General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. What an extraordinary range of opportunities the Government has served up to the Opposition to discuss in the general debate today. We could talk about the amazing back-down on school closures throughout this country. The tough education Minister, Trevor Mallard, went up and down the country and fronted up to audiences and was absolutely resolute—and remains so—about the need to shut down schools. But after the results of two polls, Helen Clark panicked and the policy is dead.

We could talk about the equally spectacular turn-round, the back-down, on the seabed and foreshore legislation. The only problem is that on Morning Report today the Prime Minister said she did not know what Trevor Mallard had told the caucus, although a few of the members had contacted her overnight. She said that she was more scared of them than any poll, and she said that nothing had changed. So everything is back to where it was last December. The people whom Katherine Rich spoke about—whether first, second, seventh, eighth, ninth, or 10th generation non-Māori New Zealanders—are dispossessed of any interest in the seabed and foreshore.

I could talk about the sidelining of Margaret Wilson, the hapless labour relations Minister. She is out of that role because of her extreme leftist views or extreme pro-union views. In her place we have the friendly face of the Labour Government—namely, small Paul Swain, who will attempt to inveigle his way into the hearts of business people by telling them that the Government is not going to do this. He will say: “Put in your submissions, and we’ll listen.” But at the last minute those people will be slam dunked.

We could talk about the slap in the face for the Māori caucus—the absolute slap in the face for every Māori member in the Labour Party in being told, in effect, they are too incompetent in their ministries, their select committee involvements, and their interactions in the caucus to hold such an important portfolio as race relations. Because race relations is such a sensitive area, the Prime Minister has chosen the “genteel” Trevor Mallard to take on the role of smoothing the waters.

These are all issues that should be debated and talked about. However, the big issue of the week is the despicable and disgraceful involvement of the Prime Minister in the release of a document from her office; a document privileged between her, as the member of Parliament, and the person who gave that document to the office—if, in fact, it was legitimately acquired—and not only putting that document out into the public arena but being involved in the crime of using that document in respect of someone who had gone to her asking for help.

We need to look very clinically at this issue. I will be followed later in this debate by my colleague Judith Collins, who has a great deal of further information to lay on the Table. It is inconceivable that a Prime Minister who concerns herself with every detail of the Government’s activities—apart from the seabed and foreshore, because, apparently, no one tells her what is going on, although she has a reputation for dealing with the minutiae of Government activity—would not have known what documents were coming out of her electorate office. I think most people in this House, faced with a staff member releasing a document from a constituent’s file, without the constituent’s permission, or the member’s permission, would be sent down the road—immediately. This Prime Minister, who is so fastidious about all matters, says that she was happy to leave the judgment on this issue up to her electorate office staff.

I do not accept that. I have a strong view that the Prime Minister, last Monday, knew that the document concerned had been given to Lianne Dalziel by a staff member in the Prime Minister’s office, without the permission of the person mentioned in the document, and without the permission of the Prime Minister herself. The other explanation is not believable.

I will ask the National Party members, through this debate, one question. What will they do about people like Lily Fraser? For the people who did not see 20/20, Lily Fraser was the Māori doctor in south Auckland who met Gerry Brownlee. He was asked the question: “Would this woman, who met all the standards to become a doctor, who passed the exams without anyone knowing she was a Māori—because there was a number on the bit of paper—be allowed to be a doctor under a National Government?”. That was the question. What did Gerry Brownlee say? Gerry Brownlee said: “Well, that’s not our call. In fact, it never would be under a National Government.” But what did Don Brash say? Don Brash said that not only would she not be allowed to be a doctor but also that he would cut the university funding. That is what he said. He said that if the University of Auckland continued with that approach, then they would have their funding chopped. They would go out of the system. It is their choice. Gerry Brownlee says that Auckland University is faced with a choice. It can either have Government funding—millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars a year—or it can have Lily Fraser.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Their choice.

That is the call that Auckland University has to make. Who really thinks it is the university’s choice, in that case—whether they are going to have their entire Government funding stopped by the National Party for encouraging competent Māori doctors. That is the call.

💬 Ron Mark: That’s close to blackmail.

Well, that is the approach. Let us look at one or two other issues. [Interruption] No. At one stage we have Gerry Brownlee saying: “Yes, she can become a doctor.”; Dr Brash says: “No, she cannot.”

I want to ask some other questions of this dithering Leader of the Opposition. When asked whether he would appoint a Minister of Māori Affairs, what did he say? He said: “I haven’t crossed that bridge yet.” He has thought about this issue, deeply considered it for years—but he had not crossed that bridge yet. Would he axe Māori television? “I’m not sure.” says Dr Brash. That is a decisive approach on the part of the Leader of the Opposition! Would he abolish Māori scholarships? “Oh! I’d like to think about that.”, says Dr Brash. It is all very well to swagger up to Orewa and make a speech, but what I think is important is when Dr Brash jumps into an area about which he knows very little—other than his one experience in the area, as Governor of the Reserve Bank, when he set up scholarships for Māori. Those scholarships were so successful that he doubled the number of them. If he were still the Governor of the Reserve Bank I could call him a hypocrite, but he is not, so I cannot.

