our lifetimes.” I think it is appalling, and it is one of the first times in my parliamentary career that I am ashamed of this Parliament—we are aware of covert photos being taken of journalists, and it is appalling that the Prime Minister will not actually call her Deputy Prime Minister into line.

I would acknowledge that we are about to celebrate 150 years of our press gallery, and my point to the Parliament would be: if we do not stand up for some of those press at a time like this, where, at the highest level, that can be considered intimidation, then who will? On this side of the House, we do stand for freedom of the press. My plea to the Prime Minister is to say something, do something on this issue, do it for a country that is proud of our democratic record, that gave women the right to vote—first in the world. And, actually, freedom of the press does matter, Shane Jones, and we will stand up for freedom of the press on this side of the House.

We heard from the Prime Minister a lot of hype, and in fact I want to respond to the Hon Grant Robertson’s comments around overhype and mirages. Well, if we look at every single area of this Government, there is hype and mirages. If we take our economy, again, we saw the Prime Minister trying to rewrite history. We were a Government that left the country in surplus. We dealt with the global financial recession, we dealt with the Canterbury earthquakes, and we left the country in surplus.

And then we look at our economic indicators. And you know what, Grant Robertson? They do matter. They matter in the stories that we hear across this side of the House, in the stories of those people in South Auckland who are paying more for their fuel as a result of the Government’s fuel tax. They matter in the stories of other people across New Zealand whose median rents have gone up, some commentators estimate, by an average of $55. They matter when we hear from the chair of ACC today, who has said that we have major increases in levies coming. Again, under a National Government, cost of living was lower because we managed to keep those accounts in order.

They matter when we talk about the area of infrastructure. This is a Government that manages to put up a whole lot of mirages. The reality is, under our Government, we saw Waterview, we saw Victoria Park Tunnel, we saw the City Rail Link (CRL) announced. This is a Government where we’ve got CRL 15 months delayed, we’ve had roads cancelled, and then they have the nerve—they have the nerve—two years later to try and announce a $12 billion infrastructure package of which a range of things and a range of communities have been basically postponed for two years.

This is a Government, in the area of housing, that, again, put up a mirage of 100,000 houses to be built via KiwiBuild. How many were delivered? About 300. So, again, it’s a Government that talks massive but breaks a whole lot of promises.

Let’s go to the area of education. We were a Government that increased our education budget every single year that we were in office. This is a Government that now talks about the fact that under the last Government, there were overcrowded schools. That is correct. But what we saw on the front page of the New Zealand Herald the other day was 700 schools over capacity. So for a Government gifted the best opportunities of a generation, we have seen overcrowding in classrooms. And again, what are we seeing? We’re seeing shifts and we’re seeing drops in educational achievement. We’re also seeing huge promises not delivered in education. There are over 50 promises not delivered in education. Where are the free devices, Chris Hipkins? Where is the 100 percent qualified ratio in early childhood? Where is career advice for every child? Again, the litany of broken promises continues despite all of the gifts of a generation that were left this Government by the last National Government?

In the area of health, in the area of public services, one of the reasons why it is hard to get a picture to cut through those mirages on this side of the House is because this Government scrapped the Better Public Service targets. But here are some figures in health that I’m sure every New Zealander would want to know. What do we know? In the last eight months, we’ve got $230 million more in deficits. What do we know? We know that there’s 6,000 less elective surgeries happening in New Zealand compared to the last year. What do we know in the infrastructure and transport area? Well, again, the Hon Simon Bridges listed a litany of projects that were promised but that are now not being delivered as a result of this Government. We haven’t even got on to the Prime Minister’s audacious promise in Auckland around light rail, because we know that that project hasn’t actually even started. Again, it’s another flagship promise that has completely been broken.

What do we know in other areas? Well, what we know is that this is a Government with very low standards around its Ministers. And I do want to acknowledge that if you look under Prime Minister Ardern’s leadership, not only have we seen ministerial resignations but we saw a major resignation around the area of open Government. We’ve also seen the Labour Party sex scandal. And now we have seen, as I mentioned before, at the outset of my speech, a new low, an absolutely new low in our Parliament that the Prime Minister—and I’m looking at Chlöe Swarbrick right now: where are the Greens on the issue of freedom of the press? Where are the Greens? The reality is the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted to being involved in covert photographs of the press. If it had happened on this side of the House, the level of anxiety, the level of speaking up, would have been completely different.

So this is a Government that was handed the best conditions of a generation. We were the comeback country. We had taken a country that was staring down a decade of deficits into surplus. We’ve seen huge improvements in a number of areas such as Māori and Pasifika education achievement. Now, in every major area, we have business confidence tanking. We’ve slipped in terms of our economic performance to being, I think, the seventh worst in terms of the OECD. We’ve seen our health and education indicators going backwards. We’ve seen a litany of broken promises. We’ve seen some extraordinary flagship programmes fall, from KiwiBuild: from 100,000 houses to 300 houses; from light rail: not even started. We’ve seen incompetence at the infrastructure level like never before, and the fact that the journalists are somehow clapping when Labour are turning up, announcing projects that have been delayed for two years is pretty extraordinary.

