General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. In the last 24 hours we have seen the release of two public opinion polls—TVNZ’s Colmar Brunton poll and the New Zealand Herald’s DigiPoll. The consistent factor in both those polls is that the National Party has fallen, for the second time running. Perhaps it is worth reminding members that just 2 years ago the National Party stood at 40 percent in the polls. It has halved its support in this country at a time when one expects a party in Opposition to make progress. It is 22 percent in the polls. What we are seeing is the death knell of a once great and proud party.

National’s latest tactic of cosying up to New Zealand First and the ACT party is simply doomed to failure. Richard Prebble described them as the three tenors. The problem is that not only were they not singing in tune but they were not even using the same song sheet. The New Zealand Herald was a little bit closer to the bone on that. It described it as the coalition of the unwilling.

If one looks at this picture, it looks like a funeral. The politically terminal Bill English is in the middle of the photo, flanked on either side by the gravediggers. The truth is that ACT and New Zealand First are not doing that to save the National Party. They are endeavouring to cannibalise it, and that is exactly what is happening. If one looks at what is happening in the polls, there is no movement whatsoever towards the centre right. What is happening is that the vote on the centre right is being redistributed. The fact is that the three right-wing parties combined barely score 40 percent in the polls. That is 3 or 5 percent less than the Labour Party on its own. That is the product of 4, nearly 5, years coming up of a Labour Government that has been competent and capable by contrast to the parties on the other side.

It is said that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but in this case the whole is less than the sum of the parts. What has happened is that the ordinary New Zealander—the one-time National voter; the mainstream National voter—looks at a picture like that, looks at Bill English who is overshadowed on one side by Winston Peters, and Richard Prebble on the other side, and that is a turn-off to one-time National voters. They remember Winston Peters in Government and his utter inability to work with any other party. They know the Winston Peters of today. He is prepared to appeal to any prejudice in this country, however low, to try to get votes. They see Richard Prebble, the representative of the far right in this country, who does not share the values of ordinary New Zealanders, and, against 66 percent of the population, wants to bring nuclear ships back here. He wants to privatise what is left of the public sector, and the ordinary New Zealand voter will not have a bar of that, at all.

What is more, the people who are supporting New Zealand First, and the people who are supporting ACT, have totally contradictory attitudes. For ACT supporters who believe in their ideology, the thought that Richard Prebble would cosy up to Winston Peters is a turn-off. The people who support Winston Peters, seeing him cosy up to Richard Prebble, do not want a bar of that. We welcome that policy; it is doomed to failure.

The other problem of the National Party is that it is led by a failed leader. In 2000, as leader, Jenny Shipley scored 14 percent in the polls. Bill English said to his caucus that that woman had to go. Notwithstanding the fact that three times—it is almost biblical—he had proclaimed his loyalty in public, he said to his caucus that she had to go. Today Bill English is polling half, as preferred Prime Minister, as was polled by the person he replaced in 2000. No wonder he has no authority! He sacked poor Maurice Williamson for suggesting he should be on a performance contract, and for saying what everybody knew, which was that he was failing; he did not have the authority to sack Don Brash. He has no authority.

The Minister of Education has closed a record 96 schools since he has been in power from 1999. What is more, 300 more schools are under threat of closure. Why does that Minister want to close schools? He wants to save money. He wants to suck money out of rural and provincial areas and put it into Auckland to try to buy votes in Auckland where Labour desperately needs to get the voting up. He talks about quality of education as if he knows what is best for every child in New Zealand. He is a control freak Minister of Education. Parents, teachers, principals, and communities, not the Minister of Education, know what is best for each child in their area.

What is quality of education about putting a 5-year-old child on a bus for an hour and a half each way to get to school and back again? What is quality of education about that? What is quality of education about having a one-size-fits-all for every school in this country, having one sort of school that that Minister thinks would suit every single community? He wants to have one set of rules and apply them to every single school. Who would have ever thought that a Labour Government would be closing schools? That is the sort of thing that those neo-socialists accused the centre right of doing. They talk about the centre right wanting to privatise everything. [Interruption]

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt the speaker. However, just because it is market day, there is no reason for that fishwife to shout, going on every minute, and every phrase is being interjected on by her. After all, she is a whip, and she should be asked to behave herself.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I have called order. I ask members to give the speaker silence.

Labour is the party that is supposed to care about people. What do those arrogant Labour members say? Mr Mallard says to parents out there who want to choose where they send their kids to school that if they want to save their schools they should have more babies.

It is like the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, who says: “If you can’t afford more money to get a warrant of fitness and pass an emission test, buy a new car.” She also said: “If you can’t afford to pay your rates, sell your house and move.” There is nothing about choice. How arrogant of the Minister of Education to say: “Have more babies.” to parents who want to save their schools. This is typical of the arrogant, patronising attitude of this Government.

Throughout New Zealand there is a rising clamour of voices of parents who are sick and tired of being shut out of their children’s education. Their children are the lost generation. Twenty percent of children leaving school are unable to read a bus timetable. Is the Government proud of that statistic? What sort of future do these children have? This Government does not care. It says: “Go and get a benefit. Go and sit on a benefit for the rest of your life. We will keep you, we will look after you, and we will buy your votes by sticking you on a benefit.” These children are from low socio-economic backgrounds. [Interruption] Of course those people do not care about education, because they can afford to send their children to private schools or move into the Auckland Grammar School zone, which has made property prices so high. But what choice do parents from poor families have?

