Jones Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Jones Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1133] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Let me join the two previous speakers and welcome my fellow Northlander John Carter back to this House. Recently we had the pleasure of welcoming him on to our ancestral marae at Waitangi—both him and Dr Brash—and it was a pleasure to see John back on his feet. As a fellow survivor of such an illness I say it is a pleasure to have John back here but unfortunately the content of his speeches has not improved in his absence. 
Let me focus on what was a fantastic afternoon. All this talk about our Prime Minister not providing the right level of accountability is piffle. The accountability was called the election and— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The corrupt Prime Minister. 
SHANE JONES 
: Ah we have the word “corrupt” emitting from the oracle of the House Mr Brownlee! He is the monaroa—the one who loiters around the back leaking and spreading rumours so he can disunify his own team. What a great contribution and long may it continue from my perspective. That is what we call the monaroa where I come from. However let us continue speaking about a brilliant speech— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite appropriate to ask for an interpretation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sure the member will give the interpretation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reason for having interpreters is that a speaker who uses another language—in this case the Maori language which is an official language of the House—may choose to use it in a way that conveys one meaning but then translate it in a way that gives quite another. The service provided to the House that members are entitled to avail themselves of is to ensure that there is no abuse or misuse of the process. So I think it would be appropriate if the interpreter could tell us exactly what this chap meant by that particular word because it does cause one to consider whether it was effectively an insult to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that. Seeing as that is what you wish I am prepared to allow it. The Chair does not need to do that because I would take the member’s word for it if he interpreted it himself. I am quite prepared to do that but our interpreter is here. Could Mr Jones just repeat what he said please? 
SHANE JONES 
: Given the back-pedalling from the Opposition members on their Maori policy a little dose of Maori is probably going to enrich their minuscule contribution. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no— 
SHANE JONES 
: The term I used— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is all I want to hear. 
SHANE JONES 
: The term I used was “monaroa”. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the interpreter for an interpretation please. I know that it is hard without the context but simply interpret that word. Spell it out again please Mr Jones. 
SHANE JONES 
: [ 
Interruption 
] The term I used was not “momona roa”; it was “monaroa” referring to a tipi haere or a tipi whenua—someone who loiters around. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
SHANE JONES 
: The key point I was seeking to make when my eardrums were blasted yet again by another vacuous contribution from Mr Brownlee was that he cannot expect us to treat seriously what he says when we know both from the media and from his own colleagues the nature of his behaviour. 
 But let me continue on the subject of the fine speech that was delivered this afternoon. It focused first on economic transformation. We won the election on the basis of having vision courage and boldness to lead with policies and programmes that will leave working-class poorer New Zealanders infinitely better off. Indeed their children will have better opportunities through schooling enhanced apprenticeships and have better opportunities to tertiary education and it will no longer be the preserve of a small number to enjoy—disproportionately I might say—the economic buoyancy of the last 4 5 6 years which would not have existed unless we had the mixture of policies and their careful implementation over the last two terms. 
The second point that the brilliant speech accentuated was the importance of families. Families come in many shapes and many forms and there is a great deal of diversity. But the one thing that the programme—and this was reflected in the speech—will do is ensure that families which are the building block the unit of our society continue to be supported and that financial support is dedicated to those who are tirelessly raising children and giving them a better education. We have not been hoodwinked and tricked by the idea that with a simple and crude tax-cut mechanism there will be the opportunity to address the needs of all families as opposed to the small minority who would have done exceedingly well out of such a blunt crude instrument. 
Of course the third thing was national identity. Nothing distinguishes more what we our Prime Minister and the programme she outlined stand for and what Dr Brash stands for than the question of identity. He trotted up to Orewa wearing an imported set of Australian flip-flops and announced a policy that he had tahae-ed—borrowed without asking—from Winston Peters as to how he was going to be strict and over-the-top about immigration. The man obviously knew nothing as he wore his Australian flip-flops of the danger of such shallow divisive thinking as we have seen in Australia with the Lebanese and other elements from the ethnic Muslim-orientated communities and the damage they can do. As opposed to our inclusive approach of looking for all streams of identity to contribute to a greater nationhood he has demonstrated the opposite. He will pluck he will demonise and he will stigmatise any element as he seeks a momentary ephemeral fix to improve his popularity. 
In a perverse sense the longer he stays there the better a number of us might feel. Why? 
Debate interrupted.