Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

I want to reflect on some of the comments I made before the interruption last evening, specifically those to do with my comments surrounding my tipuna. I want to assure members that if they feel a cool breeze whilst listening to my speech, they should not be alarmed—they have come to taitoko my speech.

I want to reiterate my support for my colleagues in relation to the Prime Minister’s statement. The Government is focused on needs for all New Zealanders, and we are accelerating those policies. We have certainly got the pedal firmly to the metal, and there is a raft of needs across our communities. In some cases there are special needs—for our disabled, for our women, and, of course, for our ethnic groups. That is not to mention iwi, hapū, and whānau. Wherever the need is, wherever that disparity emerges, this Government is committed to extending help and assistance. The Government has made huge inroads towards addressing those needs. We do not need to be colour-blind to realise that.

What are some of those needs? We have over 40,000 more Māori back in the workforce, actively contributing and participating within our communities. Māori unemployment is down from 17.9 percent to just 9.6 percent. That is an all-time low. That is so significant that it deserves to be placed on the public record: Māori unemployment down from 17.9 percent to just 9.6 percent. We have not been there since 1987, and the benefits are far-reaching. They include significant boosts not only to the morale of whānau, who are able to afford health care and education, but, more important, to continued contributions to our economy, and I think that is absolutely marvellous.

I want the National Party to be accountable and enlighten us all on its policy to abolish the Māori seats. How will that policy reduce Māori unemployment? The Government is addressing Māori unemployment as we speak. The statistics are evidence of that, and we all know that the Māori seats under Labour are currently intact. How will that policy to abolish the Māori seats initiate skill-based training for Māori? How will it promote senior Māori students? How will it work for our work-based qualifications? In all of the above the Government has made significant change. There are 800 Māori in Modern Apprenticeships—

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am obviously apologetic for interrupting my colleague, but the interjection that Mr Hide shouted out across the Chamber was highly offensive. “Dopey niggers” was the phrase used.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If that phrase was used, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. He did not use it? All he has to do is say “Yes” or “No”.

💬 Rodney Hide: I didn’t hear what he said the phrase was.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Did the member use an out of order statement in interjection?

💬 Rodney Hide: No.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Right, I accept the member’s word.

As I say, 800 Māori in Modern Apprenticeships, promotion of the Gateway programme—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The chief Government whip just pointed at my colleague and said: “The liar.” I could hear him from here. It is outrageous to question a member’s word in that way, and I ask that the chief Government whip be asked to stand and apologise forthwith.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member did that he will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I pointed at—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I said the member, if he made the comment, will withdraw and apologise.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I did not call Mr Hide a liar. I was talking to my colleague. I was certainly pointing at him and talking to my colleague.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Right, carry on.

Eight hundred Māori are in Modern Apprenticeships, the Gateway programme has been promoted, and 654 clients—that is, Māori clients—have been assisted into economic development business facilitation. The list goes on. I cannot see where there are special privileges. No one is forced on to the Māori roll. Māori do not get dual voting rights. They cannot cast their vote twice. It is understood that the Māori seats and their future will, and should, be determined by Māori. Is the National Party saying that it has Māori endorsement? I do not think so. After all it is common knowledge that the only Māori National member opposes that. So I ask: who endorsed that?

I turn to the issue of tangihanga leave—branded again as a special privilege for Māori. I have in my hand the draft of the Holidays Bill. There is not one mention in the entire bill of the word “tangihanga”. I would like to know from National Party members why they are branding tangihanga leave as a special privilege, when there is no mention of it in the draft bill itself—no mention at all.

I will shift to an issue surrounding Waitangi Day. Following the celebration at Waitangi, I travelled to Kororareka—for some that is called Russell. I went over there to visit my whānau. When I arrived at the Waikare estuary, my whānau were exercising a traditional historical exercise of catching flounder. I thought that was a wonderful way to celebrate our national day—by having the opportunity, and the right, to exercise a customary right.

I say finally that our Government’s core mission is to build a confident and dynamic nation based on an innovative, growing, smart economy that can deliver more jobs, more opportunities, and higher living standards together with the resources to fund world-class public services, especially in health and education, and world-class infrastructure. The nation we seek to build is creative and it looks after its environment, its values, its diversity, and its tolerance. It takes seriously its responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi and it is a good international citizen.

We will always be the indigenous people of this land. We are tāngata whenua, and there is a specialness inherent in that, which we will continue to celebrate in partnership with other New Zealanders. Kia ora.

On Tuesday I waited for the Prime Minister’s answer to New Zealand’s most burning questions. Are we working towards a State where power is parcelled out and haggled over by the anointed of two tribes: Māori and Pākehā? Is the goal a land where ethnic quotas—instead of need, merit, or the votes of one’s fellow New Zealanders—decide what power people have over their neighbours, or what they can take from them? Or are we, instead, working towards the kind of humanity I marched for, more than 30 years ago, as a student, urging the All Blacks not to play in South Africa?

I thought the struggle was for a land where people would be free to live, work, marry, and associate with whomever they liked, and where the State was colour-blind. I thought it would be a land where people could express their culture and religion without interference from the police, their neighbours, or anyone else—provided they were respecting the same rights of others. I thought, in particular, we wanted a land where politicians could not use the levers of the State to shower State patronage on groups one has to be born into—a land where the State could offer opportunity to all, without regard to their origins.

I thought we wanted a land where there would be no respecting of skin colour by the State, but where all would be equal before the law—a land where one person, one vote democracy decided who ruled, not a land where elected representatives could be trumped by special “involvement in decision making”, as the Local Government Act archly calls it, or by nepotism, race, class entitlement, or any other perversion. I thought we wanted a land where words would keep meanings they have earned over centuries of honourable use, and where sincerity would be a virtue—not something to be mocked in floods of Orwellian personal abuse.

I ask the Prime Minister exactly when racism ceased to be a determination to discriminate on the grounds of race, and became instead a refusal to discriminate on the grounds of race. When did racism flip its meaning? What does the Prime Minister now think of the ideals that I believe I shared with her? Are they just quaint to her? Are they just naive and too unsophisticated for her world of spin and of deals for votes? Should we just move on?

Her address veered and wove to duck the most important issues for her Government this year. Her Cabinet is desperately peddling the idea that the courts, the common law, and the treaty force all the generous and idealistic people who live in this country to bind themselves in a kind of feudal subjection to fewer than one in 10 who will get brand new and unprecedented ancestral privileges over the coastline.

💬 Mahara Okeroa: A common law.

That is not true. Neither the common law nor the activist judges required any such thing. The judges said there would be few, if any, areas subject to customary interests, because the common law required continuous and exclusive use of those rights. It is not true that this is a worldwide movement. The Crown’s expert witness to the Waitangi Tribunal confirmed that the common law courts in Australia and the US have said there could not be any aboriginal title over foreshore and seabed.

The common law would not give claimants anything remotely resembling what Labour is now bribing its Māori insiders with. Group veto powers, exclusive development rights, and immunities from local authority control and Resource Management Act processes are unprecedented, and Dr Cullen is not believed by anyone on this issue. The highest law officer for the Crown told the truth on the issue. He said that the new rights go well beyond anything the courts could have given Māori—even if they had proved customary rights.

So, of course, Ms Clark wants to move on. She started out swimming strongly—although in the wrong direction—by announcing she would simply reverse the judges in the legislation, but by mid-August she was gasping and treading water. Her venal supporters watched her, knowing she could not swim sideways out of that rip, and they were not throwing any lifebelts—no, they wanted to see just how much she would pay to be rescued. The lifeguards will not come to her rescue, because she has always pretended to be the top swimmer around. Now, she cannot swim back to the beach, because everyone on the beach realises she had been planning to steal their belongings and hand them over to the gang she relies on to stay in power. Now, of course, they might have to do a bit of swimming themselves, because the people on the beach have all started to yell: “Stop, thief! Don’t steal a culture and a law that was colour-blind. Don’t take our property and hand it over for ancestral privileges.”

It was interesting that when the Prime Minister delivered her speech on Tuesday she could not meet the eye of Dr Don Brash, of Richard Prebble, or of anyone else on this side of the House, as she babbled about the common law and the difference between customary titles. Dr Cullen was whispering in her ear but he could not keep her safe.

The real story is coming out. These new ancestral overseers will get power to block uses proposed by their neighbours. Of course, envelopes full of rustling dollars might charm away a few of the spiritual and cultural wounds, but Māori will be entitled to develop commercial activities on their beaches, and elected local government will be able to object only if that damages the environment. In other words, Māori will be exempt from most of the Resource Management Act in that area.

The treaty requires none of that. It was not required by common law or by the Court of Appeal; it is required only to secure the re-election of Labour’s Māori MPs. Would the Solicitor-General have lied to the Waitangi Tribunal? Would Dr McHugh have been duplicitous? No, it was someone else’s duplicity being exposed.

I ask also whether Judge Heta Hingston and his two associates on the Māori Land Court were lying when in 1994 they rejected the notion that mana moana was any part of tikanga Māori. Let me read to the House the New Zealand Law Review summary of the issue. A L Mikaere stated in the 1995 New Zealand Law Review, when referring to Judge Hingston’s decision: “The court was particularly scathing as to the arguments about mana moana, a principle which asserts that where an iwi exercised customary authority over a stretch of coastline, its mana extended out from the coastline to include the sea, as well. ‘We find there is no such, and never has been until very recently, a Māori concept: ‘mana moana’. It has become the vogue, probably since the fisheries settlements began. We are of the view that it is rooted in greed and ignorance, not tikanga Māori. It has no place in the matter before us.’ ” That was Judge Hingston—the judge who later set the foreshore and seabed case on its way to appeal. Here is a judge who held that the fundamental principle on which Dr Cullen wants to allocate these new feudal privileges is born of greed and ignorance, not tikanga Māori. The court emphasised that.

This was drawn to my attention by one of New Zealand’s foremost Māori land lawyers—a wise old man named Marcus Poole. Does Dr Cullen or the Prime Minister think that it is Marcus Poole who is lying? Is it Marcus Poole who has one story for elite Māori, another story for ordinary Māori, another story for Pākehā, and another story for the Waitangi Tribunal?

Those titles are not in the interests of Māori. They are precisely calculated to benefit that small elite—that political elite of tribal leaders who will exercise the feudal rights. For all others, the titles will simply breed contempt, frustration, and corruption. The people who do the work on the foreshore and seabed—the people on the mussel farms; the people who take the risks and endure the risks of trying to run businesses on the coastline—will come to hate their incompetent, lazy, corrupt, ignorant, and careless overlords.

The only powers those overlords will have will be negative—to say “No” and to block things—because the Government is taking from them any positive property right. They do not have the property right that was guaranteed by article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. Instead, all they get is a right to interfere with their neighbours. Without the true property right they cannot be positive and they cannot propose; they can only block, hold up, irritate, and take blackmail fees.

In the long run this will be a perpetual blight for the neighbours who have to live in all the towns and villages around the sea coast of New Zealand, and who have to accept these feudal rights. It cannot advance hapū, other than in chances to extract blackmail fees. To be given a customary title that points them straight towards obstructing their neighbours is not building the kind of country that we all sought.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. Mr Speaker, I wish you and all my parliamentary colleagues a very happy New Year. I hope you all had a good holiday.

In early January Cyclone Heta struck Niue with devastating force. On the international hurricane scale of 1 to 5, Cyclone Heta was a 5. On Tuesday, 13 January, I accompanied the Hon Phil Goff, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, on a visit to Niue to assess the damage, meet Niuean Cabinet representatives and the private sector, and support the community. The devastation to Niue, particularly to the capital, Alofi, has to be seen to be believed. On board the RNZAF plane that carried relief supplies, equipment, and experts to deal with the problem of asbestos contamination, was Wellington Niuean community leader Folo Pahetogia, and two Niuean electricians, Ikiharry Pahetogia and Tuki Tutaki, who have stayed on in Niue to assist with the clean-up and the rebuilding. A large part of the New Zealand - based Niuean community live in the Mana electorate. They were very upset by the effect of the cyclone on their Niue-based families, and were keen to help out. It is not a wealthy community, but its members raised money, and they have sent their tradesmen to help out.

The people on Niue are still traumatised by the cyclone, and will take time to come to terms with the aftermath. The immediate humanitarian needs have been addressed, and plans have been developed for the long-term, sustainable development of Niue. New Zealand responded quickly to the disaster in Niue, and we can be proud of the governmental and community responses. One very touching response came from Ngāti Porou. Members will remember that the people of Niue contributed some $40,000 to assist in the clean-up after Cyclone Bola hit the East Coast some years ago. Ngāti Porou responded when it was Niue’s time of need, and made a generous donation of more than $50,000. Kia ora, Ngāti Porou. I have been most heartened by the responses of all New Zealanders to assist Niue; Māori, Pākehā, Pacific Island people, men and women—all New Zealanders—have pitched in. I even had a 73-year-old Pākehā retired electrician from Titahi Bay volunteer his services.

