General Debates

What a mess the Government is in. It sent in the lightweight Rick Barker to have a go at the ACT party, and he asked about the dopiest question that a Government member could ever ask. The answer to his question is simple: ACT’s situation arises because Helen Clark rewrote the rules to suit Jim Anderton. It is as simple as that.

When a Government starts to get caught up by its own spin, it is in the early stages of becoming terminal. Without a doubt, this week is a turning point for this Government. Poor old Michael Cullen was in the House today, firmly on his back foot, trying to tell us that the 1,200 military personnel in the Gulf have nothing to do with the US forces there. He tried to say that the air vice-marshal sitting over there in the Stout Street defence headquarters is giving those personnel their orders day by day. What a load of garbage that is! There are New Zealand troops in the Gulf under the command of an American general, and when the balloon goes up, if anyone in this House thinks that general will tell the New Zealanders to go and do a little exercise, to pretend the US is not giving a hiding to Iraq, and not to be involved in that, then he or she is severely mistaken. The Minister of Defence needs to get his head out of the sand, poke it up, and say to the people of New Zealand exactly what the situation is.

Later in the week we will see the Prime Minister at the knowledge wave conference. She was there last time it was on, saying what a wonderful thing it was. She said to the gathering that the Government had a key role to play in leading the changes that have to happen in order to improve New Zealand’s prospects. Well, what changes have happened? There were very, very few changes. How much of the advice from that conference has been put in place? There has been practically nothing. In the Prime Minister’s statement—I was going to say in her Speech from the Throne; she called herself a powerful ruler when she spoke to the “International Council of Female Trade Unionists” the other day—she said that the Government was looking at some of the ideas advanced by Professor Michael Porter. He said we should lower taxes, improve our infrastructure, encourage competition, and get the Government out of the economy. What did we get when the Prime Minister went to the “International Council of Female Trade Unionists”? She proudly proclaimed that the Government had increased taxes, had stopped the privatisation of accident compensation, had moved to regulate labour markets, had imposed draconian health and safety laws, would now impose paid parental leave and holiday pay at a much higher level than has been the case in the past, and has prioritised improvements to workplace law. Goodness knows what that will mean for business.

The question I have for the Prime Minister is this: what will she say at the knowledge wave conference this year? What will the spin be? One can bet one’s bottom dollar that there will be a line there that ignores the fact that we have had increased local taxes, increased import taxes, a 4c per litre tax increase on fuel, increased accident compensation levies for motor vehicles, increased employer levies for accident compensation, power price rises of in excess of 10 percent, the extraordinary cost of the Resource Management Act, a hazardous substance levy on business, and health and safety courses imposed as compulsory requirements on businesses. Those things will not get a mention. The Government will completely ignore the fact that New Zealand business people, since the knowledge wave conference last time, now face, if they own an average-sized business, extra costs of over $43,000 a year in order to operate their businesses.

This Government claims that it knows where it is going. Helen Clark stood up at the “International Council of Female Trade Unionists” and proudly proclaimed that New Zealand is an OECD star because we had growth of 3.9 percent. As Dr Brash said in the House today, 3.9 percent does not move us one iota on the OECD’s lifestyle and well-being rankings. It would take over 10 years of growth of in excess of 4 percent for us to move from position 21 to position 10. The Government is saying that the best it can ever expect is 3.9 percent economic growth. It has given up, and it is on its way out.

I cannot imagine that the House could have had a much better demonstration of just why the Opposition is so fragmented, failing, and flailing about. I do not know whether the member is aware of this yet, but I have some not bad news for the previous speaker, Mr Brownlee, in the form of the www.stuff.co.nz website poll results published recently in answer to the question of who should be the National Party’s leader. Bill English came in with 56 percent, and probably to Mr Brownlee’s surprise he followed closely behind, rising quickly on 43 percent. That is quite a surprising result.

First of all, I would like to focus on the extraordinary charade that we have seen played out in this House over the last few days. Those self-appointed perk-busters, the ACT party members, suspended one of their members—not expelled—in quite a blatant, cynical, and obviously carefully considered manipulation of the Standing Orders. They made their decision so that they could hold on to $111,000 of public funding. Not only did they ensure that that MP, whom the Speaker ruled to be an ACT MP, would keep her $90,000 salary but ACT just happened not to lose—because of the decision made by that self-appointed master of the Standing Orders, Richard Prebble—$111,000 of public funding. What a party of principle that is—Richard Prebble pretending suspension is a great act of righteousness!

Just as disgraceful is the extraordinary performance that we saw in the House last week from Dr Nick Smith. We heard the ridiculous allegations he made about apartheid in the Christchurch childcare centre—the result of playground requirements that were rules gazetted while that member was the Minister. Why would any member—even one who is known for making ridiculous, reckless, and unfounded claims, such as his great Meridian rug scam, and who as the then Minister banned Department of Conservation staff from talking to the then Leader of the Opposition—who is as unstable as that make such ridiculous and fanciful claims about apartheid? It is for the same reason that a 15-minute personal explanation was all typed up ready to go last week. It was all a smokescreen to try to divert public attention from that member’s involvement in the Huata - Pipi Foundation saga.

