General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I start today with a quote from the New Zealand Herald: “As time goes by and the Government gives no sign of stumbling, National’s position becomes desperate. Its members and supporters begin to despair that the party can pose a serious challenge to the Government, let alone restore the centre-right to power.”

Everyone knows, because history tells us, that the 20th century belonged to the National Party as the natural power of Government. What we have seen since 1999, however, is an already wounded National Party go into full collapse. First, National took out Mrs Shipley and replaced her with Mr English. The National Party was defeated in a second election. It has gone on to try Mr Don Brash. Unfortunately, he could not do much at all, so the National Party has turned to Mr Williamson, or at least he has turned to it, and advised it that it is not polling, not performing, and as a result, he is about to be thrown out of his own party. But what he did say is something that National is doing. Mr Williamson said that if National wants to get traction, it needs to focus and return to its core constituency.

The National Party today is more about focusing on other parties in this Parliament that are now its real enemies—New Zealand First, ACT, and United Future—rather than the Government. To survive, the National Party now has to fight off challenges from those three other centre-right parties. As a result, National has abandoned its mainstream position. Mr English, who once saw himself as a leader of a party that aspired to represent the majority, now looks for fewer and fewer supporters. He has slammed the door in the face of one group of New Zealanders after the other. Who amongst the Pacific Island community today would look to the National Party for leadership? None! Who amongst women would look to the National Party for leadership, apart from the wives of the people who are on the other side? Who amongst the new migrant community would look to the National Party? Who amongst young people would look to the ageing National Party? And who amongst low-income New Zealanders would look to the National Party? Absolutely none! As a result, National has got smaller and smaller by the day. Most noticeably, Māori can no longer look to the National Party, because they are explicitly no longer wanted.

It is this narrowing, desperate way of behaving by the National Party that has allowed it to begin to turn to using a platform in politics that any sensible mainstream politician would reject, and that is the politics of racism. The desperation for traction has seen Mr English prepared to try to rescue his party by setting one New Zealander against the other. He will divide New Zealanders so that he can try to survive.

Look no further than the foreshore debate, where Mr Cullen has reassured New Zealanders that the Government will act to uphold rights of public access to, and use of, the foreshore and seabed. The Government will also act to protect Māori customary rights, to the extent that they are not protected already. What we are looking for is a fair result for all to be achieved. What is the position of Mr English? Mr English has set out to inflame this issue by saying that Māori cannot be trusted and that they will block people from getting access to the foreshore. He has gone on to paint Māori as if they are about to claim every single grain of sand on our foreshore and stop people getting access to it.

All of us in this House have been a part of slanging matches in our political careers, but when we get to big issues all of us are expected to rise to the occasion. On occasions when our nation is at risk, when we are asked to put unity amongst New Zealanders first, and when we are supposed to identify our common purpose, that is when we become true politicians and true leaders. Mr English will be judged by history on the way he behaves on this issue. He will fail not just as a failing leader of a failing party. Mr English will fail as a New Zealander. That is how he will be judged.

“Mr Speaker, I wish to advise you that in accordance with my statement on Television One network news last night, I hereby resign my warrant as Minister of Immigration.” That is a quote from a letter that should have been on the Prime Minister’s desk first thing this morning.

That letter should have read: “I wish to advise you that in accordance with my statement on Television One network news last night, I hereby resign my warrant as Minister of Immigration. Ever since being appointed to that job I have struggled to grasp even the most basic understanding of immigration and population issues. Despite that, I have carried out Labour’s immigration policies in a diligent manner. I have brought in hundreds of thousands of people from the Third World and poured them into Auckland, where there are now serious social and physical problems. The Immigration Service, which I am responsible for, is run by senior officials who are either incompetent or corrupt, or both. I have been unable to detect that, even though I deal with them on a daily basis.

“One of my most embarrassing moments was during the Assignment television programme, when I vehemently denied the existence of immigration fraud. You will recall how I looked—like a startled possum caught by a headlight—when the programme recounted and demonstrated a number of very serious fraud cases.

“However, you must give me credit for sticking to the Government line that all immigrants and asylum seekers are noble people, and that the real problem is the racist attitude of New Zealand First. For the past 4 years, I have denied every claim that New Zealand First and the Rt Hon Winston Peters have made, despite considerable efforts to the contrary. I have repeatedly dodged, ducked, and dived away from every question raised in Parliament, even though it was my responsibility to be accountable to the people of New Zealand.

“However, I have been finally caught out over the arrival in New Zealand of a suspected Algerian terrorist, who is being kept here at the taxpayer’s expense—thus far, well in excess of $60,000. For some reason—I cannot explain it—an immigration official lied to the media about the suspected terrorist. That official was attending a Christmas party in my office at the time. Later, I also rang the media, but I cannot remember whether I told them the official was lying. Despite my best efforts in Parliament yesterday, I failed to explain why the official claimed that ‘everybody had agreed to lie in unison’. Later, in response to reporters’ questions, I foolishly said that I would resign if there had been an agreement to lie. The actual quote was: ‘if there had been an agreement to lie, yes, I would have to resign.’

