General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I want to state right from the outset that the Opposition is a failure, an abysmal failure. The Opposition has failed in its basic reason for being, which is to oppose—not just to oppose by voting against motions, but to oppose by actions, ideas, and alternatives; in other words, to oppose with some policy. But, more important, the Opposition has to show some leadership.

Just recently, Bill English was overseas, and I have to ask—who noticed? It was really interesting before he left. Mr English was taunted by Matt Robson, who said: “When the leader is out of town, you’d better be worried if Mr McCully is in town and your polls are about half the level of the Labour Party.” We had a flurry of press releases from the National Party saying that there was no coup and there would be no coup. This is very ironic, because when Jenny Shipley was at 37 percent in the polls, the National Party acted. Here we have the leader of the National Party at 27 percent, which seems to be good enough for the brat pack, and the National Party is saying that it is good enough. This shows a remarkable turn-round by the National Party. I would have thought that members of the National Party would be saying that 27 percent was not good enough for them and they would have a coup because they want to do better. Instead, the National Party is saying it is good enough. They are saying they are ahead of New Zealand First and ahead of ACT, and that is where they want to be—a niche party. Members of the brat pack, who have control of the National Party, see their own interests in holding on to the leadership positions in the National Party as being more important than the interests of that once-great, once-proud party—the National Party.

One of the reasons the National Party has such problems is that it confuses activity with direction. As long as the paddles of the waka are splashing around and making a bit of noise, the National Party is happy. It has no sense of direction. The National Party is becalmed, and it is becalmed in its most important part of New Zealand—Auckland. In Auckland, the National Party is down to about 20 percent in the polls. In Wellington it is down to 16 percent, and it is failing everywhere. It is failing in policy. The first piece of policy we have had from the National Party recently was released by Katherine Rich, who stands here in the House with “Dunedin” emblazoned upon her chest, and this serves two purposes: it shows to those who are disbelieving that she comes from this planet, but also, when people find her walking around airports lost, bewildered, and confused, they know which plane to put her on. All that Katherine Rich has done is recycle the old policy of the National Party and re-churn out the old words about growing national welfare dependency, and so on.

The National Party has ignored the facts. When the National Party left office after 9 years of misery, unemployment beneficiaries numbered 164,530. That was in 1999. In May 2003 the number on the unemployment benefit was 109,757. This Labour Government has created 123,000 new jobs in 3 years. I just want to repeat the figures: when Nick Smith was booted out of office for incompetence, the unemployment beneficiary numbers were 164,000, and 3½ years later they are 109,000. There is another very good figure, and Mr Nick Smith will like the facts behind this one. In answer to a question from an ACT MP relating to the number of persons dependent on a benefit, excluding superannuation, we found that in 3 years the total number had declined by 14.2 percent.

💬 Darren Hughes: How much?

There was a decline of 14.2 percent in the number.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish!

Mr Nick Smith says that is rubbish. He ignores the facts, and that is what gets him into trouble through the years. We offered to show Mr Brash and Katherine Rich around a modern Work and Income New Zealand office to show them what is happening, but they cancelled out. There are none so blind as those who do not want to see. The National Party does not want to let the facts get in the way of a good argument. We do have declining numbers on benefits in this country.

This Government is doing a great deal to ensure that New Zealand is working yet again. It is sad to hear the ACT party repeating the same mantra about benefit dependency. We know what the ACT party stands for—it at least has some policy. Its members are market fundamentalists. The market will answer everything—slash tax, slash Government services, and leave everybody to their own devices. At least the neo-Darwinists over there know what they are, but the scary part of this Parliament is that they are getting the point about—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

New Zealand has been deceived by its own Prime Minister on an issue that matters enormously to every New Zealander. Today in question time we discovered that the Government has not decided to pass legislation to settle the issue—[Interruption].

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw to your attention that in other general debates and other speeches, the senior Government whip has taken it upon himself to interject continuously. On other occasions I have let that run for a while, but I do not intend to let that happen today.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member certainly has a point. I draw the member’s attention to that and ask for order.

New Zealand and New Zealanders have been deceived by their own Prime Minister on an issue that matters to them most deeply, because it is about the kind of country they live in. The Government has not decided to legislate to settle the issue of the title to the seabed and the foreshore. We know that because Ministers of the Crown have told us today. In fact, what is happening is that the Minister of Māori Affairs has told us that the new committee that has been set up is the committee that will decide what is in the legislation. All the media headlines were wrong. I came to the House with the assumption that the Government had decided to settle the issue over title to the foreshore and the seabed by passing legislation that would state that the title lies with the Crown. The Prime Minister has said that it would be the intention of that legislation to prevent further Māori claims for customary title proceeding and to cut across the Court of Appeal. I had thought she meant what she said. I had thought the legislation would be appearing, because that position was non-negotiable. I came to the House today to find out just what issues the Government did believe were negotiable with Māori. Was it fishing—the reopening of the fisheries settlement? Was it access? Was it compensation? Was it to do with minerals? Those are all things the Government has opened up to another never-ending process by its actions in the last few days. But I turned out to be wrong. It turns out that we can add to that list that the Government will be—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is your job to ensure that the Standing Orders are obeyed. The Standing Orders are quite clear about interjections. They must be rare, witty, and to the point. I raised this point with you at the start of my speech in relation to the senior Government whip. You have now tolerated Mr Mallard’s continuing and unbroken barrage of interjections, and I believe it is your job to prevent that from happening.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to make two things clear. First of all, the member pretended to be quoting from the Standing Orders, when he was not. He was entirely inaccurate in what he said was in the Standing Orders, and, given he is the Leader of the Opposition, when he quotes from the Standing Orders he should do so accurately. The other point is that, although my interjections might have been cutting the member, they were not constant. He has to be able to take it.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members that general-debate speeches are 5-minute only, and members should have a fair go. Also, there have been interjections on both sides.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I warn people that there should be silence while points of order are being heard.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That is exactly the point. There were three people interjecting, at least, while I was taking a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Lynda Scott, and Dr Nick Smith. They all interjected. I think you know, Madam Speaker, that I have been tossed for that during recent debates, and I ask for some consistency and behavioural standards to be applied to both Opposition members and Government members.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. While I am flattered that the Leader of the Opposition objects to my comments, which were not frequent, I note that as this debate is characteristically a robust debate, I would find it totally unacceptable, given the interjections on our colleague Mr Barker that have already occurred, if there were to be any expectation that the Government should sit quietly when provocative and inaccurate statements are being made to the House by the Leader of the Opposition.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member’s points are debatable. I remind members again that these are 5-minute speeches only, and members should have a fair go. I also remind members about speaking during points of order and when I am ruling on a point of order. The member did interject earlier. He was lucky, and it will not be tolerated again.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I very specifically named three members who had breached the Standing Orders in a way that has, according to recent Speakers’ rulings, resulted in members being required, at least, to apologise. I request that you apply those standards to them.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take the member’s point. I have already ruled on that matter. Speaking while points of order are being heard will not be tolerated. All members have now been warned.