What we have is someone who says one thing out there, and has one set of practices. He makes a speech, and he has some strong views in that speech, but in the end, when the hard questions come, he says he will cut the funding from the university. I understand he has apologised at the moment to all the Māori doctors for suggesting that their exam standards were lower, because he knew that would be untrue. Why he made it up and told lies out there—I know he cannot lie in here—I do not understand. But what I really do not understand is why, now, he cannot answer some of these fundamental questions. Why would he cut the university funding? Would he appoint a Minister of Māori Affairs? If National members really want someone who has thought about these issues, they should appoint Winston Peters as their leader!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member on my right knows that the word “lie” cannot be used in this House. I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: There was no apology.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, he did.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No, there wasn’t. He did not apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member withdraw and apologise?

I withdraw and apologise.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do I take it that the inference around that statement is now struck out of the Hansard record?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has withdrawn and apologised, and I think that is the main thing.

💬 GERRY BROWNLEE: So he is able to use the floor of Parliament to accuse an honest man of lying, and then have it put in the record of the House?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The issue has been dealt with, and it is up to the individual member and the Hansard Office as to how it is actually dealt with.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was aware, of course, that one could not use that word in relation to comments that members have made in the House. I wonder whether you could rule on what redress members have when someone says outside the House, as Dr Brash did, something that was untrue; something they knew to be untrue and later apologised for. What redress do we have in this House, and how can we draw attention to those sorts of inconsistencies of approach?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: The party that is under attack should be able to contribute to that point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just want to rule on it, and if the member is not satisfied, he can come back to me. No matter what is said, it is a personal reflection upon another member. It is covered under Standing Order 116, and members know full well under Speaker’s ruling 40/3 that calling a member a liar is an offence against the dignity of the House.

Today New Zealand First offered Labour a way out of the tangle it is in over the foreshore and seabed. We offered Labour New Zealand First’s 13 votes to place the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership to hold in trust for all New Zealanders. All we ask in return is for the Crown to have legal title that will eventually be extended to other parts of the environment. Traditional rights can be of use and can still be protected, but they must not be described as a property title. A property title means ownership, and I believe that simply will not be accepted by the mass majority of New Zealanders, of all backgrounds.

The present mess, worrying hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders, is the result of years of treaty madness. Labour and National have been equally insane and they have their fingerprints, their DNA, and their blood all over their hands. The record proves it. No amount of Damascus-type experience will change that in 2004. The essence of sound politics is to be consistent—to say what one means and to mean what one says.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Ha, ha!

National members find that rather comical, because it has come as an absolute surprise to them. But who was it that threw me out of the darned caucus the day after I opposed the Sealord’s deal? It was that party over there, the party that seems now to say: “We’ve had no part in this mess.” Who was it that gave Doug Graham a knighthood for his Treaty of Waitangi mess and waste in enormous areas of Māori development in New Zealand? It was the National Party.

New Zealand First has always held to the principle of being consistent, and we will help the Government to get rid of the vague treaty principles that have been infecting legislation since the 1980s. Whilst I am at it, where is this man who is a lion in front of the Rotary clubs and a lamb in Parliament? Where is this new orator I keep hearing about from the New Zealand media? They say this man has struck some great chord. Do they not understand that it will fade away very shortly?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Ha, ha!

Oh, they will laugh, but they will not be laughing—

R Doug Woolerton: What did he say today?

That is right. Where is the person who is meant to be out there leading the charge on this issue? Well, unfortunately, he has listened to Gerry Brownlee, and it will not be long before it will be a jerrycan of issues.

The New Zealand First Party was formed on issues like this. In our founding principles we say we believe in one law for everybody. Can that be found in National’s policy? No, it cannot. Can it be found in Labour’s policy? No, it cannot. We are talking about destiny, and to those people in National who think they will win the next election, I tell them to stop dreaming; it is not going to happen. It is simply not going to happen. No amount of ACT party support, with its 1 percent in the polls, will be of any merit whatsoever.

At the last election we campaigned on fixing three things in 3 years. One was the Waitangi industry and separatist development in New Zealand. That was our campaign theme: to get rid of the treaty gravy train and separate development in this once-great country. Now is the time for action. Now is the time for putting aside the past and doing something concrete with regard to New Zealand’s future. It is not a time for political correctness. It is not a time for the political tyre kickers, the bandwagoners, and the political poltroons in the National Party, who, as I said, have their DNA all over this issue. They might have had a bright, shining light in respect of this issue, but it is one on which they have no belief and commitment. As Mr Mallard rightly points out, every time Don Brash is asked what his policy entails, he does not know the answer. When he is asked: “Will you do this?”, he says: “Well, I haven’t thought about that yet.”, or: “Will you get rid of this?”, he says: “No, I haven’t really come to that bridge yet.”

