General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today Cabinet’s policy committee was due to discuss New Zealand’s initial offer under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). On Monday next week Cabinet is due to finalise the initial offer that New Zealand is to make. The GATS is one of those arcane World Trade Organization treaties that make the eyes glaze over. Yet the decisions that Cabinet makes in the next week could constrain the ability of all future Governments to make policy and to provide public education and health services.

We already know that the decision by the then National Government in 1994 to give GATS commitments on audio-visual services means that the current Government cannot introduce mandatory local content quotas. Does anyone here think it is right in a democracy that a Government cannot implement policies that it was elected on, because some previous Government made promises to a bunch of trade bureaucrats in Geneva?

But there is even more danger ahead in the GATS negotiations, and that is the threat that GATS poses to our public services. The Government claims that public services are exempted from GATS, but this is far from clear. Under GATS, public services are exempted only if they are supplied neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with other service providers. As Paul Goulter from the Council of Trade Unions and many others have pointed out, in a mixed economy like ours there are very few public services that neither have a commercial element nor are delivered in competition with others.

Let us take public education as an example. We know that many public schools take private fee-paying students, and thus have a commercial element. We also know that many parents have the option of choosing whether to send their children to a private or public school. Hence, to say that public schools do not compete with private schools is a nonsense. Public education fails to escape the clutches of GATS on both those grounds. What this means is that public education is covered by the general provisions of GATS, including the section on subsidies. Basically, although this section is still under review, it says that the Government should not give subsidies that distort trade in services, and therefore the Government should not give subsidies to domestic service providers that it does not give to foreign providers.

That leads us to the absurd situation whereby if a foreign education provider was to set up private schools in New Zealand, it could apply to the Government to get exactly the same subsidies as the public school next door. It could also charge fees, and have greater income than the public school, and thus become a rather attractive alternative to the public system. Those new schools would stretch the Government’s education budget, and the funding for the public system would decline even further, making the public system even less attractive. We would end up with a two-tier education system, with one tier for the rich and one for the poor—which is a system my colleagues in ACT evidently support. But get this: both systems would be subsidised by the taxpayer.

Members might think that could not possibly happen, that the Government would never allow it, but it is not up to the Government. If the Government refused to provide exactly the same subsidies to an overseas education provider that it provides to the public system, then the foreign provider could ask its Government to take a case against New Zealand at the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization would form a disputes panel, consisting of three trade lawyers and bureaucrats, to decide the issue. The panel would then decide in secret—the hearings are not open to the public—on whether New Zealand was breaching its GATS commitments in refusing to provide Government funding to the foreign private provider. If our Government failed to comply with the ruling of the disputes panel, the World Trade Organization could then authorise sanctions on New Zealand exports.

It is a disturbing scenario, and one that might seem a bit far-fetched. Yet all the major institutions involved in education—the Post Primary Teachers Association, the New Zealand Educational Institute, and the Auckland University of Technology—are all saying that it is a real possibility. Moreover, the European Union was so concerned about those issues that, in the first round of GATS negotiations, it put in a blanket exemption for all public services. If only the foolhardy New Zealand National Party Government had had the foresight to do the same! In this round of GATS negotiations the Government needs to amend our commitments, so that public services are completely removed from GATS. Public health, education, and water supply are not the playthings of international business; they are the basic rights of citizens of a democracy, and should not be flogged off in some desperate attempt to sell more mutton or beef overseas.

One would think that with this nation’s proclivity for a bit of gambling, a bit of a punt, the TAB would be running a ticket on who will be the leader of the National Party in, say, 3 months from now. One would expect the TAB to come out and say: “We’ve worked out what the opening odds are, and we invite people to place their bets.” It has not done so, because it cannot work out what the opening odds are. One cannot get any one to place a bet on any person in the National Party unless the odds are really long because that person has no form. But if everybody has really long odds, the TAB will not be able to run the thing at a profit. So they cannot have shortened odds. That is the underlying reason that Bill English is still the leader of the National Party. There is no one left to replace him; there is no obvious successor.

Let us look at how bad he is, and then ask why he is still there. This is the man who polled 7 percent in the last poll, and he still has the job. He is now running third in the preferred Prime Minister stakes in this House, behind not only the Prime Minister but also the leader of New Zealand First. Bill English came third in the poll, and he still has the job. He has fallen from a rating of 21 percent as the preferred Prime Minister to a rating of 7 percent. He has lost two-thirds of his support since he got the job, and he still has the job. How can that possibly be? He is outperformed in Parliament by the leader of the ACT party time and time again, but he still has the job. He says he will join the war in Iraq, even though he does not quite know whether that means sending troops, and he still has the job. He has already given away the next election by saying that we will be a three-term Government, but he still has the job. He has no policy position on anything, but he still has the job. Instead of having a policy position, he says we need a debate, a dialogue, or a national conversation, or we need to review everything.

Why is he still there? Is it because people think he can win in 2008? No; they do not think that. Is he there because people think he has some leadership or vision? No. What is the reason? I will quote none other than a National MP, who said: “It would be the case that Mr English would be replaced in days if there was a logical alternative. I don’t think there is a logical alternative.”

