General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Looking back over the past year at achievements by this politically correct apology for a Government, we can only say that never before in the history of this once-great country have so many done so little, so often, for so few. [Interruption] Whom did I plagiarise that from? Well, not from Rod Donald. He is no wordsmith. He has a big mouth, but he is no wordsmith. Labour, once a great party of social and economic justice, has been taken over by a collection of creatures from a political “Middle Earth” nightmare. This is a Government that is banal, bent, and full of weirdoes who deal in slogans, jingles, and clichés.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Look in the mirror.

No, that is not my habit. That is the member’s habit—not mine.

Real New Zealanders have become increasingly cynical about and disbelieving in the political process under this Government. No better is that illustrated than at question time in this House. There is no Western democracy where there is so little accountability, where Ministers think question time is a joke, and where they do their utmost to evade simple answers.

💬 Government Member: That’s not right.

I wrote to the Minister of Immigration in what she claimed was the most recent correspondence—the operative word being “recent”—on 22 November. She wrote back and said that she had no idea of the fraudster I mentioned, even though his brother, an LLB from Dakar, says that he is here. The brother may know that—and he knows the friends and relations—but, of course, the Minister does not know that, and nor does her department. She boasted yesterday of catching eight people because of the department’s new early-warning system. That is eight out of how many? Well, 190,000 people came here last year, all up, and of that number, in 4 months the department has found eight. The Minister is boasting about it.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s 2 million.

Oh no, she cannot say that. Those are tourists and visitors. The people down there in the ship right now are part of the 2 million people, but I am talking about the 190,000 that go into our register.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: So they have marks on their heads, have they?

Oh, no. What an excited laugh that member has. It is a bit of a give-away, really. I cannot tell members what I think it is, but it is a give-away.

This Government is a bizarre group of political misfits—and there are no “Mr Fits”, just “Miss Fits”—who have decided that New Zealand women aged 18 can become prostitutes, but that they cannot have a smoke! To combat teenage drinking, those no-hopers increased the price of port and sherry for the elderly. They have brought in tens of thousands of people from the Third World and from all over the world, and planted them in Auckland. Then we have a Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. What has she done for Auckland? That must be the country’s best-kept secret. I ask members to name just one little thing that she has done for Auckland. Nothing! There is not a sound from over there on the Government benches. The Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues has done nothing for Auckland. The Government brings in all these tens of thousands of people—40,000 in 2002—parks them in Auckland, and then claims it will get on top of Auckland’s roading problems. What a joke that is! The Government imposes laws by stealth. It pleads the United Nations.

Ahmed Zaoui should never have arrived here; that has cost $200,000 now. He will be in prison for a long, long time. He was not turned around—and the Minister says she cannot tell us about him, because the privacy laws prevent her from doing so.

The Government has inflicted this country with an epidemic of political correctness, which has created men out of women and women out of men. Now women can become fathers. There must be a biological advance I am not aware of, but women now can become fathers. The hardest job in our future will be to train boys to become men. There is no accountability in this House. There is nothing but spin all the time—vituperation, tirades, and no facts. [Interruption] Lianne Dalziel is giving a speech by way of interjection. Why will she not get up and defend herself?

💬 Opposition Member: She should resign.

Yes, she should resign. She is incompetent. She is the worst Minister of Immigration any Western nation has ever had.

What a historic day this is in the development of the relationship between Australia and New Zealand. Today Australia and New Zealand signed an agreement to establish a joint agency to regulate medicines and therapeutic products. It is significant that a treaty has been signed this year—the 20th anniversary of the establishment of closer economic relations. This joint regulator is the culmination of many years of hard work.

Today I would like to congratulate all those who have been involved in this 9-year process of bringing together a joint regulator. I congratulate the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley, who in 1996 signed the first agreement that we would go into a joint regulator. I congratulate the Hon Neil Kirton, who in 1997 then continued the process of setting up the joint regulator. I congratulate Bill English, who from 1997 through to 1999 was involved in the setting up of the joint regulator. I congratulate Wyatt Creech, who in 1999 pushed it even further. Finally, I congratulate Georgina te Heuheu, who was also one of those who signed the last document in terms of setting up a joint regulator. That work was done over those years.

When I became Minister in 1999, I looked at the work that had been done by the previous coalition Government of New Zealand First and National, and we decided that we would agree in principle to a joint regulator. I announced in October 2000 that the Government was committed to such an agency. In November 2002, I again affirmed that the Government had decided to continue with a joint regulator.

Today is a blue-ribbon day. However, I happen to know that the Australians are rather disappointed in the National Party, and the Minister has said that she intends to have a little chat with National Party members as to why they are not taking some credit for the work that has been done and why they are not looking seriously at our trans-Tasman relationship. This is the final part of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement, which was never finished. We have had an exemption for those products since 1998, and every year we have had to go back to get a further exemption. So it is a very blue-ribbon day today. I am very pleased that we have signed the treaty.

