General Debate

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

Well, we’ve been spending a lot of time talking about MPs’ jobs this week, and it’s time we started talking about the jobs of people who really matter, and that’s the New Zealanders—the 200,000 New Zealanders who are now receiving an unemployment benefit, or what we call now a jobseeker benefit, and the 200,000, as well, construction workers who’ve had to receive the wage subsidy while they’ve been waiting for this Government to turn up with their shovel-ready projects list—the list; release the list, Government.

And is this list even ready? Well, according to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, yes, it is. This is what he said to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce yesterday in answer to a question about it: “Well, look, I do appreciate your question. I have the list, the whole lot. Why they are not telling you, I don’t know, but I’m going to go back and find out. How can you tender if you don’t know?” He’s right. That’s my answer. How could you tender by region when you have got the whole list, pages of the stuff? “You send me an email today, and I will ask.” Did he ask? No, he did not. We have got no list. Release the list, Mr Peters. Release the list, Prime Minister. Release the list.

We’ve got contractors all over the country waiting, waiting, for this work to begin. We’ve got councils waiting, waiting. They put together those councils—remember when Phil Twyford and Shane Jones put together a request to the councils: “Come up with your shovel-ready projects, we’ll get them going, we’ll fund them.” Remember that? You’ve got two weeks to do it all, all just after lockdown; 1 April was the announcement, and what’s happened since then? Nothing. Now—nothing. The councils put it all together in two weeks. Three months later, we’re still waiting. Even Mr Peters can’t produce a list, although apparently he’s going to get it one day. He’s going to ask for it and he’s going to get it. But he is right on this: it’s not possible for contractors to plan their work, to employ people, to keep people employed if the Government does not release the list. The Government must release the list. We have got councils all over the country, all these people, these contractors, employees, all waiting for the work to begin.

On a very serious note, the wage subsidy ends just before the election—just before the election. Why wait before just before the election to let people know what is actually happening with these construction projects? Why won’t the Government release the list? What is it that they’ve got to hide?

Instead, we’ve got a dribble of little projects that the Government wants to announce by ministerial visit.

💬 Hon Member: That’s right; Shane Jones is dribbling.

Shane Jones has admitted it. There’s a great thing with Shane Jones, he’s so used to admitting it, he just keeps admitting it. Now he has admitted that he’s the one who’s going to announce all these by way of ministerial visit. Actually, the people of New Zealand deserve better than that. They deserve better. They want to know: where are these projects? When are they starting? Where is the money? Why don’t they have the work now?

Because, all joking aside, this Parliament is the Parliament of New Zealand—who, by the way, these New Zealanders, are looking at mass unemployment. We already have 200,000 people unemployed—200,000 people unemployed. Another 200,000 construction workers have had to receive a wage subsidy, and they want work. They’re skilled people, highly skilled people. They are people who could be picked up anywhere in the world because they’re so valuable to us. We all know, as a country that we have to build infrastructure—well, apart from the Greens, because they don’t think you do; as long as it’s a cycleway, it’s all they’re interested in.

We know that we can agree in Parliament that we need infrastructure. So where is the list? Release the list, Government. Release the list. Even let the Rt Hon Winston Peters have his list. Where is the list? What is it that they’re hiding? Why can’t New Zealanders know about this list? Where is the list? Release the list. Release a list of the contractors, release it to the councils, release it so that people can work. Stop this mass unemployment now. Help New Zealanders get back into work. Release the list.

That was a speech 18 years in the making that we’ve all been waiting for, and what it came down to was “Release the list because people want to know if they have a job.” I think this was an echo of the National Party caucus meeting on Tuesday. Where is their party list? Who’s left with a job after what we’re going to see in only a few weeks’ time? “Release the list”—we are only a few weeks out from a general election while New Zealand sits at a crossroads where there are such important issues at stake, and that is what the brand newly minted Leader of the Opposition has to say in her first general debate speech: “Release the list.” Was it a blueprint for an alternative vision for this country? No. It was “Release the list.”

Well, I’ve got some news for the Leader of the Opposition. Let’s talk about what this Government is getting on and doing. While the party on the other side has been obsessed with itself over the last weeks, we look at just one small part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. Let’s have a look at what we’re spending in our local communities through our schools: 2,488 projects are under way in our school upgrade programme; $249 million worth of work is under way. When I’m in my local electorate, I talk to local tradies who are talking about the contracts they are getting at their local school and how this is so important to keeping their businesses afloat.

But I think this is a time for reflection. On this side of the House, we are incredibly proud of a Prime Minister that has led a decisive health response that saved lives and set us up for an economic recovery. Our rebuild plan is already in motion, and we are already creating jobs. We are going in the right direction, and it is important that we keep moving in that direction. We are committed to making sure that we are standing up for New Zealanders, just as we did when we put New Zealanders first to make sure that we were protecting their health. Well, we had baying from the opposite side that we were being too extreme, that we should be doing X, we should be doing Y. We stayed a course, and we stayed a course under a Prime Minister who understands what leadership is about, a Prime Minister that understands what her responsibilities are to this country. Not only did she keep us safe in terms of our health but this has set ourselves up as a country with the most economic and social freedoms of any country in the world, and that is a position that we will protect. That is a position that we are protecting through our managed isolation facilities. We are keeping COVID out of our communities. We are keeping it at the border by making sure we are working in systematic and managed ways to ensure the security of those borders.

