General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Let me set the scene. When I got elected to Parliament in 1993, I broke a generational tradition in Southland whereby all the south was blue. Indeed, at No. 3 The Crescent three National members of Parliament resided. They were, in those days, Norman Jones, Rex Austin, and the Deputy Prime Minister—I was going to say Hugh Templeton but it was not him—Brian Talboys. Mr Talboys was replaced by Mr English, and Mr Austin was replaced by Jeff Grant. What is important about that is that that particular office is owned by the National Party, and there were three rentals going to the National Party office. Well, it has fallen on tough times—very tough times.

What we have now is the Leader of the Opposition going around worrying about the Māori seats. Let me tell him one thing, to start with. The four Māori seats that existed in New Zealand from the late 19th century were a sop to Māori to actually give them the rights they had already been granted under the Treaty of Waitangi. Indeed, at that time Māori should have had 15 seats. The member should do his history.

But, worse than that, the member is seeking divine intervention. This is the once-proud National Party. I am holding a photograph of the National Party office in Invercargill. The problem I have is that my electorate office is run off its feet, doing Mr English’s work. People are now ringing me and saying: “How do we get hold of him?”. Well, let me go through it.

Let us have a look at this photograph. This is a big, substantial building. What do we see? The photograph shows a sign near the doorway, stating “Elim Pentecostal Church”. That church runs services on a Sunday, at 10 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening. That was where the big sign was that said “Bill English, Member for Clutha”. It used to say “Member for Wallace”. It used to say “Jeff Grant, Member for Awarua”. It used to say “Rob Munro, Member for Invercargill”. That sign has gone. The National Party does not exist there any more. It has gone.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They’ve pulled up their stakes.

It has pulled up its stakes. To make it worse, my staff got a phone call the other day from one of Mr English’s constituents. That person, who wanted a meeting with Mr English, had been told a couple of things. That person had been told that Mr English did come down to Invercargill occasionally, and he had been down at Easter, so the constituent had just missed him, but the constituent should not worry about it: sometimes Mr English meets people at airports, so his constituent could get an appointment at Dunedin Airport, or, if his constituent was really lucky, he or she might get an appointment at Invercargill Airport.

But, hang on, it gets better. It is such a big electorate that Mr English drives around it. If people ring and leave their name and phone number, he might drive to see them. I wonder whether he drives around his electorate in the Crown representative car. But, hang on, how big is that electorate? We have Balclutha, Gore, Clinton, Riverton, Otautau, Tuatapere, Te Anau, Manapouri, Milford, Owaka, and so on. We have huge areas of population. We have Milton, Tokomaru—the whole lot there—and what happens? Where does Mr English have his office? He has one office, in Gore. Guess how long it is open for? It is open from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., and that is it.

But, hold on, let us give the member some credit. People can meet him at Invercargill, at the Invercargill National Party office. But, hang on, let us go back. People cannot meet him there. They would have to put up with the “happy-clappies”. I want to ask Mr English this: has he given away the papal authority of Catholicism, for the Protestant preaching of Pentecostalism? It is very clear for all to see that he has lost it.

It is a long time since this House has heard such a theatrically performed piece of fiction by a member of Parliament. What is more, it is a very long time since this House has heard from Mark Peck, the obscure member. Therefore, I seek leave for Mr Peck to be granted one more slot of 5 minutes, to extend the general debate today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for that, Mr Brownlee, but if Mr Peck wished to speak any longer he could ask for leave himself. Leave has been sought.

Just to make it clear, this would cause the last 5-minute speaker to be dropped from the speaking list.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): We will move on.

Is it not interesting that that member was one of the few Labour members whose majority went down at the last election?

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: Who was the other one?

The other one was Jill Pettis. There is a much more serious issue to be discussed today, and that is the competence and judgment of Helen Clark, who is out travelling the world on behalf of New Zealanders. She is not doing it on behalf of herself, we must point out to her. She is not a foreign affairs commentator. She is the Prime Minister of New Zealand. When she has come back to New Zealand to explain what she said, she has been pathetic. Let me remind the House about this. [Interruption]

That member should keep quiet because he has to sack the chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority today. The organisation in charge of all our children’s qualifications has been running amok and breaking the law, under his supervision. The chief executive has been doubling National Certificate of Educational Achievement fees, breaking the law, and lying to a select committee. That member better get back in his box and sack the chief executive today.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: There isn’t a chief executive. What a fool. How can you sack someone who doesn’t have a job? What a fool. The member is a fool.

An acting chief executive. What a fool. This is what Helen Clark said: “What everyone’s looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco/German/Russia linkup with good links through to the Chinese”. We asked her: who “everyone” is. This is the Prime Minister who weighs every word. This is the Prime Minister who is open, upfront, and accessible. This is the Prime Minister who—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask Mr Mallard to desist from a running commentary.

This is the Prime Minister who means what she says—

💬 David Benson-Pope: And says what she means.