The joint regulator will protect the public from harm and ensure there is safety, quality, and efficiency.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It sells out our country.

It stops friends of Winston Peters from selling products that contain arsenic, grass clippings, and those sorts of things—something he does not care about.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A member cannot get up and claim that friends of a member of Parliament are selling arsenic, though I know where it would be most properly used. A member cannot say that. She should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is quite correct. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I did withdraw and apologise. The idea of the joint regulator is to ensure that complementary medicines, pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter products, and medical devices reach the highest standard before they are given to the public of New Zealand. There may be members opposite who do not think it is very important to have strong regulations around the sale of products containing grass clippings, which people claim will fix someone’s prostate problem. There are those who sell products containing arsenic and say the products are good for people; who sell products containing Viagra but do not say that, thus people do not know they are taking Viagra; who put mercury into products—

💬 Simon Power: You might find out.

That may well be of benefit to the member opposite. In fact, I recommend it to him. However, that is not what this Government or previous Governments—including the Government that Winston Peters was in—supports.

Today, as I said, is a blue-ribbon day, a red-letter day, or whatever one wants to call it. We are very pleased to have signed the treaty and to now allow the legislation to be prepared for the establishment of that joint regulator.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It won’t get passed.

I predict that it will pass, when people see what is involved and start to listen to the arguments.

I also ask what the reaction has been. I would like to share with the House the reaction of the New Zealand Medical Association, which put out a statement today that it makes considerable sense for such regulations to be consistent with our Australian counterparts, particularly for reasons of cost-effectiveness and of introducing higher standards. It supports what this Government and previous Governments have worked towards.

The thing that really disappoints me is that ACT put out a statement that we ought to have mutual recognition, but that was rejected in ACT’s own report.

Last week, the Government made a very big mistake. UMR Insight polled a person in this complex, on behalf of the Prime Minister’s poll-driven leadership. That exposes what is really going on on the ninth floor. Ministers should watch their backs, because the Prime Minister is conducting polls on them. Questions in the poll included: “How do you rate the performance of Michael Cullen, Annette King, Phil Goff, and Trevor Mallard?” Pete Hodgson was noticeably absent. More important, when the Government pollsters polled on Parekura Horomia, the question asked how his performance was and another asked about John Tamihere.

What is going on in the Prime Minister’s mind? The poll was also very revealing about the Government’s worries. It contained questions such as: “Is the country becoming too politically correct?” We could answer that question for the Prime Minister. Yes, it is. “Is the Government guilty of telling you what to think?” Yes, it is. There is no question about that. Here is one for the Rt Hon Winston Peters. “Is the Government too soft on immigration?”. Other questions include: “Are there adequate police numbers?”, and: “Do you approve of the Government’s handling of the foreshore?”

I say to members opposite that they should look out over the Christmas break. Their Prime Minister is polling them. Tellingly, one of the questions was: “Has the Government’s listening to Māori complaints gone too far?”. This Government is polling on every little issue. “Is there too much focus on Māori issues, to the detriment of the mainstream?” [Interruption] The chief whip can chip in, but the Prime Minister is polling and the Government is scared. That is not political leadership. Leadership is creative. It is about charting a course. It is about mobilising people behind a clear set of principles. It is underpinned by good judgment, I say to the Prime Minister, not by the latest polling data. Leadership means making tough choices, not pandering to poll-driven, fleeting prejudices. It involves character, and it involves leading public opinion on difficult policy problems facing the nation. I tell the Prime Minister that leadership is not about polling techniques.

This Prime Minister is a follower, not a leader. This says that Helen Clark has only very rigid control, and very little else, to offer us. This Prime Minister cannot even consider a Cabinet reshuffle without seeking poll information on members of her own front bench. It says a great deal about Helen Clark’s leadership that, having gained the people’s fragile trust, she has done so little with it. Is Helen Clark leading on the foreshore and seabed debate? No, she is not. In fact, where is Helen Clark on matters relating to race relations in this country? I will tell members where she is; she is sitting on the ninth floor pouring over polling data, trying to get the answer right and trying to see whether poll results show her that John Tamihere would be a more popular Minister of Māori Affairs than Parekura Horomia. That is not leadership; that is a cynical manipulation of public opinion. It is political management devoid of vision, and it is limited only by the Prime Minister’s narrow and selfish ambition to try to break records for longevity in office.

This Prime Minister is no Dick Seddon. She is no Peter Fraser, and she is not even a Rob Muldoon. She does not belong in their company, I say to members of this House, because her approach to leadership is to ask poll respondents for their advice on how to lead. That is not leadership. Dick Seddon led public opinion; this Prime Minister just follows it. Peter Fraser had principles; this Prime Minister has only her polls—and her number is up.

It is high time that those who live off the earnings of criminal activities are made accountable, not only for the crimes they are charged with but for the onus of proof that their property has been lawfully obtained. If they cannot do that, then properties should be confiscated and the proceeds distributed back to the communities the criminals preyed on. It seems to me that we are getting nothing more than platitudes about getting tough on crime and getting tough on P. What the Government is doing is simply not enough. [Interruption]

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot hear the member.