What we have is an Opposition that is full of rhetoric. What we have is an Opposition that is continuing what they did in Government, releasing an idea in a press release. They are untested, uncosted—ghost roads yet again. When they talk about what the economic plan is, it is very much reverting to type and ghost roads. The first cab off the rank was a road, the second cab off the rank was a road, and the third cab off the rank was another set of roads. But let’s have a look at this. They are cutting Auckland Transport’s funding by not identifying which projects will go. So how about you release that list, Opposition? How about you tell Aucklanders which projects—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

—are going to be cut? The axe is hanging over projects like SkyPath. These are the things that will create jobs. What we have is an Opposition that is assuming that the New Zealand Transport Agency will borrow a billion dollars a year, and they are raiding the COVID fund and putting our futures at risk. On this side of the House, let’s keep moving.

That speech was the most excellently delivered load of self-congratulatory drivel I have ever heard. Unbelievable! Unbelievable! An attack on the Leader of the Opposition for wanting to create jobs for New Zealanders, and then the suggestion that that wasn’t the highest priority for any Government at the present time. That is a speech that only had one salient point in it. Release the list because New Zealanders need to know what is in that list of 800 projects that could save jobs. What is in the list of projects that Shane Jones and Winston Peters—maybe—and a number of others, in that Government will be going around the countryside announcing over the next couple of weeks, waiting for their time to use taxpayer money to announce a job that will create jobs just for campaign purposes.

There are 200,000 New Zealanders—plus—on the jobseeker allowance now. There are more who cannot get on the jobseeker allowance, even though they’re out of work, because their partner is still in work. There are more still who’ve lost part-time work, and casual work is all but gone. Then, just in the construction sector, 200,000 New Zealanders are receiving the wage subsidy, but that all comes off very shortly. What happens then? There might have been a chance to retain that skill base, to keep it moving, to keep it working if there was a better plan delivered from the Government, if some of the projects that they are spouting great support for were actually put into place so that they can deliver those jobs.

What have they done so far out of the 800? Thirty, just 30 projects. And the Prime Minister stands in the House and says, “Oh, that’s only just a little bit of it. Look what we did in January. Look what we’ve done in education. Look what we’ve done around health.” Well, what they’ve done is make big, big announcements and no action to follow, because if everything was all right, we wouldn’t have 200,000 construction workers on the wage subsidy. We wouldn’t have the industry leaders—in their entirety—coming out to say that there is a problem, that it’s causing stress; that businesses will have to slow down, businesses will have to close down aspects of their business, and businesses will put people off. Meantime, if you’ve got a bit of spare time, write to the Deputy Prime Minister and tell him that you love nature and are quite interested in the Antarctic. You might get a trip! You might get to post pictures on your social media!

Well, at least it keeps a few people in work trying to find a way to get the Official Information Act responses out that tell you nothing. This idea that there can be a slowness to those shovel-ready projects is a complete disgrace. So many New Zealanders would have gone to work this morning wondering if their job will be there tomorrow, or next week, or the week after, or when the wage subsidy ends.

That’s not a country that is going to have a population enthused about its future. It’s a country where there is fear—not only for the loss of jobs because of the retraction in the economy—but now, it would appear, well that’s how many New Zealand First people will get back if they get anywhere near winning a seat, because that’s the only way they’ll get back. There is fear, also, that apparently we could have some regional shutdowns in the very near future. How cynical is that? How cynical is that—to be saying to New Zealand, what a great job everyone’s done on the COVID-19 stuff, but don’t look at the economy. Don’t look at that. Look at the tree over there. There’s a squirrel running up it. In that squirrel is the possibility of some of the country being locked down again, some regions being shut down, all sorts of other things being done. But then, of course, we’re told that if we want to prevent community outbreak, we should have the app in place. We should all be wandering around telling the Government where we are, what we’re doing, who we’re seeing.

Well, I think that that is a Government over there that is taking a hugely cynical view of the New Zealand voter. Taking all the time they want to come up with the programmes they say are funded; coming up with just 30 out of 800—800 out of the thousands that were put forward by local bodies, but only 30 of them are out so far. That is not the basis to go to the electorate. This is a country where people—New Zealanders—are not cynics, and they will see through that.

Gerry Brownlee forgot the first job of a deputy leader, which is don’t overshadow the leader in her first big speech. Mind you, Judith Collins set the bar pretty low, something that we’ve of course come to expect from Judith Collins in all of her endeavours in this House.

National’s running on the campaign platform of them being the best party to deliver. Of course, they made Gerry Brownlee their deputy leader, and the people of Christchurch know that Gerry Brownlee can’t deliver anything. Gerry Brownlee has demonstrated one thing: his commitment to restoring the Canterbury Plains in the middle of the CBD! As far as you can see, from eye to eye, you see flat land in the Canterbury CBD thanks to Gerry Brownlee’s rebuild efforts. Years on after the earthquake, the people of Christchurch are still waiting for those big projects; Gerry Brownlee promised them and didn’t deliver any of them.