“This morning a story in the New Zealand Herald revealed that officials lied to the Ombudsman, and now I am in donkey-deep. In Parliament this afternoon I tried to wriggle out of the mess I and my officials have created, by making a personal statement to the House. Unfortunately, New Zealand First was awake to my bluff and bravado, denied me leave, and I had to front up again in question time, with the disastrous results you are again aware of. Prime Minister, it is now obvious that I cannot continue as Minister of Immigration, because of my shortcomings and those of my officials. I will clear out my desk immediately. Yours sincerely, Lianne Dalziel, Minister of Immigration, until now.”

I want to table that letter later on. I will seek leave, and no doubt I will be given it. The letter is a model of latent honesty, of abject confession, and of the principle that I cannot quite remember, which says that people rise to their own level of incompetence.

💬 Rodney Hide: The “Peters principle”.

The “Peter principle”; it is singular, I tell Mr Hide. Literacy was not one of his greatest talents, was it? I seek leave to table that very, very important letter.

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

We have just heard a rather feeble attempt at humour. As one would say, the honourable member should not give up his day job—though we do know he seeks the cover of the night. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry. If members want to have a reasonable hearing, they will allow all members to have a reasonable hearing. I intend to do that today. I could not hear the honourable Minister. I ask her to continue.

I was just making the point to the Opposition that the honourable member who spoke before me should not give up his day job. But then I understand he has been working hard at night anyway, and therefore perhaps he can do both.

The Labour-led Progressive Government has just celebrated the first year of its second term with the publication of the highlights of our achievements. That publication demonstrates that we are not just a Government of useless words and slogans, but that we walk the talk and do what the Opposition National Party has been unable to do for this Government—that is, demonstrate what it stands for. It has been demonstrably clear to us all that the National Party led by, um, the honourable member opposite me, Mr English—still Mr English—has demonstrated that one cannot get credibility with the New Zealand public through a set of slogans. One of the famous slogans that reached no traction at all is that of the one standard of citizenship, which is frequently heard in connection with issues relating to the relationship between Māori and the Crown, and also with regard to the Treaty of Waitangi.

I have wondered why a man who has aspirations to lead the people of this country considers that he only wishes to lead about 20 percent of the country. Mr English refuses to acknowledge that we are now a changing society that requires a sort of leadership that will acknowledge diversity, be prepared to embrace and celebrate difference, and be prepared to represent everyone in this country, and that will not use that useless phrase of one standard of citizenship for a small group of people who are just like him—rather short, rather white, and rather narrow-minded.

I have wondered and reflected upon why it is that I hear from some members of the National Opposition that they do embrace a bipartisan approach to important issues relating to the treaty, yet at the same time we hear the contradiction of that coming from the Leader of the Opposition. I have wondered why Mr English has strayed so much from a path that I think summed up a very constructive approach to the treaty, which was given by the Hon Nick Smith when he gave his speech in the second reading of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Bill. At that point he was talking about various approaches to the treaty. I think he is worth quoting, because it demonstrates how far his leader has strayed from that approach.

The Hon Nick Smith said: “Perhaps the easiest approach is to do nothing and to sort of pretend that it never occurred. Perhaps some have thought that if we forget about it for long enough, then it will just go away. The problem”, said the Hon Nick Smith, “is that it will not go away and it has not gone away.” He was talking about the treaty. “Alternatively”, he said, “we could take the Khmer Rouge approach—the year zero approach. We do not care what happened; we do not want to know what happened. We could take the approach that history is just irrelevant. The problem with that sort of approach is that we cannot divorce our future from our past.”—take note of that, I tell Mr English. “Furthermore, there is much that is rich and good”, said the Hon Nick Smith, “about both our Maori and Pakeha history. If we want to cherish and value that which is good, we also have to acknowledge that which is not so good.”

Then the Hon Nick Smith went on to the third approach, the approach that was adopted by previous National Governments. He said: “The third approach that is encompassed in this Bill is probably the hardest of all, but it is certainly the right approach. It involves acknowledging that some things were wrong and that some people goofed—maybe deliberately, maybe through ignorance. While we cannot fix it all, while we cannot unwind history, we can make amends. We can acknowledge that what was wrong is wrong, and that to try to put these things right is the right thing to do.” Do the right thing, I tell Bill English.

Is it not interesting that Nick Smith said more worthwhile and insightful things in that one speech than Helen Clark has said about the treaty in 4 years as Prime Minister of this country? No Prime Minister in living memory has shown less willingness—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There will be no more interjections from that quarter, at all. That member interjected in the second person. He will not interject again during this 5 minutes, either.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will not have a point of order raised on it. The member will be seated.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member had better have a new one.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to refer me to the Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling that states that a Leader of the Opposition gets special protection.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I can. Every person is entitled to have interjections made in the third person. The member knew he interjected in the second person. I rule in that way now.