Those members are not listening to the wise words here, Madam Speaker.

The drug P is a scourge upon this country, and this Government is doing precious little about it. The Government talks about education and about platitudes, but it does not get to the heart of the problem. It is a namby-pamby Government that is still trying to understand the problem let alone find decent solutions to protect the people of this country. Meanwhile, legislation introduced in Western Australia in 2001 has enabled authorities to confiscate all the assets of gangs, which are the primary producers and distributors of the drug P. The result has been to shift the burden of proof to members and associates of those gangs, and, in effect, to hit them in their wallets.

In this country, gangs manufacture 95 percent of the drug P yet we are sitting around on the edges not being able to do very much about it. We need to take account of how the Western Australians have approached this problem, which is to introduce something along the lines of a criminal organisation and gang property confiscation bill. Such legislation shifts the onus completely on to the gangs to prove that all their property has been lawfully obtained. It means that for once the good citizens of this country—our law-abiding citizens—do not now have to try to prove the illegality of the assets those gangs have. The onus will be reversed and it will be the gangs that will have to prove legality, in return. It makes sense. People talk about that as contravening the right of presumption of innocence. Why is it that the innocent are supposed to be the ones who play by the one-sided rules—rules that bend over backwards to protect the offenders and the purveyors of misery through the drug culture, particularly with something like P?

Recently the drug P has been blamed for an upsurge in domestic violence that has led to a shortage of space in women’s refuges. It is a drug associated with a huge amount of violence, and today I am reminded of the Coral Burrows case, in which the drug P was directly involved. According to the national alcohol and drug helpline, from 2002 to 2003 methamphetamine calls went up by 3,000 percent compared with cannabis calls, which just doubled. This is a scourge we must grasp before it takes hold of New Zealand and of New Zealand youth. Assets would be frozen until the State could confirm that, in the absence of proof of lawful acquisition and on the balance of probabilities, the resources of a gang or member of a gang were the result of criminal activity. At that point—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who wrote this rubbish? I think the member wrote it himself.

Certainly, it was nobody who came through an educational establishment under that Minister. Under his ministership, educational standards have gone absolutely out the window. It is time he went back to school. He should go back to private education and start learning himself.

I come back to my point. Assets would be confiscated, to do some good and be returned to the community from which they have been stolen. If we want to reclaim our streets, our future, and our kids we need to give the police the tools to do the job. This Government has absconded from that responsibility. It will not give the police the tools they need. It will not resource them in terms of police numbers. It will not resource them in terms of the kind of legislation they need so they can go after gangs. It seems that it is always the innocent and law-abiding who have to suffer. It should not happen any more. It is time to take the gloves off and treat criminal organisations with the only weapon that will do the job—that is, take away their ill-gotten gains. It is a kind of warfare we must wage.

In this last general debate of the year there is one question: who owns the beaches?

When we sit here on this side of the House, we hear confusion, we hear chaos, and we do not get answers. Not once has the Government given a clear answer to the public of New Zealand, through Parliament, about who owns the beaches. The reality is, the Government is in a shambles. It is in a complete mess on this issue. It cannot satisfy its Māori caucus and it cannot assure other New Zealanders that they will be able to go to the beaches this summer. No wonder there is trepidation. There is confusion, and that is why protest movements are being mounted right now that will stop New Zealanders from going on to beaches. That is the simple proposition. It is a marked contrast to the 1990s, when National had to deal with difficult issues around those kinds of things. But did we have this kind of delay? Did we have months and months of speculation? No, we had solutions; that was the difference. The Labour Government goes by polls; we went by solutions in the 1990s.

It will surprise the House to know that the Government cannot even guarantee Crown ownership of the seabed and foreshore. Yet that is exactly what the Prime Minister promised New Zealanders back in August last year. It is now just before Christmas 2003, and New Zealanders are still waiting for the answer. What did we hear today? Oh, no, the Government is talking about proposals yet to be finalised. No wonder it is accused of duplicity. That is what is happening. But some things are clear. We have heard what Minister Tamihere has said. Ministers have said to Te Ope Mana a Tai that there can be manu whenua customary title. The reality is—because the law books say so—that customary title is the equivalent of a fee simple title.

So the Government has to answer these key questions today: will the manu whenua customary title—because it has already agreed to it, apparently—include full development rights? Maybe Mr Samuels can answer this: will those full development rights lead to the exclusive use and control of the seabed, the foreshore, and the beaches? If that is the case, the Government will not be able to deliver on its commitment to full public access. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot give to Māori exclusive customary mana whenua title, equivalent to fee simple, and at the same time guarantee full public access. That is a simple proposition that has been asked. The Minister on his feet right now, Mr Tamihere, could take the next call and tell the House which of those two propositions is true.