It turns out that the non-negotiable position of Helen Clark has now become negotiable. The Government’s legislation—which the Government stated it would certainly carry out—to settle the issue of title, will now be negotiated between the Government and the Māori caucus in the committee that has been set up. The Māori caucus position is quite clear. Its members say that customary title exists, and the Government stated the other day that it did not. Helen Clark has changed her mind in 2 days of pressure from the Māori caucus. She said that the Government would definitely introduce legislation to settle the issue of customary title, but we are now being told by the Government that, first, no decision has been made to extinguish customary title. That is the first we have heard of it.

It turns out that all those newspapers—the New Zealand Herald, the Dominion Post, the Christchurch Press—and Morning Report and the commercial radio stations were all wrong. The Government never stated that, apparently. That is the first point. The Government said it never actually made that decision, when it has been all over the news for 2 days. Secondly, it has now decided to negotiate it. Here is the question, asked by my colleague Stephen Franks: what is it that the Government plans to negotiate away?

What rights that all New Zealanders have now will be negotiated away in a backroom, in a committee set up by the Government, to try to settle the problems it has created with its Māori caucus? Helen Clark, the Prime Minister who means what she says, and who has backed down in 2 days, owes it to New Zealand to tell us what rights New Zealanders have that she will negotiate away. So much for the Prime Minister who means what she says. She said on Monday that she would settle the issue of customary title. We are told today that it will be negotiated by a committee of Government and Māori MPs.

In recent weeks in this House, a great deal of attention has been placed on events in other parts of the world, but this afternoon I want to refer to a rising arc of instability in a region much closer to home—namely, the Pacific. In recent years we have endured the consequences of a coup in Fiji. We now face considerable unrest in the Solomon Islands, with Tonga likely to go the same way if continuing anti-democratic trends prevail. The Geneva Small Arms Survey tells us that there are some 3.1 million small arms in the possession of citizens in the Pacific Islands, which is something like 14 times greater than the number of arms in the possession of the combined military forces of those islands. Over the last 30 years we have seen some $50 billion of US foreign aid dedicated to the Pacific Islands, yet cumulative growth rates are around only 1 percent at the present time. The economic breakdown in the Pacific is leading to a civil breakdown. That needs to be of concern to this country, because it is within our part of the world that this is happening.

I know that the tradition, which we are now seeing repeated, has been to let the so-called “Pacific Way” solve those problems. The Biketawa Declaration, which has been entered into, is an attempt to foreshadow, or forestall, the ongoing lethargy in terms of dealing with those crises, but, frankly, it is not working. I am concerned when I see the situation in the Solomons today, where there are warlords like Harold Keke running rampant, and the Government of Sir Allan Kemakeza almost on the point of collapse, and where we have New Zealand playing a role in terms of trying to restore some civil order.

I then look at what is happening in Tonga, where we see an anti-democratic and potentially corrupt royal family taking most desperate actions to retain power by subverting the constitution of that country by removing rights of free speech and the right of appeal to the courts in certain circumstances. New Zealand timidly says that it is not happy, but that it will not do too much more. I worry about the consequences of that instability so close to home, particularly when we see the Government of the People’s Republic of China making significant diplomatic approaches to Tonga, offering assistance and aid to bolster its position in this part of the world, while at the same time as its rival the Republic of China on Taiwan is making similar diplomatic entrées into the Solomons. The conflict across the straits of Taiwan does not need to be replicated in this part of the world, and I am concerned—very concerned, in fact—that in this country we are not doing enough to deal with the potential upheaval that lies ahead. I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade is due to meet his Australian counterpart at the end of this week, or next week. It is important that action be initiated as a result of those discussions and that we do not simply rely on the Pacific forum meeting to be held in New Zealand in August to convey some diplomatic niceties to these offending states and basically to let things go on the way we are.

There has been controversy about whether our head of State should attend the birthday celebrations of the King of Tonga. The decision has been made that she should go. She goes with our blessing and our goodwill, and I hope she is safe. The point is that, in a symbolic way, that is giving succour to the anti-democratic provisions of that regime and to the intentions of this country to appear to stand quietly by while the instability around us mounts.

A few years ago New Zealand took a very strong stand against undemocratic moves in Fiji. At the time we were criticised by some for intervening; by others we were criticised for not going far enough. I believe we face the same dilemma today. New Zealand and Australia have a role to play. We need to be concerned about our well-being in a strategic sense. Some have referred to a benign strategic environment. I believe that is no longer the case, if it ever was. The situation that we face with mounting concern in the Pacific requires attention from this Government.

In question time this afternoon the Minister of Foreign and Affairs and Trade was quick to point out the steps that New Zealand has taken with regard to what is seen as an anti-democratic regime in Myanmar. That is fair enough, but let us come closer to home and recognise the threat that potentially exists on our own doorstep, especially if the economic and social breakdown in those countries leads to greater superpower involvement, greater rivalry. If we see the Chinese come in and start to play a significant role in Tonga, it is only a while before the United States joins in and it is all on.