I have talked at some length about what has happened following the disaster on Niue, because there are some important lessons to learn. The disaster of Cyclone Heta brought out the real Kiwi spirit of helping neighbours in their time of need. There was unity of purpose. People pitched in and contributed what they could. So it was with sadness that a few days later I listened to the seeds of disunity being sown at Orewa. The events of the last few weeks have brought into sharp relief the choices that we have as a nation. In her statement to Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, said: “We set out to be a Government with a clear direction and vision for the future, supported by the broad mainstream of New Zealanders. Our aim is to have the people come with us, knowing that despite an uncertain world beyond our shores, this Government provides the stability on which New Zealand families, communities and businesses can plan their lives.” This Labour Government stands firmly for a pluralistic society where diversity is honoured and unity is treasured.

Strong, independent communities contribute to the social and economic development of a strong, independent nation. A nation divided by populist rhetoric will weaken and fail. In my maiden speech I said: “Our nation needs a new politics of honesty, hope, and healing; a politics that brings our communities and nation together so that all New Zealanders can fully participate and live a life of dignity.” The Labour-led Government of the last 4 years has given New Zealanders greater dignity and hope for the future.

Porirua City, in the Mana electorate, is a good example of a strong, growing community where citizens can live in dignity. Mana is the future face of New Zealand. Around 20 percent is Māori, 21 percent is Pacific Island, there are increasing Asian and other ethnic communities, and over 50 percent is Pākehā. That proportion is roughly New Zealand’s demographic in 40 to 50 years.

Our diverse community is going well. The local economy is booming, and that is proven by Porirua’s retail sales figures, which shot up 14.9 percent last year compared with 6 percent nationally. Business growth is up, and that means more jobs. Unemployment is at a 16-year low. Porirua City is replete with examples of successful manufacturing and high-tech industries. Official crime statistics for 2002-03, released in August, showed declining rates of robbery and serious assault in the Kapiti-Mana area, which includes Porirua. Robbery offences dropped by 15.2 percent, and the resolution rate for robbery in the area rose to 42.9 percent, which is well above the national average of 36.4 percent. Not only that; serious assaults continue to decline from the previous year, with 332 offences recorded, down from 401—a drop of 17.2 percent.

Economic development is racing ahead in Porirua City and up the Kapiti Coast. Business confidence is strong. Retail sales are booming. Unemployment is falling. The upgrade of Kenepuru Hospital and Kapiti Coast health facilities is under way. The new public health organisations are now providing many of our families with affordable access to basic health services. The $20 million upgrade of State housing in the Porirua basin is progressing, and when completed it will make a big difference to the quality of life for many of our families. Of course we, like any other area, still have problems and challenges in our community, but we are working on them together as a community.

At 6 a.m. on Waitangi Day I attended a welcome at the Maraeroa Marae in Waitangirua. In sharp contrast to events at the first Waitangi, at the second Waitangi—Waitangirua—there was a celebration of difference and diversity, with Māori, Cook Islanders, Samoans, Croatians, Germans, Swiss, and Kiwis peacefully sharing and telling their stories, and listening to each other with respect. The Festival of Elements in Te Rauparaha Park, in Porirua, continued the theme of unity and diversity throughout the day and into the evening.

Later that day I went to a service at Rangiatea Church, in Otaki, where the Governor-General spoke of the rebuilding of the church, and of the 110 women of all faiths and races who had each embroidered kneelers for the church. For me, that service was a wonderful metaphor of the diverse, unified nation that New Zealand can be, should be, and at times is. We stand at the crossroads. Do we take the path of division, or will we continue to travel the road mapped out by our Prime Minister of a strong, confident nation proud of our many cultures, proud of our achievements, proud of our economic success, and determined to see it widely shared among us and not kept in the hands of a few?

One needs only to look into the eyes of a Labour Party MP at the moment to see the fear and nervousness. They have seen the polls, they can smell the coffee, and they know an obituary for washed-up Labour MPs when they read one in the newspaper. A few of them will be looking for a job soon. There is no doubt in my mind that they will be the “MP for No One” in an electorate yet to be discovered on Mars come 2005.

But, alas, the looks of fear and nervousness are not isolated to the Labour Party and to Labour MPs. When one travels around the country, one needs only to look into the eyes of business people to see that all is not well. However, according to the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on Tuesday, one could be left with a very different picture, indeed. In fact, the Government has been telling the people of New Zealand for the last 5 years that the economic policies of the National Government in the early 1990s and mid-1990s were a failure. They were very quick to claim victory for the economic conditions that have rained on their term in office since 1999.

Now it certainly is true that New Zealand’s real economic growth rate of 4.4 percent last year was the highest in the OECD. It is true that New Zealand’s economic growth rate on a per capita basis touched about 2.4 percent over the last decade—enough to stop New Zealand from sliding down the OECD rankings. But what the Prime Minister forgot to tell the people in her statement on Tuesday was that not only does the Government have no plan whatsoever to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD, but that the real reasons for the stellar economic performance in the last 5 years have not been the Labour Government and its policies, they have been a low Kiwi dollar, high commodity prices, high levels of immigration, and, dare I say it, the economic reforms undertaken in the late 1980s and early 1990s in New Zealand. The growth of the last 5 years has not occurred because of this Government, it has occurred in spite of this Government.

Members should not just take my word for it. [Interruption] The Associate Minister of Finance, the Hon David Cunliffe, is barking like a little puppy over there on the Government side. He should be reading his own ministry’s notes to him. He is embarrassed to tell the House that Treasury officials are constantly writing to the Minister of Finance, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, and to himself berating them for their economic policies, which are destined to see New Zealand never get back into the top half of the OECD. But why should we listen to the 300-strong economists who work for Treasury, the Minister of Finance, and the Associate Minister of Finance? Let us not take their word for it. Let us take the word of the OECD, which, in its annual report last year, stated: “The necessary acceleration in New Zealand’s growth rate is still not in sight.” That is a dismal scorecard for what this Government has managed to achieve in the last 4 years.

Dare I say it; the worm has turned, fuelled by an exchange rate that topped 70c today, that is on its way to breach the all-time post-float high of 72.5c, and that is on its way to US75c or US80c; and with a Minister who had the audacity to come to the Finance and Expenditure Committee just 3 months ago, when the exchange rate was 61c, and tell the people of New Zealand he had options to control that exchange rate, when he knew very well that he did not. What did he do? He came back to the House, and back to the same committee 3 months on, with his tail between his legs and he was a very sheepish Minister of Finance. He was embarrassed about his own advice that he had given to the people of New Zealand. He robbed those exporters of the opportunity to hedge their exchange rates.

But members should not take my word for it, Treasury’s word for it, or the OECD’s word for it. Let us just go down the road to the Bank of New Zealand and hear what Tony Alexander, the chief market economist, is telling the dairy sector. He is saying: “Be careful because the payout for milk solids will be $2.50 in a year’s time.” That is half the payout from when this Government came into office. Jim Anderton runs around the country with his chequebook and parades up and down the provinces arguing that he has been the saviour for rural and provincial New Zealand. What an absolute joke! The real saviour of provincial New Zealand has been the low exchange rate and the high payout. Let us just see how strong rural and provincial New Zealand are when the Kiwi dollar is worth 80c and when the dairy payout is $2.50. Let us see whether the Labour Government will claim victory for that when it takes place next year.

Winnie Laban said in her speech that we have the lowest unemployment rate. That is not true. Yesterday for the first time we saw an increase in the unemployment rate, and that is the start of many such things to come. We already have 300,000 New Zealanders of working age on a benefit. The Labour Government could not even get 300,000 New Zealanders into a job, despite the fact we have had the best economic conditions for quite some time. That number of unemployed people will grow under this Government. Many more Labour members will go from this House and join the dole queue. I cannot foresee any other particular career they would be naturally suited to, but I am open to suggestions.

The immigration that fuelled this strong domestic economy is on the way down. Net immigration numbers are on the way down. As the global economy picks up in the United States, more trained and skilled New Zealanders will be lured to Australia, to the US, and to the UK.

What is the real economic scorecard for this hopeless Labour Government, which has claimed victory for things it has no control over—a low exchange rate and high commodity prices? What is the real scorecard? There have been 17 tax increases since Labour has been in office. What a robbing, thieving Government it is. The tax take was $30 billion when it came into office in 1999. Government members do not like to hear that. It is $40 billion 4 years on. We have the highest nominal corporate tax rate in Asia-Pacific. Dr Cullen does not want to hear it. Labour has failed to negotiate a free-trade arrangement with the United States. It has proposed employment legislation that will bring back compulsory unionism. It has introduced 4 weeks’ holiday that will cost the country $1 billion, and a Resource Management Act that is an absolute joke that spurns investment and growth in this country. There has been a complete failure to fix infrastructure, an avalanche of red tape for small and medium businesses, and an education system that breeds mediocrity. This is the reason why the OECD and Treasury are telling us that our country will not go back into the top half of the OECD. This Government is too busy doing the photo shoots, doing the soft stuff, and pandering to the unions. It is not prepared to tackle the real reasons.

I hope that the Government will take some advice. I hope that the Government will realise that taxation is more than redistribution from the rich to the poor; it is about putting incentives into the economy. I hope this Government will realise that inflexible labour markets hurt the very people it is theoretically trying to protect. I hope Labour will get into the 21st century and bring private sector capital in for the provision of public assets. It is happening in every Labour administration in Australia. [Interruption] The land transport legislation is absolutely hopeless. It is a joke. The Minister had to start new legislation before it hit the House. I know for a fact that David Cunliffe is personally embarrassed by it. It has been a dismal performance, and the people of New Zealand are saddened by that. My prediction is that the economic conditions that will prevail in this country when we go to the polls in 2005 will send one very strong message—send those hopeless Labour MPs to the unemployment queue where they belong.

I listened for indications in the Prime Minister’s speech that we are working towards a similar future. Words like “New Zealanders working together to achieve our full potential”, and “a nation that New Zealanders are not only comfortable with, but are proud of”, are noble thoughts, but they tell us little about the actual shape of the country or the things about our nation that we should be comfortable with or proud of. There is more detail in ideas like building a creative nation that cares for its environment, values diversity and tolerance, treats its treaty obligations seriously, and is a good international citizen. Words like “more opportunities, higher living standards, world-class health, education, and infrastructure” or “making a difference for parents and children” are all concepts that nobody is likely to argue with. But I ask how those ideas are manifested in the things that we do—the reality of our lives, and the way we behave towards one another—and whether the Government’s programmes are really likely to deliver that. How will the innovative, growing, smart, economy address the issues facing New Zealanders who earn too little to live comfortably, or facing the others who, for a variety of reasons, have not worked for generations? And if they do work, have they simply joined the many families where, while they have never had so much stuff, so many motor cars, or such large homes, the kids have a mum and dad who are working so many hours that they no longer have time to do the things that it takes to be a family—old-fashioned things like eating, talking, and playing together?

If we are serious about our concern for the family and the quality of life, that concern must be expressed in policies that address the threats to the family and that quality of life. I am encouraged by Margaret Wilson’s drawing attention to the work-life balance, and by Matt Robson’s success at adding a fourth week of annual leave. But if that fourth week becomes just another 7 days of shopping or accumulating debt in some foreign destination to be worked off by two jobs, plus overtime, during the remaining 48 weeks of the year, then I look forward to working with this Government to come up with more imaginative strategies to create the kind of culture shift necessary if we are to move towards measuring our success in terms of the quality of our lives and the state of the environment, rather than by the quantity of our possessions and the gross domestic product. While growing the economy and creating more jobs has a superficial attraction, when too many people are working for too long and a sizable minority has no paid work, sharing the work around would seem to be a more obvious solution. If supporting families, achieving a work-life balance, and increasing the sum total of human happiness really matter, perhaps working less ought to be the focus of our attentions.

I want to talk about waste. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recently reminded us, we are among the most wasteful people in the world. We throw away around 4 billion kilograms of waste each year, most of it valuable and much of it toxic. Clean and green we are not! One hundred percent pure? I think not. Morgan Williams’ warning about our wasteful ways is timely, because while few of us in New Zealand have yet to take the issue seriously, many of the countries we sell to do, and they are beginning to expect similar standards from their suppliers. One thing that is worse than doing things badly is doing things badly and laying claim to 100 percent purity and clean, greenness. The 4 billion kilograms of waste that end up in Kiwi kleensaks, wheelie bins, and landfills are but a fraction of the waste generated by our wasteful ways. For every kilogram of product that we purchase, there are 70 to 100 kilograms of waste somewhere else in the world. Then there is the energy that it takes to deliver products, and the time we waste earning the money to pay for the stuff we throw away. We can add to that, too, the tragedy of ecosystems, habitats, and species being sacrificed in order to feed the cargo cult that consumes our lives and our planet.

We Greens take some pleasure and pride in our role in shaping transport legislation that addresses our wasteful transport habits, and I welcome any opportunity to work with the Minister to achieve the intentions of the Government’s waste strategy and to beef up the packaging accord. Our proposals are not cutting edge. They have their equivalents all over the world—in the United States, Canada, Europe, and as close to us as South Australia. The packaging accord defines “sustainable” as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Meeting that definition will require a substantial change in our lives, but rather than focusing on the things we may have to go without, we would do well to contemplate a future offered by working fewer hours and having the time to make the choices that really do enhance life.

Ā, ka tū tēnei tū tuatahi kei mua i a koe, ka tukuna atu he mihi rangatira ki a koe i a koe e noho mai i runga i te tūnga Kaiwhakawā o te Whare Pāremata nei. Mr Speaker, I begin my presentation by making reference to the office you hold in this House, and the acknowledgment we pay to you and your kuia. Tēnā koe.