No Prime Minister in New Zealand has shown less willingness than Helen Clark to face the responsibilities of being the leader of this country, which are to talk openly and courageously with the New Zealand public about the significance of the treaty and what the Government will do about it.

I am fascinated to find that the Government now describes the position National has taken as “inciting racial hatred”, because the person who first took that position was Helen Clark. She came out on 19 June and said: “We will legislate to ensure that the Crown has title to the beaches and the foreshore.” She is the person who said that first. That is not the only thing; Labour claimed that that statement had boosted her poll ratings. Yet now Labour members turn round and say that when National says that, I am inciting racial hatred. They cannot have it both ways. If the issue is complicated, why did Helen Clark not say that on day one? If there is an occasion to be risen to, why did Helen Clark not do that on day one, instead of doing what she did, which was to react with panic and more panic, and then back off to a position that she knew would rip the Labour Party caucus apart?

The problem for Labour is not that our message appeals to a narrow range of New Zealanders, but that it appeals to almost every New Zealander. That is the problem, and I say to those members that when people are out on the street in Nelson to protest that issue, one knows that most New Zealanders share the same view that we do. Nelson is not the redneck capital of New Zealand. Nelson has voted not just solidly but overwhelmingly for this Government in the last two elections. The Nelson Evening Mail was able to show that over half the people who marched were committed Labour voters. They are responding to our simple, positive message for New Zealand, which is that there should be one standard of citizenship.

In fact, the power of one standard of citizenship is precisely that it appeals to people from a wide range of cultures and beliefs. I have discussed it with the Korean, Indian, Chinese, and Pacific Island communities, and they all responded positively to the idea that they are regarded as citizens of equal value and worth in this country. I have discussed it with Māori, some of whom disagree with it and some of whom do not. Of course, John Tamihere disagrees with it. Who is inciting racial hatred, if it is not the man who goes out and says that the leaders of iwi who make that claim have psychiatric problems? I have never said anything as rude or insulting about people who are carrying out difficult and dignified roles of leadership in this country. I have never said anything like that.

The real enemy here is not Māori. The real enemy is a Labour Government that is now navigating without a compass. It has no map and no idea where it is going, because its paradigm of the treaty, invented in the late 1970s, has failed. Margaret Wilson, who has, apparently, dedicated her life to the theory of the treaty, is failing in practice. She is failing this nation. So is Helen Clark, and they will pay for that.

I want to reflect on the year since the election, and on an increasing worry I have with the Government’s performance, particularly in the light of some of the legislation that is coming through, which involves a lot of political correctness. United Future signed an agreement to support the Government on confidence and supply, but reserved the right to support or oppose its legislation on a case-by-case basis. Much of that legislation has been worthy of our support, but there is a perilous tendency creeping into Labour’s agenda, which is exemplified by ideas like the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill that will be debated later today. There is a tendency for Labour to move away from its traditional role towards a self-anointed role as our moral guardian, and the more it does so, the more fearful I become. Labour is starting to inspire confidence in the same way that the Titanic inspires buoyancy. The trouble is that people voted Labour for its policies, not its prejudices. People vote for a Government that will reflect what they think, not tell the people what to think. While political correctness in Labour has increasingly become the norm, I have seldom found it in the individuals I speak with outside Parliament.

The smoke-free legislation is a classic example. The Labour MP promoting that bill has admitted that the Government will not make further changes to smoking laws for another 5 years. But what is it planning after that? Will it be a total ban on smoking? How else would one explain Labour’s refusal to contemplate United Future’s Supplementary Order Paper, which simply allows a venue to meet an air quality standard set by the Ministry of Health? Surely, it is about what we breathe, not what habits people have. The real goal is not to protect bar workers from second-hand smoke but to stop people from smoking altogether. It is supposed to be a member’s bill, but like the Prostitution Reform Bill, Labour will undoubtedly be voting as a party to avoid having to squeeze out yet another well-thought-out, considered, and decisive abstention.

I want to know how Clayton Cosgrove will walk into the Papanui Tavern and explain this bill to its patrons, or the Hon Damien O’Connor in the local pubs in his electorate? Does he believe that this ideology dressed up in legislative drag will have any currency with the punters at the Blackball Hilton, the Red Lion in Hokitika, or the Berlins Hotel in the Buller Gorge? Is it not really about an evangelical bunch of ideologues who think they know better taking away freedom of choice from grownups?

For each and every pragmatic solution, it seems that there is now an equal and opposite Government programme. Take the recent move by Labour to adopt as Government policy a civil union bill that aims to make homosexual relationships as close as possible to marriage in the eyes of the law. Who asked the people of this country if they thought that the nature of marriage should be changed? If there is some pressing need for that, someone in the Government had better tell the people of New Zealand. Last week the Ministry of Social Development released a report on the state of the nation. If members look up “discrimination” in the report, they will find the results of a survey in which everyday people were asked which groups they thought were being discriminated against in New Zealand. The group that people thought were discriminated against the most were Asians, followed by recent immigrants, then refugees. Then came people on welfare, Pacific people, and people who are overweight. Finally, well back into the pack, came gays and lesbians.