A wise man said recently that the only safe place for a sane person in a mad world is a lunatic asylum, and today I fully understand what that wise man meant. Policies of madness followed by Labour and National Governments over two decades have led us to a constitutional crisis over who owns our foreshores, seabed, and other resources. This madness was the development of a befuddled series of laws relating to the Treaty of Waitangi, and the separation of the people of New Zealand into two groups of citizens: one group with special rights based on race, the other group with none. It is time to repeal the mythical Treaty of Waitangi principles in New Zealand laws. It is time to create a State in which all citizens are equal in the eyes of one set of laws.

Today Sir Paul Reeves, the chairman of the Bioethics Council, told the Education and Science Committee that the set of principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that he goes by are those set down by Cabinet. That will come as an alarming piece of information because Cabinet has not set down any principles whatsoever. Later on he claimed that politicians have been remiss for not having clearly established a set of principles of the treaty for the public to operate under. That comment was from a person who has been recommended to head the panel on who will choose our new Supreme Court judges.

All of us, Māori or otherwise, should be able to rely on the legal rights that British subjects have enjoyed—rights that go back to the Magna Carta. There must be one set of laws for us all. It is totally incomprehensible to any sane person that on 5 February 1840 Queen Victoria had one relationship with millions of her subjects throughout the empire and in England, yet the next day she had a different relationship with Māori. It is all based on a myth. The Treaty of Waitangi was part of the colonising process. It was drawn up in the dead of night by a naval officer, and was never, and must never, be seen as some sort of binding legal document. There is no legal partnership between Māori and the Crown. It is a myth, despite the comments made by some judicial activists and a whole lot of politicians on both sides of this House. We are not, in a strict legal sense, treaty partners. The idea that we are a partnership came from a 1987 decision that was not sound in law, and it has been taken up ever since by the National Party, and Labour, and carried on as though it is some sort of mantra that we must have as a guide for the future. It is unfair and unjust that principles ascribed to the treaty be used to advance the interests of one section of society as opposed to the society as a whole.

All Governments must be fair and neutral in matters of race. We have faced many decades of divisive arguments over Māori claims for environmental resources. These claims have been based on false hopes and expectations that have been built up by woolly-headed lawmakers. We in New Zealand First do not intend for those who are responsible for this mess, both in Labour and National and other parties, to get away with just washing their hands and walking away from the issue. They are all guilty—they should look at the Hansard—of, year in and year out, compiling this mess. The present situation, which is causing concern to all New Zealanders, has been caused by the policy that some citizens have special or antecedent rights and privileges extending over every natural resource in this land and the surrounding sea. We cannot function as a country if there is politically and legally sanctioned racial preferment for one racial group. It tore South Africa apart, it tore the south of the United States apart, and it will tear this country apart if we carry on the way we are going.

New Zealand First will support any move to ensure that the Crown has legal title to the foreshore and seabed. We also seek assurances that legal title extends to other parts of the environment where ownership could be disputed. The Prime Minister has made one public statement—editorial writers have said that she is doing the right thing—yet she came to this House today and wantonly denied what she said to the public of New Zealand, both in the media and elsewhere. Māori traditional rights of use must be protected, but those rights cannot be extended to property ownership on the basis of race. Wherever this has happened in the world it has caused racial disaster. Both Labour and National Governments have created this mess. They thought that they could construct laws based on three Treaty of Waitangi articles that were never and could never be a basis for sound constitutional Government.

There is only one answer to this issue, and that is to repeal all these treaty principle - based laws, because not one of them can tell us what these principles are. We are all equal in this country, and we must all be equal in the eyes of the law. In my view, the Māori people would be happy to rely upon those ancient rights, which go all the way back to the Magna Carta, upon which the British people relied—and so should we. To have a separate series of laws being constructed by these people here, who are totally woolly in their approach, is very serious for this country’s long-term future.

Leadership is about drawing people together, not dividing them. Leadership is about inspiring a country to aim for a community that grows together; where people are valued, not divided; where hatred is not fanned, but acceptance, tolerance, and the celebration of diversity are positive ambitions for our country. Mr Peters has just spoken about South Africa. He said that our country was becoming like South Africa. Actually, leadership in South Africa was about Mandela drawing races together. It was about stopping the division of people, and it was about ending racism, not promoting it.

Mr Peters spent the previous election campaign dividing people in this country, inspiring fear in migrant communities, telling some people in New Zealand that they are not welcome, and promoting dangerous stereotypes about people, and he has continued to do so in this House. Mr English spoke earlier in this debate. He has recently scuttled off to Washington. What did he do while he was there? He talked to his friends there. He talked about how New Zealand has played a role in the Iraqi war that has not been very positive. That is the message he gave. In the last few months this House has been subject to all sorts of comments about how the Government’s foreign policy has compromised a supposed free-trade agreement with the United States. Mr English has not been loyal to this country. He has not promoted the interests of New Zealand. He has attempted to divide this community and divide our country internationally.

Just a few days ago, I returned from the fifty-fifth International Whaling Commission conference in Berlin. I was proud to speak on behalf of New Zealand about conservation. What I was doing was building on a tradition that this country has held on conservation for many, many years under a variety of different Governments. In this Chamber there are former National Ministers who went to these conferences before me, and we have spoken from the same lines. We have sung the same song, and New Zealand has achieved credit for that. We have worked closely with like-minded countries, and we have shown leadership in conservation. Members may contrast that with the behaviour of Mr Peters, who goes around dividing communities, and promoting anxiety and hatred in this country. He is fanning stereotypes about races. Members may contrast the behaviour at the International Whaling Commission conference, where people were working towards saving whales, with the actions of Mr English, who has done nothing but denigrate our country, denigrate this Government, and divide us from countries that we have worked closely with in the past. That says a lot about leadership. It says a lot about leadership from this Government, which seeks to draw communities together.