Who is in the wings? If there is no logical alternative, what does an illogical alternative look like? We could try bright, young, futuristic, and flexible-minded Don Brash. Here is what someone from the National Party caucus said about Don Brash: “There is only one alternative to the current leadership, and that is Don Brash.” That same member of Parliament went on to say this about Mr English: “It is not far now from being irretrievable.” So it seems that something might be happening, and that that something might be Mr Brash. Perhaps National will be re-elected, with Don Brash at the head of the team, by scrapping the dole, by raising the age of eligibility for superannuation, and by allowing a deregulating, privatising, and cost-cutting ideology to come back. Will it be a case of déjà vu and “back to the future”, as we rerun the 1990s? I do not think so. Don Brash will not be elected any time in the next 5 years—and he will be 68 by then.

Let us talk about Mr Brownlee. People like Mr Brownlee. They warm to him. They find him funny. They try to refloat him at high tide. So if Mr Brownlee were to become the leader of the National Party—assuming he does not float away at high tide—what might we get? The subtlety of—what? I say we will get the subtlety of a brick. Nuclear ships would be back in our ports, and we would have a leader with a command of the English language that would make President Bush sound like a Shakespearean actor. We would also have an electricity market that proves its workability by not delivering enough generation. We would have a leader who went through the last election failing to write an energy policy for the National Party, and failing even to get anyone else to write an energy policy for the National Party. I think it will be Richard Worth.

It is quite clear that it would take the subtlety of several bricks to let that Minister know that there is an energy crisis in this country. It is hard to believe that the Minister of Energy has just stood up in Parliament and wasted 5 minutes talking a load of nonsense, when industries in this country are shutting down by the day because he has his eye off the job.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to know whether it is appropriate to refer to a member in this House as a load of nonsense. I know it is not my job to look after the “Leader of the Opposition”, but that is just not appropriate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a vigorous debate, as the general debate generally tends to be.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I assume that time has just come off my speaking time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, it has not come off the member’s time.

Accordingly, I seek leave to start again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is free to seek leave. Is there any objection—

No, Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I sought leave, but the reality is that you are in charge of the House. You are supposed to keep order. You would know that that was a frivolous interjection on a member’s speech, and I am asking you for the opportunity to start again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That does not come off the member’s time. Would the member please recommence his speech.

I will recommence the speech by making the point that, quite clearly, the Government is very sensitive about the failure of the Minister of Energy to get on top of the problem that exists for New Zealand at the moment. That man came into the House today and talked a load of nonsense, while industries in this country are shutting down because they do not have the power supply to stay open. We see Pacific Steel giving away a $5 million export contract, because it does not have the power to deliver the goods. We see Panpac shutting down a $1 million contract, because it does not have the power to deliver the goods. We see Fletcher Construction shutting down, because it does not have the power to deliver some $3 million worth of export orders from its factory. How many others throughout the country are paring back their production, because they do not have a safe and secure power supply? All we get from the Minister is the excuse: “The reforms in the late 1990s are all to blame.”—4 years later! Yet this Government has not made one change to those reforms.

The member who attempted to interject a few moments ago will be facing this winter in his Dunedin South electorate, or his Dunedin North electorate, or wherever he comes from. He will be seeing the faithful members of the Labour electorate committee trundling along to meetings wrapped in blankets, because they will not be able to turn a heater on; with a candle stuck to their heads, because they will not be able to turn a light on; and all he will be able to say is: “It’s not our fault.” All I can say to Mr Benson-Pope—that obscure member from the south—is that in 3 years his Government has done nothing to change the reforms, because they are fundamentally sound.

Right now, the market is sending a message to the Government, to every generator in the country, that there should be more generation. That message was sent in 2001, and Mr Hodgson chose to ignore it. He did not want to know what the market was telling him. He did not want to listen to the message that was coming through loud and clear. Did he go to any of the State generators and say: “I’d like to make a note in your statement of corporate intent suggesting that you are able to build new generation and return a lower level of profit to the Government.”? Not a chance! He and Michael Cullen, as shareholding Ministers, stuck their hands out for the big dividends that come because the spot-market price goes so high, and New Zealand businesses, and New Zealanders in their homes, get screwed over the electricity price.

The electricity industry in this country is 80 percent controlled by the Government—in other words, 80 percent is under the control of Helen Clark and her Ministers. They sit over there and try to say it is somebody else’s problem. It is Mr Hodgson’s problem, it is Helen Clark’s problem, and it is time they woke up and started to do something about it. Mr Hodgson is not prepared to spend 5 minutes in the House talking about what he might do. Why? Because he does not have a clue.

Not only is the electricity market in trouble, so is the gas market. That is not because there is a lack of supply, but because the infrastructure for gas has not been expanded as well as it should have been. Why? Because the Government has not dealt with the Resource Management Act. It has not looked into the Conservation Act. It has not set any targets for the delivery of energy in this country. We are a Western nation with reasonable growth, but we are looking at the prospect of going backwards because we have no active energy policy in this country. I repeat—80 percent of the electricity industry is owned by the Government, and we have industry shutting down. That is what would have happened in Russia during the worst excesses of the socialist Government of that time. Do Labour members care? They do not care one jot.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Ha, ha!

