General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today is the New Zealand University Students Association’s day of action on student debt. Today we are seeing people gather all over the country to protest the Government’s continued policy of supporting the student loan scheme. Today we will see people gather in Hamilton, Auckland, Palmerston North, Wellington, and Dunedin to protest this Government’s policies. It is good to see students hitting the streets, because the reality is that students will get nowhere with their demands for a universal student allowance until they get active, until they take to the streets, and until they make their voices heard. They can take their lessons from the students of the past—the student activists of a few decades ago such as Mr Maharey, Phil Goff, and Helen Clark, who took to the streets in their time to make known their issues.

I totally support this campaign to draw attention to the disaster that is the student loan scheme, and the disaster that the student loan scheme represents for New Zealand students and for New Zealand as a country. Two weeks ago co-leader of the Greens, Rod Donald, presented a petition to this Parliament on behalf of more than 35,000 New Zealanders who put their names in support of the campaign by the University Students Association. That petition said that those people recognised that the current system of student allowances discriminates against those under the age of 25, and forces students to borrow to meet their basic living costs. They therefore called upon the Government to immediately adjust allowance’s parental income limit for inflation since 1992, institute a system of a living allowance for all tertiary students, and set the level of the student living allowance equal to that of the unemployment benefit.

What that petition represented was really a new level of activity among students. What was notable was that the signatures on that petition were not just from students; they were from New Zealanders as a whole. Students are starting to gather support across the population for their campaign, because more and more New Zealanders are waking up to the realisation that the student loan scheme is not just a student issue. It is actually an issue that affects our entire country and everyone in it.

The student loan scheme involves a huge number of issues. I would like to draw the House’s attention to the words of Brian Easton, in looking at the sustainability of student loans. He pointed out that student debt is not simply a liability, such as a mortgage or an overdraft, and that repayment is contingent upon the income stream for the debtor, and that that income stream is uncertain. So, in effect, it is a contingent liability. But he points out that proponents of the scheme are very hesitant to call it a contingent liability because that would display to the world that essentially the scheme is no more than a raising of the income tax levy on some parts of the population—that is, those with a contingent liability from the student debt—in order to lower taxes for the rest of us, particularly those of us who got a free tertiary education or who have been able to pay off their contingent liability. That would include many, many members of this House, and many members of the Government.

Brian Easton also points out that there is a second reason for the hesitancy to call it that—it shows that the net worth shown in the Crown balance is not as healthy as it first appears. In looking at the 2000 figures, he talked about the net worth being $8.2 billion, made up of $60.9 billion of assets less $52.6 billion of liabilities. But at that time $3.4 billion of those assets were contingent assets, dependent on the students for whom they are contingent liabilities earning sufficient income to pay them off, not going bankrupt, not disappearing out the country and out of the Inland Revenue Department’s records, and the like. That debt is now $7 billion. It has doubled from that time. Therefore, slightly less than half of the so-called net worth of the Crown is covered by the contingent assets of the student loans. We know that if we go around the country and talk to people—

If student debt has gone up, it is because there is a record number of students in tertiary education today. There are twice as many tertiary students as there were a few years ago. Because of the changes made by this Labour Government, getting a student loan has to be the best deal in town. This Government has spent $2 billion on keeping student fees down, frozen for 3 years, and in providing interest-free loans for students while they are studying. Why would a student not take out a loan? This is unlike Dr Lockwood Smith, who in 1990, as spokesperson on education, promised that the fees would be abolished by any new National Government, and he promised to resign if it did not do it. Did he abolish fees? No, he doubled them. Did he resign? No, not even by lunchtime, not by Christmas, or by any other time.

I come back to the National Party and say that the country has cringed at the blunders made by this National Opposition, this pathetic Opposition, over the last week or so. Who led the charge? It was Simon Power, the bright young hope from Rangitīkei. What did Simon Power tell the country, when speaking to a National Party conference? He said: “Without reservation, we will support our close allies, Australia, the United States, and Britain when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” In one sentence the National Party spokesperson on defence surrendered our sovereignty, surrendered our independence, and surrendered our right to make our own judgment.

What Simon Power said was important. He said that if ever there were a National Government, important foreign policy decisions for this country would be made not by New Zealanders in New Zealand but that they would be made in Canberra, in Washington, and in London. He was saying that National will unquestioningly allow our vital decisions to be made by others. It is no wonder the country treated that announcement with derision. It is no wonder the country asked: “Is the National Party really taking us back to the days of Gallipoli, when our decisions were made by people in foreign countries and by foreign military officers?”. People raised the question of why Don Brash is now saying he would have had us in Iraq, and they raised the question of why we should revert to allowing our decisions to be made by some other country, when 80 percent of New Zealanders stand by the judgment of their country, their Government, in keeping out of the war in Iraq. I wonder where Simon Power thinks he is taking the country. His local paper said he ought to be sacked. We really hate that—when one’s local paper says one should be sacked! But did Don Brash sack him? No, I believe that Don Brash approved that speech. Even if he had not approved the speech, Don Brash has made blunders at such a monumental level that he was in no position to sack anyone in his caucus.

