General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. There is no doubt in the mind of anybody who cares to look at the figures that this country is on a roll. If we look at the figures to do with growth, if we go to the regions, if we look at the simple fact that New Zealand has the sixth-lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, and if we notice that we are healthier, better educated, and better housed, and that our roads are safer than they were 4 years ago when we began the programmes to bring this country out of the deficit created by National, then we can see that everybody is going forward. Mr Brash, of course, does not know that. I have come to the conclusion that the reason he looks so miserable is that he does not get out much, and, as a result, he is not participating in the fantastic surge amongst New Zealanders of confidence in their nation. They are the ones who have gone to Whale Rider, the ones who have turned up to watch Peter Jackson’s triumph, the ones who listen to Nesian Mystik, and the ones who are saying that this country is a fantastic place to live in.

But across the road, we have Mr Misery. Dr Brash has never won an election in his life, so we know he is not only miserable but also unattractive. He lost the blue-ribbon National seat handed to him on a plate—he could not get in here to the House with it—to Garry Knapp, for goodness’ sake! He came in here, finally, on the coat-tails of his colleagues. He has walked over them, and their bodies are now littered on the Opposition side of the House, waiting for him to fall over them so they can come back. But he is a “use me or lose me” kind of guy, so he has told them that he intends to make it to the top of the tree and to implement his programmes.

Over Christmas Dr Brash sat down to have a think. He is a man who is an economist and a reserve banker—a man who has lived a privileged life for the whole of his life. He asked himself what he would talk about to kick off his programme. He decided on that and said, sadly, he would talk about race. He said he was doing so sadly and reluctantly. But Dr Brash did not actually talk about race; he talked about Māori. He does not talk about any other ethnic group at all—only Māori. Why does Dr Brash not talk about Pacific Islanders, or about other groups like women, or about regions, or about age—youth, or older people? Why not? The reason is that over Christmas Dr Brash came to the conclusion that there is a fault line in New Zealand politics. It is called Māori issues, and if one scratches those issues and beats them up, one can make something of them. In other words, Dr Brash is prepared to scratch his way to the top by inciting division purposely. That is what he is doing, and he is doing it in a way that is utterly meaningless.

Let us look at this: kura and kōhanga reo are OK, because that is choice. They may be Māori immersion environments, but that is choice. Māori rugby is OK, because Dr Brash had not thought of that as being a problem, yet. Māori seats are bad, because National does not win them. Treaty references will all go from legislation for as long as it takes Nick Smith to say they will not, because that would mean removing them from legislation from 1908 till now, and National would not do anything else if it happened to get back into Government. Tangi leave is not OK, because it is too much leave. But that disgraceful statement, as the Dominion Post reported, was utterly without foundation. Tangi leave and bereavement leave are the same: they are at the discretion of the employer. As the Dominion Post reported, it is disgraceful for someone like Dr Brash to misrepresent things in a way that may lead to people not getting jobs, on the back of an untruth. That has been the most disgusting part of the Brash agenda of distorting and misleading on Māori issues, for political advantage.

But it will not stop there. Next will come beneficiaries. Members are used to that on the National Party side of the House, so one can bet they will pick on beneficiaries. Trade unionists and State schools are next. Women have already been before the gun, because we are not even to have a women’s affairs department any more—it is about creating division, so that the real agenda can come through. And what is it? It is tax cuts for the rich, privatisation for National’s mates, cuts in social spending, and the reduction of rights in the workplace. Why? Because Brash stands for privilege. He stands for privilege, because he himself has lived nothing other than a privileged life. Those are the people he represents. That is whom he stands for. On the Government side of the House we stand for ordinary New Zealanders, and we always will.

That speech continues the theme of the current Labour Government as it has been for the last 5 years. It was a speech telling New Zealanders what they can think, what they can say, what they can do, where their children can go to school, whether they are married, whether they can take a particular job in a particular area and come up with some benefits, whether they can have a cigarette in a hotel, and any number of other things that this Government has done. It is a Government coming to an end. It is a Government that knows that New Zealanders are sick and tired of being told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it.

If there is one thing that has come through in the last couple of weeks since Dr Brash’s Orewa speech, it is that New Zealanders suddenly feel empowered to talk about important issues in their country.