The Minister of Education believes that poor parents cannot choose, and that families with low incomes have no idea of what makes a good school or makes a good teacher. If he believes that wealthy parents can choose, why does he think that poor parents cannot choose, too? If such people live in a rural town, they have no choice except to send their children to the one State high school or the primary school in the area. He says it is OK to close those schools, because he is fronting up. He sends me funny little emails late in the night to say: “It is all right, because I front up.” He did not go to Russell—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They’re all replies to the member’s love notes.

That is OK, then. It is okay to shut those schools, because he fronts up! Now, not satisfied with the State sector and with the Government schools, he will start on integrated schools. He cannot control the integrated schools, so he will change the Act so that he can close down and merge integrated schools and get more control over them. This is the Government’s do-gooder attitude, the “nanny State knows best” attitude.

I used to be on the board of trustees of Epsom Girls Grammar School, and I had to knock on doors to check that people were not putting up a dodgy address. Those parents would move heaven and earth to get from south Auckland into what they thought was a good school zone, but this Minister says no.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have to do something about the shrill cries from the junior Labour whip, Jill Pettis. I notice the varnish cracking at the rear of the Chamber and I have fears for the substrata of the building. You cannot sit there simply waving at her while she continues to defy you. It is most unbecoming of a whip.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think there have certainly been some interjections on all sides.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 Simon Power: Here come the heavyweights.

That heavyweight over there, I understand, is currently looking at the numbers for the deputy leadership of the National Party. He will not take the poisoned chalice of the leadership, because he knows that the next leadership of the National Party will probably be a very temporary phenomenon.

But let me talk about a funny party that taught me all about ACT’s regional conferences. I am quite an astute observer of politics in this country, and I did not realise that ACT had regional conferences. I did not realise it had sufficient membership to be able to set up a series of regional conferences. I have to ask the National Party, under Bill English’s leadership, why Don Brash can, but Katherine Rich cannot, and Maurice Williamson is not allowed to say anything. Don Brash can go to one of those ACT regional conferences, which I did not even know existed, and I bet your bottom dollar that the Rt Hon Winston Peters did not even know they existed, either.

💬 Simon Power: We didn’t know that this member existed.

I would much rather be a backbencher from Hamilton West than the aspiring next deputy leader of the National Party faction of the Opposition. I would much rather be in this position, as a member of the Government, because there is no guarantee that that member will be even a deputy leader of the major Opposition party—which is what he aspires to. That is what is being played out in this House, day by day, and that is what is being played out around the country. We are seeing potentially a fundamental realigning of politics on the centre-right of the spectrum. Overnight we are seeing growing unease and panic on the National Party benches as those members face the facts.

The inheritors of the once-proud party of Sir Keith Jacka Holyoake are becoming the No. 2 centre-right party, and one can see the growing smugness and the growing smile on the lips of the Rt Hon Winston Peters—one can see it all the way. Of course he is not going to do a deal with the Nats. His “Three Tenors” appearance was somewhat temporary, extremely reserved, and extremely reluctant, because why on earth would he want to attach the bow of his party to the pack of losers that the National Party surely represents at this particular time?

Let us talk about Mr Brownlee and his somewhat wise words about the ACT party, but first I would like to know what Maurice Williamson has to say. I believe that Maurice Williamson has a great contribution to make to the politics of this country, but he has been silenced. The challenge to National Opposition members is: when will they allow Maurice Williamson to speak? How about a bit of free enterprise? They could let Maurice Williamson speak and his voice be heard in this debate. Gerry Brownlee is a bit worried that Ruth Richardson could be the future ACT contender in his seat of Ilam. This is the interesting thing: “If the people in the National Party think that we are going to increase the National vote by saying we are inextricably linked to ACT, then they have got their heads that far into the sand, all they can expect is their backsides to be kicked in the next election.”

💬 Georgina Beyer: Who said that?

Gerry Brownlee said that. Maurice Williamson, mind you—and I think this is a very good quote—said: “You know, there was little point in debating policies if National was never going to be in a position to implement them.” Do members remember him saying: “It is a bit rich to blame the assistant tea boy, while obviously the captain should carry the can.”? Let the tea boy come back on board; let the tea boy have his say! Why are they so scared of the tea boy? I would be more scared of ACT and Mr Hide. Quite frankly, I think Mr Brownlee has some words of wisdom for the National Party, because in his own way, Mr Brownlee is no fool. He can see the National Party—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I’m not convinced of that.

I tell Mr Mallard that I will defend Mr Brownlee in this House, because I think he can see that this marriage, this courtship with ACT, is a one-way road to nowhere. What a demeaning thing that the once-proud party of Sir Keith Jacka Holyoake has to lower itself to go and search for the local telephone box in Christchurch, or wherever, to find an ACT party regional conference.