Tonight, at 6 o’clock, I will have the privilege of launching an advertising campaign, funded by McCann-Erickson, here at Parliament. The campaign seeks to dispel some of the stereotypes that Mr Peters has promoted in this country. The campaign challenges people to think about the fact that New Zealand is now a country of many faces. It is composed of different people of different cultures, and different ethnicities. What we say to those people is that every New Zealander is valued in this country, and every New Zealander should feel safe. [Interruption] We have heard some criticism from Mr Peters. He has called the campaign “Hug a migrant.” Actually, if hugging a migrant leads to people feeling more comfortable, safer, and part of this country, then I am happy to do that. The campaign is sending a message that New Zealand is a place where all New Zealanders should feel safe. It is a leadership role that this Government is prepared to undertake. It is a message this Government is prepared to send out. The Government is saying that every Kiwi in this country is valued. We are in fact, all of us, the descendents of migrants—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, we are not.

—some of whom came here a long time ago.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, we are not.

Mr Peters is saying he is not the descendant of a migrant. [Interruption] He is Scottish. How did his ancestors get here? They were, of course, migrants. Some of them came very early, during the first Polynesian migration. Some of them came from Scotland much more recently. I, like everyone else in this House, am the descendant of migrants. Those migrants have contributed to building this wonderful country of ours, and to developing the strong economy we have, and we value the energy that migrants bring. They also contribute enormously to the development of our economy. Without migration we would not be able to meet the skills shortage that we have in our country, we would not be able to build a stronger economy, and we would not be able to have linkages with other countries. All those things are very important. But I come back to what I talked about at the beginning of my speech: leadership is about drawing people together.

We know the Government is in trouble when it sends the “B team” down here to try to defend its position. Why send the “B team”? Because today all the heavyweight Ministers in the entire Māori caucus are locked in a battle of dialogue up on the seventh floor of the Beehive. They are trying to sort out who owns the foreshore and seabed of this country. I tell members that this is a Government that, in 2 years’ time, will have a legacy of being shifty, two-faced, reckless with the truth, and hell-bent on destroying the social fabric of this country. Every major newspaper in this country, every major radio station in this country, and every major television station in this country is telling us: “Don’t panic. The Court of Appeal decision that is going to allow the Māori to claim all the foreshore, all the seabed, all the launching pads, all the fishing grounds, and all the marinas around this country will not have any effect because Helen Clark says that the Government is going to legislate away that entitlement.” What did we get today, though—the Government having solved the public’s concern to some extent over this? The Prime Minster scurried into the House, and quietly conceded that she and her Government are about to role over to the Māori caucus, and allow them in fact to make those very claims.

I want to speak on behalf of the thousands of New Zealanders who enjoy going to the beach, enjoy going fishing, and enjoy gathering a bit of shellfish from the beach, because those people are about to lose a right that they thought was their birthright as New Zealanders. My family have held the title to a property in the Marlborough Sounds for almost 130 years. There are now some 130 or more of us who would claim that that place is our tūrangawaewae, and everything that that might mean, and who would claim that we are tangata whenua for that particular piece of property. I say to Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark that for them to suggest that somehow 130 years of right in this country can be expunged on the basis of someone else’s customary claim is an absolute nonsense. Further, I say that that property in 1962 was subject, by a law passed in this House, to the relinquishing of a riparian right; the right to claim ownership of the foreshore of that particular property. My family did not stand in the way of that. They quite happily moved a small dwelling from the foreshore on the basis that they believe, and I believe, that every New Zealander has a right to walk around the external parts of this country, and every New Zealander has a right to walk over a beach any time they like. Any New Zealander has a right to land their boat on any beach, anywhere in this country. For this Government to start saying that it will allow Māori to say: “We have a customary right to these properties.” is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage.

Government members need to know that in all sorts of bars, cafes, clubs, workplaces, and homes around this country, a discussion is taking place that is not favourable to them. Helen Clark, the Prime Minster, may think that she has been very clever, getting a shot away in every newspaper and saying that the Government is going to fix the problem, but one cannot deceive all the people all the time, as the great Abraham Lincoln said. It will be only a matter of time before people wake up and realise that we have a Government that is much more interested in preserving the Māori vote it gets than it is in the interests of all New Zealanders.

I say to so many Māori in this country who will get no benefit out of this, at all: “What is the point of supporting and promoting something as hopelessly divisive as this? Where is the progress for the country if Māori are going to stand up and attempt to take on the whole nation on this sort of basis?” I would have expected that a Prime Minister who wanders out there confident that she has such a huge amount of support and mana in the community, might take a stronger leadership role in making it very clear to the unfortunates who sit in the Māori caucus—who do not, frankly, give a toss about the rank and file Māori in this country—that they are not going to have a win on this one.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the excellent speech from my colleague Gerry Brownlee, the Minister of Education saw fit to repeat, over and over again, the words “Tory scumbags”, and all sorts of other abuse. I want to have some reassurance from you, as the Deputy Speaker—and you sat there with a big smile on your face—that you think that is appropriate conduct within the House, noting that you were on a select committee when I used language far less robust than that and you and the Minister insisted on my being kicked out.

I was making clear to the House that there is inconsistency in the behaviour of Mr Brownlee—his criticism of anyone who is brown and has rights to the foreshore, yet his condoning of the Riddiford family, major funders of the National Party, who have exactly those rights presently.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member was getting into debatable points there. The point is that a comment was made and objection was not taken to it at the time.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled.

I raise a new point of order, Madam Speaker. You have had the point made to you by the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Education deliberately does this. The reason I did not interrupt is that if I interrupt a 5-minute speech, as occurred quite successfully by deliberate tactic by the Minister of Education on the Leader of the Opposition, one breaks up the member’s speech. That is why we have a Chair in the House. If you are not going to stand up for the Standing Orders of this House, I suggest you get someone else to do the job.

The Standing Orders of this House are quite clear—that is, if members take objection they have an obligation to take objection at the time. Dr Nick Smith did make some very rude gratuitous remarks to you during Mr Brownlee’s speech. We heard them over here and we decided it was not appropriate to interrupt, on that basis.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it a new point of order?

Yes, it is. Just a few moments ago, in taking a point of order, the Hon Trevor Mallard made strong suggestions that my speech was in some way influenced by factors outside the House. I never mentioned the family that he spoke of. I made no reference to any other New Zealanders, and most certainly did not indicate—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no.

