General Debate

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

I’m proud to be part of a Government that is making real progress on its commitment to restore law and order and to reduce the number of victims of crime in our community so that New Zealanders can feel safer in their communities. We heard the message from the last election. People were, number one, concerned about the cost of living and trying to restore economic growth, and my colleague Nicola Willis is making great progress on that front—inflation down 2.2 percent. The second thing was restoring law and order. We made another step, last weekend, when we announced that this Government will finally be introducing legislation to criminalise stalking behaviour. I welcome all support from all corners of this House to reduce the number of victims of crime.

I did note there was also some fundamental disagreement in the House, particularly yesterday, around that. I want to quote the “Che Guevara of New Zealand’s Parliament” today, one Chlöe Swarbrick, who was talking yesterday on this topic. She said, “A criminal justice system that we all know only serves to produce more harm, more crime, and more victims didn’t just happen. It [was] designed by people in power in this Parliament, and in 2024 it is being upheld and perpetuated by people in this Parliament.” What a deeply cynical, extreme, and jaundiced view of the world expressed by that member, the leader of the Greens—“A justice system that we all know serves to produce more harm, more crime.”

We do not agree with that. Actually, I’d like to hear her tell that to the tens of thousands of New Zealanders working today in the justice system, in the courts, in the corrections, in the police, who—day in, day out—get up to work in the system that she so derides, to keep New Zealanders safe. I’d like to see her tell that to the victims of crime who look to the justice system for justice and for consequences for people who commit those crimes in our community. We didn’t hear any alternatives other than blather. We heard from her that “I believe that the people will win, that justice will win, that love will win.” Well, I’m sorry, we’ve got to do a bit better than that when people are the victims of serious violent crime. This Government is focused on bringing together—

Hon Member: What are you doing?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: What are we doing? Well, here we go. We’ve got news for you here. We’ve kept our commitment. The first task is to increase the chances of being caught and held to account. That is why, first and foremost, we removed the previous Government’s misguided and confused focus and goal of reducing the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of what was going on in the community. That was the one that sent the signal that there were excuses for crime—that everybody else in the country is responsible for the crime, apart from the person who did it, and that is the thing that undermined the system.

We’ve restored the focus on reducing the victims of crime—that’s number one. Secondly, we’ve increased the number of police—an extra 500 police. Then we’ve given them the extra powers that they needed to reduce and to deal with gang harm, because a small number of New Zealanders who are part of gangs are the ones who are contributing most of the violent crime and mayhem that we see. Then, we have introduced stronger sentencing requirements by bringing back three strikes, which the previous Government got rid of, and also by toughening sentencing requirements so that we can reduce the number of discounts that are offered by judges to people who are convicted of serious crime. Everybody has seen examples of people convicted of serious violent crimes achieving a bit of time on PlayStation at home, and we have sent a very clear message and will be sending a clear message through legislation that we want real consequences for serious crime.

Secondly, we’re focusing on the areas where intervention is most needed. The retail advisory group that I set up has already sent advice on how we can strengthen the laws around retail people to look after their shops and their selves without the fear of being prosecuted themselves, and that’s a very important message.

We’ve got to deal with the situation that we’ve inherited where there was a higher level of violent crime; and then, secondly, of course, we need to break the cycle of violence, and that is why this Government has invested more in rehabilitation programmes, so that they’re available for prisoners awaiting trial. It’s why we’re making progress on real drivers like emergency housing. I want to acknowledge the work of Tama Potaka, who’s really had dramatic progress in reducing the number of people growing up in emergency housing, which is a training ground. Also, we’re dealing with truancy, because if you want to deal with youth crime, you’ve got to deal with getting the kids back to school. Those are the long-term drivers that we’re focused on. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

When I decided to do the general debate today, I didn’t realise that I’d be speaking immediately after Paul Goldsmith. To the three people at home who made it through that and are still watching, I give my warm greetings to all of you. Although, I must confess, I once did read that biography of Don Brash that was written by Paul Goldsmith. I have never had such a good sleep in my entire life! I want to thank Paul Goldsmith for that.

There were two words that were not mentioned in that speech by the Minister for Treaty negotiations, and I’ll just mention one of them: “Treaty”. The second was “principles”. No one in the National Party wants to talk about the Treaty principles. And why is that? It could be because they told New Zealanders before the election that they thought it was divisive. They told New Zealanders before the election that they would not support it. They told New Zealanders before the election that it was a distraction. They told New Zealanders before the election that it would take the country backwards, and yet here we are: now the National Party tomorrow voting in favour of the Treaty principles bill—a bill that takes race relations in New Zealand backwards, despite the fact that the National Party said they would not do that.

This week has been a week of contrasts. The Government doing the right thing, the principled thing, in apologising to those who were abused in State care; then, two days later, doing entirely the wrong thing in voting in favour of the Treaty principles legislation—plunging race relations in New Zealand back into a very dark space.

