Donnelly Brian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Donnelly Brian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7291] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 The Prime Minister commenced her speech this afternoon with reference to the solid achievements made by her administration in 2006. What was notable about her statement however was that she gave full credit to the constructive working relationships of her administration with its confidence and supply partners as well as with the Greens and the Maori Party for the successful outcomes of 2006. This demonstrated a Prime Minister in touch with MMP. When the people of New Zealand voted for MMP one of the results they were hoping for was better cross-party working relationships. The current administration has grasped this point and I would therefore say to John Key that if he ever wishes to sit in the Prime Minister’s chair not only must he come to grips with the realities of MMP but he must ensure that those who surround him do so also. In 1996 the likes of Jim Bolger and Wyatt Creech intuitively grasped what MMP was about. Bill Birch Jenny Shipley Tony Ryall and many others never did. 
Over the last year the farmers of New Zealand have once again outclassed themselves. However yet again they have been hamstrung in the potential benefits they could have provided for the nation as a whole because of the artificially high dollar. It is all very well celebrating Export Year but if we cannot create an export-friendly financial environment it will all be for nothing. If New Zealand does not export we will wither and atrophy and the vast majority of what is exported will be based on what we produce off the land—hopefully with higher and higher levels of value added. 
It is wonderful that Mr Key has finally discovered on behalf of the National Party something that I personally have known to be a reality in New Zealand for more than 25 years—children who come to school without breakfast. I would like to point out that there are also large numbers who come without lunch. It is also exhilarating to know that the leader of the party that brought in savage benefit cuts in the early 1990s has publicly recognised that hungry children find it hard to settle in class to the detriment not only of their own learning but also to that of others. 
I have to say to Mr Key that no MP in this House grew up closer to Wesley School than I did as we grew up in a State house virtually straight across the road from the school. The father uncle and aunties and grandparents of Toa Fraser who directed the film  
No. 2 
 were actually in No. 55 right next door. 
If I were principal of a school and some political leader announced to the nation that he had organised with his mates to produce a whole pile of muesli bars to be delivered to my school and the kids were going to have to eat them I can tell him where I would be telling him to shove his muesli bars. That approach is nothing short of fascist. So I support the response of the principal of Wesley School and I do not believe for a moment that there was any political heavying. This is where John Key got it all wrong. If he had been genuinely interested in the children’s well-being he would have talked to the principal and the chair of the board outside the public domain put forward his proposal accepted counter-proposals that would better meet the needs of the children then quietly put the programme in place. 
Feedback I have received tells me that the Fruit in Schools project is showing positive benefits in terms of children’s concentration spans. I ran breakfast clubs in my own school in the 1990s and know the positive benefits. John Key was not off track with his intention; he was way off track with the manner in which he attempted to implement his initiatives which came to look like a political stunt. 
The Prime Minister made some telling points in her speech but on two issues I believe that her speechwriters let her down. The first was the reference to 20 free hours of early childhood care. This may have been good election rhetoric but any attempt to apply the slogan to the for-profit early childhood sector is doomed to failure. Indeed this whole policy amounts simply to a hospital pass from the previous Minister of Education Trevor Mallard to the new Minister Steve Maharey. 
The second issue is the reference to the Young Apprenticeships scheme the idea of which is very worthy—but I have to mention that we are about 5 years behind the Australians in this regard. Those at-risk students—the tail—do not make it through to years 12 and 13 where they would be able to take up this initiative. In fact more students every year are getting early leaving approval. The challenge for our system is to ensure that these students can be kept in the system so that they are able to benefit from initiatives such as the Young Apprenticeships scheme. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.