I have listened very intently over the last 2 days to this debate. In doing so I have considered myself enormously fortunate; fortunate that, as part of the Labour Party, I have a leader who is not only a visionary but also has the commitment, the integrity, and the political courage to articulate those policies that are absolutely essential with regard to the tangata whenua and the Crown, in terms of their treaty partnership, and the courage to go beyond mere articulation of policy and translate it into a range of very positive initiatives for Māori. I initially plan to highlight some of those initiatives, and to be very positive about doing so. I have the absolute belief that without those initiatives with regard to strengthening our families, our relationships with our Polynesian people, and their celebration of diversity, Aotearoa New Zealand would be a less pleasant place to live in. The unpleasantness I shall refer to later.

Māori are a highly innovative people. They make a unique contribution to this country. Our contribution is vital to the successful development of this country’s economy and society—that is absolutely right. We have engaged ourselves in a programme of positiveness for our people. It ranges even to include Māori television. Although Māori television has had a chequered career, and it did so under the last political regime, we have had the courage to continue to develop it. Māori television is going to air this year.

💬 John Key: You hope.

I say to John Key that what it does is contribute to the preservation of te reo, and also the promotion and development of Māori culture. It is not just about doing the haka boogie. A whole range of aspects of Māori culture are being positively promoted. Why? Because this Government is positive about developing all people in Aotearoa New Zealand, under the leadership of our Prime Minister. It is going to add a further layer of rich fabric to our society. We are not only very good at playing sports, as we know, but also very expert in the arena of politics.

We are going to move further on, to deliberate on another issue, and that is the allocation of fisheries. It has been around for a long, long time. We are taking the first positive steps towards addressing it.

I listened to someone say that there is a solution to the seabed and foreshore issue. The solution promoted by Dr Lynda Scott was that we legislate immediately. Well, if that characterises the policy of the National Party with regard to the place of the treaty partner in Aotearoa, all I have to say is that it is a bit like the hammer and the anvil. It has no positive outcome. It is just like what Dave Hereora was talking about—Māori seats. They have been called an anachronism. The only thing that is an anachronism is the attitude of that party in respect of political participation and the contribution of Māori seats. That is the only anachronism. Again, a solution was offered, by the honourable member Wayne Mapp. He adopted the same view. It is the hammer and anvil approach to our relationships between each other in Aotearoa. Well, Government members are not going to do that. We choose what is the most difficult path to go down. The honourable member opposite was talking about fear before. The reason that the member’s party wants to legislate is that those members do not want to be put in a position of fear, or debate, or honesty, or integrity.

So we have the Māori achievements to date. Strengthening the management and governance of Māori organisations is a huge achievement. I do not want to hear someone talking about a Māori health provider losing a quarter of a million dollars. There is nothing in Māori history that could go anywhere near the debacle of the Bank of New Zealand, let alone that of the board of Air New Zealand. So let us get some perspective about that. We have, of course, released our proposal on the foreshore and seabed for comment, for discussion—and that is the polite word. Māori radio is going to go global, and that means we have the ability to tune in. [Interruption] That includes, I say to Mr Key, our whanaunga in Australia and anywhere else in the world, because, after all, Māori are part of the global village now. They are not just stuck in their little kāinga, wearing their piupiu. We are well past that. That was in the age of the policy of assimilation that some Governments promoted, and I will get back to that later. We are far beyond that. We have whānau in London, Australia, Europe, England, and America who can tune in. Brilliant! We are even trying to address, very positively, Māori literacy; that is part of Te Kawai Ora Report. It is excellent. It is about reading the word, reading the world. We have a whole range of very, very positive things to talk about.

In terms of the Leader of the Opposition, although I am very positive about our contribution, I am hardly equally positive about the limp contribution that that party over there is making towards race relations. Here is a quotation: “… the voice of ignorance, narrow political advantage, and selfishness: the voice of Don Brash.” How is that? Let me read something else. If the political fortunes had gone another way, that party would have had one of the most outstanding candidates politically, and that was Hekia Parata. Here is what Hekia said in the Dominion Post on 29 January: “I am ashamed to have stood for a party that has departed so far from its founding principles.” Here is another quotation, from Wira Gardiner, a good man—formerly the Māori vice-president of the National Party. This is what Wira said: “Nobody has consulted me. Don certainly never spoke to me. I think disappointment is a significant understatement. I am somewhat saddened because instead of looking forward to the 21st century, we in the National Party are looking back to the 1960s and the 1950s, to the assimilation policies of the past.” Those assimilation polices have effectively and spectacularly failed. Shame!

We on this side of the House, the Labour-led Government, have a very positive story to tell about how much is being achieved in this country. We have so much good news that it is coming out our ears. In the time that I have this afternoon, I want to cover some of the excellent stories that are happening around our provinces.

I represent a provincial electorate. I have had the privilege of doing so for a decade, and I intend to do so for a very long time. One of the issues of particular interest to me at the moment, because of its topical nature, is rural health services. We in this Government believe that rural communities should have the same access to all health services as urban areas, and it is a priority for this Government.

At the moment a maternity services review is taking placing within the Taranaki District Health Board to consider services at Stratford and Hawera hospitals. I want to state quite clearly in this House that I do not support any reduction of services in the maternity services area, because this is a time of considerable vulnerability not only for mothers and young families but grandparents and wider extended families. Having maternity services close to where one lives is an important part of helping to make communities strong. While I have met representatives of the Taranaki District Health Board and advised them of my views, I want it placed on record in this House that I am emphatically opposed to any reduction in maternity services in either Stratford or Hawera.

Some fantastic statistics are occurring in health as a consequence of the priority that this Government is placing on delivering health services to people of all ages, based on their needs. Yes, we are positively discriminating in favour of people who need additional health services. My first career was as a nurse, and I am very proud to say that even all those years ago when I was a trainee nurse, we discriminated positively in favour of people who needed extra health services. I am proud that this Government has the foresight, compassion, and courage in the face of appalling flak to continue to provide health services where the need is greatest.

I am also very pleased that we have an intelligent and compassionate Prime Minister who is prepared to continue to put great emphasis and priority on the provision of those services. This Government puts it money where its mouth is with regard to health spending. Total spending for Vote Health under this Government in 2003-04 will reach $9.61 billion. That is an increase of 43 percent—

💬 David Benson-Pope: How many percent?

It is 43 percent since 1999-2000, based on need [Interruption]—absolutely—as it has been in this country for years and years. This current scaremongering is so superficial and unresearched, and it is just extremely difficult to understand why.

I am proud of the extra health services that are available to older New Zealanders. I am proud that we in this country, and most certainly under this Government, positively discriminate in favour of the aged. I hope to grow into a very old woman, and I hope that good public health-care services are there for me, all my peers in this House today, and right throughout New Zealand. I hope my male colleagues grow into very old men and enjoy long, happy, and fruitful lives. We have done some fantastic work in the area of public health services, and are providing services in areas where they have not been provided before, particularly in remote parts of New Zealand. As I said earlier, we are putting our money where our mouths are.

Some fantastic things are happening in my electorate. I am aware of being very privileged to represent the electorate of Whanganui, which extends from the Whangaehu River in the south, up to and including Manaia, Kaponga, and Eltham in the north-west, and right up to Pipiriki up the Whanganui River. So it is a large and diverse electorate—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: With a great climate.

—with the fourth most equitable climate in the world.

One of the fantastic events that occurred on Waitangi Day in my electorate was in the town of Patea. Patea has had some rough times economically, and on Waitangi Day the townspeople absolutely came to the fore with the most fantastic “Paepae in the Park” concert. Three thousand people turned out to celebrate being a New Zealander. The people in Patea, Wanganui, and Taranaki who came together for this hui know what it is to be a New Zealander. They do not need some inept description from some incompetent person about what it is to be a New Zealander. They got together and sang, laughed, and cheered about being together. It was an emotional day for me because it was so wonderful and the sun was shining. It was just fantastic.

One of the other good things happening in our electorate is the service the Heartland office has attached to our Work and Income New Zealand office in Hawera. It is providing services for housing, the Māori Land Court, and the Inland Revenue Department—all those services that were cut by that hard, callous, and uncaring National Government.

The economy in my electorate is absolutely buoyant. I have pages of statistics with me in the House today about how buoyant Whanganui people and businesses feel. Ninety-five percent of the businesses surveyed believe that their business will continue to improve, and that the likelihood of them employing more people is very high. The results of the survey show that the economy in Wanganui City in particular, which this survey is concerned with, is taking a “full steam ahead” approach in the short to medium term.

Just the other day Jim Anderton officially opened a new Vitapower business in Wanganui, which is providing additional jobs, adding value to products, and working in conjunction with Massey University. This is a positive partnership between business, the Crown research institutes, the universities, and the community. It is a partnership that is working.

We also visited Masterfoods—locally known as Lucky Pet Foods—which continues its wonderful success story, and is being supported by the regional initiatives fund. This Government works with business, it supports businesses financially by giving them research and development assistance, and that money is being appreciated.

Those Tories over there know what is happening in the provinces, know that the economy is strong, know that people are feeling good, and that is why they are scratching that ugly, ugly itch. When I was a kid, my grandmother and my mother used to say to me: “God will punish you if you say that.” I say they should beware of the implications of what they are saying.

I thank Jill Pettis for her valedictory speech today. I thank that member for the contribution she has made to New Zealand politics, in the expectation that some day, somebody will find her contribution.

I start my speech by supporting the no-confidence motion, as advanced by Don Brash on Tuesday. I fear that the motion will be lost, because it will be noted that United Future will support the Labour Government, and, as a result, that party and the Government will pay at the next election.

I have listened to most of this debate, and, without doubt, the issue of race relations has dominated it. I guess that is inevitable, as a consequence of the issues raised by Don Brash recently in his Orewa speech. The issue of race relations concerns many New Zealanders. As I have listened to this debate, many Labour members have come to the House and accused the National Party of picking the scab, or scratching the itch—as Jill Pettis referred to it—of Māori bashing, or of being racist. I say to the Labour Party that this issue is worrying New Zealanders, and that is why we saw more people than ever before vote on a Holmes poll—34,000 people—of whom 90 percent said that Don Brash was right to raise these issues.

Labour has been asking the National Party to front up with examples of why New Zealanders are worried about race relations. I will spend my time doing that today, with a very specific example. I will talk about what is now known in Christchurch property circles as the “Māori tax”. To do that, I need to step back to 29 September 1998, when I, and many members of Parliament who are in the House today, voted proudly for the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, which settled 150 years of grievances. I recall that, as I got ready to vote on that legislation, one aspect worried me—that is, the ability of Ngāi Tahu to have first option to purchase surplus Crown land. Because I was concerned, I spent a considerable amount of time in discussion with Sir Doug Graham. He explained that if there were grievances, and if they were associated with land, then if we were able to give an option to Ngāi Tahu to buy back surplus land—provided it was bought at market value—there was nothing wrong with that. Doug Graham convinced me that that was fair and reasonable.

As so often happens with legislation, the intent was there by most members of Parliament around this issue, but, sadly, that particular part is not working. It is 5½ years since that legislation was passed, and I will share a specific example of why that part is not working. The Canterbury District Health Board signalled that it wanted to sell the land associated with the old Templeton Hospital. It was a good move—the land was surplus. I have evidence of a person who wanted to purchase that land, and therefore submitted to the Canterbury District Health Board an unconditional contract for $2.4 million. That contract arrived on the desk, accompanied by a valuation and a cash cheque for $240,000, being the deposit for that contract. The Canterbury District Health Board returned that unconditional contract, and said that it first had to deal with Ngāi Tahu, and offer the land to them.

After 2 months, Ngāi Tahu purchased that land, but they purchased it for $1.9 million. That is $500,000 less than was offered in an unconditional contract. Why did the Canterbury District Health Board accept $500,000 less than that land was worth?

💬 Jill Pettis: Why believe anything that member says?

Jill Pettis interjects, but she should come down to Christchurch, where people are waiting for hospital operations but they are not being provided because the hospital claims it is under-resourced.

Why, then, did the Canterbury District Health Board sell that land under value by $500,000? I will move to what subsequently happened with that land, because Ngāi Tahu did not hold it for very long before they on-sold it. That is a practice they are following with many pieces of land throughout the Canterbury district. When they on-sold it, they sold it, apparently, for $3 million. I say to Jill Pettis to think about the figures now. That land was shown to be worth $3 million, because Ngāi Tahu sold it within a couple of months for that figure.

💬 Hon George Hawkins: They are business people.

George Hawkins interjects that they are business people. I accept they are business people, but I ask the member to give me a reason why they should buy land for substantially less than it is worth, diddle Cantabrians who are waiting for health outputs, diddle Cantabrians who are on the waiting list, and then profiteer by on-selling it straightaway. I say to Jill Pettis and George Hawkins that that is wrong. That is exactly the reason—

💬 Jill Pettis: I think this is another Kermadec.

Jill Pettis said, stupidly, that this is another Kermadec. This is a case whereby land is being traded advantageously to one sector of the community. The legislation was done with good reason, and I accept the explanation that Doug Graham gave to me. But it was done on the basis that the transactions would take place at market value. That seemed perfectly fair to me, whereby land that was surplus to the Crown was then offered to Ngāi Tahu at market value.

