General Debate

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

I’m going to start and make the unusual move of acknowledging the hard work of a member of the Opposition. I’m going to acknowledge the comments of the honourable member, the List MP who’s based somewhere here in Wellington across the other side of the harbour, and that is Chris Bishop. I’m going to thank him for the comments that he has made that have highlighted the inequities and the unfairness of the National Party tax policy. I want to thank him for reinforcing what this side of the House has always said about the attitude of the National Party towards hard-working New Zealanders. You see, Chris Bishop is a rare National Party MP in that in an unguarded moment he was caught out telling the truth. Mr Bishop was caught being honest, and, in doing so, totally exposed and undermined the whole National Party tax plan. That’s the tax plan that favours people like himself and his mates at the expense of hard-working New Zealanders. The National Party needs more MPs who are prepared to tell the truth.

So what exactly was the context of Mr Bishop’s act of honesty? Well, in an interview, he was asked: how much would he get from the National Party tax cuts? And he said, “Well, I would get quite a bit because I get quite a bit of money. That’s the thing about tax cuts.” And that is the thing about tax cuts. Those who earn more, they get rewarded with more money in their back pocket. It is a matter of the rich getting richer while others get $2.50 per week.

So if we were to ask some other New Zealanders just exactly how they fare under the National Party tax policy, what would they say? Well, let’s take Sonny, who is a labourer up north that I know, who works where he can when he can. What would Sonny say if he was asked, “What would you get out of the National Party tax policy?”? He would probably say, “I’d get stuff-all.”, because that is the thing about tax cuts. What about Pat and Glenys, superannuitants also up north, who have worked hard all their lives but are now living on the pension? If they were asked, “What would you get out of the National Party tax cuts?”, they would say the same. The same as Sonny the labourer, they’d say, “We would get stuff-all.”, but that is the thing about tax cuts. Well, what about Mereana, the teacher up north, who’s worked for 10 to 15 years as a teacher, and is earning about $70,000 a year? What would she say about the National Party tax cuts? Well, she would probably say, “Well, I’d get more than Sonny, the labourer. I’d get more than Pat and Glenys, the beneficiaries, because I earn more. But I’d get stuff-all in comparison to Chris Bishop and his mates.”, because that is the thing about tax cuts.

What could many New Zealanders say they could purchase with their $2.50 that they would get under the National Party tax cuts? Well, what could they buy? What’s the purchasing power of their $2.50 a week? To be honest, I can’t actually come up with anything specific that they could buy using their $2.50 a week. But I could tell them: go into one of those $2 Shops that have sprung up all around the country, in towns around the country, go and look on the shelf, select something that costs $2 and buy it, and then, the thing on the shelf next to it, pay for a quarter of it.”, because that’s basically what they will get from the National Party tax cuts. They’ll be able to buy one thing off the shelf in a $2 Shop and a quarter of the thing next to it. The tax cuts, by going into a $2 Shop, they’ll be able to buy 1.25 items, and that is the thing about the National Party tax cuts. They favour the rich, they favour the wealthy—those of us in this room will get thousands but it’s not us that we need to worry about. It’s those hard-working New Zealanders, it’s those New Zealanders who are doing it tough by their tax cuts doing nothing whatsoever to help those people’s situations. That is the thing about tax cuts: they leave people behind. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start by acknowledging that now we’re in the third year of the pandemic, people are feeling the pressure. The fact that we’re having an outbreak with higher levels of mortality now than we’ve had recently, the fact that people are struggling with rising rents, they’ve still got their concerns about their health. That is having the impact on people of increased stress, an increasing sense of people needing to deal with those very immediate issues to do with themselves, their family, their households, and so on. And amidst those concerns, I know that people are having to deal with a number of other issues as well, that are also mounting on top of those.

My colleague Kiritapu Allan came back from Gisborne in Tai Rāwhiti just the other day, where, of course, they’ve seen two, one-in-100-year rain events just in the last six months. As somebody said, it’s been a short hundred years between those two. The people of Westport and Buller, of course, have seen some extraordinary storms both in July last year and February this year—again, events that were only supposed to happen one in every 100, or one in every 200 years are occurring in the same six-month period. Until yesterday, there was an unseasonal drought in Southland which was causing a lot of consternation, obviously, for the farmers down there who are trying to grow food. In a period of the year when normally you would have plenty of rain water, they had none—and, obviously, celebrating the breaking of that drought yesterday. All of these events, of course, are increasing in their frequency and their severity, and all of that is happening whilst people are having to deal with the pandemic and the consequences of the pandemic in terms of their lives and livelihoods.

Yesterday—the same day that that drought was finally broken in Southland—we also had the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) telling us the news that we have kicked the can down the road long enough, and that we are now out of time. One of the extraordinary things that they laid out in that report yesterday was that globally our emissions need to peak in the year 2025, which, of course, in Governmental terms is right around the corner; literally just three years away, before they need to peak and then continue to fall every year.