More reasonable people might ask themselves why these bills get precedence over the need to put more police on our streets, or for the sick to get the treatment they need without having to wait for hours, months, or years on the waiting list for operations. They might also wonder why these bits of legislation come before the establishment of a national student database to assist in the prevention of truancy, when that has been part of Labour’s manifesto for the last three elections. Guess what?—a pilot scheme for that will not be ready by 2005.

The answer is that Labour is not the party it used to be. There are some within Labour who think that minority rights override the rights of just about everyone else. Where are the demands for those kinds of radical social reform? Why are those so-called reforms being promoted ahead of measures that could benefit everyone?

The Care of Children Bill is yet another example. There is no doubt that our guardianship laws need a radical overhaul, but United Future will not support a bill that has clearly been hijacked by the thought police within Labour. Such an appetite for ideological purity is nothing more than a substitute for the inconvenience of reasoned thought. How is it that a father can be defined in such a sloppy way as to include the lesbian partner of a mother? Why, after a month in a relationship with a custodial parent, can a person apply for guardianship of a child? How is it that it takes 3 years in a relationship before one can claim one’s partner’s sofa under the Property Relationships Act, but only a month to take on a pivotal role in a child’s life?

What about the Corrections Bill, which is yet another piece of legislation badly in need of an overhaul?

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to grant that member an extension of time, so that he can continue and conclude his speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No. That is not a point of order.

The Green Party’s opposition to the United States - led invasion of Iraq is being proved more correct with each passing day. We said before the war that there was no proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and we now know that Bush, Blair, and Howard constructed the war on lies about such weapons. One can fool people some of the time, but eventually one gets found out, and now the popularity of both Blair and Bush is plummeting. To their shame, National and ACT accepted the US and British claims at face value, and wanted us to be part of that war. To its credit, the Clark Government did not join the war, and it is to be congratulated on that.

The occupation of Iraq is going badly. American troops are being killed almost every day, and not just by Saddam loyalists as US spokespeople claim. It is now crystal-clear that while most Iraqis are glad that the dictator, Saddam, has gone, they do not want their country occupied by US and British troops. Many Iraqis are actively opposing the troops’ presence with massive street protests and military action. The occupying American troops are becoming more hated by the day, because they are regularly arresting, torturing, and shooting innocent Iraqis. They are acting like the worst cops on the streets of Los Angeles. Last week Amnesty International issued a stinging report on what it called the continuing failure of the occupation troops to uphold human rights in Iraq. Amnesty detailed unlawful detentions, torture, and killing.

Events are demonstrating why we should have no part of the US occupation of Iraq, yet we are about to send a contingent of Army engineers, who will be armed and embedded with the British occupation forces. It would clearly be much less compromising for New Zealand, and safer for the Kiwis concerned, if our help with the reconstruction of Iraq took a civilian rather than a military form. Kiwis are clearly in more danger of being targeted when they have uniforms and guns, and are operating alongside the hated occupation forces.

Then there are the military missions close to Iraq that have involved our frigates and Orions as part of the US-led maritime interdiction operation called Operation Enduring Freedom. Regardless of what the United States and New Zealand Governments might say about this operation, it is not really about catching terrorists, and neither the New Zealanders, the Americans, nor anybody else seem to have discovered any actual terrorists crossing the Gulf. It is all about projecting American power in the Gulf, particularly against Iran. Last week, President Bush attacked Iran for allegedly harbouring terrorists. That is an accusation that one has to be very suspicious about, because Mr Bush told lies about the relationship between the Saddam Hussein regime and terrorists like al-Qaeda.

What did a Kiwi pilot, who has been on an Orion in the Gulf, tell the New Zealand Herald last week? He said that the Orion crew did not know why the Americans were interested in some of the vessels that the Kiwis were spotting for them. It does not take a genius to work out that the boats the Americans would be most interested in paying attention to—and then harassing—would be Iranian boats, as part of the Bush drive against Iran. We should not be part of that, any more than we should be sending off a hundred or so Army people to Afghanistan to be part of Bush’s land war—the so-called Operation Enduring Freedom.

The fact of the matter is that American-led forces in Afghanistan and Iraq throw their weight around and act as if they have some God-given right to run the show. Sure, Kiwi troops have a reputation for acting much more correctly, but we will be part of the American show. If New Zealand forces capture prisoners in Afghanistan, how can we be sure that they will not be handed over to the United States forces to be mistreated, or even tortured, as prisoners have been—particularly when taken to Guantanamo Bay—and perhaps tried by military tribunals armed with the death penalty? We should not be part of this American war, which, outside Kabul, in practice is about supporting a bunch of pro-Karzai warlords against another lot of warlords. It is not the way to empower the Afghan people to enable them to determine their own destiny.

Trade Minister Jim Sutton said this week that the Afghanistan commitment was assisting his trade talks, but New Zealand, as a small, independent, peace-making country, should not prostitute itself in that way.