That was a maiden speech from the member for Hamilton West, Mr Martin Gallagher. He could not come into the House to talk about the Supreme Court Bill; he could not come into the House and talk about the GE moratorium being lifted, and he could not come into the House and talk about the seabed and foreshore issues, because the Labour back bench is the most suppressed group of New Zealanders I have ever known. They are a group of New Zealanders put under a rock and not allowed to say anything, until the day they get the opportunity to come into the House and talk about the one thing they are scared of—the National Party.

Make no mistake about it—those people are making the sorts of decisions in Government that will see them slung out. We have in this country at the moment a Prime Minister who is the most deceptive person ever to occupy that high office. The most deceptive person to ever occupy the high office of Prime Minister is Helen Clark.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, don’t tell tall tales!

They all start howling about how wrong that is, but most people cannot hear them, because they know it. The Prime Minister does not like the fact that the people of this country do not always believe her.

We have a media that, unfortunately, is often moved by the spin of the ninth floor, but to its credit, I am becoming increasingly aware that this is a Government that is not prepared to defend its own actions in the House. The largest constitutional change this country has seen in this decade—the removal of the right to appeal to the Privy Council—has been rushed through the House without any reference to the people, whatsoever. People will slowly start to wake up to that when they find that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are the judges who have already heard their cases in the Court of Appeal, and will not want to overturn their own decisions, at all. If that is not a constriction of justice, goodness knows what is.

I want to make a couple of comments about the swagger that the Labour Party has on at the moment. Labour Party members are seen around the corridors, all thinking that they are about to get an LTD as there is a bit of a Cabinet reshuffle coming up shortly and their own circumstances are being regularly speculated about by their colleagues in the party. A number of them, such as Mr Gallagher, are making bids for ministerial seats. When a party gets a swagger on like that, it is only moments from a stagger. The one thing that will unseat this Government is the poverty it is inflicting upon New Zealanders day by day. Last week, I brought up in the House the issue of Statistics New Zealand stating that the average wage and salary earner in this country—most certainly including part-time work—earns only $337 per week.

💬 Katherine Rich: Might as well be on the dole.

As my colleague Katherine Rich says, they might as well be on the dole. When people are feeling the pinch in their lives like that, with such low incomes and such little opportunity to aspire to things to which New Zealanders have always aspired—home ownership, for example, which is racing out of the reach of most low-income New Zealanders because of the Government’s poor stewardship of the country—they start to ask who cares about them. They will look at a Prime Minister who quite happily excuses her fraudulent activities around “paintergate”, who misleads the country over GE in “corngate”, who suppresses her Māori backbenchers and caucus from making the sorts of comments they want to make over the constitutional change relating to the Supreme Court. They will look at a Prime Minister who goes off to APEC this week to snuggle up to George Bush, in order to try to get a nice photograph, knowing full well that the President of the United States and his administration have no time for this Government, and have no intention of extending a free-trade agreement to New Zealand as long as it is in office.

People will work out that that means they will continue to have low incomes. They will continue to be made poor by this Government. Every week, New Zealanders are worse off than Australians by at least $250 per week.

That is the man who, on 25 November 2000, was quoted in the Christchurch Press as saying: “Jenny is in the view of the majority of caucus far better for that job [of National Party leader] than Bill is.” What was that article called? It was called “English boring—Nat MP”.

💬 Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are back on that faulty microphone again. Mr Fairbrother is completely garbled down this end of the House.

I thank Mr Copeland. Does the member want to hear that again? That is the man who said: “Jenny is in the view of the majority of caucus far better for that job than Bill is.”, and the article is called “English boring—Nat MP”. What has changed since? We see Gerry Brownlee yawning across the Chamber as his leader gets up and tries to expound. When the leader in the New Zealand Herald this morning states that National has been “internal navel-gazing”, I wonder whether Bill English is talking about the occupational hazard of Gerry Brownlee, whose navel-gazing must be something that he cannot avoid. I will tell members what that “internal navel-gazing” is. It is lack of—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the member like a demo?

I see it every day. I would like the member to do his buttons up. Not only does he not have the belly for politics, he does not have the belly to sit in his own chair and listen to his own custard.

That is the party that 13 days ago, through the tractor driver Shane Ardern—with his tractor Myrtle, that great threat to biosecurity, which was not even clean before it polluted the grounds of Parliament—released a biosecurity strategy. It stated: “We will increase surveillance to ensure all containers that arrive in New Zealand each year are inspected.” I wonder where the National Party got that original thought from. It was not from Gerry Brownlee, or the judge who decided on his credibility. No, it got it from Labour’s policy. National recycled it, because Labour announced in August that it would implement the new Import Health Standard for sea containers, by which all sea containers are inspected. It looks as though National are a couple of months behind the eightball on that one.

What did the tractor driver say when he released National’s biosecurity policy 13 days ago? “We will increase fines”, he said. Labour increased fines for biosecurity offences in 2001, something the Nats were too scared to do when they were in Government. He went on about the inadequate funding of biosecurity. National funded biosecurity so poorly that the painted apple moth, the Argentine ant, and the varroa bee mite got in under National control, and we are spending a lot of money to keep them out. Fortunately, the New Zealand public is not fooled.