Labour does not like that, because it does not listen. To show Labour how much trouble it is in, let us look at the Prime Minister’s speeches and comments made over the last couple of weeks about Dr Brash’s speech. She started out saying it was racist and that New Zealanders would reject it. Then in over the next week or so, up to 10 February, she repeated that his speech was racist and divisive. On 10 February in the House she rejoiced in Māori television, and any other number of separatist initiatives taken by the Government in favour of Māori. Then came the television poll! The day after, the Prime Minister took, once again, another position on that issue and started saying that Labour did not fund on race, it funded on need.

That is exactly the issue that Dr Brash is raising. Those Labour Party members over there—13 of whom have already gone, and 13 who should get some boxes into their office and start packing their mementos, because they are gone, and there are more to come, I tell Mrs Pettis who is trying to interject—need to understand that they cannot take the sort of position they are proposing on the seabed and foreshore and expect New Zealanders to believe that the Government is acting in their best interests.

Let us look at the issue. Today the Deputy Prime Minister said there will be a system of dual title—public domain on the one hand and customary title on the other hand. When National probed a little bit we found that the dominant title—that is, the pre-eminent title; the one that will have the greatest effect on the usage of land adjacent to seabed and foreshore—is customary title.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Special consultation.

Special consultation for that group, special rights of veto for that group, and, in the case of Europeans—non-Māori New Zealanders—a message that they are excluded. They are almost completely excluded from the management of the seabed and foreshore around this country.

I have a question to ask. What future does a sixth generation New Zealander have, without some whakapapa into Māoridom. Why will the Government not answer that question? Why can the Government not answer that question? The fact is that the legislation proposed on the seabed and foreshore is the first step towards disenfranchising non-Māori New Zealanders in this country. That is why people are upset. That is why overwhelming numbers of New Zealanders are asking the Government to rethink the position. That is why there was such a huge swing in the polls last week. National does not say that that number will be cemented in, but if the Government does not listen to what New Zealanders are telling it, then it will not continue to govern.

I am proud to say that Dr Brash has opened up a debate in New Zealand, and shown himself to be a leader and well capable of being the Prime Minister of this country. I believe that that will happen beyond 2005.

That was a typically vacuous speech by Mr Brownlee. He has overlooked a number of facts. The first fact is that the New Zealand economy is in the best shape it has been for 30 years. There is greater opportunity to get jobs. I remember being a young person in the 1970s, when jobs could be got very easily. If one did not like a job, one left it at morning tea, and had two jobs by lunchtime. For 30 years we have not experienced that, but today we are. There are record levels of employment and record lows of people registered on the unemployment benefit.

The only issue that is a blot on the landscape is the racial tension being stirred up by the National Party. Mr Brownlee talked about the leadership qualities of Dr Brash. If telling people things such as “I wouldn’t employ a Māori, because Māori have unlimited tangi leave”, is leadership, then that is the most disgraceful sort of leadership that this country—and I am sure it will never stand for it—could ever have.

The most important thing about leadership is to be honest and tell the truth. Telling the New Zealand public that Māori have unlimited tangi leave is a canard. It is nothing short of that, and it is disgraceful. If Don Brash had any gumption or leadership, he would have issued an unreserved apology for that, but he did not. He did not, because he knows, like the National Party knows, that there is only one area in New Zealand where there is discontent, and that is around race.

Steve Maharey correctly pointed out to this House that the National Party does not talk about race relations with Pacific Island people. No, it dare not go there, because one National Party leader made quips about Pacific Islanders climbing in people’s back windows to commit theft. That is the truth of the National Party’s position. National does not refer to that. It does not refer to race relations with Asians or other races. It makes reference only to Māori, and it does it on the basis that Māori have privilege.

As has been said many times before, if living 10 years less than the rest of the population is a privilege, then I do not want that. It is a national disgrace that Māori men and women die 10 years younger than the rest of us. It is such a disgrace that we should do something about it. Dr Brash’s policy would do nothing about that at all. According to him, everybody would be treated the same. I have to say that New Zealanders are better than that. It is also a disgrace that for a long time we have had high levels of Māori unemployment. Māori unemployment was at 17.4 percent at one stage, when the rest of the population never got to 10 percent on average. As New Zealanders, we should be concerned about that and want to do something.

Basically, New Zealanders are good people. If a person’s next-door neighbour has run out of sugar, or his or her lawnmower has broken down, we help. That is who we are. We help in our sports clubs, schools, and all of those things. The good part of the New Zealand nature is that we help those who are less fortunate than us and do not have the same opportunities and advantages. That is why New Zealanders support programmes that help raise levels of Māori employment and reduce Māori levels of unemployment—just as we support programmes to reduce the level of Pacific Island unemployment.