Let’s be clear: they have no mandate to do so. The National Party and New Zealand First said before the last election that they would not support this bill. Only one party in Parliament said they would support it, and yet they are getting their way. A majority of Parliament tomorrow will vote in favour of the Treaty principles bill. That is a betrayal of the people who voted for this Government. It is an absolute betrayal that says that the commitments they made to the electorate before the election mean nothing to them. They are merely things that can be traded away. Their principles and their values are up for sale on that side of the House, and I think New Zealanders have every right to be upset about that.

I think those National Party backbenchers who are running around the corridors of the House, shaking their heads and talking about what a disgrace they think it is, have an opportunity to do something about that tomorrow and vote against the bill. They have an opportunity to stand up for the principles that they believe in and vote against the bill. They are violating the spirit of the people who actually have done the National Party proud in this area. People like Jim Bolger, like Doug Graham, like John Key, like Bill English, like Christopher Finlayson, who sought to lead the country forward.

As a New Zealander, I am proud of the progress that we have made as a country during my lifetime on issues around Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is absolutely fair to say that New Zealanders’ attitudes towards Te Tiriti in the past have been disgraceful. The Treaty was breached, crime was committed against New Zealanders, the Treaty was not honoured, and we have done a lot in the last few decades to rectify that and to say sorry. And we’ve said “sorry” time and again in this House for breaches of the Treaty.

All of the good will that has been built up under that process is now being jeopardised by this Government voting in favour of something that they said they were going to vote against. It is destroying the good will that has been so painstakingly built up. The National Party can stop this. The National Party can honour the commitment they made to New Zealanders, rather than the commitment they made to David Seymour and the ACT Party. The commitment they made to New Zealanders is what they should be honouring; not the deal they reached with the ACT Party. Let’s be clear about this: this is Christopher Luxon, as our Prime Minister, prioritising his deal with David Seymour over the best interests of the New Zealand public. This bill will not be in the best interests of the New Zealand public, and the National Party should vote against it.

This afternoon, we’ve witnessed the day of the Dons. That was, New Zealanders, a man affectionately known as “Chippy”—sadly, not a chip off the old block of Norman Kirk, David Lange, or indeed Helen Clark—a temporary occupant at the back of the waka. But I’ll let others deal with that. Of course, they don’t want to talk about the fact that in America, the election, another Don has put the tetrapod of wokeism to the sword. They don’t want to accept, as we do on this side of the House in New Zealand First, that if you spend more time talking about pronouns, if you spend more time obsessed with narrow marginal issues adversely related to the economic challenges of the day-to-day lives of Kiwis, you will never hold power—which is why this side of the House can look forward to a very rosy future.

The reality is that the campaign, the policy, the strategy that we’ve brought forward, New Zealanders, is sure to respect diversity, not cancel our history, and recognise there is a place for a debate about the Treaty of Waitangi. But it’s a contest of ideas. The Treaty of Waitangi is not a creed; it is not a basis for a separate sovereignty. It does not in any way at all uphold, mandate, 78 separate sovereignties from the Foveaux Strait to Te Rerenga Wairua. That is why, although you may not agree with the bill, although it may never see the light of day, parliamentarians are entitled to put ideas up for debate. This is a place—our House—where ideas should be respected. And it’s a very sad feature of yesterday’s apology where the idea of redress was politicised by the “Pumpkin Patch Kids” of the Green Party, distorted, sadly, by the Labour Party, and worsened by a lawyer who publicly attacked our Prime Minister and said that he had acted in a humiliating way, not hanging around for the apology.

We need to temper expectations as we move forward after the apology pertaining to the kura mōrehu—the people who have suffered through abuse. What we most certainly do not need are lawyers carrying on, boosting expectations, such as Sonja Cooper attacking our Prime Minister. You want to be a lawyer? Don’t try and hop in bed with the Labour Party unless you’re already there. And most certainly do not go around inflating the expectations of people who have a lifetime of misery as it is. Learn to stand up and adhere to the threshold of professionalism that we expect from lawyers, especially those who are operating in the space of representing vulnerable people. You will not guilt trip New Zealand First. You will most certainly not escape being called out when you come to Parliament and deal a low blow which disrespects the dignity of the position of the Prime Minister

I think I’m going to finish up this small contribution. Today, we will very soon be leading to the second reading of the fast-track legislation, and it came to me as a surprise, a great waste of money, that today, in The Post, Dominion, Stuff—whatever it’s called—Ngāti Ruanui, a tribe of Taranaki who should be using their money to educate their mokopunas, have tried to pay for the cost—and I presume it was them—in a full-pager advertisement that supporting ironsand mining is going to ruin the surf of Taranaki. Are jobs now not more important than surfing? More importantly, “It’s going to ruin the prospects of collecting crayfish and shellfish.” I know no hapū who goes 30 kilometres off the shoreline of our country to either get crayfish, either get shellfish—it’s that level of distortion worsened by the Māori Party, worsened by the falsehood merchants. That’s why the fast track is going to lay bare the falsehood, lay bare the actual hypocrisy which has been visited upon the mineral sector, and I, as the Matua of mining, am here to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal in that sector.