The headline in the New Zealand Herald today is “Big two lose ground”. I immediately thought of Gerry Brownlee and Simon Power, but I realised that the paper was not referring to Simon Power—it had mistaken Gerry Brownlee for two people. National is running at the same level it was when its leader skited after the election that he would provide decisive leadership to lead National out of the quagmire. His boots are still in the mud that Myrtle emerged from when she went up the steps of Parliament House. Labour’s rating has not even dipped as far as it was in the last election, yet National still descends—at the same rate as its leader—into the quagmire of Myrtle’s home ground.

What we have here is a party that has leadership and vision. We have a party that does not have time for internal navel-gazing, whatever that might be. We have a party that states what is good for the country, makes up its mind, and goes ahead with it. It is a party that states that this country is old enough to govern itself, and passes the Supreme Court Bill, which abolishes appeals to the Privy Council. It passes a bill so that we can have laws in this country that are made for people like Gerry Brownlee, and so that judges in Christchurch can apply the laws, knowing that our senior judges will interpret them correctly. I notice that no appeal happened in that case, either.

We have a country that states that genetic modification is the future of our agricultural products—if it is exercised cautiously. What did National do about that? Did it state that it had a different policy? No. Throughout that debate, yesterday and last week, National Party members said: “Me too.” They ridiculed the items in the schedules to the legislation and endorsed the policy, without offering an original solution, at all. No wonder biodiversity left Gerry Brownlee at birth.

Finally, I want to talk quite seriously about the parlous state of politics in this House. I came to the House 15 months ago, and I have spent them looking at a vacuum. Every day I am forced to look at the National Party across the Chamber, and it is absolutely pitiful.

Today I want to talk about the fact that an individual’s place in society is hugely determined by his or her neurological functioning. Foetal alcohol syndrome, foetal alcohol effects, alcohol-related neuro-developmental disorders, static encephalopathy, and alcohol-exposed or alcohol-related birth defects are all names for a spectrum of disorders caused when a pregnant mother consumes alcohol. I would like to spend the 5 minutes I have in the general debate to raise members’ awareness of the immensity of this problem, and to suggest some interventions we need to consider in order to reduce the number of children born with alcohol-related symptoms, and to improve outcomes for those who suffer from an alcohol-related disorder.

At present it is estimated that an individual with an alcohol-related disorder will in his or her lifetime cost the taxpayer, at a conservative estimate, an additional $2 million. That money will be spent on his or her health problems, special-education needs, psychotherapy and counselling, welfare, and the use of corrections facilities. We can add to that the high cost to families of foetal alcohol syndrome children permanently dependent upon them, and the problems become even more urgent.

The symptoms are varied. Some individuals have a distinctive physical appearance and lower IQs, while others look normal but have permanent damage to internal organs, are unable to cope socially, and have learning difficulties. The biggest problem facing parents and caregivers is that most children can go undiagnosed for years. Families cope with children who have attention deficits, memory deficits, hyperactivity, difficulty in learning abstract concepts, low problem-solving skills, difficulty in learning from consequences, an absence of remorse for wrongs done, poor judgment, immature behaviour, and poor impulse control. Often these symptoms are put down to bad parenting. However, these children are not behaviour problems. They are the result of permanent, unchanging damage to the brain that can and should be diagnosed for the good of everyone involved.

Adults with foetal alcohol syndrome have difficulty in maintaining successful independence. They have trouble staying in school, keeping jobs, or sustaining healthy relationships. A report done in 1996 of more than 400 people with foetal alcohol syndrome, or foetal alcohol effects, reported that 94 percent had mental health problems, 80 percent were dependent for their daily needs, 80 percent had employment problems, 60 percent were diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, 60 percent were expelled from, or dropped out of, school, 60 percent were in trouble with the law, 50 percent had inappropriate sexual behaviours, and the list goes on and on.

Early diagnosis is extremely important. With early and intensive intervention a child can be helped immensely. Experts say that there is a small window of opportunity from birth to the age of 10 or 12. Those first 10 to 12 years cover a period when the greatest development of fixed neural pathways occurs. That is when alternative coping pathways are most easily built to compensate for the damaged areas of the brain. Identification or diagnosis is therefore imperative.

In New Zealand we need to set up a national registry so the Government can adequately plan for the associated problems from foetal alcohol syndrome. We need to train up diagnostic teams and learn from the wealth of overseas expertise in this area. The rates of foetal alcohol syndrome and foetal alcohol effects are estimated by the Ministry of Health to be considerably higher than the combined statistics of birth defects from Down’s syndrome, cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis.

We need to take our parliamentary heads out of the sand and realise that foetal alcohol defects are not rare. We need to start targeting families with information about how preventable this problem is. Recent statistics tell us that last year 8,000 babies were born to teenage mothers. The Alcohol Advisory Council reports that 82 percent of teenage expectant mothers drink. The same report also highlights the fact that 36 percent of adult women drink during pregnancy. We need to do something.

As a suppressed member of the Labour benches, I take this opportunity to share with the House some very illumining insights. I want to thank the honourable member Gerry Brownlee for the offer of a demonstration, but he can be assured that members on this side of the House will have to decline it on the basis of the observation that the honourable member’s navel is lost. It is lost in the unfathomable depths of over-indulgence.

We wait patiently on this side of the House for a kind of metamorphosis, because we were promised that the Leader of the Opposition would somehow change into a decisive, confident leader.

💬 Simon Power: How suppressed is this member?