I tell Mr Tamihere that he will have cold old people in his electorate this winter. Is he going to say: “Well, 4 years ago there were some changes. We didn’t know what to do about them, so it is not our fault.”

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the basis that I think we have just heard a flash of leadership potential, I seek leave for the member’s speech to be extended.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot seek that under Speakers’ Rulings or the Standing Orders.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the generosity of the Government today, I seek leave for my time to be extended by a further 5 minutes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to ask for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [Interruption]

A leader?—well, so what! When the old people in my electorate face power shortages this winter, they will be saying: “Thanks Max”.

Max Bradford was told by the Hon Pete Hodgson at the time the energy reform was done that if one was to make a market in energy, one should not do it with three generators but 10. But that Government could not make up its mind what it wanted. Mr Brownlee’s concern is that the market is actually working. As far as Tiwai Point is concerned, I have spoken to Mr Campbell about it. I know precisely what his personal views are about the energy reforms, and he would not agree with that member over there. He will react to the message that was sent. Tiwai Point will not buying in the spot price for the next 3 months, because the message that has been sent as a result of those reforms is that we need energy conservation.

I want to return to the issue of who the leader of the National Party will be. In Southland we say: “Where’s Bill?”. I have taken a photo today. It shows the National Party office in Invercargill. I notice that it is right next to L J Hooker’s real estate office, and right next to L J Hooker is a closed-down Bank of New Zealand, which used to be a television station that has also closed down. But even more significant is that this photo was taken at high noon—“Do not forget me, oh my darling,” and all that stuff, and one can just see the cowboys riding into town—and nobody was there. There is only one car there, and that is a taxi. I have some bad news for the National Party. I took another photo of that scene before high noon, and there were no cars there at all. That was at 10 o’clock, and I can understand why that was. Look what National Party members call themselves—“Nats”. If anybody was any good at graffiti it could be “Nits” or “Nuts”. This is the office of the Leader of the Opposition in the major city in Southland.

I have some more bad news for National Party members. If we take a map and put some spatial information on the bottom half of the South Island, what do we see? We see Clutha-Southland as the National pimple, and the rest is Labour. We have the “Scarlet Pimpernel” in the Leader of Opposition’s office. Mahara Okeroa does more work in Clutha-Southland than Bill English. How do I know that? When Mr English went to his own electorate on New Year’s Day at Tuatapere, four Ministers turned up—Lianne Dalziel, Annette King, Rick Barker, and Paul Swain. They turn up, and the compère says: “Where’s the Leader of the Opposition?”. “Oh, here I am”, says Bill. He had finally come to see his constituents. He then had the temerity to say that he had never been to “the chops” before. Hang on! This is the leader of the National Party—the rurally based party in New Zealand. He said he had never been to “the chops”, not even in his electorate. That is quite something! It is no wonder that nobody is at his office.

Bill English then complained about the Southland District Health Board. He said it did not have enough beds. The chairman of the board rang him up and said: “Come and see me, Bill”, and guess what? He has not seen him. Bill English will not go and see him. Worse than that, not only will he not go to see the chairman, but that chairman now reacts to Bill English’s press statements about him by saying: “Wait for the second one, because the second one will say what he really means. The first one he doesn’t mean—he gets it wrong—so he will come back and fix it in the second one.” Here is the granddaddy of them all: Bill English announces publicly that he is having a birthday, then invites only half the people in his town to come along.

I seek leave to table this photo of Bill English’s office showing that nobody is there.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. Before I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I advise members on both sides of the House that they need to exercise particular restraint in raising points of order during a general debate as speeches are limited to 5 minutes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure what you mean by that. If a member feels that there is a point to be made, he or she has an absolute right to take a point of order, and you as the Assistant Speaker have an obligation to rule as to whether it is right. As someone who considers that his speech today was unnecessarily disrupted by an unruly Minister, I am particularly aggrieved that you choose to give that information out as we are about to hear from another four Labour speakers.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for raising that issue. I will consider what he said and take it into account.

Four Ministers turning up on Harley Davidsons amongst the poor people of Southland does not disguise the fact that we will have an energy crisis, and that Government, in its fourth year, is responsible.

However, today I want to expose the total duplicity of this Government over the leaking-homes crisis, and express outrage on behalf of thousands of New Zealanders and homeowners who have been grievously let down. They have been failed by this Government’s timidity and weakness in coming to the aid of those in need of aid because of their leaky homes. It is outrage that the Government insisted that leaky homes were not rotten leaky homes, but were issues of “weathertightness” and a media beat-up—the very words used by the Prime Minister. Political-speak has reached a new low.

Not content with fiddling while the homes of New Zealanders rot beneath the floors and in the walls, we have witnessed the spectacle of a team of Government Ministers in utter and total disarray. They have been engaged in some form of morbid pass-the-buck, because the Prime Minister cannot find a Minister with the metal to say: “The buck stops here with this Government.” The Government has a poor imitation in Lianne Dalziel. She started the rotten social policy on immigration, and now she is to be the “Minister of Rotting Homes”. She is content to tell people who have lost their life-savings in a rotten home: “Tough luck. You are on your own.”