We would ask the Government to guarantee Crown ownership. Instead, it looks as though the Government will repeal section 9A of the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act. The reason I say that is because section 9A of that Act states that all land that is foreshore and seabed “shall be land of the Crown”. That is a simple proposition that guarantees everyone access. It benefits every single New Zealander, no matter what his or her ethnicity is. Instead, the Minister said yesterday that it is simply “deemed” to be land of the Crown. I do not know how it can be more specific than the words “shall be land of the Crown”. Why on earth would we use concepts like “public domain” to replace a clear idea of Crown ownership that has been well understood for hundreds of years?

The Government has now raised this proposition of the subdivision of the beaches, foreshore, and seabed amongst various claimants—and there are hundreds of them in the wider community.

It is very interesting to note that during this general debate in the House the Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash, has stayed silent. And well might he stay silent, because when the National Party leaves at the end of this year to go on a summer holiday and, over the barbecue, look at the year of 2003, it will look in retrospect and see what it managed to achieve.

National started out the year slumped in the polls, and it is still there. It changed the leadership, woke up the next morning after it had done so, and said: “Oh dear, what have we done? We’re still slumped in the polls.” It is now competing with New Zealand First to retain the position of being the major Opposition party. National has no hope of winning in 2005. It changed the deputy leader—that was a big mistake, yet again—and the only good point to have come out of the year for National is that Bill English is finally looking as though he has a glimpse of the X factor. The dumb part of that is: the party had just dumped him as its leader.

The National Party has been dealt another blow, which came in a column in the Sunday Star-Times as a result of the book New Zealand Votes: the 2002 General Election. Jonathan Milne said: “The glory days are all in the past for the National Party. That is a conclusion drawn from an eight-year $1 million-plus study into how New Zealand politics has changed …” Nigel Roberts told the columnist: “I would say it means that National, for the first time, has to start pushing water uphill … I think we’re seeing the potential for a significant long-term change.” Mr Nigel Roberts has it exactly right.

The change started, in actual fact, in the 1960s and 1970s. There was a fundamental shift in New Zealand politics. The National Party led New Zealand into war in Vietnam; the Labour Party brought the troops home. The National Party was prepared to sell New Zealanders’ bodies for sheep exports. National failed New Zealand. We have an echo of this today in the war in Iraq. National wanted New Zealand to join the United States of America in the war in Iraq; Labour said it did not because it supported internationalism and international institutions like the United Nations. The rest of New Zealand agrees with the Labour position; the National Party again finds itself on the wrong side of the political void.

Labour supports a nuclear-free New Zealand; National embraced it, but unwillingly. Again, that policy started to shift in the 1960s and 1970s, but National was locked into a 1950s values set. The same values held by the National Party saw it invite the Springboks to New Zealand; again, Labour was opposed to that. The same set of narrow values the National Party clings to sees it being very negative towards our indigenous people, the Māori of New Zealand. National wants to abolish Māori seats; Labour supports them. Labour is a positive, inclusive party; National is exclusive. The National Party wants to abolish the Ministry of Women’s Affairs; Labour says that is not a good policy and we want to have all our people doing well.

Another policy that shows the great divide in New Zealand is National’s embrace of a right-wing orthodoxy from the United States concerning work for the dole. Labour says we need to encourage people into work positively. When Labour came to power in 1999, there were 138,000 people registered on the unemployment benefit. There are now 88,000 people—a huge improvement. It shows the difference between a positive policy and a negative policy. The National Party has negative policies and is a punitive party; Labour supports positive policies for positive change.

National wants to take other leaps back into the past. National, led by Don Brash, wants to recommence asset sales; Labour says that asset sales are finished—in fact, we have built a new bank. Labour wants to progress things for working people and we are legislating for 4 weeks’ annual leave; Don Brash’s team wants to take annual leave off working people. National offers New Zealand old values. That is what this survey has found, and there is a huge divide.

Labour is looking to the future. Labour is looking to an inclusive society. Labour is looking to promote the things that make New Zealand a much better place. We want to promote our indigenous culture and say: “This is who we are as a people.” We want to be good citizens on the world stage and do the right thing by the United Nations and other institutions.

The National Party wants to follow those values that led New Zealand down through the paths of the cold war and into Vietnam. The National Party is locked in the past, and over the Christmas holidays it will be searching to discover how it can find a way to make old-fashioned, 1950s policies and attitudes attractive to New Zealand—or how it can jump the divide and follow Labour into building a positive and inclusive society.

The Greens oppose the Government’s current school network review process. A number of our members have been involved with many of the communities that are affected by network reviews and, in a few cases, there has been some agreement that it is appropriate for schools to close. It is true that some schools are failing, and without intervention and support they will simply flounder until they do—inevitably—close. On a case by case basis, school closures are a normal part of the administration of the Ministry of Education, but this current process is not normal. It is not done on a case by case basis. It affects not only those schools that need to close for sound educational reasons but also those schools with growing rolls, community support, and excellent Education Review Office reports. Such schools are also under threat of closure in this process.

