Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Some fantastic things are happening in terms of learning in the workplace environment. For example, 47 percent more trainees have been involved in workplace training since we became the Government. I can tell members that 4,344 people in Modern Apprenticeships are now in workplace training. That is a 112 percent increase on the previous year. This training is of a very high quality, and it is responding to the skill needs of industry and employees. This situation contrasts dramatically with the almost total absence of workplace training when National was in Government.

Workplace training enables young people to stay in their home cities in many instances. It is meeting the huge gaps in skill shortages that came about because National failed to invest in the future. National failed to invest in ensuring that we had appropriate skills in place to meet the needs of the market and the needs of the workplace. I sometimes wonder where members opposite were in the last 9 years, when we had massive unemployment in the provinces, and when young people were leaving their home towns and cities in droves. I ask members to compare that situation with the very buoyant employment market we have now. I am proud of this Government’s achievements.

I should tell the House that it looks as though we are going to lose the third race in the America’s Cup, unfortunately. I wanted to bring that tone to my 10-minute contribution because, as much as we are going to be saddened by that loss, I must say that the Prime Minister’s statement was about as depressing.

There are two reasons that a Government does well. The first is that it has a vision for the country and has the ability to capture the hearts and minds of the people. The Prime Minister said, in her own words, that the statement would be boring. It sure was! What was worse was that the statement she delivered was not only boring but had no vision that would tend to encourage people to continue supporting the Labour Government.

Secondly, a Government does well when it has a stable and growing economy. [Interruption] Yes, that is true, and the Government has accepted all the plaudits for the economy being stable. But that situation is no credit to this Government. Indeed, I think that Mr Cullen, the Minister of Finance, would be one of those who expect a higher surplus than he budgeted for. I think there is an expectation across the country that that will happen. But the fact is that beyond that the situation does not look quite so rosy.

If we look at what is happening around the world, and if we look at commodity prices, certainly in rural Northland we are seeing that farmers are starting to close their chequebooks. As that happens—as the prices for dairy products drop and as beef prices start slowing down—we will find that the economy will be on the decline. Although the tax take and the Government’s income are likely to be up over this next 12 months, beyond that, I have to say, the situation will be far more difficult. It will be interesting to see how the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Government manage in those circumstances. I suspect that they will have great difficulty.

One of the things that interests me is the fact that when this Government started, it made a lot of commitments to things like closing the gaps. Also, it was going to address the issue of compliance costs. I have not noticed any closing of the gaps—certainly not in Northland, and not, to my knowledge, across the country. There has certainly been no reduction in compliance costs. Indeed, the very reverse has occurred. Next, I refer to the job machine, which we have just had a question about during question time. What has happened to the job machine that was promised with so much fanfare? Where are all the new jobs that we expected to see in Northland?

There is also the matter of treaty claims. We anticipated that there would be great movement on that issue, but unfortunately that has not been the case. Now, we see things that cause us concern; things that the Government is not delivering on. The thing that finally gets a Government is the issue of broken promises. Then, not only will people see that the Government has no vision and is grappling with an economy that is not as stable and buoyant as it has been, as a consequence of our primary sector, but people will increasingly notice the issue of broken promises. Where is the delivery on the promise regarding asset tests? The Government said it would do away with asset tests. Where is the delivery on the promise that there would be no increased taxes? What about the rise in petrol taxes? What about the rise in accident compensation premiums? What about the student fees increases that have recently hit us? Are they not increases in taxes?

I want to talk about one specific promise that affects us very, very significantly in Northland. I want to talk about the promise in relation to Kaitaia Hospital. I want to bring to members’ attention a statement about Kaitaia Hospital that was made by the current Minister of Health when she was the Opposition spokesperson on health in 1998. She said that one of the things she was worried about was that, beyond doubt, lives would be threatened if there was a reduction in services to the Kaitaia Hospital. The far north region is a huge area. Rural people need emergency medical treatment, and they will find themselves hours away from their closest hospital. As a member of the Government then, I had to stand on that side of the House, while the then Leader of the Opposition, the then Opposition spokesperson on health—and other Labour members who are now part of the current Labour administration—made all sorts of promises to retain the Kaitaia Hospital for the people of the far north. Sadly, they are not delivering on that promise. At least I can look in the mirror and say that one of the commitments I made to the people in the far north when I was in Government was that the services in their hospital would not change, and they did not. Those services did not change while National was in Government. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for this administration. So many statements were made, and so many promises were given, but, unfortunately, they were not delivered on.

