General Debate

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

In this week of a global tariff war with intense events of significant implications happening, New Zealanders would be forgiven for wanting some light relief. And so, on Monday night, many of them will have tuned in to the last episode of The White Lotus. When I gazed at the images of that White Lotus Hotel there in Thailand, my mind drifted to the Labour Party because there are very few entities which have as many competing storylines as The White Lotus, but the Labour Party’s competing storylines about its policy process and what it wants to do to New Zealanders are perhaps as manifold as they are in The White Lotus. Because this week, we’ve seen the psychological thriller start to play out within the party as some of its members start to mutter quietly about the policy that dare not speak its name. And we ask ourselves, when will the mystery finally be revealed? When will that bit that they don’t say out loud be spoken? When will the great reveal of the Voldemort of the Labour Party policy crypt actually be emerged?

I think that we’re getting closer because the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) have been the first out of the blocks. They’ve revealed their manifesto—well, they’re about to reveal it—and they’ve given us a teaser. It’s a teaser as good as a trailer for The White Lotus without the background music, and it says that the capital gains tax (CGT) will be at its heart. That’s right, I can say the words even if Mr Hipkins can’t: capital gains tax. And look, there have been some early supporters who have come out liking the posts and celebrating the post: Camilla Belich, I think you were the first to move. Then we saw Barbara Edmonds out of the blocks, excited about the CTU’s policy response.

But the challenge is this: there seems to be a word from Mr Hipkins, “Don’t talk about tax. Don’t let New Zealanders know that the secret to this particular psychological thriller is that the way we intend to pay for our profligate spending is by taking what you New Zealanders worked hard to earn.” We’ve already seen from Mr Hipkins and his party as many flip-flops as you see in a Thai spa. Because, at first, what we had was the sensible observation that those who seek to “defund da Police” and criticise our police are making comments that are “stupid”. But Mr Hipkins then got a telling off, I think, from Chlöe and Marama, and so he went back out and he said, “Oh yeah, that was a bit mean, wasn’t it? That was a bit mean of me to call that stupid.” So we’ve seen that he’s flip-flopping on that and I can anticipate he’ll be flip-flopping on tax.

So this leads me to reflect on where will the next episode of The White Lotus take place? Where will the next series be? Because we’ve had it in Hawaii, we’ve had it in Italy, and we’ve had it in Thailand. Well, I think it’s time that our golden paradise of New Zealand be the place for the next series of The White Lotus, and I reckon I picked the location for it. It needs to be somewhere where there’s a villain who’s prepared to take on others. It needs to be somewhere where frenemies will come together. It needs to be somewhere where a true battle can happen between psychological forces. So I’m picking the place where I reckon the real leadership and tax battle of the Labour Party will happen, and that’s the Wairarapa. Because in the Wairarapa we have a man called Kieran McAnulty. Sadly for him—although not for people of the Wairarapa—no longer the local MP, but I reckon he’s going to have a card to play as they grapple with their CGT tax policy.

But I just want to quickly say this: when we talk about tax, I can’t help but think about David Parker, and I want to sincerely say that his announcement of his resignation from Parliament this week I think is a loss for Parliament, because while I vigorously disagree with some of the policies he’s promoted, at least he had the integrity to fight for what he believed, and I think that Chris Hipkins should take note.

I call—[Interruption] OK, that is all we are going to have on that.

I would like to speak to the New Zealand Police force, because they have an enemy, and despite what these pathetic billboards have to say, it’s not me; it’s the people that claim that they back the police: the National Party, who have been sharing disinformation about a statement that I supposedly made. It is classic National Party dirty politics, and it serves to distract from the fact that that Government are the only people in this House that are actually defunding the police. Remember this, New Zealand Police: the New Zealand National Party are the only ones that have decided to defund the Police by $55 million over the next four years. They are the ones that have disestablished 170 roles within the police force, and they are the ones that are cutting the backroom officers’ jobs within the Police and leaving that to front-line officers to deal with instead, increasing the administrative burden for police officers.

On top of that, this is a Government that will put the police force into even more hostile, adversarial positions within their communities, because they are happy to introduce laws like the gang patch ban, which, instead of the intentional, relational, methodical work that the police were doing in communities alongside gang leaders—they have decided to throw that out and say to police officers, “We’re not going to increase your pay, but we will make you be at war with people within your communities.”

My suggestion that perhaps other professionals might be better suited to respond to some situations is not unusual. Police officers are not social workers. Police officers are not mental health professionals. Internationally, police call-outs for mental health crises have escalated. Even up until the 1990s, the police weren’t even in charge of doing things like enforcing traffic laws—that was left to the Ministry of Transport—but as Governments have progressed, they have increased the burden on police officers, meanwhile drastically cutting their funding and their work conditions. That is what the police Minister is afraid of being accountable for.

I acknowledge that for some people, the presence of police makes them feel safe, especially as communities grapple with soaring crime rates, but I won’t shy away from my view that a more visible police presence does not make me feel safer. It is not an uncommon view. It is held by people who faced the full force of the Red and Blue Squads during the Springbok Tour protests. It is held by Pacific people whose family and grandparents were dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night in the Dawn Raids. It is held by rural Māori who have been surveilled and tormented and terrorised and raided by the New Zealand Police force. It is held by people who grew up in neglected, impoverished communities who live under the constant suspicion and surveillance of the New Zealand Police. And it is shared by women who go to the police with complaints of domestic and sexual violence who are not believed and not taken seriously until it is too late. That is not a minority group of people. That is a group of people I am proud to represent, and I don’t care if I’m the only person in this House with the balls to represent those communities.

