General Debate

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

In 1867, the first four Māori came into our Parliament: Patterson from Ngāi Tahu; Mete Kingi from the West Coast of the North Island; Nene Russell, the nephew of the great Tāmati Wāka Nene; and Te Moananui from the Tai Rāwhiti. They came with a sense of reverence, respect, and a total acceptance of the privilege of standing to be a member on behalf of Māoridom in this House. Oh no, not those masqueraders—oh no, not that crowd over there. They have absolutely no respect, no desire, and no acceptance of the obligations of being a member of Parliament. Throwing it around in the media that if you belong to the Māori Party, you’re possessed of a superiority complex. If you belong to the Māori Party, then the rules that define this House, based upon the bedrock values of mutual respect, transparency, democracy, service—no, not to that crowd.

They hope, based on their own threats, to rock this institution and destroy the foundations upon which it sits. The conceit of such an assertion, the shame that they bring on the hundreds of people who have sought to come to Parliament and represent—in a credible, legitimate, integrating way—the Māori face of New Zealand. But, no, this crowd beat to a different drum, because what they don’t tell you is they’ve achieved nothing. They made promises to the Māori voters of New Zealand and they’ve turned it into an exercise all about them individually.

Where were they when the real work had to be done? They’ve never had a chance to form a Government, and, if I had my way, in a thousand years they never will.

What has our side of the House done: $60 million worth of geothermal energy will flow from Māori land, in many respects. Who fixed up Waitangi, announced on Waitangi Day by the Minister of Māori affairs—$10 million? Who dedicated overdue money to Rātana Pā? The Minister of Māori affairs, on the day of the Rātana celebration. Who went into the heart of Taranaki and made an allocation of pūtea—of money—to Parihaka? The Minister of Māori affairs. Oh, the list keeps going—the list keeps going.

Hon Willie Jackson: How much was it?

Hon SHANE JONES: There’s nothing as loud and ugly as unwanted envy, Willie.

Let me keep going. What about the Māori marine farmers, and the extension of all their rights until 2050? New Zealand looked to this side of the House; that’s where the answers are.

I want to finish this brief contribution by identifying what my colleague has said: as a consequence of the Labour Party, we are the only nation in the world that is transitioning from gas to coal. Look no further than our friends from the Green Party who, with their poison pen letter-writing exercises, are condemning us to economic Armageddon. But, New Zealand, your lights will stay on because this side of the House realises coal and gas have a key role to play to ensure that we have sustainable flows of energy.

Not for us shallow virtue-signalling, pronoun-entanglement politics. That belongs at the margin of New Zealand politics, and if anyone doubts the seriousness with which we are treating the natural resource estate, look no further than the words on this potae. [Member holds up a cap] I shall read it out: “Drill, baby, drill. Make New Zealand great again.” There’s one party who has consistently worn that as a badge of honour, and that party sits as part of this Government: patriotic, nationalistic, and not afraid to call out foreign, alien, unacceptable political practices. We want the sunlight, we want lightness, we want the torch of democracy to shine on everyone who stands against me. [Interruption]

I call—just a minute. Hang on—we’ll be quiet, all round.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei, mō ngā take nui e pēhi ana i ngā whānau o te motu, arā ko te kai, arā ko ngā kai i roto i ngā kura e pēhi nei i ō mātou tamariki ki ā mātou kaumātua.

[Greetings to the Speaker, and all in this House. I stand to voice the opinion of the Māori Party today about the issues oppressing the families of the land, that is food; food in schools that burden our children and our elders.]

As a Māori electorate MP—bearing in mind that Māori seats cover up to nearly six to eight general seats, so you could just imagine the long list of various constituent cases that we face. As a 22-year-old, it’s been a bit of hefty work, but one of the biggest issues that we have heard is the access to food. Not just the cost of living but the cost of surviving and being able to put food on their plate every meal. From kaumātua, pakeke [elders, adults] to tamariki, Māori and non-Māori.

Recently, as a party we have realigned our portfolios that align with real issues of today, and one of my new portfolios is access to food. Now, that may not seem big for other parties; however, for us that’s one of our biggest priorities. So while some people are currently talking about whether or not our stance in resistance to our country’s founding document—where this coalition broke the tikanga of this land by introducing a bill like the Treaty principles bill—we’ll be focusing our platform and light on the public having access to food.

This coalition has made it hard for everyday Kiwis putting food on their table, from lunches, grocery prices, GST. Just over three days ago, we saw the survey announcement of more than half a million Kiwis accessing food banks every month. Aotearoa has some of the highest kai prices in the OECD. In January alone, our food prices rose from 1.9 percent. Despite these high prices, our largest two supermarket chains have reported record profits in recent years. Foodstuffs reported $52 million in profit in 2023.

When I think of school lunches, I have had over 400 responses, and the disappointment of—I quote—“the delivery of bugs and hair in kai. Kai is frozen, kai is scalding hot, kai is late, kai cannot be identified, and kai is not safe for consumption.” From dedicated advocates for children, and community principals like Chris Patel at Kopuarahi School in my electorate of Hauraki, who for the last 45 days at least has continued to scorecard this Government’s school lunches programme.