💬 Pita Paraone: Waiting for Georgina.

What has happened to Georgina te Heuheu? Well, he cannot tell members that, either. It is a mess. How can he make a speech and claim to be definitive, without having any background knowledge of what he would intend to do and what his policy is? In this party called New Zealand First is the image of New Zealand the way it will be one day very shortly. Here are people of all backgrounds: European, Māori, Scots, Irish—

💬 Hon Member: Chinese.

—part-Chinese. But we stood on one franchise. Unlike those National people, we disowned ever going down a path of double franchise, and we are here today, as no other party is, with fair representation.

Fairness in government—and, indeed, good governance—is about respecting cultural difference and not favouring one culture over another. Real leadership in our country should draw people together, not tear them apart. It is about giving people a fair go. Contrast the actions of the Prime Minister with those of the Leader of the Opposition. Helen Clark has demonstrated throughout her whole political life a commitment to engaging in a positive way with the increasing diversity that is the reality of our country. Two weeks ago I attended the Chinese Lantern Festival in Albert Park, with the Prime Minister. Last week we attended a sports event, organised by Muslim youth. Next week we will attend an event organised by the Ghanaian community in Auckland.

The Leader of the Opposition seeks to divide our communities. He is not embracing the diversity that is a reality of our country and, indeed, of the whole world now. He seeks to take us back to a sort of golden age—which means, of course, white and middle class. In reality, that was never the case in our country. Right from the earliest times of European settlement, we have contained racial and socio-economic diversity: Dalmatians, Chinese, Indians, joining Scots, Irish, and English, and others in the early settlement period. We had a great division of wealth. The Irish, from whom I trace my descent, were the working class in those days and were actively socially discriminated against. Indeed, from the earliest times, we put a poll tax on Chinese migrants and imposed on them legally enforced racism. Since the time of the treaty we have been a diverse and multicultural society, and that is, indeed, no bad thing. Accepting difference and embracing diversity is positive. It creates social stability and promotes a fairer community for everyone—not just for European New Zealanders, not just for Māori New Zealanders, not just for Chinese New Zealanders, but for everybody.

What are the options if we do not do that? Let us cast our minds around the world and see what happens when people get involved in race-based policies. Everyone here grew up with the struggle against apartheid. We know what the effects of that system were on South Africa. It blighted that country’s development for many generations, and it pays the cost today as it drags itself out of that system. In Northern Ireland, where some of my ancestors came from, there is today a community divided against itself. The simplistic analysis would be that it is about religion, yet religion does not divide us here in this country. The situation in Northern Ireland is compounded by history and by a sense of grievance. We too will enter that world if we embark on this dangerous path of race-based policies. If we give a minority in our country a growing sense of oppression, a growing sense of not being listened to, a growing sense that their needs in health and education are not being met, and a sense that their own cultural identity is being suppressed and is not being developed or accommodated, then we will go down the path of Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Spain with its Basque issues, or Turkey with its struggle against the Kurds. Those are the living realities. Those are political situations that the world faces today because of diversity and difference not being accommodated.

Because of the speech at Orewa, we face a real chance that that is the path we could embark on. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should beware. Since 1840 this country has attempted—at times less successfully than at others—to embrace diversity. Successive Governments, whether they be Labour or National-led, have embraced Māoridom and sought to accommodate that separateness—to meld us together as one people. We are not all the same and we can probably never be all the same. We can never be all the same, but we can be equal. If we start saying now, in 2004, that we are the same, and people have a sense that we are not, trouble is ahead.

Again, I remind the House of Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Spain, Turkey, and many other examples in the world today. That is the danger the Leader of the Opposition has opened up. I say to him that he should beware of the lessons of history. This country began as a partnership between peoples in 1840. Sometimes that has been an unhappy partnership, but we have kept it peaceful. We have all the recipes for violence. Let us not go down that path.

Why was Lianne Dalziel untruthful? She was protecting her leader. In this instance, all roads lead to Helen Clark. Lianne Dalziel was untruthful about how the media got the “guinea pig” letter. She was untruthful to the New Zealand Press Association on Monday, 16 February. She was untruthful on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report on Wednesday, 17 February, and she was untruthful to Television One’s Sunday programme later that same morning. In the House, later in the afternoon, she confessed. Yet Helen Clark did not sack her. Helen Clark’s reaction was: “Well, she has been misleading.” The Prime Minister supported her because Ms Dalziel was supporting the Prime Minister.

On Wednesday morning, Ms Dalziel was protecting the Prime Minister when she refused to say how the “guinea pig” letter had got to her, but she did say that it was sent independent of TV3. In fact, if we can believe anything said by the Prime Minister’s office or by Lianne Dalziel, the “guinea pig” letter was sent, not once, but three times in one month to Ms Dalziel’s parliamentary office—first on 3 February, then on 13 February, and again on 16 February. Why was it sent again and again?