We’ve seen, in the area of law and order, gang activity like never before. And what do we get from the Prime Minister? A complete lack of leadership around Ministers. What I get from a number of New Zealanders who come up to me is that they say, just like Grant Robertson said at the outset of his speech: they expected there would be additional investments in people, they expected to see less children in poverty, but we know that there’s more. They expected to see less people necessarily in welfare and in hardship. But we know that there’s tens of thousands more. We know, on a number of the major social indicators around our most vulnerable, life is worse under Labour, and we know that as well because our economy is getting worse so we have less opportunities to be able to pay for the kinds of public services that New Zealand needs.

We needed a Government that was going to show leadership, but in every single area—in the economy, in health, in education, in infrastructure, on the basic issue of freedom of press that you would expect the Labour Government to step up and stand up for our democracy—they were missing in action. And I’ll tell you what, Grant Robertson, that’s what I call a mirage. This is the most overhyped Government in a generation, and National looks forward to taking office in September to lead a Government that will not only improve our economy, improve our public services, will reduce crime, but will ensure that New Zealanders have a better life, and we will also stand up for the freedom of press in our democracy.

I just want to say that the last speaker is someone who I admire, because not only has she experienced some personal issues, she’s actually an athlete and someone who I know works very hard. She reflects what many of us across the House bring: the desire to have a better country. We’re here for the right reasons. We may not agree on the way we get to that, but many of us are here because we want our country to be the very best that it can.

I’m really heartened by some work that we did earlier this year as a caucus with the Prime Minister when she gave us the opportunity to talk about how we wanted this election campaign—and, therefore, our policies—to roll out. And what she said was she wanted this to be positive. She wanted this election campaign to be a contest of ideas, she wanted us to actually ensure that when we were out there discussing what Labour and this Government had done, that we were being truthful and honest with the people, and that they could make a decision for themselves. And, actually, our people deserve that from us. Our young people demand that from us, and I am really heartened by that. I took that message to be one thing: that we are now encouraged to be the best that we can be, because politics can be pretty dirty—it can be pretty grimy—and, unfortunately, some of that can rub off. But if you come from the place that you hold within yourself some integrity, that you are doing everything you can for your country, then you can rise above a lot of that.

Now, what heartens me is, yep, we know that we’ve done a bit of work, but we know the weight of expectation is upon us to do more. And I’m really heartened when I talk to people in my electorate—or when they, unsolicited by me, give me their opinions—because some of them really tell me that with what we are doing, we are on the right track.

I want to quote from a couple of emails that I got, and I will call this woman Katie. I didn’t know her before she sent these emails, but I was really impressed by what she had to say. I didn’t ask her for this, but this is what she told me. “I know that going into an election year there will be a lot of … flying around, so I want to give you a perspective from a beneficiary. Since I met you, my financial and life situation have improved enormously. I no longer want to just die. Life is not always easy, but I have enough money to eat well, I can pay all of my bills, and going to WINZ is no longer a desperately miserable experience, and the winter payments actually help. I can afford school fees. I can buy my daughter anything that she needs—luckily, she likes op shopping—and if there is something we want but don’t desperately need, we can now plan to save for it. I haven’t needed to rely on food parcels or the kindness of others. My mother was close to death before Christmas and I was able to just book a flight and go. She’s now OK. This is a thankyou note. I have many things to be grateful for now. This is because of your Government. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Please extend my thanks to the coalition Government.”

That’s fantastic. She also goes on to say she thinks Phil Twyford is a hero. But that’s another matter. [Interruption] I know. I know. But what I want to say is that out of the mouths of constituents come some pretty honest things. And what really heartens me is that when I’ve been talking to people about the things that we want to do, the things that we’ve done already, they’re actually encouraging us.

I want to talk about one school in my electorate that’s actually going to benefit from the infrastructure package that we’re putting out to the tune of $260,000, and that’s Banks Avenue—one of the schools that, post-earthquakes, is going to have to sustain a rebuild. I’ve gone to that school every year, a couple of times every year, to talk to them about, you know, the issues and stuff. In Opposition we tried to support them to get some extra help from that Government. The extra help we were looking for was they were given pūtea to rebuild their school. That pūtea was supposed to last them for a period of time while they were in situ on their current site to rebuild on to their new site.

While they were in situ on their old site, they had maintenance issues that they had to actually pay for from that pūtea that the National Government gave them for the rebuild. So year on year, their maintenance costs actually ate away at the money that they were going to be able to use for their rebuild. So when this was announced, that they were actually—from us—getting $260,000 for their maintenance, they went “Thank you. You’ve listened.” That’s one school in a whole country of schools that’s going to benefit because we listened to them about what their needs were.

Now, Banks Ave is a very unique school, because a lot of the children were impacted by the earthquakes and they also asked National in Government to support them with some extra support for those children’s needs; also not forthcoming from that Government. What do they have now? They have Mana Ake. They have Mana Ake workers going in there to support children who’ve got significant behavioural issues because of the trauma they’ve experienced from the earthquake. That makes me enormously proud.