Opportunity is not what the National Party is all about. It is against opportunity. Let us look at its history. The National Party shoved up State house rents by virtue of the market rent, simply to cut people’s wages. It cut superannuation for our superannuitants from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage. The only opportunity the National Party likes is opportunity for its mates. Its mates are starting to circle, because they want to see the National Party privatise the last remaining State assets and sell them off. They are all coming home, because they are waiting for the National Party to have a big sell-up.

I have bad news for the National Party’s mates. This Government will carry on for a long, long time. We have policies that are of benefit to all New Zealanders. We have lowered the levels of unemployment. We have given young people the opportunity to get jobs. We have increased participation rates for Pacific Island people in employment programmes. Māori unemployment has fallen. More people are going to university. There is a lot more hope and opportunity around in New Zealand. I feel that for the first time in 30 years that New Zealand is in the state it was when I left school and went to work in the 1970s. Then I had hope and opportunity.

Last week I told the House of my concerns that there had been misappropriation of health moneys through Tihi Ora Mapo. Mapo are Māori co-purchasing organisations established through treaty-based relationships with the then North Health to increase Māori participation in health. They were established between 1995 and 1999, and it would be helpful if the National Party would say that those separate forms of funding were established under it. I, like all other New Zealanders, admire people who can stand up and say: “We didn’t get it right, but we now know that this is the way things should be done.”

We know now how our public health system works. In New Zealand we have two streams of funding and two standards of accountability. A very good example of this is Tihi Ora Mapo. This is what happens when there are two separate systems operating for different people in one nation. Tihi Ora Mapo receives around $1 million of funding each year directly from the Ministry of Health.

There has been much debate in this House in the last 2 weeks about whether programmes are funded on race or on need. We know that this Government bases its funding formula for health on race, not on need. So one section of the community is getting special treatment, while other people—white people, in particular Europeans—in a great deal of need are missing out in many areas.

The primary health organisations are a prime example of the way funding is based on race. There are Māori people on over $100,000 a year who can see their doctors for $10, while a solo mother living in a middle-class area goes to her primary health organisation and has to pay $45 for the same doctor’s appointment. The Prime Minister’s comments have been very interesting. I quote from the Christchurch Press of 17 February: “Miss Clark said Labour did not fund on race, but on need.” She went on to say in the same article that the Government could take a look through and assure itself that what it was doing was thoroughly based on need. That clearly is not the case. There are two streams of funding and two standards of accountability in health.

Members might remember that concerns were raised about this mapo last August. The Ngāti Whātua were so concerned that, off their own bat, they employed a private investigator, Mr Michael Crawford, to look into where approximately $250,000 of the $1 million the mapo received last year had disappeared to. It had gone, along with two laptops that were thought, and are still thought, to contain incriminating evidence.

I raised these concerns in Parliament last week. They have been known since August last year. The Ministry of Health became aware of them at the end of October last year. The Minister of Health has known about them since January this year, but it was not until I raised this concern in Parliament last week that anything was done about it. The chief executive officer, Mr Kere Cookson-Ua, who had been on sick leave for many months, has now resigned. Unfortunately, the two laptop computers have not been returned, and it is not known where they are.

This whole scenario raises many questions, and I have questions for the Minister of Health, who does have responsibility for this area. The first is what has happened to the two laptop computers. The second and most important is why the police have not been called and a search warrant executed. What has the Ministry of Health done to deal with this issue since it first received advice of these concerns on 31 October last year? What has the Minister done since January, when she became aware of these concerns? I have written to her, but she has not answered me.

Why has the Auditor-General not been alerted, and why does it take an Opposition MP to raise concerns in this House before this two streams of funding, two systems of accountability issue is addressed?

There was something that the deputy leader of the National Party said in his speech that I agreed with, and that was his comment that Dr Brash’s Orewa speech had occasioned an important debate. But beyond that, I have to say there was very little in that speech that I found favour with. I think that the way in which the important debate is being handled, brings no credit upon anyone. It is as unacceptable to dismiss Dr Brash’s comments as “Hansonite”, as it is to portray this debate in the increasingly divisive, bitter, and extreme terms that are being used.

What is fundamental to the issue, beyond the rednecks and the racists who have contributed to some of the public reaction, is that middle New Zealand feels very strongly a sense of anxiety about a number of issues of which this one has become the focal point. The way ahead in terms of addressing it is neither to dismiss it as just a few depraved ravings nor to pretend that somehow this country is on the point of tearing itself apart, because both are equally extreme and unacceptable reactions.