Earlier this week was the 11th day of the 11th month, and at 11 a.m. a number of New Zealanders gathered around this nation to pay tribute to those who have fallen in previous wars and conflicts, and those who still serve today. Armistice Day is an important date in our nation’s calendar, even as we acknowledge other events in our past—our regrettable past in relation to abuse in State care—and mark for the first time and with subsequent anniversaries to be recalled on the 12th day of the 11th month going forward. It is important that we give due recognition to those who have served our country with distinction over the years, and that is a theme to which I’ll return soon.

I do also want to acknowledge, as I was pleased the House was able to earlier today, the passing of Sir Robert “Bom” Gillies. He was but one member of a proud tradition, represented by the 28th Battalion, the Māori Battalion, but he was a significant member. He was not only the last remaining link to that generation, within the greatest generation as they are often known, quite rightly, but also a great New Zealander in his own right as an advocate for veterans, including Māori veterans who faced difficult circumstances on their return to New Zealand; in many cases, to our nation’s shame. I do want to thank the House for the acknowledgment that was given all around the House of his service, of his sacrifice, and that which he represented among that signal and esteemed group.

We stand here exercising our freedom of speech in this general debate as a result of the actions, the courage, the comradeship, and the commitment of those who have served this nation previously, including those we remember, particularly in Armistice Day. At my left shoulder, I see names such as Crete; on my right, El Alamein. I look across the House and I see such names as Malaya; I see Palestine; I see in more modern times, Afghanistan; and I see Timor-Leste. In fact, in front of me, even, are living memorials, if I can use that contradiction in terms. I have veterans of Timor-Leste - New Zealand operations in Dr Vanessa Weenink and Mr Tim Costley. We are grateful to all those who have served.

We see, in addition, Gallipoli, of course, famously remembered in relation to Anzac Day. I want to say, in relation to Anzac Day, important as that particular commemoration is in relation to that particular conflict, that tragedy, that campaign—may it never be forgotten; may we always remember that, but also acknowledging that that’s the start of a tradition that grew up following those days and weeks and months as the full force of that tragedy and that horror became apparent to New Zealanders in the commemoration of other conflicts and other services as well. I was very pleased that the Prime Minister announced at the recent annual gathering of the RSA—that esteemed institution that remembers, supports, and advocates for our veterans—that the Anzac Day Act is to be amended so that all conflicts and operations undertaken by the New Zealand Defence Force will be recognised accordingly in law on 25 April every year. That’s an important task; as is commemorating supporting those who are our contemporary veterans.

Under the Veterans’ Support Act, those who have been engaged in qualifying operational service are entitled to certain things, having been injured or ill in the course of their duties. We have made considerable efforts, as the Government, to improve the conditions of those making those claims. We are processing those claims much more quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied. An entitlement not realised in a reasonable period of time is one therefore, effectively, denied. I’m very pleased to say that the trend is going in the right direction in terms of processing those claims. We gained additional resources in the last Budget, and I thank the Minister of Finance for providing those to Veterans’ Affairs, so that we can better look after those who have served us.

It’s a momentous week in New Zealand history. We acknowledge particularly that last living link, as I say, to the 28th Battalion, the Māori Battalion. We thank them for their service. We remember them, and we acknowledge particularly that their sacrifice has enabled us the freedom to stand here on behalf of the people of New Zealand to have the debates and the robust discussion that freedom and democracy entail, enable, and indeed require. We will remember them. Lest we forget.

It’s right for the Minister for Veterans who has just resumed his seat to recall for the House the many milestones that are remembered around our walls, of those times when New Zealanders have defended the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country. I’m thinking ahead here to the year 2040. On 6 February, I hope that everyone in this House will be celebrating a proud history of progress in New Zealand for all citizens. It’ll be 200 years since the anniversary of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I hope that we’re celebrating. I hope that we can then be proud of this country’s progress towards an inclusive democracy, strong institutions, and respect for the rule of law, and the can-do attitude that Kiwis have about getting on and doing things together and including everyone who is a citizen here and who calls Aotearoa home.

I want to be cheering on a generation of young New Zealanders who stand strong in their identity and are experts in not only English but te reo Māori too. I want to be celebrating a generation of New Zealand exporters and businesspeople who see Te Tiriti o Waitangi not as something which is in their way but something that affords them an advantage on the world stage, in our trade arrangements, in the way that we attract foreign direct investment, and in the way that our economy is designed to be inclusive of everyone.