They’re small things: things like families not having to pay for school donations, things like elderly people saying in wintertime, “It’s fantastic that we’ve got the winter payment.”, and actually not knowing that that’s going to happen every single winter—every single winter. Those things, they may be small—we’re on a journey—but people are actually starting to resonate that we are delivering to them. But we have so much more to do. There’s so much more I could talk about. You know, just as I was sitting here, I was watching a lovely clip over the shoulder of my colleague there of his son enjoying an ice block, I think, at home, and I think about what it is that we want to leave for our country, and that’s definitely about how we support our children.

Now, we’ve done some things. We’ve increased the amount of time that mamas and papas can stay at home. You know, paid parental leave is a really important aspect to how we ensure that we bond well with our children. But going past that, what do we want for our kids? We want our kids to be healthy and well. We want to make sure that they’ve got access to good healthcare; that when they get unwell—and unfortunately they do—cost is not a barrier; that if they have serious illness they can go to a hospital that doesn’t have stuff running down the walls; that those hospitals, those facilities, are the very best that they can be for those kids; and, actually, that their families and their parents are supported to be the best that they can be too.

Now, we’ve got a real problem in this country and it’s called family violence. I’m enormously proud of how much money we have put into supporting services. But we have got so much more to do. Whānau resilience—supporting families to identify the issues and work on them so that they can be the best parents for their kids. That’s extraordinary stuff, and that will be a game-changer in years to come. Supporting kids to get over the trauma they experience in homes where violence is present; supporting kids to get over the trauma they experience when they have to live through several years of natural disaster. That’s game-changing stuff. That’s the stuff that brings some of us to this House, and makes me extraordinarily proud of our Prime Minister when she says we are going to be positive. This campaign is going to be a contest of ideas. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I follow my colleague, who talked about the Prime Minister’s kind of pledge about it being a positive campaign. Prime Minister Ardern also talked about the fact that this was going to be the most open and transparent Government that had ever been, that last year was going to be the year of delivery, and that this year was going to be about truth and honesty. Well, how quickly things change.

One of the things that people rely on from their Prime Minister is a Prime Minister who demands—actually, the Cabinet Manual states it, so it’s not about demanding it, it’s just about delivering it—standards of Ministers in their Cabinet. That doesn’t say Ministers of the same political party in their Cabinet; it says Ministers.

So it’s somewhat fascinating to see—when we have pretty much exactly the same situation play out as did in 2008—a Minister in Cabinet not standing down, not offering to stand down, or not being stood down by the Prime Minister, and two very nasty issues occurring related to ministerial behaviour. It’s not about are you the leader of a political party; it’s a Minister in Cabinet.

The Prime Minister’s job is to uphold the standards, to uphold the standards that the New Zealand public expect of their Cabinet. As my colleague Nikki Kaye spoke about before, a very new low in this place last week, and that was by the Deputy Prime Minister admitting to the media that he was involved in the covert surveillance of journalists. So—

💬 Darroch Ball: That’s not true.

—if that’s what the Prime Minister was talking about when it was about—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is not an acceptable interjection. The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Darroch Ball: I withdraw and apologise.

So, if that’s the standard, if that’s what the Prime Minister wants New Zealanders to think of when she talks about the most open and transparent Government, when she talks about truth and honesty, and when she talked about last year as the year of delivery, well, I’m sad to say it’s a pretty low bar, because at the end of the day, New Zealanders want a Government who delivers. Actually, they want a Prime Minister who isn’t just full of hot air. At the end of the day, she leads a team. She is accountable for every single Minister in her Cabinet, not just the ones she wants to have.

So let’s look at some of the things that she said in her statement, because this is, of course, the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, so I’m going to touch on a few.

Child poverty—she talked about cost pressures for families, about new jobs that have been created, about the so-called transformation of the welfare system, and about things like Mana in Mahi, which she was an enormously proud of. Well, the reality is talk is cheap—talk is cheap. At the end of the day, New Zealanders want to know that the members of Parliament in this place—and I do agree with the speaker who resumed her seat before me—New Zealanders want to know that the people in this place are doing their damnedest to improve their quality of life.

So child poverty was meant to be the top priority for Jacinda Ardern, and she was going to solve it. Well, guess what! We’ve got 15,000 more children living in benefit-dependent homes. We know that 60 percent of children who live in hardship come from benefit-dependent homes. Seven of the nine indicators of poverty have gone up, so on that one area alone, the Prime Minister is not delivering.

Actually, if you think about—as many of my colleagues do, and we discuss it on a regular basis—you know, supporting the most vulnerable, what does it come down to? Can they afford their everyday costs, whether it’s housing, whether it’s petrol, whether it’s filling the supermarket basket and making sure that they’ve got food at home? Well, the reality is we now have a record number of Kiwis who are seeking hardship assistance—half a billion dollars more in assistance. So this isn’t a country where New Zealanders are doing it well. They’re not doing it better than they were two years ago.

So if, as the member opposite said before, this is a Prime Minister who’s talking truth and honesty, can we at least get some honesty around the number of Kiwis who are doing it tougher under this Government than they were two years ago?

The housing crisis, as they often wanted to talk about. Social housing register: three times as many people on the social housing register—three times as many people.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Nine years.