And she says what she means—that is right. We asked her who “everyone” is and she could not name anyone. So I asked her whether everyone who is looking at this Franco-German-Russian link-up includes New Zealand. Does it include her? Is she, as Prime Minister of New Zealand, looking at the Franco-German-Russian link-up that makes the Anglo-American club look small? Is she the one who is looking at it? Well, here is the upfront, accessible, “means what she says” Prime Minister’s answer to the question of whether “everyone” includes New Zealand: “It is quite clear that the original comment is in itself a question, and it is a question based on whether—and I draw the member’s attention to that word—there is going to be this or that,”—members should not miss that; it is based on whether there is “going to be this or that”—“and ‘that’ represents the opinions of the key players at that time.” That is our spokesperson on New Zealand’s relationship to the world.

I say to the media and this House that Helen Clark’s accumulated burden of dishonesty is starting to weigh down on her. I say to the media in particular that they can take almost nothing this woman says at face value—almost nothing. That is what the Guardian in England thinks. Members should look at this letter to the editor, in our Dominion Post, from journalists with one of Britain’s top newspapers. They say this, in respect of the “law of the jungle” comments: “It is hard to imagine what else she could have meant when she asked, ‘Who wants to go back to the jungle?’.” Of course, her comments were precisely that the actions and decisions of Tony Blair were taking us back to the jungle.

I can remember a former Prime Minister making a comment about the jungle. I think it was Rob Muldoon, who got in enormous trouble for making that reference. That was in New Zealand; here is our Prime Minister in Britain telling one of our closest friends and allies that his actions and decisions are taking the world back to the law of the jungle. OK, that is an opinion, and I happen to disagree with it. But then she tried to say that she had never said it, and the journalist who interviewed her said that she did.

The usual thing is to say, in order to compliment former speakers, that they are hard acts to follow, but I am afraid it is difficult to follow such acting. It was just acting.

In the 5 minutes allotted to me I would like to talk about the important relationship between education and training, on the one hand, and the achievement of a high-quality, job-rich society where employment growth is maximised and no one is left behind, on the other. Education is a top priority for social investment because it not only gives more employment opportunities but also is a profitable public investment that delivers ample public benefits in the form of a more efficient and productive economy, and a much more contented and healthy society.

Some Opposition parties—and we have just seen one—like to run down and bad-mouth New Zealand. In spite of the fact that New Zealand’s 4.4 percent annual gross domestic product growth rate of late puts us at the top of the ladder for performance among the OECD group of rich nations, and despite the OECD forecasting that New Zealand’s average growth rate over the next 3 years will continue to outperform the OECD’s average, some in Opposition just cannot bring themselves to be happy for New Zealand. Instead, they for ever exaggerate the burden to business arising from the Resource Management Act—an Act introduced by a National Party Government in the 1990s.

It is, of course, absolutely true that Governments must always be open and willing to remove unnecessary obstacles to economic development and job creation. My party is totally open to rational, practical, and progressive steps to remove unnecessary red tape that has passed its use-by date. We are also advocating taking rational steps to make the income tax structure more progressive by lowering effective taxes paid by low and middle-income working families.

But the key thing is to be as rational and honest about these things as possible. The truth is that the costs to business of our regulatory environment are low by OECD standards. While progress can be made, there is no magic wand to wave that would deliver a sudden surge in our economic development or performance. Fostering economic development requires a framework and culture that value and promote the upgrading of our intellectual capital, our skills base, our educational standards, and our ability to compete in the high-quality sectors of the increasingly borderless global economy. Fostering conditions that will enhance economic development requires patience and planning. It requires hard work and maturity by the Government, business, unions, voluntary groups, and iwi. It means drawing together to put in place a framework that facilitates high-quality job creation.

A critical ingredient in this mix of policy is ensuring that every young person is in work, training, or education, and we have the goal of having that for every person who leaves school. That means lowering barriers not only to job creation, such as lowering unnecessary tax and red tape barriers, but also to accessing education and training. Removing obstacles to education and training, we believe, is critical to unleashing the full potential of our people. The goal of the Progressive party is to move progressively towards universally accessible early childhood, primary, secondary, and tertiary education.

In relation to tertiary education, my party last year campaigned to stop the student debt burden from getting worse, reduce the scale of the debt by a range of incentives for payment and debt write-off, freeze fees, reduce or eliminate fees for the first year of study, introduce living allowances so that students do not have to borrow money to live, and work towards the progressive elimination of all fees. We see substantial value in establishing a bonding-type programme whereby student loans could be remitted in return for people working in particular regions or sectors of New Zealand for a specified period of time.

As the smaller partner in a minority coalition Government, it is obvious that the Progressives will not get everything we want. We believe we are achieving a great deal towards most of our Progressive objectives across a wide range of portfolio areas, but we know we will not always win the internal debates that must take place within a coalition Government. When we do not win an internal coalition policy debate, we will differentiate our policy from that of the coalition Government of which we are a part, and whenever we do not win a policy debate we will, of course, reserve the right to live in order to fight the cause another day. It is extremely important that the goal we have set of moving towards an education system where the barriers of fees are gradually removed, in order to reach the goal we want to achieve of eventually having a free and open education system, is eventually put into place. That is a goal that the Progressive party has set itself, and we believe it can eventually be won.