These are the problems—and there are many—but our solution’s from my co-leader’s member’s bill in the GST off kai. Some may think $50 is nothing, but for many of us that’s an extra two meals that went on GST. This was an original initiative from the Māori Party to me introducing the first kai sovereignty policy, which was developed in my work with the Ministry for Primary Industries rolling out a pilot programme where low-income communities could grow kai. This pilot programme now feeds hundreds of that community all year long.

So even in my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato—now, don’t get me wrong, I’m quite pōhara, but I’ve actually built whānau-built pātaka kai in every rohe of my electorate and we provide kai and female sanitary essentials, and we’re having to top this up weekly because that just goes to show the extreme need for it.

Even though this does not completely solve kai being at every person’s plate at every meal—

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, for God’s sake!

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Oh, OK. So Judith Collins is moaning about me talking about kai, and my community and my electorate not being able to have kai, and I’ve actually provided that out of my personal money to—

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. For the member to say that I’m complaining about her talking about kai, I’m actually not. I’m concerned with the fact she can’t give a speech without having to read the whole thing.

SPEAKER: It is never wise to respond to any interjections in the House. But it is also a rule of the House that, generally, members don’t read speeches unless it’s a Minister delivering a first reading speech which may eventually be referred to by those who sit on the bench. But the member will carry on.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Was my time stopped exactly?

SPEAKER: Yeah, no, that’s when the—

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Nō reira, ko ngaku tino whai take i roto i taku rohe o Hauraki-Waikato ko ngā take pēnei i te kai me te mea anō hoki ko ngā supermarket duopoly chains, koirā tētahi wāhanga tino pai mō tōku iwi, Waikato-Tainui, ki te uru atu ki tērā pakihi. Nā runga anō i te mea kō ngā ohanga Māori, ko tērā pūtea, kei te pūtea o te tahi rau rua tekau mā ono piriona tāra i tēnei wā tonu. Nō reira kei te tino anga mai tēnei ohanga Māori. Me te mea anō hoki, toru ki te whā tau toku iwi ake e mahi ana i tēnei momo mahi mō te kai.

[The relevant issues to me in my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato are issues such as food, including the supermarket duopoly chains, that is a major issue to my people, Waikato-Tainui, to venture into this business. This is because the Māori economy at present is worth $126 billion. This Māori economy is taking notice. And because my own tribe has been working for three to four years in the activity of supplying food.]

When Chris Hipkins sauntered into the first meeting of the Labour Party this year wearing jandals, he was sending a clear signal—not the signal that I think he thought he was sending, which was “I’m cool” or “I’m a man of the people” or that he’s a sausage roll - eating man of the people wearing his jandals. No, the message that he actually sent was that this is going to be the year of the flip-flop. And he has demonstrated that that is indeed the case.

He started off in the way that he meant, and a classic example that we’ve seen of that this year has been in response to Tamatha Paul’s long-running and outrageous length of things that she has thought about criminal justice and the law. Remember when our friends from the Greens stood up and said that having police around the place made people feel unsafe and it was a bad thing and we don’t need all these patrols around the place, and then Chris Hipkins stood up and said, “Yes, that was a stupid thing to say.”? It was a stupid thing to say, he said. And then, lo and behold, he reflects on it for a little while and changes his mind. We point out to him that it’s a funny thing: Mr Hipkins can say how stupid the Greens are, but when you look at the voting record it’s exactly the same. They vote exactly the same when it comes to justice. They don’t support anything that the Government has done. We pointed out that slight contradiction, and then, lo and behold, over the weekend, what does he say? “I think, subsequent to what were some strident comments at the beginning, the Greens raised some legitimate issues.” Oh dear, oh dear—one week they’re stupid, the next week we’ve had a bit of a think about it and now perhaps they’ve raised some legitimate issues!

That’s the point: when it comes to the justice system, the previous Labour Government, helped by the Greens, was all about trying to reduce the prison population irrespective of what was going on in the community. Lo and behold, what we saw over those six years was an increase in violent crime and real public concerns about law and order. This Government has changed that. We’re no longer focused on reducing the prison population come what may. We want to have fewer people in prison, but only when our streets are safer and people are committing less crime. Our focus is on reducing the number of victims of crime. And so it makes no sense for “Mr Flip-flopper in Chief” to stand up there and say, on the one hand, Tamatha Paul is stupid for talking about the police making people feel unsafe, and, on the other hand, he’s voting alongside the Greens against the gangs legislation, which is making a real difference; voting against the sentencing legislation, which is restoring real consequences for crime in this country; voting against the three-strikes legislation, which, again, is bringing back significant changes; and voting against taking the funding away from cultural reports, which had turned into a cottage industry, costing millions of dollars and not getting anywhere ahead of things. The inconsistency is dramatic.

Our friend Ginny Andersen is, of course, one to emulate Chris Hipkins, and she watches him and follows him very closely. I thought it rather entertaining to see her flip-flop when she said that the gangs legislation was going to be a disaster—“Oh my gosh, if you take the patches off the gangs, that’s going to be terrible. They’ll get upset. The police are going to be made a fool of. It’s not going to work. It’s going to be a shambles. We’re going to have chaos everywhere.” Lo and behold, it’s worked very well. Lo and behold, over the summer, people have found that they’re not surrounded by gang patches everywhere. And even old Ginny Andersen was able to flip-flop enough to say, “Oh well, actually, it’s worked better than we anticipated.”