So it’s really unfortunate that the member opposite isn’t interested, because at the end of the day, when this Government came in, the number of people who were on jobseeker support, or the dole—oh, that’s right, we’re not allowed to call it the “dole” in here, according to the Minister for Social Development, even though truth and honesty, that’s what the Prime Minister calls it.

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: It’s not the “dole”.

Oh, here we go again. They don’t want to be held accountable for the 27,000 more New Zealanders that get the dole. Remind the Prime Minister—remind the Prime Minister. But 27,000 more New Zealanders have to front up to Work and Income because there aren’t the jobs available.

Oh, and the Prime Minister was bragging about the fact that there were a large number of jobs that have been created. What was that number? This is the world of truth and honesty. Eighty-seven thousand; 4,000 a month, compared to 10,000 a month under National—4,000 a month. So why is it—oh, now the members opposite have gone quiet, because at the end of the day, every single one of those 27,000 people don’t have the same opportunities because they’re not in work.

Oh, and what was the big flagship employment programme? Mana in Mahi. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern launched it and said 4,000 people in the next year. Then it became 2,000. Then it became 2,000 in four years. So it’s a bit like the KiwiBuild of employment initiatives, where I think there’s been about 300 people so far.

What members opposite fail to realise, when you fail to deliver for the most vulnerable New Zealanders, guess what! It’s the children in those households that are the most affected. So when we say 15,000 more children in benefit-dependent homes, they clearly don’t care about it. So instead, they talk about this transformation of the welfare State. Where is that transformation, Associate Minister for Social Development? Where is the transformation of the welfare State? This is a campaign of truth and honesty.

Three out of 42 recommendations. So, you know, a group of very hard-working New Zealanders that participated in that advisory group—one of the 300 working groups, by the way—put a huge amount of effort into making recommendations, and the Government accepted three. So it ain’t going to change any time soon.

So, unfortunately, we have more New Zealanders who are stuck in poverty because they can’t get a job. These are New Zealanders that, you know, they want to work, but, actually, when they go into Work and Income, because there’s all these new case managers, they can go for three months with not one conversation with someone from Work and Income about getting a job. That is disgraceful—that is absolutely disgraceful. So the caseworkers—

💬 Hon Poto Williams: Prove it.

Actually, it’s in the Ministry of Social Development’s own statistics and answers in terms of employment engagements. It’s called a written parliamentary question. If that member opposite, who is a Minister, Associate Minister for Social Development, doesn’t believe the written parliamentary questions that her own department is providing, how is that a campaign of truth and honesty? I ask you that. How is this a campaign of truth and honesty if the Minister herself doesn’t have confidence in the answers that are given to members opposite whose job it is to hold the Government to account? Oh, but, actually, we’re not allowed to ask questions about the 27,000 extra people who now have to ask for support because they can’t get a job—they can’t get a job; 27,000 more people. I’m particularly interested in young people who don’t have those opportunities: 7,000 more people under the age of 25—7,000. That’s a crime. That is a crime of lost opportunity. National knows what you need to create jobs, give people opportunities, and give them the ability to be in the driver’s seat of their own lives, making their own choices, looking after their—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. We accept the politics that we think we deserve, and it’s becoming kind of obvious that it’s election year. As somebody inside this House, I must say that I can absolutely empathise with members of the public who see the kind of argy-bargy that goes on in this place and decide to turn away. In fact, oftentimes when we’re sat in here and we look up at the public gallery and we look at the faces of young people, school children, it becomes immediately obvious that the behaviour that transpires here would not be acceptable in classrooms across the country. So it, therefore, feels somewhat quite far removed from the supposed solutions that we in this House are empowered to create.

This is a House of Representatives. I’m very earnest and talk about this all time, but I think it is important that we do reflect on the fact that all of the 120 seats in this place are a representation of the votes of New Zealanders. Of a possible more than 3.2 million New Zealanders, only 2.6 million of those New Zealanders decided to vote in 2017. Those more than half a million New Zealanders could have changed everything. So I really want to drive home that we accept the politics that we think we deserve.

The Greens believe that all New Zealanders deserve a home—and by that, I don’t just mean four walls and a roof over your head; it is more than just a warm, dry, stable place to rest your head. Home is somewhere where you can put down your roots, where you can create your history. Home is where you can walk or cycle through the streets in safety any time of the day because you know your neighbours, because everybody has enough to get by, and because there is an unashamedly proud, humble, and shared sense of community. Home is enough shared kai for everyone, a space to test ideas and to communicate difference of opinion respectfully. Home is where you build opportunities on a solid foundation of belonging. It is where you raise and educate your kids. It is the trees that you point out as have being yay high when you were a kid, that have grown as you have. It is the soundtrack of native birds—our birds that don’t exist anywhere else in the world—that emphasise the beauty of quiet moments. Home is the legacy that we create to hand down to the next generation. Our tamariki and their tamariki are entitled to clean water, to fresh air, to a stable climate, and to locally produced food, as much as they will eventually be entitled to grandma’s earrings.