Are we expected to believe that Helen Clark’s electorate office sent through the “guinea pig” letter three times within 13 days, or is it true that the second faxing was done by the Immigration Service? We do know that the “guinea pig” letter did not come from the lawyer’s office. It was never in the lawyer’s office. The lawyer received the decision from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and a covering letter. She took the covering letter with her when she went to see the girl. The lawyer made some notes of legal advice and drew a guinea pig, because when she talked to the girl about different pets, the girl did not know what a guinea pig was. Did the lawyer get the girl a pet? Yes, she did, but it was not a guinea pig, it was a cat.

The lawyer gave the “guinea pig” letter to the girl to keep. It was kept by her bed, and the last time the lawyer saw that letter was the day the girl was bundled up, drugged, and flown out of the country on Thursday, 12 February.

The State Services Commissioner has now published terms of reference for an inquiry into the actions of the staff of the Immigration Service and the Parliamentary Service. Will it do any good? No, it will not—not a bit. The inquiry will not be able to look at a whole lot of different things, including the role of other groups in obtaining the “guinea pig” letter—in particular, the role of Shakti, the group that is headed by Farida Sultana, who just happened to be working out of Helen Clark’s electorate office at the relevant times.

It will not be able to look at the role of the Prime Minister’s ministerial staff. It will not be able to look at the role of the Prime Minister in perpetrating untruths around the media, as her press secretary was doing as late as 5.30 last Thursday night. How do I know this? Because I saw her press secretary doing it. The inquiry will not be able to look at why Ms Dalziel could not tell the truth about the leaking of that document, who she was covering for, and why it took until Friday afternoon until she was sacked. Finally, it will not be able to look at why Helen Clark tried to stop the media from investigating this matter—because she did.

Are we expected to believe that this Prime Minister did not know about this matter? Are we expected to believe that this Prime Minister did not know what her close friend of 30 years Joan Caulfield was doing? Are we expected to believe that this Prime Minister tried to shut down media interest in the story, but did not know what her own Ministers and staff, including her press secretary, were doing?

This Prime Minister is worried. She is worried enough to drop her close friend of 30 years Joan Caulfield into the mud. She is worried enough to drop her close friend Lianne Dalziel, as well. The Prime Minister is worried because she is involved, and this State Services Commission inquiry is intended to leave her untouched. It will simply be a whitewash.

It must be admitted that Don Brash’s Orewa speech, and the subsequent rise in the National Party’s popularity in the polls, is sending a clear message to this Parliament. Arising from the speech itself, it seems clear to me that we are probably now in agreement on two points. The first is that the historical iwi and hapū-based grievances arising from breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi need to be settled, and settled quickly. That is an issue that United Future has continually voiced support for since entering Parliament in 2002. My colleague Murray Smith has successfully appealed to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Margaret Wilson, for more resources in that regard. Likewise, having listened carefully to exchanges in the House over the last couple of weeks, it seems to me that all parties now agree that access to Government funding entitlements should be unambiguously based on need rather than on race—although, personally, I am not yet clear where the Green Party stands on that issue. I note that Don Brash is effectively repeating the dictum made famous by Michael Joseph Savage—namely, “to each according to their need”. So while some things change, others tend to stay the same.

I draw the conclusion that Dr Brash’s speech has struck a chord with New Zealanders for other reasons, as well. Many of the New Zealanders I encounter feel less than confident about their place in the world. They are seeking an answer to the overarching question: what does it mean to be a New Zealander? This is a question, interestingly enough, over which Don Brash himself stumbled during his interview with Kim Hill. In that context, I want to renew United Future’s call for a national debate on the question of a written constitution. When the Prime Minister has been asked about this, I have heard her say that we already have a constitution. If that is the case, let us bring a sampling of year 10 students into the House to tell us about their understanding of the New Zealand constitution. Let us then compare what they say with the response from their equivalents in Australia, the USA, and the Netherlands—all nations that have written constitutions. I believe that we would find the difference to be like night and day. We would find the young people from those other three nations confident about what it means to be American, Dutch, or Australian. They would understand their rights and privileges and the way their Government works. It would be no accident; rather, it would be the result of a deliberate educational programme in their schools, aimed at empowering and emancipating their citizens. In contrast, New Zealand has no such programmes, because we have no such constitution.

When voices as diverse as Sir Tipene O’Regan, Chris Trotter, and Peter Dunne begin to say that we need a written constitution, it is incumbent upon us to read the signs of the times and be prepared to move forward, and move forward quickly. With a written constitution—I say to Dr Brash—perhaps year 10 students, younger and older students at our schools, and all the rest of us, can move forward to having a new and deeper understanding of, and to being confident about, what it means to be a New Zealander.