I rise in this general debate to voice the anger and frustrations of ordinary people of New Zealand at the inability of this Government to face up to, and tackle, some of the real problems that face us today, and at the continuing insistence of this Government to pander to criminals and to the alcoholic self-destruction of our young people.

I have often heard, about the country and in this Chamber, that New Zealand has become a nanny State. That is said because of this Government’s propensity to continue to pander to the politically correct sensitivities of the minority, as opposed to making sane, sensible, common-sense decisions. Indeed, one could go further and say that we are no longer a nanny State; we have become a “nancy State”. Indeed, in this Chamber last night I reiterated the words of some people down south who said that this country is now run by a bunch of Chardonnay-sipping, spa-bath socialists who are more concerned about the political correctness of things than dealing in real terms with the real problems that face us.

I refer to two issues that have gone through this House this week. One is home detention and the other is the liquor laws.

Home detention has become the most sought after punishment available from our courts. Why is that? Because it is not punishment at all. Why do I say that? Well, because now we have a situation under this Government where people sentenced to prison—not given diversion but sentenced to prison—are actually let out for a couple of months while they seek home detention. We have the absolute absurdity of a robber, who is now a prime suspect for further robberies, who has been let out on a deferred sentence—he is on leave, at loose—and now the police cannot find him because the system has lost him. How patently absurd! We now have a home detention system that allows people, convicts, some of whom are rapists, some of whom have bashed children, and some of whom have bashed women, to go to the gym, to go on entertaining outings, and to go shopping. We now know that there is no real monitoring of their activities. Basically, they are free to do as they will. They can vote, gamble, and drink. They are at home with their partners of a day, and if they choose they can have sex. It is a wonderful lifestyle.

Then we come to the other issue—the drinking. Last night we witnessed the passage of a bill that supposedly will deal with the drinking problems of our youth. I am here to tell members that only New Zealand First has stood firm on all aspects of such legislation and voted consistently against the lowering of the drinking age. It was that issue that gave us the problems we face today, and no amount of politically correct pandering will deter me, nor anybody else out on the street, from that view.

It is absolutely pathetic that this Government does not have the strength or the ability to face this issue and deal with it head on. What does it do instead? It jacks up the prices. It jacks up the taxes on nana’s sherry that goes into the Christmas trifle, and it has the nerve to tell us all that that will solve the drinking problems of our youth. Well, our youth are laughing at this House.

One thing I can tell this House about youth is that they look for parameters, for boundaries. They respect discipline, and they respect people who can see a problem for what it is and make the hard call. Young people respect that. They do not respect the sort of nonsense that we have seen going through the House. It has been an expensive mistake. We have seen the lowering of the drinking age, we have seen an explosion of drink-related offending by large numbers of our young people, and we have had Māori consistently calling upon the Labour Government, which got the mandate, to deal with it.

I have to ask the Māori MPs where they were last night. Where was the warrior status, the ability to stand up, make the hard call, and say no to a pathetically useless bill that will not in any way address the drinking problems of our youth? Where was it? Where were the Māori MPs? Why were they not standing up and saying that home detention is failing, that home is not the place for people who rape women? [Interruption] Tariana Turia can say what she likes, but can she tell me that home detention is appropriate for a man who raped a child between the age of 12 and 16? Hello? Well, I say it is not. This Government, with all its politically correct misfits, its Chardonnay-sipping, spa-bath socialists, seems to think it is, and nobody out there in Belfast, in Christchurch, agrees with that.

I want to start the debate, and to continue the scene set by my colleague, by asking the question: “What does a National Party do when it is out of power, out of the loop, outmanoeuvred, and outperformed in the leadership stakes and in every other aspect of the political dynamic?”. What does it do? Irrespective of a lack of consultation with its Māori stakeholders, it engages in seeking a headline—the best cheap-shot line-up, especially a Māori one.

That is a classic case of hypocrisy and, may I say, political schizophrenia. We are aware that the National Party vigorously courted the Māori vote in the last election, and failed miserably. What happened? The National Party hit the delete button, and its one and lonely Māori MP was demoted from eighth to thirteenth lackey. How embarrassing is that to Māoridom? That is sheer hypocrisy and schizophrenia. I want to put it in a colloquial term: she is “sweet as”, one year. To be poetic: “Out, out brief candle.” To put it in Māori: “Haere ra, haere ra, haere ra.” To wax poetic again: “The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things.” Bill English—

💬 Ron Mark: What have you been smoking?

I have been drinking. In May 2003, Bill English said that the Māori seats have fulfilled a purpose, but their time is now over. What absolute and total cultural and social arrogance! It underlines a demonstrative ignorance of Māori dynamics in the 21st century. The intention to hold a referendum on Māori seats in the year 2008 is totally unimaginative and lacking in vision. To me it is the hammer and anvil approach. It is an ideology that wraps itself around the tyranny of the majority.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: The hammer and sickle.