Our home is Aotearoa New Zealand. Our home was founded nearly 160 years ago when tangata whenua signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which notably was a rather different document to the Treaty of Waitangi that was put forward by the colonial English. These two very distinct architects had different blueprints in mind for the house that we would build, and we haven’t done a sterling job at reconciling either of those plans in the century and a half since. That fundamental blunder has meant a number of New Zealanders—largely tangata whenua Māori—weren’t factored into the design of this House. But the political pendulum has swung between building a longer table and removing seats in a punitive game of musical chairs. We are a richer country than we have ever been, but that wealth and access to it is more unequal than ever.

When New Zealanders turn to opt out of the political scenarios that are unfolding before their very eyes, they give this silly business—which turns into unequal access and opportunities within our home—permission to continue. As Margaret Mead put it, “Never doubt a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; [because] indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

I’m incredibly proud of the work that our small but mighty caucus of eight Green MPs of 120 in this place have achieved. Not everyone yet has the home that the Greens believe all New Zealanders in Aotearoa New Zealand deserve. It is a home worth fighting for. The decision to build it rests in the hands of New Zealanders come this September with the general election. I implore New Zealanders who are unhappy with the status quo to muck in, because they have the opportunity to choose the politics that they deserve. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Following my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, I wanted to talk about my reflections on this, the beginning of my ninth year as a representative in this House. I thought back to my maiden speech, and I recalled that one of the major factors that led to me putting my name forward to stand for Parliament, and to come to this place, was an absolute belief that democracy is possible and that this place should be a place that solves problems on behalf of all of our citizens and residents here in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is entirely possible that we can have constructive, meaningful debate that reflects the many shared values and differing interests of all the people who live in this country.

Like many other countries in the world, and as my colleague has pointed out, there is, perhaps, a sense that people are losing faith in their representatives and in the ability of democracy to solve the biggest challenges that we are facing. The reality is that here in Aotearoa New Zealand, like other places, there are barriers to achieving a better future; there are barriers to achieving equality and that fundamental right that, I think we would all agree, all humans have to a warm, healthy, affordable home; to clean water; to sustainably produced healthy, nutritious food; to a future that is not going to be marred by climate chaos that is increasing.

We could have transport systems that enable us to get around our communities in ways that don’t rely on fossil fuels, that don’t take up so much land, that don’t result in congestion, and that lead to happier, healthier communities. We know this is possible. We’ve seen it happen in many, many other places. Even here in Aotearoa, where we’ve invested in great public transport, people use it; where we have safe, separated cycleways, people use it; where we have had, in the past, investment in State homes, it has made a difference and we have reduced homelessness.

And, of course, this Government has taken steps to address some of these challenges, but the truth is that we need to go further and faster. The major barriers that I see to us achieving this incredible vision, which, I think, almost all New Zealanders would agree with, are twofold. One is a kind of belief that things are this way because they have to be this way and they couldn’t possibly be different. I see that we’re constantly defending the status quo and that there’s a bit of a fear of change.

But the second barrier is much more insidious, and that is that the people who profit from the injustice and the pollution that we have in the status quo are putting money into campaigns to protect their privilege. The thing that helps them most is not just the money and the power that they exert; it’s actually that they perpetuate this belief that things cannot be changed, that these people here in this House are not here to represent the ordinary person, that they don’t have the ability to participate in this system of governance, to make decisions collectively for all of us, and decisions that will benefit all of us.

I believe there’s an alternative. I do. I believe that we can change in a way that is going to lead to a multitude of benefits and we can have much more constructive and productive dialogue in this place. The reality is that this preference towards the status quo, and the people who profit from it, is damaging nature, it’s stealing the future of young people with climate change, and it is leading to an increasingly divided population. Here in Aotearoa and overseas, we can see this happening because people have been marginalised and excluded, they don’t have enough to make ends meet, they can’t respond to the problems that we are facing. [Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: That was my fault. I hit the—take about a minute.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. So how do we do this? How do we fix this? Well, firstly, we need people to get involved. If you believe that things can be better, if you believe in protecting nature, if you believe in a fair and equal society, get involved in this political system. We need your voice, we need your vote, and we need you to be involved.

Secondly, we need to work together to solve our collective problems. We have to recognise that those politicians who promise more of what we’ve always had, and who will deliberately set out with attack ads that mislead and breed fear and division in our population, must be ignored. They must lose in the political fight that we’re going to have for the election. We need to say that is not what we want. Don’t give in to fear. We are a community who can work together to solve our problems. Don’t believe those who will tell you that it’s farmers versus urbanites, that it’s younger people versus older people, or that it’s the rich versus the poor. The reality is that too few people benefit from our current system, and together we can change it.

Before I begin my speech, I seek the indulgence to be able to just acknowledge the passing away of Tofilau Kerupi Tavita. The reason I acknowledge him is that he put a petition into this House in 2018, and it was in regards to the name of Jesus being removed from the prayer. I just want to acknowledge he has passed away, unfortunately. He was a champion, and when he championed the cause, it wasn’t just from a religious perspective that he had—he’s a Christian man—it was from a principled perspective. I want to acknowledge that, for a number of years, he championed this and asked that others would stand up for this.