Nick Smith and the National Party are up to their necks in that little scam.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member on his feet has just made an absolutely scurrilous allegation. There is no basis to that allegation. That matter has been dealt with appropriately. The member is right out of order in going down the line that he is. I will use the strong words of saying that we demand he withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for bringing that to my attention. Under Standing Order 117, that was a personal reflection. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. Clearly, it was not just Alamein Kopu who was tucked up in her comfy office. I would like Mr Smith to come to this House to explain quite clearly where the Ministry of Education report was that recommended that funding.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week I made a personal explanation and gave a response on that specific point. The answer was that Mr Trevor Mallard refuses me access to any of my files from that period.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): A personal explanation cannot be questioned, but different points about the issue raised in it can be.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr David Benson-Pope challenged me to table the papers and the reports from the Ministry of Education. I seek leave of the House to table the letter from the Minister of Education, Mr Trevor Mallard, that denies me access to any of my files from that time.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

It will be clear, as this matter unfolds, that the ministry made no recommendation to support funding for that reading programme, and that that decision was made solely on the decision of the Minister at the time, Mr Nick Smith.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Jill Pettis: They are sensitive!

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No, we are quite happy to have this matter debated, but it would only be fair—since Mr Benson-Pope has now claimed in the House that he knows what is in those papers—that the papers are most certainly made available at least to Dr Smith, and probably to the whole House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

Why would that distinguished politician make such extraordinary statements about a fabrication of his own concerning apartheid in a childcare centre, if it had not been anything other than an absolute smokescreen to detract attention from his own activities?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the context of this speech you need to explain to us the difference between the allegation of a fabrication and the allegation of a lie. This particular member is driving down a line that is difficult to deal with, because the Minister is not prepared to release the papers that he rightly should.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members that there is nothing wrong with full, vigorous, and passionate debate, and that is what is going on at present. It is in order, and I so rule.

The public will make its own judgment—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very specific point: is it appropriate for a member to say that I “fabricated”? “Fabrication” suggests that I misled the House. That is outside the Standing Orders, and that was the specific allegation that Mr Benson-Pope made.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer members to Standing Order 117, which addresses situations where a member takes issue with what has been said and sees it as a personal reflection—and the Hon Nick Smith has done so. I ask the member to desist from making those remarks and to continue with his speech.

I will close by quoting the words—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Of late there have been a number of rulings that constrain healthy debate in this Parliament. If you are to rule the word “fabrication” out, then the building industry will find that very difficult, for a start. It has been engaged in that for the last 100 years or more. In fact, most educational institutions know about prefabrications, later fabrications, and defabrications. At the risk of breaking up Mr Benson-Pope’s speech, at the end of the day it comes down to this: surely robust debate is acceptable. If you are to rule out sensible words that might have an ulterior construction, I admit, then you will constrain debate in this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the right honourable member for his point of view. Under Standing Order 117 I am not actually ruling the words out, but exception has been taken by the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the use of those words. As the presiding officer I have to administer the Standing Orders as they have been crafted for well over 100 years in this Parliament.

I would like to close with some recent comments made by former Cabinet Minister Max Bradford. He said: “The trouble with the National Party at the moment is that it’s all very well to talk about the principles and the values which we can agree with, but when you pick up the newspaper or listen to the leader or a number of the spokespeople, particularly the bratpack, talking about the individual approaches to various things, then there’s no connect. I mean, you listen to Nick Smith talk about education and, God forbid, he sounds more like an Alliance member.” A further party insider is even blunter: “They are not going to get anywhere until they get rid of their leader, their deputy and the bratpack, and McCully. The media have got them typecast now. The message I am getting from people is that the National Party has largely become irrelevant and the senior people, for example the leader and the deputy, are still in denial.” For goodness’ sake, National members should do themselves a favour and get it over with.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table my estimate of how much the Alliance was able to suck out of the taxpayer subsequent to its breakdown, largely because Helen Clark changed the rules and gave an interpretation of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act that saw the absolute debacle and disgrace that existed last time round. I believe it was well in excess of $4 million or $5 million, all because Helen Clark changed the rules.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.

I seek leave to table the www.stuff.co.nz website opinion poll that I referred to, commenting on the question of who should be the National Party’s leader.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.

Earlier today I listened on the Internet to the meeting of the United Nations Security Council, where the New Zealand representative has just delivered the Government’s very brief statement on Iraq to the United Nations General Assembly. It was very brief, it was very middle of the road, and it tried to have a bob each way. On the one hand, it was very heartening to hear New Zealand’s representative say: “The inspection and disarmament process should continue. Force is not justified at this time. New Zealand strongly prefers a diplomatic solution. We do not support a United States attack without a UN mandate, and a UN mandate is not justified at this time.” We have never been aligned with Blair and Howard on that issue, and, overall, I compliment the Government on that. However, on the other hand we have some real disappointment at what our representative did not say this morning.