I intend to front up to the House with many more examples showing that Ngāi Tahu has not been paying market value. That is my issue.

💬 Jill Pettis: Here we go again; scratching the itch.

Jill Pettis says that I am scratching the itch. That is exactly the defence that Labour Party politicians are putting up day after day, because they are defenceless. When we raise issues like this we are now accused of scratching the itch. I tell Jill Pettis that I am not doing that, and I am certainly not a racist. I am here to make sure that the best outcomes are delivered to Cantabrians, and they cannot be delivered when they are constrained by laws that give Ngāi Tahu the advantage to purchase land but, when it is done, at a huge disadvantage to others. That is what is wrong with race relations in this country. There are many examples—

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: What about selling airports to their mates?

The only airport in Christchurch that I can think of would be Wigram, and I am sure that in future I will be able to table documents in the House to show that that is yet another example of surplus Crown land that had to be offered to Ngāi Tahu, and portions of it have then been on-sold at substantial profits. Mr Gosche might say that that is right, but I say that it is wrong.

That is why many people I know in Christchurch, who are dealing in the property arena, talk about the Māori tax. That was not the purpose of that part of the legislation. It was not meant to be a means of Ngāi Tahu quickly clipping the ticket and making a profit. It was about them picking up surplus Crown land at a fair market price. [Interruption] Jill Pettis should go back and look at the case I am talking about. If there is a cash offer on the table for $2.4 million, no strings attached at all, and 2 months later the land is sold to Ngāi Tahu for $1.9 million—for $500,000 less—that land is sold at a 25 percent discount.

💬 Jill Pettis: That’s not right.

That is not right. So I say to the House, and I say to Jill Pettis who continues to interrupt, that that is why this issue raised by Don Brash in Orewa is having such a resonance with people. They are concerned about the policy of the Labour Government that is continuing to embed separate treatment. It is not right; it must stop. Otherwise, New Zealanders cannot be at one.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Judy Turner has a 5-minute speech, with a bell at 1 minute.

Of all policy areas covered in the Prime Minister’s speech I want to focus on family policy, because family policy needs to be built on a solid, theoretical foundation and needs to be shaped by cutting-edge research and innovation—like all other areas of Government. If New Zealand families are to thrive due to effective Government policy, then we need to re-examine the core principles that underpin our family policy here in New Zealand, and determine whether our limited resources are being channelled in the right direction. If the Government genuinely wants to build fences at the top of the proverbial cliff—and I believe that every political party would want to own that claim—rather than sink millions of dollars into remedial social services each year, then we have to develop social services that utilise current theories and not remain ignorant of them.

There is an expanding body of internationally recognised ideas that attempts to map the factors that help individuals, families, and communities to change and adapt in the face of extreme pressure. For instance, a nationwide audit of Australia’s prevention programmes 4 years ago discussed the strength-based or solutions-focused approach, and family support models, as already being a key facet of strategies to prevent social problems in Australia. The report noted: “Many agencies have begun to refocus their work with families to empower clients, focusing on a family’s potential to change rather than just their problems, and attempting to engage family members in a truly cooperative venture to find solutions to their issues. An underlying tenet of this perspective is that all families have strengths and capabilities.”

In many areas, New Zealand is a world leader. In the area of social services and development, however, it is time that New Zealand began to make up the distance—not necessarily in funding but in policy. In our present and historical approach, we are very good at identifying risk behaviours, quantifying both them and a raft of other forensic strategies. At the end of all our efforts we are left with a good idea of the problem, but our ability to construct positive and lasting solutions for families lacks substance. The trouble is, we cannot make someone change, unless we are prepared to trample on a whole gamut of human rights enshrined throughout New Zealand law. Our risk-based paradigm is great for delivering us pathology, but it tells only half the story. Therefore, we need to be equipped with the tools to support and foster change, and, if we are to do that and make a dent in our shameful social statistics, we will have to change our paradigm.

The deficit approach we have been operating from sees the 14-year-old girl with a long history of school truancy and disruptive behaviour, puts her life under the risk assessment lens, and discovers that there is no address on her school enrolment form. There is no dad at home and her mum is known to be an addict, by mental health providers. The girl is performing well below her peers academically. As we tease out the facts the picture looks gloomy, and we wonder what hope there is for this girl.

However, the strength-based approach looks at the same girl and discovers these facts: she has a younger 10-year-old brother for whom she is the main caregiver; she cooks tea each night; and when there is a shortage of food she reduces her portion so that her brother gets enough. She often misses school so that she can accompany her mother to a weekly outpatients’ programme with a community mental health provider that specialises in addictive behaviours. The girl will sit for hours waiting for her mother to finish the programme. She shops with her mother to make sure she does not get sidetracked on the way to the supermarket. She has a good relationship with an aunt, so that she can relocate her brother and herself when her mum brings home unsafe men. She is very insistent that her brother attends school every day despite her own truancy record. These obvious strengths do not change the deficits but they do give us hope that, with the right help, these strengths can be built upon to create patterns of living whereby this 14-year-old, along with her family, may be empowered to make the gradual changes needed to shape a positive future.

We are developing a culture of victimisation that focuses on rights and entitlements, and to change this to a culture of responsibility and participation it will require the Government to shift its thinking from problem management to change management.

Division in New Zealand can be whipped up not only along racial lines but also along “environment versus business” lines. I find such divisive tactics a waste of time and energy. In fact, I find them contrary to our energy conservation strategy.

The notion of sustainable development is a way of working through such conflict. We can, and do, need to have economic growth, but in such a way that it does not damage the soil, air, and water necessary for the economic growth of the generations to come. It is this principle that underlines our two major pieces of environmental legislation: the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. With those two pieces of legislation the community can develop the rules to ensure sustainable development, when it is not “business versus green” but a search through plans and consents for a sustainable solution.

My first meeting with the Resource Management Law Association was early in 2000 in Dunedin. The legislation had been in place, under the previous National Government, for 9 years. Members of the association told me that the Environment Court was overloaded and slow, and was hindering the workings of the Resource Management Act. It is interesting to note that at that time there were amendments before the House to make the Resource Management Act work in favour of business, and that was totally adversarial, while the problem of resourcing the Environment Court—an easy solution—was being totally ignored.

The overloading of the Environment Court was leading to blackmail practices. There was a backlog of 3,000 to 4,000 cases, and there was a delay of 18 to 30 months to have appeals heard. What did we do? We did not bring in adversarial legislation; instead, we brought in extra funding, we put up an extra judge and commissioners, we introduced and funded mediation services, we brought in a new case management system, and we brought in the production of digital evidence. I was told by several district councils, in my trawl around late last year, that the greenmail has stopped—that term has nothing to do with the Green Party; it is just the phrase often used. As at the beginning of this year the backlog is now at 1,503 cases, and the standard, as at 1 April, will be 6 months to have an appeal heard, not 30 months. There are 1,503 cases to be heard, not 3,000.

In reducing the backlog, and in taking away those powers that existed for some people to blackmail, we have remained loyal to the principles of the Resource Management Act. We have found a way of not being divisive or adversarial but of solving the problem. I think that that is the way this Government acts. That is how we are builders—builders of hope, builders of community—and not people who split and divide.

We have found a range of difficulties in implementing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, a very complex but very well-intentioned piece of legislation delivered by the National Party’s former Minister for the Environment, the Rt Hon Simon Upton. It is brilliant legislation. However, prior to 1996 hazardous substances—that is, chemicals: things that burn and things that explode—were managed under separate pieces of legislation. Under this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act we have to transfer the management of those substances from their different Acts to the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The transfer process began in 2001 and revealed—and this is really scary—there were many, many thousands, some say 200,000, hazardous substances in New Zealand that had never been registered and therefore were not subject to any risk assessment or risk management scheme. The job was much bigger than the Environmental Risk Management Authority had been resourced for by the previous Government.

From 2001, when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act came into force, businesses raised problems they were having. So what did we do? We announced a strategy to improve the transfer of substances to the new regime. We have a bill before the House now to make the transfer faster, and to allow the Environmental Risk Management Authority more ability to vary controls on substances, such as removing the default control that specifies that people filling their cars with petrol or using household fly sprays must be qualified. There really was a brilliant effort by Simon Upton on that part, but he did not realise it was going to apply down at that level. We took that Act and said: “The spirit of the legislation is good. Let us move now to correct that legislation.”—and that is what we have done in answer. We have also substantially increased the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s budget from that which I inherited in 1999.

These amendments will reduce business compliance costs, costs to the Government, and the time taken to transfer substances to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act controls, while still being honest about the intention of the legislation—that is; the minimising of the risk to health, safety, and the environment. The amendments are needed urgently, by the way, to allow 1080 poison to be reassessed, and to allow the transfer of some hazardous substances, such as petrol, to the new regime. So this Government has worked hard to enable the community to work together—not to divide each other, but to work together—for a solution that meets the needs of the land, of conservationists, of businesses, and of farmers.

The community in all its guises must be involved in finding environmental solutions. We think that the preservation of sacred sites such as wāhi tapu is only a New Zealand problem. I spent my holidays in Ireland and there they are having a wondrous fight, which has spanned several years, about building a motorway over an ancient monastic site—a sacred religious site. Worldwide, there is conflict on such issues. I think sometimes we need to stand back and realise that these are issues not just in New Zealand; these are issues worldwide. Let us work our way through them rather than setting up either/or, or black/white.

We have some major problems in New Zealand but the solution is engagement, not division. I think of something like Lake Taupo. We have a problem there of land use, and therefore a problem of a loss of water clarification, because of eutrophication caused by nitrates entering the water. The solution is to take the sewage away from the lake or the lakeside, and to change the land use. The costs have to be shared—not just borne by the people who live around the lake but by all New Zealanders, because the lake is an icon. Here is a political problem: for the next 40 years that lake will get worse even while ratepayers and taxpayers are putting money into the solution. That requires political courage. That is what this Labour Government is about: doing something for the better. I will be dead by the time the lake starts to improve—or I think I will be, unless I make a century.

It is the same problem with the Rotorua lakes. We had some really good issues where we had local members like Steve Chadwick come forward and raise a matter with me and with local people—and we responded. We respond by bringing in people and paying for them to come and find solutions, and to work with the regional government and local governments responsible. We have done that with Fiordland’s guardians, with dross in Invercargill, and with tyres in Hamilton—I could go on.

Then we come to a problem like the Waitaki River. If we think about the people of Dunedin, we know that on one side they have the Clutha, which has been taken up for hydroelectric power, and on the other side they have the Waitaki. There are two great rivers on either side of them. The people of Dunedin look at that situation and they are really anxious. We had an Environmental Council that did not set up a water allocation plan. I know there are members opposite who say: “Oh, don’t take any notice of that. Just roll ahead, make the decision, and get on with it, lady. What are you on about? Get on with it. We need power. Just roll ahead.” Not us! We set up a methodology by which a community can have its say and work its way through.

It is the same with dirty air in Christchurch. If I want an environmental standard to raise the quality of air, I have to find, I think, an economic solution to solve that problem. This is a Government that works with business, with farmers, with the Fish and Game Council, and with mayors to find solutions that do not compromise economic growth or environmental health. It is not a case of either/or. It does not have to be divisive. It takes time to accomplish that engagement, and I know that.

Labour builds and Labour engages; it does not have to set up division. That is the society that I get misty-eyed about when I fly back home. That is the society that I care about—the society built on number eight fencing wire, the society built on engagement, the society founded on finding solutions; not a society founded on throwing mud at each other.

Ā, tuatahi, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe, ki ngā mema katoa o tēnei Whare Pāremata, ā, tēnā koutou katoa. That was just a brief mihi to you, Mr Speaker, and to all members of this House, given that this is my first speech of the year. In making this contribution to the debate I just want to say that I am proud to be a New Zealander, to be Māori, to be Waikato Maniapoto Ngāpuhi, and be a young Māori woman in 2004. But we have to ask ourselves, each and every one of us, what that means for us here today in New Zealand. I do not think it means we should polarise the views that exist within our society. I do not think that is helpful. I do not think it means that we should set one person against the other on the basis of slogans, and not understanding. I do not think it means that we as a Parliament should purport to represent views without trying to peel away some of the underlying issues that create a negative perception that is not based on fact.

In making this contribution today, I want to highlight the positive things that this Government has done, and to put on the record that at least this Government is not afraid of having the debate. At least this Government is not afraid of putting the hard issues right out there in front of every New Zealander, and of arguing constructively in a way that creates understanding and generates more questions and debate, but also in a way that seeks to genuinely pose the question to all New Zealanders of what it means to be New Zealanders. It is not a lump in the throat but a feeling that all members in this House get in their gut, no matter whether they are Māori, Pākehā, Asian, Samoan, Tongan, Cook Island, Niuean, Tuvaluan, or whatever. I ask this question: does New Zealand celebrate my diversity? Does New Zealand celebrate the fact that I am different? Does being a New Zealander mean that I have a place to be? If we cannot provide that kind of vision for all members of our society, then we should not be here. That is why I am concerned about the way in which the Opposition has raised the temperature and seeks to polarise opinions, and not to have a genuine debate about the issues of diversity within our country as they exist today, not as they existed in the 1950s.