On a number of occasions he would talk about the reasons why, because he was questioned that it’s just a name. Some of the replies would come back that—he reminded us that in 1854, on 24 May, when the Parliament was first constituted, actually up in Auckland, not in Wellington at that time, the very first debate was actually about the prayer, and it talked about putting all personal interests aside, talked about the peace and prosperity of this nation, and it ended off “in Jesus’ name”. And so hence the reasons why he felt that was important as well.

The conversation was also too—I know the Hon Peeni Henare will know this—that in 1840, when Henry Williams, the missionary, was commissioned to translate Te Tiriti o Waitangi at that time from English to Māori, and Māori to English, he referred to the book of Ephesians 2:14-18, in the New Testament, where it talked about the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile being brought down but by the blood of Christ, on the cross of Christ. And so the word “kawenata” was the word “covenant”, and we will hear many times the word “kawenata”. It’s a covenant relationship; it’s a sacred relationship. And it’s the sacredness about the reasons why he protested, and wanted others to protest, about the name of Jesus being removed from the prayer.

So, I thank you for allowing me to acknowledge him as champion for that. Because of that, I think that’s also raised a number of issues. When people have said, “So what will be the hallmark not only of this Government but also too the conversations throughout the election period of time?” And often it will be the word “competence”, but I think it will be the word “values”. What is it that we value most?

I remember being up in Waitangi this year and speaking to some of the kaumātua, and one of the words they said, the comments they said, was this: “Alfred, there was a time when you could shake the hand of another man, you could look into their eye, and you knew that their word was their bond.” Their word was their bond, and it’s a word called “trust”. What we hear out at the moment, and I want to refer to that, is that can we trust not only our politicians but can we trust the current Government? And, from a number of people, what they’re saying to us—and I’ll refer to it because I’ve already started—up at Waitangi, they sort of said, “Well, can we trust this current Government?” There was a lot of unease; there was a lot of talk about the things that had been promised—there are a lot of promises about the fact that this is the largest number of Māori Ministers in the whole history of the New Zealand Parliament of 165 years. It is something to be celebrated, absolutely. But it’s one thing to get there; it’s another thing to do the business, and again, to shake the hand, look in the eye, and be trusted. Can they be trusted to deliver?

I was asked about the difference that National makes. So what is the difference? You might want to listen up there, Marja Lubeck. The difference is this word: mana motuhake. Mana motuhake means self-determination. In other words, it’s giving power to the people, not power to the State—power to the people. So when we talk about that—

💬 Hon Member: Tino rangatiratanga.

That’s right—tino rangatiratanga. It has the elements of that, right? It’s power to the people, enforcing the ability for people to choose. Then they said to me, “So what is the record that National could hold up with?” Well, we had the unveiling of Dame Whina Cooper, who was also too a champion, a person who could be trusted. She was also the president of the Māori Women’s Welfare League. But when did that begin? Under a National Government in 1951, in granting $1 million, under Sid Holland, to the league to establish the Māori Women’s Development Fund. Te Wānanga o Raukawa, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—1981 and 1993—under a National Government. Why? Because it gives power in the hands of the people—in this case, to Māori—to make the decision to do what they should do. The establishment of Te Māngai Pāho in 1994, the establishment of the Māori Television Trust, and even funds for the community-based Māori language initiatives in 1998; this is what you call putting trust in the hands of the people—mana motuhake, tino rangatiratanga—in other words, empowerment to the people. That is not what is being seen in our country today. That is not what is being seen. Why? Because this Government is about a socialist ideology. It’s “power to the State” not “power to the people”. And for them to keep saying that they are the people’s party, that is not true—that is not true. Why? Because, under this Government and under its history, there have been more things that have been achieved, even if we talk about it.

Let’s talk about Whānau Ora, and the only reason I talk about that is that it was raised with me over there. I have to say—I think the Minister is here today in the House—one of the things they held up was this: the Whānau Ora outcomes framework that was developed in 2015. It was a partnership agreement that was agreed above all. Here’s what they said: you might as well throw that away—because, unfortunately, under this coalition Government, they have thrown it away. They’ve decided to do something else, something new. The promises that were made have not been delivered. The $20 million that we said there—and I’m only quoting the people that were there; I’m only quoting the people that were there—there was an unrest because they don’t believe that they can continue to trust a Government that says one thing and does another. This is really important.

This speech is about the Prime Minister’s speech and the Prime Minister’s statement, but what the Prime Minister has started to hide behind is around some of the issues that I think are critically important, and that’s in regards to the referendum around legalising recreational marijuana. Let’s not confuse it with cannabis. It’s marijuana. That’s what it is, right? I just Māori-fied it there a bit! It’s marijuana. Whatever you want to call it—weed? Right? The thing is this: this Government has prided itself on saying that they’ve spent $700 million to address the issues of mental health. We just heard Alex Berenson. It’s unfortunate that Chlöe Swarbrick didn’t come there. She would have heard some evidence that tells the truth.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Research him, though!