In 2040, the Treaty principles bill being debated tomorrow will be remembered as an ugly mistake in an otherwise honourable record of a country that has always been proud of the way we have done right by our citizens. It should be remembered as a political stunt, because it is and it’s only that. It’s a creature of a coalition agreement because it will help a minor party drum up votes using the politics of fear. It is a political tool that is being proposed by the Government and a misuse of public power. They are the only ones who can propose legislation in this Parliament and they are using that public power to get it on the agenda and win votes from people who think they have something to fear.

Politicians around the world are enjoying a political moment where they are using the most disenfranchised as a political punching bag to be popular. Single mothers, poor migrants, trans women—they are villains in politicians’ stories about what is going wrong so that they can ignore the big issues that really affect working people, like low wages, like high rents, and like rising prices in supermarkets. Those are going unaddressed by people who gain from that situation, and we’re seeing it creep into our politics in New Zealand. It’s not right.

Now, in New Zealand, we have minor parties who have managed to hijack the legislative process to drum up fear about Māori rights. I ask them: what are they afraid of? What is there to be afraid of in a generation of young New Zealanders who are proud of their identity, not only as Māori but as Pākehā who benefit from all of the good things that Māori have to offer in New Zealand and that our foundational partnership between the Crown and Māori has for everyone. It’s inclusive. It builds inclusive democratic institutions which support the rule of law and lead to a kind of economic growth that is enviable in any jurisdiction that we like to compare ourselves to.

I would say to them that democracy is fragile, and ours especially, with the fewest veto points of any Westminster Parliament. The recent Nobel Prize in economics went to a group of researchers who illustrated that successful economic development depends on open institutions and a stable rule of law. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a democratic institution. We as parliamentarians are charged with the protection of not only our democracy but its institutions too, and Te Tiriti is one. By drumming up this kind of political debate, which is divisive and alienates people, we as parliamentarians are letting our democracy down and are letting down the way that we organise our economy here in Aotearoa.

National MPs can choose to vote against this bill and they should. As MPs who have an interest in stability in our democracy and in our economy, it is their duty, and the duty that they owe to their constituents, to vote against it when it’s introduced.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to take a call in this general debate this afternoon. I want to acknowledge what a huge week it’s been, especially for te kura mōrehu [the treasured survivors] and the apology that we saw in the House yesterday. I’d also like to thank the honourable Minister for Veterans for taking up the wero of veterans and actually applying the Act to more of the service that our veterans have seen, so thank you very much. Since it will benefit me as a modern veteran, I’m particularly grateful.

This week, we’ve seen some extraordinary events in my electorate, where, finally, the local community have been listened to by a large group. KiwiRail proposed a ridiculous idea of closing a cycleway in the Heathcote Valley in order to be able to undertake works to make safe a crossing of a road across a railway, but the cycleway that they wanted to close didn’t even cross this same railway. They appeared to be using that as a way of getting the local council to fund this crossing. This whole thing had had a lot of whakapapa, if you’d like, from back in 2019 when the project was first proposed. KiwiRail had pointed out that they were concerned about increased traffic across this rail crossing and had gone through the process of the shovel-ready projects to get this part of the business case. Unfortunately, it wasn’t included in the business case, as many things weren’t, for the shovel-ready projects.

Then we come down the line five years later and they are proposing an increased cost for this project. It’s gone from $2 million up to $6.5 million to complete putting in barrier arms. They already put in some lights and flashing sirens and everything to prevent people from making a mistake. You can see a kilometre in every direction to make sure that there’s a train coming, if you happen to be walking past. The $6.5 million dollars—I worked out that if they paid someone at minimum wage to stand there and personally escort across this crossing, you could do that for about 10 years and all of the people that were required to be across would be very safely escorted across. This is the kind of level of absolute idiocy that we’re seeing. KiwiRail’s own calculations put that the mortality return on investment for this crossing was 1,003 years.

The local community were rightly up in arms about this. On Saturday, over 200 of them gathered at the cycleway to protest the lunacy of this. As we were all discussing this whole thing, a small, two-engine unit came trundling past and tooted—

Suze Redmayne: Well planned.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: And, yes, I think it may have been some KiwiRail workers, even, wanting to highlight their support for us. The cycleway has now had a stay of execution because, after being called into the Minister of Transport’s office for a “Please explain”, into Minister Brown’s office—and thank you very much to the Minister for doing that to KiwiRail; supporting them and helping them to understand that, really, a cycleway that doesn’t cross a railway does not deserve to be closed down for two years in order to be made safe for this road crossing. We’ve seen that KiwiRail have agreed that they will review this decision. I hope that the good people of the Heathcote Valley will remain safe and their children will remain safe and not have to bike on the road, which would be a much more dangerous proposition than going down their cycleway.

This kind of decision making that is based on risk assessments that make no sense probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to us from an entity that went from a project of $600 million in the iReX project to being over $3 billion projected spend in the end. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to us from an entity that couldn’t figure out how to turn off an automatic pilot and crashed the ferries in the Cook Strait. I hope that they will go on to reflect and keep this cycleway open. I support the people of Heathcote Valley to be able to continue on this way. Thank you.