On behalf of the Green Party, I congratulate Paul Swain on his appointment as Minister of Immigration, and wish him well. A couple of important cases—that of a Sri Lankan girl, and of Ahmed Zaoui—were mishandled under his predecessor, and we would like the new Minister to look at them with fresh eyes. Both cases should have been approached with more compassion, recognising that two people were really hurting, and that with a little effort New Zealand could have ended their suffering.

The first case is that of the 16-year-old Sri Lankan girl so heartlessly deported, along with her grandmother, on 12 February. Unfortunately, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority got it wrong. The Associate Minister of Immigration, Damien O’Connor, did not correct the mistake, and deported the girl on the basis that a care plan was in place for her in Colombo.

Let us look at where the Refugee Status Appeals Authority got it wrong. It correctly judged that the girl had been subject to sexual abuse by members of her family, and that she would qualify as a refugee on these grounds, if she had a legitimate fear that she would be harmed if she were returned to Sri Lanka. However, the authority was convinced that her family could help her in Colombo, her uncle being a policeman, etc., etc. It is clear from TVNZ’s Sunday programme that family members, other than her grandmother, were not willing to help the girl, and would not be available to protect her from what the authority admitted was possible revenge by one of her abusers.

Associate Minister Damien O’Connor, in justifying the deportation, said that a care plan was in place, and indicated that family members were involved. It transpired that no family member was contacted about such a plan, and that the only plan—arranged just before the girl’s departure—was temporary accommodation in a Catholic convent. It was obvious to all New Zealanders that the girl was not fit to travel to Sri Lanka, being so highly distressed, and having not eaten for some time. To make matters worse, she was illegally drugged en route. She is still very upset. The least the new Minister could do in recompense for this disgraceful episode is offer the girl and her grandmother a place in New Zealand, if they wish to take it up.

The second case grossly mishandled by the new Minister’s predecessor was that of former Algerian MP Ahmed Zaoui, who has been imprisoned in New Zealand for over 14 months. The security risk certificate imposed on Mr Zaoui by Ms Dalziel nearly a year ago is clearly without foundation, judging by the Security Intelligence Service’s summary of allegations, which were finally made public last Friday. The summary refers to a video made by Mr Zaoui, laughably called a “casing” video. As Mr Zaoui told me from prison last Sunday, he would hardly have put his own face in a casing video, or included it in his luggage when he flew to New Zealand to claim asylum under his own name. We will all now have to be careful about what we film on our holidays. The SIS absurdly stated that the videoing of a tourist bus and an Internet cafe is evidence of Mr Zaoui’s terrorist aims. The fact that Mr Zaoui, a devout Muslim, visited one of the two mosques in Hanoi was deemed by the SIS to be very suspicious.

The SIS summary then repeats the accusations made against Mr Zaoui during court trials in Belgium and France, and on his expulsion from Switzerland. Every last one of these accusations was thoroughly discredited and disproved in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority’s determination, which came out after the security risk certificate had been imposed on Mr Zaoui. After the authority’s decision came out, the then Minister of Immigration should have lifted the security risk certificate.

It should be noted that the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, which met concerning the Zaoui case, went to huge trouble to get all the relevant documentation from overseas—from Europe in this case—unlike the differently constituted Refugee Status Appeals Authority in the Sri Lankan girl’s case, which obtained very little information from Sri Lanka.

The fact is that the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in the Zaoui case has embarrassed intelligence services in Europe, which retailed slanders from the Algerian regime against Mr Zaoui. But this does not justify us keeping Mr Zaoui in jail here. The security risk certificate against him should be lifted, and Mr Zaoui should be allowed to take his place among us.

It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition wants to have a debate about important questions. I have some important questions. But first of all, let us just recap on some of the answers the Leader of the Opposition has given in recent times. He has been asked whether he would appoint a Minister of Māori Affairs. The answer was: “I haven’t crossed that bridge yet.” Would he axe Māori TV? The decisive Mr Brash said he was not sure. Would he abolish Māori scholarships? “Ah, I’d like to think about that.”, he said.

Well, I would like to ask the National Party about its policies of need. The country is asking why Dr Brash needs $160 per week more to live on. Is it because he has come down from a salary of $550,000 a year to $195,000 a year? Is that a policy of need? To compensate him for that terrible drop in income he needs $160 per week? Is that the National Party’s idea of looking after need—Dr Brash’s need? Or maybe it is to help him wash his socks. He is well known for washing his socks. Maybe he wants to get somebody else to wash his socks for him. The amount of $160 a week would wash a lot of socks.

Of course, Dr Brash does not want poor workers to have a minimum wage of $9 an hour. No, he is opposed to that. He does not think they should get 4 weeks’ holiday, sick leave, or anything. It would not cost $160 a week, so he does not need that. Or maybe Dr Brash needs to buy more Neil Diamond CDs, because, as we know, his taste in music goes in that direction. But for $160 a week he could go to The Warehouse and buy the entire collection of Neil Diamond—so no, $160 a week is not to replenish his Neil Diamond CD collection.