One of the things that the Minister of Health promised was an independent review. I want to talk about that a little today. She gave a commitment to the people of the far north, prior to the last election, that there would be an independent review, and there has been. I must say that the review is a compliment to those who delivered it. It is very comprehensive and very structured, and if it were to be followed, it would actually solve a lot of the problems in the far north. The review stated: “However before Kaitaia Hospital moves from a 24/7 model”—this is with regard to surgery—“to the 8am to 6pm surgical roster, several major building blocks need to be put in place, at least: SMO Recruitment, including Kaitaia/Whangarei rotation; A and M Clinic development; Retrieval System improvement and protocols; Increased outpatient clinic services.” Those are amongst a number of building blocks that, according to the report, need to be put in place with regard to Kaitaia Hospital.

The Minister of Health made a commitment to the people of the far north that the Government would follow the report and would make sure that if there were changes in services, they would be delivered, that the building blocks would be put in place first, and that then the current services, such as the surgical services, would be removed. Sadly, that is not happening. Given the decision that the 24-hour services are to be removed at the end of this month, and given that other services are to be taken away before the things that the report recommended be put in place have actually been put in place, the Minister has said in response to the report—this was her statement just last week—that she is committed to improving emergency transfer retrieval systems. Of course we are all committed. The people of the far north do not want just a commitment; they want delivery. The Minister says she is committed to increasing outpatient clinics at Kaitaia. That is good, but we need delivery of the service. We need the promise that the Minister made with regard to Kaitaia Hospital fulfilled. The Minister of Health says that she is committed to co-locating general practitioner services at the Kaitaia Hospital. I am pleased that she is committed, but I want the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health to actually deliver on their promises. The Minister said that she wants to see a business case developed for onsite accident and medical services. That is doublespeak, political gobbledygook. I could develop a business case in half an hour. I want the Minister to actually deliver on the service. She says she is committed to a realignment of surgical services for Kaitaia. Well, that is fine. The commitment is fine. I too have a commitment to the Kaitaia Hospital. I am not in a position at the moment to deliver, because I am in Opposition, but the Minister of Health is.

One of the things that will finally bring this Government down—apart from a failing economy, which we will see in the next 2 to 3 years, and apart from the fact that some things mentioned in its vision have not been delivered on—is the issue of broken promises. I know that the people in the far north who supported Labour because the Minister of Health made a commitment to them prior to the last election will certainly be disappointed. They know that this Minister of Health, this Prime Minister, and this Labour Government are not standing by the commitment they gave with regard to Kaitaia Hospital. I say this to the members on that side of the House: one of the expectations of the Labour voters in the far north was that Labour would stand by its commitment. The far north is one of the most deprived areas of New Zealand. It has a significant Māori population, as the Minister of Māori Affairs knows. The people of the far north thought they would get delivery on the promises made to them, but they will be disappointed.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of State): It is an honour to be the last speaker in the debate today, after some very interesting debate. However, I have to say also that sometimes one is ashamed to be in this House. When I heard ACT and the National Party trying to make cheap political gain at the expense of people who, unfortunately, have lost their lives, I felt ashamed to be here, and I apologise to the families of those people who have lost their lives.

I shall just round up on the Prime Minister’s statement, which was very clear. We laid out three key principles that this country is looking for. In relation to stable government, I acknowledge the support and help from Progressive, from United Future, and from the Greens at times, in enabling us to run a stable Government in this country. We have shown strong leadership, not only through the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but through the fact that we are prepared to make the hard decisions and shift the direction of this country that the National Government had set it on for some 9 years to put it back on a track of social conscience, of public health, and of innovation and growth in our economy. The third thing that we are going to endorse and focus on is smart, active policies, not the flat Earth, brain-dead approach of the National and ACT parties, which think that the market will deliver this country into the future.

Every successful nation around this world has had smart, active policies, and that is what we have set about putting in place for the last 3 years, and we will do so, not just for the three terms of Government that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill English, talked about, but for four, five, and six terms of Government, and we will be really humming then.

We now have an unemployment rate of 4.9 percent. That is the best unemployment rate that this country has seen since 1988, and it is because we have smart, active policies. We are prepared to make the calls when necessary. The unfortunate thing about that low level of unemployment is that we have exposed, once again, some skill shortages throughout this country. That is because the National-ACT Government and New Zealand First, throughout that period, did not acknowledge—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had previous rulings on that. The member referred to the National-ACT Government. That is factually wrong. There has never been a National - ACT Government.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that is a point of debate.

💬 Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I acknowledge that. There never will be an ACT Government. The National Government, supported by ACT, thought that the market was going to deliver the skills in industry. Well, it failed, and now we are having to put back in place one of the things most appreciated by the electorate, and that is a Modern Apprenticeships scheme. We have been proactive, and by the end of this year we will have put 6,000 people into skills training.

In health we are going to invest the best part of $3 billion of extra money in health services up and down this country. We will not answer every single health ailment and challenge that this country can throw up, but we will be a long way further ahead than we would have been under the National Government, supported by ACT. For years and years—in fact, probably for centuries—we have heard that prevention is better than cure. It is such a simple saying. We all understand the value in it, but no one had ever done it in health until we came along.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Oh, for goodness’sake.