In the 1950s the grandparents in my heritage were prevented from speaking their own language in the schools. That was race-based legislation that worked against them. In the 1960s, when Māori sought to assert themselves as Māori, they were discriminated against in areas of labour—of work and of employment opportunities. That was not helpful, and it worked against them. In the 1970s, when Māori sought to assert themselves through education—and we had a few of them coming through tertiary education at that time—they were confronted with very, very strong views about why Māori should be only in labour-intensive industries, not excelling in the path of tertiary education. That was in the 1970s. What did we have in the 1980s? We had people asserting that it was important for people of culture to know and learn their language. What did we see? We saw the start of the kōhanga reo movement. In the 1990s those kids have grown up with a positive affirmation of whom they are, where they belong, and what culture means—not so that they can differentiate in order to exclude others, but so that they can identify what their culture means to them and can embrace and accept other cultures. That is the New Zealand that I will work towards. It is the kind of New Zealand that I think most people want, and it is the type of discussion we should be having.

Many points have been raised in this House about special preference for certain groups. I think we just need to take a breath, and if we look back long and hard at our history we will see that race-based legislation—in its earliest form it probably was not legislation but the right of pre-emption in the treaty, for example—worked to the favour of a minority group coming into the country, even though the majority interests could very well have not benefited. People choose to have a short memory when it suits them.

The barometer of Māori opinion in 2004 is a very positive one. The barometer of Māori opinion today is looking forward and focusing on growth and opportunity. Why is that? It is because Māori want to be positive contributors to this society. What does that mean? It means that we see Māori engaging and wanting to engage more proactively in areas of entrepreneurship and the delivery of social services in a relevant way that provides good, positive outcomes, and in areas that improve our health and well-being. That cannot be bad, can it? I do not think so. I looked at the Bartercard New Zealand Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2002, and what did that report state? It stated that Māori have an 11.9 percent rate of total entrepreneurial activity. In fact, if Māori were ranked as an individual country, Māori in New Zealand would be the world’s seventh most entrepreneurial country. That is quite a strong statement, in terms of the spirit of entrepreneurialism that exists within Māoridom. That report goes on to state that Māori entrepreneurs are younger than other entrepreneurs, and that they are able to identify opportunity. When we look at the positive aspect of that statement from that report—a study of entrepreneurship in this country—we see we can be quite optimistic about the contribution young Māori will make to this country. That is a good thing for us all.

I reiterate that Māori want to be positive contributors to this society, creating employment opportunities, and becoming upskilled. They do not just want to be labourers—as people would have condemned us to be in the 1950s; they also want to help to be the responsible employers of the future generation. That cannot be bad, can it? No, it is positive. That is the way forward, and that is where this Government is trying to take our people.

In looking at areas specifically within my constituency in the Waikato, I note that we are one of three regions to have received the roll-out of Project Probe. I am quite a fan of broadband Internet access. What does it mean? Certainly for the Tainui electorate, it means that it will go to rural communities like the Coromandel—and I went to the launch of broadband access there. It will enable schools in rural areas to be able to receive learning through video conferencing—for all students, not just for Māori. But in particular, the students in those communities will have access to learning subjects that they never had access to before. That is great. Why is that? Because the window for opportunity for those students will be opened so much further because they have access to that learning in the first instance, and they can dare to think that they can have a career outside of Hahei.

When I talk about some of the things that are of concern, I want to make one comment before I end my speech. It relates to the position of the Māori seats. I find it quite amusing that when people want to have a slang at Māori, they have a slang at the Māori seats. In reference to the Tainui electorate, I say anyone can ask me whether I turn anyone away when he or she comes to my office, no matter what race the person is. I do not. When people come into my office I know they come in because they need help. I think that to create the perception that the members representing the Māori electorates do not have the opportunity to help all peoples is a mistruth.

In ending my speech, I say the barometer of Māori opinion is not on the things that divide us; it is on the things that will help Māori to grow positively. So the things that will be positive for Māori will be the creation of the Māori Television Service and the allocation of Māori fisheries, in order to help Māori to participate in that industry and to actually get their people out doing the fishing. Maybe the one thing that challenges us all is the issue of the foreshore and seabed, and there will be a lot of debate in the House when it is time to debate that matter. However, I want to say that this Government is not afraid to have the debate in a real and meaningful way that deconstructs all the myths, and that deals with the facts and the real issues affecting our people. Every New Zealander who is listening to this debate today will know that hard though it is and has been, this Government is prepared to take a step forward in a genuine way towards trying to understand where we all belong within this country, what a sense of nationhood will mean under a Labour-led Government, and also, in the long term, what citizenship means for all of us. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Mr Speaker, given that this is my first contribution in the House this year, can I start by wishing you a happy New Year, and wishing all of my parliamentary colleagues likewise.

I support the motion of Dr Don Brash, the leader of the National Party—the next Prime Minister of New Zealand in 2005, and maybe a bit sooner. It could be a bit sooner if this Government finally caves in and goes to the polls, which some are predicting. The leader of the National Party, when he moved the motion of no confidence in this Government, knew what he was doing, and I support that motion.

The good, hardworking people from Taranaki - King Country—farmers, business people—have a simple approach to life and a simple saying. It goes like this: if it looks like a cow, walks like a cow, and smells like a cow, then it probably is a cow. That is how they operate.

I sat in the House on Tuesday when the Prime Minister gave her first speech of the year. I looked at the Prime Minister and saw that she had no passion, no vision, and no leadership. Her speech, when I read it, had none either—I have gone back through it. I looked around the House at a whole lot of Labour members—who were kindly described by Mark Sainsbury last night as resting their eyes—and they had no leadership, no vision, and no passion. So what does that look like? It looks like a Government with a Prime Minister who has no leadership, no passion, and no direction, and, based on a simple theory from Taranaki - King Country, if it looks like a cow, smells like a cow, and walks like a cow, then it probably is a cow. This Government had no leadership, no vision, and no passion—or it looked like that—so that is probably so. I say that it has no leadership, no passion, and no sense of where the country should go. That is the reality. This Government looks tired, unimpassioned, and as though it lacks leadership.

So let us have a look at what it has promised to do over the next couple of years. It has promised to introduce a range of new legislation. One can ask the question: how does that fit in with the Prime Minister’s stated objective of lifting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD? Now when we have a look at the Prime Minister’s speech on Tuesday, we see that the first piece of legislation she mentioned is an aquaculture reform bill. I am sure that will be very helpful for business. There is the Building Bill. I happen to be on the select committee where that bill is being discussed, and all I have seen so far is a whole lot of costs being loaded on to industry. There is the Care of Children Bill, the Charities Bill, the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill, and the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill. All of those were mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech. I ask members: which one of them will help the Prime Minister in her objective of lifting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD? When one goes through those bills and has a look at them, all one sees is a heap of costs being dumped on to New Zealand business, and on to the growth of this economy.

We can have a look at what is happening in the social area with this Labour Government—the Government that traditionally has always supported social needs. In education 300 schools in rural New Zealand are under review. Most of them will be closed. The Minister himself has given up now on going through the review process; he is just making arbitrary closure decisions around the country, willy-nilly, whether they are good schools or bad schools.

Let us have a look at what is happening on the farm—the engine room of the economy. There has been 20 percent inflation since this Government came into power. Look at the forecasts in terms of what incomes will do on farms. The forecast in today’s paper is that the dairy payout will potentially fall to $2 or $2.20—well below the economic level of survival for most farms in New Zealand. These are all good indicators.

Then we look at one or two of the other issues. What will happen in rural health? One of the issues the Government trumpeted up and down the country in 1999 in its manifesto was that it would provide improved health services. There is no mention of needs-based services. There is no mention of those. What do we have in rural health, instead? There is a gradual, incremental decline—not an improvement but a decline. It is harder to find services in rural New Zealand. It is not easier; it is harder. I tell Jill Pettis to go and talk to people in Stratford about their maternity service. She should go across the boundary and have a talk—

💬 Jill Pettis: That is not us.

Well, Taranaki Base Hospital or Taranaki Healthcare funds it, so if it is not the Government’s, whose is it?

💬 Jill Pettis: The district health board’s.

Well, the Government funds that. If it is not Labour’s responsibility, then whose is it?

The higher dollar is putting pressure on exports; there is no question about that. Who is in charge? What did those members say in Opposition when the dollar started to rise? Who did they blame for that? We can pull out speeches and ask members what they said about that.

We have had 20 new taxes thus far from this Government, and they are talking about more. In response to the 11 September attacks, we have the Border Security Bill before a select committee. It will put $8 million-worth of extra cost on exporters alone, and 70 percent of what used to be done by the Customs Service will be dumped on exporters.

💬 Jill Pettis: Not yet.

Not yet, no, but it is being proposed; the member is right—not yet. So how will that help to lift New Zealand into the top half of the OECD?

The Minister for the Environment spoke before, and she spoke with great passion about the Resource Management Act. That Act has needed amending for the last 7 or 8 years. She is quite right. There were a heap of proposed amendments under the last Government, and under Simon Upton, based on the Owen McShane report. What did she do with them? She put her red pen through the whole lot. She scrapped the lot and introduced further costs, further delays, and further humbug for anybody who wants to do something.

💬 Hon Member: Simon Upton talked about it!

He talked about it but never got it done. I accept that. In 5 years the Government has not done a thing. In fact, it has added a heap of extra costs.

So what other types of legislative change can we expect from this Government? We will see a major change to the Employment Relations Bill, and a huge amount of extra costs put on industry as a result of that proposed change. So where is this leadership, and where is the grand statement now from the Prime Minister that we will lift this country to the top half of the OECD? It is history.

Let us look at what has happened in the last few days with regard to discussion in this House, particularly to do with race relations. We have a Government that is now clearly on the ropes. The Orewa speech made by Dr Don Brash has obviously struck a chord.

I have listened with great interest to the Māori members of this House. Not one of them has disagreed with anything he said in that speech—not one. That is amazing. In fact, I listened to Nanaia Mahuta a few minutes ago. She went through a list of issues, and they virtually outlined exactly what he said in that speech. I listened with great interest.

Now we have them banging on, on the other side of the House, about the National Party trying to cause racial tension. Remember, it was the National Party that introduced the historic grievance process and in that process did more for Māori, and got further down the track, than anybody else. The Holmes show poll the other night demonstrated to members exactly what New Zealanders think of this issue, and they know instinctively that Dr Brash is right. It is not racist; and it is not what they are trying to say on the Government side of the House. Dr Brash is actually saying what the majority of New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori, believe.

Let us have a look at another area this Government is poking its fingers into. Around the country the Government is currently buying up grand blocks of land—23,000 hectares in the case of Birchwood Station in the South Island—under the notion that somehow or other the State knows how to manage conservation better than anybody else. Let us have a look at the State’s record on that. We should look at what is happening in terms of preserving conservation through the hands of the Department of Conservation. That department is the worst neighbour in the country when it comes to weed-infested bits of land. It is the worst department in the country when it comes to weed and pest control. Members should go and have a look. They can find isolated pockets where the department is doing a good job, but, overwhelmingly, the State does not know best. In fact, in the Minister’s own comments with regard to Birchwood, he said that it was a fine piece of conservation owned by the Williams family, and for that reason he felt that the State should take it over. It will be interesting to see if it is in that condition in 10 years’ time.

Speaking as a Waikato member of Parliament I take this opportunity to convey my sympathy, particularly to Shade Ardern and his team, and to the Wilkie family, on the untimely passing of Maureen Wilkie, who was a very good example of a wonderful electorate agent. These electorate agents in terms of their professionalism serve people all around the country, irrespective of the person’s political affiliations. It has been a reminder of the important community role played by people in our offices all around the country. I convey my sympathies to Maureen’s family, the many, many people who knew her, and those who worked with her.

It is with sadness that I also note the passing of the previous deputy chief executive of Environment Waikato, and current Environment Court commissioner, Bob Priest. He was a very, very good public servant, and I have to admit that it was not until I attended his funeral that I truly realised what a very accomplished and brilliant man he was. He was exceptionally humble, but a very, very good person to deal with, and he will be sorely missed in our community.

I also acknowledge the passing of Roma Lilley of Hamilton, who was a life member of the Labour Party, and I do so in the context of the many people who serve in political parties around this country but who never seek to be elected to Parliament. I acknowledge that everyone in this Chamber is here because of the efforts of the Roma Lilleys of this world—the people who do not seek to come here themselves, but give up so many hours of their life to fight for the causes they believe in. Roma was a great contributor to my political party. I also acknowledge her work for people with disabilities in Hamilton. She was incredibly cheerful at all times and quite inspirational. She will also be sorely missed from community radio where she used to run a very excellent programme.

I am proud to be a member of this Labour-Progressive coalition Government. We have a very positive story to tell about how much has currently been achieved in New Zealand and about how much more can be achieved as New Zealanders work together—I emphasise, together—to realise our country’s full potential. We have built the foundations for change and improvement, and now we can see those results emerging. After many years of sluggish growth and social decay, New Zealand has picked up momentum and is moving forward on many fronts.

This year’s Budget, I am proud to say, will bring important changes for families in this country. The new Families Commission will be up and running. I note and observe the speech made by Judy Turner, and acknowledge the work of United Future in helping us to establish the Families Commission. It is a very good example in an MMP environment of positive collaboration between two political parties. We will be making major improvements to the level of family income assistance and introduce new initiatives for early childhood education.