Maybe, just maybe, it is because he needs $160 a week to save for retirement, because as we know the National Party does not think that elderly New Zealanders should get the level of superannuation they get now, and it does not believe in Dr Cullen’s ideas that superannuation should be funded by a superannuation fund. So maybe Dr Brash needs $160 a week more in his pay packet to get ready for retirement in a couple of years, because we know he is not too far off retirement. Or maybe he is thinking he will shift the age of retirement to 70, because that is the other way that National Party policy has gone—either cut the level of superannuation or put the age out to 70.

So maybe the needs-based policy of the National Party is to give Dr Brash and his colleagues $160 a week to get ready for retirement. Or maybe it is to have the lumps taken out of their throats surgically. They have spent so much time flying back into New Zealand at the taxpayer’s expense, the lumps have built up. People like Judith Collins, who is well known for overseas travel, would have a lot of lumps in her throat as she came back to New Zealand and felt the guilt of who paid for those trips, along with Dr Brash, who used to travel at the taxpayer’s expense.

So we would like National Party members to tell us all about this policy of looking after people in need. I would like them to tell the people in my constituency who are on $20,000 or $30,000 a year why they get nothing and Dr Brash gets $160 a week. Why does he need that, and they do not? Why do poor people in New Zealand not deserve a tax cut of $160 a week, but Dr Brash needs $160 and therefore he should get it because the National Party believes in looking after people in need?

This Government has dealt with the needs of New Zealanders, rich or poor, black or white, brown or yellow, or whatever they may be. If there are children in our community who are not immunised and need it, we put programmes into place to make sure they are immunised. If a lot of those children are Pacific Island children, it is quite sensible to use Pacific Island nurses to do the immunisation. But that is terrible, according to the National Party. We should not do that. Well, that is what Dr Brash says. But of course when Gerry Brownlee is confronted with it on a television programme, he suddenly finds a new answer for the National Party.

What are we to believe in this debate? In a debate, one usually debates with someone who can at least keep the answer the same for more than half an hour. But not the National Party; no. We need to know all about its policy of need.

There has been a sea change in politics this year, and one has to say it is the centre right striking back against the damaging politically correct agenda that the Labour Government has been trying to thrust down the throats of unwilling New Zealanders. The catalyst was Don Brash’s speech. It was like a lightning rod, where people have said enough is enough. They have rejected this Government’s creation of racial privilege at the expense of other New Zealanders.

So what has been the reaction of the silent majority? There has been a dramatic shift in voter opinion that is unprecedented in New Zealand’s history, and it has now caused National to be the leading party in this Parliament. What is the Government’s response? The answer is panic: an avalanche of spin, of propaganda, and of U-turns. We have seen U-turns over Māori privilege, over school closures, and now over the foreshore and seabed legislation.

But I am here today to ask the Government for another U-turn. My Family Court (Openness of Proceedings) Bill was drawn in the ballot last week, and I am asking this Government to change the way it has voted on that bill. Three years ago, the bill was drawn and the Labour Government voted it down, and I am asking this Government to send the bill, to open up the Family Court, to the Justice and Electoral Committee. That committee is dealing at present with the Care of Children Bill, which is looking at the issue of openness in the Family Court. The committee members are well versed in this issue, and I am asking this Government to allow the public of New Zealand to have a say about an issue that is extremely important to the way this democracy is run.

Since 2001, concerns about the Family Court have grown. The Family Court in some areas is known now as a court of injustice. It tears children and families apart, taking children away from their parents and grandparents; it perpetrates false allegations; and it fails to enforce court orders. It has even reached the stage where judges are ordering the court to be open so the public of New Zealand can see what terrible things are happening right in front of our eyes—except that we cannot see them because of the secrecy that generally prevails around the Family Court.

People cannot speak out about what goes on in the Family Court, through threat of criminal prosecution. Right now one of our colleagues, the Hon Nick Smith, is across the road in the High Court. He is facing criminal prosecution, along with National Radio and one of our television channels, because they spoke out about an issue before the Family Court that a judge had spoken out about. He is not facing criminal prosecution—only those others.

I am calling for the Family Court to be open like our Youth Court, giving judges the power to grant name suppression and to close the court on a case by case basis. It would simply align New Zealand’s Family Court with that of Australia’s and other Western countries. The benefits of an open court would be significant: open justice, an increase in mediation instead of litigation, a reduction in the number of cases going before the court, and therefore a drop in the cost of legal aid to be met by the taxpayers of New Zealand.

There would be a fall in the number of child abuse cases, because the two cases where judges have opened up their courts in recent years have exposed the disorganisation of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in dealing with care and protection issues. If that department were open to public scrutiny, its performance would improve and the number of cases of child abuse in this country would go down.