No, that is that member. Why should the pinnacle participation and aspiration of tangata whenua be determined by a process that oozes assimilation? [Interruption] We saw it over there last night. He iwi kotahi tātou. That is a kind of Jurassic understanding of race relations in New Zealand. “He iwi kotahi tātou.” means “We are one people.” If that referendum gains traction—[Interruption]—I will talk to that member from Ngāti Raukawa later—if that policy gains traction, we will have a herding together of the people, irrespective of their diversity and their heritage. In other words, we will go from assimilation to integration. Those two words are the bane of our people, and have been for the last 160 years.

When I say that it is a gross misinterpretation of Māori dynamics in the 21st century, I note that even Māori party faithful of the National Party are expressing some grave doubts about that announcement. Let me quote Mr Wira Gardiner, former Chief Executive of Te Puni Kōkiri: “I feel a significant amount of unease about the failure to consult with the party. It was an absolutely wrong process. They should have at least consulted with Māori within the party itself. Nobody consulted me.” The leader of that party is trying to lead a debate on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

This Labour Government is looking very vulnerable and very inadequate on many fronts. Perhaps two of those fronts where it is looking most vulnerable and where it has stumbled badly in recent months are, firstly, the foreign policy and defence issue, where it has left this country in a very unfortunate situation—and, increasingly, the public of New Zealand is appreciating the fact of that vulnerability—and, secondly, the energy crisis that clearly is looming, and is a growing concern to us all.

That crisis did not come out of the blue. At question time today the Minister of Energy conceded that his own advice—to himself actually—last October was that alarm bells would be ringing this year. But he did nothing. Why? Because he is caught up in a Cabinet that has a philosophical mindset. Pete Hodgson actually believes in the market. He has got his head round the energy sector, and he is a proponent of “more market”. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the balance of Cabinet want “more regulation”. They think the solution is more Government and more regulation. That is certainly not the solution.

The Government has been prone to blame all the problems in the energy area on Max Bradford’s reforms. Well, Max nearly got it right. On balance, he did a great job. The one serious error he made was when he forced the split between the lines and energy companies, and destroyed foreign investment confidence. That drove companies like TransAlta out of the country. Think about it: they have all gone. They have all just quietly left, at a time when we need investment in infrastructure, investment in our grids, investment in our generation capacity. All those foreigners have gone, and they have said: “Who would come to New Zealand?”.

It is partly because of the Resource Management Act and administrative problems, but the big problem is Government. If Governments keep changing the rules, and confiscate property rights, take property rights, without warning, then who would invest in that sort of climate? International investment dollars are like water: they flow to the level where they will get the best return. If Governments create barriers to investment, then they should not be surprised when foreign investors just quietly walk away.

Of course, the other aspect is that the sale of ECNZ was not done in an optimal way. Why? It was driven by the administrators—the old ECNZ engineers—and they wanted to retain their empires. Is it a coincidence that they smashed down the smokestacks at the Marsden B power station? That station was just coming to completion. They did not want any new entries, any new generators. They engaged in economic vandalism and destroyed the smokestacks. Now, when we want to bring that station back on in a hurry because it is needed, we cannot. The pipeline is rusted because it has not been maintained; and the smokestacks were deliberately destroyed by the outgoing ECNZ. Those people are the same characters who now are running the regional monopolies of the Government’s State-owned enterprises.

If we look at the Meremere power station situation, we see that Olivine wanted to step in there, incinerate wastes, and generate electricity—a very, very good proposal. But those administrators had destroyed the smokestacks, so the Meremere power station could not be restarted. What has Olivine done? It has gone off to Perth, Australia. It got consent there in 7 months, when it had taken it 7 years in New Zealand to get nowhere. That company is now building a world-leading high-temperature incineration facility. What are we doing? We are dumping all our wastes at Hampton Downs and other landfills, because that is what the Government deems as the solution. Clearly, it is not.

We have also had no investment in Transpower for 10 years. A number of major upgrades to Transpower—the national grid—could improve the efficiency of the system and reduce our vulnerabilities. What are they? We could do the DC upgrade. There has been a suggestion that the 24kb go up to 320kb, which would reduce some of the existing constraints. None of that investment is occurring, because there is no incentive to make the investment. It is not a case of too much market; it is a case of too much Government. We are talking about 100-percent Government-owned State-owned enterprises. Indeed, 70 percent of the generators are in the Government’s hands—Genesis, Mighty River Power, Meridian Energy. Under the statements of corporate intent, the Government can give clear directions to get the outcomes we need. But none of that is occurring. It is a case of too much Government and not enough market.

