Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Madam Deputy Speaker thank you. I too like others want to congratulate you on your role as the Deputy Speaker though I do see that you're having a little teething problem of knowing how to work the desk at the front there with the bells and whistles that are there. It is truly an honour to have you in that role with all the wisdom and the experience that you bring with you as you have been a member and a Minister in this House as well.As it is the Address in Reply debate can I also just acknowledge Tamati Coffey—he is here and Jo Luxton is also—who was the mover of the Address in Reply. Tamati I too was honoured in the 50th Parliament to give the Address in Reply on behalf of the National Party as a new member coming into Parliament in 2011. I know the honour that it is to our whānau and our family as well so I just wanted to acknowledge that it is one of those occasions. And to Jo and all the others and to all our new members too—to members on both sides of the House—I particularly wanted to pay respect to you the new members for 2017 who have come here. They say that the maiden and the valedictory statements are your two speeches where you can actually express the sense of who you are where you come from the reasons why you're here and what you would like to achieve as well. We've seen many of those through the speeches.The Address in Reply in a sense reflects also from the Speech from the Throne in regard to what the current Government will be doing—what its intent is and what it's trying to achieve.I do know that there was some talk about the Greens and New Zealand First. I know that the Hon Tracey Martin talked about how there is love there—there is the sharing of love. But I do have to say that when I was given the original seating plan for the House it didn't quite look like that. In fact it looked like there was only one there—which was the Deputy Prime Minister—and the rest of New Zealand First were on that side. Obviously things have changed and now they're seated over here. That's just part of I suppose the relationship that they're in but it's good to see them on the other side.I've had a number of people come up to me and say How do you feel now that the election—because we can't understand. You actually won. You got 44.4 percent of the party vote. You got the highest number of any political party." It took me a whole hour at one stage in the local cafe to explain that to people because they in themselves could not understand. I said "Well you're correct. We were the highest-polling party in the party vote at 44.4 percent." But I did have to say "Here's the reality of MMP and we have to accept it. We've accepted it. This is the reality of MMP. So while we may have been the highest-polling party unfortunately we weren't able to form a Government." Now some people found that really hard and really difficult to understand but we had to explain that to them.To me it was a difficult thing because for some of us we had just become Ministers for the first time—we had that opportunity. We have to say that it was a privilege and an honour to serve in that way and to have the opportunities that we had as well.The difficulty I have which I want to talk about in my speech is that on the opposite side there is a lot of talk about the things that they want to achieve from this Government. I would term it in the form of the words "power to the people". So as they've sort of put their manifesto together and as they're talking about the Speech from the Throne it's all about "We want to give power to the people. We want to allow them to choose. We want them to be more included. We want them to have a sense of equity in all the things that we are doing." But I have to say that when I think about that I think about some of the things that are happening now and in this Parliament the first piece of legislation to go through is about paid parental leave.They say "Power to the people."; we say the same thing too. Why? Because we believe it's important. Even in our time in nine years of Government we increased paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks and we were going to increase it to 20. We had a commitment there. On this side there was no disagreement. We wanted to do it in a way that was fiscally responsible but we still agreed with the intent. There was no argument—we are supporting the bill.But here's the point of difference. The fact is that there is a small amendment that would not cost any more and would not take any more time—this gets implemented in July. So it is "Power to the people but"—here's the small print in their clause of contract of trust and confidence—"we get to choose." rather than "you get to choose". You mums and dads don't get to choose whether you want to share that leave whether you want to say "Actually I need to have my partner with me because at the moment I've got post-natal distress disorder; I need that support." The Government is saying "You don't get to choose; we get to choose."So this is the whole point of what I am putting in my speech. They say "Power to the people." but with a little small print they say "Hang on! We get to choose." Here's an opportunity and here's the confusing point of this: Kelvin Davis when asked a question said it's a good idea. Willow-Jean Prime talked about it—we heard her. She said "Actually it was a good idea. We should do this." Even Sue Moroney herself has said "Actually it's a great idea. We should do it." But the party on the other side has chosen to say "Actually we don't want to do this." Why? "Power to the people but actually maybe not all the power." Why? Mystery solved: there's no difference there. That's the same thing again."Power to the people."