I think all of us have to take stock and listen to what the message is and attempt to reflect that in the policy positions we espouse in this House. What I believe New Zealanders are saying at the moment is that they do not want to compromise their historical sense of a fair go for the next bloke—or person. They do not want to see a country that is unnecessarily divided against one another, but they do want to see injustice, inequality, and unfairness addressed where possible, and at the same time they also want to be able to get on with living their lives the way they always have done.

If one looks back over the span of the last 40, 50, or 60 years in New Zealand history, that has been a constant thread. I think the fear people have at the moment, which is giving rise to the current debate and the reactions it is drawing, is that in a world of great change—going back to the economic and social changes of the 1980s and beyond—some of the things we held as constants are now coming under challenge and scrutiny. What we need to do as members of Parliament, of whatever political persuasion, is seek to address those concerns as we move forward as a nation. We cannot recreate yesterday. We cannot say: “Let’s put the world back the way it used to be.” Time has properly moved on. But we can talk about a vision and a direction, and we can start to discuss the things that we need to do to take people to that point.

One of the issues I believe is core to this whole debate is that New Zealanders really do not have a clear sense any more of their own identity. Partly that is because of increasing global changes, but partly it is also because of changes within this country that have never really been talked through. I would like to give the House a couple of examples. I think that over the last few years we have been engaged in a process of constitutional change by stealth. I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of any of the particular positions that have been advanced, but I am saying that what is happening is that changes are occurring in a way where people appear ambushed, uncertain, and unclear what is next. I think the culmination of those things has given rise to the climate we face at the moment.

Firstly, we do need to have a thorough and properly organised constitutional review. Secondly, we start to need to conduct the debate that Dr Brash’s speech—inadvertently, I suspect—triggered in a way that is far more mature and responsible than has been the case to date. I do not think any New Zealander is against dealing with disadvantage wherever it occurs and whenever it occurs, but let us get the balance right.

We know that Helen Clark has no answers, and we know that Helen Clark knows when she is in trouble, when she decides that her solution to a political conundrum is to poke Clayton Cosgrove, the most expendable and unpopular member of the Labour caucus, out on a long pole to deliver a bit of political thuggery on the Leader of the Opposition for the Sunday Star-Times. We know that Helen Clark has no answers, when she vacates the Chamber for the general debate and leaves Steve Maharey and Rick Barker, the two most unpopular and expendable members of her Cabinet, to carry the flag for the Labour Party.

Recent days have seen a good deal of political debate over the speech made by the leader of the National Party, Dr Brash, at Orewa. In essence, he pointed to the crossroads that New Zealanders confront—the two very different paths from which New Zealanders must choose. There is the path of political correctness and treaty separatism being espoused by those who lead the Labour Government—which sees the treaty imported into every process, every institution, every statute, and every part of New Zealand life—and there is the path advocated by Dr Brash and his colleagues in the National Party, that New Zealanders should be treated equally regardless of their race and ethnic origins.

That sentiment has struck a chord. I say to members opposite—as Mr Dunne has said—that they should listen. New Zealanders come to my office, bail me up on the street, and tell me that they are grandparents of children—some of whom are part-Māori and some of whom are not—and that they cannot believe we live in a country where those children are treated differently. When people feel that sentiment, I say to members opposite that they should listen.

It has not just been members of the public who have reacted. We have seen members of the Labour Party react very quickly. Some six of them from Cabinet were tripping over themselves to attack Dr Brash personally. The editor of the Sunday Star-Times has embarked on one of the most transparently unprofessional jack-ups in New Zealand’s journalistic history. Working with the ninth floor of the Beehive is not professionalism, and I say to the editor of the Sunday Star-Times that she will have to justify her actions, not only to her employees, but also to the increasing numbers who will cease to buy that publication—as, indeed, I will myself.

The Governor-General, also, will need to reflect on her position, because she was very quick to buy into the debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member must not bring the Governor-General into debate. He will move on to another subject.

I was just making a passing reference.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There must be no reference.

The speech made by my leader, Dr Brash, has seen many New Zealanders take the opportunity to express their views to members of Parliament, and members opposite should learn to listen. It will be a new experience for them, but they should learn to listen.

I want to remind the House this afternoon—because some members seem to have great difficulty in understanding it—that we have seen an outbreak of racially funded programmes in the last few years. For those journalists who have difficulty understanding what needs-based funding versus racially based funding is, I simply refer them to the alleged “closing the gaps” programme—the flagship programme of the Helen Clark Government from 2000 that became a political submarine.