Meanwhile, the same Minister is sanctioning the installation of the failed chief executive of the Building Industry Authority as its now highly-paid senior adviser. Why is that? What is his pay rate? What is his purpose? What hold does Bill Porteous have over this Government? Clearly, he has been paid to take the rap for George Hawkins, who was warned repeatedly of the problems, and who mumbled, stumbled, and fumbled along, saying that he was not told officially about the problem. Jill Pettis is trying to interject. Once again, we have the fishwife in town; it must be market day! George Hawkins was warned in writing, but he said he was not told officially.

This leaky-building crisis is one of the worse cases of Government neglect and failure that I have seen in more than 20 years in Parliament. This Government started the rot in the 1980s with Clark, Cullen, Prebble, Shirley, Goff, and the gang of free-marketeers, stripping from New Zealand home-building laws all home protections in the name of reform and championing free enterprise. The responsibility lies fair and square with the New Zealand Labour Party. Everybody remembers that. Those same people threw out the codes, then they let the cowboys in, and the rest is history. When they are now asked to act, like Pontius Pilate they change the language, put out their damn spin, and call it “weathertightness”. Everybody knows that we are talking about rotting homes, and people have lost all their wealth.

The Government had a chance to clean up the building industry when it announced the terms of reference for the select committee investigation into this issue. But did it seize the chance, like any responsible Government in any Western democracy would do? No, not this Government. It watered down the inquiry, then produced a hopeless report. Last night on the radio, Lianne Dalziel couldn’t answer even one question about what would happen, when it would happen, and how it would happen, when it comes to rotting homes. The Prime Minister can laugh in the House, as she did at question time. She is all arrogance. She laughs while hopeless, incompetent Ministers maintain their jobs. They cannot answer questions in the House, they cannot answer questions outside the House, and they cannot debate: they just cannot do their jobs. Lianne Dalziel in charge of rotting homes? That is a classic, is it not? She cannot handle immigration. She is hopeless. Every day that there is a new discovery, she says she did not know about it. She was on Assignment. When she was asked if there was any evidence of any forgery and fraud, she said no. The television camera showed all the evidence right in front of her, and she said she would have a review. We had a catastrophe—the murder of a Japanese student in Auckland. All those students were over here illegally. It is true they came in 1997 as tourists, but who allowed them to switch their status? Lianne Dalziel and Helen Clark did. They should stop this obfuscation and sheer duplicity, and own up to the fact that they themselves are responsible.

Lianne Dalziel was on the radio last night as the new Minister responsible for that issue—because George Hawkins was hopeless—and she could not answer one of the questions she was asked. Where among Western democracies would that sort of situation be tolerated?

As many members will know, and as members of the New Zealand community already know: “‘National’s problems started much earlier than losing last year’s election.’, Clutha Southland MP Bill English told the National Party Balclutha branch annual meeting on Thursday night.” Bill English said: “There was a smell that came across the party early in the 90s ... too focused on the dollars, not worried enough about the people who were missing out.” He went on: “The party had never been ahead of the non-National vote since 1996, and as the 1999 election loomed, its party members seemed unable to change tack. ... The centre left now had 60 percent of the majority and Labour was expecting to run five or six terms”—

💬 Simon Power: This is embarrassing.

I say to Mr Power and Mr Brownlee, that Mr English did not say “two or three”; he said “five or six terms in power”. The article continues: “His address to the party faithful on Thursday centred on winning back the punters and stopping the party decline.” I quote Mr English: “The groups which vote for us are the ones who are shrinking fastest. We lose 1.5 seats each election, just on demographics alone. The new voters will be young and brown. If we’re not getting their vote, we’re not going to get into Parliament.” Mr English said the young preferred to vote for smaller parties. He is certainly providing a National Party like that! He added that it was the same with the old, and that only one in four older people had voted National. I again quote Bill English: “It’s a legacy of the mistrust older people now have for National ... If you decide you’ve been let down, it’s harder to change your mind. ... There’s a perception that rich people vote National, and it’s true. I hate that. It would do us good to drive some of those people away.” The article goes on: “Only 10 percent of New Zealanders earn more than $60,000, while 1 million earn more than $30,000.” The source of those comments was a report in the Southland Times, not last Thursday, but 3 years ago.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am aware that the member on his feet is a new member. I wonder whether it would be worthwhile for the Chair to point out that the general debate is an occasion on which a member might express his or her own views, rather than simply quote others’ views.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. While I am speaking, I point out that I have already counselled members to exercise restraint, because of the 5-minute speeches.

I thank Mr Brownlee for such an apt demonstration of his vacuousness. The source of the document was the Southland Times, 3 years ago.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to allow that member to make those insults unchecked?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot comment on points of order.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: When he resumed his feet, he made some statements that were quite unparliamentary, and if you allow that to pass without a withdrawal and an apology, then, clearly, the rules have changed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that he should not have commented on the point of order, and I ask him to withdraw.

I withdraw. Those quotations from Mr English, the short-term leader of the National Party, were from a source published 3 years ago.

I cannot, and the community cannot, imagine a more powerful demonstration of the catastrophic failure of the National Party, and of that leader, that 3 years ago he warned his “former” rural heartland electorate of Balclutha—and those failed members over there—where the party was failing. Three years on, what has the National Party done? Nothing! It has no policy and no leadership. Even Winston Peters is heading the leader of the National Party in the polls at the moment.