This process is a full-scale, purposeful attempt to rationalise all schools, in order to extract from those closures money that will eventually be put towards the consolidated account. Through this process the community, parents, and children who suffer this are promised a chance to contribute, but in the end their views, informed by knowledge of the children’s educational and social needs and by their experience of their wider communities, will not prevail over the ministry’s agenda.

The guiding principle for the Greens’ approach to network reviews and school closures is that children belong in their own communities. From this principle, the first issue to focus on is the quality of education for children. One of the criteria for quality education is access to education that is local and community-focused. Support for children in their own communities means that children know the people around them, children are known by name, and children feel secure in their environment and confident that the place is their place.

Another guiding principle for the Greens is that the proposed changes are analysed in terms of community development. We want to ensure that the infrastructure of communities is maintained as part of our support for regional areas. Keeping integrity with regional development is absolutely crucial if we want to build economic and social viability in regional areas and relieve cities of the increased pressure on infrastructure from increased population growth. There must be good services for families in rural and regional areas, as part of a national strategy for viable communities in all parts of Aotearoa New Zealand. Dynamic communities, in economic, social, and cultural terms, are to be the expectation of city people, rural people, and those in more isolated communities alike. Regional development means commitment to all communities. It involves recognition of the contributions to national life from regional sectors, with a commitment to maintaining opportunities for enterprises that are in jeopardy where the weight of resources is available only in the cities.

The Greens consider that schools are a community resource, and we believe that an assessment of community resources must be part of any school closure process. Schools tend to be a focus for communities and foster social cohesion and shared activities. School classrooms are used for lots of different community activities—adult education, libraries, and information rooms. It is precisely this cooperative approach to schools that creates the cohesive community. For some in rural areas the school is the best resource in their community. It is a centre for children, for families, for local health and sporting interests, for community groups and services, and for informal networks.

The priority must be the provision of a high-quality education for our children, but communities have been told by ministry officials that although educational outcomes are a priority, the network reviews are about responding to changing demographics, which means responding to falling rolls in schools. It is therefore possible that schools with excellent Education Review Office reports and growing rolls are to be closed. Existing professional relationships between teachers within a community are undermined in the restructuring, leading to an extended period of uncertainty in a school, which adds unnecessary stress.

The Minister has said that falling rolls make this full-scale process necessary, but many parents and educators have noted that falling rolls bring opportunities for reduced class sizes, which are educationally beneficial. There have been calls for reduced class sizes for years. Although there are increasing numbers of teachers, class sizes are not reducing. But the ministry also recognises there are increased numbers of children with learning difficulties who could benefit from just a little extra attention to their specific needs. Reduced class sizes would have a huge impact on relieving teacher workloads, enabling better class management and providing some individual time for each child. Those are good things, which this Minister should be promoting, but, instead, he is fuelling existing disparities.

Although I want to talk about the environment, as a former educationalist I cannot resist speaking about education. To hear that last speaker not equate high quality and falling rolls seems to me absolutely duplicitous. It is good to have small classrooms, but if there is nil subject choice, then the school is not offering anything to those children. I can only think of the children in one of the smallest secondary departments of an area school in New Zealand—halfway between Blenheim and Nelson—who wrote to me the other day. They would rather pay for private transport to get them to bigger schools with subject choice than be confined in a secondary school with only 26 students. That is the sort of issue being faced. That is what they mean about quality. To denigrate that and say that that is somehow demographics and not unpick what demographics means is, to my mind, dishonest debating.

But I want to concentrate a little on something that the Labour-Progressive Government, which is a good, strong Government, has been clear on this year. It has been clear on the direction and leadership it has shown on the environment. It has shown a strong, clear leadership—unlike the confused and contradictory utterances from ACT and National, which I will come to. I turn to a little of our record this year. The Ministry for the Environment’s job is to clean up the mistakes of the past. I turn to an area near the electorate of the Opposition spokesperson for the environment, namely Mapua. This is a horrible site where an agrichemical factory once was, and where the chemicals leach out into the estuary. For years nothing was done, but now, as of the passing of the resource consents, the ministry is on its way to do the first part of a major clean-up that may cost as much as $9 million. This Government is prepared to work with local government to achieve that.

But we do not leave it there—we go to Lake Taupo. Land around Lake Taupo opened up in the 1960s, when a certain former Prime Minister drove a road down the western side of the lake and opened up an extraordinary amount of land to agriculture. The agriculture and farming that have gone on that land have contributed to the growth of nitrate and the lessening of clarity inside that particular lake. If we left it for 40 years, we would be looking at a Rotorua lakes problem. We would have lost one of our great assets, yet we are out there working with Environment Waikato, working with the farmers, working with Ngāti Tuwharetoa, working with the Taupo District Council, and with money—an uneven amount again—from central Government, to support a way to reverse the decline.