I would like to contribute to the debate on the Corrections Bill, which is due for deliberation further down the track, and, in particular, one aspect of it, which is the private prison versus public prison debate. I would like to help this Government out by clearing up a few things. The Government has made a statement alluding to the fact that corrections is a core State activity. The meting out of justice is a core State activity. The handing out of punishment in a sentence, on behalf of the people of New Zealand and on behalf of the victims, is a core State function. But the geographic location where, and by whom, the punishment is carried out are not, I suggest, core State functions.

The taxpayers of this country will be picking up the bill, either way. If the prisons are run by the State, the taxpayers will fund them.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure if you heard the introduction to the member’s speech. I do apologise for interrupting; I hope it will not come off his time. Is it appropriate to be discussing a bill that is currently before a select committee? Whilst the direction and thrust of the member’s speech may be understood, I ask whether you could possibly give him guidance as to what the Standing Orders are in that respect. Maybe, if he wishes to talk about the general principle, there might be some parameters that you could assist him with, so that he does not transgress the Standing Orders by entering into debate on aspects of a bill that is currently before the Law and Order Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): He can as long as he does not discuss anything that is private to the select committee. As to the fact of the bill being there, he is entitled to discuss anything that is open to the public at the select committee.

I thank the member for suggesting that I confine myself to the larger picture. The point I was trying to make was not so much the content of the bill but the general thrust of the ideological principle behind a certain aspect of it. This issue has been in the public domain for quite some time; it has been in the news. There is no reason that it cannot be debated.

My point is that the taxpayers of this country are going to pay for the corrections system, either way. They will pay either through taxation that is administered by the Government, or through taxation that is allotted by the Government to a private firm that is running a prison. Either way, the taxpayers will be left with the bill.

The real question, though, is that one of the core State functions must be to look after the interests of the public and the taxpaying public. If we can save $27,000 per prisoner per year with no diminishing of standards, that must surely be a core function of the State. I have just done a few little calculations and I have figured out that with the number of prisoners we have, if this efficiency was adopted across the board we would save in the region of $260 million. That is $260 million that could be used by the police to upgrade their equipment, to get encrypted radio systems, and to put more front-line police out there to combat crime and help protect New Zealanders, whose taxes are funding this. In other words, if we adopted the private approach across the board—and I am not advocating that we do that—then $260 million could be better spent on protecting the New Zealand public, without one extra cent being spent on present day expenditures. That has to be a plus.

Ideology is always a maiden of doubtful virtue, and a refuge for those who choose not to think. Quite frankly, if one hides behind ideology, there is not much intelligence in that—if it were vegetables, there would not be enough to fill a stockpot.

Let us have a look at what private prisons can actually deliver here. Australasian Correctional Management has a system in place that allows for savings to the taxpayer, and for better provision of rehabilitative programmes. It conducts programmes that no other remand prison in this country has ever given its inmates. It is the only prison in this country that has been accredited with a quality management system that is of a nationally and internationally recognised standard. Why is that? Why is a private prison in this country, in terms of standards, getting international acknowledgement over and above that of the State-run prisons? Members should consider that the State-run prisons have had plenty of time to reach that standard, whereas the Australasian Correctional Management team has been here for only 3 years, and has already attained it. What is it about private enterprise that allows it to conduct and execute the wishes of the State in terms of the correctional system—to make it more efficient, saving the taxpayers money and benefiting the inmates at the same time?

On Sunday the residents of west Auckland finally found out the ingredients of a spray that they have been aerially bombarded with for more than 17 months. One would have thought that the public had an absolute right to know what they were being blanket-sprayed with, especially given that 260 schools and early childcare establishments are located in the spray zone, and given that the exposure levels to the spray now being experienced by west Aucklanders are without precedent anywhere else in the world. Next Tuesday residents will be exposed to their 20th spray, but some residents who have the misfortune to live in so-called hot spots have been sprayed double that amount. However, this Government refuses point-blank to disclose that information, bowing instead to the wishes of a multinational corporation to protect the secrecy of its formula, ahead of the public’s right to know and the health needs of the people of Auckland.

So it has fallen to the painted apple moth campaigners, Dr Muriel Watts and Hanna Blackmore, to turn themselves into detectives and piece together the ingredients of the spray from papers supplied to them under the Official Information Act. I would like to table the contents of the inert ingredients of the spray in the House today, and also to call on the Minister to release the list of ingredients that have been used in the spray since February of this year, when officials say that the formula changed in some respect.

Looking at the list of ingredients that make up this toxic product, we see that we now have proof of what west Aucklanders have been saying for months. The spray contains chemicals that are injurious to health, and that have never been tested for their interaction or for their long-term health effects; nor has the effect of inhaling, rather than ingesting, these chemicals ever been taken into account. Indeed, from looking at the ingredients, it is no wonder that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Government have been so obsessive in keeping the spray formula secret, for although the Minister of Agriculture has repeatedly reassured the public that the inert ingredients in the spray are commonplace in food and cosmetics, he has failed to mention that they are also commonplace in solvents, shoe polishes, and brake fluids. One ingredient, propylene glycol, is commonly found in brake and hydraulic fluids, anti-freeze formulations, and solvents. Its health effects include irritation to the skin, damage to the intestines, and depression of the central nervous system, especially in children. Another ingredient, benzoic acid, which is a highly controversial food preservative, can trigger asthma, irritation to the skin and eyes, and stomach problems. Another ingredient, hydrochloric acid, is used in hair bleaches and as a solvent. Inhaling its fumes can cause choking and inflammation of the respiratory tract.