We know that the lived experience of the people of Tai Rāwhiti, the people of Westport and Buller, the people of Southland and other parts of the country, who are experiencing these increasingly severe storms and droughts and floods, is backed up. Because we’ve always had dramatic weather in this country, the extent of which people’s lives are changing is hard to tell. But we know that, actually, what is happening here in Aotearoa is that the kinds of rainfall that we’ve seen recently in Gisborne and Tai Rāwhiti is 15 percent more intense now than it was 100 years ago, and it’s 20 percent more like to happen than it was 100 years ago. So when people are starting to report back to us, it does feel like these things are happening more frequently, and it does feel like, when it rains, there’s more rain than there used to be, then, actually, that experience is backed up with the data as well.

As the IPCC says, we’re out of time. And I think, historically, over the course of the last 30 years, we’ve been in this situation where these reports have talked about what’s going on globally, but we here in Aotearoa, we don’t necessarily connect that to our personal experience. But that is now shifting. We know that what we need to do here in Aotearoa needs to not just mirror what needs to happen in the rest of the world, but, actually, as a developed country, as a wealthier country, we actually need to do better than the global average in order for us all collectively to meet that global average.

Over the course of the last four years, we have had an enormous programme of work to try and bring down our emissions. We’ve passed unanimously in this House the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, major reforms to the emissions trading scheme, we’ve banned new off shore oil and gas exploration, we set up the Green Investment Fund and the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, and so on. We have changed the future trajectory of our emissions, but not yet enough in order to bring them right down. I just wanted to say that the reason why we’re focusing on this right now is because next month, in May, we’re going to be publishing the emissions reduction plan, and giving New Zealanders that sense that things are changing, and changing for the better.

Today, I want to talk about some of the changes and some of the significant things that came into effect—

💬 SPEAKER: The member is allowed to take her mask off if she wishes.

—oh, yeah, thank you—on 1 April. It didn’t come as a surprise. People knew what was coming their way, and the timing couldn’t be better, given some of the challenges that we are facing, alongside many other countries, because of the global pressures.

It was really important that we as a Government had moved to reverse the cuts to benefits that had happened in 1991 and that we had followed the advice of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations and responded to the needs of some of the households with the lowest incomes in New Zealand. In contrast, we on this side of the House have been very targeted with our investment, very targeted with regards to who we are prioritising, and, on the other side of the House, it’s been very sad to see them return to type and continue to put this narrative out that is divisive and really comes down to divide and rule politics.

When we first got into Government in 2017, we had on the table a proposal from the National Government to make tax cuts—tax cuts which would have seen $400 million go to the top 10 percent of income earners in New Zealand. We took that money when we got into office and we put it into our Families Package instead. That was just one of many changes that indicated, demonstrated, our commitment to the New Zealanders who really do need support most. Not only did we see benefit increases on 1 April but we saw increases to student support, we saw increases to the family tax credit, and, fortunately, as well, we saw significant increases with respect to superannuation.

These are the people who need our support more than anyone else right now. When we compare that to the offer of tax cuts from the other side and we see, as Minister Davis is saying, that some of the lower-earning households in this country would be lucky to get $2.50 versus the thousands of dollars that people in this House would get, then surely, I’m hopeful, the rest of New Zealand will see why that does not make sense.

I’ve been very committed as the Minister for Social Development and Employment with regards to not only addressing income adequacy but also addressing the other important part of our welfare system, and that is support for upskilling and training and employment for those that are in the welfare system. We are seeing more exits off benefit into employment than what we have seen since electronic records were kept. There are results and outcomes that we are seeing that far outweigh anything that we’ve seen before. Yet, we continue to hear from the other side of the House criticism about the fact that we still have New Zealanders on benefit.

Compared to what we saw two years post - global financial crisis, we are actually better positioned than what we were then. At that point in time, 13.1 percent of the working-age population were on benefit. At the moment, we are talking about 11.2 percent of the working-age population that are on benefit. And we see it, week on week, going down. Currently, I think we have 20-something thousand less people on benefit than we did this time last year. When we came into the pandemic, the projections with regards to the unemployment rate that we might experience, the numbers of people who may end up on benefit, were absolutely dire. The other side of the House seems to have forgotten that this was anticipated, but we have not reached the depth or the numbers that have been initially forecast. That comes down to some good economic management. We do need to acknowledge the work that this Government has done to manage the economy, but also the efforts that our team of 5 million have put into ensuring that not only have we prioritised the health of New Zealanders but, as a consequence, we have also seen our economy better off for it.

Even with the changes that came into effect on 1 April, I, along with everyone else on this side of the House, continue to say that there is more to do. We are absolutely committed to doing it and we have the energy to make sure that that work is done.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to talk. Eighteen months, roughly, into this Government’s second term, we see a confused and scrambling Government everywhere we look. We hear, on the one hand, the Minister of Police saying there’s not an issue with gangs in Auckland, and then, of course, we hear from the local list MP in Auckland Central saying maybe there is a problem, and she reflects, I think, the many backbench Labour MPs who are looking at the polls and figuring out where they’re at. Mrs White knows that she’s not going to be a list MP in 18 months’ time the way things are going, and maybe it’s time to talk about the things that actually matter to the people in Auckland Central, and one of the things that matters in Auckland Central is whether you feel safe walking around in the city and whether you feel safe from the massive increase in gang intimidation and crime. So she spoke the truth and, no doubt, has been told off.