I fully expect, in a few months’ time, she’ll be rocking up to the House and saying that the sentencing bill is actually working better than she thought. It’s amazing: if Parliament sends a clear message that we want to see real consequences for crime when people are committing crime and that message gets through and actually we see people being a little bit more judicious about what they do, it leads to continuing progress towards our goal, which is to see fewer victims of crime in this country. And that’s where we’ll get to.

So there we go: we’ve got the Mr Hipkins—he wanders in, he’s wearing his flip-flops, he’s trying to send a message, and the message that he’s sending is that this is a Labour Party that nobody can be sure exactly what they mean and what they don’t mean. But one thing we can be sure about: if they ever get near the halls of power again, they will be relying on the Greens, and the Greens, unfortunately, when it comes to law and order and when it comes to the justice system, are away with the fairies and they will lead us into a real mess in this country. So my message to New Zealand is: if you want to keep on restoring law and order, steer clear of them and stick with this coalition Government, which is making real progress. Thank you very much.

Rima Nakhle: Thank God—finally!

That’s totally unnecessary.

That member over there—Rima Nakhle—said, “Finally!”. She’s really happy to hear from me at the end of Paul Goldsmith’s speech. Paul Goldsmith’s so predictable. Here they are in an absolute mess—shambles. The coalition of chaos are trying to pivot, trying to redivert attention on to the Opposition. There’s only one mess in this place and that is the threesome sitting on that side of the House.

I was looking back on my social media posts from 1 April a couple of years ago, yesterday. I posted up about the 1 April changes that year, acknowledging that—even then, on 1 April in 2023—times were tough, and it was important that we extended support to those who were struggling to make ends meet. That year, we increased student allowance and student loan living cost payments by about $20. We increased the Best Start payment to $69 per week, the family tax credit to $136 per week. The minimum wage was lifted by $1.50 per hour. That was a Government who cared about New Zealanders. That was a Government who recognised that when New Zealanders were struggling, they had a responsibility and a role to play in providing reprieve for New Zealanders who needed a little bit of additional support.

But what did we see yesterday on 1 April from that side of the House? We saw bugger all. That’s exactly what we saw. We saw 35c. Thirty-five cents is all that we saw for the minimum wage per hour going up. Not even enough to keep up with the cost of living. These are the people that are working in our essential services. Only a few years ago, we were all so reliant on our supermarket workers—those that were working to get food across the country during times that we couldn’t even make contact as Kiwis. We’re always so reliant on those people that clean buildings like these, many of them—not all of them but many of them—working on the minimum wage, and that Government doesn’t even have the respect to give them a pay increase that matches the cost of living increases that they’ve experienced. So what does that mean for them? It means, effectively, they go backwards.

Now, it’s important we make this point because when they were campaigning to get into Government in the last election campaign, they promised New Zealanders the world. They promised Kiwis that they would provide support for those struggling with the cost of living expenses. But have they done that? Well, clearly not when we look at the minimum wage lifts that we’ve experienced over the last two years. They couldn’t prioritise these hard-working Kiwis that earn the least amount of money in this country, but what they could prioritise are the landlords of this country by giving them $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks.

Now what does that say about that side’s priorities? Do they care about the hard-working Kiwis who are getting up, before the sun has even come up in some instances, to get out there and work, to put food on the table for their families, who work a hard day’s work every day, and are on the minimum wage? No, they do not care about those Kiwis. Who do they care about? They care about the landlords that already own homes, and they decided that those people needed $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks. They care about the tobacco industry and thought that it was appropriate to give them $216 million worth of tax breaks.

I think that Kiwis are looking at that Government and feeling a deep level of remorse, particularly those that made the decision to give their vote to National, ACT, or New Zealand First at the last election. This is not what they signed up for. They didn’t sign up to be further impoverished because of the lack of support from that Government. They didn’t sign up for the issues with the health system that are plaguing the whole country. They didn’t sign up for the housing issues that have become significantly worse under that side, and they didn’t sign up for the ever-worsening unemployment rates that are occurring under that side. That side has not delivered, and the country is feeling remorseful.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a Government, we’ve always been very clear, and we’ve argued, that economic growth can go hand in hand with care for the environment. We have farmers and growers who have dedicated themselves for generations as stewards of our land. They know that farming success goes hand in hand with protecting the environment. Farmers understand that a thriving environment is essential for thriving agriculture. They are not virtue-signalling greenies; they are realistic environmentalists who go out and get their hands dirty, digging holes to put trees in, putting fences up, actively restoring ecosystems, improving soil health, water quality, and biodiversity, because they know that is their responsibility for future generations.

We’ve recently announced public consultation on proposed regulations to help manage farm plastics. These can be an issue for our farmers—the bale wraps, the big containers that chemicals come in—but this Government backs farmers to be able to find their own solutions to those challenges. This proposal is an industry-led initiative from the agricultural sector, bringing a couple of voluntary schemes—Agrecovery and Plasback programmes—together into a single national recycling system to make it more simple and to make it more fair for all farmers to be able to dispose of those farm plastics that can be an issue for them.