The Government urged Iraq to move rapidly to provide the information and cooperation requested, so as to avert war. We would agree with that. But there is an assumption that war is the inevitable consequence of less than full cooperation. We have never attempted to apply that standard to any other country. Why should it be only Iraq that is invaded if it flouts United Nations resolutions? Even Resolution 1441 does not state that; it simply warns of serious consequences. Why does New Zealand, in these debates, not mention the 64 United Nations resolutions passed between 1955 and 1992 against Israel? Those resolutions repeatedly urged Israel to comply with previous resolutions, deplored its lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces, requested it to comply with the fourth Geneva convention, and condemned various human rights abuses, just to mention a few of them.

The Security Council, to its credit, has never sanctioned the blanket bombing of Tel Aviv because of those non-compliance issues, but neither have those issues been resolved. Nor has the UN taken any enforcement action against the permanent members of the Security Council for their non-compliance with disarmament resolutions. They are all known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and the US has threatened to use them in a first strike. That is contrary to UN resolutions.

There is no recognition in the New Zealand statement that Resolution 687, to which Resolution 1441 refers, imposed an unprecedented level of intrusive inspections on a newly defeated nation in 1991. That nation has substantially cooperated—very belatedly and somewhat incompletely, but it has allowed access and it has provided information. Even though suspicion remains, no weapons have been found. Given the stated US intention to attack regardless of whether the UN mandates that, it would not be unreasonable for Iraq to see the inspections as target location by the United States for a war it is determined to fight. In that context, our Government is letting down all those who believe in the United Nations and who believe in collective action to preserve peace, by stating that if the Security Council does mandate war we will uphold that decision. Normally, that is what collective action should mean, but we have to ask, in the event of a Security Council resolution being contrary to the charter and purpose of the United Nations itself, which should come first: loyalty to the charter and the spirit of the UN, or loyalty to a rule that the Security Council speaks for everyone?

Let me remind members that the charter states that the UN’s purposes include “maintaining international peace and security”, and “the suppression of acts of aggression”. The preamble states a determination to ensure that “armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,”. Article 33 states: “The parties to any dispute, the continuation of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means”. Clearly, armed attack, especially by a superpower on an impoverished Third World country, is contrary to the charter until all those means have been tried and have failed, and even then, there needs to be evidence that there is a threat to international peace and security.

Those members of the UN who are committed to protecting its status as the only international body able to prevent war should state now that any resolution in support of a US attack would be illegal under the charter, and that they would not feel obliged to uphold such a resolution. The future of the UN requires such a statement, and it would be great to see our Government take a lead now in forming such a consensus. Instead, it is having a bob each way with bland statements that are designed to upset no one but, in fact, please no one.

I rise to pick up on a theme that I think was begun in this debate by Mr Barker, by focusing on the ACT party and what I would call its disgraceful activity in the no-confidence vote. In that no-confidence vote some days ago, the ACT party members cast eight votes when they have nine votes. It raises the question of why they did that. Did they do it in order to suspend the democratic right of a member of Parliament to represent a constituency or group of people by casting his or her vote? Did they do it to shut down Donna Awatere Huata? Or was it a dash for cash to grab $111,000 of public money for the ACT party?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: She was here.

Mr Peters rightly points out that she was here, but technically we do not know who failed to vote.

Could it be that eight members of ACT voted no confidence in the Government, but a fifth columnist somewhere in that party actually supported the Government by not voting on the motion? Could that be it? Could the fifth columnist be Richard Prebble? Or could it be that Rodney Hide has had, secretly and deep down, a couple of pangs of conscience and thinks that we are OK? Could the fifth columnist be Gerry Eckhoff, who sits every day on the scampi inquiry where we are dealing with issues of alleged corruption, but who fails to deal with a rat’s nest in the party he belongs to? Could it be Muriel Newman who, maybe deep down, supports the Government? Or could it be the future leader of ACT, Deborah Coddington? We know she will make it and we know that every time we mention she will be the future leader of ACT, that grates on spongy old Rodney Hide, because he knows he will never get there.

Every day that Donna Awatere Huata sits in this House and is denied a vote, it is anti-democratic. I am not defending Ms Awatere Huata, at all. I say to her what I said to her last week, which is that though she crows about natural justice, she and her kind in ACT did not show any natural justice when they tried to put the knife into Dover Samuels and John Tamihere. The ACT members did not bleat about natural justice then, so they should wash their mouths out. Every day that the ACT members sit there, Donna Awatere Huata is a reminder to the public of what that party stands for. She is a window into those members’ souls—if they have them—or the heart of that grotesque grouping called ACT. If members look at that party’s history, they see that its members came in as the great scambusters. Rodney Hide gets up and down from his chair—I have never seen him get so much exercise in his life—talking about the problems he alleges there are in economic development, putting the boot into business and trying to dig up any bit of perceived dirt. He even said, I am told, that he would manufacture some dirt on me before the election and drop it on my electorate. I say to him that he should roll the dice. Every day that Mrs Awatere Huata sits there, it is a window into that party.

We had Owen Jennings and the pyramid schemes. We had Mr Hide going off to Fiji to speak at a shonky investment conference and giving wonderful economic and tax avoidance advice to the people of Albania and Waiheke Island.

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is casting aspersions on one former member of Parliament and one current member of Parliament that are totally unfounded. He should be ashamed to be doing so. I request that the member withdraw.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I do not need any help. This is a full and vigorous debate, and the member is within the Standing Orders.