I’m sure we’ll be getting similar statements from Vanushi Walters, for example, in Upper Hutt. She’ll be working out that she won’t be back in Parliament in 18 months’ time, and I fully expect that we’ll hear about the problems with gangs up in Upper Hutt before too long. What about in the Hawke’s Bay? Anna Lorck, I’m sure, will be doing the calculations, and knows she’s got no chance of winning Tukituki next year. She’s got no chance of coming back on the list, and so maybe it’s time to sneak up on some of the people of Hawke’s Bay and talk about the massive influence that gang intimidation is having down there.

Then we’ve heard about the move to red. We can’t get out of red in this country because the hospital system isn’t ready yet. After two years of preparation and dealing with COVID, we’re still not ready. The problem, of course, that people are asking themselves is, “When will we ever be ready by that measure? When will we get back to normal?” When the winter comes on and we’ve got flu, we’ll be under pressure in the health system, and we’ll still be in red the way things are going. So I’m hoping to hear some sense of forward momentum.

And then yesterday we had the scramble over the road-user charges. The Government comes in, in a panic after the polls, and reduces the petrol prices and then suddenly realises that it doesn’t know what to do with diesel, and comes back a few weeks later with a plan, which is very slow, very late, and very confused. Instead of “ready, aim, fire” when it comes to their legislation and dealing with the issues that this country faces, it’s “fire” and then “ready” and then “aim”, and that’s what we’ve got with this Government.

Then there’s the inconsistency around tax. We hear the Minister of Finance going on about how terrible it is to have tax relief and how it is not focused or targeted, and yet in the same breath he gives half-price public transport to everybody. I mean, consider it: there will be people from Remuera, there will be people from high-income parts of the city using this public transport. How targeted is that? I can’t quite work out the system, the logic behind the way they’re thinking.

Then we finally come to the fair pay agreements, so-called, introduced after four years of preparation from Michael Wood, and two days after they introduce it, they have to bring in a change because they’ve actually changed their mind, because they didn’t figure out how it’s going to work, and they’re going to have a backstop because you’ve got to have two partners: an employee partner and an employer partner. The employer partner, Business New Zealand, told the Government to, “Stuff off. We don’t agree with it. We’re not going to be playing your game.” So they still introduced the bill, and then, two days later, they have to change the bill they introduced.

This is a Government that is confused and scrambling, and everywhere New Zealanders look they see examples of waste from this Government. My colleague Simeon Brown just outlined the most obvious example: the Te Huia train. How much is it? It’s $100 million they’ve spent on a train with a handful of passengers on a good day, taking much longer to get to Auckland. Is it not possible that they could’ve used that money wisely and better, to actually help people get around, which is the purpose of transport policy—to help people get around quicker?

Finally, I come to the fair pay agreements. They’re not about fair pay; they’re about imposing mandatory union deals on Kiwi workplaces. That is exactly what they’re about, and the question is: will it make New Zealand’s economy stronger? No, because they will make it less agile, less flexible at the very time New Zealand businesses and people that are providing the jobs and opportunities to New Zealanders need to be as agile as they can. Just look around the world and see what’s going on—the changes, the pressure, the technology; everything is in a state of flux and this Government wants our workplaces to be less flexible and less agile to respond to that. It makes no sense and it will make us poorer if it ever carries on.

Ki tōku whaea a, Temuranga June, me tōku matua kēkē a Moana me koe hoki a Wira. Kei te noho mokemoke ahau kei te noho rawakore Te Ao Māori i ā koutou wehenga atu. Kei tua i te ārai koutou ki te taha a taku pāpā a Bob, ki taku matua kēkē anō a Syd mā, nā rātou anō rā i whakatakoto i te ara hei hīkoinga mā tātou, ko ngā uri ināianei, ko koutou tērā, nō reira moe mai, moe mai me hoki wairua mai.

[To my mother, Temuranga June, and my uncle Moana, as well as to you, Wira. I am lonely and the Māori World is destitute following your passing. You are now beyond the veil by the side of my father, Bob, and my uncle Syd and others, they who have laid down the path for us, the living descendants, to follow, that is who you are, may you rest in peace.]

Can I just start off first by thanking the House—the whole House—who supported the motion to my old friend and relation to my wife, Wira Gardiner; to my beloved mother; and to my uncle Moana Jackson. It really was appreciated and I want to mihi to the whole House.

I want to mihi, also, to everyone who supported mum during the tangi, and all the parties showed up—apart from one. So I want to thank our party, of course, and our Prime Minister, the Māori caucus. I want to thank the National Party very much for turning up—Shane and Harete Hipango, and for all the good wishes that came from the National Party—thank you for giving my mother a damehood; she always reminded me of that, that the National Party gave her a damehood! So thanks to National, thanks to the Greens, and thanks to my mates in the Māori Party. The only party that didn’t turn up was ACT, so can I say that ACT would have been very welcome if they had turned up. But I thank you for supporting the motions. So it was a real honour and I’m really humbled by the support of the House.