Research it. That’s right. That’s what you should do—Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence. It’s a lie to pretend the fact is that this is all good. The old days of the Woodstock that maybe, I don’t know, the honourable members over there, Phil Twyford and so forth—that Woodstock sort of cannabis; that’s not the sort of cannabis we’re talking about. This is the sort of stuff where the THC levels back then were 12 percent. We’re talking about 80 to 90 percent. This is the sort of drug that, if we unleash it upon our community and our society, it will do more harm than good. I ask the members on the other side: let your conscience speak. Let the voice of the people speak. Let them tell you this: this is bad, this is wrong, this referendum. You can hold your hands—I think that’s a prayer. You keep praying. You keep praying so that you will hear the truth. This is what the fact is.

Evidence shows that there’s a hidden epidemic around violence. The States that have legalised marijuana have shown that it makes a difference. I ask that the members on the other side would have their conscience heard. Let them see the truth. The truth is that this is all wrong. This is all bad. But you’ve sold yourself into the lie—you’ve sold yourself into the lie—and here’s what Alex Berenson said: the THC levels cause psychosis; psychosis causes violence. If we allow this referendum to go through, if we sugar-coat it to make it say it’s going to be great, that there’s going to be less people going into prison, less people going to courts, that it’s good for the young people, that’s a lie. We should reveal it for what it is—we should reveal it for what it is. It’s all bad for this country.

The Prime Minister was also wanting to hide behind what’s about to be unleashed—a very, very important bill which I think is significant to this nation, and that is the abortion law reform bill. I know it’s a conscience bill. There are different views in this House, but that cannot be hidden. I want to speak for those that are out there. Over 25,000 submissions were made, and 96 percent opposed this bill. Why? Because it is unsafe—it is unsafe. So I again ask those on the other side to be wary, be concerned, and seek the evidence that will tell you what the truth is. It’s not about a moral situation. It’s not about a moral view. It’s about the evidence of whether it’s going to be safe in our country. There will be many others—this cannot be hidden—and I’ll be one of those who’ll be speaking out against this, and I hope that others will continue to stand and say that this is wrong.

I know that there is a Supplementary Order Paper that’s coming, in the name of Darroch Ball, which says that there should be a referendum. I hope there is. I hope that he will push hard enough, because I know that those who will vote for this bill will find that this liberalisation will cause more harm to those who have a disability, those who are discriminated against, and those who are vulnerable. This Prime Minister can no longer stand in this House and around this country and say that she stands for those who are vulnerable, for those children, because what she’s allowing to happen through the legalising of recreational marijuana, the abortion law reforms—these things are not good. Why? Because when you shake the hand of another person and look them in the eye, they should be able to say that they trust each other. Your word is your bond.

Let the people have their say. That’s what we just heard from the last speaker: let the people have their say. And did they have their say at the last election? Yes, they did. And that is why that speaker is over there and that is why we are over here. And that’s why the people of New Zealand are enjoying an economy that has 2.7 percent growth—more growth than the USA, more growth than Australia, more growth than Canada, and more growth than Japan—and more than many other OECD countries. And what does that side have to say about it? They have a whinge. They are whingers. They’ve been whingers from the day after the election and they are whingers now. Nothing has changed—negative Nats. And how’s that working for them? The best they can come up with is a 10-minute sermon on things that people don’t care about.

They have an opportunity to have to speak about the Prime Minister’s statement. Here it is—pages of what this Government is doing and what this Government’s vision is for this country. And what have they been doing today? Whingeing—whingeing. They have been pretending that New Zealanders do not remember the nine years that they were in Government. They are pretending—when you look at the likes of Nikki Kaye, who stood up today and talked about education and made it sound like they were the same saviours of our students, despite the fact that there were 214 overcrowded schools under their Government and there were nearly 500 classes at risk of being overcrowded.

They are not the saviours of education. They are the threat to education and the facts back it up. Compare their record to the record of this Government here—this Government that has been in for 2½ years and has built 726 new classrooms.

💬 Jan Tinetti: 726?

Yes, 726. So compare that with overcrowded classrooms and students and schoolchildren learning in libraries and learning in gymnasiums. I’ve lost count of the number of schools that I have visited in Wairarapa, and they’ve shown me what was their library but is now their new-entrants class because the previous Government did not invest in education. I am proud to be part of a Government that values education and has a fully funded plan for expansion and for catering for the expansion of population. Fully funded—isn’t that an important word, or phrase, I should say: fully funded. We’ve heard a lot of talk about what they would have done and what they could have done if they’d got in. They said they’d do a lot, but they didn’t back it up by funding it. And they accuse us of empty promises. What is the point of saying you’re going to do something if you don’t back it up with funding?

We hear a similar theme under health. We have heard reports of sewage running down the walls in our largest hospital in the country. And they stand there and claim that they were the Government of health. What a load of rot. There was $2.3 billion worth of funding stripped from the health budget in real terms. They claim that they funded health. What a load of rubbish. They say that they funded it every year, more and more and more. Yet why did we as a Government inherit a situation where people were screaming out for health treatment? The reality was that they were all rhetoric.

And now, instead of standing here and offering solutions to the big challenges that we face in this country—because, of course, waiting lists didn’t grow in two years. All the challenges that we’re facing and addressing as this Government are the effect of the previous nine years of Government. And what do they do? They have a whinge. This is despite the fact that 1,500 nurses have been funded in 2½ years of this Government. Six hundred doctors have been funded in 2½ years. What happened in nine years?