That’s because our people have a history with the police. I want to acknowledge the people that enter the police force with the hope of changing things, because that system is rotten in many ways. It is the exact same reason that I came to this House: to make this place fairer for the communities that I represent. That is because Māori are 5.7 times more likely to come into contact with police. We are more likely to be handcuffed, pepper sprayed, arrested, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned. Māori are overrepresented in police apprehensions and use of force and taser incidences.

This is what democracy is: it is people who are not afraid to criticise the systems that we have in place. If you disagree that that is what is happening, then you are part of the problem, and you need to be accountable for the decisions—

SPEAKER: Well, surely not me.

TAMATHA PAUL: —and the oppression that is sustained by the Government’s decisions.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Nelson Hospital has been in the news. Here’s why people should care: Nelson Hospital is old, it’s crumbling, and it desperately needs replacing. There aren’t enough beds, and patients can’t get the care that they need.

Two years ago, the Labour Government agreed on a plan to rebuild Nelson Hospital. Last year, National cancelled that plan; they promised a new plan would be finalised by Christmas. Well, it’s April, and the joke’s on us. Medical professionals told us that one large-scale acute services building is what is needed to deliver the best care to patients and to care for our growing and ageing population. But instead, National want to downgrade these plans to smaller buildings.

But let me tell you: what is happening in Nelson is happening in many regions right across this country. Thanks to who? Thanks to the reckless choices that have been made by those guys over there.

Now, Nelson Hospital has also been in the news because of the lack of care provided to patients, not on the part of the doctors and nurses who go to work every day and do their absolute best; it’s about the cuts that National have put in place to our health system in Nelson.

Wait-lists have absolutely blown out, with one blowing out to over 1,000 people. It is the worst it’s ever been. A woman visited my office last week. She is suffering from severe anxiety because she was told by her GP that she might have cancer and she was referred to Nelson Hospital for a colonoscopy. Seven months later, she has not received her colonoscopy, and she feels her life is at risk.

Senior doctors are speaking out because patient safety is at risk. Nurses are speaking out because they are so frustrated with the lack of resources to do their jobs. This is the state of the health system as a result of National’s reckless choice to cut jobs and halt the recruitment of doctors and nurses in places like Nelson.

My office has been absolutely inundated with phone calls and emails nearly every day from somebody in Nelson who can’t get the care they need. They’ve been recently telling me that they can’t get their tests results back, delaying treatment by weeks, sometimes months. A mother came to see us last week. Her daughter has renal failure and needs a kidney transplant. She might be a match. The mother had tests done in December but still hasn’t received the results. So her daughter is left in limbo, not knowing if her mother is a match for her desperately needed transplant.

A woman with heart problems reached out to my office last week. She wore a cardiac monitor for a week in October last year and she still hasn’t received her results, further delaying her treatment. I’ve had members of my community tell me that they’ve had to put in Privacy Act requests to get their health records so that they can access the treatment they need and the care that they need. It is disgraceful.

Furthermore, I have asked Nelson Marlborough health for answers on all of these cases and they have not even replied to my office, on behalf of my constituents. That is a disgrace under this Government; it never happened under the previous Government.

Now, on Gisborne Hospital, National is also doing similar things there, with dozens of senior doctors writing to the Government, asking for urgent action. They’ve told the Prime Minister that Gisborne Hospital is on the brink of collapse. The doctors have no idea what plan is in place to address the vacancies in that hospital. The situation is dire and they’re not able to provide locals with the care they deserve. In Dunedin, the Government has been playing us off against each other, saying regions have to fight amongst themselves for the resources.

Every region deserves a decent hospital. I will stand up for Nelson and every regional hospital in this country. National need to stop the cuts and let hospitals hire the staff they need. They need to listen to the people on the ground, rebuild the Nelson Hospital like it was promised, and not continue to keep the business case languishing on the Minister’s desk. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, where do I start after a speech like that from the Green Party member Tamatha Paul? The only ones who are hostile and adversarial towards our police in this country are the Green Party, and they’ve shown that over the last couple of weeks.

I want to address a couple of the issues that they raise around money. As the incoming Minister, with the briefing to me, it became immediately apparent that the previous Government had underfunded cost pressures by about 4 or 5 percent. The Minister of Finance immediately made a one-off $120 million payment—

Mark Cameron: How much?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —$120 million—to try to actually address that issue, which increased the funding around cost pressures from 1 percent to 5 percent. There has been $226 million delivered on the extra 500 police officers, and by the way, when we came into Government, we were already 200 down—we were 200 down. That’s where we were starting from. There has been $424.9 million to support front-line policing, $242.2 million to boost police pay, and $62.7 million for front-line police vehicles and marine capability. By the way, on this side of the House, we would love to pay all of our first responders as much as we can. We were in a situation, as the incoming Government, where, basically, that lot had been driving us broke as a country, and we had to fix that, and we are fixing that. We’ve seen inflation coming down. We’re seeing interest rates coming down. We need to get stimulus and growth back in our economy. When that starts to happen, that puts us in a much stronger position as a Government and as a country to make those decisions around ongoing investment. And that’s what we’re doing.