Well, I will take a personal statement, if we cannot deal with it this way, because I have taken offence and, on that basis, there is a requirement on the Chair to listen. I think it is highly offensive for Mr Mallard to suggest that, simply because I go into bat for the thousands of New Zealanders who want to retain ownership of the foreshore, I am in some way advocating an impingement of rights that might properly belong to the Māori people. My record is most certainly not consistent with that, and I ask that the Minister be required to withdraw and apologise for the insult.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister certainly, when he spoke to that point of order, was making a debatable point. I ask the Minister to stand and withdraw that remark about the point that the member has taken offence to.

I withdraw.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Matt Robson.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He cannot withdraw by way of a whisper. Let us have it nice and loud, like he objected.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have dealt with the matter. I call the Hon Matt Robson.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have dealt with that point of order. Is this a new point of order?

Yes, it is. I would appreciate it, in the context of the insult offered, and for total clarification for all members in this House, if the Minister’s withdrawal was now translated.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have dealt with the point of order—

I am entitled to ask for anything to be translated. It is the official language of this House, and I would like it translated.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The comment was withdrawn, and that is the end of the matter. I call the Hon Matt Robson.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

No, it’s not.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, please be seated.

No.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. I have dealt with that matter. I remind members that raising points of order when I have ruled on the point of order is, in itself, disorderly. I call the Hon Matt Robson.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker .

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it a new point of order?

With respect, Madam Speaker, you have not ruled on the question of the translation. My understanding is that, as a member of this House, I am entitled to ask for a translation, and I am asking for it.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member there is no right to ask for a remark in English to be interpreted.

Well, how two-faced is that!

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask Mr Brownlee to stand and apologise for that remark. I am asking the member again to stand, withdraw, and apologise for that last remark.

I withdraw the remark.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw the remark, and apologise.

With respect, Madam Speaker—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no—

I apologise, and I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Why was the Minister not required to apologise for his offensive remarks? Why is it that people on this side of the House get different treatment from the Chair, when there are different people in the Chair? It is not acceptable. If the Minister was required to withdraw a remark, he should be required to apologise for that remark. It was offensive, and it continues to be offensive.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member, quite rightly, was asked to withdraw and apologise. I have ruled on the previous matter. I call the Hon Matt Robson.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

No, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. That, in itself, is the end of the matter. It is disorderly to continue to argue with the Chair on a matter that has been ruled on. I so warn the member.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

It is a point of clarification.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it a new point of order?

Yes, it is a point of clarification, and it is new. I am simply asking why a member was not required to apologise for an offensive remark.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will be seated. I have previously dealt with that matter. That is the end of the matter.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

Yes. I am seeking clarification. Mr Brownlee’s comment was a question, and he had to withdraw and apologise. We had a specific insult from the Government member, and he has not had to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the Minister was asked to withdraw. That is the end of the matter. I call the Hon Matt Robson.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order? I will not tolerate continual points of order on this.

Of course it is a new point of order. Since you asked the Minister Mr Trevor Mallard to withdraw, which he did by way of a whisper, he has since uttered the same remarks, which I have heard and which I find grossly offensive. I have taken offence, and I ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise. While I am on my feet on this issue—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask Mr Mallard whether that is correct.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, I haven’t.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s word is accepted here. He said he has not uttered them.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Now we find ourselves in a dilemma. I have heard the member—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. I asked the member about that, and he said he did not repeat the comment. The member’s word is accepted. That is the end of the matter.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In other words, my word is not honourable, and the member’s is. I am not the only one, I can tell you, on this side of the House who has since heard that Minister utter words that I find insulting. I have heard the words; I can repeat them. I do not want to, but, if you need, I will repeat them.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. I asked the member and he said he had not repeated them. I must accept the member’s word. [Interruption] There will be no interruptions when I am giving a ruling. I have given the ruling to Mr Carter. I asked the member, and he said he did not repeat the words.

I think we should get absolutely clear what I did say. I did not repeat the comments after they were withdrawn. They were repeated several times before that, but not subsequently.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I know what the member is saying. I think to clarify the matter it would be better if the member stood, and withdrew and apologised, if he continued with those remarks.

I did not, subsequent to the withdrawal.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I realise the member did not comment subsequently. However, the words were repeated several times, and that is what the member has taken offence to. So I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a matter—[Interruption] Can I ask whether you are requiring me to do that.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I am requiring the member to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We now have a really interesting situation. There was no objection taken during the speech to the comments, which were well supported by Mr Edwin Perry from New Zealand First, who knows the case that I am talking about. There was no objection at that time. I submit to you that your ruling has been totally in breach of the Standing Orders and the requirement to raise matters at the time.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the matter has been dealt with. Offence was taken. The member has withdrawn and apologised. The matter has been dealt with.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

💬 Hon ROGER SOWRY: Yes, it is. I was listening to this debate on the radio in my office, and I came down because this has to be the third or fourth week in a row when the Opposition has faced—and I faced it myself as I led off the debate last week—an absolute barrage right through the general debate. I am asking you and the other presiding officers, when you next meet, whether you can address the issue of the general debate, and the fact that there is just a continual barrage. Today has been worse in the personal nature and nastiness of the comments from Mr Mallard, but in other weeks we have had a continual barrage. I do not expect a ruling now, but I ask if you and the Speaker, at your meeting with the presiding officers, can consider perhaps making sure that the Government members are not allowed to disrupt the debate in the way that they have become accustomed to doing.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I tell Mr Sowry that a certain amount of leniency, as he knows, is always allowed in the general debate. There has certainly been a barrage from all sides. The points of order have been dealt with now, and they were dealt with when they arose.

That time-wasting shows why the National Party is the preferred party for staying in Opposition, by a thumping majority in public opinion polls, and the Labour-Progressive Government is the preferred Government.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot refer to a ruling that has been given.

