General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. When Dr Brash came into the House this afternoon and took a call before questions, I thought he was going to apologise to the House, and that is what most members of the House would have expected. There are two apologies Dr Brash should have made to the House, if he wants to retrieve his credibility—the first in response to the personal comments he made about the Prime Minister. It is never edifying when members of the House reflect on the family circumstances of other members. It happens too often. It should not have happened, and Dr Brash, to retain any credibility, should have been first up in this House today to apologise for that.

The other matter in relation to personal affairs of members was his criticism of the personal religious beliefs of other members. In my 21 years in this House I have never heard a member get up and criticise the personal religious and spiritual beliefs of somebody else. That is a disgrace. That belies every effort made by the Leader of the Opposition to present himself as Mr Clean, above politics. Clearly he has destroyed that image for all time. That is the worst form of politicking that we see, regrettably, in this House on rare occasions. What Mr Brash may learn from that experience is that self-righteousness in this House is always a risk.

The second apology owed by Dr Brash was to New Zealand for his shameful performance in the Australian this week in bad-mouthing his own country overseas. Has Dr Brash learnt nothing from the behaviour of his predecessors, Mr English and Mrs Shipley, that New Zealanders do not appreciate so-called New Zealand leaders getting up and poor-mouthing their nation overseas? What he did was to criticise New Zealand’s track record in security and peacekeeping operations in the Pacific. I would be surprised if there were a single member of this House—a single New Zealander—who was not proud of what this country has contributed in places like East Timor and the Solomons. But what did Dr Brash do—safely, he thought—in a newspaper in Australia? He gave support to claims that New Zealand had not pulled its weight in promoting peace in the Pacific, and we have heard the same comment from Dr Smith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.

I want to tell that member, as I also tell Dr Brash, that this country has a proud record. This country was the first country into East Timor in support of the advance Australian group. This country was the country that made the biggest per capita contribution of any member of the international community in East Timor, and I for one and members on this side of the House are proud of what our people did there.

Dr Brash also supported those who say that New Zealand did not do enough in the Solomon Islands. New Zealand provided 229 Defence Force personnel. It provided four helicopters. It provided 35 members of the police force, and it provided $14 million on an ongoing basis in development assistance. Yet Dr Brash goes out and says in Australia that we are not pulling our weight. When challenged by the New Zealand media to repeat those comments in this country, he refused. He was the brave person who would speak to an Australian newspaper to ingratiate himself with an Australian audience but would not front up in this country to try to justify his comments running down New Zealanders.

Then he said that the state of the relationship between New Zealand and Australia had never been worse. I find that interesting, because John Howard said last year that the relationship “has never been in better shape”. John Howard was praising New Zealand, yet Don Brash was saying in Australia that New Zealand was not pulling its weight. Then Alexander Downer made this comment about our contribution in the Solomons: “New Zealand deserves a sizable slice of credit for their excellent performance, and the New Zealand Government has done a great thing being such a driver of the process.” Dr Brash should front up and justify the comments he made in New Zealand.

A few weeks ago the leader of the National Party made his infamous Orewa speech, and I welcome the opportunity to add my views to those of that speech.

💬 Simon Power: This will kill the debate.

In essence, Mr Power—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is out of order. The member cannot interject that close.

In essence, Dr Brash said little more, or no more, than what the Rt Hon Winston Peters has been saying for many years. However, in the aftermath, Dr Brash and the National Party have allowed the debate to move from the issue of the Waitangi grievance industry to an issue of Māori versus non-Māori, and that is a worrying situation. It is what I would term the “colonial approach”—the “I know better than you; you will do this, because I know best.” type of philosophy. It is all good, vote-winning stuff, because it must be said that New Zealanders, both Māori and non-Māori, want a settlement—an end to the Waitangi grievance industry. In a nutshell, they are sick of it and want it drawn to a conclusion.

I say to the National Party that in any dispute situation we care to look at, if understanding, tolerance, logic, and fairness are removed, friction and abuse will replace them. The tension will go up, and friction and abuse will come through the door. If National Party members have not noted that that is what is happening in this country already, then they should go and look outside this House.

It has to be faced that Māori are overrepresented in virtually all the downside statistics. Over 50 percent of people in our prisons are Māori.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Too many of them in New Zealand First!

Additionally, Māori health statistics, including life expectancy, are of some concern—and I respond to Mr Tamihere by telling him that that is quite a serious issue. Further, Māori have a much higher unemployment rate, and they are further down in the educational stakes. They are not Māori issues and they are not non-Māori issues; they are issues for all of us in this country. They are issues for New Zealanders. If they had been addressed earlier on, there would be no Māori treaty grievance industry. Further, if and when we do address those issues, this country, Māori and non-Māori, will be far better off. All of us will be far better off when those issues have been addressed. They must be solved.

Regrettably—and as a result of the Orewa speech—this country is now splitting into sides. On one side we have radicalism and intolerance, and on the other side, emerging rapidly, is bigotry and impatience. We must overcome them. We will overcome them. It is incumbent upon us in this Parliament to show leadership and unite this country. We get on together when we are relaxing, we play sport together, and we have fought wars together. We must surely be able to solve this issue together.