Today, the Government has launched a refreshed public-private partnership (PPP) framework. I’ve been working on this policy in my role as infrastructure under-secretary, along with the Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop. PPPs, when done right, deliver great value for money, they deliver projects on time, and they also deliver fantastic whole-of-life asset outcomes for the public sector and for the taxpayers who pay for it. Contrast this with the way so many of our public assets have been left to run down over the past few decades, having been built new, opened with a politician cutting a ribbon, but with no thought given to the long-term maintenance and renewal of these assets. You only have to think about the leaky pipes and the overflowing waste-water networks around New Zealand to know that New Zealand might be OK at spending money on infrastructure, but incredibly poor at maintaining it.

New Zealand is also amongst the top 10 percent of OECD countries for our spending on infrastructure, but in the bottom 10 percent in terms of getting a product—actually delivering investment and infrastructure for our spend. One of the reasons that public-private partnerships are important to turn this around is because when the private sector has skin in the game, when they have to put money on the table and when they have to finance a new piece of infrastructure, whether it’s a school or a hospital or a road, and then maintain it for 25 years and hand it back to the Government after 25 years—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It costs more.

SIMON COURT: Duncan Webb says that will cost more. In fact, that reflects the true cost of operating and maintaining an asset.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: There’s a profit motive—there’s a profit.

SIMON COURT: And we know it represents the true cost because the private sector has skin in the game—if they don’t allow enough cost, they’ll go broke, Dr Duncan Webb. That’s the difference between New Zealand Labour’s previously flawed approach to rejecting public-private partnerships, because they failed to recognise that an insufficient investment in the maintenance side of things can’t make up for announcing new projects, building them over time, if ever, and over budget. You cannot possibly spend your way out of our infrastructure problem.

A few weeks ago, I was in Australia and I visited with colleagues in the construction and infrastructure and financing sector, including with the Victorian Infrastructure Delivery Authority. One thing they pointed out to me was that it didn’t matter whether they had a centre-right or a centre-left Government. There was universal support, Dr Duncan Webb, for the concept of private sector finance involved in the delivery of projects and their ongoing maintenance and operation in the form of public-private partnerships. That’s because, when it’s important to transfer the right risks to the private sector—while the public sector keeps some that it makes more sense to own, like getting the planning permissions—when it makes sense to actually leverage private finance and make sure that they have some risk associated with their investment so they want to manage the asset properly, then it doesn’t matter what political stripe you are; it makes sense to make investments along those lines. That’s why I’m very proud to say that, today, this Government has achieved cross-party support—unanimity, in fact—to support the next generation and wave of public-private partnerships, because Labour’s finance spokesperson, Barbara Edmonds, has signed on to the foreword of the public-private partnership policy framework to support that concept where it makes sense to invest in that way.

In Australia a few weeks ago, I visited a number of PPP schools, and what was remarkable about them is that, even though they were up to 10 years old, they looked as good and as tidy as the day they opened. What the teachers told us in our visit and what the school managers told us is that they don’t have to worry about maintaining those facilities—they only need to turn up and deliver education and look after the children in their care. I was astounded by the construction workshops and all of those learning facilities which particularly help keep young men engaged in school right until they graduate out. That is only possible because a public-private partnership has committed to providing the highest-quality facilities, maintaining them to make sure the equipment always operates, and that the teachers can simply get on and teach. I’m proud to say that New Zealand is going ahead today with the next generation of PPPs.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just fascinated to listen to Vanessa Weenink’s speech, and she’s one that I’m hopeful will actually vote against the Treaty principles bill when it comes before this House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does she have the guts?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, she’s got form, because she came out doorknocking with me and helped put Jacinda Ardern into that seat over there in 2017. She’s seen the ways of the Labour Party, and when she realised she wasn’t going to be a Labour MP, look what happened, eh? Look what happened.

The Treaty principles bill is an absolute travesty. It is a shocker. Now, look, the fact of the matter is that the ACT Party is there, the tail wagging the big, fat, ugly dog, whilst the puppy dog in the other corner isn’t getting a look-in at all, and I am shocked that the party on the other side—the National Party—is being led by the nose.

The bill itself is actually illegitimate and it’s dishonest. It’s dishonest because the very legitimacy of this House is built on the Treaty of Waitangi. The fact is that the authority of this Parliament comes from the fact that the Treaty, in one way or another, created a union between Māori and the Crown, and the authority of the first Parliament that sat came from that very document. Do you know what? You can’t rip away the foundation stone because you don’t like it any more. You can’t make up and you can’t create fictitious principles because you don’t like the deal that you made 180 years ago.

Look, the Treaty isn’t perfect. There are two versions, they don’t agree with each other, and some Māori didn’t sign the Treaty. The fact of the matter is that even if you take those two documents, its true intent is not always clear to see, and there’s a way around that. Just like a contract that is incomplete and that doesn’t take into account every future circumstance, we do go to the courts. We ask the courts “Well, what’s meant by this? What was the original intent?”, and that’s what the principles of the Treaty are.