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Nothing.

That’s a good answer—nothing. And the same can be said for housing. Here we are in a situation where there are thousands of people on waiting lists all around the country. This is not a new phenomenon. Yet under this Government, we have built more State houses than we’ve seen in generations. How do we compare this to the previous record of the previous Government? We built them. They sell them. They sold State houses. And then they have the gall to stand up and criticise this Government for not doing anything for the homeless. What a cheek. If that previous Government built houses at the same rate that this Government is, we would not have a housing crisis. That is a fact. And the fact is also that they are sitting there and looking at their papers and their laptops, not saying anything because they know it’s the truth. They know that they refused for nine years to accept that there was a housing crisis, believing that the market would sort it out. Well, it’s because of this belief—this belief in the trickle-down, which was debunked generations ago—that we’re facing the issue that we’ve got.

And, of course, I mentioned the economy earlier. We have growth rates that would be the envy of many OECD countries. We have 4 percent unemployment—the lowest rate in over a decade. And what do they do? They whinge. They keep whinging because, of course, their plan is better—if you talk to them. What a load of rubbish. What did their plan deliver us in terms of employment? Where was their scheme, like Mana in Mahi, that was going to get people off the dole and into apprenticeships? If they have the gall to say that they are the party of apprenticeships, I have a question: when we had the largest rebuild in the country after the Christchurch earthquake, where were the Government-sponsored schemes to ensure that the people working on those rebuilds got apprenticeships? None. Nothing—because the market would have sorted it out. There was a prime opportunity for them to say to these large companies that took on Government contracts, “Yep, good as gold. You do the building that we need you to do. But here’s an idea. How about for every three or four migrant workers that you bring in to rebuild Christchurch, you just take on an apprentice?” It’s not much to ask. Nothing—and it put us back for years. This Government is doing something about it.

What is their solution? The promise of tax cuts—the promise of tax cuts. We’ve been here before. Here they were, throughout the last year, saying we should have done tax cuts. They said, “Last election, if we got elected, we would’ve cut taxes.” And here we are again. Yet they were also saying, when we were in negotiation with the teachers, “We would’ve cut taxes. Oh, but we would have paid you more. We would have cut taxes. We would have paid the nurses more. We’re going to cut taxes. We’re going to spend more than Labour, National, New Zealand First, and the Greens on roading.” What a joke. You can’t have it both ways. That’s what I’d put to them. You can’t promise tax cuts and also promise to spend more, unless you cut services. So what are they going to cut?

💬 Hon Poto Williams: What services are they cutting?

They don’t know. Simon Bridges, the leader of the National Party, stood up there, under much fanfare, and said that he was going to cut taxes. Righto, good as gold. The next question that the media asked was “What are you going to cut?” “Oh, dunno. Haven’t really thought that through.” That’s in the next announcement. Righto. So, all right; they’ve sort of talked about the Provincial Growth Fund. They’ve called that a slush fund. So are they going to cut that? Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are going to go around the Wairarapa electorate and say they’ll cut the $950,000 put towards the youth in education and employment—things like that. Perhaps they’re going to say that the money we put in to make sure that 6,000 fewer trucks travel over the Remutaka hill to Wellington carrying logs will be cut—“It’s not going to go on rail because that’s the Provincial Growth Fund and that’s a slush fund, and we’re going to cut that.” Are they going to go around the Wairarapa electorate and say that the dark sky reserve can get their money taken off them? The Wairarapa primary sector skills development scheme—their money’s gone. What about the $400,000 dollars put into the Dannevirke rail hub, or the upgrade of the Route 52? See you later—and all to pay for $20 a week tax cuts.

If you think I’m pulling numbers out of the sky, I do wonder why their spokesperson on finance went on to Radio New Zealand and talked about the figure of 20 bucks and then swiftly back-pedalled. He said 20 bucks, and then he said, “Oh, woops. Uh—oh, shivers. No, no—I didn’t actually mean 20 bucks.” So what is it, a couple of bucks? Where’s the detail? They’re promising a lot and delivering nothing. I would like to see—I would like to see—them go to their supposed support base in Wairarapa and say, “In order to give you guys a $20 a week tax cut, we’re going to take away the $7.11 million that this Government has put into the water scheme.”

They say that they are the Government for farmers, yet I’d put this to you: on page 6 and 7 on the Prime Minister’s statement, she dedicates to farming, agriculture, and rural communities. Here’s a question for you: how many times did Simon Bridges, the leader of the National Party, mention rural communities, regional economies, or farmers? None—not once. He stands up there and screams at this Government about non-delivery for the regions. The Prime Minister dedicates two pages of her statement to them, we have numerous examples of this Government investing in regional economies, and they stand there and don’t even mention it. Yet again, that side of the House is taking rural economies and rural people for granted. We are the Government that is delivering for rural economies. We are the Government that is investing to make sure that people have real jobs with decent conditions on the back of a strong economy that is the envy of the world.

So I’m proud to stand up here in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. I’d rather be a winner than a whinger.

I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.