No, I am not suppressed. But, we are waiting. The poll by Colmar Brunton Research Ltd for that member on the question of preferred Prime Minister goes like this, from the months of May to October: 7 percent, 7 percent, 6 percent, 9 percent, 7 percent, and 7 percent. Translated, that is 7, 7, 6, 9, 7, 7. If anyone wanted to put that into a spin, it would be called flat-lining; I call it a telephone number. Furthermore, National under Bill English has failed miserably—absolutely miserably—to capitalise on anything that has happened in this House in recent months. I consider that, politically, to be simply appalling. Let us take, as the honourable member mentioned, the Supreme Court Bill. That is a fact. It has passed; it is finished; it is there.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: It’s a disgrace.

No, it is not a disgrace. It shows us very, very clearly, without any cross-party political support, that that member would never be able to get traction even if he were a tractor—and I tell the member he is. I noted, as we went through the consultation hui on the foreshore and seabed, that we were graced in some way with the presence of several members of the National Party. But they really failed to get up and tell people exactly what they would have done if they were in power. They sat there and masqueraded in the sense—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be the fault of the sound system, but I am afraid that in the way my ears heard those words, it was a most unparliamentary reference, and I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Masquerading is a perfectly acceptable term, I suggest to that member.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to continue, please.

If I can concentrate for 5 minutes on one or two issues, I have to say that the foreshore and seabed issue was a magnificent chance for that party to try to get traction with the electorate. But it was a dismal failure. We are witnessing today a gradual diminishing of the vote—and it now sits at 21 percent. I therefore have to ask myself what has happened to the once-proud National Party and its whakapapa of political leadership. We have Holland. Someone else has referred to Holyoake. We have Marshall, Muldoon, Bolger—and Bill English. As advice to Bill English, all I can give is that common old phrase: “Beam me up, Scotty.”

Mark Peck, as an electorate MP in the bottom half of the South Island, has spent precious time addressing the issues of at least 143 people and families who wanted to visit and talk with Bill English. Mark Peck has given them that service, which, otherwise, would have been non-existent. I congratulate Mark Peck, because those people were unable to see their own MP, for whatever reason. Maybe the reason is that he does not have an office in Balclutha. I see that the honourable member Maurice Williamson has departed from the Chamber—unfortunately. I think his view is outstanding. He says—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a couple of points. First, we try to be as indulgent as we can, in recognising that a back-bench Labour member does not get an opportunity to speak very often in this Parliament, but the issue of Mark Peck and industrial relations matters relating to his office should not be brought up in this House. Further, the reference to the absence of a member is also unparliamentary, and the member, even though he has not spoken often in his 4 years at Parliament, should know that rule. I suggest he does not bring up the industrial relations matter concerning Mark Peck’s office.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Certainly, the absence of members cannot be referred to. The other matter is not a point of order.

The honourable member Maurice Williamson made a very telling comment, which was: “I don’t believe that Bill is perceived by either the rest of the team or by the general public as leadership material. I don’t think Bill English has anywhere near the excitement, the charisma, the humour, the personality, the talent,” and so on. I think that is very telling. Not only is his party not even the natural party of Opposition any more, it is now obvious that he is not even the natural Leader of the Opposition. I have just one word of advice that I want to share with honourable members opposite.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: This has been the longest 5 minutes of my life.

I know that the honourable member’s life is not very long, but still! The dictionary is the only place where the word “success” comes before “work”.

Next week on Sunday, 26 October, New Zealand officially observes something called Children’s Day. According to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF), Ruth Dyson, in a letter sent out to all of us today, Children’s Day is “an annual day set aside to celebrate our children”. I would like to challenge the Government to take some meaningful steps towards really celebrating our children, not just in words and colouring books, but also in dollars. The Green Party’s good polling this week—up 4.2 percent to 9.2 percent—comes not only on the back of our strong stand on GE but also as a result of our opposition to things like the proliferation of pokies in our communities, and our determination to end child poverty. Labour has dropped in the polls, and, again, I am sure it is not just on account of GE, but also because Labour is not meeting the expectations of the many people who voted for it, hoping that the rich-poor gap in this country would be closed, not widened.

The Room for Improvement: Current New Zealand Housing Policies and their Implication for our Children report, released last month by the Child Poverty Action Group, showed graphically that despite a growing economy and falling unemployment, poverty and overcrowded housing continue to increase. That report followed the revelation, only a few days earlier in the Christchurch Press, that large numbers of Christchurch children were being fed by their schools because they were suffering from malnutrition. The Budget this year was characterised once again by the absence of assistance for the children of New Zealand, despite earlier tentative promises from Labour that at least family support and family assistance would be restructured to provide more resources for families—sometime.

Mr Maharey has also been promising major reforms to the benefit system—sometime. The Budget offered nothing, again. How long do we have to accept this, while at the same time we seem to be able to afford to donate $34 million towards a rich man’s yacht race and to set up a $28 million Families Commission, replicating work that is, and could be, done elsewhere? Benefits have never returned to anything like the equivalent pre-1991 levels. The minimum wage remains at the miserable rate of $8.50 an hour, barely enough to support a single adult, much less a family. Income-related rents have been a tremendous boost to many families, but with the State housing waiting list topping 12,000 now, and with many still living in atrocious and/or unaffordable conditions, they provide only one part of the solution. Dr Cullen now presides over an “embarrassment of riches”, as the Sunday Star-Times put it this weekend. The forecast surplus has risen by a quarter to $5.6 billion in the year to June. While this money has been plunged into the Superannuation Fund, capital spending, and the repayment of debt, surely by next year’s Budget something can be left over for children and families.