In the end it will be Māori who solve the problems, but it is incumbent upon all of us to create the environment and the opportunities. This country is too good to get stuffed up because we want to go up in the polls or play a little bit of political opportunism—which is what the National Party has been doing. [Interruption] I see the member has put three fingers in the air. Let me just respond to the three fingers. Those three issues are concerns for the vast majority of New Zealanders, and we intend to address them.

Today I would like to highlight the misleading statements that have been made in this House, and in the public media, by the National Party and ACT about the impending lahar on Mount Ruapehu. The attempts by Opposition members to distort this issue have been nothing short of irresponsible. They have been shroud waving and using the terrible tragedy of Tangiwai to whip up anxiety about a natural process that has occurred many times on Mount Ruapehu without harm, and that will, indeed, occur many times again. Opposition members have been exploiting the bitter memory of that event for their own electoral gain. Have you heard Opposition members being honest with the public, Mr Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister should not bring me into the debate.

Have members heard the Opposition say that a lahar, similar in size to the one implicated in Tangiwai, came down Mt Ruapehu in 1975?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You really must listen to these speeches, boring as they are, because when a Minister makes that sort of allegation it is unparliamentary and he should be required to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): As far as I am concerned, I took no offence at it, and the Minister was called to order for using that particular phrase. The Minister will now continue. I say to members that I will not tolerate frivolous points of order from either side that are designed to break up a 5-minute speech in this debate. Such tactics are out of order, lead to disorder, and are unacceptable for the progress of business through the House. What I want in this place is what everyone wants in this world, and that is order. I urge restraint on members.

Has the House heard Opposition members say that a lahar, similar in size to the one implicated in Tangiwai, came down Mount Ruapehu in 1975 with no loss of life, little fanfare, and little damage? No, of course not! That would be inconvenient, would it not? It is better to hark back to 1953 and ignore all the improvements that have been made to infrastructure since then. It is better to scare people, especially since they are already vulnerable after the recent floods in the lower North Island. Those are the actions of irresponsible political parties. Even a lahar three times the size of Tangiwai’s could not cause the devastation seen by the recent floods, yet Opposition members have been blatantly associating the two to scare the public. Floods and lahars are completely different natural processes.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Rubbish!

I would have thought even the general would know that. Floods increase as they travel downstream, fed by tributaries and rain over several days. That means their impact is huge and widespread. In contrast, lahars flow from a single point over a short period of time, and diminish as they travel downstream. A lahar’s impact is largely localised to an area immediately below its source.

💬 Phil Heatley: Stop rushing the speech; slow down!

I am rushing my speech because I have so much to say on this subject, with just 5 minutes to do it. Has the House ever heard Opposition members tell the public that simple fact? Do not be stupid! They would rather distort the issue and feed off the votes and anxieties. It is the responsibility of every member of this House to be honest with the public about the facts. It is also the responsibility of every member of this House to think about the future as well as the present.

In the future there will be more lahars, and whether or not it is convenient for Opposition members, the actions that we take today will have an impact on what size those lahars might be and how vulnerable people will be to them. The Opposition is correct: it is technically feasible to go up Mount Ruapehu and attempt to dig a trench to postpone the lahar that is due at the end of this year. It is not remotely safe, but it is theoretically possible. But if we did so, the geological advice to the Government is that we would create a nightmare for the future. A trench would leave behind most of the existing ash dam around Mount Ruapehu’s crater lake, which would otherwise be swept away naturally in the lahar. Future volcanic activity would add to the size of the dam, making it higher, and the body of water trapped behind it in future would be much bigger. That could result in a far larger and much more deadly lahar in the future.

I stress that this is expert advice; it is not ministerial supposition. Actions have consequences. Good Government is about considering those consequences before taking action; it is not about sacrificing the safety of future generations to postpone a problem today.

If I understand National’s and ACT’s policy on the lahar, it is that they would dig that trench and never mind the future generations or the patently obvious risk to workers. They would dig that trench despite those risks, so they could eliminate what is now a minimal risk of the lahar causing harm if it goes naturally. Does that make sense—that is, to create a greater risk tomorrow to eliminate a lesser risk today? Of course not. Mr Smith’s and Mr Shirley’s trench will not only leave future generations exposed; ironically it will leave New Zealanders of today exposed, as well.

The lahar could happen at any time. The trench would drain only some of the water in the crater lake. It would still leave huge quantities behind—water that could easily come down as a lahar any time if there were rim failure on Mount Ruapehu or another eruption. It was an eruption that created the Tangiwai-size lahar in 1975. There have been half-a-dozen completely unpredicted eruptions in recent years.

It is worth remembering that the impending lahar on Mount Ruapehu was an issue when Nick Smith was the Minister of Conservation. He had years to deal with the problem—back when the lake was still low and when work on the rim would have been far less dangerous than it would be today. Do members know what he did? He ordered a report but did nothing, 4 months before the election.

I welcome the opportunity today to confront the Minister of Conservation and this Government’s irresponsibility in respect of public safety over the lahar on the mountain, and to confront the Minister on a number of issues that he has raised.

First up, the Minister said that we should not be worried because the lahar is only 150 percent the size of that which occurred in 1953. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I just remind members that interjections are to be rare, reasonable, relevant, and restrained. Members should refer to Speaker’s ruling 56/1.