Compared with that failure, that vacuousness, what has the Government offered over that period to the people of this country? It has offered a record of achievement. In the last 3-plus years, we have had the strong leadership and the stable Government this country has been asking for. We have the firmest of platforms on which to build for the future. In the last 6 months alone, we have made major improvements to primary health-care. Already the primary health organisations have signed up 500,000 New Zealanders, and a further 25 primary health organisations will be operating by the start of next month. That will mean 1.4 million New Zealanders enrolled in better health-care.

We have a growing economy and an increase in economic activity. There are more people in real jobs and 15,500 fewer people on the unemployment benefit than there were a year ago. There are almost 120,000 more jobs than there were in December 1999. We have had a fairer deal introduced for victims. We know how welcomed the Victims’ Rights Act has been by members of the community. We have cut the costs of tertiary education to consumers, and in the compulsory education sector the Government is funding more than 700 extra teaching positions this year alone. As further testimony to that commitment to our future, we have expanded opportunities for young people with another 6,000 Modern Apprenticeships.

We know how effective the leader of the Opposition is being, when every single Labour member chooses to attack him personally in the general debate. This afternoon I want to address the real issue facing the people of New Zealand, which is the energy crisis and the complete failure of the Government to take the issue seriously and to do anything about it. Regardless of whether we have a market or State model, the real issue is how we get more generation. As my colleague Mr Gerry Brownlee has pointed out, if it is with regard to thermal energy, the Government says “No” because of the Kyoto Protocol. When it comes to hydro energy, the Government says: “No, we have to protect the gorse.”

It does not matter what it is, the Government does not want to have new generation, and that will have huge impacts on New Zealand’s growth and wealth. The single greatest barrier to meeting this country’s electricity challenge is the Resource Management Act. I was holding out, in the hope that we might see some sensible reform, but instead we saw one of the biggest con jobs that I have seen in a long time, which will do huge damage.

I want to challenge the United Future party today. The United Future party, in its manifesto, said it would be pushing for changes to the Resource Management Act. United Future members told us last week in the House that they had had a big score—a big hit, because they had got two big changes to the Resource Management Act. Well, it was a fraud. Let me tell members why. The Local Government and Environment Committee was briefed on the bill, and I will read out to members what that written briefing stated: “The two key changes in the bill, with respect to limited notification and appeals ... the Cabinet directed the drafting instructions in October 2001.” If those were the big hits that the United Future party achieved with regard to the Resource Management Act, well, we must have retrospective hindsight, because the United Future party is claiming credit for them. Even Marian Hobbs stood in the House and told us that those were the big concessions to the United Future party. How come the instructions were given for drafting 9 months before the United Future party even entered into a relationship with the Government?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is that true?

That is true. This matter is serious. If we are to address the economic loss of a billion dollars a year caused by the traffic congestion in Auckland, we have to fix the Resource Management Act. If we are to have new generation stations for electricity, we have to fix the Resource Management Act. If we are to be able to irrigate the lands that are currently suffering from drought, we have to fix the Resource Management Act. I say to United Future members that they have sold out on the New Zealand economy. They have sold out on the farmers, on the workers at Tiwai Point, and on the workers at the steel mill in south Auckland, because the changes they have made to the Resource Management Act take us backwards.

I refer to Owen McShane. He put out a paper yesterday on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), in which he said that this bill was the single greatest challenge to, and undermining of, private property rights in the history of New Zealand. The United Future party proudly says in its manifesto on its website that it is here to stand up for private property rights. Last week its members voted for a bill that an expert on resource management says is the biggest undermining of private property rights in the history of New Zealand. I say to United Future members that it is not good enough. They should find their backbone, because they will have support from ACT, from New Zealand First, and from National to get some decent changes to the Resource Management Act. Otherwise, the consequences for this country are so serious. They are so serious in terms of energy, in terms of roading, and in terms of every possible respect of the New Zealand economy. I say to United Future members that they should live up to what they said to the electors, or face political oblivion. It is as simple as that. They cannot say one thing to the electors at election time and another thing last week in the Parliament, then find in the official documents that it is all an exercise in political sophistry.

I challenge the next Labour member to say how come what the Minister says is different from what the officials tell the select committee. Stop telling porkies.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member well knows that he cannot use that last word. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise. That particular phrase was ruled out of order by the Speaker last week.

I withdraw and apologise. I seek the leave of the House to table the official advice given to the Local Government and Environment Committee, noting that all the changes to the Resource Management Act were agreed by Cabinet in October 2001.

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

[Much appreciation to you engaged in the process of learning the Māori language.]

I do not know which party is facing political oblivion. I am not sure about that. I thought it was a major exaggeration when that accusation was made of the United Future party. That is a wholly questionable statement to make, especially after the results of the last election. I think that member should be more accurate in his predictions.

I am very pleased to be a member of the Labour Party, because of its outstanding political leadership, its commitment, its courage, its conviction, and its strategic vision. What does it mean for Māori? I have been sitting here since 3 o’clock and I have not heard any of the previous speakers say anything about their Māori policy. All those members can do is acknowledge that there is a browning of the New Zealand population. [Interruption] There is absolutely no reference to that member’s name. To me, it sounds like a new brand of gravy. Get it right!