Our Government backs farmers and growers as hard-working Kiwis who are the backbone of our country. They are the people that get up early, that do the long hours, and that put food on our table and the tables of 40 million people across the world. And they are the best farmers in the world. Their skills, their innovation, and their sustainability practices are admired by others across the globe. New Zealand is a leader in not only producing top-quality food but also in caring for the land at the same time. New Zealand farmers, of course, don’t have subsidies. They produce that high-quality, safe, sustainable food and fibre without subsidies, earning the respect of people right across the world. And they are the most carbon-efficient in the world. This Government supports their success so that they can continue to stay ahead of the game and be regarded as some of the best in the world.

We know that the primary sector drives the economy of this country. That’s why we’re out getting new trade deals, investing in research and development to try and cut farm emissions, making it easier for farmers and growers to access the tools that they need, because they are the ones that will implement the changes so that they can succeed.

We had a recent review that found that cutting the approval times for new agriculture and horticultural products could generate $272 million over a 20-year period. That’s why we should be reducing red tape, because it saves this country money and it makes it easier for our farmers to do what they do best. And because we know if our farmers are doing what they can do best, then it will be more jobs in this country, it will be better incomes for all in this country, and it will be better public services being able to be provided.

And we’re seeing the results. Federated Farmers had a confidence survey recently, which shows that the sector had surged by 68 points since July last year—the biggest jump ever since they started measuring it. Farmers are feeling positive again because they are feeling backed by this Government. They know that we are cutting red tape, we are allowing innovation, and we are supporting rural communities, and we know that farmers will do the best they can for our environment at the same time. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have seen the problem that has been created as the result of this Government’s cheapening of the Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme, the school lunches programme. We have seen news article after news article of the myriad issues as a result of the changes that this Government has made. We have seen the liquidation of one of the major providers of our school lunch programme, and, worst of all, it seems like it wasn’t something that the Government and the Cabinet collectively care enough about to keep each other in the loop on what is happening right now in terms of the school lunches and what’s happening to our tamariki on a daily basis.

We have seen that this renegotiation and repackaging of the programme was doomed to start. We have seen that when the negotiation was happening, the bottom line was $3 per student, and they’re willing to sacrifice and compromise on everything else, including the quality, the nutritional value, including the variety. Basically, everything that we have seen that’s gone wrong with the school lunch programme is something that they, the Government, knew about going into negotiation.

We have seen thousands of jobs being lost and local businesses that went under as the result of the centralisation and the corporatisation of the school lunches programme. We have seen, through our post-hearing questions when we did our scrutiny with the Ministry of Education, that the evaluation of the programme was fundamentally around the value for money and the cost-benefit analysis. It’s just the dollar figure, but not, broadly speaking, on the essence or the purpose of the school lunches programme, which is to feed our hungry tamariki. We know one in four tamariki in Aotearoa live in households where food runs out, and sometimes often. That is not normal for a country like Aotearoa as part of the OECD.

We now have a choice. We can either continue down the path of cheap, low-quality lunches for our hungry tamariki or we can actually step up and invest in the future of our children. We know that the achievement of our tamariki, of our ākonga, at school depends on the nutrition our tamariki receive on a day-to-day basis. We hear from the schools that despite the reducing quality, this is something they still want to keep, because at the end of the day, they can’t bear the fact that their students and their local communities are going hungry.

Having good-quality and warm and nutritional kai for our tamariki in school is not just a social policy. It is not just simply a public good but it’s also a smart economic choice, because we know that well-fed kids learn better and they stay healthier and it doesn’t put burden on other parts of our system. It is not something that operates in silo. We should be able to have warm and nutritional kai for our tamariki, more so than what is currently being made available.

One of the things that I hear when I visit schools who have internal models is that when they have internal models, they’re able to ask the children and interact with the children on a day-to-day basis and ask them, “How was lunch? Did you enjoy that lunch?” This allows our children to have agency in knowing that they are part of the decision making of lunches at school, and that is only a good thing. We can have jobs for our local communities, and we can build local resilience. So I have full hope and aspirations for our school lunch programmes because I believe in our future.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today to talk about health and safety as part of the ACT-National coalition agreement to reform health and safety law and regulation.

When I set out on this project, I had the option of just doing normal Government consultation or doing things a little bit differently, and I decided that it was important to go right around the country and talk to as many real-life Kiwis as possible about their experiences with our health and safety system. I travelled from Whangārei to Bluff, talking to tradies, road workers, farmers, building and construction, people who work in manufacturing—the people who get up every day and go to work, who don’t usually get the time to meet a politician and tell them exactly what they think about the laws and regulations that underpin their work. And the conversations and travels that I had around the country confirmed that there was a need for change.

There is too much red tape and there is too little clarity in our law about what business owners and workers need to do to comply to keep people safe but, importantly, to comply with the law. And because there is a lack of clarity, there is a huge amount of fear in our small businesses. We have heard from the small-business owners and workers that for the big companies out there, they have HR departments, they have people whose whole role is to understand how to comply with Government. But for the small businesses, they are struggling and they are asking for our help.