It goes again for the Rotorua lakes, which for years had a disgusting habit of disposing of sewage straight on to the bottom of the lakes. They did change that, and they did it with the help of previous Governments, but they did not do a helluva good job. We are now having to work to try to find some instant ways, as well as some long-term ways, of cleaning it up. What did the National Party members do about that? When they campaigned at the last election in 2002, they wanted a royal commission on the question. What did Labour do? Labour got in there, boots and all, worked with local government, and put up the money. It is in there, getting some solutions. There is no royal commission here—we got in there and delivered on it.

We have been showing leadership in waste strategy. We have been working out there with the sectors, working out with the tyre mountains that my good colleague always brings me from Hamilton. A number of other issues are out there. We have put up funds—millions of dollars—for biodiversity on private land. We recognise that farmers do care about that land and want to make some changes to it.

In the hazardous substances Act, and in the work that we did there this year, we had guts. Yes, public pressure was out there. Yes, there were polls, but on that occasion we set up a royal commission—on a divided subject—to listen to people. When it said “proceed with caution”, that is exactly what we did. That is leadership. We have ensured that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is fit to deliver the answers and the advice. We have shown good, firm leadership. We did not play political games and shift votes at the last moment because we thought the issue was just a little bit hot. We had some guts.

Are we caring about the future? You bet we are. We hold youth environment forums, and I get letters back from kids, saying: “I am revved up and wanting to go. I actually want to engage in these issues.” This is not about cuddling furry bears. This is out there; it is about cleaning up lakes. But what does the National Party do, and how confusing does it get?

Earlier this year the Minister of Education told the House that he believed that it was morally reprehensible and probably illegal for teachers to be paid additional salary for having foreign fee-paying students in their classrooms. I agree with him. We have teachers who have to integrate new immigrants into their classrooms, and they do not get any extra pay for that. We have teachers who have to include special-needs students in their classrooms, and they do not get any extra pay for that, so why should teachers who have foreign fee-paying students?

But the same applies to principals. Some principals are very good at tapping into discretionary grants. Do they get any extra pay for bringing additional revenue into their schools? No. Some principals are good fundraisers. Do they get extra salary for the extra revenue they bring into their schools? No, but I want to tell this House that there is one group that does get extra pay, that gets bonuses, over and above what they are paid to look after the interests of the New Zealand students in their schools. That group is the principals who have managed to recruit high numbers of foreign fee-paying students—and it is with the blessing and the encouragement of this Government.

This is how the scheme works: boards of trustees can write to the Ministry of Education and ask it to make an additional payment to their principal. New Zealand First asked some questions around this particular issue. The questions we asked were: “How many boards of trustees of secondary schools have requested approval to pay their principals an additional emolument because of the additional workload created by foreign fee-paying students in 2001, 2002, and 2003?” We went on to ask how many requests had been approved for each year. The answers were enlightening. In 2001, 10 requests were received and eight were approved. In 2002, 38 requests were received and 33 were approved, and in 2003, 51 requests were received and 38 were approved. Thirty-eight principals get bonuses for recruiting high numbers of foreign fee-paying students.

They do not get any bonuses for getting high academic standards in their schools—no bonuses are allowed for that. They do not get any bonuses, for example, for closing the gaps—they are not allowed to get bonuses for that. But they are allowed to get bonuses for recruiting high numbers of foreign fee-paying students, and that is where all the incentives are within our schools. The Government is encouraging the process, and hordes of principals leave these shores each year on recruitment drives—all funded out of boards of trustees’ money—to recruit as many foreign fee-paying students as they can.

We cannot blame the boards. Each student can be worth as much as $10,000 to the school, and when there are 200 or 300 of them, that turns into a fairly large amount of money. But there are many secondary schools in areas such as Kaitaia that do not have the capacity to attract foreign fee-paying students, so the resources they have available to their students are far, far fewer. If students can be fitted into already existing classes, there is no extra cost at all to the school. The only extra cost is upon the teacher, and the teacher does not get any additional payment.

This is a tawdry affair. Principals are paid by the taxpayer to look after the interests of New Zealand students in their schools, not the interests of foreign fee-paying students. If they claim that foreign fee-paying students provide much-needed resources, that is fine. But why are they being paid extra for doing it? That is their job. It is a principal’s job to maximise the resources within the school.

If they claim that foreign fee-paying students add additional experience of other cultures to New Zealand students, why are we allowing foreign students to be enrolled in such numbers that they do not need to intermingle or be immersed? It defeats the very purpose of them coming into New Zealand schools. Surely that is not the appropriate course of action to take. There is no limitation upon the number or proportion of students who can come into our schools. The other reality that makes a mockery of that claim is that this Government’s immigration policy ensures that New Zealand students have plenty of exposure to peers of different nationalities, ethnicities, and languages—particularly if the students live in Auckland.