Do you know what, I’ll tell you who put it quite well. That was Christopher Finlayson, who said back on 10 August 2016, which is not that long ago—he put it well. He said that “part of the law of New Zealand is, in fact, the Treaty, and part of the Treaty, of course, is that we accept there are principles of that Treaty that we regard as important … the fact of the matter is that we say ‘according to law.’ And, by necessary implication, we read into that the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.”

Yes, the Treaty is old. It was drafted quickly up in Waitangi. It was poorly translated and there are inconsistent versions. That’s why we have the Treaty principles, and it was in 1994, in the State-owned Enterprises case, that the Privy Council looked at this for us, and I accept that we do need an independent judiciary to look at questions like this. They said that “the ‘principles’ are the underlying mutual obligations and responsibilities which the Treaty places on the parties. They reflect the intent of the Treaty as a whole and include, but are not confined to, the express [words] of the Treaty. … With the passage of time, the ‘principles’ which underlie the Treaty have become much more important than its precise terms.” That’s what the ACT Party is trying to do away with—that very foundation stone. What they’re trying to do is vicious, it’s divisive, it’s racist, it’s dishonest, it’s illegitimate, and it’s unconstitutional.

A very wise person in this House—a member of that party—said, “I think New Zealand will be a better place if we can accommodate the concepts of partnership expressed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” That was a guy called Gerry Brownlee, in his maiden speech, and I think he’d be very happy to have that—or Nicola Willis. On the radio today, she said, “It’s a founding constitutional document of our nation. If one party seeks to impose their view on the other without their consent, it’s dangerous.” That’s what this bill is. Vanessa Weenink, vote against it.

What a great day it is today, because right now, at this very minute, there are people driving along the Kāpiti Expressway at 110 kilometres an hour. This is great news for every single person not just in my electorate—the Ōtaki electorate, right through Horowhenua and Kāpiti—but all those that travel up and down the North Island. You’ll remember the dark days of Labour Governments, when it was a windy road; it was a dangerous road. People died on that road. Along came National and said, “You know what we need? Roads of national significance.” And now, here we are: the culmination of the Kāpiti Expressway from Raumati, through Paraparaumu, Otaihanga, Waikanae, Peka Peka, Te Horo, right to Ōtaki—110 kilometres per hour the whole way.

Now, I know what we’re all thinking of. We’re all thinking of Ryan Hamilton in his maiden speech talking about driving down the Cambridge Expressway at 110 with AC/DC blaring. I will be the same. Sadly, in my case it is Taylor Swift, due to the three daughters I have, but I’m OK with that. I’ve made my peace. The one thing I wasn’t going to compromise on was 110. In fact, we held the petition. More than 2,000 people signed that petition in support; 3,000 people submitted to the New Zealand Transport Agency, and 93 percent of them said, “Make it 110.” That’s what people told me they wanted, that’s what I fought hard for, and today it has been delivered. This is a safe, world-class expressway, designed and built to be safe at these higher speeds, and now we have it.

I tell you what: for those in the northern part of the electorate—and, to be fair, for all of us—we just look forward to the next phase, the next stage, Ōtaki to north of Levin, all the way to the north of Levin, construction starting next year. Gee, it’s great to have a National MP in our area, and even better to have a National Party Government that is getting our region back on track. But it’s not just speed that is at 110—10 percent faster on the expressway—mortgages are 10 percent cheaper now than they were just a couple of months ago. In fact, if you buy a house today at the median house price, you put down a 20 percent deposit, you will be saving exactly $110 per week on your mortgage thanks to this Government and our efforts to cut inflation—an extra $110 and 110 kilometres an hour. Now, I’m sure it’s not just those that are 10 percent better; our streets are probably 10 percent safer.

Health: in fact, I looked at the number of nurses that we have trained—almost 2,600—it’s almost 110 new nurses that we have employed every fortnight for the last year since we came into Government. That is amazing; 110 is the magic number to remember.

I hear from the other side people complaining because as we drive down at 110 with that extra money from mortgage rates dropping—and, of course, people have also got their tax relief in their back pocket; the tax relief that the Opposition opposed. They didn’t want people in our community to have anything. Labour didn’t want you to have it. But it’s also not enough. There’s the FamilyBoost payment. If you’ve got children in early childhood education, you could be entitled to extra money—up to $75 a week. Make sure you apply for that. Labour opposed that as well. But it’s also not enough. What do they believe in? No one seems to know. They were very principled before when Duncan Webb was talking, but just ask them what they believe about you having more of your own money.

It’s not just cars, of course, in the Kāpiti Coast that are going faster. This weekend, we just had the Kāpiti Half Marathon. It was good to see some cross-party representation. We don’t need to compare times. I’m OK with it if you want to. Let’s just agree that the ladies from my household did better than all the gents from this House in their respective races. We all earned those pink buns at the end. And guess how much that cost!