That’s all the niceties. I’ll come now to my other kōrero about ACT. And I really do feel sorry for their leader, David Seymour—sorry because he’s so desperate to reclaim the National Party vote at the moment. He’s prepared to play the cheapest hand in New Zealand politics—that the “Mao-ries” have too much political stunt, which is sad, you see, because Mr Seymour doesn’t want a referendum on co-governance. In my view, he wants to dog-whistle up the Ōrewa speech and pretend that it’s a debate.

What’s so miserable about Mr Seymour’s sudden concern with co-governance is that it was his party with the National Party who began the co-management and co-governance framework that he is now denouncing. His supporters are insinuating a “hidden Mao-rie agenda”, that the “Mao-ries are going to take over and try and own everything and want everything”. Mr Seymour, that’s the Māori Party—that’s not the Labour Party. My mates don’t want to own everything; we just want a share in things. This Government is brazenly open—and good on them, you know—but it doesn’t quite work when you’ve got to work with the partner. This Government is brazenly open about our agenda for Māori—and that’s living up to the promise of the Treaty. There’s nothing hidden about the Labour Party and this Government’s agenda.

Chris Finlayson, hardly a card-carrying member of the Labour Party, was the architect of the co-governance model. He came out on Radio New Zealand last week and denounced Mr Seymour’s use of a referendum because he says it will bring out the worst kind of people. That’s on you, David Seymour.

Co-governance is already happening. Your party, ACT, helped build it with National. I can’t help it that Rodney Hide feels he was forced to sign a paper with regards to the Māori statutory board—I can’t help that, Rodney Hide. But the ACT Party, along with National, helped sign up the Urewera Settlement with Tūhoe; the Waikato River settlement; the co-governance framework to look after Te Waihora, the largest lake in Canterbury; the Waitomo Caves co-management plan—those are living examples of co-governance and co-management. And it hasn’t heralded the end of the Westminster system; this country is not collapsing.

I just can’t wait to debate with Mr Seymour on Q+A; I am so looking forward to this—“Mr Clever”, “Mr Brilliant Seymour”. We’ll see how clever he is this weekend. I welcome the debate because I think good Kiwis everywhere, Mr Speaker, sir, including yourself and the good people of Wainuiōmata, are not blind to history; Kiwis are fair-minded. They know that we just want to play a part in this. We want to be good partners. My only sadness is that my uncle Moana Jackson is not here to participate in the debate, because I feel confident he’d make David Seymour rue the day he learnt the word “ethno-State” and tried to use it in a debate against him. It’s a sad indictment on Mr Seymour and the ACT Party. I look forward to the kōrero and the debate. Kia ora anō tātou.

I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging the work of Dr Bloomfield, Director-General of Health. As a Minister, I’m especially grateful for the high-quality public health advice he has provided to Government that has seen us have some of the best outcomes in the world in terms of our pandemic response. As a doctor, I respect his commitment to improving the health of New Zealanders, and the contribution he has made in that respect is second to none.

But, as my colleague Mr Jackson has just said, that’s enough of the niceties. This Government is absolutely committed to saving lives, as we have through the COVID response, and improving the livelihoods of New Zealanders. That is an important factor that we take forward as we plan and execute our COVID recovery.

We are extremely concerned about the cost of living impacts that impact everyone, but, in particular, I want to address my comments today to their impacts on seniors. Many superannuitants, many just on a pension, and, through our 1 April package, we have seen the support that they receive increase substantially to deal with these pressures. For example, a single superannuitant receiving an increase in their support by $52 a fortnight and a couple to $80 a fortnight. In addition to this, we are also dealing with the increased pressure caused by costs of energy over winter, with $700 in support going across the colder months of the year. Seniors also benefit from public transport and petrol price reductions—and indeed, not all public transport is covered by the SuperGold card; not all trips—so that support, no doubt, is welcome too. This is in addition to the number of measures we are taking to reduce the cost of living for all—by raising benefits and increases to the minimum wage, among others.

Now, I know that members on the other side of the House would address these challenges differently. They have proposed tax cuts that benefit the most well-off New Zealanders: those earning over $180,000 a year. For all their hard work, superannuitants who have worked hard all their life will not get a jot from a proposed tax cut. In fact, tax cuts raise pressure on those supports that seniors depend on in their retirement.

We’ve heard it said many times in this House that National can’t have it both ways. They cannot claim that they can support tax cuts while also supporting Government spending on things crucial to the support of seniors. They have to come clean about whether or not they’ll continue to support superannuation at the level that we currently do, and, in fact, we know that National has already signalled a change to superannuation policy: increasing the age of entitlement to 67. Now, this Government considers super as an earned and deserved support for seniors, and those approaching the end of their working life on low wages won’t substantially benefit from National’s tax cuts and they will get their super delayed as well.

It is also a fact of life that, as we age, we rely more on the health system. Free care and public hospitals when you’re sick is part of the deal for a lifetime of hard work. We know that our health system is under pressure from a pandemic and, prior to that, years of underfunding. We know the National Party’s tax cuts come at a time when the health system needs greater investment than ever. This is a Government that believes that systems should be there for you when you need it; it should be based on need and not your ability to pay.