I had one person talk about how they work in the admin part of their department and at the end of every month they actually laugh together about “Has anybody hurt themselves with a stapler? Because our bosses upstairs need to know that they’ve got some paperwork trail in case things go wrong.” We’ve got too much paperwork and focus on compliance and not on actually reducing real harm and risk at work. That’s why this Government is committed to refocusing our health and safety system on critical risks, things that will hurt people, cause death, serious injury, and illness, and less on sweating the small stuff.

If you think of a couple of the small businesses I’ve recently visited in my Tāmaki electorate, there’s a new Pilates studio, there was a couple of real estate agents, a photography studio, a couple of cafes. There is a local hairdresser. They’re all doing very vital, important work in our local community, but they’re not big, risky operations, so they shouldn’t need to comply with the same standards. That’s what this law is about. It’s for those small retailers and small businesses.

I want to touch on another area, which is land ownership. Now, I travelled around the country and talked to a lot of people, including farmers and iwi, and I really want to express my thanks for their welcome on the land, in particular to Te Arawa. One of the things that I heard was that they have a deep sense of connection to their land. They want to share it with people, but they’re also exceptional business people. One of the decisions that has come out of the WorkSafe decision to prosecute at Whakaari / White Island was that we have a ripple of fear for land ownership across this nation.

I want to open up our great outdoors again for Kiwis. We want farmers, we want iwi, we want council and the Department of Conservation to feel like they can welcome Kiwis without fear of prosecution from WorkSafe so that all of those deer hunters, fishers, people who hike, who tramp, who kayak—I hope that this law change will allow more access to our great outdoors and we remove fear from landowners up and down New Zealand that health and safety law will start creeping into everyday life.

We need to find our way back to common sense and self-responsibility. Yes, we need to focus on harm, real harm, at work, which is why we’re focusing on those critical risks that can cause death and serious injury. But we should also go back to the good old Kiwi way of life, the way that I grew up and the way that my parents grew up and their parents grew up, that we actually have some self-responsibility in our lives.

There is a lot more to come. This is only the first tranche of our reforms. There are months still to come and I cannot wait for people to see what this Government will do for health and safety.

What we’ve been hearing from the Green Party over the last few days has been—to use their words—“irreverent” and “absurd”, and disgusting, frankly. Without trying to state the obvious, the Greens have lost their way totally. Remember Jeanette Fitzsimons, remember Rod Donald talking about the environment? When was the last time you heard those people talking about the environment? No, these days, they’re focused on basing themselves around the likes of, “I’m a professional protester”, maybe Minto for the last 15 years, that’s all he’s been doing. They’re frothing at the mouth about Gaza, de-funding the Police, the communist economic manifesto, and advocating—and I quote—“puberty blockers and surgery for children on demand”. That’s what that Green Party’s been out there advocating, and all of a sudden, they’ve been found out.

You know something, they’re trying to explain to New Zealand what the term “bussy” means, along with what the blue spiral emoji is, and how an eggplant emoji is—to use their lousy explanation—“just the way the Rainbow community does it”. Oh no they don’t! That ain’t true. We have been emailed and messaged constantly over the last few days from members of the Rainbow community saying they back us, and they are totally disgusted with what Chlöe Swarbrick is trying to say and to justify and to involve them in. Those are the facts. The Greens suffer from the same ignorance as the Māori Party does. They think they speak for Māori. No they don’t! The Green Party thinks they speak on behalf of the Rainbow community. Oh no you don’t! We will not be cowering from asking them the hard questions and finding you out, and very shortly.

New Zealanders are sick of this insipid cancer of “woke” that has crept into our society. New Zealand First declared a war on woke and we are on the front line of it. We will not put up with your bulldust any longer! I got news for you, and it’s all bad.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Try waking up.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You’re not getting away with shouting now—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: OK, I get it sunshine.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no you don’t! No you don’t! You’re going to be here, gone tomorrow, I’m telling you. You’ll be here like a flash in the pan. I’ve seen your type a thousand times: come today, gone tomorrow, totally forgotten. Look, we packed the James Hay Theatre last weekend, 800 people and more in Christchurch, and they’ve had enough too. When did they ever pack a hall? Couldn’t even pack a telephone booth!

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: I won my seat, how about you?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I won three seats, sunshine, and I’ve been around for decades. You’ll be gone next time! Especially with that loud mouth—especially with that loud mouth. All those protesters and empty shells need to ask themselves a question: do they want to be part of the solution or are they part of the problem? And if you’re part of the problem, then our message to you is pretty clear: get out of the way! Get out of the way!

It’s a disgraceful act for the Greens to say that New Zealand First is—they claim we are fanning the flames about this police matter and a guy called Doyle. Now, you know, we asked a simple question: have you told the police? And guess what! They had all these complaints about threats, but they’d never told the police. How do you like that? Then they decide the best course of action to stop all these complaints being duplicated was to tell the public. Never told the police, just told the public. That’s why it’s a fraud, and it’s not going to be defended! And when we find out what’s on those posts, when we find out what’s criminal about those posts, there’s going to be a day of reckoning. That’s what this is all about. We’re all caught by the same rules here. The Green Party—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: E noho, koro.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, “E noho.” she says. What a prize toheroa—do you know what toheroa is? Do you know what toheroa is? A long tongue—and you’ve got it. Toheroa, keep quiet.