There’s one thing that I really want to address, which I thought was a shameful comment, and that was highlighting what was called a “rotten” system—a “rotten” system. We’ve got the best, world-class police force in the world. I have no doubt about that. That is based off reports, that is based off my own personal knowledge of having worked overseas with many law enforcement agencies, and it is a huge slur on every member of our police serving now and on all of those who have come before them. I can tell you this: there are thousands and thousands of kind acts of humanity that are shown by our police officers every day in the service of the communities they serve. And let us never forget: yes, they are police officers, but they are mums and dads, they are grandparents, they are sons and daughters. They are in our community. They are involved in sporting organisations, they are on the boards of trustees of our schools, and they choose to put on the blue uniform and step forward and do a job that most of us wouldn’t, because they want to protect and serve the communities that they’re in. It does them a huge injustice to have a party in this Parliament come and attack them the way that the Green Party has done.

And, by the way, Labour, you’re not off the hook on this, because your leader—the flip-flop guy, “Mr Jandal”—came out and condemned those comments, and then all of a sudden he was on the blower to Marama Davidson and he folded like a house of cards. He folded and he came out and said, “Oh, you know what? No, actually, the Greens are raising some important points.” What are they? Come forward and tell us what they are. I’ll tell you what—I’ve got an idea—let’s see whether or not the Labour members in the House today—raise your hand if you disagree with these comments: “A visible police presence makes people feel more on edge.” No, no—no one is raising their hand. They all support that. Here’s another one: “She received nothing but complaints about police on beat patrols.” Who agrees with that? Who agrees with that? Labour again: “Wellington people do not want to see police officers everywhere and all the beat police do”—

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that it’s not consistent with the Standing Orders for members, when they are giving a general debate speech, to require other members to act or respond in a certain way, and I’d like perhaps your reflection on that.

SPEAKER: Look, I can, over a number of years, recall various speakers from different parties, including the member’s own party, asking rhetorical questions of that nature across the House. And further, I can recall members on both sides of the House offering gratuitous comments about each other across the House in a general debate. I don’t set the parameters of what people can say. It is a general debate. It’s an open time, and there are very few restrictions other than the common decency expected in Parliament. The Minister, in asking people to raise their hand, is not requiring them to. It’s not a part of the Standing Orders. It is rhetorical.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’m not surprised at all that the Labour Party—

SPEAKER: No, you don’t need to comment on that. Please, don’t comment on the point of order; just carry on.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: OK—

Hon Member: You’ve hit a nerve!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, that’s right. People can make up their own minds on that point of order.

I want to come to some stats—I want to come to some numbers—because I think they’re important. Let’s have a look at the record of the previous Government while they were in Government. Violence: 35 percent increase in violent crime. And that sits right alongside a policy that said, “Let’s empty our prisons. What a great idea! We can drive down the numbers.” By the way, neither the Greens nor Labour really like or believe in prisons, but it’s the only way right now as a society that we’ve got to actually keep the public safe. And this coalition Government actually takes public safety seriously. That is why we’ve seen a big increase in people coming into our prisons in the last 12 months. We unashamedly support that because we are focused on public safety. But let’s have a look at some of the numbers here. Ram raids: 293 percent increase under a Labour-Greens Government; 58 percent decrease under a coalition Government. Electronic monitoring on bail breaches: 128 percent increase under the Labour-Greens Government, 0 percent—[Time expired]

The only reference I’ll make to that last speech given by Mark Mitchell is that before I came to this House, I was the president of the Police Association. Because we had the right to associate—the police did—and because we had the right to advocate, the police were actually able to achieve much more by way of resource, by way of ability to police New Zealand, than they would have otherwise. And that leads me on to the subject of my presentation, which is veterans.

We have a group of people in New Zealand who as a result of having neither of those things—no right to associate, no right to actually have any advocacy—have ended up in a situation where we have veterans around New Zealand who are not on any register and who actually need considerable assistance.

But before I do that—and I am speaking on veterans as the spokesperson on veterans’ affairs and in the shadow of Anzac Day in two weeks’ time—I’d like each member of the House to have a look around and look at some of the names on the walls here. These are the names of all the battle sites where New Zealanders have fought. Behind each of these inscriptions, of course, are the many, mostly, men but also women who have given their lives over the years—and not only those people but also their families who remain behind.

So as we work up towards Anzac Day—and many of us are wearing poppies here in the House—it gives us great time to reflect on that sacrifice, which brings me to the subject of my presentation. This is not going to be political, because it’s a time when each party has recognised this, and through different papers, through different acknowledgments, and through different research projects both here and overseas.

I think an important point I’d like to start with is: what is a veteran? Now, one enters the military services by being attested; essentially, in other words, by being sworn in, and in doing so members give up rather a lot. It means that they are subject to military law, the absolute requirement to do as they are ordered, and at the same time they relinquish some of their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: freedom of movement, of association, of expression, of assembly; and the right to withhold labour.