The new mortgage insurance pilot scheme between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and Kiwibank is helping people on low incomes to buy their own homes. Consultation will soon begin on a new housing strategy to make sure that all New Zealanders are housed. Norman Kirk used to say that one of the fundamental elements of social justice in being a Kiwi was having the right to have a decent roof over one’s head. We now have 176,000 more people in jobs since Labour formed the Government in 1999. New Zealanders increasingly see themselves as creative people with much to offer the world through the creative industries, such as film and music.

I want to reflect briefly on the Orewa speech made by Dr Brash. Actually, I think the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon was the last senior politician to give a speech in Orewa. In my view there was something of a time warp about the speech given by Dr Brash, and choosing to go to Orewa says a lot about his vision for this country. The cynic in me says that the content of the Orewa speech was nothing but a cynical attempt in many ways to divert the attention of the people away from what members opposite would do to the people and working families of this country, if ever they had another chance to occupy the Treasury benches.

The Orewa speech did not give working families the message that if the Opposition formed the next National-ACT Government it would immediately repeal the holidays legislation and do away with 4 weeks’ annual holiday for working families; that it would remain at 3 weeks. The Orewa speech did not talk about that. With regard to the Families Commission, I say that given the cynicism, the vile and invective directed at United Future, presumably that positive initiative would also be done away with. I talked earlier about the mortgage insurance pilot scheme between the Housing New Zealand Corporation and Kiwibank. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that that would go down the tube, because a National-ACT Government, should it come to power, would do two things—firstly, it would get rid of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and privatise it, and, secondly, it has promised to sell off Kiwibank, no doubt to some foreign bank, and do away with one of the only New Zealand – owned banks in this country. Those issues are the kinds of things that the Brash Orewa speech did not tell us about.

John Key, earlier in the debate today, talked about some notion of fear in Labour MPs’ eyes. I tell Mr Key to look again, and look into my eyes. They are the eyes of sadness. In my first term in Parliament, as an Opposition Labour MP I accompanied the Rt Hon James Bolger, Prime Minister of New Zealand, and the Rt Hon Doug Graham to Tūrangawaewae Marae where they signed, on behalf of the Crown, the raupatu settlement that brought to a close a longstanding historic grievance between the Tainui people and the Crown, and that enabled us in the Waikato to move forward. It is very clear that the party currently led by Dr Don Brash is a very, very different party from the one led by James Bolger, Prime Minister.

Talking of cynicism, the ultimate cynicism is the way in which the National Party is now treating its Māori constituency, and the Māori members. In the 2002 election campaign we recall that Michelle Boag went out actively, presumably with the support of Bill English, to court Māori candidates. They placed people like Hekia Parata very high on the list. Even Bill English, in his Southland speech to the regional National Party conference prior to becoming Leader of the Opposition, talked about the changing demographics in this country and how the National Party would lose one seat per election, based on the growth in young New Zealanders of Polynesian origin. How it all changes! Now, on the basis of one speech, the National Party has made a cold, calculated determination that it does not need New Zealanders of Māori or Pacific Island origin any more, and it has turned its back on that important section of our community.

I think personally that National may have some short-term bump in the polls, but in the long term the National Party that descended from proud Prime Ministers, people like Sir Keith Holyoake—it was a party of so-called consensus in the 1960s, and it was a Government of consensus—will rue the day it ventured down this particular track.

I am very proud to be a member of a Government that will back all Kiwi families, irrespective of their ethnic origin. We will aid Kiwis where they need it and in ways in which they need it, irrespective of their circumstances. I am proud to be a Waikato member of a Parliament who is witnessing excellent economic growth and very low unemployment. I am proud to be part of the very, very positive initiatives under the leadership of this Government. I am proud to be a member of a Government that wants to bring New Zealanders together, not divide them in the most cynical way, as we have seen from members opposite.

In terms of division, what a divided Opposition it is. A senior member of the National caucus, Mr Brian Connell, implied that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was some form of charlatan. That, in my view, is not coalition talk. I do hope New Zealand First notes the latest overtures being made by the National Party in that direction.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member, I have been advised by New Zealand First that it wishes to share its slot between two members. I shall ring the bell at 4 minutes, with 1 minute remaining.

The Prime Minister’s statement this week made vague references to beginning consultation soon, to ensure all New Zealanders have access to affordable and sustainable quality housing. Come on, Prime Minister! This is not a new problem. It has been around for years. Why is this Government just working towards beginning a consultation period soon? It is time for action now, not further periods of navel-gazing. The Prime Minister and her Ministers should look at New Zealand First’s housing policy for some clear and immediately achievable ideas. For example, I will quote two or three ideas from New Zealand First’s published 2002 election policy: “New Zealand First will build or buy sufficient low-income houses to address New Zealand’s current housing crisis. New Zealand First will provide a better match between the size and location of houses, to the requirements of tenants. New Zealand First also proposes low-interest loans for first-time homeowners, to help them buy their own home or convert to a rent-to-buy scheme.”

As the newly appointed New Zealand First spokesperson on housing, I say to the Minister that I will be watching, listening to, and looking at the performance of the housing portfolio. It is time for action now, and I expect to see significant progress from this Government in the upcoming Budget to provide for a significant improvement in housing. This Government had 9 years of planning in Opposition, 5 years in Government, and has a $5 billion surplus. It is not good enough just to begin the consultation process soon.

Of course, we know why this Government has to go back to begin consultation soon. It simply does not know how to overcome the problems it has created by its irresponsible open-door immigration policy. This policy has resulted in a huge demand for housing from new arrivals. That demand has driven up house prices and rentals, to the exclusion of ordinary New Zealanders—citizens with a genuine and, in many cases, desperate need to get out of cramped and substandard lodgings. New Zealand First will not allow such an immigration policy to continue when we form the next Government. We will not allow our citizens to be forced down the waiting list and made to wait while houses remain empty, reserved exclusively for new arrivals.

We have heard a lot about Waitangi Day over the last couple of days. I could not believe the naivety of Don Brash when he arrived at the entrance to Te Tii Marae and demanded that mainstream media be allowed to accompany him on to the marae. When those demands were refused he stamped his feet like a spoilt brat who was not allowed the sweets, and refused to go on. It was obvious that Mr Brash was at Waitangi for the wrong reasons. He was not there to celebrate our nation’s day of unity or to meet and build bridges and relationships with Māori. Mr Brash’s appearance was nothing more than a publicity stunt. The lack of respect that he received he brought on himself, not for his Orewa speech but for his arrogant treatment of his only Māori MP, Georgina te Heuheu. That is the shame Mr Brash needs to face up to.

I wonder whether many of the other critics and media commentators actually attended the same Waitangi that I did. Peter Dunne’s claim of disgraceful behaviour at Waitangi is a good example. I ask Mr Dunne what part of the Waitangi activities he attended, because I did not see him there. Waitangi Day is a wonderful, fun, family day, when local Māori and Pākehā alike enjoy a day of music and spontaneity. I strolled around the Waitangi maraes with my fellow New Zealand First colleagues. We were greeted with smiles and friendly handshakes everywhere. I ask the media whether they can honestly say that the selective reporting of sensationalism is a true and fair representation of Waitangi Day or just tabloid sensationalism to boost ratings.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your position as Assistant Speaker, and wish you a very good run in the House for the rest of the session. I also offer New Year greetings to my fellow parliamentarians.

At the last election New Zealand First made three promises. We said we would fix immigration, law and order, and the Treaty of Waitangi industry. As far as immigration is concerned, I think the Prime Minister is a little bit late in some of the statements she made in her speech. She said, for example: “Net migration continues to be strong, which also reflects confidence in New Zealand. In the year to December 2003 more New Zealanders came home, and fewer left than in the previous year. The long-term visitor arrival numbers, however, are being affected by the decline in overseas student numbers.” The Prime Minister is hopelessly out of date. She does not seem to be aware that our promise we made at the last election to reduce immigration is coming into effect. As we know, the current figures show, when we annualise the last 3-monthly figures, a bigger drop in immigration, to about 17,000. We are moving from a stage when, at the time the 13 new New Zealand First members came into office, we had an immigration rate of about 45,000 to 55,000; now the immigration figures are being annualised out to 17,000. That is New Zealand First policy. We promised to fix three things. Can we fix them? Well, there is one of them fixed already by New Zealand First.

The second thing we said we would do was take some action on the Treaty of Waitangi. I am not sure whether we should appreciate the way in which the National Party has gone about its business, as it is plagiarising New Zealand First speeches, plagiarising New Zealand First phrases, and plagiarising New Zealand First questions in Parliament, but it cannot plagiarise New Zealand First principles, which have been held by the leader of this party for 16 years. They are principles upon which he resigned, but principles that he is not giving effect to in the same underhand sort of way that we see from this very sad National Party today.

One of the things we would like to see in this foreshore and seabed debate is some more action from the Labour Māori members of Parliament. I was looking at the way in which the Labour Māori members of Parliament perform; I thought I would see what they were doing this year. So I looked at the bills before select committees. I thought I would look at what the Māori Affairs Committee was doing. How busy are those members of Parliament? Well, they do not have a single bill before them. The Māori Affairs Committee does not have even one bill before it. I thought that maybe it would have some other work, but the only other work it has is the financial review. Yet here we have another select committee being set up in Parliament to look at Māori issues. We have Māori members of Parliament who are lions on the marae, but we know they are lambs in the caucus. We have been listening to them in this debate for the last 3 days. They have not said a word that matters on the foreshore and seabed debate. They have kept very quiet on that issue. So I thought that perhaps those Māori members are earning their money on the select committee. But they are not doing a thing. There is nothing happening at the Māori Affairs Committee.

New Zealand First came up with a little slogan about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: “Taihoa, taihoa, and off to work we go.” What we have now is: “Taihoa, taihoa, and off to shirk we go.” They are shirking the job. What is the use of Māori seats if Māori members do nothing—absolutely nothing—in the Māori Affairs Committee, and allow Russell Fairbrother and his group to run the business of Māori affairs? The Maori Fisheries Bill is being handled by Russell Fairbrother, a general seat member from Napier. What are the Māori members doing? The nail in the coffin of the Māori members is well under way.

As far as law and order, our third issue, is concerned, my good colleague Ron Mark is running rings around the Labour Government, Mr Goff, and Mr Hawkins. Members will notice that most of the questions seem to be answered by Mr Goff these days, not by Mr Hawkins. He has just about resigned his police portfolio because of the hard work being done by Ron Mark. We promised we would do three things before the last election. We are doing them. They are well under way, and we will get them sorted out before the next election.

Members will be interested to know that was the once-great Dail Jones, a former senior National Party MP. When Dail Jones stormed out of the National Party when he was heavily defeated by another former National Party ally, the Hon Jack Elder, in 1984, he spent 20 years away from Parliament. Dail Jones spent 20 years in the wilderness, only to be rescued by the New Zealand First list. One would think that after 20 years away, the once-great National Party MP, the doyen of National Party thought in those days, would come back to the House with some very strong messages that he would be wanting to tell Parliament. One would think he would be wanting to tell New Zealand, right across the nation, some very important messages. But Dail Jones used the first speech of the year to tell members what committees are meeting in Parliament, how many bills are before them, who the members should be, and what time of the day they should meet. This is a man who was focused very much on the small minutiae of parliamentary detail. There was no great idea, no great statement—

💬 John Carter: What’s this member going to speak about?

John Carter asks what I will say. I will get on to it soon, and when I do the National Party will find out a whole lot of good things are happening in this country that will keep it cemented so far down in the polls that it will be several elections before it gets anywhere near the cross benches of this House.

In rising to support the Prime Minister’s statement, which I thought was just fantastic, I want to say how proud I am to be a member of this Labour-Progressive Government, and how proud I feel to be a young New Zealander at the beginning of the 21st century, and part of a Government that is setting forward some future plans for our country as we decide to fix the problems that are there, to build on the strengths we have, and to make sure we have a country for everybody to live in, that means something, and that we can be proud of. So I am proud of the Prime Minister’s statement, because she came to Parliament with a message. She came into the House and she read out some things that she believes in, values she holds, and policies that this Government is putting in place for all New Zealanders.

One can whinge and whine about things all the time, and members have heard that. Of this whole 14-hour debate, half of it will be about complaining, about saying this country is not good enough, about saying the Government is not doing enough. But in the half that Government members have, we are saying what we believe in and the differences we are trying to make.

Over the summer adjournment I spent a lot of time in my electorate, the Otaki electorate. It was a great pleasure to be at home for long periods of time without having to rush down to the city and be subject to the environmental pollution from the Opposition’s side of the House. There are some really good things happening around provincial and rural New Zealand that make me proud to be part of this Government but, more important, proud to be a citizen of our country. I went to so many events over the summer adjournment where there were New Zealanders of all different backgrounds, shapes, sizes, and styles. Any kind of New Zealander one would want to mention was there at those big public events; people were enjoying one another’s company and being part of a community. That is why we are born and live in the same sorts of places—because we believe in communities. We believe in being around one another, and supporting one another—not ripping each other to bits, chipping away all the time, and being negative. It is the big public events where people come together for positive reasons that attract numbers, not protest rallies, complaints, or divisive tactics.