Does this Government allow bonuses to be paid to a principal for inspired educational leadership? The Minister is there, so I ask him whether boards of trustees can say: “Look, we have got a brilliant principal here, he has done a wonderful job, can we pay him a bonus?” The answer is no. Is a board able to do that if, for example, it can demonstrate that the principal’s leadership is leading to very high levels of academic achievement? The answer is no.

It is wonderful to speak in the general debate, particularly at this time of the year. It is the last general debate for this session of Parliament, so on a personal level I express season’s greetings and felicitations to all members of the House. It is a time of year, of course, when one reflects on things that have occurred throughout the year. On a personal level I say to National Party members that I understand the angst they have experienced, particularly towards the latter part of this year. The beginning of the year was a bit lacklustre as well, but it fared a little better than what they have since experienced. But we will tarry on that a little later.

The Government can reflect on a pretty solid year and a very good year. It is one in which we cannot bask in any kind of glory, but one in which we know that we have delivered consistently, since we came into Government in 1999, on the commitments we said we would deliver on, and we have improved upon them in this second term leading the Government of this country.

We have a leadership that is enviable. It is envied, not only by other parties in this House I dare say, but also by people overseas. I can testify to that being the truth. When I have travelled on some international trips there has been a respect for Helen Clark in the international arena for her forthrightness and for leading a stable Government. Some have actually expressed the wish that she was their Prime Minister. I believe that is an endorsement that would be envied by the leader of any party in this House.

But as we reflect upon the year that the National Party has enjoyed, or otherwise, one can only admire the courage and stickability of National members. They are scratching their way towards the end of the year. They have had, as I have mentioned before, a turbulent time. They have had leadership problems that no one else has had, except possibly the Labour Party, which in the far distant past went through the similar angst that National is going through. So who did National members choose after they dumped Bill English? It was the wonderfully effervescent and charismatic Don Brash. He is the right honourable leader of the National Party, but even that coup was dithery. They dithered and faltered and could not get the roll-out of the leadership coup over to the public or even amongst themselves. I understand that there were National Party members running around like headless chooks wondering who was the leader that day and, more important, who was deputy leader at all, at one time. In the last little while they have been through something like six deputy leaders in as many years. It has been quite a lot.

As to the leader, people had to drink coffee profusely at a New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry meeting up in Auckland some time ago. They were falling asleep, and that is a shame. Then, at that wonderful world event the premiere of The Lord of the Rings, which has been supported superbly by this Government, I cast my eyes around and looked at the leader of the National Party and his beautiful and wonderful wife wandering around looking lost. Nobody could quite recognise who they were or whether, indeed, they were sitting in the right theatre. They had been packed off to the Reading theatre, not the Embassy.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He didn’t want to sit next to Heather.

He did not want to sit next to Heather Simpson. I understand now, it is all clear. The leader of the National Party likens himself to a lifeless puppet—an effigy that has recently been erected at the Back Bencher Pub and Cafe, just across the road. It is a lifeless puppet. Of course, one has to ask whether it is a puppet operated by string or a hand puppet. If it is a hand puppet, we could forgive the Leader of the Opposition, when reflecting upon this year, for thinking that it has indeed been an annus horribilis.

The Minister of Health stood up before to gloat over the signing today of the Australia - New Zealand joint agency agreement. She was gloating, in her anti-business way, over the fact that she will be responsible for driving small businesses manufacturing dietary supplements, out of business. She asked in the speech she made in this House what she has achieved. Well, I can tell members what she has achieved by ignoring the Health Committee inquiry into dietary supplements and complementary medicines, and including those products in the joint agency.

I have in front of me some products that are safe and popular. They are available to New Zealanders now, but they are not available in Australia. The products are: Joint Care with MSM, which is not available in Australia; Immunofort, with specific vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbs, which is not available in Australia; Desiccated Liver, which is not available in Australia but which is very good for us; and Enzyme Complex. It is very interesting that the Minister of Health said yesterday that garlic was excluded. Of course, there is a very good reason for that—Government members need garlic to drive the vampires away! I also have some multivitamins, minerals, and selenium products that are available here but not in Australia.

Selenium is deficient in the soils of the South Island, and, if the Government has its way, people will not be able to supplement their diet with selenium from tablets, either. People from the South Island, like Clayton Cosgrove, will be left to join the sheep at the salt lick to get their selenium supplies.

Annette King thinks that the products I have here are dangerous products. She thinks they are so dangerous that they must be subject to the toughest regulations in the world—those of the Australians. Well, I am not afraid of these products and I am happy to prove it. I am from the South Island and I do not mind taking the selenium tablet that I have here.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: How was it?

It went down great. Sixty-six percent of New Zealanders are like me and are not afraid to take these products, either. They think that we do not need the tough regulations that the Australians are going to impose on these very safe products.