I have a bill sitting on the Order Paper that legislates for a universal child benefit at the minimal rate of $15 a week for the first child, and $10 a week for second and subsequent children. If implemented, even at this pitifully low level, it would cost about $500 million or $600 million a year. I realise that Labour’s first reaction will likely be to veto my bill on the grounds of unaffordability. I call on Labour to have a serious think about what all our children deserve, and to think about not only reforming family support and family assistance, but also about providing a universal child benefit so that at least all primary caregivers will have a little more to spend on things like food, clothing, and school trips. The Government can afford it. It is simply a matter of priorities and of political will.

This morning our newly appointed Commissioner for Children, Cindy Kiro, gave a moving speech at a Littlies Lobby function here at Parliament. Ms Kiro said, among other things: “Why should we accept that children grow up in poverty in this country? I simply do not accept this premise. Every household in this country raising children and young people should have the support of our society to raise them.” I congratulate our new commissioner on her clear-eyed courage in laying down this challenge. I just hope that our Labour Government will listen to her.

It is tragic, really. It is tragic to watch the demise of a once-proud National Party—deluded, dejected, and all but defunct. It is lacking in leadership and searching in vain. Let me ask whether this scuttlebutt is true: which Auckland-based National Party MP will possibly be usurped and challenged in his or her seat by the current Mayor of Auckland, former National Party Minister John Banks? God help us if John Banks ever finds his way back into that party! It is my understanding that there are members of the National Party in the Auckland area who believe that his re-election might be the panacea to solving the Bill English lack-of-leadership issue. I suggest that if John Banks is not the answer, then perhaps National members might like to look again at the women within their caucus—to improve and upgrade women’s visibility and priority within the benches across the way, and to promote another woman and take us back to the days of Jenny Shipley. Those members are probably wishing they could go back to those halcyon days when they were once strong and proud.

What is it about Bill English’s leadership that prompts such thought or scuttlebutt—that there may be others who were once proud and had done well, like Mayor Banks of Auckland? Perhaps they should make some contribution. For those male members of the National Party who cannot fathom elevating one of their own women’s caucus members to a higher place in the leadership stakes, I tell them that I can offer Mr English the name of a surgeon who might be able to assist him to cross over in some way. I am sure that that assistance will be warmly welcomed, should it be the way he wishes to go.

This really is about the National Party’s policies—or lack of them. We can see how National Party members have cast their minds back to the halcyon days under their regime of the 1990s. Yes, policies from those days are the policies they regurgitate again and again. They are useless policies, simply because National has no idea what is going on—for example, in education. National has resorted to resurrecting old, failed ideas such as the reintroduction of national testing, removal of enrolment zones, privatisation of the education system, and beneficiary bashing to target truancy. Those ideas are from a National Party with no new ideas.

If National wants to make improvements it has to think forward and have vision. It has taken decades for the National Party to come up with those so-called new ideas so it is no wonder it continues to fail at the polls. All the policy ideas proposed for education are nothing more than tired old slogans from the policy failures of National’s last term in office. They have rightly been described as “crude and rather predictable conservative slogans”. The thin and lightweight document is very clearly tired, and devoid of fact or new ideas—zoning and privatisation? What an embarrassment!

The Labour-led Government is building a world-class education system whereby we will ensure opportunity for all, not just for the privileged few. Unlike National, Labour has moved on, replaced the failed policies of the 1990s, and rebuilt the education system in order to improve outcomes for all students. There was a lot to do. The legacy of the National Government did a huge amount of damage to our public education system. Our priority in Government is to build an education system that equips New Zealanders with 21st century skills—not something from back in the 1840s or thereabouts—and reduces underachievement.

We have invested in literacy, for example. In our first Budget an extra $24 million was injected into that area alone, and in the last Budget another $15 million. That is progress coming from this Government. We have invested in quality teachers. We have put 550 more teachers in schools, and $2.65 million in funding will be provided over 4 years to set up a working group of experts to develop a framework for best teaching practice. That is a lot more than that lousy, useless National Party across the way ever offered. National can only hark back to its failed policies of the 1990s; Labour invests.

That was a fine outburst from one of the suppressed back-bench members of the Labour Party, who, along with Mahara Okeroa, finally got her say. They were finally allowed to talk in the House after being told to sit back there, keep quiet, swallow the dead rats, and vote for the Supreme Court Bill. They were told: “Don’t represent your people; just come to the Parliament and do as you are told.” I say to Georgina Beyer that she should not have vented her anger on us; she should have directed it at those Ministers on the front two rows of the Government benches.