It is interesting that the hazard profiles and known side effects of those ingredients correspond almost exactly with the symptoms residents have been reporting—stomach and respiratory problems, asthma, breathing difficulties, headaches, neurological problems, and even more severe symptoms. I will read one email I received yesterday from a resident, Naomi Bland, explaining her health effects: “It starts with a smell, and there is a metallic taste on the back of your tongue. Your throat becomes sore, then the headaches begin. Your ears begin to ache, and so does your body. You haven’t got any energy, and all you want to do is go to sleep. This is not only myself; this is a common experience. My grandson has been rushed to hospital twice now with temperatures of up to 104. He gets ill exactly 2 days after each spraying.”

Doctors and authorities have attempted to dismiss and trivialise those sorts of health effects, and have said they have nothing to do with the spray, so they are not included in the health statistics. But several credible studies, such as the recent Auckland University one, confirm widespread and indisputable health effects.

Under the public health legislation, this Government has an explicit duty to promote the public health of all of its citizens, and to protect them from exposure to hazards. So if the Government is going to expose thousands of Aucklanders to a hazard by blanket-spraying them with a toxic spray, it must, at the very least, accept responsibility for fully researching, monitoring, and treating the health effects. It must also accept responsibility for the outrage that its bureaucrats have perpetrated on the people of west Auckland, and institute a genuinely independent inquiry into the health effects of the spray, rather than relying on the Ministry of Health inquiry, whose major objective seems to be to placate and calm the people of west Auckland.

I seek leave to table the paper that lists the ingredients in Foray 48B.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

Mr English reserves a separate vocabulary to discuss issues concerning tangata whenua. He talks of special privilege, racial apartheid, political correctness, discrimination, and second-class citizens. His treaty policy talks about it being time to move on; I say to Mr English that before he moves on, he needs firstly to get to terms with what the treaty says, as it is the basis for constitutional government in New Zealand.

The Waitangi Tribunal report into the Māori electoral option stated that, under the terms of the treaty, the Crown formally recognised the existing rights of Māori, and undertook to protect them. It is in that sense that Māori people have a special constitutional status. That special constitutional status is one by which we acknowledge that the treaty does create unique rights in terms of the right for Māori interests to be actively protected, the right to development, and the right to equality. Māori have reminded the Crown of their special constitutional status, when considering the history of Māori representation. It sounds so easy, yet, as we are all so painfully aware, the history of this country is one where successive Governments have failed to recognise, and give effect to, the treaty as the basis of constitutional government.

Let me remind members of what some of those so-called special privileges have really meant for tangata whenua in the history of this land. I see some of the National Party members sniggering. How many tauiwi have experienced the privilege of Crown-sponsored theft of their land and resources? We must not forget the shameful history of the native land acquisition and settlement legislation. That statute gave the Governor the power to take any native land for settlement, whether or not the owners wanted to sell. That sounds like a really special privilege! That was entrenched further with the Native Land Act 1909, by which the Governor-General was able to take land for roads or railways, with the explicit instruction that no compensation shall be paid—another privilege. How many members have had their people imprisoned without trial because they peacefully resisted injustice? That is another privilege. The Māori prisoners legislation allowed just that, stating that it is not deemed necessary to try the said natives in order to inflict punishment. By that legislation, hundreds of Taranaki Māori were given the special privilege of being imprisoned without investigation or trial.

For those members who are dismissing those Acts as historical grievances that we should move on from, I remind them that, in our generation, there are other events requiring that same scrutiny. Members will no doubt recall, in the immediate aftermath of Anzac Day, that when Māori soldiers coming home from the war returned to the Raglan district, they found that their marae had been taken for defence purposes. It eventually became a golf course. Who can forget the tragic picture of only 20 years ago of a convoy of army vehicles transporting hundreds of police to remove Māori protestors from Takaparawha, led by our former colleague Joe Hawke?

The history of colonial contact and indigenous resistance is not so very old, and it took until 1993 for issues relative to the taking of Māori customary land to be stopped with the introduction of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. We should not forget that at the signing of the treaty Māori owned 66 million acres of land. The special privilege of being native meant that by 1975 Māori land had been reduced to only 3 million acres.

So what does Mr English’s advocating removal of so-called special privileges mean for tangata whenua? Is it about legislation that deprives one of fundamental human rights, including the suppression of one’s medical and spiritual experts; the removal of one’s right to breastfeed; the removal of one’s right to a whāngai system of caring for children; a history where one is treated as the deviant other, the noble savage, who must be acculturated and assimilated into subservience; and a denial of, or an exclusion from, basic health, education, and a whole range of other social services? If we choose to look at the really poor statistics for the so-called privileged Māori, we see that they surely are an indication of extremely poor political representation, and an inability of the systems and structures to meet the constitutional rights and privileges guaranteed in the treaty.