I want to debate the issue of a lahar because the Government’s actions are contrary to the advice of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, contrary to the advice of the Ruapehu District Council which has to put up with this risk, and contrary to the advice of the regional council, Horizons MW.

I ask members in this House whether they would trust Chris Carter or the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. It would have to be the ministry. Would they trust the local people in the local council in Simon Power’s electorate, or George Hawkins? I know where I would put my faith, and it would not be in the Ministers on the opposite side of the House.

According to this report, it would cost only $68,000—3 days’ work—to remove the risk to the community downstream.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Why did the member not do something? He had 4 months.

The Minister has been there for 5 years, and the report that was tabled in April 1999 did the proper investigations about the work that was required. I say to the Minister opposite that the responsible thing to do was to go ahead with that. This “Minister of Political Correctness” is more interested in cultural sensitivity and environmental purism, than the protection of public safety in that area.

I want to know from Chris Carter, when that 1.4 million tonnes of material comes hurtling down the mountain, what advice he will give trampers in the district. Will he advise them to run? Is that what his advice will be? Will he guarantee and indemnify the councils of the local area for any damage?

I invite any member of the Government to answer the question, given that it has made a decision against the advice of the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. Will it indemnify the local councils for any damage that is done to their property? No, it will not. What is more, this report says that the lahar will destroy the monument that was created for the 153 victims of the Tangiwai disaster. What sort of people would sit on their hands and allow the lahar to go down the mountain, when there are practical measures that would resolve it? The Minister says there will be other lahars that we cannot stop, so why should we stop this one?

💬 Hon Chris Carter: There’s been some already.

That is right; there have been about 60. But interestingly, they have been one-hundredth of the size of that which is predicted to occur in the next year. It is nothing less than dishonest of the Minister to make that comparison. [Interruption] The Minister asks what happens if the crater rim collapses. He asks how that lahar can be prevented. The Minister is right. And does the Minister know the probability of that occurring? It is one in 2,000. And what is the probability of this lahar occurring? It is 96 percent. It is guaranteed to happen in the next 12 months, yet this Minister would sit on his hands. I say to the Minister that we on this side of the House will hold him responsible for any loss of life.

The last question I have for the Minister is why, for 5 years, have we been told by him that he is not going to do anything about it, because of concerns about cultural sensitivity of the mountain—and suddenly, it is all about occupational safety? I ask anybody who has had any experience of bulldozers, how it is so difficult to cut a trench 7 metres deep in the ash layer. [Interruption] I would, and I say to the Minister right now to surrender his ministerial warrant and I will do it today. Members on this side of the House will do it today. Why did the Government not—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: What stopped you the first time?

That is a fair enough question. Let me answer it. I am happy to. The fact is this report was delivered in April, and the Minister received the technical report—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: 4 months, you had.

That is right, and the technical report on the engineering works was completed in June 2000. Who was the Minister in June 2000? It was Sandra Lee. I say to the Minister that public safety in this country should be put ahead of the political correctness from Chris Carter.

I watch a television programme called Tagata Pasifika each week. It is a wonderful piece of television. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not see it. Just recently I saw the National spokesperson on Pacific Island Affairs, Judith Collins, describe her leader as “honest Don”. Let us test that little label out—“honest Don”. Let us have a look at “honest Don’s” utterances and see whether they can be relied upon. Members will remember the big speech at Orewa, which received lots of publicity. Back then, he was relieved that we were now going to have a debate on the treaty. He said he was “relieved that at last this issue was being put back on the table for debate … I think we do it by having a rational, intelligent, mature debate, which I am committed to having.”

That was then. What about now? Maybe a month has gone by, and the National Party, according to “honest Don”, is now asking why we need an inquiry. As far as he can see there is no need to have an inquiry: “I think the debate does not need to be had.” What has changed in a month? I also saw Dr Brash on television, I think it was, saying the Holmes poll agreed with him and so we do not need to have any more debate. Goodness me! A Holmes poll is going to govern this country if National becomes the Government? That is a bit of a worry. We do not have to have a debate on a major, important issue that was a major, important issue a month ago. Now a month later “honest Don” says we do not need to have it because he has won. That is what he said: “I’ve won the debate, everyone agrees with me, let’s get on with the next issue.”

Well, let us get on to the next issue. The National Party is going to cut tax for low and middle income earners. Can members imagine the billboard? “National will cut tax for low and middle income earners.”

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Yeah, right!

Yeah, right! They have long memories in this country about National and the way it treated low and middle income earners. They can remember wages being cut because of the Employment Contracts Act, they can remember benefits being cut, they can remember market rents, and they can remember the poor old pensioners getting their pensions cut. And what did National do? It cut the tax for the rich. So the real billboard from “honest Don” will be: “National will cut tax for the rich and we’ll pretend it’s for the poor.” But nobody will believe “honest Don” on that one. Nobody will believe that “honest Don” will look after the poor and the low and middle income earner. No way.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member should be referring to Dr Don Brash by his full name, and not “honest Don”. He has mentioned that a number of times in this debate. In debates, we refer to members by their full name—Dr Don Brash.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for drawing it to my attention. I refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 26/7 and 26/8. Members must refer to other members by their full name, their title, or their portfolio.