I can tell you, around the Christchurch schools rebuild, this Government, in three years, has put more new money into that than National did in nine. If you take out the insurance money and the money they would have got anyway, we’ve put more money into rebuilding Christchurch schools than they did. That says everything about their commitment to the people of Christchurch. So if they’re going to run on the platform of being the party that delivers, and they’re going to have Gerry Brownlee as their deputy leader during that campaign, I say bring it on, because their record speaks for itself.

And then, of course, we had Gerry Brownlee running down the prospect of there being a further outbreak of COVID-19. Now, I know Gerry doesn’t read the news, but he should look on the telly at what’s happening around the rest of the world and he will see that while we live in tranquillity here in New Zealand because of our collective efforts, around the rest of the world it is a very, very different story. COVID-19 grows by the day around the world. The total number of cases that existed in the world when we went to level 4 is now the number of new cases we see around the world every single day. There is no room for complacency and there is no room to loosen up the very tight control measures we put in place to stop COVID-19 coming into the country.

I say that to everybody who might have heard Shane Reti’s first contribution on Radio New Zealand, the day after he became their health spokesperson, where he reiterated their commitment to reopening the borders for—among other things—international students. Now, I want to see international students back in the country when we’re able to safely do so, but I’m not going to put the overall health and wellbeing of New Zealanders at risk in the process of doing that. One of the worst things we could do for our country is rush to reopen the border—as the National Party have consistently argued over the last couple of months—and put the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders at risk. The best thing we can do for our economy is lock in the gains that we have made by stamping out COVID-19, and there is one party in Parliament that wants to put all of that at risk. It’s the party opposite, it’s the National Party, who have been very clear they would throw away the gains that we have made, and that is not something that members on this side of the House are willing to do.

We will bring the same focus to the rebuild of our economy that we brought to fighting the virus in the first place. We’ll keep the people in work, as we did through the wage subsidies, but we will invest in our people as well. After the global financial crisis, we saw tens of thousands of apprentices being laid off and for the next decade we suffered the consequences of that as we saw skill shortages that the members opposite, in Government, were more than happy to fill through skilled migrant labour rather than training New Zealanders. We will not make that mistake here. We will invest in our people as we have done with apprenticeship subsidies, with extra investment in vocational education and training, so that we can not only keep Kiwis in work but we can get them back into work quickly when they find themselves out of work, and so that we can, as the economy recovers, ramp up the building and construction projects without the reliance on migrant workers that the last Government were so hooked on. We will make sure that we are putting Kiwis back to work. That is what New Zealanders can expect from this side of the House.

The same level of focus that we put into the health response, we will put into the rebuild response, and it is clear that New Zealanders are up for that journey. Our team of 5 million has done an incredible job of fighting COVID-19. Now our team of 5 million needs to band together and continue to rebuild New Zealand in the wake of it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to follow a caretaker health Minister who replaced a caretaker health Minister. I challenge the Minister: when he said that we need to have no room for complacency, answer the question I asked him in the oral question section, when I said to him, “Are you using the QR app at every single QR stop?” And furthermore, when we’re having that discussion, go back through the Official Information Act request that Stuff put to all 20 Cabinet ministers—have you asked them the same question? Is Cabinet using this Government app and are they signing in at every—we’ll hold you to that. I can see the Minister nodding his head. We will hold you to that. Every Cabinet Minister is using the New Zealand COVID Tracer app and signing in at every single poster stop. I doubt that, but we shall see.

I want to talk about the app and I want to put on record, first of all, and say we want to help and we believe there is a health information technology (HIT) component to improving the coronavirus response. We absolutely believe that. We did in the very beginning. The problem has been several-fold. First of all, the development of the app and its very late deployment—way past the time we were at the peak of our infectious cases. We have to ponder back and say, well, why was that? Why was that, when purportedly the Prime Minister was having conversations with Australia and with Singapore? Why was that, when large companies approached me and said, “Dr Reti, we’ll give this to the Government”—not small firms—“we’ll give this to the Government free of charge?” This was early March, early April, and the Government never took it up.

They never took that up, but what they did take up—if you look at the copyright to the New Zealand COVID Tracer app, you see two teams, the Ministry of Health and the Privacy Commission, and then two individuals, David Britten, a 24-year-old PhD student who actually did a prototype on the QR scan first of all, and Alan Chew, who built the core app. Both of them were ready in early April. The ministry approached Alan Chew in early April, when he offered it free, and took it up. They heard nothing more from then onwards until about six weeks later, when finally it was deployed. When they saw what their work had turned into, they were aghast. The shape and functions of the app was nothing that they had given to the ministry. I mean no disrespect to the team of developers inside the ministry, but sometimes you need to collaborate with professional expertise outside, and that did not happen. Well, one of the developers who wrote the core of the code said, “I am of the view that the app is entirely insufficient for businesses to meet their contact tracing obligations”. What a lost opportunity that was. So we can look backwards and say it was deployed too late—OK, it was.

Let’s then look at here and now. What we need is uptake and we need use. When we posed that to the Minister around the percentage of New Zealanders who have taken up the app—he avoided it here today. It is likely to be less than 10 percent. The target we need to get at is 60 percent of New Zealanders taking up the app—that will give us maximal traceability. There are benefits the lower we get, but we have to be at 50 to 60 percent, and we are way short of that.