I apologise Madam Speaker. Last week ACT and the Greens voted together against our coalition Government on the supplementary estimates, just as ACT had earlier in the month voted to support the Greens vote of no confidence in the 2003 Budget. ACT and the Greens voted against the boy racer law, which makes our community safer. No doubt the libertarian ideals of ACT will see it line up with the Greens to vote against stronger action to combat the curse of methamphetamines. Strangely, our centre-left Government gets more consistent support from United Future than from the Greens.

But last week was a shocker, when only ACT and the Greens voted against the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill, which will establish a one-stop shop for New Zealand business. These parties hate New Zealand succeeding so much that they vote against the agencies that are helping to build the capability and capacity of our firms, industry sectors, and regions to develop and create job opportunities for our people. It is irrational ideology that drives those parties.

I wish to outline how successful the Government agencies are with the efforts to assist local firms to prosper and create jobs. I could give a catalogue of successes, but will give only a few, as time permits. Everywhere people tell us that their region is doing better than it ever did under National-led Governments, which had no regional development programmes as a matter of principle. There are 26 regional partnership plans in operation up and down New Zealand. In each community, leaders in business are sitting around the table with iwi and local and central government. All work together to develop positive plans to build on this growth, and develop more jobs and opportunities. The Labour-Progressive Government is popular in the regions because we have reversed National’s do-nothing policies.

Our coalition Government has provided $30 million for fully funded regional roading to be built each year, much of it in one of our most neglected regions, Northland. The Far North District Mayor, Yvonne Sharp, has acknowledged the benefits that this funding is able to bring to the region in a newspaper column and in a letter to the Minister for Economic Development: “The announcement that the Far North District would receive $9.7 million totally subsidised regional development roading fund for the current year is amazingly positive for the district. For years there has been a stripping of infrastructure from rural areas such as ours, and our communities have suffered accordingly. The Government in 1999 gave a commitment to position regional development partnerships, and there was no way that Northland could have coped with the forthcoming ‘wall of wood’ without also having direct intervention from Government.”

The enterprises flourishing because of the policy of regional and industry partnerships are numerous. Where does the best-designed chair in the world come from? It comes from New Zealand and is the Formway chair. It won a gold medal at the prestigious NeoCon international furniture exhibit in Chicago. The company received assistance from the Business Grow service of both Technology New Zealand and Industry New Zealand. Auckland-based Reed Publishing, New Zealand’s oldest publishing house, has been working with Industry New Zealand to gain market information for a major initiative in South-east Asian markets through its links with other companies. It has expanded its product range, particularly in the area of educational publications. Palmerston North’s Tomorrow Today International designs and makes hockey goalkeeping equipment. It has been receiving advice from Industry New Zealand. It now has 60 percent of the world market with its OBO brand. With Industry New Zealand advice, it is intending to expand its products into cricket equipment.

Another company that Industry New Zealand has worked with is Visible Results. It manufactures and supports retail loyalty card systems around the world. It is part of the Atlantis Group, which was judged last year as the second-fastest growing company in New Zealand. The revolutionary loyalty cards, which transfer information at point of sale, allow the company to sell its cards in Japan, Singapore, the USA, and Australia. Further markets are being sought in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe.

Another New Zealand success story is Fraser Fire and Rescue in Wellington. Three years ago the manager turned up at a public meeting to ask some hard questions, after being ignored by the previous Government. Industry New Zealand met with him. As a result of the meetings, the firm tendered for and won a contract to supply fire engines to South Australia. On the basis of this, and some more advice, the company’s recent tender to the New Zealand Fire Service was successful. Recently, the company deservedly won nomination in the Wellington Gold Business Awards.

These are but some examples of how businesses and enterprises are being established and/or expanded, and are contributing to strong export growth. They result from an active regional and economic development policy whereby the Government, on a planned basis, works in partnership with regions and industry.

The news of the collapse of the multinational company PPL Therapeutics, and its decision to pull the plug on most of its genetic engineering (GE) experiments around the world, including those on its farm in the Waikato where it is breeding up to 3,000 GE sheep—sheep with a human gene inserted into them—raises many questions. The company has said in recent press releases that it will be liquidating all of its operations, including its New Zealand operation, but it has also said that it may just be putting its research on hold. The Environmental Risk Management Authority has said, in response to that, that if the farm were to close, the sheep would be destroyed—specifically, they would be incinerated, all 3,000 of them, or maybe 4,000 because there are 4,000 sheep altogether. But then the authority went on to say that the company had not notified it of what it will do with the sheep.

This raises questions—questions that we asked the Minister in the House and she refused to answer—as to what exactly is the status of this operation, and what exactly will happen to those sheep. When does the approval for PPL Therapeutics’ transgenic sheep trial end? Is there any time limit, or any limit on the time that PPL Therapeutics can keep its project on hold while it decides what to do? If the company puts the project on hold indefinitely, what will happen to the 4,000 sheep in the meantime? The sheep are breeding; they are about to breed some more within the next month. Is an Environmental Risk Management Authority approval for a project specific to the applicant, or can it be transferred willy-nilly to other entities such as, perhaps, AgResearch, which has fifty-fifty ventures with PPL Therapeutics for various other GE projects? The Minister implied in her answer today that another company could quite simply take over the operation, and it could continue. I think that is an extraordinary comment or statement that has very significant implications.

Who will be responsible for carrying out controls and for disposing of the 4,000 animals by killing and incinerating them, in the event that the company just goes bankrupt, does a runner, for example? Why was there not a requirement that PPL Therapeutics, and any other company engaged in this sort of research, provide a clean-up bond, to be used in the event that it went into liquidation and could not carry out all the controls imposed on its approval, and as would be required, for example, of a mining operation? These are important questions, and they have implications not just for this particular experiment, for these 3,000 genetically engineered sheep that are ambling around in the Waikato, but also for all other applications to the Environmental Risk Management Authority. We will be pursuing these questions until we get answers.