This is how deluded the Greens are, you know? How deluded the Greens are. How are Doyle’s own social media posts, that he posted himself, suddenly “disinformation”? It’s his post, and the Greens explain that as being disinformation. How is that possible when it’s his posts? Well, there are new things called “self-inflicted disinformation” now. Come on! The fraudulent defence knows no bounds. But you’re not going to win. The Greens are going to be found out! Your high point in politics has come and gone, that’s the reality. What a mess they’re in, the number of people they’ve sacked, one after the other. And as soon as the investigation goes into this guy, when he turns up back here, and he can use all the pronouns he darn likes, our pronouns begin with T and V, they’re truth and verity, that’s what we’re going to have here.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: New learnings—wake up.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Listen to that, shouting out down there. You know that woman there? She said that she won her seat; no she didn’t. The number of frauds committed by the Green Party in the last election know no bounds. Straight out lied. Straight out got a man called Henare, a respected name, they cheated him of his seat and they’re going to be found out the moment the authorities start doing their jobs. So our conclusion is very, very clear: the public have a right to know who and what they’re voting for, and very shortly they will.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is not a Government that is dealing with the cost of living pressures on ordinary New Zealand Kiwis. We’ve got New Zealand First here who are completely distracted by these issues when New Zealanders need advocacy in the supermarkets that are taking $1 million of profit every day out of the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders. This used to be a party that campaigned on the supermarket duopoly and the way that it should be changed. But, instead, we’ve got the party of big business and a party distracted who are the ones who are doing tough talk to any industry that they can get their hands on. They’re saying that the cozy pillow fight is over, that the party’s over, that we’re going to put them on notice again, and again, and again.

The problem with that tough talk and the lack of action is this: New Zealanders are telling their politicians that the cost of living is their number one priority. When they go to the supermarket checkout their groceries are costing them too much. When they are paying their electricity bills, they are too high and under this Government they’re going up this month. Students will be paying more on their student loans. The minimum wage is not keeping up with the cost of living. What does this Government do? It takes a year and a half to ask them what to do.

I’m going to speak directly to the National Party MPs here today who represent the constituents who are being done over by the supermarket duopoly. I’ve got an example here of the Taupō electorate compared to my electorate in Manurewa. New World Tūrangi is one of the many New Zealand supermarkets that has a monopoly over the geography in its catchment. It’s about an hour’s drive to the next competitor of any size, so people are basically captive in that supermarket zone. In a recent survey, University of Sydney researcher Lisa Asher compared a basket of fresh produce and dairy products from New World Tūrangi compared to Pak ’N Save Manukau. At Pak ’N Save the basket of goods was $75.35 and at New World it was $94.82. People in Taupō are paying $20 extra for a small basket of top-up goods every time they go to the supermarket, compared with the competitive market that exists in Manukau where there is choice. That’s because they are forced to choose from a smaller range of products on offer at that supermarket and the prices are higher.

This is an electorate for every MP to deeply care about. This is affecting New Zealanders far more than any tax cut could possibly give them relief. Every time New Zealanders go to the supermarket checkout, they are paying into a system which is taking money straight out of their back pockets over and above the cost of doing business and they need Government intervention. It’s a year and a half to ask for information that this Government’s solution is, when Labour has laid the groundwork for reform. Without the Grocery Commissioner publishing those reports, without the ability to monitor what is going on in the market dynamics in New Zealand, there would be no ability to do this reform. But we have the ability to do it now.

The Government needs to take serious action on the cost of living and this is one thing it could do. And its plan of cutting, cutting, cutting services—to actually help New Zealanders with the costs that are being pushed on to them in their household budget when their wages won’t keep up with their rising costs and they have no solution for their rising rents and rising housing prices in sight. The meetings that Labour will be having in those electorates will make it very clear that National MPs who are concerned about this and the ACT MPs who seem like they won’t support these measures are representing electorates where their people are being fleeced. Small to medium sized businesses who are the suppliers to the duopoly are also being squeezed.

We need politicians who represent these areas to actually want to take action and actually see this through to regulatory change. Because the cost of living is biting for ordinary Kiwis. This month, National’s making life even harder for so many people in our communities. Tens of thousands of workers are, effectively, taking a pay cut because the minimum wage is only rising by 35c, which is below inflation.

We’re talking about working parents when we talk about the effect that the cuts to the school lunches programme are having. These aren’t people who are on benefits; these are people who have had another $150 every week added to their household budgets, like the mum who sent me her breakdown of costs to feed her six children on her one salary. It meant that she was feeding them with basically a sandwich, a fruit, and a muesli bar at lunchtime, and dinners had changed to noodles and two eggs each. That is what ordinary working families are feeding themselves with now in a time when New Zealand produces food and should be somewhere in the world where we can eat well and eat healthily. The supermarket duopoly needs to change. The Government needs to take action right now.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m going to bring some positivity and optimism to the debate this afternoon, unlike the negativity we have just heard for the last five minutes. I want to take colleagues and those watching at home on a tiki tour of the beautiful Bay of Plenty electorate. It’s a powerhouse of growth, innovation, and opportunity leading New Zealand forward. Let’s start with the Port of Tauranga. I took Minister Meager there, alongside my colleague Sam Uffindell, the MP for Tauranga, on Monday. The Port of Tauranga handles nearly half of New Zealand’s exports, but it’s not able to bring in ships big enough because it’s been held up in the Environment Court for nearly seven years.