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes, stop calling Don honest.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the member on my right to stand and apologise, because a point of order was being ruled on, and the member interjected.

💬 Jill Pettis: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just reflecting that at the start of the member’s speech, he did point out that he was quoting the title given to the leader of the National Party by one of his own MPs. Do I take it from your ruling that we are not thereby permitted to use in quotation any titles or references that another member has already placed upon one of his or her own?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Anything that is published outside and is not considered to be parliamentary within this Chamber is out of order.

I am more than happy to take the lead from the junior Opposition whip not to call the National leader honest, and I will just point out why. This is what Dr Brash said: “The treaty is not remotely a blueprint for building a modern, prosperous New Zealand.” That was Dr Don Brash on 4 March. But the poor old National Party manifesto that it took to the country honestly last time—nobody read it—said: “National recognises that the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of New Zealand.” It is no wonder National does not want me to use the word “honest” when referring to its leader, because that is an illustration of the doublespeak we get from the National Party.

We can go through quote after quote after quote. Here is Dr Brash in Southland on 23 February: “It is simple. It is one law for all.” But the day before he had said: “There’s a whole bunch of stuff that might be tolerable or even net beneficial. Now where the line is drawn, I can’t be precise.” So it changes from day to day, month to month, hour to hour. Talking about race-based policies Mr Sowry said: “One size doesn’t fit all; it never has. That is what held this country back in the 70s and 80s.”

Who could believe a word that any single National Party member says? Quite honestly, Mr Tisch is right. We should not be using words like “honest” and “Don” in one sentence, because there is ample evidence to prove they do not belong in one sentence.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have called to your attention before that there is a need for you to listen. I sympathise with you that these are incredibly boring speeches, but nonetheless it is not appropriate that members use those speeches to breach the Standing Orders and call into question the honesty of other members of the House. I know that poor old Mr Gosche has a speech in front of him that is a bit of a missive from “Helengrad” and he has to read it out today. The “Burns unit” up there compiled a whole pile of statements that he has to get out. He has to put them on the record.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member get to the point?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: It is up to you to see that they do not get on to the record, because they are contrary to the Standing Orders. They are inappropriate. It lowers the standard of debate—mind you, under this Government that is not unusual.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I can understand the member’s concern, but if I were to rule on everything, this debate would not get very far, at all. I ask the member to desist and come to the point.

Let us look at another example of the Leader of the Opposition’s doublespeak. He was asked whether, to be consistent, we should also abolish health, welfare, and education programmes based on such things as gender, age, disability, and region. The answer from the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brash, was: “Good question, I am not sure if I know the answer to that.” He is out there having everyone believe that National will do away with this stuff, but when he has to be honest and front up to a question about whether he will do away with it, his answer is no. Dr Brash would have the country believe that it is a waste of time to have a Minister of Māori Affairs, but when questioned about it, he said that he has not “crossed that bridge yet”, and that it is “clearly something to think about over the next 18 months”. Rubbish!

On behalf of New Zealand First, I wish to raise the issue today of whether the sale of Westhaven Marina in Auckland is illegal. New Zealand First is appalled at the state of affairs that is developing on the Auckland waterfront, with the proposal of Ports of Auckland Ltd to seek foreign buyers for Westhaven Marina. What express statutory authority does Ports of Auckland have to sell Westhaven Marina? New Zealand First policy on foreign ownership of New Zealand property is clear: we are totally opposed to it. Any foreign buyers of property of national importance, such as the Auckland waterfront, should bear this in mind before entering into any purchase.

If the Parliament of which I was a member from 1975 to 1984 had had a proposal before it to sell land from Auckland Harbour Bridge Park through to Queen’s Wharf, the person proposing such a sale, especially to foreign interests, would have been accused of treason. The important waterfront of a trading nation should be held for the best interests of the country, rather than sold to line the pockets of a few investors. Other New Zealand First MPs and I worked on the Auckland wharves at the beginning of the container age. What would happen if there were a disaster in the remaining area belonging to Ports of Auckland, and it became incapable of being used? Where would the people of Auckland turn if there were a disaster on the remaining piece of land? What could they develop for harbour purposes if such a disaster took place?

I have read the opinion of Sir Geoffrey Palmer on certain assets, and he makes the point that the current law regarding ownership of the assets can be altered only by Parliament. His opinion seems to be written, though, from the point of view of Ports of Auckland Ltd.

The history of the area is clear. In 1875 the wise founders of Auckland endowed the Auckland Harbour Board with 2,023 hectares of harbour bed, and included the land that the Ports of Auckland company is now trying to sell. The Auckland Harbour Board carefully looked after its assets, which were passed over to Ports of Auckland in October 1988. In the early 1990s Ports of Auckland fought hard to retain ownership of the Westhaven Marina through considerable court battles, because it was regarded as part of its business. As Ports of Auckland fought so hard to keep the marina, why is it now selling it? It seems obvious to me that the area was established by the people of Auckland, who always believed they owned it, and now Ports of Auckland no longer wants it. The marina should be transferred to a special body, established by an Act of Parliament, for its administration. That would not be difficult. I have previously introduced legislation in Parliament for the establishment of the Westpark Marina. The same principles apply to any part of the Auckland waterfront.