Again, I posed the question as to why that was, and I think there is some argument to say that New Zealanders have lost some of the urgency—I get that. I understand that. But having deployed apps myself, you have to make it user-friendly. You have to say “What’s in it for me?” You have to make it easy for people to do the right thing. And it’s not clear to me that that’s happened. It’s not clear to everyone on the Google store who has rated it as one star that it’s easy to use. If you read those 1,558 reviews, they’ve all said it’s difficult to use, there were times when you were blocked, and it was hard to download. I take on board that the Prime Minister indicated that, in fact, it was three stars on iPhone. That’s only 700 reviews, so half the amount that the Google store—just so we’re dealing with facts; just saying.

When we look at experts in the area, Professor Nick Wilson from the Department of Public Health at the University of Otago, who’s been advisory to this Government on coronavirus as well, describes the uptake as being microscopic: “It’s just not working.”; “It should probably be abandoned.” I think that would be a shame. That’s not what I’m calling for. What I’m calling for is for the Government to work with us to figure out how we can make it worthwhile for New Zealanders to take up this app, first of all; secondly, how we can look at other HIT additions to this, which is primarily just a QR code. Where’s the Bluetooth technology? We’ve had people talk about smart card technology. Where is all of that? It was great discussions early on, nice to be having gentle chats with Singapore, etc., but in reality, delivering that has not happened. We think there’s a place for an HIT component to improve our coronavirus response. It’s our role to lift that corrective bar, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Today, I am going to outline the truth about the leak of my superannuation. There have been news reports about the case. The matter is not sub judice. But a source totally connected to both the ACT Party and the National Party has revealed that the leak was one Rachel Morton.

Morton heard about the case because she was present when former Minister Anne Tolley told her ministerial colleague Paula Bennett about it—not outside by the lifts, but in a ministerial office. Ms Morton then, thinking it would be kept in confidence, told ACT Party leader David Seymour, but, desperate for any sort of attention, Mr Seymour contacted Jordan Williams of the wage subsidy - receiving Taxpayers’ Union fame. Williams—no stranger to dirty politics—told John Bishop, father of National MP Chris Bishop, and the details were then leaked to Newsroom’s Tim Murphy.

Williams also told another dirty politics practitioner, National Party pollster David Farrar. Farrar tried to shut it down, seeing the risk it exposed to the National Party, but then went along anyway, although he later tried to steer the story away from National’s guilt, which is his usual modus operandi.

But Newshub wanted to control the story. Barry Soper and Newshub knew more about the story than Tim Murphy, who nevertheless tweeted about—and I quote him—“the mother of all scandals” about to break a day before the story leaked publicly. Ms Morton used to work for Newshub and Newstalk ZB. Newshub was trying its best to protect her after David Seymour tried to get the story leaked through channels not connected with Morton. Three Newshub journalists—Jenna Lynch, Lloyd Burr, and Patrick Gower—looked collectively stunned when they were told that they had burnt Ms Morton as a source. They knew they’d been tumbled.

When this was put to the Newshub reporters that it would also expose National and Jordan Williams’ dealings with Tim Murphy, one of the Newshub journalists paused and said that National were “distancing themselves” from the story, but it was an ACT-inspired hit job to damage me politically, in collaboration with a senior National Party staffer, Rachel Morton, who was the source of the leak and the source that led to Jordan Williams weaponising the information during the election campaign. Every last one of them—Morton, Seymour, Williams, Bishop, Murphy, Farrar—played dirty politics to breach my inalienable right and the inalienable right of every New Zealander to privacy.

My source also revealed that National Party members joked amongst themselves about the leak, but realised they couldn’t do anything with the “no-surprises disclosure”—their risk was too high. That, of course, didn’t prevent Ms Tolley from telling her sister, nor did it prevent 42 people being made aware of my super case. All it took was for that private information to fall into the hands of David Seymour, who craved media attention but couldn’t claim the limelight, because that would have placed a spotlight on Rachel Morton, his source.

This is what dirty politics looks like. That’s why I have brought this case on principle, at a huge cost—the principle of privacy.

The collusion between the National Party, ACT, and these grubby figures in and around politics is what turns people off politics. The characters in the story of my super leak viewed dirty politics as their religion, but it’s the worship of jackals by jackasses.

What I now know, and I didn’t know it as I went to court, is that during my court case, there were witnesses who gave evidence who knew the truth, even as they were not speaking it, and journalists—but not Barry Soper—who sat in the court who knew the truth, but printed a tissue of lies. That I now know. Shame on them, but now they’ve been exposed for what they truly are.

Maybe Mr Seymour could tell the precise circumstances in which he was told this information. Will he tell them, or will I have to? This has been a disgrace, and Mr Seymour is now outed.

I have got the witness I never had at the court. The judge said to me, “But you must tell me who did it.”, as though—with all their resources—one man against them, paying for his own costs, could be expected to do that.

Mr Seymour, I am resolved that this is day one of the truth fightback, and he is going to be in my line.

I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The member has sought leave to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, that will be the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ valedictory. And what a great valedictory it was, going out the same way he has spent his political career: fabricating things, alleging things without foundation. And the classic is always this: will Mr Peters repeat those statements outside this Chamber? And the question will be whether or not he’s prepared to walk out on to the black and white tiles and mention all the names—my dad and David Seymour and Rachel Morton and all the rest of them. Will he say it? My pick is he won’t, because it’s all very well to come in here and talk about the ferries in the 1970s and use privilege. It’s all very well to use that, but actually parliamentary privilege is a privilege. It’s called a privilege. It’s not something that can be used to deflect from real issues.