💬 Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: One of the first things we did was put in place a primary health - care strategy. I say to the Hon Ken Shirley that he had the opportunity, in cooperation with the National Party, to put in place a primary health-care strategy. Did he do it? No, he did not. Did the National Government do it? No, it did not. Did we do it? Yes, we did. We have put in place a primary health-care strategy that says that the first point of contact for any New Zealander is with a primary health-care provider and that is often the best way of preventing far more complex and expensive health outcomes down the track. Prevention is better than cure. We should get in with the general practitioners and the nurses. We should get out there and try to encourage and support those people. That is what we did in rural primary services.

What about Kaitaia?

💬 Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are spending $400 million on primary health-care, and in rural primary health-care we are spending $32 million to help Mr Carter get general practitioners and nurses in the far north. Yes, we are doing that. We are giving them better rosters. We are paying money to them and acknowledging the extra pressures they have been put under. Did Mr Carter do that? No, he did not.

Not only in health but also in education, of course, we have made a huge commitment to shift from a philosophy of competition delivering education to every New Zealander. What a bizarre theory. For many years we have understood that cooperation between schools, between officials, and between parents has enabled most New Zealanders to make good gains in education. However, the competitive model brought in by the previous Government saw division. It saw some schools getting better resources while some schools were starved of resources, and we were heading backwards. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a somewhat controversial concept but we are going to implement it. Most thinking principals and thinking teachers—which most of them are, thankfully—understand the value of the NCEA. It will be in place with support measures from the Ministry of Education. Schools and teachers will not be cast out on their own to look after themselves, as happened under the previous Government. We will do central purchasing. We will have property management. We will do all of those things to take some of the pressure off teachers.

Of course, we have to pay for all of that. So where do we get the money from? Well, the rural sector is in the healthiest state that we have seen for many, many decades. The National Party is the so-called champion of the farmers, but it failed, and farmers delivered the National Government a clear message: “We don’t want you. We’ll support Labour.” If we have a look at the votes, farmers voted for us and we have delivered. We have seen growth in the agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and fishing sectors. All those primary sectors are booming, and are grateful for the attention that this Government has paid to them.

Mr Hide from the ACT party has claimed that the West Coast is down and out. I can tell the House that we are doing very well. This debate has exposed a couple of things in this country: first, that we have a strong, visionary Government; second, that the National Party is a dinosaur—it is down and out. I imagine that attending a National Party caucus must be a bit like going back to an old school reunion—people hang around thinking they have something in common, they talk about it for a couple of days, then they realise that that was in the past and they have to move on with their lives. That is exactly what Gerry Brownlee and Don Brash are doing. What are Nick Smith and Maurice Williamson doing? Maurice Williamson is getting on with his life. The heart and soul of the National Party is long gone, along with the spirit that one thinks might be recaptured when one goes back to an old school reunion. It just cannot happen, and one has to move on.

I also have to comment on the ACT party. It is trying to be the party of Opposition. It is the party of principle—so we hear. It is the party that was outraged by one of its members going to a fashion show in Sydney. Among other things, of course, she went to a fashion show in Sydney. The leader of ACT said: “I would never have given her leave. Absolutely not.” However, he was quite prepared to give leave to Mr Rodney Hide to attend a conference of fraudsters and con artists in Fiji. What did the leader of ACT say then? He did not say a thing.

ACT is the so-called party of principle, but, if we have a look at ACT, Richard Prebble no longer has any credibility. Let us have a look at rail. Richard Prebble said that he had to save rail from the inadequacies of the workers. Do members know what we are facing now? We are having to salvage rail from the excesses of the bosses. Richard Prebble has not saved anything. This Government is strong, and we will lead this country for a long time into the future.

The time allocated to the debate has expired. Members may wish to refer to page 2 of the Order Paper. The first question is that the amendment to the amendment to the amendment—that is, the Hon Roger Sowry’s amendment—be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The question now is that the amendment to the amendment—that is, Jeanette Fitzsimon’s amendment—as amended by Roger Sowry’s amendment be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since the vote has been taken, I notice that the ACT party voted eight with Mrs Awatere Huata in the House. I take it that the ACT whip can assure us that the ACT’s eight votes included Mrs Awatere Huata, because if it did not, she cannot be in the House and not be voting.

The Standing Orders are very clear on this matter, and there have been numerous previous rulings. It is the prerogative of the party whip to call the vote. It has been called. That is the end of the matter.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, the Speaker is not concerned to know the reason a party has not voted its full strength.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One point of clarification on the point of order raised by the Leader of the House: I did not hear the Clerk call “Were there any other votes?”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, he did. I heard it.