Some more fundamental questions are raised, as well. Why was this massive experiment, involving placing human genes into thousands of sheep to produce a protein in their milk, allowed to take place before the protein had even been tested to see whether it was medically successful—before clinical trials had demonstrated that the human protein the sheep were going to produce was a valid and useful treatment? Why did the Environmental Risk Management Authority not require the applicant to wait until clinical trials of the particular protein that were being conducted in the UK and the USA had been successfully concluded before it gave permission for the company to breed such a large-scale manufacturing flock? How could the authority say that the benefits of this project outweighed the risks, when the benefits had not even been demonstrated? They have now, of course, been shown to be completely illusory. If the authority had taken that precautionary approach, as it is supposed to do under its mandate, we would not be facing the prospect of 4,000 sheep in a project that has failed being incinerated.

Other questions include why the authority gave permission for PPL Therapeutics to breed a manufacturing flock—and the permission was for up to 10,000 transgenic sheep—as a so-called field trial, when it demonstrably was not a field trial.

This afternoon’s debate has been quite interesting in that it has really shown up the deficiencies of the Opposition. There are so many issues to discuss and so many interesting things are happening in our country, and what do those members do? They raise pointless, pernickety points of order that go on and on and on. Members’ day is one of those days when people come along here to listen to what they think will be good speeches and interesting discussion, but Opposition members can find nothing better to do than to make fools of themselves through their points of order.

It is interesting that today the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated just why he cannot seem to get any traction, either personally or for his party, in the opinion polls. He led his party’s attack on the Prime Minister, and did his best to convince New Zealand that Helen Clark, through her principled stand against the Iraq war, has ruined New Zealand’s chances of a free-trade deal with the United States. It is interesting that that campaign that Bill English led had no success, even though the National Party managed to get the media to put it on the front pages of newspapers a couple of weeks ago. What happened when the polls were taken? What result did the polls show? They showed National going down, not up. National is going down again. The Colmar Brunton poll held on 15 June—after National had done its worst—showed Labour at 54 percent and National at 28 percent. Helen Clark, as preferred Prime Minister, came in at 44 percent. Bill English came in at 7 percent, which is not too good.

The reason is that New Zealanders know that the National Party is not consistent. After all the fuss about Helen Clark scuttling the free-trade deal with the US, what did Bill English say on Morning Report on Friday, 20 June? He said, talking about the Americans: “In fact they are often at pains here in any of the discussions we’ve had to say that both the Iraq war - type decision and nuclear policy are separate from how they treat trade. In fact, one of the things that has come through is that the US only does trade agreements where it believes there’s a net economic benefit to the US. They don’t do them as a favour to anyone else; they do them as a favour to themselves.” That is what Bill English said on Friday, 20 June, and it was absolutely in direct contrast to all the things he said in this House when he accused the Prime Minister of ruining, because of our principled stand against the war in the Iraq, New Zealand’s chances of a free-trade deal,.

Well, the people of New Zealand did not believe him, and they showed that very clearly in their responses in the opinion poll. They showed that they did not believe that our Prime Minister had done anything to hurt our country’s chances for a free-trade agreement, and Bill English himself then admitted that what he had said and tried to put forward to the New Zealand people was in fact an absolute fabrication. It had no basis in fact, at all. Unfortunately, what happens when one tries to mislead the people is they realise they are being misled and they do not take kindly to it; nor do they take kindly to parties and politicians who do that.

It was interesting this afternoon to hear the leader of New Zealand First suggest that this nation should repudiate the Treaty of Waitangi—the foundation on which this country is built. That is typical of the man, who said in 1996: “Vote for New Zealand First—the only party that can get rid of the National Government.” And what did he do? As soon as he had the balance of power he went into coalition with the National Party and kept that National Government in power.

💬 Mark Peck: Great success!

Oh, that was a great success for both those parties—they have never looked back, have they!

Is it not appalling that we see on the front page of the New Zealand Herald eight Māori Labour members of Parliament, two Ministers amongst them, saying to Helen Clark “Stick it!”? They are saying that they are not putting up with what she has to say to New Zealand about foreshore and seabed, and that they will play tough and walk out on her. Of those eight Māori Labour members of Parliament, two are Māori Ministers, who, I understand, have Cabinet responsibilities, and they are saying to their leader, Helen Clark: “Stick it! We’re not accepting this.”

I will tell members why this has happened. As those eight Māori members of Parliament walk out on their leader, Helen Clark, she backpedals over public opinion, and that is what happens when you run the country on focus groups—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member should not bring me into the debate.

I say to New Zealand that this Prime Minister runs the country on focus groups, and it appears that the Māori Labour members of Parliament have had a gutsful of that.

Those Māori Labour Party members of Parliament—who will not show up in this House today—think that the Labour Party will lead a committee that will engage with the Māori caucus to explore the definition, application, and implementation of Māori customary rights to the seabed and foreshore. They think there is going to be another hui. Well, I will tell them what Helen Clark’s Minister, Margaret Wilson, said on the front page of the Northern Advocate. She said there would be no hui. She said that the Crown would clarify that the seabed and the foreshore were owned by all New Zealanders, in the form of the Crown. She said that everybody had always believed that that situation already existed, but the Court of Appeal ruling had shown that the law was unclear. What Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark are saying to the nation is that the seabed and foreshore are not under threat. The Māori caucus is hearing from Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson that there will be more hui on the matter. Whom do we believe? The Labour Party caucus is all over the paddock on this issue. Its leader is backpedalling again, against public opinion, and that is happening simply because she is trying to run the country on focus groups.

I do not know who is in most trouble—Margaret Wilson, Helen Clark, or the Minister of Fisheries, Pete Hodgson. I remember that he had eight hui throughout this country to establish with Māori their rights with regard to the aquaculture law reforms. Would they get a slice of space when it came to marine farming? He had eight hui around the country. In that process he promised, through a letter to Māori: “The process is to establish, with specific considerations, how appropriate Māori participation in the process can be ensured.” He said he “wanted to know a mechanism to preserve the Crown’s capacity to protect Māori interests”. He held eight meetings around the country to talk to Māori, and I want to know whether he told them he was going to legislate over their rights. Did he tell them that, or did Māori come back to him at those hui and say that they would love him to legislate over their rights?