Today I asked a very tightly framed question of the Minister of Māori Affairs. It was so tightly framed that it brought derisive laughter from the rest of the House. The reason that question was asked was to inform members of the National Party that there is an absolute purpose for capacity building. It allowed the Minister of Māori Affairs to explain the exact purpose to all members in this House. The purpose has nothing to do with that member Mr Hide holding up a photograph. Unfortunately, we do not have a photograph of his latest booze-up, but we know it was at Waiheke.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have to be fair about this. The Speaker has repeatedly asked members of the Opposition not to refer to the capacity-building function organised by the friends of Parekura Horomia, and others, as a taxpayer-funded booze-up. It would only be fair—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Speaker—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: He has asked us not to do it, and I am just pointing out that the Speaker, himself, referred to that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet. The member will be seated. This is a perfectly debatable situation, and I again urge members to restrain from raising points of order, because all it attempts to do is break up members’ speeches.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why has the Speaker now ruled that members of the Opposition may not refer to this function as a booze-up, but members of the Government can?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Because the Speaker ruled that during question time today.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At question time today I was asked to rephrase a question in which I used the precise expression that this member has just referred to and that Mr Brownlee, correctly in my view, has raised with you. With respect, your explanation to the House leaves me completely bewildered. I put it to you that if it is good enough for members on this side to have to desist from using that expression, then the same yardstick must be applied to members opposite.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. It is difficult to hear at times, and I did not hear it that time, but I will certainly be watchful in future.

💬 MAHARA OKEROA: I was referring to capacity building and the questions that were asked by the honourable member. They referred to how much we had expended since the year 2000. We have spent over $23 million. But that demonstrates a courage and a vision, largely absent from the National Party benches. Not only that, but we have very positive policy statements. We have a strategic vision that has been translated into key policy statements, which have led to key actions in capacity building, health, treaty settlements, education, and even Māori television—in spite of the kinds of criticisms that Māori television has been subjected to.

What does Māori television do for the cultural milieu of Aotearoa? It helps to promote the language and the cultural understanding. It is a very, very key mechanism for our cultural understanding in this country. Even the Assistant Speaker is engaged in learning te reo. Why would he do that? The reason is that he wants to be culturally involved in a very dynamic part of our society. I absolutely applaud that member, and other members for that. What do we have on those National benches? We have a policy merry-go-round—no policy, no vision, no strategic direction—te korekore. All those members can do is sit there and interrupt absolutely eloquent presentations and speeches made by people like me on this side of the Chamber. If that is all they can do I suggest that they need to turn their minds to something more dynamic, like members of the Labour Party do.

I want to spend my short 5 minutes on State-sponsored kickbacks, State-sponsored graft, and State-sponsored tax dodging. I also want to talk about hard-working taxpayers having to pay for a Labour Party booze-up. That is what I will be talking about.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. We will not have that word used. I want more felicitous expression in this House. I have had quite a lot of comment from outside about that particular term. I do not like it used in this House.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am not having any points of order from Mr Brownlee, or anyone else. This is a general debate. There should not be points of order.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is risking leaving the House if he makes a frivolous point of order.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I perhaps need to take that risk, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please take it now.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: We have just had the Assistant Speaker rule that it was acceptable for a Labour Party speaker to use the term “booze-up” in connection with this particular incident.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I listened to him carefully when I was outside the Chamber, and he did not say that.

In which case I will refer to it as a taxpayer-sponsored Labour Party drinking session. We have heard questions in the House today asking what capacity building is. I have the pictures here showing capacity building in action—all paid for by a Te Puni Kōkiri capacity-building grant. And they are standing around drinking Lion Red and Steinlager. They cannot pretend they did not know, because I have here a picture of them, on the same night, standing around drinking. John Tamihere, a Minister, is in the background. He is enjoying the night, as well—a night paid for by hard-working taxpayers.

Not only that, but this occurred on day 6 of the election campaign. Dover Samuels is shown at the party. It was held on 6 July, during the election campaign. It was paid for by a capacity-building grant. The band in the background was paid for by a capacity-building grant, as were the drinks. In the photograph Dover Samuels, wearing his Labour Party rosette, is campaigning for votes on the back of a Te Puni Kōkiri capacity grant.

Labour members cannot say they did not know about it, because not only were two Ministers present, but Minister Parekura Horomia’s executive assistant, Ms Gail Parata, was also there for the whole weekend. Do members remember Dover Samuels’ campaign manager, Mr Shane Te Pou? He was at that Labour Party drinking session, as was Dover Samuels’ executive assistant, Daniel Phillips.

We have heard in the last couple of weeks that over a period of 3 years, Māori Sportscasting International has received $914,964, before GST. It has received $1 million over 3 years. That money was overseen by a man who had been sentenced to 5 months for fraud. He has gone. The Prime Minister’s department was approached by TV3 about this man. He had resigned. No poroporoaki for him! There was no Māori farewell for him. Oh, no—he was gone! He had gone, to save the skin of this Minister and this Government.

On the Saturday morning of the training wānanga—paid for by a capacity-building grant—an administration finance contracts session was held.

