Mahuta Nanaia: Address in Reply 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mahuta Nanaia: Address in Reply 
[Sitting date: 07 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 That speech spent 50 percent of the time criticising Labour in Opposition. Unbelievable. A speech from the Minister of Finance spent 50 percent of the time on criticism of Labour in Opposition rather than on telling New Zealanders what the Government’s plan is for the future. [ 
Interruption 
] OK so the last 50 percent was an attempt to do that but it is unbelievable that we are attacked in Opposition and the Government is not standing up for what it believes in. That is why I am pleased to be able to support the amendment to the motion as moved by David Shearer to add the following words: “and the National-led Government will sell New Zealand’s assets against the will of the public; the Government has no ideas to create jobs or a clean and innovative New Zealand; that the Government is widening the gap between the very rich and the rest and therefore this House has no confidence in the National-led government.”  
I am pleased to be able to speak today. As I went through the Speech from the Throne there were three key things that the Government highlighted that would underpin its way of doing things in this term. The first was a confidence and supply agreement—a strong one—with United Future ACT and the Maori Party. Well less than 2 months later we see that that confidence and supply agreement is under threat. The one opportunity the Maori Party had to hold this Government to account in question time was not utilised by the Maori Party and we should be concerned about that. In fact it forebodes that the Government is on shaky ground and the Maori Party is probably poised to pull the plug.  
The second pillar of the Government’s agenda or strength going forward is that it claimed that it would operate in an effective inclusive and stable manner. What have we seen? There are already claims from within its ranks that the Government has not been inclusive and that it is not creating stability by not being upfront in its coalition arrangements with its parties. Well either the Maori Party is not telling the truth about National or the Government is fudging the truth on the Maori Party. Which one is it? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Both. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: It probably is both as my colleague points out.  
We should be really concerned about this. The country deserves a stable Government that is inclusive and consults with communities in a real way—not a rushed consultation of 2 weeks 3 weeks or maybe a month if we are lucky but real genuine consultation and not predetermined outcomes as we have seen is the case on asset sales and the Government’s consultation with Maori but genuine opportunities for people to give feedback. But what we see here is that the Maori Party itself a coalition member of this arrangement is highlighting some very real cracks in its arrangements with National.  
The third pillar to the relationship of this Government going forward is to build a more competitive and internationally focused economy. But we have already seen in less than 2 months the Crafar farms sold offshore to the highest bidder when there were New Zealand interests on the table and many people throughout the country were hoping there would be a real opportunity for Kiwi lands to stay in Kiwi hands. That did not happen. I think the Government is really underestimating the level of sentiment that is out there in provincial New Zealand in our communities amongst a wide range of people who say we should be looking for ways to keep Kiwi lands in Kiwi hands.  
What else have we seen? We have seen the Government steamrolling ahead with its plan to sell State-owned enterprises. Granted it was a key election platform of National going forward at the last election. But to say that this Government has a mandate to sell State assets I think is clearly overrepresenting the truth. In fact if the Government on that question alone was to put the moral mandate for the sale of State-owned enterprises to the House—and I would challenge the House and seek leave of the House to put that vote certainly in terms of the Maori mandate to the Maori electorate MPs to see whether the Government has any support at all to sell State-owned assets. You know the Iwi Leaders Forum should not be a default for a parliamentary mandate of people who have been elected to represent the views of their communities on issues like this. It is just too important to fritter away New Zealand assets where there is strong public sentiment that we should be keeping them and reinvesting in them to benefit all Kiwis—all New Zealand families.  
Again this question of moral mandate is something I want to focus on a little bit primarily because the Government will tell you again and again that the election result in itself was a mandate to sell State-owned assets. But what we have in the House clearly is the fact that the Greens do not support the sale of State-owned assets New Zealand First does not support the sale of State-owned assets the Maori Party does not support the sale of State-owned assets and neither does Mana. And Labour campaigned on this issue as a core policy: we believed selling State assets was not a long-term investment in the future of this country. Rather it was short-sighted and would not deliver gains.  
So how is it in a parliamentary majority like the one we see here—those 61—that the great views of all New Zealanders will be represented? We have diversity in this House. MMP clearly delivered an opportunity for all Kiwis to represent that diversity in the parliamentary make-up and I accept the outcome. But to say that one vote in this House then shifts the moral mandate of the Government to sell State-owned assets? I would caution: “Think again.”  
In 2 short weeks the Government will be undertaking a consultation round particularly with iwi on this issue. At Waitangi we saw evidence of the fact that there are very strong views amongst Maori and amongst iwi on this particular issue and on removing section 9 from the State-Owned Enterprises Act. I support the opportunity for Maori to contribute to the decision and think about what is on the table but 2 weeks for a consultation? Come on! To call that consultation I think is a big disingenuous. We did hear the Minister for State Owned Enterprises in question time today almost imply that that was ample time for consultation on this very important issue.  
There is probably going to be a lot more water to go under this bridge before decisions can be made with some conviction that the Treaty interests of Maori and of iwi will be protected. But Labour will watch this process very carefully. We will be seeking feedback of our own on the process as we believe and continue to assert that State asset sales will not deliver long-term benefits to the country or to Kiwi families. We are convinced that there is no future in selling State assets. We all own those assets and we do not want to be tenants in our own country. If this is the brighter future that National promised then someone had better shine some more light down the hole it is sitting in.  
Labour believes that there is no greater investment in the future of this country than ensuring that all of our children get the very best from a quality public education system. The Government seems determined to push ahead with national standards even though they were not supported by the sector. They seem determined to increase class sizes for efficiency’s sake but not for the value of the learning outcomes of our children. They want to push ahead with charter schools when the evidence overseas is inconclusive. How it will be applied to the New Zealand context will further lead to greater concern amongst the education professionals; they are saying that now.  
Education is just far too important to push along with blatant ideology. What we need is a high performing education system that invests in all our children and their learning capability. When I went to listen to Sir Paul Callaghan he said that at the foundation of the New Zealand education system we must recognise that we are a unique country and that the language culture and identity of all our people must underpin a strong education system. I believe that is the case—not larger class sizes not charter schools not national standards and certainly not shifting more money into private schools.  
An export-led economy can be guaranteed only if we have a high-skilled population where all our children can thrive not a system where there are winners and losers. National has very few plans on this front. The high rate of underachievement of vulnerable children of children living in poverty and of Maori and Pacific children is something that we should all be concerned about because if this continues in our education system the export-led economy that National is talking about cannot be realised to the full value of every Kiwi living in this country. Far too many of them are missing out. The Government should be very accountable to those who are most in need and those who are vulnerable—not losers as Gerry Brownlee put it but those most in need and most vulnerable. If we can see the benefits of that in education then we will see a great investment in the future of this country.