The seniors I speak to know this Government cares for them. They know the work we have done has saved their lives through the pandemic. They know National wanted the borders open before people were vaccinated. They’ve heard National’s calls for dropping alert levels, for reductions in isolation, for scrapping the traffic lights. We’ve heard Mr Goldsmith’s contribution earlier, he wants a sense of forward momentum—but, I wonder, who are you driving over for your sense of forward momentum?

The decisions this Government took saved lives. If we had had the experience of the United States, we would have 19,000 deaths; of the United Kingdom, 13,000 deaths—almost all of the lives that we saved, or a large proportion of them, were seniors. They may not matter to people on the other side of the House, but they matter to this Government.

We will continue to prioritise seniors. We will continue to invest in the services that they need and deserve. The old National Party is back and they care about no one but themselves.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the member before me—Minister Verrall—pointed out, and it’s been said before in this House, there’s absolutely no doubt that people are doing it tough at the moment. Many of those factors that have exacerbated the situation that we’re facing collectively lie outside of our sphere of control. Things like the impact of a global pandemic on global inflation rates, things like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—all of that has led to an increase in the cost of living. I know that. I’ve spoken to people in my electorate of Maungakiekie who tell me how they’re doing it tough. As Ministers, we’ve seen that through those that we engage with outside of the ministries, as well.

Now, as I mentioned previously, these aren’t things that lie within our control, but what we are doing is taking steps to address the cost of living to support New Zealanders to get through it. In the same way that we had a plan to support New Zealanders through the COVID-19 health crisis, now we turn ourselves towards accelerating our recovery in the face of this global pandemic.

So what are we doing? I had a chat with some of the students who live in my electorate, pensioners, families, and beneficiaries, about some of the steps that we’ve taken that came into effect on 1 April—for example, the fact that student allowances have gone up by $25. While members on that side of the House may scoff because it doesn’t make a huge amount of difference to them given their pay packets, the one thing that the students I talked to told me, without doubt, was that they would spend that increased money on food—something quite so basic. What they said to me was, “Now, we no longer have to go to KFC with our coupons. We can actually buy some vegetables and meat and have a more nutritious meal.”—something quite that basic.

The minimum wage has increased progressively, from $15.75 in 2017, to $21.20 as of 1 April this year. I think from what Minister Wood said earlier in a response in the House was that that is $218 per week more since we took Government on this side of the House.

I often share with people who question that increase to the minimum wage the story of a woman I met some years back. She was an E tū delegate. She had worked for a company, which I won’t name, for 26 years. She was in her late 50s. For all of those 26 years, she was on the minimum wage. For people like that, if we don’t progressively increase the minimum wage, they will suffer, as they’ve done under previous Governments.

Superannuation goes up by $52 per fortnight for an individual, and $80 for a couple. A pensioner that I spoke to in my electorate talked about the fact that this will give him a little bit more security as he goes into his later years, and without me even asking, he talked about the winter energy payment and the difference that that will make when it kicks on 1 May, as well.

This, of course, is in addition to various other steps we’ve taken over the years to ensure that people are a little bit better off as the cost of living increases. For example, we introduced the Families Package, which provides targeted assistance to improve the incomes for low and middle income families with children. We reversed the tax cuts that National promised in 2016, and diverted that into the Families Package.

I’m experiencing a moment of déjà vu, because what we’re hearing now from the same old National Party is the tired old line of tax cuts to those who earn the most. This is exactly what they trotted out in 2016, it’s exactly what New Zealanders rejected at the 2017 election, and they still can’t see that this will not make a difference for the majority of New Zealanders.

This is in addition to the fact that we have a record number of people moving off a main benefit and into work, and that is important. We’re not just shoving them off the benefit, but we’re actually getting them into work—so listen up, National Party. We’ve got a number of initiatives that actually support employment. We’ve got an employment strategy that will build a skilled workforce and will support workplaces to modernise, and I lead, as the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities, an employment action plan that will lift the employment outcomes of former refugees, recent migrants, and ethnic communities more broadly.

In the last 30 seconds that I have, I will say that I am so proud of the work that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities is doing. I just want to point out to the leader of the ACT Party a quote that he said about a longstanding policy that they have had to disestablish the then Office of Ethnic Communities. So perhaps as he trots around to ethnic communities events in the weekend, maybe our communities should ask him a question or two about his support for population agencies like the Ministry for Ethnic Communities.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to talk today about mental health and wellbeing in New Zealand, and it’s been a tough few years for New Zealanders. Through the COVID pandemic, we’ve seen a lot of people facing stress and anxiety—people who we never suspected would be struggling—reaching out for help from their friends and families, saying that they’re not doing OK. We’ve heard from business owners who have been struggling, not knowing whether they’ll have enough cash flow to keep going for another month, to keep employing their staff, who they know desperately need jobs to provide for their families. We’ve heard from parents who are worried about their children who won’t get out of bed in the morning because they’re not going to school any more. That’s what has happened through these last few years with COVID, and the extended lockdowns that have forced children to stay at home away from their friends and their support networks.