💬 Simon Power: How did it go?

It went very well, because the sportscasters, paid for by the $900,000, were taught how to be paid without the authorities knowing—without having to pay tax—because it was done through their TAB accounts; out of petty cash. I ask Government members whether they agree with this. Are they undertaking an investigation? Oh, no—Helen Clark says: “We act only if a scandal gets some legs; if it sticks.” Why not just sort out the scandals now, because this Government is winking at them.

I want to read out a memo, but first, I will show members a photograph of Mr Waaka at the party with John Tamihere. I also have a good picture of him with a smiling Mr Dover Samuels, which I will table. I will read out the email, which was sent by his business partner, Mr Sam Rahui, to one of the people who worked for Māori Sportscasting. He was asking why he has not been paid. The email, dated 2 October 2002, sent at 5 minutes to 3, reads: “No. Still making amendments to the amendments to the amendments. I will hopefully have that money (wages for you) this month. We are still running on empty because Mr Waaka still has his hands in the till.” That is what this Government is funding with its capacity-building grants. Does it do anything? Not at all—because there is a war on! As Helen Clark says: “We act only if it sticks.”

I would like to share with the House a capacity-building grant, and I seek leave to table the pictures that I have shown.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the pictures. Is there any objection? There is.

In many respects the general debate today has been full of humour and its usual hot air, and I am glad to see that the standards have not dropped. I would like to think that the contribution of hot air being made here will contribute to the international hot-air balloon fiesta that is happening in the Wairarapa this week, and I invite all members of the House to participate in that fantastic event.

The Wairarapa is another example of a region that is on the rise—if members will excuse the pun—and that was illustrated very vividly with the celebration of Kiwibank’s first birthday in Featherston last Saturday. It is an amazing story. We were graced with the company of the Hon Jim Anderton, and, of course, the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. When a questioner from the audience asked: “Jim do you think they need you back in Wellington?”, Jim Bolger’s resounding response was: “Well, yes I think they do.” So I say to the National Party members across the House that they have a saviour in their midst—one who is prepared to come back and counsel them. They should get hold of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger; he might be able to give the Leader of the Opposition a few key pointers in being able to maintain his position.

Nevertheless, the first birthday of Kiwibank in Featherston was an auspicious occasion. That town has a population of approximately 1,200, and about 500 of its people have subscribed to become members of Kiwibank. If every small community in the country with a Kiwibank had an uptake like that, the achievement would be one of the most sensational for any bank around the world—per capita of course.

It is also another illustration of how this Government has taken heed of the plight of the regions, which were so awfully well-slammed, frankly, during the 9 long years of the National Government. That Government deserted its regions, unfortunately. Labour has restored some of their faith, particularly in the area of, for example, regional development. Funding that was taken away by the National Government through the business development agencies—the business development boards—that existed in that period, has been restored in some measure to areas such as the Wairarapa. For example, I know that we have had a couple of bites at the pool of funding for regional economic development that has been available to other New Zealand regions. That is proving to be an extraordinarily helpful tool, particularly for local government and those people who are leading business development in our regions. It is all part of the innovation and growth strategy of this Government. It is but one example of the way we are restoring faith, and, I might add, prosperity, into the regions of New Zealand. Wairarapa is no exception in terms of receiving that.

While I am speaking of my fantastic electorate, I would also like to mention, on a slightly more sombre note, the most recent crime statistics. Although the media prefer to propose and promote probably the most negative of the results out of those reports, in relation to our Rise Above It campaign in the Wairarapa I was very pleased to see a 15 percent decrease in family violence crime in the Masterton area of the Wairarapa. That was something that was given the “once over lightly” by my local media, I might add, and certainly was not even noted anywhere else.

Now, I do not claim that the Rise Above It campaign alone brought about such a result, but that community effort, along with our police and other community and Government organisations—the whole collaborative approach to taking on the unpleasantness of violence against children, and abuse against anybody, for that matter—is an example I would like to think all New Zealand regions might want to follow and perhaps put into practice in their own areas. I would be very, very happy, as we come up to the first birthday of our Rise Above It campaign and report back on the past year to our community in the Wairarapa, to share that information with other members in the House, if their areas could perhaps do with seeing the experience we have been through and what we have achieved in the Wairarapa.

It is commendable that this Government has made extraordinary efforts to engage with the people of its communities. One example I can give of that is the recent visit by the Hon George Hawkins in relation to his duties towards the Fire Service. He went from the Hawke’s Bay area, and down through my electorate—Dannevirke, Woodville, Pahiatua, and even Eketahuna, which had not seen a Minister since the last election. We do not get Ministers through there quite so often. But it was important that we had Mr Hawkins there.

The Government has enjoyed the tax take. Plenty was collected; plenty was thrown about. The Government has loved it. There has been money rolling in and money thrown about, and everybody is happy. We have heard about it with capacity building. Mr Okeroa made three points about what capacity building is all about, did he not? It is about courage, vision, and a keg. That is what it is all about. But we know, we have heard, and we have been forewarned that there are signs of a slow-down of the New Zealand economy. This Labour Government will not get the tax take it has enjoyed for the last 3 years, and it will not be able to throw about the money it has thrown about in the last 3 years. The chickens are coming home to roost. Anyone can govern in a good year. I want to see the Government perform in a bad year—a bad year in which it will contribute.