—it's the same thing they said in the nine years when we talked about Treaty claims for Māori. "Yes we're for Māori; we want to choose that." In regard to the foreshore and seabed "Don't want to go there." It's an ugly part of their history. But in the nine years of the Labour Government when we talk about Treaty settlements how many did they achieve? Nine. Under a National Government how many did we achieve? Fifty-six. I have to tell you again: "Power to the people. Oh hang on! Let's just slow down let's check it out let's see whether it's going to work." That is not truly power to the people. Let's talk about Whānau Ora. The criticism from New Zealand First around Whānau Ora was to remove power to the people. Now we have to say remember the history of where it came from. Dame Tariana Turia tried to put the pitch across to Labour. It was rejected. Why? Too much power. To who? The Māori people to choose how they would care for their whānau in all the ways that they thought were appropriate. But no Labour chose not to. So when the National Party came into Government we said "Power to the people? Absolutely! You can have the power." Whānau Ora was in there as well. So it is going to be very interesting to see how they refrain and adjust that because on one hand most of the Official Information Act requests came from New Zealand First who said "No we don't want to have that. Race-based policies we don't believe in." but actually under the New Zealand First and Labour coalition Government we've got more race-based initiatives coming out than they've ever had before. You've got to have to say that too and explain that to your constituents. You're a little bit confused at the moment. You've just said "Power to the people." but—Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not confused.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Madam Deputy Speaker apologies. Partnership schools: power to the people. Here it is—that's right. Why? Because 1400 young people don't fit into mainstream schooling. They've struggled and do you know what? It was the communities themselves who turned around and said "We have an alternative. It's called partnership schools where we get to choose." The majority of them are Māori and Pacific. The majority of them are from communities who said "We want to choose how we want to care for and look after our kids." It is making a difference. It is only 1400 children and the majority are Māori and Pacific. Why? Because those communities want to choose. Those members say "Power to the people." but they are going to take them away. They're going to remove them. Oh but hang on it's a little bit hard now. Why? Because there's a bit of conflict in there. You've got Aupito William Sio who is conflicted. Why? Because there's a connection there in Rise UP Academy. You've also got Willie Jackson and you've got all these other people who have got these connections. Hang on! Power to the people? Maybe. Here's the small print coming out again: maybe not all the power will come to you.Members on this side—members of the previous Government—truly made a difference. When we say "Power to the people." we give them opportunities. Whether it be in Treaty settlements whether it be in Whānau Ora or whether it be through partnership schools all of these have made a difference to our communities. Better Public Services and social investment was about this. It was about knowing what it is that we were doing to make a difference to those children.The Prime Minister herself has turned around and said "I want to deal with child poverty." She actually made the statement "That's the reason I came into Parliament." I remember being at a debate in the year 2011. It was out at Ponsonby and I remember that she was talking about poverty. She was asked this question: "Then why in nine years under a Labour Government are there 145 children still in poverty? You couldn't actually achieve it. You had a surplus." The comments and the reply were this: "Actually it's a job undone. It's a job unfinished." So here we are again. This Prime Minister is now coming to a point that she wants to try and finish this job which she failed to do in a Government that had a surplus and had the ability in nine years and is now saying "We're going to make a commitment to do that."Under a National Government we had more opportunities to be able to do that. Why? Social investment knew the data and the detail as to who these children these whānau and these families were to truly make a difference. The key point of what I want to get across to the people who are listening out there is that when people talk and ask this question of this current Government "Power to the people—how true is it?" they should look at the small fine print in the contract of trust and confidence. Does it truly say to us "Power so that we can make the decisions."? Does it truly say "Power to the point where actually we want to determine it ourselves—not the unions or anyone else."? The fact is that we get to choose what makes a difference to our whānau and our family. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."