That was, to say the least, an interesting speech—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Gerry Brownlee was listening to that, too.

Is my time starting again, Mr Speaker?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has 4 minutes 48 seconds.

That is very unfair. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No one else has had his or her speech interrupted at the beginning like that. In fact, it has normally been the case that, particularly when there has been interruption from the Government senior whip, the time might be given again.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have just come back to the Chair, as the member knows. I will take his word. I will start his time from now.

That was a most interesting speech delivered by the Hon Tariana Turia. She raised some points that are worthy of thinking about. I understand she would want to question some of the positions taken by the National Party. On the one hand, I am inclined to respond to them in this forum, but on the other hand, I would simply like to acknowledge that those things have been listened to, and at a more appropriate time that debate should perhaps continue.

I want to say to our friend from the Green Party, Sue Kedgley, that it is extraordinary that the Green Party should stand up here today and have a real lash at the Government over the mass inoculation of the west Auckland population while still hold out with its support for the Government on matters of confidence and supply. I would have thought that if something is of such importance and the party genuinely believes that life and limb are at risk, then perhaps it should be far more conditional than it appears to be in offering its support to prop up Helen Clark’s Government. There are words we could use to describe that sort of behaviour, but they are unparliamentary, and I will not go into them.

I want to talk today about the term that appears to have come from the public, as we are picking it—from the talkback discussions that are going on at the present time. It was not so long ago that it was depressing for someone like me to listen to talkback radio, because all one got was people ringing in and saying how wonderful Helen Clark was, what a great Government the Labour Government was, and how wonderful were all the things it was doing for New Zealand. Well, let me tell members that the researchers from the Labour Party, who do nothing other than sit around listening to the radio most days, will now be feeling very deeply depressed, because the worm has turned and people are seriously questioning what this Government is all about. They are seriously questioning what Helen Clark is all about and where she is leading us.

They are, I think, somewhat perplexed to learn that New Zealand is shifting its foreign policy emphasis to this new Franco-German-Chinese arrangement that the Prime Minister says everybody wants to talk about and be part of. They are, I think, also perplexed that the Government seems simply to put together little packages of explanation every time it gets into trouble on domestic policy. The Government is in deep trouble over the power crisis that this country currently faces. I want to point to an article in this morning’s paper by Murray Jackson, Chief Executive of Genesis, in which he says that Genesis is no longer a reserve or standby-type operation, that it is generating most of the time at full capacity. That, I think, underlines for this House how deep this crisis is, because if a company like Genesis, the biggest thermal generator in the country, is running at capacity most of the time, and the lakes in the southern hydro system are running very, very low, then there is no reserve capacity and the only option for New Zealanders is to switch off and go cold, or have the lights blacked out for long periods.

The Government is still crossing its fingers and hoping that something might happen to get it out of this sort of trouble. We are getting the semi-announcements coming, bit after bit. For example, we are told that 2,000 megawatts of new generation has been consented to. Well, it has been consented to for 4 years and it has not been built. Why? The reason is that no one building that capacity can guarantee fuel source to fire up the generators. We are told that some 560-odd new megawatts of plant has been put on in the last couple of years, but when we analyse those statistics we find out that it is only 166 megawatts. What it all leads to is that the current crisis is about a deficit in generating capacity.

I want to make it clear to the House today that no amount of re-amalgamation, turning back the clock, or fancy words will fix the fact that New Zealanders will go cold in their homes this winter as a result of Pete Hodgson not having his eye on the ball for far too long.

I welcome changes to the country’s health and safety law. We have an appalling health and safety record in this country. Every year workers suffer from illnesses and injury caused by their work, or, worse, they do not return home at the end of their working-day, at all. The costs in both social and economic terms are far too high. Since July 2002, in my region, the greater part of south Auckland, six fatal workplace accidents have been reported to the Occupational Safety and Health Service under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. However, that number represents just one part of the total number of workplace deaths.

The amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act will help create a zero-tolerance culture for behaviours that cause accidents and ill health in the workplace. The “she’ll be right, mate” attitude to health and safety has, unfortunately, been all too common. People cut corners to save costs or because they feel immortal, or, because to some extent, being a reasonably young society, we take risks. Whilst that can be positive on occasions, it can also have disastrous consequences. For the first time, the law makes it clear that health and safety is the responsibility of everyone in the workplace. Workers are expected to take an active part in health and safety matters, and employers must provide them with reasonable opportunities to do so.

I would like to move on to another issue, and on this I rise in support of my Māori colleagues. I am referring to the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill English, to abolish the Māori seats. I consider that to be a nonsense. For me, it highlights the lack of foresight that continues to fuel the longstanding questions about Mr English’s leadership. His continued failed leadership, failed policy, lack of vision, and lack of direction orchestrate a continued litany that fumbles from one disaster to another. But let us be fair to the Opposition leader. His entire caucus wholeheartedly supports abolishing the Māori seats. It is not just him—his entire caucus supports that position.