Now, people who work at other professions have some of those things, but what other professions don’t have is the ability for their leaders, their bosses, to order them, to take them into situations of absolute danger where they don’t have any right to refuse and people do lose their lives as a result.

There are two classes of veterans. There are those who were in the services before 1974, when ACC was bought in, and they have considerable rights. Their rights are more along the lines of what most overseas forces have. Canada: any member of the Canadian armed forces who successfully underwent basic training and has been honourably released; Australia: since 1977, a veteran is defined as anyone who has served at least one day in the Australian defence force; in the United Kingdom, a veteran is anyone who has served in the UK armed forces and veterans need not have served overseas or in a conflict.

So these are people who are considered veterans and, as a result, are able to access veterans’ services. However, in New Zealand it’s much more defined. Since the 2014 Veterans’ Support Act, a veteran has to have had qualified overseas experience or operational experience or have been in danger. What this means is that there are a large number of our forces—approximately 40,000 people, but the extra 100,000 to take it to 140,000 people—who are not entitled to any of those things. And when they leave the service, they’re only entitled to what everyone else is entitled to.

The time has come, there has been agreement, it is going to be considerably expensive to do it, but it is time now for all of this House, as we sit around here, as we approach Anzac Day, as we acknowledge that service, the service that is currently being given around the globe, to acknowledge that service and redefine the term “veteran.”

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today I stand before you with great news: this country has a Government that is backing sheep farmers. Today marks a significant milestone in the wool industry, an industry that has faced numerous challenges over the past three decades. The directive has been issued: Government agencies should use woollen fibre products for both new builds and refurbishments, taking into account the whole-of-life cost, compliance with New Zealand standards, technical and functional requirements, supply, and sustainability and wellbeing. On that basis, we know that wool wins hands down.

It is not only the people in these buildings that will benefit from this amazing natural product. It will be our sheep farmers, our shearers, our rural supply stores and support services, our wool brokers, and our manufacturers. Their families will benefit and so will our rural communities.

Over the past few decades, the wool industry has grappled with many challenges that have threatened its existence. One of the greatest challenges has been the aggressive marketing from synthetic materials, which have infiltrated the market and overshadowed our natural wool. Synthetic materials are detrimental on many fronts. The production of these synthetic fibres often relies heavily on petrochemicals, or they are treated with environmentally damaging chemicals to enhance their properties. Don’t even start me on the impacts of synthetic fibres on our natural environment. In stark contrast, wool is a natural product—such as this suit that I’m wearing today.

Today, though, is more about coarse or strong wool. While not as fine as merino, it possesses its own unique set of qualities. Coarse wool is more robust and durable, making it ideal for applications that require strength and resilience. Historically, this wool was used in carpets, felts, and tweeds. Despite its coarser texture, this type of wool still offers excellent thermal insulation and natural flame resistance, making it a valuable material for various industrial and commercial uses.

Wool is a natural, non-allergenic material that can improve indoor air quality and reduce risks associated with synthetic materials. Unlike synthetic fibres that release harmful chemicals, wool absorbs and neutralises pollutants, creating a healthier living environment. Wool has excellent insulating properties, making it an energy-efficient choice for building insulation. This can lead to reduced energy consumption, and lower heating and cooling costs. Wool is naturally flame resistant, reducing the risk of fire hazards. Unlike synthetic materials that can melt and release toxic fumes when exposed to flames, wool chars and self-extinguishes—adding an extra layer of safety to our homes and our workplaces.

Wool is renewable and biodegradable, contributing to a lower environmental footprint compared to our synthetic alternatives. Wool production relies on the annual shearing of sheep, a sustainable practice that does not harm the animals. Furthermore, wool decomposes naturally, returning valuable nutrients to the soil and reducing landfill waste. The production and processing of wool generate lower carbon emissions compared to synthetic fibres. Wool’s lifestyle, from sheep rearing to final product, involves fewer energy-intensive processes, supporting efforts to reduce the overall carbon footprint.

In conclusion, the renewed support from our Government for the wool industry heralds a promising future for our farmers and for the environment, and I would like to acknowledge all those that have committed and contributed to the wool industry: the likes of Flock, Bremworth, Woolworks, and the numerous businesses and farmers that have committed to our industry. By choosing wool, we are making a conscious decision to embrace a material that is not only deeply rooted in our heritage but also aligned with the principles of sustainability, health, and safety. So let’s work together to ensure that wool continues to thrive, benefiting generations to come.

Wool is back on track, and I’d just like to acknowledge some people up in the gallery: my mother- and father-in-law, Adrienne and Dean Wright; and my wife and daughter, Kim and Cara. Good to see you. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I want to talk about, I guess in some ways, a different topic than what I normally talk about, which is education. But with my hat on as the Minister—oh my God! With my hat on as the spokesperson for ethnic communities—[Interruption] Sorry, my apologies. With my hat on as the spokesperson for ethnic communities, I would like to address a very serious issue that is currently facing the Congolese community of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Just for context in terms of the concern that has been raised by the community, for those of you who may not know, Congo has been in a decades-long war with its neighbouring country Rwanda, particularly on the eastern edges of Congo, where the mineral and resource - rich regions currently lie. We have been asked by the Congolese community to voice their concern in this House about the ongoing war and atrocities that have befallen their community, particularly in the east Congo region.