We know why it’s come about today in the general debate. The tried and true Mr Peters’ formula of turning up and reading out a long list of things under privilege and making sure that the media will speculate about it—we all know why it’s happened. It’s because of the Antarctica New Zealand story that broke this morning on Radio New Zealand (RNZ). It’s as clear as day. Forty years he’s been doing this and he will continue to do it for as long as he’s in this Parliament, and I for one hope that the good voters of New Zealand follow the voters of Tauranga and the voters of Northland at the 2017 election—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: And Hunua.

—and Hunua all the way before that, as Mr Macindoe reminds me, and cast him into political irrelevance.

That’s what we hope they do—and they’ll have an opportunity to do it on 19 September—because the Antarctica story that’s broken this morning on RNZ is very damaging. Of course it is. “Good friends” in the words of the people who went to Antarctica at the insistence of the Deputy Prime Minister’s office—or the Minister of Foreign Affairs—on a trip to Antarctica when there was only one space available and two were insistent on going, and the Prime Minister said today in Parliament they didn’t go at anyone’s expense.

I know for a fact there are people lining up around the corridors all the way around the Beehive and up Molesworth Street to go on those trips because it is Antarctica and they are a rare and precious thing and they’re extremely expensive. So this idea that, no, they didn’t go at anyone’s expense is a complete fiction. Of course they did. So that was a wonderful valedictory by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

But I want to talk in my remarks about transport, because what our leader, Judith Collins, announced on Friday was a transformational package for the upper North Island: a 20-year vision for transport in the upper North Island, decongesting our city and building expressways to Northland—that’s all the way to Northland and to Tauranga. And Grant Robertson said, “Well, if that’s all you’ve got—if all you’ve got is a vision, you know, I’d like to see what’s coming.” Well, it’s better to have a 20-year vision than to not have one. And it’s deeply ironic when the one criticism that could be levelled at this Government is that they are all about vision and they’re all about good intentions. In fact, the one thing the Prime Minister’s got going for her is at least she talks about good intentions and talks about good outcomes. So it’s richly ironic for Grant Robertson to critique a vision.

But it’s not just a vision. It’s a costed 10-year plan, a transformational project for the upper North Island: a four-lane expressway between the Far North and Tauranga. And we now know from Megan Woods’ remarks in Parliament this afternoon and Grant Robertson’s increasingly incoherent press releases on the weekend—I think there were three of them in response to our statement; not, interestingly, by the actual Minister of Transport, Phil Twyford. He was persona non grata. Like everything else in this Government, it was delegated to the one vaguely competent Minister, Grant Robertson, to respond, albeit incoherently, on the weekend.

We now know that the Labour Party is opposed to four-laning the road between Whangārei and Tauranga, connecting and bringing together some of our largest cities—2.5 million people, to make it into a dynamic and economically prosperous region. And we’re going to complete the Auckland Rapid Transit Network in Auckland. We’re going to build busways. We’re going to build rail to Auckland Airport, which Mr Peters claims to support. What’s their bizarre critique of this? “You’re letting the New Zealand Transport Agency borrow against their revenue.” You can’t do that, apparently, even though the Government’s doing that with Kāinga Ora; it’s exactly the same model. Then they say, “Oh, you’re stealing from the multi-year capital allowances in 2026.”—six years away. There’s two elections before then. And then they say, “You’re stealing from the COVID fund.” The COVID fund was set up for economic stimulus into infrastructure over the medium term in order to get jobs and growth going. So it’s a very worthwhile use of the money and we stand behind it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He tirohanga Māori tēnei: “Ka ara mai a Puanga ki te rangi”.

[This is a Māori perspective: “Puanga rises to the sky”.]

I want to put a very different spin on the debate that’s happening here today and I want to talk about, where I come from, Puanga, or to the rest of the country, Matariki. The first star in the Matariki sky are essential workers—essential workers who worked hard during the time of the COVID lockdown; the kaimahi who, in Māori terms, would be classified as ringa rōpā. They did the hard work while people stayed at home to make sure that we have the opportunity to come together again after the lockdown—that’s the first star in the sky.

The second star is the health services. Those who work in the health services right across this country: Māori health providers, hospitals, primary health organisations, many of them who got involved to make sure that (1) people were safe, (2) people were tested, and (3) those who were found to have COVID were cared for. Sadly, we lost some whānau during the COVID lockdown, we lost some whānau to COVID-19, but I want to acknowledge the second star of Matariki in the sky, and that is our health services.

The third star—and I’m quite proud of this—is Whānau Ora. Now, the first speaker in the debate today, the Hon Judith Collins, talked about: what have we delivered? I can tell you that Whānau Ora, during the time of COVID-19, this is what they delivered: over 120,000 care packs to whānau right across this country. They delivered services to well over 74,000 families in this country. They delivered those services from the Cape, all the way to the Bluff, and including Wharekauri / the Chatham Islands. That side of the House is asking us: “What has this Government delivered?” The numbers speak for themselves. Whānau Ora did that—Whānau Ora did that. What I can say is on the other side of the House, during the time of the COVID lockdown, all they delivered was 24 committee meetings—that’s it. I’m really proud of the third star in the sky, which is Whānau Ora.