I warn the Government that in 3 years the tide of public opinion has changed in favour of more openness in the Family Court—and that is not just public opinion; it is the opinion of the judiciary and the legal profession, as well. Openness in the Family Court is an idea whose time has come. It is such an important issue, because it is all about natural justice. I would like to see this Government support the bill going to a select committee.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I am pleased to speak after the ACT list MP Muriel Newman. We have listened to a range of views this afternoon about “need, not privilege”. Let me pin the tail on the Government’s policies that address need and not privilege. Labour’s policies were outlined on a pledge card, and we have delivered and are continuing to deliver on those policies. Our country is in good economic and social heart. I would also like to add my perspective as a woman of New Zealand and a woman of the Pacific, to say how politics and representation ensure that needs, policies, and programmes go together.

I came into this House in 1999 as a list member of Parliament because of the MMP system. Subsequently, I won the general seat of the Mana electorate. MMP is a system that has ensured that the voices of people previously excluded can now be heard in Parliament. There are 120 members in Parliament. In the case of women, for example, there are now significantly more women in Parliament since MMP. In 1993-94, under first past the post, 21 women were elected to Parliament, and in 2002, 34 women were elected. There are now 19 Māori members of Parliament, three Pacific Island members, and two Asian and ethnic minority members. All people have some representation in Parliament because of MMP, which has provided a fairer, wider representation. There is no quota system. Political parties have each chosen a list of prospective MPs who reflect New Zealand society.

MMP is a system that meets the need to have a fair representation in Parliament of our pluralistic society. The first-past-the-post system tended to entrench privilege; MMP has led to greater equity and greater fairness. This Government has many examples where needs have been addressed through policy or legislative change. Māori and Pacific entry to medical training and Pacific Island recruitment to early childhood teaching, are examples. As well, equal employment opportunities encourage women to aspire to middle and senior management positions. These policies and programmes encourage those groups—which have been previously excluded—to enter a profession. That does not lower standards, because all must pass on final exams and achieve merit to the same standard, but it ensures there is greater fairness, equity, and representation among graduates and in professions.

Evidence shows that the increase in numbers of graduates from groups in the health, education, and business sectors has led to greater participation and positive outcomes for those groups. A lot of my inspiration as a member of Parliament came from women like Sonja Davies, our Prime Minister Helen Clark, and my mother. Throughout their lives they have modelled a leadership of service, action, fairness, opportunity, dignity, and security for all.

I am proud of this Government’s performance in our nation’s leadership. We have delivered on our policies through our pledge card. Let me give members an example. The first pledge was: “Work with all sectors to create an innovative, growing economy, with more jobs”—and now businesses are flourishing, and the unemployment level is down to an all-time low.

I want to speak about my passion for being a member of Parliament and a member of the Labour Party in this Government. It came from a desire, expressed by many communities of New Zealand, to have Pacific women represented in New Zealand, and also to celebrate a society of diversity and representation built on those foundations of fairness, opportunity, and dignity.

Nation building is about strong, diverse, and thriving communities. I use the metaphor of ’ie toga in the Samoan language, where the fine mat is woven by many hands. It has many strands, weak and strong, but all are colourful. It is in our weaving together, including the weak fibres, that we give strength to our unity. Nation building requires us all to ensure that all peoples can participate in the society and governance of this nation. We all have something to contribute.

This Government has shown leadership in addressing the many needs of our different peoples. Our Government works in partnership with all communities to address their needs. We have passed our legislative programme and policies on need, not privilege, and we have demonstrated that through actions and results. Labour has provided leadership and partnership, growth and innovation, fairness and security, opportunity for all, and strong public services. We are building a strong, confident nation.

This morning I was in the electorate of the Hon Trevor Mallard, the Minister of Education, who is also, now, the new Coordinating Minister, Race Relations. The mother of a child whose schooling is being turned on its head by this Labour Government said to me: “We used to think she had some integrity.”—referring to the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. Can we blame that person for arriving at the conclusion that Helen Clark’s integrity has gone, when her child’s schooling is being turned on its head solely because the school network review happened to take place before a series of political polls? That is what that parent feels. She feels that her child’s schooling is being turned on its head because the network review in her area—which happens to be Trevor Mallard’s area—was carried out before the series of opinion polls that showed that the people of New Zealand have had a gutsful of what Helen Clark and her Labour Government are doing to this country. I thought that that simple, little, honest statement from a parent spoke volumes—“We used to think she had some integrity.”

Tom Scott’s cartoon in today’s Dominion Post says it all: “They said it couldn’t be done, but as I pointed out to my Cabinet colleagues, if you join enough of the dots you make stripes…”. Of course, we all know that Helen Clark is a fairly skilled painter. We know that from her track record.