But we have also heard from children who are really struggling themselves. They have a lack of hope—a lack of hope for the future. They don’t know what the future in New Zealand will look like, and we know that there is an element of so much continuum of care—people who have serious health conditions, and people who have stress and anxiety—and we need to look after all of these people in New Zealand. Now, with the cost of living crisis, we’re going to see more and more families struggling as well, and reaching out for help. But I want to talk to two particular examples. There was a young man that I met who said that the help that he had received from the DHB was like a flea on an elephant’s back—it did nothing for him. And a man that I met who said that his daughter had an eating disorder and she just was not getting better. We need to do better for both of these people so that we have better mental health services for all New Zealanders.

So what has the Government actually done? Well, they promised in 2017—a big promise—that they were going to commit to improving our mental health record. They allocated $1.9 billion extra in the coming year, and now we’re spending a record $1.8 billion this year on mental health. It is our duty to scrutinise whether we are actually getting good results for that money. Two examples spring to mind that are outrageous. We have spent $235 million on building new mental health facilities and produced extra beds, over two years. We’ve also allocated $4 million for tertiary mental health services and, over two years, that’s only led to 300 counselling services.

The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission had a report out last week that said, “Despite significant investment in mental health and addiction services in 2019, improvements in services have not materialised as we had hoped for over this time.” That is scathing. They said, “We would like to see greater choice around acute and crisis care and expanded use of peer services and community providers who are clearly proving their worth in the delivery of services.” I want to take just youth mental health as one example here. They said, “We have seen little change in wait times, with continued concerning wait times for young people.” And the contracted funding for youth services is well behind schedule. The commissioning of these services is behind, with less funding actually committed than intended. Young people have visited more primary mental health services, that is true, but they’ve also seen a huge increase in the dispensing of psychiatric medications—a 21 percent increase in antidepressants—and the commission said, “It’s likely that these increases have resulted from an increase in stress from COVID-19 and a lack of non-medical treatment alternatives.” We need to be a country where we’re providing access and choice to people—real choice—so that they have the best care for their own therapy, rather than just accepting what’s on offer, and, rather than just accepting a pill, rather than getting to that real treatment of the cause of their illness.

The ACT Party has a solution. We would empower the mental health commission to get the services that it truly is asking for. We would ask them to commission proper services, give more access and choice to New Zealanders, get the best providers for people’s real care in New Zealand, because we still face a real lack of care, choice, and access in New Zealand. Yes, we have put more money aside. Has it led to better health outcomes for young, vulnerable New Zealanders? No, it has not. We can and we must do better.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Before I call a member, I’m just going to remind members—especially Mr Smith—that when you’re wearing a mask, it involves putting it over the nose. The photographs that have been taken of your deputy leader might well be undermined by your inappropriate mask-wearing.

Last week, a range of income changes came into effect that will make a real difference for people in New Zealand. Working for Families increases will see more than 300,000 families $20 a week better off; meanwhile, the National Party wants to give families that are doing it tough $2 a week. Superannuitants will get $52 a fortnight for single people, $80 a fortnight for couples; meanwhile, the National Party wants to give superannuitants $2 a week. Student allowances and living costs go up $25 a week, but, meanwhile, the National Party wants to give students $2 a week. Full-time minimum wage workers will earn an extra $48 a week, while the National Party doesn’t want those on the minimum wage to earn any more than they are. In fact, Chris Luxon is apparently too worried about the price of his coffee going up; while Christopher Bishop says about National’s proposal to cut taxes for the wealthy, “I would get quite a bit because I earn quite a bit.”

New Zealanders are hearing the same, tired old story from National Party leader, Chris Luxon, that fails to give us any new ideas. He wants to cut taxes for the wealthy, reduce debt, and keep on spending—if only it were that easy! National’s proposals will mean cuts to important services. They need to front up to Kiwis and say which health, education, and housing services they will slash to make that happen. National’s proposals, which include supporting property speculators and giving a huge tax break to the highest-paid earners, are likely to cost at least $3 billion, resulting in less money available to invest in key services like health, housing, and education. We’ve seen from previous Governments a decade of under-investment in services—particularly in health. It’s not hard to see what happened to our health system. Like in my electorate of Nelson, the impact of under-investment in health infrastructure under the last Government has been a rundown, earthquake-prone building. But don’t worry, Nelsonians, Chris Luxon wants to give you $2 a week! Well, that won’t fix Nelson’s broken hospital. I’m proud that the Government is investing in health infrastructure and has committed to rebuilding our rundown hospital buildings in Nelson while also providing material gains for working people in New Zealand.

Alongside Pak’nSave worker Jenny Wells in Nelson, I’ve been campaigning for years for fair pay agreements to lift wages for the lowest-paid workers in New Zealand. Fair pay agreements will improve wages and conditions for employees as well as level the playing field so that good employers don’t get undercut and disadvantaged. As the Employers and Manufacturers Association has said, these agreements will help drive up wages. We can’t continue with the low-wage, low-productivity model that has cost us all so much. For too long, New Zealanders working in critical roles, like supermarket workers, cleaners, and bus drivers, whose work has kept our country going through this pandemic, have lacked bargaining power to seek better wages and conditions. Countdown is unionised; Foodstuffs has little unionisation because of how it is structured as a group of franchises. As former union leader the late Helen Kelly would say, it’s “by design”. And Foodstuffs have designed a structure that keeps wages in their supermarkets low while putting millions into the back pockets of supermarket owners. Let it be said that National and ACT are happy to keep a system designed to keep wages low for hard-working Kiwis while supermarket owners get rich off the back of their hard work.