For those of you who may not know, just for further context, the war between Congo and Rwanda has been an ongoing war for over two decades now. There have been over 7 million people who have died in the conflict—that is a population greater than the entirety of Aotearoa’s population—with about 30 percent of them being children. More than 5 million people have been displaced within the country, and more than 1 million Congolese have sought asylum, mostly within Africa. In the months of January and February alone, at least 78,000 children have been displaced and families have been ripped apart. Again, we are bringing this to the House to also shed light on the dire situation that the Congolese community is currently facing and the anxiety within that community around their families back in Congo.

Further to this, what they are seeing is the contribution, and it’s the silence of the international community when it comes to addressing the conflict that is currently going on in Congo. While efforts were made between Congo and Rwanda in Doha earlier in March, we have seen that those particular ceasefire talks broke down when the Rwanda regime - backed March 23 Movement (M23) pulled out of those discussions at the last minute. At the same time, on top of M23 seizing the already fraught region of Goma, as those conversations were happening in Doha, we saw the seizure of Walikale in eastern Congo.

It is the intention of the Congolese community in Aotearoa that we take this situation seriously. It is important for us to remember what Aotearoa New Zealand stands for, which is that we, first and foremost, are a peaceful country. What is our responsibility in all of this? It is in terms of continuously shedding light on the concerns of our community, and continuously working with the international community on ensuring that the ongoing trauma doesn’t fall on more people around the world, whether it is Congo, whether it is Ukraine, whether it is Falastin, whether it is Kanaky, or many, many other regions, to name but a few.

I would also like to thank the Okapi Alliance of New Zealand, and particularly its president, François Kayembe, for the continual action and the work they are doing, both within Aotearoa and also within their families back home. On top of that, we should also be looking at how we can reunite these families by creating a special visa for all of them. That’s all from me—thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This month, we commemorate 110 years since the Anzac landings. That day and that campaign are etched in our national memory; even though many more Kiwis died on the Western Front than that, it was our baptism of fire.

Anzac Day is now a commemoration of all those who have served in conflicts and in peacetime for our country. It’s a source of pride amid reflection and sadness for so many lives lost or broken too young. This Chamber, as we’ve often observed, is a place of memorial for the first Anzacs and for all subsequent Anzacs. You’ve just got to walk down the corridor and see the painting of the Battle of Chunuk Bair by Ion Brown to see that. But Anzac also speaks to our national psyche, whether that psyche today is real or romanticised. What were those Anzac characteristics and how are they relevant today and indeed in our decision making? The words that are regularly used are those like courage, resilience, ingenuity, mateship, or togetherness.

The contemporary Australian official war correspondent and historian Charles Bean, and he wrote of course from Gallipoli, described Anzac character this way: “By dawn on 20 December”—as they withdrew—“Anzac had faded into a dim blue line, lost amid the other hills on the horizon as the ships took their human freight to Imbros, Lemnos, and Egypt. But Anzac stood, and still stands, for reckless valour and a good cause, for enterprise, resourcefulness, fidelity, comradeship, and endurance that will never own defeat.” We’re challenged today by a very uncertain and dynamic geopolitical environment. We’re challenged by our own economic circumstances, by years of poor productivity growth, and by the things that divide us. But we can and we should write our own history in the spirit of our Anzac forebears.

Every speech should have a point and mine is this: that as I travel around New Zealand, I see that Anzac spirit, that pioneering spirit, that enterprise, that resourcefulness, that innovation again, and again, and again. We’ve got a proud history in this country of boxing above our weight. We’ve been a global leader in so many ways. I mean, Richard Pearse with probably the first flight; Sir Ernest Rutherford—who was of course from Nelson, not from the USA—splitting the atom; Kate Sheppard, the first country to give women the vote; the HamiltonJet; Rocket Lab; the film industry; and, of course, we box far above our weight on the sporting field, as well.

Who was it who invented foiling in yachting, for example, and computer animation when we watch all of those sports as well? That was Sir Ian Taylor. I particularly pick on him because my question is this: we’re good, we’re often awesome, but do we back our innovators as we back our sporting champions? It was Ian Taylor who said, “I’ve often despaired that in New Zealand we’re very quick to talk up the innovative abilities of Kiwis, our can-do attitude, but when it comes to trusting in those same people to deliver, the walk often doesn’t match the talk. So many great little New Zealand companies are overlooked because decision makers feel safer with the big names from overseas.”

We as a Parliament need to support this spirit, to remove the regulatory barriers, the consent barriers, the concession barriers, and the like to ensure a responsive Public Service to support an education system that responds to the needs of and empowers our people and that heightens our ability to think, not tells us how to think. Just a note from India, where I had the privilege of being with the Prime Minister recently: we’ve met with some slum dwellers, people who’ve come out of the slums with a bit of support, who’ve then gone away and got Master’s degrees from Australian universities. That is what people can do with a bit of support.

