Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you and wish you a happy New Year and also to all our colleagues that are here as well.During the Christmas break once I'd hung up the suit and put the shaver away I was given the deferred maintenance list by my wife. She said This is six years old." So there were things to be done and in particular she wanted the trees to be cut down at the back and the hedges to be trimmed. And I thought "Oh but they look nice and leafy. They look healthy." She said "Yeah but they've grown tall. You just need to do that and you'll understand why." So out came the chainsaw and the hedge trimmer. As I was cutting away what actually happened was it exposed that there were vines that were growing that were actually killing the hedges as well—there was rubbish that had sort of gathered in there. I suppose the analogy that I give for that is that once you cut away from all the leafy stuff and you get down to the substance you then tell the tale of actually what's happening in that situation.So we had all this wonderful rhetoric from a Government in its first term telling us about the wonderful things that it would be doing: be caring and kind be tolerant grow the economy and make a difference. But the truth is one year on that once you've cut down and trimmed down to look for the substance the substance isn't there.So let's go to that. It's an interesting thing that the Prime Minister herself in her speech in her first paragraph would admit that actually we're not doing as good as we thought we were. In her first paragraph she says this: "There remains much to [be done]." In other words why would you say that unless you knew that yes you'd made promises and the reality is that you couldn't quite keep the promises that you'd made as well. And here's the tale of the story and the tale inside of that because when we think about all of the things—and as I've gone through the speech like many of our colleagues here; we've read through—what we hear a lot of is consulting working groups advisory groups that are coming through and we've heard a lot about that. But I went a little bit further. I decided to actually pull out the list of these different working groups just so that we had an idea about the work that they were doing.To the listeners that are out there in the public you'll know—or you may not know—that there are actually now 233 working groups at an average cost of about $1.9 million. It's contested on the other side but they need to know that this information came from Government officials themselves through an Official Information Act request. So we didn't fabricate that number. It's actually officials themselves from the Government who've given us an average. So on average it's around about $290 million—I just want to state that—for 233 working groups. Well hey they're working groups; maybe they're trying to do a good thing.So let's have a look at some of these working groups. There's a Government review to look at how to control the prison population. Well Mr Kelvin Davis will know that that's important. That's what he's trying to do. That's his mahi; that's his work. There are Government reviews about six contracts for new charter schools. I know and also too my good colleague over here knows that the fact is that those charter schools struggled. Why? Because they wanted to retain the principle of trust that they had originally under the National-led Government but they had that as well.But here are the ones that start to get a little bit testy and maybe out there in the public they may question: "Was there a need for it?" Let's take this one: the review into how Australia and New Zealand can work together digitally. Work together digitally—I'm not so sure about how important that is to the economy but that's another thing. There are freedom camping working groups out there and a Whānau Ora review panel. We know there has already been a review. At a cost of just under a million dollars we had another working group.There is a concern out there in the public because a Government that is now here governing that had nine years to prepare has not prepared. They don't have a plan. In spite of standing up and saying they "will lead not just govern."—and those were the words from the Prime Minister—we are not seeing that in this situation.So what's the concern out there in the public? The concern is that yes there sounds like there's compassion but is there competency? Is there competency in this current Government to be able to do what it says? In the Prime Minister's speech she said "We will keep working to modernise transport services in Auckland by progressing rail from Māngere to the inner city to give our largest city a world-class environmentally friendly transport network."Just yesterday out there in the public in the New Zealand Herald and on Stuff there were questions in regards to that very project happening. I want to quote this from Chris Darby who's a current Auckland City councillor and the chair of the transport committee in Auckland Council. And what they are saying is this: "Yes we've had the meetings. Yes we've had the consultancy and we like that active style of participating. The difficulty is there has been nothing of substance"—and I quote his words—"to bring other councillors in on this project."The public are now saying these words: "We've seen all the stardust. We've seen all the promises. We've seen all the convenience of saying 'We are compassionate and we are caring.' " But what they are saying is this: "Where is the competency and more importantly where is the substance to make a difference?" For all the talk around transport and what they would they do to improve that again those who traditionally would be supporters of this Labour-led Government are now saying this: "Due to the transformative nature of the project it is vital that ministers and elected members [of] Auckland Council have [a] meaningful and regular engagement as it is local communities that will be directly affected both positively and negatively." The concern now is the impact it will have on our local communities. So you can make the promise but if you can't deliver then you shouldn't be making that commitment to our constituents and even to our communities.I see the Hon Willie Jackson over there and he's probably proud of the Mana in Mahi programme that's been initiated. Here the Prime Minister talked about innovative programmes. It's a programme and it talked about the whole aspect of the apprenticeship schemes to increase the number of those going into the different trades. As a tradie myself I think it's a great thing. But you see that's not innovative and that's not new because under a National-led Government we increased the reboot scheme and that allowed for both the employer and also the apprentice to have an allocation of funds for their tools and also for their training. They use the word "innovative" when there is nothing new inside of that as well.The Prime Minister got up and talked about innovation and things that were new in regards to the Pacific. And so I thought hey that's great and being previously the Minister for Pacific Peoples I wanted to see something new. Where was that innovation? The only innovation that they have included is to increase the funding to a programme that we had initiated. It's called the PESS scheme—the Pasifika Education Support Scheme.There is no innovation. There is nothing new. In other words it continues to reinforce the point that there is a lack of substance and there is a lack of competency from this current Government to deliver in the areas that it has promised to the people.There are a number of things and let's talk about the housing issue. I know that people on the other side and members and others asked what the National-led Government had done. Well I'll tell you what it did in the nine years. We inherited in 2008 stock that was run down and there was a lack of respect for the people that were living in those homes. I know; I was part of a community in Glen Innes in Auckland which had the largest State housing stock in the whole of New Zealand—around 2500 homes. And what we did as a National Government was to ensure that they were fit for purpose they were warm they were drier. On average around $300 million was spent in regards to that scheme. People have said that we were selling off our State houses out to the public. That's not true at all because under a National-led Government we were again putting power in the hands of the people. We started up community housing providers who took over the allocation and the administration and organisation of those homes. You see the thing that I've become concerned about is that the party that declares itself the people's party and talks about power to the people is removing that very power from the people. The Hon Nikki Kaye got up and talked about education and I've been on boards of trustees for almost 20 years through the schooling years of my children. The great thing about Tomorrow's Schools is that it put power in the hands of the people and around boards of trustees. In other words they were able to participate with the decisions and the direction of a school through its charter. And now we are having this where under a Labour Government they are now removing that. Why? They've shared their concerns that there was a lack of governance. I was part of the Ministry of Education which was improving governance for those parents who put their hands up to be participating on those boards. We saw the increase in confidence. What we are now seeing is the fact that under this Government the power for people to participate is being removed and that's got to be a concern. So I hope that the message that goes out to our communities is that the underlying issue of concern being raised is that there is a lack of competence but more importantly there is a lack of substance to the plans and to the vision supposedly for this country. I hope the fact is that we will continue to hold them to account on all the issues of concern that are being raised. We've seen it time and time again. There is nothing new. There is no innovation. There are no new ideas. Instead it is constantly through the advice of the public about trying to give them the idea to govern and to lead this country. If you are going to lead then make the right decisions. Make sure you give the power back to the people because that's true governance that's true leadership that's true democracy for this country of Aotearoa New Zealand."