The last member described the Māori interests in this country as a focus group. He picked up this morning’s paper, which reports on one of the most seminal decisions from our Court of Appeal in recent years, did not bother to read it, but pointed to photographs in the paper of MPs in the Māori caucus who promoted the debate, and described them as a focus group. If that party listened to focus groups, then it would not be in the position of having a disappearing membership in this House. When that member asks where the Māori members are, I ask him where are those in his own party? The one Māori member stays out of this Parliament when that member discusses his focus group, alias Māori members of this party, Government, and population. That is a most important decision.

What is the National Party’s position on that? It is easy to snipe. It is easy to interpret open discussion that is the feature of this Government, and say that there is division, when what we are discussing is a most serious issue, with sniping, ridicule, racist attitudes, and not one positive assertion of what the National Party, or its acolyte, New Zealand First, would do if they had to make the decision.

If the National Party listened to focus groups it would not have released its welfare dependency programme of several months ago. On top of that was its failed work-for-the-dole scheme that it experimented with in 1998, which was a dismal failure.

Who are the people on the dole in this country? They are people on the domestic purposes benefit, and who are they? The typical domestic purposes benefit client is a woman in her 30s with one or two children. She has been through a relationship breakdown and is likely to stay on the domestic purposes benefit for a year or two before moving off the benefit. Why kick people in that position? Why attack them for being bludgers when they are providing the upbringing of our young people who are the future of this country?

Then they attack that next hoary shibboleth—teenage sole parents. But what are the facts about teenage sole parents? They make up a very small percentage of all our domestic purpose beneficiaries. Fewer than 3 percent are under 20. Where were the teenage parent education centres, which are now blossoming under our Minister of Education and this Government, during the National Government? They were nowhere to be seen. This Government is already well down the road to creating a welfare system that actively lifts people’s capacity to live and get a sustainable job in an increasingly demanding world.

In opening this debate, my colleague Rick Barker mentioned that from June 1999, under a National Government, to 30 May figures for this year, there was a 55,000 decrease in the number of unemployed. That is no fluke. That reflects 3 years, nearly 4 years, of sound Government, and a Government that provides work, training, opportunity, and makes work pay; provides more assistance to youth, mature, and migrant unemployed; provides more active case management; provides more assistance for sickness beneficiaries to recover and return to work; and ensures that invalid beneficiaries are assisted to work where possible. However, a statistic that that fails to mention is that in mid-1999 under a National Government the economic forecast of the unemployed was $900 million over the forecast now for this year. Nine-hundred million dollars has been saved by fine administration. So the public of New Zealand now has a very clear choice on welfare.

It gives me pleasure to rise in this debate, but I have to say something about that speech. It is like looking at a pair of cattle horns, is it not? There is a point here and a point there, and a lot of bull in-between. I would ask that member to just reflect on some of the things that he has espoused in this House. We do think that the member talks a lot of bull, for a highly qualified person.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member does not have to resort to that sort of comment. Please keep the language at least decent.

Talks a lot of cattle beast?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the member knows what I mean.

There are so many issues that I could talk about. I could talk about the debacle on home detention, and the debacle we have witnessed with immigrant crime being ignored, because, obviously, it does not happen. I could talk about the young lad in Dunedin who killed a woman on a pedestrian crossing and got 200 hours community work for it: cheap life.

However, I shall focus on an issue that is seriously important to this country, and one that is being ignored. With the debate that is happening in the House today, one of the tragedies will be that the media will not give this issue the coverage it deserves. I want to talk about the appalling situation that exists within our Defence Force manning, or personnel and staffing. I have raised the question in the House today and asked the Minister directly how the New Zealand Defence Force is meant to achieve its mission statement, as outlined in that Government document, the New Zealand Defence Force Departmental Forecast, when it is critically understaffed. We have seen a report in the Sunday Star-Times outlining the deficiencies, and that report has now been reproduced on the front page of the Australian in Australia for the whole world to read just how bad the situation is.

And how bad is it? I shall read directly from the documents provided to this Government by its own advisers—by the Defence Force. In relation to the Navy—and it is important that this be in Hansard—there are significant shortages amongst qualified seamen, marine engineers, and communicators. The diving support capability is also affected by the shortage of trained divers; the planned increase in the number of naval vessels will exacerbate the shortages. The Navy is 25 percent deficient in numbers of lieutenants and leading hands.

In relation to the Army: the Army continues to suffer acute shortages of staff and experienced personnel, and that is where the problem is. At the rank of corporal, 19 out of the 34 trades have a greater than 30 percent deficiency. At the sergeant level, 16 out of 34 trades have a greater than 30 percent deficiency. Some $750 million worth of light armoured vehicles have been bought. The Army is particularly concerned about the three soldier trade areas of crewmen, vehicle mechanics, and electronic technicians. The laugh there is that after the Government has boasted that it is buying all that gear, it now appears that there will not be the personnel to drive those very expensive gold-plated machines. In terms of captains, only 186 substantive captains are available out of 286 established positions.

Speaking of the Air Force, it is worthy of note that last year, for a period of 6 months, only three out of the required six crews were available to crew our maritime patrol force. That is appalling. The Defence Force is now telling the Government that it may well be that we are entering a situation where it can either deploy on operations, or train the next generation—rather than do both, as it currently does. What does that mean? It means that the viability of our Defence Force is questionable.

How did we get to that stage? It is very simple. The Government boasts that it has given three pay rises over 3 or 4 years, of something like $46 million. But I say to this Government that had it recognised the problems that it was facing, and the seriousness of them, it would have found the $46 million in 1 year, and so stemmed that outflow of critical, highly experienced tradesmen, tradeswomen, instructors, and supervisors.

This is an appalling situation that the Government is responsible for—no one else. It seems to be able to find endless amounts of money for the arts, and yacht races, but when it comes to finding the money upfront that it needs to keep our Defence Force personnel inside the Defence Force, it cannot find the money within anything less than 4 lousy years. I may be criticised by the Speaker and by other people for the opening of my speech, but I cannot think of a word that suitably, aptly, describes this Government’s attitude towards its defence forces, other than “cattle beast”.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.