Does Ports of Auckland have the statutory power to sell? Although there is no doubt that Ports of Auckland was established to operate on a commercial basis, it is equally clear that it was meant to do so while retaining the assets that were vested in it. Its business is not the sale of its assets but the development of its assets. The Port Companies Act makes it clear that it is “An Act to promote and improve efficiency, economy, and performance in the management and operation of the commercial aspects of ports and, to this end,—(a) To provide for the formation of port companies to carry out port related commercial activities and control the ownership thereof;”—in other words, not to sell them. Thanks to court cases, we know that Westhaven Marina is a port-related commercial activity, as are all Ports of Auckland activities. Usually, a power to sell assets is expressly set out in the Act or in a deed. I cannot see any such express power of sale in the Act. I might be wrong, but I believe this matter should be investigated.

Section 5 gives power to the port company to operate as a successful business for the purpose of carrying out port-related commercial activities, and to control the ownership of port-related commercial activities. It is not a power of sale of such activities. Again, section 27 authorises a transfer of the land only to a port company in terms of the Land Transfer Act, and not to any other body. In other words, no other party has a legal authority to acquire the land, because the Land Transfer Act’s definition of land does not give the Land Transfer Office the power to create fee simple titles for the foreshore or seabed involved. Specific statutory authority is required; hence the authority in the Act. In this case, the authority is limited only to Ports of Auckland. New Zealand First would expect that the Overseas Investment Commission would decline the sale of this nationally important property to foreign interests.

What do the Labour members of Parliament for Auckland care about this matter? What does the National Party care about it? What is the member for Mt Albert doing about it? She was in the House when the legislation was passed. What is the leader of the National Party doing? The two of them should stop indulging in slanging matches, such as we have seen today, and start doing the jobs for which they are paid—including that of representing Aucklanders. Perhaps the ninth ACT member of Parliament is only too keen to see the waterfront sold to foreign investors, in keeping with ACT’s policies. What are the Greens doing about it? Nothing—even though this is an environmental matter. Labour and National have joined together to sell important assets, such as the Whenuapai Air Base, and now I see them selling the Auckland waterfront. New Zealand First is today supporting Auckland first.

It is not my intention to get into some of the details of recent statements made by the current leader of the National Party, except to note some really interesting and revealing newspaper coverage. I note the very interesting editorial today in the New Zealand Herald, entitled “Mud-slinging backfires on naive Brash”, and I also note the press coverage. What I object to is the implication by the leader of the National Party that the Prime Minister should have refrained from speaking in the Christchurch Cathedral. In my view, that is some very flawed thinking. The Prime Minister spoke in the Christchurch Cathedral to reflect on the 5th anniversary of the Hīkoi of Hope of 1998, when almost 30,000 joined the march. Those people called for a change from the cost cutting, deregulation, and restructuring of the 1980s and 1990s. Too many New Zealand families were trapped in poverty, jobless, and struggling to access health and education. Clearly, the real agenda behind the current hype of the Opposition National Party, with reference to race relations in our country, is its intention to take this country back to those times.

Lest we forget, we reversed National’s cuts to superannuation, which would have seen at least a third of older New Zealanders living below the poverty line. This relatively newish leader of the National Opposition is promising to review superannuation and the age of eligibility. All New Zealanders below the age of 50 should now start readjusting their post-retirement plans, in terms of when they turn 65. That leader has started to float the prospect of older New Zealanders having to work past the age of 65. New Zealanders who have spent a lifetime contributing to this economy and this nation are having to start contemplating now that they will have no choice but to work past the age of 65. I say to anyone listening to this debate tonight—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member may not refer to radio listeners.

I stand corrected, Mr Speaker. I ask people in the Chamber who are listening to this debate whether they honestly think that in that area, and in a number of other areas, when it comes to workplace conditions, age of retirement eligibility, eligibility for health-care funding, eligibility for decent access to schools, national pay scales for teachers, and commonality of education, a Brash Government, ably assisted—says I, with a degree of cynicism—by Mr Richard Prebble, will sit on its hands and do nothing.

I say to this Parliament today that it should look past the current National Opposition’s rhetoric on race relations in this country, and see what its real agenda is. Look at Dr Brash’s record and the policies he supported when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. Look at his statements on asset tax around properties. Look at his statements around taxing the family home. Look at his statement about raising the age of eligibility for superannuation. Look at those statements, and look at what, we know in our heart of hearts, he wants to turn the economy into. Look at his attitudes around workplace conditions in this country, and then say whether he will be a kindly gentleman who sits on his hands and does nothing.

To its credit, New Zealand First understands that. I even believe that the United Future party, when it starts to look at that, understands that. Every other party in this Parliament bar ACT—minus Donna Awatere Huata, of course—supports that.

All I can say after that speech is that Dr Don Brash has drawn a line in the sand, and the vast majority of New Zealanders are standing with him against that minority Labour Government. Within days of Dr Brash’s speech in Orewa, the Prime Minister was telling the people of New Zealand that her Government’s policies were based on need, not race. That is what the Prime Minister said: her Government’s policies were based on need, not race, and she would run the ruler over her Government’s policies to ensure that no racial privilege was offered by her Government.