New Zealand First has always been very, very strong on supporting businesses. That’s why I’ve been a strong believer in and a supporter of the Provincial Growth Fund, of the Regional Infrastructure Fund. We need a robust venture capital market. In this House, we gave a lot of praise to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund last year. Part of their remit is to elevate New Zealand; that’s about building and developing, and growing, and deepening a venture capital market. That fund clearly needs support at this stage to keep on doing that work—the question is: do we have the courage to back it?—and then making regional deals fly. We’ve got this desultory aspiration to have one regional deal this year and two next year. But what if we’ve got four or five which are good to go? There’s a lot of innovation, a lot of creativity, a lot of collaboration there. We need to back those people. I’ve seen a lot of great ideas from them.

As I said, as I meet people around this, our beautiful country, I see innovations. We’ve got world-leading innovation and intelligent pest control. They can sell overseas, but they can’t sell to our own Department of Conservation. We’ve got people who are inventing siphon technology to remove water and groundwater in flood- and slip-prone areas at a fraction of the cost of conventional drainage and pumping. We’ve got dealing with waste water, again for a fraction of the cost of conventional treatment. We’ve got an organisation which is on track to produce more whitebait than the entire national catch out of a single old, closed meat works near Bluff. New Zealand First is a proud supporter of our defence forces, of our Anzac traditions, and of innovation. That’s what we need to support.

Five minutes is never long enough for the general debate, but I thought I’d take this opportunity as it turns out to be my last week in the House for about six months—those of you at home that can’t see behind the desk, I am carrying a rather large, rotund beach ball around with me at the moment. Going up and down all of these stairs is something else that I’m sure many of my forebears have gone on to understand.

But I thought firstly, just in an acknowledgement and recognition of my colleague and previous speaker’s speech, just to touch on the upcoming Anzac services and Anzac Day. While I’m leaving the House for a little while, I am going to be working in my community for a little bit longer. I just want to be a bit closer to home and closer to my home hospital and my family, but also really privileged to be able to attend so many of the Anzac services that we have in the electorate. Just to acknowledge the Napier RSA and the Taradale RSA and the work they do, as well as the Rissington services, the Eskdale services—always on at the same time, which is such a shame for those of us that want to attend all of them. But gosh, what a special occasion it is for us to remember those that have served, and continue to serve, on our behalf.

Look, I really wanted to say, in this time that I’ve got, how much faith I have in this National-led Government to deliver the economic gains that we need to deliver to put more money in Kiwis’ back pockets. Because do you know what this reminds me of—in my journey into motherhood and creating a family with my husband? It is the people that I met with on the doorstep when I was campaigning before the last election; that were starting families themselves, had young families, that just needed to make more of what they had. They worked so hard. They wanted to be able to put their children into childcare, get back into work—to give themselves a sense of value, purpose, and the things that they enjoyed, to get to do those things. They wanted to feel secure. They wanted to be able to keep living in the house that they’ve worked so hard to buy, but then interest rates got out of control.

These are the things that we work so hard to fix. And today, to have another official cash rate drop of 25 basis points to bring people’s mortgage interest rates down again really makes the difference and it gives me so much confidence. So when people talk about, you know, “What is it that you do when you’re down in Wellington? What is it that you speak on?” I often say the one thing that I think is so important, coming from a business background myself, are the quarterly action plans. And I just want to remind those at home—and perhaps those reading the transcript later, if you’re so inclined—the reason we do that is to make sure that we are delivering quarter on quarter so that over the term, the three-year term, we have delivered tangible outcomes for everyday Kiwis.

Because you hear us debating ideological stuff here and there every now and again, but the things that we are doing are all to grow our economy—so we have a bigger pie rather than having to slice the pie smaller—so that more people have money in their back pocket. They can do things with it; they can feel confident in their homes. We talk about the things that they’re allowed to do, extracurricular things they can do with their children. For some people, it is just being able to go through the checkout without questioning what you have in your trolley. And that is what we are here to make a difference for.

I feel so proud and, gosh, I say it’s a slippery slope when I’m at home preparing to have my first child and whether or not I watch the Budget debates on TV, and I probably will be watching. But I know that we have heard many indications about how this is a Budget for everyday Kiwis and their back pockets. That is what I feel so passionate and so proud to be here for. I’ve just got to say, every little thing we do to really grow what it is that everyday Kiwis have when they go home and, at the end of the day, being able to work hard for something; that they love to come home and have a good quality of life—that’s what we’re here for.

So can I just finish by thanking my colleagues—incredibly supportive colleagues. I’m very lucky to have the Hon Nicola Grigg—not long had a child before me—offering me her cot, which I think—and then some of the things that she inherited from Camilla Belich as well. It just goes to show how collegial we are when it comes to motherhood in this House. You know, it’s really something special to have everybody asking how I am as I waddle down the hallways between select committee hearings. At the end of the day, we’re all here to serve our communities, and I feel very privileged that when I leave this place for a number of months, and go back to my community and really get to live in my community as a parent, I know that this country is being incredibly well served by my colleagues—as well as across the entire side of this Government—and the things that we have committed to do for the people of New Zealand. We have stood by that, and we continue to deliver, and it’s something I’m incredibly proud of.

So bring on the Budget—22 May. Let’s see if I beat Nicola Willis to it, in terms of delivery date, and I wish you all well. Thank you very much.