I want to refer the House today to a fine and accurate piece of journalism. I refer to the local Victoria University magazine, Salient, where Michael Appleton, the editor of that magazine, recently completed an interview with the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. Let me tell members of this House that that was a stunning piece—a great piece—of journalism. I will read the concluding paragraph: “Clark is running out of friends. The media are more suspicious of her. She is burning bridges with the Greens, and United Future will be more at home on social issues with National than Labour.”—well, maybe not—“Interest groups are tired of being patronised by a Prime Minister who lashes out at anyone who criticises her.” That is precisely the theme that the New Zealand public—

💬 Jill Pettis: You weren’t born when Muldoon was alive—obviously!

I tell the member that I was born when Muldoon was alive. What a very strange woman! Thank goodness we do not have to deal with her on our side of the House.

I have to say that that piece of journalism did extremely well. Helen Clark is quoted in the piece as saying: “I speak a lot about tolerance. We battle away at trying to promote attitudes that are tolerant, inclusive, and understanding.” But the editor himself disagrees with Miss Clark’s description of herself, and he goes on to say: “For all she talks about tolerance, it is quite clear she is a very intolerant person. She is very intolerant of people who have different political views from her. She is intolerant of Ministers whom she perceives as incompetent, and she is intolerant of journalists who criticise her.”

Do members remember when she accused the Greens at the last election of “descending to the gutter of the National Party.”? I thought that was a bit harsh on us, actually; it was not so harsh on the Greens. Do members remember when she described John Campbell as that “little creep” and as despicable and unethical? Do members remember when she labelled Wyatt Creech, one of the finest people ever to come to this House, as “a scumbag” and “a sleazeball”? Those comments were made by this tolerant Prime Minister, who says she promotes tolerance and understanding in her own party.

She is unwilling to debate with anybody on issues that matter. The Privy Council legislation was rammed through. It was major constitutional legislation change and it was pushed straight through this House. She was not interested in talking to farmers about the flatulence tax. She was not interested in listening to the backbone of New Zealand.

She is not alone in having odd views at the moment. The rumour circulating around Wellington is that Annette King is off. She has bought a house in Hawke’s Bay, and she is waiting for the current Speaker to head off to London so she can get that job and retire in the Speaker’s Chair before the end of this Parliament. I say to Annette King that she should come down to this House and tell us she is not retiring to Hawke’s Bay or waiting to be Speaker of the House. She has obviously been given the nod to be the next Speaker.

We want to know what will happen to poor members like Clayton Cosgrove. What will happen to Clayton Cosgrove? He is one of the suppressed back-benchers. He has been banished to the back benches by that fellow from Hamilton, who—well, no one seems to know exactly what that member does.

David Parker will be the former member for Otago at the next election—I can tell members now that that seat has gone. That seat at the next election will be held by National. That member’s minutes are ticking away.

Phil Goff, the man who single-handedly wrecked our relationship with Australia and the United States—who comes down here, vein-popping and screaming about what is going on, on this side of the House—is withering on the vine. There are no more barbeques, I say to Mr Goff—no more chances for the leadership—but just a sad, sad withering on the vine.

What will Helen Clark’s legacy be? How will Helen Clark be remembered by history? She likes to model herself on Keith Holyoake, who was a great National Party leader. Helen Clark may model herself on Keith Holyoake. Helen Clark might even think she can be like Keith Holyoake, but, in the words of vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen, Helen Clark is no Keith Holyoake.

Today is a members’ day, which reminds me that the last members’ day, 17 September, was a black day in this House. It was the day that the United Future party filibustered on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill brought in by Steve Chadwick. The performance of Mr Dunne was an attempt to take up as much time as possible in order to stop the inevitable from happening. The inevitable that I am talking about is, of course, the fact that an overwhelming majority in this Parliament supports the health and safety measures contained in the bill. The overwhelming majority in this House is anxious to protect the often not-well-paid workers in the hospitality industry from the cancer-causing fumes directed at them in their workplace.

There is nothing unusual about the bill. Major cities and advanced nations around the world are well ahead of New Zealand in this field. Although it is, of course, fair enough that United Future opposes legislation it if wishes, it is a conservative party led by a man who was elected as a Labour MP, only to end up in Jim Bolger’s National - United Cabinet. It is a party whose members have made it overwhelmingly clear over the past 2 months that they would choose a National-ACT—possibly joined by New Zealand First—Government over our Labour-Progressive coalition after the 2005 election, if they ever had the power to choose. The filibustering started in August when we saw United Future working with its old ally National on the smoke-free environments legislation, which will protect workers—workers who belong to families but get no help in this House from the party branding itself as pro-family; workers who would benefit from 4 weeks’ annual leave so that they can afford to remain in the productive workforce while also having families; workers whom the pro-family party seemingly could not give a toss about.

Back in 1992 Mr Dunne told the New Zealand Herald that he wanted all members of Parliament to sign a code of conduct pledge aimed at restoring public respect for the institution of Parliament. But the reputation of Parliament not only has been damaged by filibustering, it has also been damaged by those who supported the ruthless programme of selling assets to any old foreign bidder, in the administrations of the 1980s and 1990s. Mr Dunne participated in the two administrations that did that. He participated in both sides, along with the ACT party leaders. He was part of an administration that sold public assets and ruthlessly broke firm electoral pledges, such as that on the superannuation surtax.