On this side of the House, we say it’s time to design a system that creates a level playing field for workers and employers. On this side of the House, we reject the individualistic view that says that, if you’re on a low wage, it’s your own problem. We want to turn that around and ensure workers get a fair go. We’re proud to be a Government that helps everyday Kiwis. I’m proud to be on this side of the House, where we are lifting wages and incomes for those who need support, and we are easing the pressure on Kiwi families.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The last speaker in this debate was talking about slashing. There are only two things the next National Government will slash. The first is the wasteful spending undertaken by this Labour Government, and there is a lot of it. We would not have spent $51 million on a bridge over the Waitematā for cyclists who didn’t want it, that’s never going to be built. That $51 million could do a whole lot of other things. It could help some of the people that have the least in the country. Or, here’s a novel thing for the Labour Party, give it back to the taxpayer, who earned it and had to give it to you.

The second thing we are going to do is fix productivity, and we’ll start in this House. We are going to slash the number of Labour MPs, because this is the least productive Government that we have seen. We know that because, actually, the excuse for everything that’s not working is (1) COVID (2) the war in the Ukraine. And once, in the Ukraine, that fighting has stopped and the war crimes have stopped, they will find the next thing on the international stage to blame for their lack of productivity and the lack of delivery from the Labour Party.

The tourism sector is very, very deeply disappointed in the Labour Government. They had high hopes at the time of the pandemic that Labour was going to support them. Do you remember in this House, in the Budget, two years ago when we were in limited numbers because of the lockdown, the announcement of $290 million to support tourism businesses throughout New Zealand to get them through until visitors came back. The Minister of Tourism at the time, Kelvin Davis, who was one of the worst tourism Ministers this country has seen, rivalled by the new tourism Minister, who is now an apologist for the things the Government has got wrong, said at the time—Kelvin Davis—that we are going to be focusing on strategic tourism businesses. Do you know what the definition of “strategic tourism businesses” was? We heard it from the new Minister too the other day: it was self-defining by tourism businesses.

The Auditor-General decided to look into this because the tourism sector was so concerned at the way the $290 million was being spent and has come out with one of the most damning reports I have seen of the spending of this Labour Government. From start to finish of that report, there is nothing that the Government has done that has worked for the tourism sector.

When asked about spending for the first three announcements the Government made, before anybody in the country could put in an application for the fund because the criteria had not been published, the Auditor-General criticised the Government for accepting applications from AJ Hackett, Discover Waitomo, and Whale Watch Kaikōura early. These three businesses wrote a letter. They did not claim any immediate financial risk to their assets. They did not have to provide any financial records or information, and money was given to them.

This is taxpayers’ money. If Kelvin Davis was still the Minister of Tourism, we would be asking for his resignation. Stuart Nash wasn’t the tourism Minister then, but he needs to front up to this House and explain. He needs to apologise to the New Zealand taxpayer for the way the money was shovelled out the door without any records. Those three companies got money, and when the Auditor-General asked for the paper trail and the information used for the Government to make that decision, Ministers to make that decision, there was no paperwork that could be found, and the Ministers told the Auditor-General, “Well, we’re not sure why the decision was made, because a whole lot was going on. We had to do it quickly.”

Well, here’s the reason, and it’s very clear. Stuart Nash may not know it, but in Queenstown they do. You see, on 24 June 2020, after the announcement of this fund, the tourism Minister announced $10.2 million for AJ Hackett to save about 15 jobs. Two days later, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern travelled to Queenstown. That announcement was made after a letter was written without any substantiating information, without any criteria met, so that the Government and the Prime Minister didn’t have to face tough questions in Queenstown and sent the message: “We are doing something about tourism. We’re supporting them.” All over Queenstown, other businesses didn’t get the funding that they needed. They stuck to the rules when they finally published. The Prime Minister didn’t visit again and, so, they didn’t get an early announcement.

That is not how you spend taxpayers’ money. Stuart Nash needs to front up to this Parliament and explain what went on. He needs to come before the committee if called. That is the reason the tourism sector is so deeply disappointed in this Government. They did everything asked of them, and this Government threw money around without actually benefiting those that needed it the most.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’ve heard countless speeches from the Opposition. There is no one single word of promise about what they can do for working people, for essential workers who got us through the dark times of two years of the pandemic. Of course they don’t have a plan. Everything is about business, business, business! Of course, we don’t have problems with business—our Government, our Prime Minister, and our finance Minister have engaged with business more than any other Government has in the past.

On this side of the House, we are the Government for all New Zealanders, with no exception. Which is why at the heart of our economic recovery from COVID-19 plan is our people. We are rolling out policies that will put more money in the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders to make our economy more resilient during the current cost of living crisis.

Our 1 April changes saw an increase in the minimum wage, bringing it up to $21.20. That is about $4.70 since 2017, when we came into Government. This year, that’s going to put about $48 a week into the pockets of hard-working, full-time, low-paid workers. The increase in minimum wage will actually benefit around 300,000 workers; the same workers that the Opposition always—always—love to overlook.