And I’m sure the House wishes the member all the best for the coming months.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. How great is it to be a member of the ACT Party? Absolutely fantastic. And how great is it to be a member of a fantastic coalition Government? Those that take personal responsibility as being paramount in the way that we conduct ourselves. Those who want to look after the victims of crime because they haven’t been looked after for quite some years now. Those that want to make sure that we take ownership of the good, the bad, and the ugly, in order to be able to improve and to move on. How great is it to be a part of the ACT Party—a party that brings all of this together to make New Zealand a better place.

And then, I hear from the Opposition side, words like “defund the police”. I hear about how New Zealanders feel safer alone with a patched gang member than with a police officer. I hear comments about abolishing the police, about letting prisoners out because it’s all so bad. I hear from Te Pāti Māori saying that the justice system is a colonial construct that needs to be decolonised. I have to say, really? Then, we’ve got the Labour Party who think it’s fine to give $2.75 million to the Mongrel Mob to run a rehab programme for the meth that they are selling into our communities and that it’s all good. I think it’s nuts, myself.

But then I come back to why it’s so good to be a member of the ACT Party, because we don’t think along those lines. We think along the lines of making sure that personal responsibility for the good, the bad, and the ugly is paramount, and that the victims of crime are looked after.

When I recently heard another quote from Tamatha Paul in the Greens, where she said, “Wellington people do not want to see police officers everywhere, for a lot of people it makes them feel less safe, … it’s that kind of constant visual presence that tells you that you might not be safe there, if there’s heaps of cops.”—what a load of rubbish. That’s absolute rubbish. In a poll that Stuff recently ran, 86 percent of respondents said that police on the street made them feel safer.

Mark Cameron: 86 percent.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: 86 percent. Despite subsequent social media claims that the people supported her, it’s clear that they most definitely do not—not even the people in Christchurch who listened to that member speak about defunding the police and abolishing the prison, because a Star News poll said that 82 percent of those people in Christchurch did not agree with her either. Tamatha Paul went on to say that she didn’t care about the Sensible Sentencing Trust putting up billboards everywhere, because the people are with her. Well, it’s quite obvious that the people were not with her.

Let me tell the Speaker exactly what is happening in law and order, because this Government have made an impact on law and order. Our stats are telling us that unauthorised street and drag racing is down; ram raids are down; violent crime, including acts intended to cause injury, is down; sexual assaults are down; robbery, extortion, and related aggravated robberies are down; and the total victimisations are down. But do you want to know what’s up? Foot patrols around our communities.

Foot patrols are very important in cities like Wellington, where I also reside and am a constituent. When I was walking down the central city of Wellington, especially along Courtenay Place, and speaking to those people that are trying to run small businesses, including one lady in a convenience store—she said to me, “Please, bring back the foot patrol police, we need them here.”, and showed me a video of her being accosted by a person who walked into the shop, picked her up, and threw her against the glass fridges within the shop because that person had been in there earlier that day to place their drugs in there.

Perhaps, the 9 percent of Wellingtonians that do support Tamatha Paul’s movement are the ones that are putting the drugs into the fridge and throwing the people against the walls. It’s not on. While we look at making sure that there is the ability for picking people up, actually bringing everyone down to that standard does not work. So I am pleased to be a part of a coalition Government and a part of a party that will make sure law and order is kept in check.

“Don’t break my heart, my achy breaky heart”. That was the top song in New Zealand in 1992. Now we heard earlier from the Deputy Prime Minister that his favourite song in 1992 was “Check yourself before you wreck yourself”. My daughter would say the best song to come out of there, or one of them, would be Whitney Houston’s version of “I will always love you”.

But 1992 wasn’t just famous for those songs; 1992 was the last time that New Zealand spent 2 percent of its GPD on the Defence Force. You have to go back through a number of successive Governments, right back to 1992—when some MPs that want to defund the police weren’t even born—to find a Government that put 2 percent into defence. That is what this Government is doing for the first time; for the first time in literally 40 years, it will be that New Zealand will get back to spending 2 percent of GDP, with an injection of $12 billion alone over the next four years. And you have to put that into perspective: we spend just under $5 billion a year on our Defence Force. We’re adding, over the next few years, almost $3 billion extra each year on top of that; almost doubling it in the short term, and by 2032 at that magical 2 percent number.

We’ve heard a number of contributions in the general debate today around Anzac Day, around the significance. And it is absolutely appropriate, as I said in the House last week, that we should be remembering those, particularly those that never returned home and those that came home with scars, both visible and invisible. But one thing that people often say to me on Anzac Day, families of defence, our defence personnel, is: “Now that you’re there, now that you’re in Parliament as an ex-serviceman, you need to not just remember those that have served, but you need to be supporting those who continue to serve today. Those that get out of bed and put on the uniform and serve our country. Make sure they get the support and the funding that they need so that they’ve got the tools to do the job, they’ve got the right people around them to do the job, and they can go and do us proud and look after our country in whatever environment they’re asked to serve.” And that is exactly what this plan has done. I could not be more proud of our Minister of Defence, Judith Collins, along with the Prime Minister, along with our Minister for Veterans, Chris Penk, who have fought hard to secure money for our defence.