The fourth star of Matariki in the sky is, of course, the 5 million New Zealanders—each and every one of us who worked hard to make sure that we stuck to the rules and we stayed home. We gave ourselves every opportunity to make sure that in the future—now we’re reaping the benefits—people from far and wide can come together to celebrate, to work hard, and also to plan for the future.

The next star in the sky—and while I know the right honourable Prime Minister will be shy that we heap praise upon her, I do want to acknowledge her. Her ability to communicate with Aotearoa during a very difficult time makes her, at least according to my view, part of the pantheon of stars of Matariki.

The next one is, of course, the infallible Dr Bloomfield, who I understand is going to be strapping on the boots in Wainuiōmata, in your home town, sir, this weekend. I challenge anyone to tackle him. I dare say that when that gentleman touches the ball, he’ll have a clear run to the line—

💬 SPEAKER: I wouldn’t trust the Weepus.

Ha, ha! The next star in the sky, of course, is small businesses. Small businesses right across this country have done it tough. We’ve tried our very best to make sure that we can invest in them to make sure that they can continue to look after their staff; that after the lockdown they can come out of it strong and resilient. We acknowledged from the beginning we weren’t going to be able to save every business, but I want to acknowledge small businesses right up and down the country.

The next star in the sky, of course—I’ve already spoken about Whānau Ora. I was about to name them twice. But, of course, the next star in the sky is our future generations. I say that because Matariki gives us a time to strategise and plan for the future, and this is where we find ourselves. We need to create a country that is far more resilient into the future, and this Government knows how to do that. We know we must invest in jobs. We know we must invest in our people. We must start preparing for the future. We’ve got to start once again continuing a package of support for small businesses. Finally, we’ve got to position ourselves globally so that we can bounce back after COVID-19.

Just finally with my civil defence hat on, I want to acknowledge the communities of Tai Tokerau and Tai Rāwhiti who have been impacted by the floods of recent days. The community resilience—and I mentioned it yesterday—our matua Mike Butler and the hard work that they do in the communities to make sure that whānau are safe during times like this. I hope that Matariki shines brightly upon them and their futures that they plan progressively for, and I want to acknowledge all of them and the whānau doing it tough during these times. Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, without question, the greatest privilege we have as members of Parliament is the parliamentary privilege afforded to us in this House and in the conducting of parliamentary business, and today we witnessed—I witnessed, I believe for the first time—a member use that privilege, which should be treated with the respect due to the latitude, the vast latitude, it affords us, to make unfounded allegations about a number of people in a forum where they have no ability to respond. None of them can attend this Chamber and respond, with the same protections afforded to Winston Peters, a response to those allegations. I would hope that I would never show such a character to take the opportunity in this House to do such things to others. To me, I believe that would simply debase myself, and I leave it to New Zealanders to interpret the comments from Winston Peters earlier this afternoon.

Now, on to the Government, a Government of misprioritisation. I asked the police Minister today about gun offences and incidents involving gang members and associates. This is against a backdrop of increasing gang violence, particularly with the firearms, and all the Minister wanted to respond with was what non-gang members are doing—completely in line with the misprioritisation in the arms legislation of this Government over the last 12 months. They spent parliamentary effort for 12 months putting more costs, rules, and regulations on people that are fundamentally law-abiding people—certainly people that don’t present public safety risks to other New Zealanders. So when faced with a legitimate question about just how serious is the escalating violence, particularly that using firearms across our communities, the Minister just sought to deflect and cast blame on those that are not perpetuating it.

The true backdrop is months—it stretches well back into last year—of extreme violence being perpetrated by gang members and associates: execution-style killings in Auckland; a mother gunned down on her own doorstep because her son, who had gang affiliations, wasn’t at home; multiple homicides in Tauranga—a house there, a home, shot up with a semi-automatic firearm. So much gang violence, particularly involving firearms, and this Government doesn’t want to deal with the issue. Instead, it wants to focus on those people that don’t break the law, because, of course, punishing the innocent is how you reduce crime, or at least they seem to think so.

So when my firearms prohibition orders member’s bill came up for debate this morning, a measure that will actually allow a proper crackdown on those people that present the greatest risk to public safety with respect to firearms, they simply would not support that measure. They talked tough all throughout the Arms Legislation Bill. The Minister tried to talk tough about cracking down on criminals and gangs. Well, it does nothing, fundamentally, that bill—nothing in that area. But when presented with a bill that would, he ran from it. Tried to hide behind some advice, hide behind a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment, knowing full well that this Parliament has the authority, the sovereignty, to pass legislation that may impinge on rights—in fact, we did so recently with prisoner voting. He ran from it, instead of standing up for the safety of New Zealanders, showing them that we should and do care for them, and instead sought to deflect from a very real issue, minimalising the trauma and harm that is occurring in our communities. Gangs have grown over 34 percent under this Government. There are 7,166 gang members or associates as of April this year. It is a growing problem. They refuse to do anything about it. It’s time for a Government that will.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. This week, I had the privilege to speak at the memorial for Jeanette Fitzsimons, a dear friend of mine, my mentor, someone who made a massive contribution to this House, and someone who, in particular, put climate change on the national agenda. Now, my wife once told me to avoid disappointments, you should never meet your heroes. But look, I had the great fortune to actually work up close with mine. In her maiden speech here in 1996, she said the key question was not whether centralised industrial capitalism should be controlled by the State or by private interests, but the unsustainability of centralised industrial capitalism itself.