That programme was to be so important that every chief executive would have to demonstrate that he or she had achieved results in his or her portfolio area. Every chief executive stood the risk of losing the bonus that he or she was due each year, unless he or she could demonstrate results under the closing the gaps programme. The Prime Minister trumpeted it from one end of the country to the other. She said it was $243 million when she was talking to non-Māori audiences, and $900 million when she was addressing Māori audiences.

It is great to be speaking today in support of our Government—a Government that has a clear vision for the future and a proven track record, that tackles the tough issues and is positive. Compare that with the negative National Party. I know that party is in Opposition, but it takes negativity to the extreme. The doom and gloom merchants from way back claim that every positive policy or legislation will wreck this country, whether it is in health, education, industrial relations, race relations, or the economy. Time after time, it is wrong.

This Government deals in facts, not fiction. It is amongst the highest deliverers of health and education in the world. That is fact, not fiction. There have been fewer work stoppages under the Employment Relations Act. Why? It is because those labour laws are fairer. It is a fact that the economy has grown faster over the last 3 years than the OECD average. It is also a fact that our unemployment rate in this country is the lowest in 16 years.

This Government is committed to reducing inequality, not promoting it—with policies that are based on need, not privilege—and on building our nation, not dividing it. The National Party is the party that voted against fairer labour laws. It voted against improved health and safety laws. It voted against improved holidays. It would repeal the 4 weeks’ holiday. It voted against paid parental leave, and, in fact, Mr Brash questions the need for a Ministry of Women’s Affairs. National does not support increases to the minimum wage, and with Gerry Brownlee as spokesperson for Māori Affairs—with friends like that, who needs enemies?

This is a party that wallows in the past. It cannot help itself. It just keeps rehashing the same tired old rhetoric. So I put it to the House: to which group, of our “all one people” nation, does the National Party have anything to offer—and will not fleece, should it get into power? Is it New Zealand Māori? I think not. Is it New Zealand workers? I think not. Is it New Zealand women or New Zealand families? I think not. Is it New Zealand students or New Zealand superannuitants? I think not. Who does that leave? Mr Brash’s proposed tax cuts, which would mean less spending on health, education and training, and superannuation, mean that someone on his salary would get another $168 per week.

National sees that there are two groups of people in our nation. There are the rich, and there are the rest. National is for the rich. This Government is for the rest, and I say that with pride. That is why we are interested in improving living standards for people on low and modest incomes. That is why we have a major family assistance package coming through in the Budget, which will be aimed at low and modest-income earners—at hard-working families in our country who look towards this Government to deliver, and to continue to deliver, fairer conditions of work, fairer job opportunities, more training, and a country in which they can hold their heads high on the world stage.

I want to talk today about a problem that I have consistently raised with the Government, which has consistently refused to act and do anything. We hear all this talk about it being a Government of action, but the area in which it does not seem to want to make any serious redress is in law and order. New Zealand First is the law and order party in the House. Over the last 12 months I have consistently raised for New Zealand First issues and problems surrounding home detention, parole, and that nonsense called deferred sentencing.

When I first raised the problems of violent offenders and home detention, Mr Barker stood and told the House that no one convicted of a serious crime was on home detention. Of course he was blatantly wrong and had to come back and retract his words a few days later, and since then we have revealed cases of people who have been child abusers, sexual molesters, rapists, murderers, killers, and drunk drivers who have killed who have all been put on home detention.

New Zealand First has repeatedly called for this Government to repeal those parts of the Sentencing Act that give offenders a deferred sentence. We have repeatedly called for it to wind back and get rid of what it calls back-end home detention. It has no place. It is a failure. It does not do what the public thought that home detention would do. In recent times, New Zealand First has said that parole is failing. I do understand there is a huge rehabilitation industry out there, many members of which are Labour voters, who have to be fed. This rehabilitation industry is probably two to three times the size of the treaty gravy train that we seem to be so preoccupied about right now, and which New Zealand First has campaigned against.

I put on the record that over the last 2 days I have raised the case of Mr Jarden, which has become public knowledge again. Once again, a man who is a convicted paedophile, who was given back-end home detention, and who was paroled off his sentence early, subsequently was able to reoffend and create three more victims. The question is how many more victims Helen Clark, Annette King, Ruth Dyson, and Helen Duncan will create by allowing this nonsense to continue. Will we have to wait for these women to wake up, as a result of more victims and more families bringing the type of litigation against the Crown that we are currently seeing as the result of the Bell case? She nods her head and smiles. That woman member has no feeling for those children who have been raped and sodomised by Mr Jarden. [Interruption] If she does she should do something about it.