Sam Uffindell: $110?

TIM COSTLEY: No, less than $110. Well done to Benjy and the team. Flooding at the last minute meant they had to completely reroute the course, and they did an amazing job. Can I congratulate Jeroen Mattheus, who won the men’s half-marathon. He runs a great running group on a Friday morning and trained a number of runners. Can I congratulate Cath Braddock, who won the women’s half-marathon, fresh off a 70 kilometres Taupō Ultramarathon, where she came second—outstanding. And a special shout-out to a woman, my special lady, who came—guess where she placed!—110th; same as it all.

This weekend, the Kāpiti Strawberry Festival, Foxton Christmas Fair, Levin Diwali—I look forward to driving to them down the Kāpiti Expressway at 110 kilometres per hour. We’re getting this country back on track.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I have an opportunity to respond to what happened yesterday, when this House acknowledged the horrendous abuse that was endured by more than a quarter of a million tamariki from the years of 1950 to 1999. I’m not going to mince my words, because I only have a very short period of time to do this.

Yesterday was the day for remembrance and for the apology, but today is the day for action. Today is the day that the Government needs to be accountable for the actions that it continues to take that create abusive environments whereby the pain and the trauma that we saw in that report might happen again today, because the very next day, as in this morning, there was a regulatory impact statement released that detailed the impact of the military boot camps that this Government is currently experimenting with and on the young serious offender category—the very next day. The Government couldn’t even wait to put their boot camps further into the system. Then, tomorrow, we’re going to come back here and we’re going to debate the Treaty principles bill, despite the fact that so many of the recommendations from the abuse in State care report said, “Please, do not undermine tamariki’s connection to their iwi, to their hapū, and to their whakapapa.”

We have a pipeline in this country whereby Māori babies are uplifted from their families and put into State care, and then in that State care they are often abused, and that still carries on to this day. State abuse did not end in 1999; it continues to this day. They are abused in our care. They end up in our youth justice residences—the same ones that those kids were up on the roof for—and then they end up getting involved in gangs because those are the only people who can relate to their experiences of abuse and trauma, and then for their entire life they end up in and out of prison. It is a vicious cycle. But the obvious thing from the actions of this Government is that this House facilitates that pipeline—they actively facilitate that pipeline. It’s not going to end until we decide that we can and should and must do better than what we currently do.

I just read an article from RNZ that said the Government doesn’t even know if gang members will be eligible for compensation for the abuse that they endured by the State. Where do you think they learnt that violence from? They learnt it from the people who were supposed to protect them and look after them. They’re simply reproducing the behaviours and the attitude that they were taught. We have a responsibility in this House to stop that cycle, but we haven’t learnt anything from the past, because we’re still doing the boot camps.

David Seymour wants to lock up the parents of truants. We want to take this whole pathway around truancy. That happened in the past as well. They picked kids up off the streets, who were meant to be at school, and put them into abusive institutions where they were abused. Karen Chhour and her boot camps: we just need to read the report to see how those boot camps inevitably will end. Mark Mitchell is building a mega-prison at Waikeria and at Auckland Prison to continue to funnel our people into prisons. Tama Potaka is kicking Māori whānau out of emergency housing. Most importantly, tomorrow, this Government will introduce a Treaty principles bill that will absolutely underpin harm that is completely irreversible. When I’m 70, I don’t want to hear an apology from this House about the Treaty principles bill. I won’t accept an apology.

The last thing I want to say is that I want to speak on behalf of people like my grandfather, who ended up in a borstal in the 1970s, where he was subject to seclusion—which is solitary confinement for kids—where he was subject to a number one diet, where he was showered by being hosed down with a fire hose. That is why I refuse to accept that this House continues to perpetuate the same conditions that he had to endure, because he deserved better.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to start off with a shout-out to all of those in the Wairarapa electorate, Central Hawke’s Bay, Tararua, and the Wairarapa.

Spring is certainly here. We could do with a heap of rain on our hills, though, particularly up in the northern part. Most people have had tax relief. Interest rates are on their way down. It’s crouch and hold till the end of the month—hopefully more good news with the upcoming official cash rate announcement. Hard-working parents are now able to get FamilyBoost payments, and anyone that’s not getting it or not sure if they’re eligible, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

I would like to wish all the students who are sitting their exams or who have already sat them not only in the Wairarapa but around the country the best of luck. To those that are leaving school to embark on whatever their next challenge may be, I would also wish them all the best. I’d also just like to thank all the teachers for the hard work that they’ve done and the part they’ve played in the education of our young people.

The agricultural and pastoral show season is now well upon us, and it’s always been a very special part of provincial New Zealand. It’s a place where town meets country and we get to celebrate what we do and who we are. I’ve really enjoyed the interactions at the Hawke’s Bay show, Waipukurau, Clareville, and I look forward to many more.