Now, when you look around the world, we can see the results of that rampant industrial capitalism and a runaway culture of greed, consumption, and short-term thinking. Now, last month, in the Arctic, we saw consistently above 18 degrees, the hundred-year long-term average. The Arctic Siberia is literally burning. We’ve seen the World Meteorological Organization two weeks ago put out a report saying the red line that world Governments signed up to, 1.5 degrees of warming, could be passed in four years, something we thought was potentially years and years away. We’ve seen, since 1990, when Jeanette Fitzsimons and the original group of Green founders formed the Green Party—more emissions have entered the atmosphere in the 30 years since the Greens were founded in 1990, since Captain Planet was on TV, since Seinfeld was first on TV. In the last 30 years, more emissions have entered the atmosphere than the preceding centuries and centuries of human history. But I am proud to say, here, in 2020, we as a Government have done what’s needed to avert this urgent danger. We’ve taken action, we’ve laid the foundation, we’ve drawn lines in the sand, and we’ve set very important goals

This term, we’ve laid the foundation. We’ve developed and passed unanimously a zero carbon Act. We’ve improved the emissions trading scheme. We’ve set up a Green Investment Fund. We’ve taken action with climate impact assessments. We’ve set the foundation for a low-carbon economy. We’ve drawn lines in the sand, courageous lines in the sand, like stopping offshore oil and gas exploration. We’ve stopped the tens of millions of dollars of fossil fuel subsidies the previous Government was quite happy to give to oil companies. And we’ve set goals: a goal of being zero carbon by 2050 and 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035.

But we haven’t done everything we need to do. We need to go further; we need to go faster. Our country’s response to our generation’s nuclear-free moment, the most important issue facing our future and the future of our kids and grandkids, must reflect the urgency and scale of the emergency. So we’ve laid the foundations, but next term we need to go further; we need to build on that foundation. We need to erect the walls, and those walls have to be solidly insulated. We need to make sure that when we’re building the walls, we’re putting inside double- or triple-glazed windows. We need to make sure, when we’re putting on the roof, that it’s covered in solar panels. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

This election, we need to help Kiwis and Kiwi businesses reduce their emissions. So with public support, what we’re going to do is put solar panels on all 63,000 State houses. We’re going to halve the cost for people to install solar panels and batteries in their own homes. We’re going to support community energy, and I’m thinking of groups like in Paekākāriki or Waiteti or Ruatōria, Whangārei, who I’ve met with who want to produce their own energy. They want to do it locally and do it for themselves. So we’re going to support them with a $250 million community energy fund. We’re going to stop coal use by 2030 and gas use by 2035.

So our slogan this election is “Think ahead”, and I ask people to think ahead—what this means—because what it means is thousands and thousands of homes where people can point to their roof knowing they’re producing their own clean energy. I’m thinking about the hundreds of thousands of kids in those State houses who are going to be paying cheaper power bills. I think ahead to the national electricity grid that’s going to be able to use those 63,000 State houses as a virtual network, be able to time-shift that free, clean solar energy, to time-shift it to the time when we’re burning dirty coal and gas, saving everyone money.

I think of those communities who I’ve worked with and met who have felt they don’t have a fair playing field when it comes to the big power companies and those big power stations like Huntly. That’s what I’m thinking about—those schools and factories that are not going to have to burn dirty, old, expensive, polluting coal, who can do it themselves with clean wind, solar, and other forms of energy.

So, for me, this is a good example of Jeanette Fitzsimons’ thinking in action. It’s not about this false trade-off between the cost of the environment to the economy, or thinking of the environment as something totally separate. It’s integrating it and knowing that our wealth and our prosperity are dependent on the environment. And, actually, by investing in the environment, we can grow jobs, we can save people money, we can solve other social problems such as inequality and poverty. This is the mahi of Jeanette Fitzsimons that I’m proud to continue, and a whole new generation of Greens will continue it after September. Kia ora.

We are enormously privileged to stand and speak in this House of Representatives. There are people all around the world who would love to live in a society where they can elect their representatives to come to a House like this and speak for them, and there is a quid pro quo for having the privilege of standing in this House. That is to use parliamentary privilege judiciously, with class, and with discipline, for the public good, as we say in the prayer at the beginning of every day that this House sits—not for our own private interests.

And what did we hear in the disgraceful, sleazy, innuendo-riddled speech from Winston Peters in this general debate today? Well, Winston Peters told the House that the reason his inability to fill out his own superannuation form got into the public domain was because my then partner told me, and I told Jordan Williams. That is categorically untrue. I want to tell the House none of that happened, and the fact that Winston Peters is prepared to say it using the privilege of this House but he’s not prepared to say it out there where, if he says it, he’ll be helping me finally get that home deposit—he’s not prepared to say it at all.