This is significant. This is something that a number of people thought would never happen. I’ve had messages just this week from people and some of them were really simple. It said: “From all of us, thank you.” And that is the sentiment out there because this is truly transformational, and it is more than just the flash bits of equipment. Yes, there are new helicopters on their way for the Navy—long overdue. Great that we are committing to doing what should have been done a few years ago. Yes, there are new aircraft, both manned and unmanned, heading our way for the Air Force. And, you know, the number one rule of every operation is the comms will fail, the comms won’t work; and for our Army, new communications, new secure comms, as well as more equipment in the cyber space—information domains. That’s really important.

But this is far more than just about equipment. This is about investing in our people. That’s what someone said to me: “Well, what about the people?” This is all about the people. You know, right now we have Navy ships tied up because we don’t have the people because of the huge and significant attrition that we experienced through 2022-2023, record levels of people leaving our Defence Force because they weren’t being honoured, they weren’t being respected, they weren’t getting what they needed to get the job done. Now it’s coming our way.

You know, we have around 3,000 civilians in the Defence Force; we only have 2,000 sailors in the Navy. It’s all got back to front, and it needs to get fixed up. That’s what this is about doing and it’s about bringing back the people that have left, getting them into uniform where they can deploy and serve their country. That’s what they joined up to do. Let’s let them do it. But we need to support our people—that’s coming. As well as things like defence estate: giving them appropriate barracks to live in, mess facilities, working accommodation, and there’s a lot going into that. It is about recognising our defence personnel.

And most of all this is a sign of support. This is a huge and significant sign of how much our Government, how much the National Party, back our Defence Force, how much we value the role that they play in our community. Whether it’s a flood, whether it’s search and rescue, an earthquake, an island exploding off the coast where we have to send people into harm’s way. It might be a cyclone in the Pacific, it could be peacekeeping or conflict around the world. We support them and there is not a more tangible way than what we announced this week in the Defence Capability Plan to show the value we have. I’ve lived through this. I’ve been there when Labour Governments got rid of our air combat force and then the Army said, “Well, we need 40 Light Armoured Vehicles”, “Sure, we’ll buy 105”, most of them parked up in garages. We need to give them the right equipment, we need to give them the right support for the people, and most of all, this is a sign that our Government and the National Party back our Defence Force. This Anzac Day, we’re not just remembering them, we’re supporting them.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā tēnā tātou katoa. The mood from the opposite side of the House has been quite sombre, if not depressing, today. Even they seem to be miserable under their own governance. That said, amidst all this depression and negativity, there is a beaming ray of hope in Aotearoa right now: Te Ōhanga Māori, the Māori economy. I’ve only held this portfolio for a few weeks, but what an exciting few weeks it has been. Because all the discussions I’ve had about the Māori economy are about hope, future, and action. Having almost doubled in six years, now sitting at just under $126 billion, from farming, forestry, and fisheries to asset holdings, the Māori economy is booming and poised to take the rest of Aotearoa with us.

People want to do business with the only indigenous economy featured on the GDP measure. How exciting is that for Aotearoa? We have the only indigenous economy measured in GDP. Why do they want to work with Māori? Because of the decision-making frameworks Māori businesses have. Māori cannot separate themselves from the whenua, whānau, and whakapapa, therefore ensuring longevity. That’s very attractive when you go into a trade partner; you want a deal for generations, not just for three years, not just for this crop. That’s why, in spite of many, many oppressive laws, Māori are thriving.

This Government is good—really good—at one thing: slogans. The latest being, “Go for growth.” Now, that’s fine on the surface, and I’m glad they’re proud to be good at one thing, and it’s slogans. Ka pai, give yourselves a round of applause. It’s good to see you’ve perked up. They are good at one thing, and that is slogans; the latest being “Go for growth.” That’s very fine on the surface and it’s probably well intended, but I’m not convinced. Because what they fail to recognise is that—as I’ve said before in this House—growth starts at the roots. Growth needs children with full puku. Growth needs whānau with the security of a roof over their heads. So if you’re going for growth and you support the further development of the Māori economy, you need to continue investing in our communities—rather than slashing them at the very roots—that will grow not only the Māori economy, not only communities throughout Aotearoa, but the economy and the GDP of Aotearoa. And it will achieve things the opposite side of the House espouse to support.

What’s good for Māori whānau is good for Aotearoa. Don’t think that this is a separatist initiative. The growth of Māori has invested $32 billion to New Zealand’s economy, to New Zealand’s GDP. So anyone out there who thinks this is a separatist thing, kaua e maharahara [do not worry], there is nothing to fear. By growing the Māori economy further, you’re going to grow Aotearoa, and there’s no stopping. Like I said, Māori are poised and ready to go global.

So to everyone over the generations who has done all the hard work to get the economy to this point, tēnā rawa atu koutou—thank you very much. Take a bow. To our farmers, our foresters, our fisheries officers, our scientists, our innovators, our dreamers, tēnā koutou katoa. And to our rangatahi who are coming forward, kaua e maharahara. As I said, 2026 is the time for change, the time to renew hope, and our future generations can have hope that they will truly be supported to continue growing, to continue to grow your whenua, and to continue to nurture your whānau, which are inseparable.

Heoi anō rā, i runga i tēnā [however, with that], I want to mihi to all the hōia who have gone before us as we head into Anzac Day, those who have inspired hope and growth across generations, e kore koutou e warewaretia [you will not be forgotten]. Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.

[We will remember them.]

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.