I say to the ACT party that its members should look deep within their own ranks, because never again can Mr Eckhoff, Mr Hide, or any other ACT member throw mud at other members of Parliament. The ACT members should look deep into their own party.

Ms Awatere Huata’s predicament reminds us that our system actually works. I was at an overseas conference recently where I had the privilege of talking to members of Parliament from developing democracies, where they have huge problems with accountability and audit. In our country of 4 million-odd people the system works, because if people put their fingers in the till they get found out. I ask Mr Hide where he was when the scam broke. I do not cast aspersions on him; I speak of facts. What has he done about the Fiji fiasco that he was part of? What has he done to help the hundreds of New Zealanders who lost millions of dollars through a scam investment conference that he attended? He has done nothing. When Rodney Hide’s feet are put to the fire in this Chamber, like Mr Eckhoff’s, Muriel Newman’s, and Richard Prebble’s, what does he do? Those members have nowhere to go and nowhere to hide.

What has happened has one positive side to it: the people of New Zealand can now get a real look into the grotesque nature of the ACT party. The ACT members are here for one reason and one reason only—greed. They are impinging upon Ms Awatere Huata’s democratic right to vote. Why is that? It is because of their greed. There are 111,000 reasons why those members want to prevent her voting, and that is a disgrace.

Is it not noteworthy that we have heard from three Government speakers in this debate and every one of those speakers has chosen to attack personalities and to rub dirt. That is the standard the Government is setting in the House today. I say this Parliament should be focused on the issues that are important to New Zealand.

I want to reflect on the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference that was held with so much fanfare just 18 months ago, and what the Government has done with it. What we have, in terms of the $10 million of public money that went into that conference 18 months ago, is 44 recommendations. I have gone through those 44 recommendations. How many has this Government implemented? Four out of 44! Even under the “everybody passes, National Certificate of Educational Achievement, hold your hands, politically correct” education system that this Government would like us to have, I say to Mr Hughes that implementing four out of 44 recommendations has to be a failure.

I ask Mr Hughes: what is the use of having a Catching the Knowledge Wave conference producing 44 recommendations, and applying only four of them? [Interruption] Oh, he has admitted the Government has failed. Well, it has failed, and if this Parliament is going to achieve its objectives of raising the living standards of New Zealanders we do need to focus on the issues from that conference. While the Prime Minister will wander around in Auckland this week with phase two, we on this side of the House say: “Finish phase one, stop the spin, focus on the substance.”

One of the recommendations from the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference is that New Zealand would create the most business-friendly environment of any in the country. I want to test members opposite—members like Mr Clayton Cosgrove, who is good at spreading dirt, rather than focusing on what might work for businesses in our part of the country, and ask him: “How has the Government’s behaviour on the Resource Management Act helped?”. His Minister said that the Resource Management Act changes would be passed in October 2001. She said again in October 2002 that they would be passed in that month, and still there has been absolutely no progress.

Look at the occupational safety and health changes, and this new idea that employers are responsible for stress in the workplace. Is that going to help us have the most business-friendly regulatory environment in New Zealand? Not a hope! The Government says: “We want to be leaders in biotechnology.” What has the Government done in biotechnology? Despite 3½ years, there have been no changes, except a moratorium on any biotechnology. What has been gained by 3 years of stalling? Not one iota. Even after the royal commission, the Government said that the rules that were put in place by National were sound. How can we possibly claim to be part of a knowledge economy when we have stalled biotechnology in this country for over 3 years?

I want to turn to my own passion, the area of education. Education is the cradle of the knowledge wave economy. What sort of innovation are we allowed in the education system? In terms of taking away parental choice, parents are not allowed to choose where their children will go to school. This Government is going to decide. What does that do for innovation? What does it do in terms of taking away the control that school boards have to innovate with their budgets? We are going backwards. Why has the Government put a ridiculous cap on independent school funding? How does that help innovation? It does not; it does the opposite. Why has the Government stopped schools integrating? What does the Government have against it? Why did it change the policy in that regard? I ask Mr Benson-Pope how that helps innovation in our economy.

💬 David Benson-Pope: A good State education for our young people.

How that statement contradicts! This is where we find out. Mr Benson-Pope thinks that innovation rests with the State. I wish! I would be happy, and I am sure members on this side of the House would be happy, to give Mr Benson-Pope the opportunity to go to the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference, phase two, and learn that innovation does not start with the bureaucracy and the State; it starts with the private sector. Everything that his Government is doing is contradicting that and making innovation in the private sector more difficult. I challenge members opposite to live up to the knowledge wave and to stop killing innovation in New Zealand.