It is the sort of thing we saw around the Horowhenua and Kapiti Coast over summer. I was very pleased to be at the 98th annual Horowhenua Agricultural, Pastoral, and Industrial Show in Levin, where there were 20,000 people. There was the major Organic River Festival, also in Levin, which attracted many thousands of people. There was the “big dig” at our beaches. There were the Waikanae sports days, which people from right across the Wellington region turned out for. A Whopper Chopper was held recently, and this weekend there is the Manakau Medieval Market Day. So it can be seen that there are lots of things happening around our area and region, and people are coming together at those public events.

💬 Jill Pettis: Men in tights.

There will be men in tights in Manakau this weekend, I can tell the House. The event will be on State Highway 1, so there will be a lot of highway patrol cars directing traffic. Mrs Pettis should just carry on to Whanganui, and I hope Mrs Turia ensures she gets there without stopping to check out the men in tights at Horowhenua. Maybe she could give her a ride!

But it is the Government policies that I think are making a big difference in my electorate. In 2003 there were 135 new businesses. That means more people in my area are working in real, sustainable jobs, and more businesses are contributing to our local economy. Our regional partnership plan, which is an important part of this Government’s economic strategy, is beginning to take real shape now. The Kapiti and Horowhenua districts are working together on the kind of economic growth that we can get for our district.

💬 Ron Mark: The Labour members have more fun.

Mr Mark chatters away through all of this because, as a list member of Parliament—somebody who has failed in every general election he has ever stood in—he is not quite sure how to work as a constituency member to get economic growth. So he finds it a bit tough. He is still giggling about the Manakau Medieval Market Day.

But what we are doing now is focusing on tourism. Our economic development agency is coming together to bring together the two district councils and business groups from the two districts to try to work out ways to lift the skills base of those already in work, and to find jobs for those who are out of work. So there are very positive things happening on the economic front in my electorate, which mirrors what is happening right around New Zealand. Opposition members do not like the fact that every single region in New Zealand is in economic growth. That is not true just for some people; it is true for every single New Zealander. Every single group of New Zealanders has seen unemployment go down and prosperity go up as a consequence. We are making some real differences because, in the end, it is jobs that make the best difference for ordinary New Zealanders, and that is what we are seeing.

On the transport front, I want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague the Hon Paul Swain for the legislation he brought into Parliament last year—the Land Transport Management Bill. My colleague Winnie Laban, the member for Mana, and I have advocated for a lot of the regional transport initiatives that our two seats between the cities of Palmerston North and Wellington need to make sure we get the transport infrastructure right. Last year we were successful in lobbying about the McKays Crossing overbridge. It will make a huge difference to commuters from the Kapiti Coast to Wellington. We have had progress on it, and this year work will start on the construction of that overbridge. I thank the Minister for the work on that. Obviously, Winnie Laban and I are working with the Hon Peter Dunne, the member for Ohariu-Belmont, to see what we can do to progress the Transmission Gully road, because that is another road that, as Wellington regional members of Parliament, we have said is quite important.

On the health side of events, the health policies under the very strong leadership of the Hon Annette King are making real gains in my electorate, particularly in Kapiti.

💬 John Carter: Name-dropper.

John Carter says it is name-dropping. When it comes to Annette King, he is quite right, because she is fixing up the problems in Northland Health, when he does not do anything about them. He knows that she is making a real difference to people’s health in the far north.

The Kapiti Health Centre was opened by Annette King in October, and Winnie Laban and I were very pleased to be there at that. Already, after just a few months of operation, the local people are saying what a fantastic health asset it is. Why is it so successful? Because we worked with the community to build up an initiative that people could buy into. Rather than take the National Government approach to health, which was to roll into town, tell everyone what the decision was, and impose it on people, we have worked with communities from the grassroots up to make sure we get solutions that work for those communities. I am very pleased to talk about the health centre in Kapiti, because it has been very well received. The primary health organisation there, which I was able to launch in July, is now starting to step up. It is only an interim funded primary health organisation, so it is not one of the lucky ones, I guess, that has access funding, but we got stuck into it straightaway because we knew the Government had a vision for primary health, and we wanted to be out of the starting blocks early in order to make sure we could eventually get that funding to deliver lower-cost primary health-care for ordinary people.

The time goes so quickly when one is talking about all the great things this Government is doing in the health area. Later this year, for over-65s, we will start a new primary health-care package that will reduce even further the cost to them of primary care. They will pay only $3 in prescription charges, which for older New Zealanders will make a huge difference.

We did not hear anything from the National Opposition members at any point through this debate about their vision for primary health-care. Nothing was said about what they would do to deliver primary health-care to low-income New Zealanders, to older New Zealanders, to young people, and to those with real health needs. Nothing was said about it at all. That is why National members have fumbled so badly this week. They have been done over badly at question time in the last 2 days. The “stunned mullet” look on the Opposition faces was extraordinary. I knew this would happen. They came into Parliament on Tuesday, all cock-a-hoop, all puffed up in the chest, because they thought they had one idea—just one. When they found out that they could talk about one idea for one day only, and that the sun came up the next day and they had to have other policies across the wide range of government, they were plastered all over the walls of this Chamber by the competent and dedicated Ministers who stood on this side of the House.

It has been a bad week for National members at question time, because they have learnt that being grumpy will not work. Members cannot just get up and say: “I don’t like that. I’m grumpy about something. Who can I pick on today?”, then say: “Let us see the votes flock in now; this will be a tidal wave to take us to Government.” Of course, it does not work. On every other policy area, that party is totally bankrupt of ideas. We heard no new ideas, apart from Don Brash, an elderly chap, saying he thought the onus of proof should change when people are arrested for certain crimes, or something or other. That was the big, bold idea from a man who holds himself up as an alternative Prime Minister.

I say that the National Party members could have used this debate to put forward their ideas for Government. They did not. They used question time to allow themselves to be done over badly. It has been a bad week. Labour has the ideas, the vision, and the progress to make New Zealand a great place—not for some people, but for all people. That is what is happening in my electorate, and it is happening around the country. I am proud of the Government and I am proud of the Prime Minister’s statement.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next member, I have been informed by United Future that its members wish to split their slot into two 5-minute speeches. The bell will go at 4 minutes.

In my maiden speech, I said: “I believe that the primary cause for most of the problems our nation faces amongst its families comes down to the usurping by the State of the responsibilities of the community and the demise of the Church’s role and status in relation to both the community and the State. The rebalancing of those three sectors of our society is, I believe, the only way to bring about a lasting solution to the growing law and order, health, education and welfare problems we face as a nation.” I went on to talk about the need for community autonomy from Government intervention. At the heart of the community is, of course, the family. Firstly, I thank the Prime Minister and other members of the Labour caucus, including Martin Gallagher this afternoon, who acknowledged United Future’s success in putting the family back on the agenda. Prior to United Future coming to this House, the family was barely mentioned. Now it seems that it is every party’s focus, albeit disparagingly as far as the Opposition parties are concerned.

It has been United Future that has put the family back into the centre of our society, and that has taken active steps to ensure its growing stability and growing security. The family is the first government that our children are subject to. That is an important consideration. There is, therefore, an important need for Parliament to respect the family’s authority, instead of usurping it, and to intervene in the exercise of parental authority only when there is a clear imperative to do so.

Later on this year, I will lodge a member’s bill concerning parental discipline, to set out criteria that the court should use to assess whether physical contact by a parent with a child is justifiable discipline, or unjust abuse. There is a world of difference between the two.

At this point, I really want to address the relationship between the State and the community, and the usurping by the State of the community’s role. We see it very clearly in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services mess—poor management, poor methodology, and poor performance. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services always has a dilemma. It is criticised for infringing on parental rights if it moves too quickly to remove a child from his or her home, and it is criticised for failing to protect children if it moves too slowly. The problem is that when the Government gets involved in these activities, it can work only as a blunt instrument. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is a typical blunt instrument. Because it has usurped the role of the local community, which knows what is happening in families far quicker and far better than any State agency, the local community has been pushed aside.

The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in its current form cannot, and will never be able to, cope with the demands placed upon it, and deliver the results that it is asked to deliver. That is why, having brought the family back to the centre stage, United Future is now looking to re-empower communities, in order to restore them to their role in building a healthy society.

Having achieved all the policy goals that formed the basis of our support for the Government within 18 months of arriving in Parliament, we have now set some new ones. One was alluded to in my maiden speech, as well. I said: “Resourcing community groups through encouraging a greater level of giving by individuals and companies to community organisations is another valuable tool in achieving community independence from State intervention.” One of the things we will be pushing the Government for this year is to raise the donation rebate threshold to $5,000 for donations made to registered charities. But we will do more than that, too. We want to encourage a tax rebate for people who give time, rather than money, to registered charities.

In both these ways we would encourage communities to become self-sufficient. We want to re-empower community organisations. Re-empowering will be done by individuals and businesses in these communities—not through Government handouts, and not through other control mechanisms.

There also needs to be a radical overhaul of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, involving greater community partnerships in order to decentralise this unwieldy, bureaucratic organisation. United Future will be pushing this year for that sort of reorganisation. This is the way forward for New Zealand, and, once again, United Future is leading it.

I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister state that the Government is going to instigate a programme to promote positive parenting, but does it really know what that is? Parenting is one of the greatest responsibilities a couple can ever undertake, and it should be a lifetime commitment. In this debate we have heard much about our great nation, but a great nation is built from great families. I am pleased that this year we will again see efforts going to rebuild the families of New Zealand. Within the family is the ability to teach the important issues of life. Family, after all, is the first form of government we all experience, so let us make it good government.

As a father, there are three things that become very important to me, and these three things are also important to our nation if we really do want to get ahead. Firstly, I must have passion for my family. I must believe in them and believe the best for them. I need to learn of the differences in my children, and build on and promote their strengths. I need to love and honour their mother, and demonstrate to the children what true love and commitment is. It is my responsibility to train them about what is right and acceptable, and teach them to be great citizens. They need to know I am there with them for the long haul.

As an MP, I have a passion for my country. New Zealand is the greatest little nation in the world. I believe in it, and love all people who have chosen this land as their home. As in my children, there are many differences, but I will continue to look for strengths and build on those. Legislation needs to be fair and just, and United Future intends to be here for the people of New Zealand—to bring long-term stability to our great nation. Secondly, I must have focus. To build a great family requires focus. Many distractions can come, and a family is very easy to destroy. If we do not have a long-term focus, we might not make it. A father knows he has been a great father when he sees his children raising their children in a similar manner to the way he did. As MPs, we must focus on things that will build our nation, but for too long we have ignored the family. But then came United Future and we have successfully turned the focus right back on families. We will fight for families and for assistance that again will see New Zealanders succeed in building strong families that hang in there, even when the going gets tough. As Zig Zigler once said, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.”

Thirdly, as a father, I am responsible for keeping unity and stability within the family, and, of course, we are the Adams family. A family can have many opinions, and my responsibility is not to inhibit each member’s creativity, but rather to coordinate so we all help each other and keep pulling in the same direction. As MPs, we need to work hard at keeping unity and stability within our nation. In club rugby we may play to a position: one may be a lock, another may be a centre, and that is what they focus on and what they concentrate on. But, if people ever get the opportunity to don that black shirt with the silver fern on it, no longer are they playing to a position. They are playing as a team because they have become All Blacks—and we focus on winning.

So those three things are also important for our nation: that passion, focus, and unity—for after all, are we not all New Zealanders? Let us wear our nationality with pride. United we will stand; divided we will fall. A nation is rarely destroyed from the outside influences it faces; it is normally destroyed from within. What is the most internal force we have? Our families! So let us rebuild them, and rebuild them strongly. United Future came into this House with the focus on the family. Let me assure the House that we are honing in. We are seeing the things that are important to so many people, and our hearts have been broken by some of the situations we have seen in our families.

As I opened my speech I said I was encouraged to hear the Prime Minister state that the Government is going to instigate a programme to promote positive parenting. We are thankful for the support we have had from the Government in setting up the Families Commission, and we believe that by the end of this parliamentary term, families in New Zealand will know that there is a difference coming from United Future.

I just want to make a comment to the member who has resumed his seat. Volume does not necessarily mean that it is a good speech. He might want to reflect on that.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Sometimes.

Sometimes it does, but not always. I want to refer to one or two issues—

💬 Jill Pettis: Sometimes it helps to yell like hell.

Sometimes volume from the junior Government whip can have an impact on us, I must say, but not all the time. I want to talk about a couple of issues. I listened to one or two of the speeches made from the Government benches, and I also listened with some interest to the speech made by Dail Jones, the former National Party member, who talked about Māori seats—as did Dave Hereora. I want to pick up a couple of issues that are important for this Parliament to know about, in that context, and also particularly important for commentators. Often they talk about issues on which they do not have enough information.

I want to make this point first of all: part of the policy of the National Party at the last election, as it will be at this one, is that it is our view that we do not now need the Māori seats. I want to put this before this Parliament, because I have not heard this issue discussed yet. [Interruption] It is this point, if members will let me make it: 51 percent of people in New Zealand who claim they are of Māori descent are on the Māori roll, and 49 percent of people who claim they are of Māori descent are on the general roll. That is the first point. So about half of the people of Māori descent who are enrolled are on the Māori roll, and about half are on the general roll. I want to make this claim—and I think I certainly can do it factually, on the basis of the information we have—aside from the Māori seats, I represent more Māori people in the seat of Northland than are represented in any other seat in New Zealand.