I hold the view that the attempt to abolish the Māori seats is just a red herring. The real agenda—and Gerry Brownlee knows it—is to return to a restricted form of Māori representation in this House. I would not be surprised if National’s long-term strategy was more about restricting the rights of Māori to vote. I find it absolutely fascinating that the Māori membership within the National Party was not consulted over that position. That is absolutely fascinating, and it shows that there is an underlying agenda to take away the rights of Māori to vote. That lack of consultation—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took deep offence at the member’s statement implying that the policy of another party in this democratic Parliament is to take away the votes of Māori. That is deeply offensive.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate, and it can be resisted very stoutly if members wish it to be.

As I said earlier, there is resounding support from the National caucus for the abolition of Māori seats. But can we say the same thing about its leadership? Can we say that its caucus resoundingly supports Bill English as its leader? I do not think so. I think that the numbers are divided, so that on the one hand they are supportive of bashing Māori, but, on the other hand, when it comes to their leadership they are divided.

I ask National members why that is. Why are they divided over their leadership issues? I will tell the House why. It is because they are not supportive of their current leader. They are so divided that I believe it is only a matter of time before Bill English goes. I say to Gerry Brownlee that I take heed of the comments he made in his address. I think that his presentation had some mastery to it. It shows that he will get there. He should keep on going, and with a bit more experience he will get there.

I agree with the honourable member Dave Hereora in so far as the view he expressed about the Hon Bill English. Clearly, nail by nail, he continues to nail the coffin on what was once a great political machine and a great political party called the National Party. Since 1996, under MMP, no one has been able to form a Government unless they have had the Māori vote. That is a fact. Here is another fact. As the Minister of Statistics and from my involvement in the youth area, I can tell the House that we have 700,000 Kiwis, which is nearly 1:5 Kiwis, in the youth sector aged between 12 and 25 years, and only 16 percent of them are of European ethnicity.

The Hon Bill English noted that in his speech of February 2000. He indicated to the National Party: “We’re going to have to engage with other ethnics. We’re going to have to engage with other stakeholders.” He has now taken the National Party back to a minority party. In this House and this country we all know—and Bill English has acknowledged it, as has his caucus—that National is now a minority party. It has acknowledged that the Labour Party can be the only major party of stable government in this nation. It has acknowledged that it can only ever be on the periphery of this country’s political system today, on the basis of that very stupid policy and on the basis of the clear demographics that are going to happen. More so—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It was more like a suicide speech, really.

That is what it was. It was another nail in the National Party’s coffin, and members opposite gleefully took to it. They will be scrapping over a list in the very near future, and I regret that. National was once a great party in our democracy, but it is no longer. National members will now scrap with New Zealand First, United Future, and the Greens for a dying, minimalistic vote.

I am proud to be part of this Government. When one looks at this side of the House one sees a Kiwi nation in evolution, on the way through. One actually sees Māori members, Pacific Island members, Asian members, and Pākehā people. One can see New Zealand going forward. Bill English’s statement was the most backward we have ever seen from any leader of any Opposition party in this country.

I now want to move on to a matter in the Tamaki Makaurau electorate. There is a scam working whereby financiers offer low-income homeowners the opportunity to use the equity in their home. These financiers charade themselves as much the same as a reputable bank. The difference is that the offer of financial capability is of an equity in the house that in the normal course of events people could never free because they cannot service the debt. By reporting this matter to the Serious Fraud Office—and it has agreed to investigate—I intend to bring a number of people to justice in that regard. There will always be fraudsters and scamsters in this country, we cannot regulate against that, but when institutions of integrity and credibility, the major safeguards of the vulnerable in this country, start to fall over—and I am talking here about a few in the legal profession, not all—and when our banks put out their banking accommodations to mortgage brokers who are not accredited, we then have other problems.

I am saying clearly that if lawyers continue to act for two parties, if they are instructed by one party that is a scamster by way of a financial arrangement, then they have a standard of duty and a standard of ethics that they have to live up to. My people on the street cannot afford the type of civil proceedings required to resume their rights in the houses that have been stolen from them. We are going to have to work hard on that.

I tell members in this House one thing: I was sent here to do a job, and if those people fall down on their standards and ethics, if they fall down on their integrity and credibility in performing properly on behalf of their clients by working two sides of the street, they will have to be named. They will be named in this House one by one, as they should be, because that is what the greatest court in this country is all about. Those people are on notice. I look forward to the Law Society, the Banking Ombudsman, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants putting across the message that enough is enough. They are there to safeguard the vulnerable and to uphold certain standards. They must do that.

Members opposite laugh, as usual. They are probably funded by scamsters—I would not know. But the reality is that we have to do something about this matter. The number of vulnerable people in the Auckland region and outside it who are losing houses through those scams is absolutely unacceptable.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.