I would like to address an education issue as well, and in particular with regard to secondary teachers. I point out firstly that there is a shortage of secondary teachers, and everyone knows that for this year it will not go away. Schools were short by 388 teachers in January of this year, and now, just 3 weeks into the school term, there are still 199 actual vacancies, and counting, to be filled, according to last week’s Education Gazette. However, the current difficulties have a much longer gestation. On the one hand the current secondary school workforce is greying. The average age of secondary teachers is now 49, and I believe increasing each year. On the other hand, the number of trainees coming through colleges of education does not make for encouraging reading either. From 1999 to 2001, which is the latest period for which data is available, the number of secondary trainee enrolments at the Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin colleges of education declined by 10.5 percent. What is worse, the proportion of those who graduate slid from 76 percent to 66 percent in that 3-year period. As yet, we do not have any comparable figures for the last 2 years.

In the meantime, according to claims by the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand and backed up by a separate survey by the Post Primary Teachers Association, the upshot of the shortage is that schools have been forced to hire teachers of uncertain quality. One principal stated: “I have hired people I don’t feel entirely comfortable with. They might work out.” As reported in yesterday’s Dominion Post, teachers and principals have grave concerns about the quality of teacher trainees. Some graduates who are applying for teaching positions are sending in CVs so badly written that pupils would be failed for presenting them.

What is not clear is whether these are fresh graduates coming through the colleges of education, or whether the quality issues relate to the large number of teachers being recruited from overseas. The problem of course with teachers trained overseas is that they are not sufficiently acculturated in terms of education in New Zealand. For example, a couple of things I have just picked up is that teachers from the UK do not prepare their own resources, as New Zealand teachers do, and teachers from India leave all their marking to their deputy principal.

The nature of the curriculum is another matter. For example, one teacher from the United Kingdom taught a social studies class about the treaty of Wanganui for a whole term before anyone noticed. We need to ensure that teachers trained overseas are fully prepared for work in New Zealand.

Even if we get enough quality trainees through the system, there is still a major problem of retention, particularly for new teachers. The figures show that after 3 years of teaching, 38 percent of new teachers leave their profession. So where are the teachers going? A Post Primary Teachers Association survey released last December said that 27 percent of the teachers who resigned in term four last year went overseas, and 39 percent went to non-teaching jobs. United Future believes that the problem of recruiting and retaining teachers goes far beyond the pay issue, which has now been temporarily resolved. Indeed, there are some concerns that graduates with bachelor degrees may perceive teaching to be a great option for an extra year’s training, given the new pay scale and misperceptions about the holidays that teachers get, without necessarily viewing it as a vocation. Instead, United Future is committed to improving perceptions of the teaching profession, enforcing standards, rewarding excellence, and building the mana of teachers in our community. I said last week that we need to restore education to its true dignity, and restore to our teachers the honour due to them. They are our trustees who pass on our traditions and virtues from one generation to another.

I have listened with complete and utter disdain to the hollow men—and that is the only way they can be described—of the Labour Party, as they have criticised in this House the party that I am a member of, and which I am very proud to stand and represent. We are the party that is totally upfront with the public. If there is a problem, it is out in the open, so that the public can determine for themselves what is not appropriate. In fact we have risen in the polls because we are upfront and honest with the public. But I have not come to this House to talk about the personality assassinations that are all that the Labour Party seems to indulge in. I want to talk about some issues.

In question time today Jim Sutton stated that he does not know anything about the treaty. He said: “I can’t understand where property rights are involved in article 2 of the treaty.” Let me just read a short line for a Minister of the Crown. It states in article 2 of the treaty that the Queen of England confirms and guarantees full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of lands, estates, and forests. What is it that the Minister does not understand about “exclusive and full use”? Perhaps the Attorney-General, who is sitting in the House, could inform that Minister as to exactly what it means.

I really want to talk about an extremely serious issue regarding article 2, and the guarantee of property rights. Just prior to Christmas, I received a reply from the Minister of Rural Affairs to a question of mine, which asked whether this Government would introduce any legislation during this term that would allow public access to private land. The Minister replied, no. Within 3 short weeks over the Christmas break, we had an announcement from the Minister of Rural Affairs that a reference group was being set up to look into the issue of public access to private land—surprise, surprise! I ask whether the Minister of Rural Affairs lied to me, whether he was trying to mislead this House in his reply, or whether he was totally honest in his reply.

It seems to me that this Minister does not understand the difference. He wrote a reply to me stating: “No. This Government is not proposing any form of public access to private land.” Then, hoping that nobody would notice, he announced the reference group 3 weeks later during the Christmas break. Is Jim Sutton not the Minister of Rural Affairs? Is he not in this House to represent rural people?

A recent poll done by one of the major websites—I think it was Fencepost.com—indicates that 91 percent of rural people are totally opposed to that concept. Yet the Minister of Rural Affairs is driving this issue—or is he? When one looks at the make-up of the reference group, and at the names of its members, one will see the sticky little fingers of the Prime Minister all over the project. The group has been cherry-picked; there is no question about that. Its members have not been picked for their expertise on the matter. If one really wanted an expert from the recreationists, one would have picked somebody like Bruce Mason. If one wanted an expert on the issues surrounding public access to private land, one would have involved people from the Magna Carta Society, or a high-country farmer, who would actually know and understand the issues, for goodness’ sake! But, no. The name of Gottlieb Braun-Elwart leapt out of the paper, and who is that individual? Perhaps the House can correct me if I am wrong, but is he not a mountain guide? Is he not the Prime Minister’s favourite tramping companion? Is he not a personal friend of the Prime Minister? Perhaps members can tell me whether I am wrong here. I think I am right.