Today the National Party in Opposition is calling for the end of a $10 million race-based fund that buys computers, gym memberships, sports shoes, and music lessons for young offenders who are Māori. I take members back to 15 June 2000 when Ministers Turia and Maharey announced the Māori Youth Contestable Fund, which would fund initiatives developed by the Māori community that aimed to reduce Māori youth offending. That was to be funded with $10 million over the next 4 years.

Official documents, which I tabled in the House earlier today, show that that race-based programme is targeted only at Māori youth between 10 and 16 who have been regularly committing offences and whose offending is escalating in frequency or severity. That is race-based funding of the worst order. It rewards young offenders with taxpayers’ money, with no regard for the victims or the community, and it must be stopped.

In one case—which the Minister denied—a 15-year-old Christchurch youth who was a recidivist offender, and was well known to the New Zealand police, received a computer, worth around $1,100, through a provider contracted to that fund. Apparently, the computer was a carrot to stop reoffending. But it was received before there was any demonstrable evidence that that young person had decided to turn her life around. What is clear from what has been advised is that that offender continued to reoffend, despite receiving a computer paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand. There are suggestions that the offender was given the computer so that she could write a letter of apology to her victims, and so that she could keep in touch with her Department of Child, Youth and Family Services case manager.

That is yet another example of Labour’s politically correct, race-based social engineering policies. I ask the House how the Prime Minister can say that her policies are about need, not race, when under the Māori Youth Contestable Fund, providers get $16,500 for each Māori youth, but nothing for non-Māori youth who are at risk but who are ineligible for that fund. We had wide support from the Government benches today for that race-based policy.

The reason why I raise this issue is that it was that Prime Minister—who stated on television that she was Pākeha, she wanted to defend her culture, and she was not going to be a stranger in her country—who said she would not allow her policies in her Government to be based on race rather than on need. But if members look at this fund, they will see that $10 million over 4 years has been allocated up and down the country on one major preference, which is race.

In relation to the comments made by the previous speaker in terms of the National Party’s policy over race-based funding, it concerns me that that policy has caused a huge division in our nation—an unacceptable division between Māori and non-Māori. Dr Don Brash’s refusal to commit to an inquiry is a typical cop-out. It is running away from the issues. Dr Don Brash cannot claim that the treaty is not remotely a blueprint for building a modern, prosperous New Zealand, and just walk away from that statement. He should commit to an inquiry. That would provide an opportunity for the public, in particular, to participate in that debate, and hence to be a part of it as we evolve as a nation. I have heard comments from Dr Don Brash that instil that division further. He has suggested that he would hire a Pākehā over a Māori of equal merit because, he said, Māori could claim unlimited tangi leave. That is totally unacceptable.

I move on to the Government’s policy in relation to needs-based funding. It is important that we look at the recent anniversary of the Hīkoi of Hope and the reasons surrounding that hīkoi. Primarily, it was to do with poverty, particularly that of whānau and family. Some of the problems that people experienced were that they could not get access to basic health-care and education. Five years on, I believe it is necessary to place on record Labour’s commitment to, and accountability concerning, those issues.

Unemployment was at 7.4 percent in 1998. It was down to just 4.6 percent last year. Job growth has averaged 44,000 per year since this Government was elected, and in that respect, in relation to one of the issues from the Hīkoi of Hope, Labour has delivered. Income and benefit levels have lifted people out of poverty. We have increased the minimum wage five times in 5 years, from $7 per hour in 1998 to $9 per hour this year. That is about an extra $80 per week. We should also not forget what we have done in housing. We have returned to income-related rents for State houses, so that low-income families pay no more than 25 percent of their income on rent. I recall clearly that the National Party sold off State houses and depleted the stock. Where is the point in that?

R Doug Woolerton: Yes, they did—thousands.

It sold thousands of them. We have also made education accessible. It is a key fundamental to learning. We have stopped the 15 percent per year average increase in tertiary fees. We are now experiencing record numbers of New Zealanders in workplace training, and I understand that we have over 6,000 in Modern Apprenticeships at this stage.

Let us look at the health system. It needed to be accessible. I understand that more than 2 million New Zealanders are now enrolled in primary health organisations—that means about one in every four New Zealanders has access to low-cost primary health care. I think that is wonderful. It shows that Labour has the right policies in place to ensure that we are caring for families in New Zealand.

With regard to industry training, our target is to have at least 150,000 New Zealanders in industry training during 2005, and 250,000 new trainees by 2007. This is part of an overall goal to have all 15 to 19-year-olds in suitable education, training, or work by 2007. We are ensuring a skilled workforce for the future. Our Government has aggressively expanded industry training so that New Zealand can become a world-beating knowledge economy and society. Industry training gives people in employment the opportunity to gain recognised qualifications through a combination of on-the-job and off-the-job learning. More skills in our workforce will lead to higher productivity, more innovative products and services, and secure employment opportunities. We have revitalised industry training.

Since the Labour-led Government came to office in late 1999 the number of workers participating in industry has grown by a massive 56 percent. There are now 126,870 people in industry training. That is a big increase on just under 50,000 as at June 1999.