I rise to rebut, very quickly, the speech of the outgoing Leader of the Opposition. There is only one party and one Government that can bring closure to matters of race relations in this country, and that is a Labour-led Government. That is for one reason, and for one reason only: we are the true representation of the real face of this nation. We have every stakeholder group represented here; we are not here for the vested interests of the few. It is important that when we embark on these debates, we understand what runs deep and bonds us all as Kiwis—the principle of fairness. On this side of the House, we have moderation, and on this side of the House we have been fair—in spades. That is what will deliver closure on these issues, and we will not tolerate the divide-and-rule politics that are being expressed on the opposite side of the House.

One of the most sacrosanct rights of members of this House is the right of free speech. The freedom of MPs to speak the truth as they see it has been a jealously protected right in our Westminster system over the centuries. It traces back to the epic battles for supremacy between the House of Commons and the British monarchy. Indeed, in New Zealand we have gone further. Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees freedom of expression for all Kiwis. But there is a clause missing; there is something that Sir Geoffrey Palmer forgot to include in that Act, and it is that all New Zealanders have the right of speech—unless they are members of the National Party. All members of Parliament have the right to speak the truth—unless their name is Maurice Williamson.

Let us look at what Maurice Williamson has done in order to get kicked out of the National Party caucus, leaking as it does now. Has he criticised major iconic elements of National Party policy? Well, Bill English certainly has. Was it Maurice Williamson who said that the Employment Relations Act was not that bad after all? No, that was Bill English, the Leader of the Opposition and leader of the National Party. Was that not a wonderful acknowledgement to the Attorney-General and Minister of Labour? After all the cant and rhetoric about the Employment Relations Act being the thin edge of the wedge to the establishment of a socialist State that we heard from the National Party when Jenny Shipley was leader, Bill English reckoned that it was not that bad. It was certainly not bad enough to repeal.

Was it Maurice Williamson who said that the Budget made sense? No, that was the honourable member, Dr Don Brash. Was it Maurice Williamson who wrote a series of newspaper articles criticising National Party policy? Actually, that was Gerry Brownlee. The fact that he did not understand what he was writing is not the point. The point is that he wrote them.

So what was Maurice Williamson’s great sin? He told the truth about the leadership of Bill English. He said what Kiwis everywhere are saying about Bill English. He said that in business, excuses don’t get accepted. In business, they don’t care if you have been working hard and putting out lots of brochures and material. If your sales are slow, you are not kept on. That seems fair; most Kiwis would agree with that. So let us see how Bill English’s sales have gone. Since becoming leader, his sales have gone in only one direction—down. He has not polled over 10 percent this year. Mr Williamson went on to say that if Mr English could not get sales up to 30 percent by Christmas—35 percent by mid-2004—he should go. That is a good key performance indicator.

So what was Maurice Williamson’s solution? He said that any such company would be looking to change the management. He said: “We did that to Jim McClay. We gave him a year, and then he got the chop; he wasn’t cutting it.” The amazing thing is that when we compare Jim McClay’s polling in 1985-86 with Mr English’s, the parallels with this year are amazing. In both cases, there are Opposition leaders polling less than 10 percent of the vote. In both cases, there is someone else whom the people would clearly prefer as leader, but whom the party will never choose. In 1986 it was Rob Muldoon, and, such is the bizarre nature of New Zealand politics, in 2003 the people want Winston Peters to lead them—the leader of “Dad’s Army”, the New Zealand First Party; “Captain Mannering”, all the way from Tauranga. That is how bad the National Party is.

Bill English will go down in history as the modern Jim McClay: he is a nice guy, he tries hard and does his best, but, as Maurice Williamson says, he does not cut it. National members are so angry because Maurice Williamson has uttered the unspeakable secret: the emperor has no clothes, which is a terrible thought. Bill English has no support. Why does National not want anyone to know that? Because it knows that Bill English is as good as it gets, and that has to be tough when one rocks up to caucus every Tuesday and has a Tory cup of tea in the break. It would be like visiting the village of the damned. There will be no ideas going on there and no policy.

Having heard the Leader of the Opposition speak earlier on, I now know why National fell to 22 percent in last week’s poll. What was even more revealing was the fact that when Mr English was giving his speech, there were only five National MPs in the House. I am telling Mr English that that is not good enough. When one is wanting to retain the leadership—and when the skids are under one as much as they are under Mr English at the moment—one needs the support of more than five MPs in the House; one needs 25 MPs in that sort of precarious position, and the National Party is in a very precarious position.

I have been a political junkie all my life. I have been interested in politics since conception, and this is the worst I have ever seen National in my whole life. It is stagnating in the polls. It is at the same poll rating now as it was at the election. It will get more desperate and make more erratic statements. In the meantime, it is trying to present the kind face, which in reality hides the cold heart. New Zealanders are not fooled, and the polls prove that the public recognises incompetence.