Unfortunately this is the kind of sleazy, base behaviour that people up and down New Zealand have got used to from Winston Peters and New Zealand First. And here’s the real issues motivating Winston Peters’ behaviour. Well, just today, Winston Peters was found to have been using taxpayer resources at the expense of the taxpayers’ objectives of getting research done in Antarctica so his friends could go on coveted tours to the special continent. That was going to be on the news tonight because it was embarrassing for the Prime Minister, who said it was for philanthropy when there’s no such policy, and Winston Peters used the old dead cat bounce. Throw something on the table in the hope that it would overshadow the bad news coming his way.

Here’s another reality driving Winston Peters—the polls. What’s the latest poll? ACT on 5 percent, New Zealand First on 1.5. That’s the real problem with New Zealand First—they are desperate, and you know they’re desperate because their plan is for Shane Jones to win an electorate seat. He’s never won an electorate seat or any electoral contest in his life. That’s the problem.

And here’s the other problem Winston Peters has got. He’s been hanging around here, letting people down, for 40 years. And because he’s done it for himself at every juncture, he’s never done it for the people of New Zealand, he’s left nothing behind—no lasting achievements that any future historian will ever be able to point to. Today he has plumbed new depths, because we have a politics in this country where we don’t attack people for their personal relationships. Winston Peters attacked my relationship with Rachel Morton under parliamentary privilege, when it began in 2016. That’s how low and sleazy he is. That is the cavalier approach that he takes to the use of parliamentary privilege, and today, again, he attacked me through a personal relationship because that’s as low as he goes.

I want to finish by saying, categorically, I did not receive information from Rachel Morton and I did not pass it on. The real problem Winston Peters has is that if he was a little bit competent and responsible at filling out his own superannuation form like every other superannuitant has to, he wouldn’t be in this problem, and if he actually ran his court case properly he wouldn’t be paying back 300 grand. Winston Peters, that’s your problem; don’t lie and make it mine.

Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 David Seymour: For what specifically, Mr Speaker?

The member knows exactly what for.

💬 David Seymour: Well, I don’t apologise for that speech, Mr Speaker.

OK. The member will leave the Chamber.

💬 David Seymour: OK. Fine.

David Seymour withdrew from the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I came to the House before question time I had a vastly different speech prepared to give in this general debate, and having been part of your presiding officers’ team, Mr Speaker, I know that you work extraordinarily hard to ensure the mana of this Chamber and this House. Today, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: I am going to ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to get Mr Seymour and bring him back to the House. Thank you.

Thank you. Every member of this House is deemed, by the fact they are elected by the people of New Zealand, to be honourable. Today I am feeling a little bit of mamae in my heart because as members of this House we are all stained by the actions of other members, and we are all touched by the hurt and by the anguish that their families feel, and people who are impacted by the actions of members of Parliament as well.

In my speech today, I just want us to think about what brings us here. As I look across the House, I look at respected colleagues, people who I’ve actually campaigned against, and people I’ve campaigned with.

💬 Matt Doocey: And beaten.

That’s right, Mr Doocey, but graciously, I hope. I know that most of us come here with good intent and with the knowledge that the people in our home patches want us to do well for them. Every time some rubbish thing happens here, it reflects badly on all of us, and our people back home go, “Come on, guys. What’s this about?” I look to what brings me here. The reason I’m here is I want to make sure New Zealand is the safest place for our kids. And having spent a long time working in the area of family violence, I know if we want to break the cycle of violence, we have to create an environment where our kids can be safe, where they thrive, where they reach their potential.

But if they look to us in this House, what is the example they are seeing of their leaders? Are they seeing people who are wanting to create an environment where we can all thrive? It’s been a rubbish couple of weeks, right? And we’ve been throwing stuff around at everybody. But have we been thinking about those people that this stuff impacts—our families, victims, the people in our electorates who are looking to us for hope? We have gone through one of the most difficult times in our country, and I don’t say that lightly, coming from Christchurch—we’ve been through some tough times. COVID impacts all of us, and we know how wonderfully we have done as a team of 5 million to get us to the point where, actually, we are the envy of the world. People want to come here. People want our products. People want to trade with us because they know that, actually, Aotearoa New Zealand is the best little place in the world to be. We should be upholding the mana of that by being the best that we can be as parliamentarians.

And I know we can be. But unfortunately, when we throw stuff around, whether it’s true or not, it sticks. And it smells. And it stains. I look up to the gallery at the people who have come to hear the next bill, who have come here with pride and respect and the expectation that they will be served by the people in this Chamber to effect what they want to have happen with their bill. We can only do that if we remember the premise of why we are here. It’s a privilege to serve our communities. We are here to honour the wishes of our communities and our people.

Every time I arrive on the forecourt in front of this building, I say to myself, “What a privilege.” Every time I go home to my home pitch of Christchurch East and I hear the concerns of my people and they give me a bit of, you know, “You should be doing this and you should be doing that.”, I take that all on board because they have given me the privilege of being here to represent them. Every time I look into the faces of my grandchildren, I think, “Your nanny is here to do a good job to leave this country in a better place for you.” So I just want to remind all of my fellow parliamentarians: we are all honourable, and I have the greatest respect for this job and this institution. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I indicated earlier, I have required David Seymour to return to the House to apologise for the unparliamentary remark he made at the end of his speech.

I withdraw and apologise.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.