I will talk today about the terrible way that Labour is treating older New Zealanders. I will concentrate on three things: cuts to surgery; a broken promise on asset testing; and the cruel decision regarding Alzheimer’s medication. We know that this Government is wasting a whole lot of money in the health sector. We know that it has increased bureaucracy with 21 district health boards and 66 advisory boards. We know that we now have primary health organisations and that, all across the country, they will have governance boards made up of one-third Māori, one-third providers, and one-third community members.

It does not matter whether the organisation is based in a region where only 3 percent of the population is Māori, the board will still be made up of one-third Māori at a minimum. It does not matter that Māori primary health organisations have no non-Māori on the boards. That is fine. There can be no non-Māori on those boards, but the governance of primary health organisations has to have a minimum of one-third Māori. We are seeing primary health organisations all over the country going to the wall. We saw Middlemore Primary Health Organisation Ltd, with 62,000 people enrolled, go into liquidation. The start-up cost of the organisation is wasted money because this was never trialled.

We know that 20 percent of the funding that goes into the access formula is based on race. We are told that that is because of mortality. If it is because there is higher mortality for Māori, what about men’s higher mortality? I ask the men on the other side of the House how many years they will die before women. On average it is 5 years. The men of New Zealand access services less often than women, but not only do they get far less funding than Māori, they get less funding than the women who go to primary health organisations. Funding cannot be fairly based on mortality. Primary health organisation access funding is based on race, and it is unfair.

However, with money going into that kind of funding, what do we see with surgery? We did the financial review today of one of the district health boards and they were very honest about the fact that they had to cut surgery and about the way they had been forced to put up the points for hips, knees, cataracts, surgery, gynaecology, tubal ligations, and ear, nose, and throat. The hurdles people had to jump to get surgery had gone up. Every district health board that we review tells us that the points have gone up, which means that patients have to be sicker to get service. Who bears the brunt of that? Three hundred patients in Nelson and Marlborough have just been dumped from the waiting list for ophthalmology.

By the Government’s own admission, its Health and Independence Report 2003 showed that we are doing fewer orthopaedic procedures than in 1999, when National left office. We are doing fewer cataract procedures than in 1999, yet we have an ageing and increasing population. This Government is not delivering to the elderly of New Zealand with regard to elective surgery.

Then there is asset testing. This Government went to the elections twice promising to remove asset testing. Has it done it? No, and do not think that Grey Power does not notice. All it has done is increase the asset level that people can keep, and that is exactly what National did in 1998. Labour has not kept its promise. Then we come to the cruel decision made this week about Alzheimer’s medication. There are no other medical treatments for Alzheimer’s, but Pharmac’s budget has been held. Again, the Health and Independence Report 2003 shows that Pharmac’s budget was held at $515 million for 2000, $515 million for 2001, and $503 million for 2002 and 2003. That is why Pharmac cannot afford to invest in new medications. I will read a few press releases. The Alzheimer’s Society release is headed: “A day of shame for New Zealand”. These medications do work. As a geriatrician before I came to Parliament, I know that these medications can work.

I will read the comments made by some of the people who made submissions. Ann Bethall has written a submission for her friend Kath, who cares for her partner, Bob, who has dementia. Bob is only 58 years old. He was a dynamic, hard-working businessman who improved markedly when he was put on this medication. The couple can no longer afford the $225 per month that the medication costs because Bob cannot work and now he may have to go into care. It costs $36,000 a year to put somebody into care. These medications can keep people out of care, and it is shame on this Government that they are not funded.

I will start by asking some questions. Who gave us the Employment Contracts Act? Who wanted to sell New Zealanders’ holidays? Who would scrap 4 weeks’ annual leave? Who froze the minimum wage for 3 years? Who privatised accident compensation? Who opposed penal rates for public holidays? [Interruption] Wait, there is more. Who attacked better health and safety laws? Who will not guarantee pensions at 65 for all New Zealanders? Who wants to give tax cuts to the rich? Who scrapped the Apprenticeship Act? Who opposed paid parental leave? The answer is National, and its mates from ACT.

Now I ask: who scrapped the Employment Contracts Act? Who introduced paid parental leave? Who is bringing in 4 weeks’ annual leave? Who has increased the minimum wage every year? Who rescued accident compensation from private insurance? Who brought back penal rates for public holidays? Who improved health and safety laws? Who increased superannuation payments? Who created a special superannuation fund? Who introduced Modern Apprenticeships, and who introduced paid parental leave?

💬 Government Members: Labour!

Thank you. Now let us look at leadership, and let us look at the Opposition and Don Brash. He stirred up good New Zealanders by making outlandish claims such as increased bereavement leave for Māori, which was not true. I challenge Dr Brash to refute the fact that his attack on Māori medical students is just a case of sour grapes, or the politics of envy, because his family missed out on getting there.

Let us look at that man, Dr Don Brash. He is running away from issues. He changes his mind about policies more often than we have had hot dinners. When he stirred up the treaty debate he was relieved that it was at last on the table, and that we would have a “rational, intelligent, mature debate”. From National members? Yeah, right. We then said that we would look at an inquiry, but he responded: “Well, do we? I don’t think we need an inquiry. There’s no need to have an inquiry. I don’t think that has to be had.” So what do we do?