The National Party will get even more erratic, because even its own flock is saying things in the newspapers. At the Federated Farmers conference in Auckland recently—which is the last place one would ever expect to hear criticism of the National Party—a farmer leader said: “National will languish in Opposition for ever unless it stops taking us for granted and gets stuck in.” To which I say, get stuck in Mr English! Even his own flock has deserted him, and continues to desert him. He should show some leadership on the greenhouse gas emissions levy. Instead of looking for a crowd and then jumping in front of it, he should show some leadership about how important climate change is to the agricultural sector in New Zealand. Instead of just following, he should provide some leadership, because he is most certainly not doing that at the moment.

Mr English cannot be a Jekyll and Hyde; he has to stick to the line. He tried to paint a kind face back in 2001, showing what a caring chap he was, but he has to be consistent, because the public have woken up to him. He talked about National becoming too focused on money and not caring about people. That was the man who championed the Employment Contracts Act through the Social Services Committee. That was the man who was previously the Minister for Crown Health Enterprises, which saw the first surgery waiting lists. He was the Minister of Finance who cut funding left, right, and centre. Mr English might have forgotten the past, but the public of New Zealand have not.

I do not know why I am trying to help that party, but the situation is so sad that I actually feel a bit sorry for National. Having grown up in the 1950s and 1960s, when the National Party was the dominant party of New Zealand, I cannot believe what has happened to it now. The person who scares me the most in the National Party is Dr Don Brash. He creates in me a sense of being very afraid—not for me personally, because I will always survive, but for people who are not able to fight for themselves. I suspect that we do not have any worries about that in reality, but I fear that if Dr Brash ever got the chance, the poorer people in New Zealand would be absolutely decimated.

This is a party that has lost its way. It has no leadership; it is in a desperate situation, and it is only going to get worse. The public has recognised the National Party for what it is—incompetent, with no integrity or leadership, and certainly not providing any direction for New Zealand. Instead, it is mistakenly trying to create a divisive society, where people turn against each other, instead of being like this Government, which the public has rewarded with its support for providing a cooperative, cohesive, and caring society.

I have viewed the debate about Māori claims to the foreshore and the seabed with increasing unease in the last few weeks. I suggest to members opposite that the position worsens as the Government dithers and the expectations of many in Māoridom rise. Since 19 June 2003, which is not very long ago, some 16 applications have been lodged with the registries of the Māori Land Court for hundreds of thousands of hectares of foreshore and seabed. The position has been worsened by blurred language from Government Ministers.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Have they been granted?

No, not yet. The initial position of the Government was correct. It initially made an unequivocal statement that the foreshore and the seabed were the exclusive property of the Crown. The language then became confused. The phrases “Māori customary title to land” and “customary rights” were used interchangeably, but they are utterly different concepts. The Government perpetuated that error in question time today in confusing those two concepts. John Tamihere suggested that the Crown has already alienated the foreshore in many parts of New Zealand, and he used the ownership of Great Mercury Island in the Hauraki Gulf as an example when he appeared on a television programme. He confused the clear concept of riparian rights with ownership of the foreshore. Others have compounded that confusion.

Riparian rights run to mean high-water mark. Land carrying such rights is owned by Māori and non-Māori alike. Those rights that are clear title should not be expropriated—they are outside the scope of this debate. The foreshore is a different area of land. It is that part of the beach that is covered and uncovered by tidal flow. It starts at mean high-water spring tide, and it runs to mean low-water neap tide. From there, the foreshore becomes the seabed running out to the continental shelf. I suggest that unless the Government moves to deal in a clear and unequivocal way in respect of the claims relating to the foreshore and the seabed it will create a legacy that will bedevil New Zealand.

The issues are not difficult to resolve. The Māori Land Court should have no jurisdiction to determine the status of foreshore and seabed, and related waters. It is a court concerned with land, whose jurisdiction should stop at the mean high-water mark. It is wrong to allow the pending applications in the Māori Land Court to be advanced, because the danger is that property rights will be created that may then have to be expropriated. That is hardly a satisfactory circumstance.

Then, I suggest, it is important that Māori customary rights in respect of the foreshore and the seabed be maintained. Those rights can be recognised in two ways—first, by the Government accepting recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal, and, second, by direct Government negotiation with relevant Māori interests. What are those customary rights? They are clearly limited in character. They are founded on active use, but they may embrace rights of access, rights to take stone or sand, or other matters. In my view, they do not include rights in respect of marine farming. Those rights were taken away by the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act of 1992. That statute, and the associated deed of settlement, resolved Māori claims in respect of commercial fishing. I would say that that position is clear from reading the legislation and noting its relationship with the Fisheries Act of 1996.

Today’s Dominion Post editorial makes a salient observation. It states: “When everyone from small, poor households to the Reserve Bank governor is expressing concern about local authority rates rises, it would behove local authorities to listen.” Over the past decade, local government rates have been rising faster than inflation. Rates are identified as a key driver of inflation, and that has been a prevailing situation for a decade or more. Inflation is sitting at 1.5 percent. We have a Fiscal Responsibility Act, and we have a band of inflation that we instruct the Reserve Bank governor to manage our monetary policy to keep us within. No such constraints are on local government. Rate rises are running at 4.5 percent, and they have been running at 4.5 percent over the past decade. It is an intolerable situation.