I am pleased to hear the ACT member refer to “3 short weeks”. I take that as code that tonight, as my member’s bill on 4 weeks’ annual leave comes up, he will be crossing the floor and voting with us for that. If he likes, I will give him the Labour Party briefing notes I have received in support of the bill, which I am quite grateful for.

A debate on economic and regional development is one that the Progressive party wants. We are proud to be part of a progressive Government, using the resources of the State to work with the private sector and our communities for economic growth and regional development. Our party believes we are having a positive role in Government, working step by step to implement policies that we went to the country on. ACT’s flea-bite attack on one economic development project is not the stuff of serious debate on the most serious issue for our people—economic development. The ACT party has been an Opposition party ever since it first entered Parliament. By the next election, it will have had nearly a decade of opposition under its belt—and good luck to it! It is clear from its behaviour that it wants to remain a permanent Opposition party for ever, which is an ideal position for a party that does not want to ever take responsibility for doing anything. It will just sit on the sidelines, issuing ineffective press statements in an attempt to create scandal. The last tactic has its shortfalls, of course, as the scandal-busting party is swamped by scandals of its own making.

Ever since their arrival here—and, they hope, for many years to come—ACT members will get well-paid, taxpayer-funded jobs to be a party of endless whinging and complaining press statements. Yesterday ACT’s biggest contribution to Parliament was to highlight that this Government had facilitated the creation of jobs in west Auckland—not at any cost to the taxpayer, but through our Minister’s actions. The ACT party is ecstatic that not as many jobs were created as we certainly had hoped to create, and it claims that that is proof of some sort of systemic Government failure. I know that Dr Smith reads them all the time, but I remind members of Michael Joseph Savage’s words in this House on 30 September 1937: “we might make mistakes, but we would make other things, too ... we have to stand our ground and do something worth doing,”.

However, the failure in policy was actually made during the decade of the 1990s when the said land in west Auckland was not used to create any jobs at all. The land was idle. In the latter part of that decade, a minority National-led Government sat on the sidelines and did not create jobs, doing nothing with its “look—no hands’’ policy. The ACT party provided the National Party with the critical votes on Budget and confidence.

Yesterday in this House we saw again the differences between the Labour - Progressive Government and the Opposition highlighted in sharp relief. One of the most significant defining characteristics between us is that on our side there is a commitment to policies creating employment. We are a Government committed to working with business, regions with industries, and with unions for jobs. We have an Opposition that does not want economic or regional development. It does not even want industry development; it wants the failed market experiments of the 1980s and 1990s, and the high unemployment that went with them. It lacks commitment to New Zealand. It is scared of failure, and would rather not try if it means that something might not work.

However, the failures are more than compensated for by our successes, which outnumber failures by 100 to 1. We have booming industries, 123,000 new jobs, and the lowest unemployment rates in 15 years at 4.9 percent. “Luck!” cry the Opposition parties, but it is a pity they did not have some luck while they were in Government. The comments of Sergio Arzeni, who is the head of the OECD’s local economic development and employment programmes, are worth listening to. He endorsed our economic development approach, saying: “The economic development programmes and strategies of Industry New Zealand since its conception in 2000 are in the forefront of best practice internationally.” He highlighted our focus on small and medium-sized enterprises and decentralised programmes, and our innovation, as important elements of the strategy. Nearly all New Zealanders want to see a growing economy, creating more high-wage and high-skilled jobs. That is, of course, except National and ACT members.

The Labour - Progressive Government’s programmes address market failures. Those are things such as access to capital, access to information and advice, facilitation of partnerships, and growing networking, so that businesses can work together in clusters to make the most of opportunities and efficiencies. Yesterday we saw National and ACT again attack the very concept of working with business. The debate over economic and regional development is a debate that Progressive wants to have. For nearly 30 years we have had Governments in this country that really did not want to get actively involved in partnership with our productive sectors. That has changed, and this Government is here to help. We need to start more companies that depend on uniquely New Zealand skills, and we need to take those companies that have five to 10 staff and lift them up to the next level, where they are employing significant numbers of staff, and exporting millions of dollars every year.

This Labour-led Government is creating something of an art form out of saying one thing, or creating the perception of one thing, yet doing another. I guess the most compelling example of that in recent times is Helen Clark’s claim that she is not involved in any way in President Bush’s build-up against Iraq, yet at the same time she has very significant proportions of New Zealand’s total Defence Force deployed in the Gulf in Operation Enduring Freedom, under the same commander as the one preparing the build-up against Iraq. That is what I mean about creating the perception of one thing, but on the other hand, doing another.