After Don Brash’s very honest speech at Orewa, in my electorate—I was there—Helen Clark mocked it. Do members know what she said, in that smarmy way she says things? She said: “I wondered what the Orewa Rotary had done to deserve this speech.” She mocked it, but now the grin is on the other side of her face, because my people in the Rotary club at Orewa were the first to feel the honesty of what Don Brash said to them. As we know, several polls later—Paul Holmes had a record number of respondents to his poll; The Rock FM showed that young people felt the same way; and there were historic shifts in the Television One and New Zealand Herald polls—we are seeing the U-turns. The race-based fundings, the legislative references to the Treaty of Waitangi, and the foreshore and seabed policies are all under review. All the school network reviews now have a moratorium on them—except the ones that took place before the poll results. That is the principle Helen Clark displays. She has all the colour-fast principles of a chameleon—a couple of poll results and the policies all change.

Mr Speaker, you will remember the last time that happened—but I must not bring you into the debate. It was in 1988. Not many members of this Parliament were here then. I was, and I remember it so well. The date was 28 January 1988 when the then Prime Minister, David Lange, did the last Labour Government U-turn. He decided to have a cuppa. The only problem was that he did not tell Roger Douglas. Of course, what happened? Not long after, Roger Douglas resigned, because when Governments lose their principle—when they actually lose their integrity—it is the beginning of the end.

We have seen it this time around because, just as David Lange did not tell Roger Douglas that he was having a cuppa on 28 January 1988, neither, it seems, did Helen Clark tell the Māori MPs that the foreshore and seabed policy was up for review. What the newspaper tells us is that a delegation of Māori members was very angry. The members had not been told about the changes and were very angry, and they went along to the Deputy Prime Minister to have a fight about it. As we saw in 1988 when the last Labour Government did its big U-turn in policy, it is the beginning of the end—back then it fell to bits. Nothing demonstrates the divisiveness of this Government more than this simple fact: over the last 18 months it has had a huge programme of hui around the country to consult on its foreshore and seabed policy. There have been 11 hui held around the country, not one involving non-Māori people.

This is a debate about leadership. The last speaker should know all about leadership because those members have practised with so many leaders in this House over the last 4 years. Dr Smith was a member of the Cabinet that endorsed policies that this Government has carried forward. True leaders stop and assess where they are going if there is some challenge, and this party is doing exactly that. We can be sure that many members of the National caucus privately agree—and have not disputed when it was reported in the newspaper just last Saturday—that if policies were assessed on the measuring stick of need, the same people would largely continue to access the same or similar services.

Leadership is about leading people, not confusing them. What have we had since the famous Orewa speech made by the current, albeit passing, leader of the National Party? We have had confusion in the “Don and Gerry Show”. We have had a member visit the south of Auckland with a television camera and be shown service after service of Māori and Pacific Island providers. When he was confronted with the reality of the dithering position of the leadership of the National Party, what response did he give on national television? He said: “Oh no, we wouldn’t change that one. Oh no, we wouldn’t change that one.”

That same deputy leader—the leader in waiting, the man who acknowledged he represents one of the most affluent electorates in the country, which has no concept of the difficulties of race relations in New Zealand—has said that it is OK to have ethnic quota bases when employing Asian policemen to police Asian Kiwis. But is he saying that it is not OK to have quota systems for Māori doctors, or to administer to Māori patients?

The danger of this approach that we have heard in the last 3 weeks is the danger of divisiveness. Ron Mark identified that yesterday during question time when he raised a point of order, quite appropriately, during which he mentioned the attack by the leader of the National Party—the attack that is always made outside this House, not in this House. Don Brash stumps out on the hustings and is very brave in front of party faithful and television cameras, but when he has to answer for it in the House he is strangely silent and absent, and the jocular face of the deputy leader takes the stand to bulldoze his way through without any finesse or accuracy.

When Ron Mark stood and said that the effect of this divisive policy is that all Māori doctors and all Māori lawyers will be considered second class, that was the sad truth. It took the former leader of the National Party to stand and say that in his case he knew of a Pacific Island doctor who qualified on merit. Of course all Māori doctors and lawyers get their degrees on merit under the same competitive system in which all doctors and lawyers train. The only reason there is any assistance to some minority groups in entering the universities is that they do not have the same privileged background as other groups.

Our education system is endeavouring to level this out so that all people come out of the education system with the same opportunities, rather than the opportunity of privilege. These days any entry to a law school or medical school is based on a quota of numbers. Any quota of numbers is therefore arbitrary as to where the cut-off point is. So we see the leader of the National Party running out and creating misunderstandings and shibboleths, which he then endeavours to knock down.

Opposition members say that the polls say they are right. Of course people who are misled by the media are going to respond with alarm, and that is exactly what we get. But when they see the accuracy of the position, we will see the turn of the tide. The Government is at present highlighting the fact that our distribution of wealth and our assistance to the needy in this country is needs-based, and when that is revealed and recognised by even those opposite—those who behind their hands, behind closed doors, and in the media will speak out anonymously and say that they recognise this is needs-based, but are too scared to confront the tidal wave of popularism pushed by their leader—then this country will move forward.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.