Under our watch, that will change. We will enable them to have their berth extension and to do the dredging so that we can increase exports in this country, so that we can double them over the next 10 years. That will be great news for the Bay of Plenty, and, actually, it’ll be great news for New Zealand.

Part of my electorate includes Pāpāmoa, and one of the exciting projects we have going on at the moment is the Pāpāmoa East Interchange. I have been working diligently behind the scenes with both the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Minister of Transport to see if we can get one or two of the off-ramps and on-ramps on the Pāpāmoa East Interchange opened early, and I have received good news that that is likely to happen a year in advance of the interchange opening. This is, again, great news for the local Bay of Plenty electorate, where we take cars off already log-jammed roads and enable things like the interchange to have on-ramps and off-ramps opening early. It is a good outcome.

Our Government is turning the tide on crime. For the first time since 2018, violent crime in New Zealand has fallen—

Hon Ginny Andersen: It has not.

TOM RUTHERFORD: —after a 51—oh, it’s ironic to be heckled by Ginny Andersen, the person who oversaw a 51 percent increase in violent crime between 2018 and 2023. We’ve now seen it drop in 2024. Our police are getting back to the basics: 40 percent more foot patrols. Let me be clear to the New Zealand public: foot patrols are a good thing. Seeing your police on the beat is a good thing. We do not want to abolish the police like the Green Party and their mates in the Labour Party are suggesting they want to do. We are simply saying that New Zealand police are a good thing in this country and we want to see them. Our changes with the gang patch ban have been positive for the New Zealand public. We are relentlessly focused on restoring law and order, and these are contributing to us doing that.

Regional Deals. Regional Deals is exciting for both Tauranga and the Western Bay of Plenty, and it’ll be a good thing. I’m pleased to see that our combined councils of Tauranga City, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, and the regional council have got their things together and got one in, actually. It’s a good thing to get it in on time so that you are in the hunt, and so it’s looking really, really positive.

The Takitimu North Link, a road of national significance, has reached over the halfway point, and this is positive news for the electorate and constituents in the Bay of Plenty, connecting Tauranga and Te Puna; 2,000 people have worked on this road of national significance, moving 1.5 million cubic metres of earth already. It’s not just about concrete and steel, though; it’s about connecting communities. It’s about saving lives by providing safer travel options and driving economic growth in one of New Zealand’s fastest growing regions.

On a lighter note, Pāpāmoa in the Bay of Plenty electorate was recently named New Zealand’s choicest suburb. In Trade Me Property’s People’s Choicest campaign, we received an impressive 42 percent of more than 136,000 votes. The achievement has brought a smile to many constituents in my electorate, and as a proud Pāpāmoa local, I’m delighted but I’m not surprised. Our community offers the perfect balance of coastal lifestyle with urban convenience, and it is the place to be.

In the Bay of Plenty, we don’t just grow kiwifruit; we grow New Zealand’s prosperity. We don’t just export goods; we export opportunity. We don’t just build roads; we build pathways to a safer, stronger future. This is the best job in the world, and it is a privilege to work on behalf of the community in which I have grown up. I’m committed to seeing through this vital work, ensuring the Bay of Plenty’s voice is heard and our potential is realised. The community’s trust in me to represent our beautiful region is something I never take for granted.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is so telling that the National Party members are choosing to use their general debate slots today to launch their re-election campaigns and to put forward their spin and their lines for the next campaign. Paul Goldsmith spent his speech trying to scaremonger about a change of Government. Tom Rutherford is quite clearly worried about losing his seat and is using his general debate slot to campaign for re-election. No confident Government does that. No Government that is proud of their record uses a general debate speech to launch a campaign. But it’s telling, because their record is nothing to be proud of, and it’s so poor and so damaging that they have to make stuff up to try and make it look like they are actually delivering.

This Government has claimed to build 5,000 houses. How many have they built? Zero. They have funded only 750 houses. That doesn’t kick in till the next financial year. Why are people in the Government claiming to have done something that hasn’t happened? It’s because their record on housing is abysmal, it is shameful, and it is causing people to live on the street. Now we have a situation where front-line providers are saying to New Zealanders that this Government’s policies are leading to an increase in homelessness, and we had the Prime Minister stand up today and say that nothing has changed—nothing has changed, he claims. Both can’t be true—both cannot be true. You can’t have front-line providers, using real-life examples—every single day, they say, they are getting people that are coming in, in genuine need, desperate for housing. They go to the Ministry of Social Development and either they get declined or they are told that, because of the Government’s changes in policy, there’s no point in applying. So they’re being prevented from applying or they get declined if they do apply. That is what they are saying.

Let’s look at the proof: a 53 percent increase in homelessness in Auckland in four months; a 37 percent increase, in Wellington, of rough sleeping and a 40 percent increase in homelessness in the last year. Those are the facts. Those are the facts that were outlined not only by the City Mission but by the Salvation Army as well. It would seem to me that they are telling the truth. So why is the Prime Minister saying that nothing has changed? That’s interesting. He’s claiming, in the House, that nothing has changed, except it’s his Government that changed the policy. Those two things don’t marry up. I wonder if he may want to come down to the House and correct his statement, because it is a fact that things have changed, it is his Government that has changed them, and it is his Government that has led to people living on the street. They are living on the street, they are living in cars, they are living in tents, and they are living in garages because this Government isn’t letting them into emergency housing. No one is saying that an emergency housing situation is ideal, but it’s a hell of a lot better than sleeping rough. But that is what’s happening because of this Government.