So are these products really dangerous? I have here a chart that one of the submitters, who has subsequently been ignored by the Minister of Health and this arrogant Labour Government, presented to us at the select committee. It lists the fatalities in New Zealand. They are: deaths caused by cancers—7,582; adverse drug reactions from prescription medications—1,524, and it is right and proper they should be subject to very rigorous scrutiny; traffic accidents—531; food—an estimated 75, and that is ordinary food not food supplements; working for the Government—2.5 deaths. That is very interesting. No one told me when I came to Parliament that I was in danger of losing my life, and quite where the remaining 0.5 of a life goes is anybody’s guess. Perhaps the Labour members might stand and tell us how they will cause that. But, interestingly, natural health-care and therapeutic products have been responsible for, surprise, surprise, no deaths—none at all.

This Government has committed this country to require that these safe and popular products be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. I have here another product Boost. It contains folic acid, which has been shown to prevent spina bifida. I am not afraid of this one, either; let us have some of that. The recorded decrease in the number of babies born with spinal defects is thought to be the result of an increased number of women taking folate in the early stages of pregnancy. In fact, folate has been so beneficial it has been suggested that bread should be fortified, but there is a bit of a hold up at the Ministry of Health. Under the proposed legislation this type of bread would have to be rigorously tested to ensure that it meets the highest standards of scrutiny. The cost, of course, would be high. But it is often the case that when a country embraces socialism, in the way this Labour Government has, that bread ends up being rationed. Indeed, it is a logical extension of the current Government’s lurch towards a centrally planned everything that every citizen’s dietary requirements will have to be passed by this Labour Cabinet.

Yesterday in this House I was much maligned. I returned to my office after question time to hear some random, ranting Tory—

💬 Simon Power: Random is a bit much!

True—telling mistruths about my activities in a select committee I do not belong to. So I came down to the House to defend myself against that, not actually knowing who had said it. Now I could be excused for looking at the usual suspects—Mr Simon Power and Mr John Key—but after I had made my point I was informed it was actually the Hon Roger Sowry who had made those vicious comments, and it all came clear. Mr Sowry is the most bitter man in the National Party—unlucky No. 13—a man who accused me of reading New Idea, which is ironic given that he has a lifetime subscription to “No Idea”. It surprises me that Mr Sowry even has time to notice what goes on in his select committee, given that his nose is constantly stuck in the situations vacant column of all the newspapers in this country. I ask Mr Sowry not to come begging to me for a reference, particularly regarding his observation skills.

The trans-Tasman ratings have been causing a bit of conversation amongst MPs this week. People have been debating the various rankings people got, and whether they deserved them. But the one thing everyone agrees on is the comment on the abilities of National’s dumped deputy. What did it say? It said he deserved his demotion.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Which one?

Roger Sowry—he deserved his demotion. He is unpleasant, ineffective, and a career as a shoe salesman beckons. He is unpleasant and ineffective. Well, I can certainly concur with the first part of that statement, and my colleague Darren Hughes and the voters of Otaki can certainly concur with the second part. But, to be fair, it cannot be easy for him to lose to someone half his age—someone who was not even at high school when he first came to Parliament.

That is symptomatic of the National Party’s wider problem when it comes to young voters. The party is outdated. While the Labour Party is selecting and electing young candidates into Parliament, National is making Don Brash its leader.

The Government’s achievements for young New Zealanders are significant and speak for themselves. We are committed to the goal of ensuring that by 2007 all 15 to 19-year-olds will be engaged in education, training, or work—leading them to financial independence. We have already reached our target of 6,000 Modern Apprenticeships. We piloted the Gateway programme, which is now in 62 schools around this country. We have introduced the primary health strategy so that all 6 to 17-year-olds who are enrolled are now eligible for low-cost health care.

We have replaced the draconian Employment Contracts Act with the fairer Employment Relations Act. Young people all too often were faced with “take it or leave it” employment negotiations, and this Labour-led Government has rectified that problem. We have increased the minimum wage four times in 4 years. To make sure that all young New Zealanders can take part and participate, we have the lowest unemployment in 16 years.

We have made tertiary education more affordable. We have removed the interest from student loans while students are studying. Student loan debt forecasts are now down $2.6 billion, largely due to this Government’s policies. We are going to increase the eligibility for allowances. We froze fees and brought in fee maxima so that students now know that their fees will not increase by more than 5 percent each year, which is far better than the situation I faced in the 1990s when I was at university. We have introduced fees and loan help for secondary teachers and for health sector trainees, in the form of scholarships.

What did the National Party do? The National Party cut student support in the 1990s. It cut family support, and it cut health spending. What can we look forward to if the National Party is elected into Government with Don Brash as its leader? I say to all young New Zealanders that they can expect more cuts. They can expect to pay more for their tertiary education. They can expect to pay more for their health care. Young New Zealanders growing up in families close to the breadline can expect to face far greater pressures, and to have families who are not coping because of cuts in family support. The National Party that made those cuts in the 1990s is still saying it will make them again. That is the scary thing about this National Party; it has not changed its policies.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would just like to challenge a point the previous speaker made about No. 13 being an unlucky number. Well, I can assure the member that 13 is not an unlucky number. I am here to prove it.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows that that is not a point of order.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.