In the Speech from the Throne after the election last year, and also in the Prime Minister’s statement at the opening of Parliament this year, Helen Clark claims that growth and taking New Zealand back to the top half of the OECD is an absolute priority for this Government. She is saying one thing that seems pretty credible and really important to New Zealanders, yet what is she doing at the same time? She has increased the tax burden on New Zealanders, and all the research shows that that reduces growth. She has put through legislation that will enable local authorities to increase the tax burden, and that will reduce growth. She has ignored the 162 recommendations of her Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs. She refused to put through amendments to the Resource Management Act that would have reduced the costs of that on business and permitted more growth in this country. She has passed health and safety in employment laws that make it harder for growth to be sustained in this country. She is ratifying the Kyoto Protocol when our major trading partners have not, which will make it harder for businesses in this country to compete. This year she will pass continuity of employment laws that will add compliance costs for business, holidays legislation that will add compliance costs for business, and so it goes on—the rhetoric on the one hand supporting sustainable growth, and on the other hand the policy actions all against business growth in this country.

Today we have the Knowledge Wave 2003 conference and more rhetoric that tries to give the perception that this Government is supporting growth. This is the second knowledge wave conference. What happened after the first one? The first knowledge wave conference made 44 recommendations. How many has the Government implemented? Four. The rhetoric sounds great—on the one hand supporting sustainable growth, yet on the other hand ignoring the recommendations of the knowledge wave conference.

We have just heard about economic growth from Matt Robson of Jim Anderton’s Progressive Coalition. His mate Jim Anderton is the Minister for Economic Development. What do they do? They think economic growth is about bringing Sovereign Yachts to New Zealand. We heard Matt Robson defending it just now. They think that economic growth is about a photo opportunity for Jim Anderton when he hands out little bribes to business around New Zealand—welfare for business around New Zealand. I know that many members of Labour and Jim Anderton’s Progressive Coalition—not to mention the Greens—have never been involved in business. They are former teachers, academics, and union officials. [Interruption] I do know that Jim Anderton has been involved in failed business.

I suppose they have this feel-good thing at the moment. As Matt Robson said, unemployment is down. He did not talk about sickness benefits and invalids benefits being way up. They probably feel good because of that. They inherited an economy growing at 4 percent, and things feel pretty good when an economy is growing that high. But what they do not seem to understand is the lag time of policy change. They have inherited the benefits of the policy reforms carried out by the former Labour Government in the late-1980s and the National Government in the 1990s. This Government is cruising along on those coat-tails. It has had record commodity prices and 2 years of good weather, but it is about to get a dose of reality. Commodity prices are down big-time. Next year the dairy industry will earn more than a billion dollars less. Beef prices in this country are down a third, and the weather has turned sour. The Government will get a dose of reality very soon.

It is very ironic hearing from someone like the Hon. Dr Lockwood Smith, who had the audacity to talk in this House about the rhetoric of the Government. I know that Dr Smith has been in Parliament for a long time, but I am old enough to remember that he went around New Zealand with a lot of rhetoric. He went around this country with a bit of paper with his signature on it, saying he would resign if tertiary fees were not removed in this country. That is what Dr Smith did. He signed a campaign—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members in this House must be careful to tell the truth. In fact, the document I signed said that Government-imposed fees would be removed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a debatable issue.

That is being very—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a member of this House points out that something is factually incorrect, and it involves him or her directly, that is not a debatable matter.

How about I say that when Dr Lockwood Smith became the Minister of Education in 1990, students paid $1,250 in fees for their tertiary education? By the time he left that portfolio, people were paying much, much more for their education than he had promised at the time of the 1990 election. He might try to push the blame over to the universities and polytechs of the country, and say it was their fault, but he presided over rocketing student fees in this country. He has the cheek to come to Parliament today to talk about the rhetoric of the Labour Party on education and economic development in this country. His record shows exactly what he is like.

Today in this House Labour and Progressive Coalition members have been focusing on the fact that yesterday in Parliament ACT cast only eight votes on the confidence motions on the Prime Minister’s statement. At the beginning of the year, when Parliament starts and the Government talks about policy—as the Prime Minister did—one would have thought that when the time came to vote, every party would want to be here to put on the record of the House its views in respect of confidence and the Government. Do members know what happened? ACT cast only eight of its nine votes, even though the election sent it to Parliament with nine votes. The reason ACT will not tell us why the other vote was not counted is that there is $111,000 at stake. When ACT came to Parliament, it said it would be the perk-buster party that made sure that every dollar was accounted for, yet it is prepared to sit in Parliament and collect $111,000 while not casting one of its member’s votes. If I were that party, I would be dialling 111, which is a very good number for that party, because it is in trouble. There is an emergency in the ACT party, but it keeps the cash to do that.

Gerry Brownlee started off for the National Party. He told us that we might be looking at the beginning stages of what one might possibly call the terminal phase of the Government. That is almost as bad as Bill English saying that we are a three-term Government. Poor old Mr Brownlee did not quite have the courage of his convictions to say that Labour was on the way out. He said that we looked as though we might be starting a bad phase, and I think that was an absolute disaster.

However, Gerry Brownlee deserves the job, because on my way to Waitangi Day this year, I read the New Zealand Herald of the day before, which stated that, if invited to speak, National Party leader Bill English planned to stand on Te Tii Marae at Waitangi and criticise his Ngāpuhi hosts’ ban on non-Māori media staff. I thought to myself: “Mr English will stick it to the Ngāpuhi, because we are told that he is a man who is standing up for one standard of citizenship.” I was sitting on the plane and could not wait to arrive at Te Tii Marae with the Prime Minister to find out from the locals what had happened when the Leader of the Opposition got up. I ask Mr Donnelly, what did he say?