Let’s look at some more facts: this Government has stopped the expansion of Kāinga Ora homes. They have only funded community housing providers for 750 houses for two years—so 1,500 between two years. That doesn’t kick in till next year. They have changed the criteria, which is preventing people to get into emergency housing, and homelessness has increased by the hundreds since they came in. And the Prime Minister stands up and says nothing has changed. To quote Winston Peters in his general debate speech today, which was allowed to be said in the House, “straight out lies”—that’s a quote from Winston Peters in his speech. If it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for me. “Straight out lies” is what he said, and I would argue that we’ve seen a few today. We have seen a few, and it is outrageous. Why can’t the Government just be upfront with New Zealanders and say, “We don’t believe it’s the Government’s job to provide emergency housing—

Jenny Marcroft: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarification, the member opposite just made an allegation that Winston Peters was lying.

SPEAKER: No, he didn’t; he referred to the fact that Mr Peters used the term “straight out lies” describing a situation. He then claimed that it was OK for him to use the same terminology for a similar situation. Look, the language in the House changes from time to time. I make the clear distinction between saying to an individual member in the House that they have misled the House with a mistruth as compared to referring to some information that might be put to the House, not necessarily belonging to the member. It’s quite different. Please carry on.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m not surprised they want to shut me down through points of order, because I think I’m hitting a nerve. Isn’t it interesting? I say, “straight out lies” and they don’t like it. Well, maybe they should face the facts. Your policies, I say to this Government—their policies—are making people homeless. They should be ashamed of themselves. They should be honest with New Zealanders as to the reason why.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over the weekend, I was at Hawke’s Bay Better Home & Living Show. I must say the engagements that we had there—because we had our ACT stall—were great. There were a lot of people coming through and giving us their supportive feedback, and I want to thank each and everybody who stopped by at our ACT Party stall to provide their feedback on how we are doing in Government.

In those conversations, there were conversations about my new bill, which is the Education and Training (Equal Treatment) Amendment Bill. The support for my bill was also huge, and I must tell the House as well that I’ve drafted this bill because I’ve received so much correspondence from students, from parents, even from staff members. I remember when I raised the issue of Auckland University of Technology (AUT) staff members and students getting additional points for their ethnicity if they are Māori and Pasifika to travel to attend a conference or present at a conference. Since that time, a lot of staff members have been in touch and they have been sending their frustrations and experiences, and sharing their experiences with me.

I know that there are a lot of people frustrated about such policies where universities allocate resources on the basis of students’ and staff members’ race. That’s why I have come to this conclusion that we need a legislative mechanism to resolve this issue. So what this bill does is to ensure that public funding for tertiary institutions is race-neutral. But what it allows is allocation of funding and resources on the basis of other factors such as a student’s merit, a student needing academic support, a student’s geographic location, a student’s economic status, a student’s disability.

The other thing which is important to note in this bill is that this bill doesn’t prevent if a private organisation comes along and wants to give money for a particular sector of students. For example, if an iwi comes along and says they want to give scholarships only to Māori students, that is totally fine because that is private money. What this bill does is it just ensures that public funding is allocated in a way that is race-neutral.

There was a lot of positive feedback because we don’t want to see our tertiary institutions allocating funding in a way which is limiting other students from progressing. We don’t want students to be judged on the basis of their race.

While I was receiving this positive feedback, I actually received a stark reminder of why my bill is so important when I saw a social media post. This social media post was from an academic from the University of Auckland, Khylee Quince. She posted on social media. This was citing a headline in one of the media that reported my member’s bill—the title in that media outlet was “ACT MP launches bill to stop universities offering race-based services.” Khylee Quince came on her social media platform and said, “Alternative headline: ‘Immigrant forgets where she lives.’ ” So she decided to attack me on the basis of me being an immigrant. Now, seeing this, I felt quite sad. I felt it’s quite unfortunate for the Dean of Law at AUT to put this kind of comment and attack me because of me being an immigrant.

Now, another concerning thing about this is that the AUT campus—if you go there, you will see so many students from migrant families. And I wonder if they are being shut down by her if these students have differing views—views different from her views. I also want to seek assurance from the Vice-Chancellor of AUT that all voices—voices of all students, including migrant students—are valued at the same level as students of other backgrounds or ethnicities who are considered to be non-migrants. It’s really important to get that kind of assurance.

It was not just one academic who commented; there was another academic from the University of Auckland, Wiremu Tipuna. He is a cultural adviser—that’s the title: a cultural adviser. He referenced my status as an immigrant—totally fine—and then he says, “Stop being the lapdog of my ballhead masters.” These are the kind of comments that these academics are putting on social media. There are a lot of questions to be asked about these people because they are public-facing academics. They’re dealing with these students; many, many students are those who are from migrant backgrounds.

We need to stop this nonsense, and that is what we will do. We all are migrants, and I’m sure that Adam and Eve were not born in New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.