Parliament’s reputation would be enhanced if United Future and New Zealand First would tell the public whether they will support our coalition Government or a Don Brash – Richard Prebble coalition. United Future will not enhance public confidence in Parliament by filibustering and signing meaningless pledges about codes of conduct, but Parliament’s reputation would be enhanced if United Future and New Zealand First would tell us about their post-election intentions, before people vote. United Future does not in fact have the courtesy to tell voters whether it will support the Labour-Progressive coalition or a National-ACT alternative after the 2005 election. To divert attention from this issue, its leader has mused aloud about one day being Prime Minister himself, but the only real contest at the next election is that between our side and the looming Brash-Prebble—and possibly Peters—coalition.

The Progressive party leader, Jim Anderton, the chairperson of the ministerial committee tackling drug and alcohol abuse, will hold a public debate on Tuesday next week with the Green Party’s pro - cannabis legislation campaigner, Mr Nandor Tanczos. That is one of the real debates—the question of drug abuse, particularly amongst our young people. The Progressive party and the Greens are the two parties that will be campaigning openly at the next election to join with Labour in a coalition. The Progressives’ opposition to a liberal, easy-going, and “me first” drugs policy stance is not based on some abstract morality principle. It is a practical concern about the effects on young people of their abusing alcohol, P, cannabis, and tobacco, because young people are the most vulnerable in our society and need guidance, firmness, and leadership from their Parliament. Teenagers in Kaikohe or Gisborne, who deserve the respect of parliamentarians, need to be told firmly what they may not want to hear: “If you smoke dope, if you abuse alcohol, then what you’ll find when you are 20, and ready for a job or training, is that employers may not want you, because you haven’t got the right work habits, life skills, and attitudes.”

The sorry record of the Minister of Immigration should be of serious concern to every woman in this country. Every bogus asylum-seeker, fake refugee, and overstayer in this country hides behind the skirts of Lianne Dalziel, and, to her great shame, she makes those people welcome. That Minister laughed in Parliament yesterday about a fake refugee called Mohammed Saidi who has preyed on not one but four New Zealand women since he came here. When one of those women approached the Minister for help, that woman was not helped in any way by this so-called champion of New Zealand women’s rights.

After the Minister laughed about the Saidi case yesterday, we approached one of the victims and asked her how Lianne Dalziel had helped her and how she felt about the Minister’s performance. She wrote back: “Dear Mr Peters, This is how we felt by the treatment of the Minister of Immigration: 1. Like the criminal, not the victim. 2. Frustrated by the lack of action and the lengthy gaps between my correspondence and hers. 3. Fobbed off with non-sensical replies. 4. Disillusioned at lack of justice. 5. Anger and disbelief at the rights given to Saidi. 6. Felt that Dalziel showed no genuine concern, and tried to play down the whole situation in case it became too controversial.” She states: “Questions I have for Dalziel: 1. Why wasn’t Saidi treated like Zaui when their situations are identical? 2. What happened to ‘the further investigations being undertaken’ on Saidi? (letter from Dalziel 2nd Dec. 2002).” Lastly, she states: “Latest on Saidi: He is now living with another ‘victim’ (no. 4) and he has not had any contact with his son, Jamal for seven months. Thank you and good luck,”.

Lianne Dalziel does not care about the women of this country. She cares more about HIV refugees who infect New Zealand women with AIDS. Every crook, fake refugee, and bogus asylum-seeker in the world can come here, because those people know that the Minister will hide them behind her skirts. The question I want to ask is how on earth did she become a Minister. Her performance is disgraceful. What did the women of New Zealand do to deserve a Minister who will not protect our borders from sexual predators from the Third World? What must this Government, which claims to be the champion of women’s causes, think of her and her woeful, inadequate response to women who seek her help and protection from her regular and injudicious use of her approval stamp? Does she ever give a thought to the horrors visited upon innocent New Zealand women, when she accepts every application from every piece of international flotsam and jetsam she lets into this country?

Why does the Prime Minister shield her from the scrutiny of those who expose her callous disregard for the health and well-being of New Zealand women? It is outrageous that anyone who tries to expose her for having failed so spectacularly is attacked as being racist, unfair, anti-immigrant, or an Asian basher. I have never seen such an incompetent performance. But, more important, literally hundreds and hundreds of women in this country have been abused in this way. I have given just one circumstance, and have read from a letter of evidence from a woman who went to Lianne Dalziel and was totally fobbed off, totally ignored. Yet here we are, years on, and still no investigation has been done properly. Mohammed Saidi is still here, and has been granted permanent residence by Lianne Dalziel. He is on to his fourth woman victim. What sort of country is this, when that sort of thing can happen in our society? It is a disgrace.

The Minister of Immigration should be downright ashamed of herself. She should be ashamed of herself, and the Prime Minister should call her to account or otherwise admit that they are aiding and abetting this victimisation of New Zealand citizens. Lianne Dalziel—

💬 Craig McNair: Should resign.

Resign? That is too good for her. She should be paying a penalty back to those poor women, who are now looking after all sorts of kids, all and sundry—

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Why is only one New Zealand First member in the House?

There you are! John Tamihere agrees with her behaviour, but that is no surprise. He thinks the whole thing is a joke. He thinks it is a laughing matter. He thinks it is a comedy. New Zealand First does not, and when we are back, within 2 years, in Government over there, we are going to stop this sort of thing.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.