I have warned the Minister of Corrections that another case is pending of a man who was convicted, who took children into his home and offended against them, and who has been since paroled and put out on the street, and I am fully aware that he is about to reappear in the courts again. Sub judice prevents me from discussing any detail of it, but the responsibility for victims and future victims of this type lies in the hands of these women: Jill Pettis, Helen Duncan, and Helen Clark. So long as they sit here and do nothing, New Zealand First will continue to make it known to the public.

There is another group of people who cannot escape accountability, and they are the members of the Parole Board. They are the people who allowed Mr Carroll out on to the street, like Justice Tony Ellis, Fleur Grenfell, Alison Timms—do we know that name?—David Chaplow, and Bruce Buckton. All those people have a responsibility to protect the public, and thus far, case after case, people like this are failing, and the people who are paying the price are ordinary New Zealand citizens who want nothing other than to be safe in their homes, knowing that their children are safe going to and from school.

Enough most definitely is enough. Whilst everybody is preoccupied with the Māori debate, men and women, mothers and fathers, and children out there are grieving as victims of the crimes that have been perpetrated against them. New Zealand First does not intend to sit here and allow this to continue. We want the home detention laws repealed. We want back-end home detention ended. We want deferred sentencing finished. I would like to see parole ended because, as we know, 85 percent of those paroled reoffend within 5 years.

If that previous speaker is the New Zealand First spokesperson on law and order, then I fear for the safety of our community. He is the sort of person who wants to arm everybody in a vigilante group—to go out and shoot first and ask questions later.

I really relish the opportunity to speak in this debate. The deputy leader of the National Party made mention of the Prime Minister’s speech last week, in terms of her statements to Parliament. I want to contribute an extract from her speech, which I think is very relevant to where this country is going. It is relevant to us as a Government, because our primary goal is to build a strong, vibrant nation that not only values but builds on the diversity of its people. We are a Government that delivers according to need, not privilege. “Our mission is clear; we want to build a New Zealand that offers equal opportunity, a fair go, and security for all our people. We want to unite, not divide. We want New Zealanders to take pride in all our country’s achievements—economic, social, and creative. We want our country to be well respected internationally. In short, we want to make a difference for the better. We know that being in Government is a privilege, not a right, and that we must earn that privilege every day.”

Our people out there in the electorates have told us we are heading in the right direction. I am confident that the people out there have confidence in this Government. On the international stage, day after day, we see our people out there competing against other nations of the world.

From the time this party was elected to Government in 1999, we have been putting in place a policy programme that looks at building the capacity of all our people. We have put in place a better public health service that acknowledges need; a better standard of affordable housing, particularly social housing, that targets families according to need; access to education as a right, not as a privilege; and opportunities to learn for employment and to be skilled to the highest level through the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. Unemployment is down, and Modern Apprenticeships numbers are up—well beyond expectation.

The launch of the Māori Trade Training programme later this week in the eastern Bay of Plenty and the far North will indicate to the rest of the country that this Government takes employment seriously and is prepared to go out and train its people to meet needs right across industry. The greater percentage of unemployed and unskilled workers is in the Eastern Bay of Plenty and the far North, and is predominantly Māori. Therefore, the programme targets according to need, not race.

I want to use a term, although I think I had better not because some time last week the term was considered unparliamentary. But, like a dark-skinned gentleman in America during the 1960s, we too on this side of the House have a dream—a dream about being a strongly unified nation. To be that nation, we need to empower our people. We need to upskill them; we need to build up the capacity of our communities.

I want to state to members on the other side of the House, particularly to those who think that playing the race card is a good way of getting votes, that it never pays off at the end of the day, and gives us no respect on the international stage. Let us imagine our sons, your sons, my sons, everyone’s sons, on the international sports field, where the best of our people, regardless of ethnicity—Eurasian, Pākehā, Māori, Chinese, just name it—are shoulder to shoulder, side by side, stripped to the waist, and doing the haka. Pūkana! That is who we are. That is what our people are telling the world on the international field—that we are a unique nation, and that we can be proud of it.