Let us also look at some really good things that have happened recently, such as a big boost in industry training. That is something this Government is very proud of—an increase of nearly 20,000 trainees last year to a new record high. Since the Labour-led Government came into office in late 1999 the numbers of workers in industry training have grown by a massive 56 percent and total funding has increased by 70 percent. That is done in partnership—something that the Opposition side of the House would know nothing about—with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, through the Skill New Zealand campaign. I want to acknowledge the business community and the union movement—another group on Dr Brash’s hit list; well, not the business community, just the union movement—which have contributed much to the skills agenda in New Zealand.

This is a family-friendly Government. I want to look at, talk about, and celebrate the increase to paid parental leave. That leave will be increased to 14 weeks, in line with the ILO, and in line with holding our head up in the world, saying we care about our families and we are progressive. I congratulate the Ministry of Women’s Affairs on its work on this leave provision. It supported it, liaised with women, and ensured that the plan will come to pass, because it will be introduced in legislation. Again, I acknowledge the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and say that that is another group the visionary Dr Don Brash has on his hit list. He has women on his hit list; he does not see the need for the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. He does not see any need for unions in this country; he thinks they are destructive.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: He doesn’t see much need for Māori, either.

That is right. He challenges anything that is progressive. I know that this opinion is held not only in my electorate but also in Whangarei. When I was last up there, there was huge support for Labour’s policies.

I do not believe that Dr Don Brash has any idea of the impact that his statements have had on Māori and on New Zealand. I do not think he nor senior members of the National Party have any idea of what they have done. I am of that generation, as the member is over here, that has lived amongst the stench of racial hatred—and I am going back 30 years. For the past 30 years I have watched, with some relief, that stench evaporate. But I believe that now we are seeing a re-emergence. My children, who have never experienced that hatred, are now, for the first time, seeing that that shadow of hatred has crept into their lives. I, for one, am deeply, deeply sorry for that, because when I look at the policies that Dr Brash offers, I believe they offer true hope for Māori—they really do. I want to mention four of them.

The first is school choice. Before we had zoning, 33 percent of Māori moved from their zone—from their decile area—into a high decile area. They actually went to better schools. That option has now been cut off at the knees. They are stuck where they are living. Bulk funding gave principals the opportunity of catering for individual children’s needs. They have had that removed from them now. Māori children who benefited under bulk funding have had that option of advancement taken away from them.

There is also the matter of literacy teaching. The way we teach literacy at the moment is race based, because the methods used benefit Pākehā, and disadvantage Māori. What I have heard from Dr Brash is that he will declare war on that kind of race-based literacy teaching. Then we will not need the need silly courses, now proliferating into Māori communities. Really tackling—really tackling—the issues that affect the Māori community in literacy is what I look to him for leadership on.

I also look to him for leadership on doing away with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. We heard today from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority that Māori achievement on National Certificate of Educational Achievement is nothing like what they told us it would be 4 and 3 years ago. The results are impoverished. Māori achievement is not down, but it certainly is not what we had hoped for, and I hope Don Brash will do something about that. He will make a tremendous contribution to Māori educational achievement. If only he would just stick to that and tell us about those kinds of things. What he is doing now, and what he has done by giving his Orewa speech, is basically give permission for bureaucrats to run for cover. He has unleashed the dogs of war. He has unleashed a groundswell of hatred, the likes of which I have not seen for the last 10 years. I give members one small example.

Today an innocuous little organisation called HortResearch came before my select committee. Every year it has come before us for the past 7 years I have been asking whether it is an organisation that exists only for Pākehā, because one would think so. There is no Māori senior management, no Māori strategy, no Māori staff, and no attempt to lift the achievement of Māori land. At the end of the day it is Māori who own that undeveloped land and it is Māori land that the Māori economic commission told us many years ago has potential for economic development that has been completely unrealised. Finally, 2 years ago, this little organisation got its act together and developed a Māori business strategy. Finally, it will do something to leash and grab hold of the potential for development on those lands. What do we have now? It is running for cover. It is saying it has no strategy to bridge the gap. It has nothing for bridging the gap between Māori and non-Māori achievement on land development. It is basically running for cover.

We see that all over the place. We saw it at a health hui I was at the other day. The health bureaucrats are running for cover. We have spent 20 years building up capacity in the Māori health sector, only to see it beginning to crumble before our very eyes over the last 3 months. Judith Collins, speaking in this House on a health bill, asked what would we do for cancer in Māori women, which is six times the non-Māori rate. At the rate this National Opposition is going, it will tear down all of those brilliant initiatives that we Māori and Pākehā have built over the past few years. I think that is a tragedy.

Another example is that my kura kaupapa have been waiting for 5 years to get our building. My children travel for an hour and a half to and from school every day. Now the Ministry of Education is dragging its feet. Why is that? Because Don Brash has given it permission to go back to the attitudes of 20 and 30 years ago—that being Māori does not matter, and that: “If you are kura and Māori, just wait your time.” To Don Brash, for that, I say: “Shame on you! You should stick to your knitting and do what you can do well.”

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.