Some other good news for our region and, indeed, all regions around New Zealand is the fact that commodity prices are up. Commodity prices being up means a big deal. It means a big deal because 80 percent of our export income comes from our food and fibre sector, 70,000 businesses are involved in the sector, and 360,000 people work in it—one in six New Zealanders. Beef schedules are up, lamb’s better than it has been, the dairy pay-out is significant for our economy, and those benefits start flowing through into our towns and into our economy.

Just in case the news hasn’t got through, the inflation genie is well back in the box. It was down to 2.2 percent for the year ended September, and the darkness before dawn, as Nicola Willis previously described the state of the economy, is finally starting to lift. Thank you for trusting us as the Government to manage the economy out of a recession. Through the fog of that recession that we inherited from the previous Government, we can now glimpse better days ahead, and that’s certainly something to look forward to. Actually, all this is in contrast to the other side of the House. A business owner came up to me the other week in Masterton. He was actually quite incredulous at the comments he’d heard from the previous administration regarding their regrets and/or their intentions to borrow more, spend more, and tax more.

In his comment to me, he said, “That’s how we ended up in the recession we did.”, and thinking about what he said, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that the Labour Party seems to be fixated not only on more rules but on more tax. They seem quite addicted to tax.

They’d tax our land, they’d tax our beds,

they’d tax the tables upon which we’re fed.

They’d tax our tractor, tax our utes,

that’s why, on 14 October, Kiwis gave them the boot.

They’d tax our work, they’d tax our pay,

they’d prefer we work for peanuts and earn all the same, anyway.

They’d tax our sheep, they’d tax our cows,

they’d tax us any way or how.

What about our ties? Even our shirts?

They’d even try to tax our dirt.

They’d tax us if we blink.

They’d tax us if we try to think.

They’d tax all we have, then let us know,

they won’t be done till we’ve got no more dough.

When we scream and holler, they’d tax us some more—

tax us till we’re good and sore.

They’d tax our coffins, tax our graves,

and tax the dirt upon which we’re laid.

When we’re not looking, when we turn our backs,

don’t be surprised if they’ll want a capital gains tax.

Also, when we’re gone, do not relax,

they’ll also try and apply an inheritance tax.

That’s probably more than enough of tax. We as a party are still concentrating on those key things: getting the economy back on track, good law and order outcomes, and getting good and better public services. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you, “Mr Crump”.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ki te kotahi te kākaho, ka whati; ki te kāpuia, e kore e whati—in the words of King Tāwhiao, “One reed alone will break; if they are bunched together, they are impossible to break.”

I speak often about growing up with a Māori father and a Pākehā mother. I feel often that I have the best of both worlds, but I wonder, as the Treaty principles bill makes its way to Parliament tomorrow, how the hell did we get here as a country? Last week, I watched in disbelief as “Simeon Seymour” tabled the Treaty principles bill. Tomorrow, I presume that the Acting Prime Minister will be none other than David Seymour.

Around the country, New Zealanders and Māori are mobilising with passive resistance against this National Government. Today, we saw thousands and thousands of Māori and non-Māori alike go from Te Kamaka Marae in Northcote, Hāto Petera, across the Harbour Bridge in Auckland to Takaparawhau and to Ihumātao to demonstrate their disgust in the Treaty principles bill and this Government’s attack on Māori—this Government’s attack on Māori. I ask again in this House: how the hell did we get here?

I want to acknowledge every single person that crossed that bridge today. The thousands of Aucklanders, the people that have marched from Te Rerenga Wairua, those people that stand for something, who believe in the foundations of Te Tiriti—the thing that brought our peoples of Aotearoa together in unity. This bill will take New Zealand backwards under this Government. It will take Māori-Crown relations back to the dark ages. It is divisive, it is destructive, it is an absolute waste of money.

The Treaty principles bill does not have support in this House, and today not only do I ask people to vote against the Treaty principles bill tomorrow; I particularly throw the tono out to those that sit on the Māori Affairs Committee with me, to the chair, to members that sit across the other side of the House in Government. I’m calling them to do what is right: to not put New Zealand through a six-month process of destruction that whips up racism. Once that reading is done tomorrow, we’ll have to endure thousands of submissions from people like Hobson’s Pledge. This is what they want, this is their wish, and National Party members who vote tomorrow are giving in to them and giving them what they want.

Again, I humbly ask my colleagues in the Māori Affairs Committee: do not vote for this bill. It’s not only the submissions that we will endure—and it’s not often spoken about—but after a first reading and submissions, it will come back to this House for a second reading.

I believe that this country was founded on unity; that we have progressed as a country over decades, but tomorrow we will revisit our shocking and terrible past. I just want to acknowledge all of the people, Māori and non-Māori alike, that crossed that bridge today; that stood for something; that stood for unity, Māori and non-Māori alike. I call again on my Government colleagues in Māori Affairs: do not vote for the Treaty principles bill.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.