I turn to the Auckland Regional Council. I single it out because it has presented the community of Auckland with a rate increase of 34 percent, on average, and some are facing rate increases in the order of 650 percent. I have to say that I have some sympathy for the Auckland Regional Council. It is in a quite invidious position. It is not without fault but it has been backed into a very invidious position by this Government. This Government refused to amend the Rating Act—in fact, it did amend it in 2002, but refused to address the basic problem of levying property tax, putting taxes on property to pay for all manner of services that are not related to that tax. That has been a cry from local government for decades—to be fair, I would have to say under successive Governments. This Government had the opportunity to address that basic problem when it did the rating review in 2002, but failed to do so.

The Government compounded the problem with the Local Government Bill, which was rammed through the House, under urgency, earlier this year. What it has done is import into local bodies a whole new level and range of costs, under the name of participatory democracy rather than representative democracy. What it means is endless consultation, endless meetings, one cannot get decisions made, and ratepayers are just starting to be presented with those obligations. The reason I have some sympathy for the dilemma the Auckland Regional Council is facing is that we know that there have been deferred capital investments and deferred maintenance of infrastructural utilities—and it is undeniable that there is a need in Auckland for some fairly massive investment. But the situation is compounded by the fact that, sensibly, the Auckland Regional Council adopted capital value rating, and I commend that, whereas most of the authorities in Auckland—all but one, I believe—are still on land value rating.

It is further compounded by the fact that the North Shore local authority has differential rating. It charges business and commerce nine times more than residentials, on an ad valorem dollar basis in their rating. That is bizarre. On the one hand it says that it faces massive congestion and all the commuters go into Auckland City for their jobs, yet although the very things that could create the jobs on the North Shore, the industry and the commercial activities, are there, they slog them for rates at nine times the amount they charge for residential rates.

It is further compounded with the massive increase in land valuations on the North Shore. The valuations of some of those fine properties on Takapuna waterfront have escalated. The upshot of all that is the Auckland Regional Council has this massive task of investing in the transport system. But therein lies the problem. Why should property rates and property tax have to fund the services that some people have never used and have no intention of using? That goes right back to the failing of this Government to address the basic problem.

It is no wonder the member who has just returned to his seat was so derisory about participatory democracy, seeing it has been so harsh and cruel to him over the years. He has put his name on a ballot paper so many times but very rarely had ticks put beside it. Normally other candidates have been elected. It is no wonder he wants to shut up other people.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: How many elections have you stood in?

I have stood in only one election and I got more votes in that election than that member got in all the elections he has ever run in, and that is the way it will continue.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the addition to the Chamber of my friend Moana Mackey. It is fantastic to have as a Labour MP on this side of the House someone as talented and gifted as she is. I have been privileged to call her my friend over our years of involvement with Young Labour and I am now very proud to call her my colleague in the House of Representatives. I know she will make a big impact on this Parliament.

It is great to be a member of a party that is adding members to its caucus, not taking them away. One of the points of democracy is to try to build as many people around one, with talent and skill, to put ideas out to the country and to make a difference in New Zealand. The only thing that members on the other side of the House are good at doing is taking members away from their caucus. They are great at the game of subtraction, when the game of parliamentary politics is addition. We add; they subtract. We win; they lose. That is the problem they face, not just today but 1 year ago when they went to the people of this country and the National Party got the worst result of any major party in 100 years.

We have had 1 year since that election, and have we seen any turn-round in the ability and talent on that side of the House? No. Twelve months down the track there has been no improvement in the performance of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. They have gone backwards, not forwards, and that gives us time to focus on the achievements that we have been able to notch up on this side of the House. What are they? They are 1.7 million New Zealanders receiving access to primary health organisations and better health-care, and 800 extra teachers in schools and classrooms next year, because we are doing the work over here. Since we came to office, 156,500 extra New Zealanders are working in jobs around the economy. It is a fantastic record to be proud of in this Parliament.

A year ago new members of this House travelled with Mr Speaker to Government House to see him sworn in. On that occasion, after the Speaker had been given his credentials, he asked for a very important right. He asked the Governor-General for the right of freedom of speech for members of this House. Nothing is more important than the right of members to stand on this floor and say whatever they like and advance the ideas and the causes they believe in. But what happens if one is Maurice Williamson? If one is Maurice Williamson, it does not matter if that member has been here 17 years, that member’s right to freedom of speech that people have fought for and that we sent our Speaker to Government House to demand, has been withdrawn.

It is all very well to pay money for big billboards that say “One standard of citizenship”, but on behalf of Maurice Williamson I ask: why not one standard of membership in this Parliament? There should be one standard of membership in this Parliament, when anybody can stand up and speak his or her mind, when anybody can stand up and advance what he or she believes in, without fear of retribution by people who cannot take the arguments that are being advanced by that member.