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: He was like a pussycat.

He was like a pussycat on the marae—he said nothing. He started off with a very long mihi, I am told, which was very good on pronunciation. Bill English is a man who might be committed, one might think, to a bicultural New Zealand. He was very good at that phase, but when he stopped his mihi, he said something like: “Oh well, thank you very much for having me here. It is a great privilege for us to be here. It is great to be a New Zealander. Tēnā koutou katoa.’’, and sat down. That was the great leadership stand from Bill English, who had told the country how strong he would be on Māori. Yet he had been practising his te reo on the plane the whole way, and he does not do that anywhere else around New Zealand. I bet National does not start its caucus meeting with a karakia. But when Bill English goes to Waitangi’s Te Tii Marae, he says a beautiful mihi. Then when he speaks in English, he says: “Thank you very much for having me. Is it time for the cup of tea?”. He was not going to take on Ngāpuhi, like he told the country he would do. Gerry Brownlee would. Gerry Brownlee wrote in the paper that he would make a stand on treaty issues, and he is doing it in Parliament. I believe he is the man to take National forward and, come a few weeks’ time, I do not think we will see much more of Mr English.

Can I speak in support of one of my constituents, who is getting a very tough ride from members of the National Party at the moment? I refer to its deputy leader. I thought it absolutely shameful that after his incident on Sunday, those members raced to the paper to say how outraged they were by it, and to shed crocodile tears over it. It is outrageous that they cannot wait to sidle up to the media to tell them how unpopular he is in the caucus. It is terrible the way they are undermining the deputy leader of the National Party. I want no more unemployment in Otaki.

When this Government took office in 1999 it was bequeathed the design of a new national qualifications system, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), which was the legacy of the New Zealand First - National coalition. The NCEA was designed to overcome inadequacies and tensions within the system that had been fiercely debated for over 20 years. That old system culled people out of education, and was overly rewarding to those with a narrow skill set, but the NCEA fitted that new Government’s agenda. All the intellectual work had been done for it; it was a gift all packaged up and ready to deliver. All the Government had to do to make the NCEA what Professor Black from the London School of Education described as “potentially the best assessment system in the world” was to implement it properly. Sadly, the implementation process has been a saga of one botch-up after another. The Education and Science Committee exposed a few of those botch-ups late last year, but of all the system’s failures, the most serious by far is the appalling escalation of fees that this Government is making parents pay to participate in the NCEA. The implications of the callous disregard that this Government has shown for the day-to-day financial realities of middle to low-income families are horrendous. I use the term “callous disregard”, because that is what it is.

Members on the other side of the House spout forth sanctimonious rhetoric about how much they care about working-class and low-income people, and how they will close the gaps. Yet the very students who were locked out from further educational participation under the old system—the ones NCEA offered so much in the way of educational access—are to be locked out again by this Government. If members on the other side really do care about the people they say they care about, they will go to the Minister of Education and tell him to fix it. He has the power to fix it at this time.

The facts are pretty clear. For the 2002 school year, entry costs were increased dramatically. The effect of that was to put real pressure on middle to low-income families. A report by the Child Poverty Action Group late last year shows just how much of an impact that made on families. For example, children were turning up at exams who had been too scared to tell their parents about the fees. The fees had not been paid; therefore they could not sit the exams. It is recorded in the documents. Here is another one from a teacher: “Students were coming to my office asking me to withdraw them from certain unit standards so that their bill would go down. In some cases, the kids had got credits, but they still wanted me to wipe them out.” Those are the experiences of 2002. The Minister claims that there is financial assistance for those on low incomes, but that is only for people on benefits, or incomes equivalent to benefits. The facts are clear—the level of costs in 2002 acted as a huge access barrier to those on low incomes.

So what does this Government do in that circumstance? Already, access is denied, but it bumps up the cost for 2003 by 100 percent, and in some cases by more than 100 percent. What did it think it was doing? How could it possibly believe that such draconian increases would not impact as educational disincentives? The total amount Government will achieve through this qualification tax—a parents’ tax—is $4 million. It spends more than $100 million on the Targeted Funding for Educational Achievement scheme now, and $10 million on a knowledge wave conference, and yet it is locking out some of the people it purports to support before they can even get anywhere near the wave. They cannot even get into the water, because the Government is locking them out. The rich will not mind—it will be middle to low-income workers who will be hurt badly. The ones who will carry the wounds of this dumb tax grab will be the children whose abilities and capabilities will not be publicly recognised, and that is a disgrace.

What does the Minister say? He says that the principals did not tell the Government about any problems in 2002. Well, the principals told him time and time again about a serious crisis in staffing, and he pooh-poohed them, so he cannot defend himself by saying that had the principal told him of problems, different decisions would have been made. I have a letter here from a principal of a decile 2 school in Northland—Dover Samuels’ area—saying how the increased fees will monumentally impact upon his students. He has written asking the Government to revisit those fees. The Minister still has time to fix up this mess—he could revisit the fees, and he could find the $4 million.