💬 Jill Pettis: What do you mean by Māori descent?

I mean people who claim they are of Māori descent and who have indicated that. Nearly 6,000 people are on the Northland roll in that category. I say also that there are even some Māori members in this House who cannot claim to represent the same number of Māori people that I do. It is an important point to understand—

💬 Jill Pettis: What do you mean by that?

Well, there are people in this House who will stand up and say: “I will speak for Māori; I will speak for this or that.” Quite honestly, there is not one person in this House or, indeed, this nation who can do so. There are some who can speak—maybe—for their iwi. Maybe they can, but I doubt that. But there is no one who can speak generally for Māori, because they are of different groups and different views—and so they should be.

I want to say to some of the Māori members who are in here talking about things Māori that I am doing something that—to my knowledge, and I am absolutely certain that I am right—none of them have bothered to do at all, and that is to consult the Māori people whom they represent before coming here to speak. Today I have sent a survey out to people in the Northland electorate who claim they are of Māori descent and I have asked them some questions, because I want to know what their views are. I will certainly make that public, I want to make it public, because I am certain we are going to get a different point of view from those people who are enrolled on the general roll for the seat of Northland, for example, as opposed to those who are enrolled on the Māori roll. I am absolutely certain of that, and if I am not right I will still reveal the results so that members will know that I was wrong and they were right, and that is OK. But the fact is I am absolutely confident that we will get a different point of view.

What will be of interest is this: the Māori members will have to say “Well, hang on a minute, perhaps we are not representing the Māori view completely. Maybe we are representing a sector of it.” They certainly are representing a sector of it, and I do not deny that. But the people who speak for Māori—the people whom the commentators run to and talk to—are often a small minority in a select group, and indeed they do not bother to actually talk to the people at a grass-roots level, as they do not with non-Māori.

One of the interesting things that has happened in this debate as a consequence of Don Brash’s Orewa speech is that the commentators got it wrong. They were out of step with public opinion. Recent polls show there is an issue that the public are interested in and want to know about. That is why I decided I would undertake the survey in the seat of Northland.

💬 Jill Pettis: That’s an old National trick.

Maybe. The member can call it what she likes, or members can call it what they like, but it is actually fact. It is something, at least, that I have done genuinely. I will declare the results in the House, if I have the opportunity, but I will certainly make them public so that everyone can share them, because it is something of interest.

I turn now to an issue that is also of concern to me as a representative of the seat of Northland, and that is the way in which the Waitangi Day celebrations were carried out in Northland. The sad thing is that apart from one or two silly people—can I call them idiots, Mr Speaker, because a very small minority were—Waitangi Day in Northland was a great day. It was a lot of fun and in particular the Friday was a very good day. There were a whole lot of activities going on, and hundreds of people, across all races, were enjoying themselves, just mixing and getting on and having a day of celebration. The sad thing is that we did not see any of that at all in the media—I should say we saw very little of it, because there were a couple of shots of it. But, sadly, the focus goes on those people who want to make a fuss.

I am concerned about, and—as other members have been—critical of the way in which Te Tii Marae organises itself, to the extent that I am now of the view that we should bypass that marae completely. It is sad that we have got to this stage with that marae as it certainly has a lot of history around Waitangi Day. It is where Māori met and discussed the treaty before they went up to the top marae, the site where the treaty was signed. If the trustees of that marae cannot organise the day properly and hold up the conventions of Māori—where, when one approaches the marae, one is welcomed on and asked to reply, and following that the debate begins—then Te Tii Marae has to be bypassed and we should make it irrelevant. If correct protocol cannot continue on that marae, then I say that we should not go there. I join with others who have made that statement already and I also say that we should not give it any taxpayer funding.

We should look for another marae in Northland—there are many that would be only too happy to host us—and I would be pleased to attend. In fact, I am sure that Sir James Henare’s marae would be only too happy to be the focal point of our Waitangi Day celebrations, and indeed what a gesture it would be to such a fine gentleman. It would be an excellent way in which we could celebrate, and I am absolutely certain that the people of Otiria Marae would run the whole thing in the way it should be run. The protocols would be observed, those who wanted to come would be welcomed on, and then there would be discussion, as there used to be when Sir James was on that marae. There used to be very good discussions at the time that he was there, and I am certain that that tradition would continue today.

I think it is a sad indictment on Ngāpuhi, and many of the elders are disturbed and disappointed, and have said so publicly. So are Northlanders. It is sad for us that we get this disgrace foisted on us when other areas around New Zealand can have a day of celebration, of recognition, of debate where it is needed, but they do it without the stupidity that goes on in Waitangi. As one of the representatives of the area of Northland, I for one say that we have had enough. I do not intend to go back in the future unless the whole thing changes. I will certainly go to the upper marae, as it is now commonly known. I will certainly participate in that. But until we can be sure that the system is going to work for New Zealand and for Northlanders, I do not intend to go to Te Tii Marae. As Don Brash has said, we want to go and debate the issues that are important to all New Zealanders. We do need to have legislation that is colour-blind. We need to have debates.

The worry I have is that finally we have a leader of New Zealand who has the courage to talk about something New Zealanders have wanted to talk about for a long, long time, and all we get now is the critics saying that we should not talk about these things. Well, too bad! We are going to. I want to. I have a future in this country through my children and grandchildren. They are part of this country, and they have every right to have this discussion. The National Party will ensure that this discussion takes place. It already is taking place, and will continue to do so.

It is with pride that I stand to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement. Along with my colleagues, I celebrate this Government’s achievements and our commitment to deal with the hard issues.

Let me tell the House about events in my electorate of Waitakere over the past week. Waitangi Day was great. Four marae throughout the area welcomed the community and race relations representatives from overseas. There was a real cross section of people—young, old, new immigrants, Kiwis whose families had been here for generations, and a myriad of different cultures. For many it was their first time on a marae. They came because they wanted to know what a marae was like. They came because they wanted to know what the treaty was about. They came because they wanted to gain some understanding of Māori culture.

The invitation was extended to them because Māori wanted to show what a marae was like. They wanted to explain what the treaty meant to them, and they wanted to talk about their culture—and they did it with real humour at times, so there was a meeting of minds. With knowledge comes understanding, and with understanding comes tolerance, and that is what race relations in New Zealand is about. I hasten to add that there was no mudslinging. Sure, there was some debate, but is that not what democracy is about?

The race relations representatives were very impressed, especially in recognising that we are the only country in the world that has a treaty, and that there is a way to work through issues, no matter how challenging, for the ultimate good of all New Zealanders. People left those marae with a much deeper understanding, and not once did we hear the terms “we are all one people” or “race-based funding”.

Later in the week I attended another primary health organisation opening. It was a joint venture between the Waipareira Trust, a Māori health provider, and Waitakere Union Health Centre. This new primary health organisation brings enrolment numbers throughout Waitakere City to over 140,000. That is cheaper health-care for more under-18-year-olds, and from July this year for those citizens over 65. Primary health organisations are really good news stories for the health of New Zealanders.

What about Dr “Let’s take a quantum leap backwards” Brash and his views on employing Māori? He would employ non-Māori in preference to Māori, because he thinks that under the Holidays Act Māori have enhanced bereavement leave entitlements. That is absolute rot. The Act specifies that any leave over and above the statutory entitlements is at the employer’s discretion. I have worked in industrial relations as a unionist—another group on Dr Brash’s hit list—for over 16 years, and I have never encountered on any occasion any abuse of discretionary bereavement leave, or any dispute over it. Dr Brash’s statement is an insult to Māori, an insult to workers, and an insult to employers in this country.

Fortunately, our enlightened employers do not share his prejudice. Māori unemployment has dropped from 14.36 percent in March 2000 to 9.7 percent in September this year. Over 40,000 more Māori are now in work than they were in 1999 under National. Māori in work support has an over 80 percent success rate in achieving stable, long-term work incomes.

What about unemployment generally? Our initiatives are working. Unemployment is its lowest in 16 years at 4.6 percent. There are more people in work now than at any other time in our history. Since Labour formed the Government, 176,000 more people are in jobs. New Zealand is below Australia, below the USA, and below the OECD average unemployment rate. It is below that of any of our trading partners.

But this does not happen by chance. This happens by good leadership and good government. It happens through Government initiatives like matching skills to job opportunities, like making tertiary education more affordable, like assisting young people into trades through the Gateway programme, through the Modern Apprenticeships scheme, with over 6,000 young people in apprenticeships, and through industry training. Nearly 90,000 young people—and older people—are in industry training. It happens by supporting small businesses—the lead performer in the economy, and a 5.5 percent expansion in activity in the last year.

It happens through fairer employment laws. The latest stats show that work stoppages have decreased in the third year in a row under the Employment Relations Act—the Act that the Opposition claimed would wreck the country, business, and the economy. Strikes would run rampant, workers would hold their employers to ransom, and unions would wreck business. Yeah, right! Now Opposition members are in a frenzy. Well, it is a subdued frenzy—their sort of frenzy—about improved holiday conditions for workers. It is the same tired old story. They said 4 weeks’ paid leave would wreck the country, businesses, and the economy. Yeah, right!

If the Opposition benches are not banging on about Māori or unions, they are banging on about immigrants. Well, the talent visa project has helped over 220 employers recruit people to fill skill shortages by targeting talented and skilled people around the world.

So far, this term has been great for me. It is great to be part of a Government that is good and stable, tackles the issues, and tells it how it is. People on the Opposition benches go around in funny hats, and they bag the Government; but we are here, we are stable, and we are proud to be a Government that is delivering. It is delivering for all New Zealanders—for families, for their children, for workers through opportunity and fairness, for businesses by providing support. Name it, and we can do it!

I feel proud to stand here in this House—in my first term of many, I know, of a Labour-led Government—and applaud the things we are doing. We have much to do, but we will have a lot of time to do it, and we look forward to doing it.

Mr Speaker—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I see on the speaking schedule that the next spot goes to an “other” speaker, not a Labour speaker. As that position is vacant, I sought the call first, and would expect to be given the 5-minute call to take the “other” spot. This is a 14-hour debate, and there are two Labour speakers scheduled for later on at 10 minutes each. But this is an “other” debate, and I would like a ruling on it. My understanding is that the spot is available to whoever takes the call first, and I was the first to go for the call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Tisch.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am the person who prepared the roster before us and circulated it to the other parties for comment. This matter was raised at the Business Committee at the start of the week. The “other” refers to an entitlement for Donna Awatere Huata, who is an Independent. It is not an option for another party. Mr John Carter knows that. I discussed it with him about an hour ago, so if Mr Tisch would like to discuss it with Mr Carter, he will know that his statement is not correct. There are many occasions where there have been consecutive Labour calls, because Labour has 360 minutes of this 14-hour debate. This call is either for Donna Awatere Huata, or a subsequent call would be a Labour call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much. I call the honourable Minister.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask for a point of clarification. If the allocation of 5 minutes is not taken up by Donna Awatere Huata, who gets the other 5 minutes? Because on the schedule that the senior Government whip has identified, those times have been allocated out. My understanding is that that is a free 5 minutes, and that is why I sought the call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All I can say is that obviously arrangements and agreements have been made within the Business Committee. I take the member at his word.

I want to begin by making a brief comment about Waitangi Day. I spent the day at the Orongomai Marae in Upper Hutt. That was an absolutely fabulous and fantastic day. It was a day of celebration—many cultures celebrating what it is to be a New Zealander. I want to congratulate the kaumātua and the kuia who organised that successful event, and look very much forward to being back there next year.

When I hear the whingeing and the whining from the National Party, I wonder what New Zealanders think when they hear that. When I look across the House at the National Party, it reminds me of looking at black-and-white television—if people can remember the old newsreels, the pizzicato violins, the breathless narrators talking about motherhood and apple pie; the kind of New Zealand of the 1960s, when we were innocent and things were uncomplicated. That is exactly what the National Party is trying to present. It wants to take us back to the 1960s, when everything was black and white and everything was uncomplicated.

Of course, every New Zealander—apart from National Party members and their supporters—knows that New Zealand is not like that any more, particularly with race relations. That is a particularly important issue for New Zealand, and we have to tread forward carefully, but tread together hand in hand. If one compares the black-and-white television image of the National Party with the Labour-led Government, it is like looking at colour television. There are different shades of colour, it is more interesting, more modern, much more representative of the 21st century—and rightly so. So despite their whingeing and whining, grizzling and groaning, New Zealanders actually feel good about themselves, and about New Zealand. Despite the fact that members of the Opposition are trying to run New Zealand down, New Zealanders are proud to be New Zealanders, and are feeling particularly good about themselves.

I want to go on and talk about why New Zealanders have that particular feeling. It is because a Labour-led Government has introduced policies that are taking New Zealand forward—not like the National Party, which wants to take New Zealand back. That is the critical message being shaped by members on this side of the House, which is why so many of us are so very proud and pleased to be standing and supporting the Prime Minister’s statement.

When we look out over the future and the choice between those who want to move forward and those who want to move back, obviously the Labour-led Government is the one that will be taking New Zealand forward under the growth and innovation framework that was announced not so long ago. When one looks at the figures, one knows that the economy is booming.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.