It is an absolute outrage that that member lost his freedom of speech. What was he trying to do? He was not trying to attack the National Party. He was trying to help the National Party. Maurice Williamson was trying to say: “How can I make the National Party better and bigger? How can I make sure the National Party wins general elections, the point of having parties?”. That is what Maurice Williamson was trying to do. He said: “Let’s raise the bar of our performance. Let’s work together to do that.” Rather than front up to that challenge, National Party members said: “No, we can’t have somebody actually putting it to us like that. You go, and you lose your freedom of speech.” It is just absolutely amazing.

Maurice Williamson said: “How can the assistant tea boy be responsible when the captain and the first officer let the ship sink?”. One has to sheet the blame home squarely to the brat pack when it comes to that—that is, the four so-called political geniuses who were elected in 1990 when National had 47 percent of the vote, but under their political genius, expertise, and wisdom National Party members come to this Parliament with only 20 percent of the vote, and they think they are brilliant. They sacked the man who said: “Let’s try and get our vote up to 30 percent by Christmas.”

Those National Party members came in with 47 percent, took over the reins of the party, and now it has 27 percent. National Party members smugly sit along the front bench as though only they understand politics. They put up a billboard that stated: “One standard of citizenship” and tried to get on board with an issue that is dominating our minds at the moment. What happened? They went hard on the issue. They all tried to sing from the same song sheet, and after getting all that media exposure they went down in the opinion polls.

The more the National Party speaks out, the worse it gets for it. Mr Peters got the support when it was moving in the opinion polls, not the National Party. The National Party thinks it is so clever with regard to its campaign, even though it simply does not work. When somebody points out that the campaign is not working and that it is not getting the votes and support, the National Party says: “That’s very disloyal and would you mind leaving our caucus?”. It is an extraordinary thing.

We always know we have Government members upset when they spend their entire speaking time attacking the National Party. If that is all they have to say they might as well go home.

The claims made by some Māori to take ownership of our seabed and foreshore is the biggest issue to face this nation for decades. The Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, has dithered and slithered all over it. First she said that the Labour Government would legislate to protect the Crown’s interests, and thereby all New Zealanders’ interests. Then the Māori Labour MPs said: “Let’s not ruin our relationship with the few Māori who benefit from these spurious claims.” Now what do we have from Labour? Mahara Okeroa said: “Public access is a non-issue because it doesn’t exist.” That is worth repeating: “Labour MP says ‘Public access is a non-issue because it doesn’t exist.’ ”

On 22 June Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson said: “Ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown.” That was the first position. On 25 June Helen Clark told Parliament that the Government has not said that it is bringing in law to extinguish customary title. She did not quite say what it was doing though. Parekura Horomia has probably best stated the position of this Labour Government when on 15 July he said: “I am here as a member of Ngāti Porou and as a Minister of the Crown. I can’t deny that.”—he probably wanted to—“I don’t want to distract from the hui. It’s not the place. There will be some talk here, and whatever comes out of the hui I’m sure it will be a Māori view.” That is what we are paying that man for.

As at this morning 50,000 New Zealanders have signed our on-line petition to keep our beaches, foreshore, and seabed exactly that—ours, for all New Zealanders and not just for one racial group or one privileged class. Access to our beaches, our foreshore, and our seabed is a basic right for New Zealanders. It is a defining right for New Zealanders. All New Zealanders have had that right assured and accepted for at least 160 years, if not for more. This is the one issue that is dividing this country.

Every time people like us in the National Party, the ACT party, and now United Future, come out and say that this is not good enough, what happens? We get abused by the deputy leader of the Labour Government and we are told that we are inciting racial hatred. No, we are not! We are saying to the people of New Zealand that we will stand up for them—that is, all New Zealanders: Māori, Pākehā, Chinese, Samoan, or whatever. If people are New Zealanders, then we are happy to have them and to tell them to use the beaches. That is what it is about. This Labour Government is driving a wedge into this country. It is pandering to a few at the expense of the many. The many always pay for just a few.

We all know that these claims are all about money. There would never have been any claims in relation to our beaches, foreshore, and seabed if it were not because there is a monetary claim in the wings. If we did not have an aquaculture industry we would not have a claim, and that is the truth of it. That is the sort of truth that the Labour Government cannot stand because it is the truth. It is not a big word; Labour Government members should be able to say it.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: They’re strangers to it.

Yes, Mr Shirley is quite right, they are strangers to it. The people of New Zealand have had enough. They will not accept deals or accept having their rights taken away from them. They will not accept this further splitting up of our country by a Government that will do anything to stay in power. This Government is quite literally selling our country down the river. That is what it is doing. It does not care about the future of New Zealand. Most of the people in it have never done a day’s work in their lives. As far as they are concerned they are quite happy for someone else to pay for it. This particular country is a country that has built itself on freedom—that is, on a freedom to walk our beaches and to use our beaches. Every person in this country lives within about 2 hours of the beaches. Every person in New Zealand has a right to get the food from the foreshore, and he or she will not be denied it.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.