I put a little warning out to members of Parliament, and to the public—particularly taxpayers. Short-term reactions to the war will obscure the underlying economic trends over the next few months. This Government will blame the war for a downturn. It will do that. This Government will be prepared to hide behind the war. It will not support our traditional allies in the field, but it will certainly hide behind them when it comes to answering questions about the economy.

Let us take four indicators that the economy is all turning to custard—four indicators that the Government has simply squandered the opportunity it could have banked over the last few years. First of all, the two New Zealand consumer-confidence surveys have both shown sharp falls. The McDermott Miller survey showed the sharpest fall in confidence since June 2000. Confidence has been hardest hit in the rural regions, according to the survey. The Colmar Brunton poll revealed a sharp fall in consumer confidence. Nearly 20 percent more people lacked confidence in the future of this economy than in the previous survey.

Farm incomes are another measure. There is nothing new here. Farm incomes are taking a hammering, and they will continue to do so. Everyone knows that the rural sector still pays most of the bills in this country, and the sector will be hit very, very hard. That is not just because of issues outside this country’s control, with lower commodity prices and exchange rate, but because the Government insists on putting up prices and costs to small businesses, to farmers, and to every business up Queen Street, along The Terrace, in Cameron Street—even in Whangarei. The estimated payout for dairy farmers is $3.60, down from $5.30 last year. We can argue whose fault that is, and what that is due to, but the reality is that the tax take will not roll in. This Government will have to be held accountable for throwing money about. It will hide behind the war, and I warn members of that. The Government must be held accountable.

Gross domestic product data is due to be released this Friday. Expectations are for an increase half that of the last three quarters. But this is the doozy of an indicator: the Prime Minister’s confidence indicator—that is what I call it—the knowledge wave conference. She has no confidence in the growth of this economy into the future.

I rise to talk about why the Hon Bill English is under threat. His popularity is so low it is subterranean. He has a 7 percent approval rating. Single-digit gestures and single-digit signals are generally not to be ignored. The lack of electorate appeal that Mr English suffers from is a consequence of his failures as a leader, his flip-flops on policy, and his failures as a former Minister of Finance. His leadership woes are mirrored by the National Party, which is in the mire.

I am from Otago. Otago used to be a proud National Party seat, not just for a few years but for decades. I was honoured to be elected in that electorate. I was honoured to be the Labour replacement for the prior National regime, and I think I have insight into why National Party support is subterranean, why the party is in a hole, and why it is digging to China.

There are two issues behind that. The first issue is economics and the second issue is Max Bradford’s electricity reforms. The electorate’s support—or abysmal lack of support—for the National Party is because the electorate knows that the alternative to English is Brash, and it knows that Brash-National with ACT and Mr Hide—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Mr Brash and Mr English.

I am sorry. Dr Brash—I did not mean to be disrespectful. The electorate knows that the alternative to English and National is a coalition of Dr Brash and ACT-Hide—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Mr Hide, please.

—ACT-Mr Hide. The electorate knows that that monstrous coalition would be a return to the austerity of the 1990s.

In most overseas countries the ideology of fundamentalist neoclassical economics has been thrown out. It is too rigid. It is austere, it is misguided, and it does not work, yet the National Party and ACT are both obsessed with that simplistic economic model that is just altogether too narrow to make good sense. Will they change? No, they will die in the trenches. They cling to their simplistic, neoclassical views. They still think that the issues of distribution and efficiency can be separated. They do not care if there is a great disparity in income and wealth. They speak and act as if that does not matter, but we know it is wrong.

Members should contrast that with our philosophy. We think social cohesiveness and equality of opportunity are important to economic prosperity and to personal security. We think the failed policies of the 1990s ought not to be returned to. We always hear National and ACT rattling on about how Australia has performed so much better than New Zealand, and it is true. But those parties do not reflect on when that gap arose—in the decade from 1990 onwards. In 1990 Australia was No. 16 in the OECD rankings; we were No. 19. By the time the National Government left power, Australia had gone up to No. 12, but we had languished and gone backwards to No. 20.

Since the Labour Government has taken over, we have returned to policies of growth. We have a 3.9 percent increase in gross domestic product, unemployment is at internationally low levels, and we have new jobs at unprecedented levels. Provincial areas like Otago—from Alexandra to Queenstown to Oamaru—are thriving. Unemployment is low, people are doing well, and the electorate knows we have got it right.

I turn briefly to the electricity problems. We hear Mr Brownlee going on about how the Resource Management Act is behind them. No, it is not; it is Max Bradford’s unjust electricity reforms. He forced councils in my area to sell electricity assets at knockdown prices. In doing so, he changed the pricing mechanisms of the market in a way that he just did not understand.

He did not understand, and neither did his National Party colleagues.

💬 Ron Mark: Can you fix it?

Yes, we can. The market model fails because the pricing for new generation has been changed from being costed across the electricity sector as a whole, to a marginal pricing mechanism. It was not thought through. Mr Brownlee’s current answer is to think big. He says that he will go back to the Muldoon days and ram through new power projects—that is, “think big” Clutha, which was a waste of money.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.