No one, for any political reason, can ever destroy that. The Prime Minister said in her speech that she would fight to her last breath to make sure that that never happens, and that goes for the rest of us on this side of the House. I know it is difficult for some people to acknowledge that greatness comes from being unified, but there is an old saying: “United we stand; divided we fall.” As a nation, division can do us no good; it will not help our nation to prosper. We have a very strong economy. We are up with some of the best in the world.

I commend the speech that occurred just before I stood up. I want to recite a poem—a little poem by Lewis Carroll:

“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,

As he landed his crew with care;

Supporting each man on the top of the tide

By a finger entwined in his hair.

“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:

That alone should encourage the crew.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:

What I tell you three times is true.”

Every time I hear Mr Brash repeat his “one people” and “needs, not race” slogans, I am reminded of the bellman in this little “Snark” poem. I am reminded of the desperate urge to make something happen by sheer political advantage, rather than by considered deliberate action. I am reminded of the wilful selective amnesia where facts and truth come second to the desire for, and the exercise of, power.

This is where I believe Mr Brash is at in this debate. He has an urgent desire to take the public by the hair—not by their hearts and minds—to seek a return to a nostalgic colonial fantasy that has never existed in this country. Mr Brash is unconscionably feeding on the misunderstanding in the public mind in order to increase fear and create division in our community. To do that, Mr Brash is purposely confusing two different, but very important, issues.

The first is the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi. This nation has been working through a very difficult process of untangling different perspectives to try to get at the heart of what the treaty meant in 1840 and what it can mean now in the 21st century. But most New Zealanders have not had access to information or education on the history of our country. That has been a serious and ongoing failure that unfortunately no Government in our history—including present company—has dealt with or given the priority it deserves.

That has left open the opportunity for Mr Brash to take advantage of our communities as he has. The urgent repetition of Mr Brash’s mantra is nothing more than an attempt to convince both himself and the public that, if said over and over again, the nostalgic colonial fantasy of equality will—as if by magic—appear. Although it is true that colonial New Zealand was partly built on the dream of equality, history tells us that that dream imagined a community of equality for some and not for others. One need only traverse the history of the pension or the widows benefit, or the multitude of other legislation, to see the race-based application of the law in our collective past.

Equality that denies the reality of one of the parties to the treaty—born of an attitude of supremacy, misunderstanding, and fear—is not just, not fair, and not equality. Learning about our collective past is not for the purpose of making people feel guilty, but it is absolutely essential if we choose not to repeat the dangerous mistakes of our past, the mistakes that Mr Brash and the National Party are perpetuating.

The second issue is that it is an important aspect of our democracy that social inequities should be addressed in a manner that facilitates a just outcome for those in need. Mr Brash talks about needs, not race. He criticises any targeted programmes for Māori and argues for the elimination of that targeted funding, but his is actually a race-based analysis, because he is opposed to targeted funding for Māori but fine with targeted funding for everyone else.

His mantra should really be “for everyone but Māori”, because there is a wide range of targeted programmes to address the identified needs of particular ethnic groups in this country. For example, the Problem Gambling Committee, a well-known radical organisation, funds a race-based specialist service that targets special assistance to people of Asian descent. There are counsellors who speak Mandarin, Cantonese, and Korean, along with an Asian phone helpline. The service is predominantly provided by Asian people for Asian people, and it is essential because this group has a specific need around problem gambling that can be best addressed by targeting their needs with specialist services.

I thank the member for her speech. I enjoyed listening to it. My colleague Mita Ririnui gave a very good speech as well, as did my colleagues Lynne Pillay and Steve Maharey.

National’s attack on Māori issues has been coming for some time. I have to say I was surprised at the ugliness and the desperation of it—and I was genuinely surprised by those two elements. I underestimated National’s lust for power, but after all, we here in Labour are sitting where National believes is its rightful place in Parliament. National’s born to rule arrogance is coming to the fore. I remember Maurice Williamson, who has a good sense of humour, saying after the last election that where National went wrong was that every time it did something for Māori, it lost votes in rural New Zealand. That is a quote from Mr Williamson.

I also have to say there is a degree of emotion surrounding myself, in this whole debate; of course there is. I remind the House of a very important poem by Pastor Martin Niemoeller. It is known throughout history and found in religious quotations. We are all familiar with this poem. One version is: “In Germany, they first came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists …”. It goes on, and then at the very end he concludes by saying: “Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

We on this side of the House will speak up for minority groups. We will speak up for those people who are not in a position of power and authority to protect their own interests. I am proud of the philosophy of this party. I know why I am Labour. I know exactly why I am Labour; so do all my colleagues on this side of the House. We are political. This is not just a job, where we look out for the money that goes in by automatic payment every fortnight. This is a commitment. This is a passion. This is a belief, for us. That is why we are in Parliament. We on this side of the House will continue to speak up for people who are not in a position to do so themselves. I am proud of my colleagues and the collegial way in which they are behaving at the moment.