But on this side, when it comes to securing our recovery, we know that the National Party is all about rich people and it’s all about cutting taxes for top earners—they are only about 3 percent of the population. Can the National Party tell us what their plan is for approximately 300,000 low-income New Zealanders who work tirelessly and drive our economy, who have also been carrying us through this pandemic time? The sacrifice of all the essential workers throughout the pandemic, many of them are on the minimum wage.

We hear from the National Party over and over again that the increase in minimum wage is a problem for business. I can quote them. Christopher Luxon said that he wanted to cut tax so he can reduce debt and spending. Basically, what they want to do is they want to take their cake and they want to eat it.

We hear from the National Party, over and over again, arguments about support for the businesses; nothing for working people. The National Party are all about no increase in minimum wage; removing Labour Day; no fair pay agreement (FPA); and instead of the FPA, spreading disinformation and scaremongering about it. That’s a shame. On this side of the House, we don’t leave anyone behind; we are for everyone. We intend to look after everyone, whether that’s a low-paid worker or—we’re not even overlooking business.

The Hon Paul Goldsmith, when he was the National Party finance person, said that when they came into Government, they would suddenly start to stop that—the next minimum wage, if they were elected to power. That’s a concern for businesses struggling.

The Hon Scott Simpson said, “We … want to see sustained wage growth, but sharply increasing the minimum wage during a period of extreme uncertainty for small businesses is economic vandalism”.

On this side of the House, over and over we’ve proven that we are for all Kiwis, no matter who they are—whether they are top earners or they are low earners. We are the Government for the people. It’s about the people. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 SPEAKER: Welcome.

Thank you. Can I start by, firstly, thanking members from across the House who have reached out with offers of support over the last couple of months. It’s been a particularly challenging time and I really appreciate those who have reached across political boundaries, in particular, to express their concern and your well wishes for my recovery. I would also just like to, of course, note the support from the wider Waikato community and across the country. I have been inundated with wonderful messages from all of my fantastic constituents around the Waikato, who have sent cards or messages online, and it has been really wonderful and heartfelt and a huge help as I’ve transitioned through this challenging time. Lastly, of course, family and friends and my incredible wife, Hilary—I will note right here that she is fantastic.

Now, right, the reason I have sought or requested to take a call in this debate is because as National’s spokesperson for defence, I am becoming increasingly concerned that we are in an evolving, a dynamic, a challenging, and a very concerning situation globally as well as domestically. I think we can all understand some of the implications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and what that might mean for us, as well as any other country around the world, reflecting on the capability of their defence force to provide support and to defend the interests of their country when necessary.

Now, we absolutely condemn the actions of the Russian Federation with that invasion and have expressed support for Ukraine but, unlike a lot of our Western allies, we haven’t gone much further than expressing that support. We’ve seen a little bit of aid in terms of some second-hand helmets and body armour—possibly some of the stuff I wore a number of years ago—and I’m sure that has been helpful. But, actually, we heard yesterday and today that the Minister had sought support from Cabinet to send lethal aid and that was declined.

Now, in an environment like this, it’s becoming increasingly important to identify where we stand from a values-based perspective, and standing alongside our traditional allies, and in this particular instance, standing alongside Ukraine and the defence of their own sovereignty and their own freedoms, it’s absolutely vital that we stand up strongly in protection of those rights and those values and I don’t think we’ve been sending that signal strongly enough from New Zealand, so I would ask the Government to do a lot more. The defence Minister needs to be stronger in convincing his Cabinet colleagues that they should approve this additional aid. We heard in question time today his answer that they’re doing what has been asked. Well, they’re clearly not. President Zelenskyy from Ukraine has specifically requested Javelins as support. We have some; we haven’t sent them. We need to be looking at providing support, making it clear where we stand in support of these values and these rights to align with our traditional partners, because if we can’t do that now, then when will we? When is the right time to stand up for values?

Alongside that, we have the concerning news just recently that the Solomon Islands have now signed an agreement with China that is providing enhanced access for China into the Solomon Islands theatre. Now, part of the 2021 defence assessment that was released late - last year made it very clear that there were two specific issues identified through that assessment. One was around adapting to the challenges of climate change, and the other was around dealing with the increased strategic competition within our region. Now, that’s an area where we need to step up. We need to be showing a much stronger level of leadership, and we’re not seeing that from our defence Minister or from our Government at this stage. We need to be making it very clear where we stand and what our priorities are.

We saw just a week or two ago that the defence Minister now has scrapped plans for the previously proposed investment in a Southern Ocean patrol vessel and who knows what else is going to be scrapped from the Defence Capability Plan in 2019. This was an impressive piece of work that was put out back then that had a range of priorities under navy, air force, army, and in the information domain as well. Yet, we’re seeing those now being pushed out with no clear time frame, no commitment being made, and it’s very concerning for what the future might be for New Zealand. And so I’ll call on the defence Minister to step up, to show some real leadership, and to support New Zealand’s interests when it really matters from a values-based perspective. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.