I am also very worried about the implications of what is being said by the National Party at the moment for this country’s economy. I was on an official visit to Taiwan some years ago with colleagues from both sides of the House. I met a woman from Queensland who was on an education sector recruitment visit. It was her 14th visit to Taiwan, and she said it was the worst recruitment period she had ever experienced. Why was that? It was because a certain woman—an Australian politician—was getting an awful lot of publicity at the time. This woman said that the parents of potential recruits in Taiwan were saying they would not send their children to Australia. They would send them to Canada. So Canada very smartly, while we were in Taiwan, had a wonderful publicity campaign: “Send your children to Canada; we are not racist.”

These comments that are being espoused by that National Party over there have huge potential to damage this country long term. Tourism is one of the biggest growth markets in this country, second only to dairying. It provides 9 percent of our gross domestic product. Tourists come to New Zealand because they are attracted by our unique environment and our culture. They do not come to look at people like us, who are rather boring. They come to look at people like my Māori colleagues, and my tangata whenua relations as well.

One of the things that has the National Party really rattled is the fact that out in provincial New Zealand our economy is really strong. In my electorate we have more people working, more building consents, and more young people in training. We have a spirit and a sense of attitude in the electorate that we have not experienced for a very long time, and it is wonderful.

Around 200 years before Christ was born the Roman soothsayers would read the entrails of chickens and pigs. They would look at the heart, the liver, and the lungs—critical organs in those animals. The modern and more sophisticated equivalent of that, of course, is to track the reputable pollsters. So it was, on the One News Colmar Brunton poll on 14 February, that we saw these results: National 45 percent, Labour 38 percent, New Zealand First 6 percent, the Greens 5 percent, United Future 2 percent, ACT 1 percent, with a margin of error of 3.2 percent. If I could adapt a phrase used by Lord Dawson, the king’s doctor as King George V lay dying: I believe that the life of the Labour Government is moving to a close.

There are a number of reasons for that. Here are three of them. First, some of the Government’s spin is being unmasked and reported by the media. That is new, because the media has generally been hugely uncritical of the Government, and at times fawning.

Second, despite what the previous speaker has said, economic events are moving against New Zealand. Some pundits pick, with the rise in the New Zealand dollar against the US dollar, that the New Zealand dollar may hit 80c. It is now about 70c. That has a huge impact on exporters and particularly on small businesses, which are less likely to hedge. In addition, the Government has imposed wayward immigration policies that instead of encouraging migrants who would make a contribution to our society, permit migrants to enter New Zealand who have no such intention at all.

Third, United Future—an alleged centre-right party that props up the Government on issues of confidence—is looking increasingly shaky on issues like the Families Commission Act and the foreshore and seabed legislation. How a centre-right Christian party can support a godless and unprincipled Government beggars belief. This is a Government with an agenda that has fallen out of alignment with the views of New Zealanders. It has a social agenda that is actively undermining the tradition of the family and the institution of marriage. It is an agenda that pursues policies designed to prefer—despite what the previous speaker has said—ethnic groups, rather than targeting individuals in need. It is an agenda that is reckless as to the consequences of the importance of our relationship with the United States and Australia. It is sad that those relationships at present are at historic lows.

It is an agenda that increasingly suggests a headlong rush to republicanism, and we saw that well illustrated today with the press announcement by the Minister of Justice in respect of oaths and affirmations. There is a litany of events that indicate there is a plan to take New Zealand along the republican route. Here are some examples: the revamping of the honours system; the abolition of the Privy Council; clamour from some Labour politicians to scrap the parliamentary prayer, which refers to the Queen; the plan to abolish Queen’s Counsel in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill; the decision not to award the Golden Jubilee Medal to New Zealanders. There is a plan to move New Zealand to that republican state.

There is also an agenda that tramples over human rights. I think it is astonishing to look at the record of the Attorney-General in that regard. Under Standing Order 264 of the current revision of the Standing Orders, she is required to certify where legislation breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. If one counts up her record in that regard, it is to be seen that no fewer than 19 bills have infringed that statute.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.