Don Brash got caught out. He told the country and the newspapers: “I’m a peacenik. I’m against nuclear ships.” That was for the edification of the New Zealand public. Then we found out that Don Brash, in secret, told the American congressional delegation: “We’ll have the nuclear ban lifted by lunchtime.” Then he said he could not remember. He then said it was private; he could not talk about it. Finally, he admitted that he did say it; the New Zealand Herald of course still said: “Oh, maybe he didn’t say it.”, even after he had admitted he had said it; and he admitted that it was unwise to do so. It was more than unwise. It is an example of a leader and a party that will surrender the right of this country to make decisions according to its own values and its own judgments. If we need more evidence of that, we have Nick Smith promising to withdraw New Zealand’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol if Australia and the United States do not sign it. He wants to withdraw it if two other countries do something different. That is the party that once upon a time, under the leadership of Don McKinnon, showed some leadership in foreign policy and did not kowtow to others—[Interruption]

Varicose veins across the forehead is a health problem I would not wish upon anyone. I would like to bring to the Speaker’s attention the talk on the streets—the “goss”, the buzz. Rumours circulating about the foreshore and seabed legislation were that those courageous members in the Labour Party are willing to go to Auckland, to Hamilton, to Wellington, and to Christchurch but are not willing to front up to their people in Northland, on the East Coast, and in the South Island. Will Dover Samuels front up to the people of Northland? Will Mita Ririnui front up to his people in the Bay of Plenty? Will this Government front up to Tariana Turia’s people in Wanganui? They are gutless. Even the Minister of Māori Affairs does not intend—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member will withdraw that comment.

I withdraw. It is my understanding that even the Minister of Māori Affairs will not front up to his people on the East Coast on the foreshore and seabed legislation. I would have thought that landlocked Hamiltonians may not have as much interest as the Minister of Māori Affairs’ people on the East Coast on the seabed and foreshore legislation. Interestingly enough, those members expect their people to come to Wellington—there were 20,000 outside Parliament Buildings—but they will not go to see them.

I was on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee when it looked at the Maori Fisheries Bill. We fronted up in Whangarei, we fronted up in Rotorua, and we fronted up in Gisborne. So why does that Minister not front up to his people in his region? I know the Government’s problem. It is somewhat of a dog’s breakfast. We know that the Maori Fisheries Bill has been extended by 1 month, and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill cannot be progressed until that bill is dealt with. The aquaculture reform legislation cannot progress until the Foreshore and Seabed Bill has been passed, because the Government has to resolve who owns the sea space; therefore, the moratorium on aquaculture cannot be lifted. So in effect, the Māori Fisheries Bill is extended by a month, the Foreshore and Seabed Bill cannot progress, and the aquaculture reform legislation is yet to be introduced. Therefore, the Government’s conundrum is that it will not be able to lift the moratorium at the end of the year. It will have to extend it a second time.

I know what this is all about, because I have been talking about it for a long time. If the Minister of Fisheries was not planning to horse-trade with Māori—aquaculture space to secure Crown ownership—he would not be in this pickle. The Minister is horse-trading with Māori: marine farming space to secure Crown ownership. Is it the Minister’s intention, upon the introduction of the aquaculture reform legislation, to give Māori aquaculture space? If so, whose water space will he give away, on what basis will he give that space away, and will Māori be paying for it?

The Minister should come clean. He wants to give marine farming space to Māori to secure Crown ownership. He cannot progress the aquaculture reforms until the Foreshore and Seabed Bill decides who owns the space. He cannot progress the Foreshore and Seabed Bill until the Māori Fisheries Bill is passed, and that has been extended. So why does he not come clean and admit he will have to extend the moratorium? If he does not extend the moratorium, Dover Samuels will not front up to his people in Northland, Mita Ririnui will not front up to his people in the Bay of Plenty, this Government certainly will not front up to Tariana Turia’s people, and the Minister of Māori Affairs will not front his people, either.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That speaker got up to make a speech. We are still waiting for it, and I seek leave for an extension of his time—another 5 minutes—so we can hear it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

We know that the National Party is in complete disarray and suffering from shock when it shuffles the hapless Phil Heatley out to lead the Wednesday debate. For week after week the National Party had its best and brightest young star lead the Wednesday debate—Simon Power. It is very clear that Mr Simon Power is now seen as too much of a liability. Even Mr Don Brash is not allowed by the National Party to ask a question in the House anymore. National members are terrified of the House, because the moment one of their senior people makes a statement, it blows up in their faces. National members are shell-shocked, quivering and cowering behind their bench seats here, and they have shuffled Phil Heatley forward because they know that if Phil Heatley makes a mistake, they can cut him off and no one will notice. It is really interesting.

I would have thought that Simon Power would love to take the chance, as he always does, to lead the Wednesday debate to explain his position on our international relationships—whereby without reservation New Zealand will support its close allies Australia, the United States, and Britain whenever and wherever that commitment is called upon. That was stated as National Party policy by a National Party spokesperson to a National Party conference, and that statement was then dumped on by the leader.

But it is very interesting that on 11 May, some days later, the National Party made another statement of its position: “The National Party has always been international in its outlook. We will support our close allies Australia, the United States and Britain when and where our commitment is called upon.” Spot the difference! That was a blue, because the National Party realises that it has ceded our sovereignty to Canberra, to London, and to Washington, and every New Zealander resiles against that. Nobody supports that position.

When it comes to Mr Brash it is also interesting to see that he has not been asking questions lately, either, because it has been noted that he cannot deal with the House. It was a disaster for the National Party when he tried to play its trump card the other day—a motion of no confidence. The good Dr Michael Cullen had to help him with the words. He had to help him organise it. Despite that little wee person, Gerry Brownlee, whispering in his ear, Dr Don Brash still could not get it right. It must have been, in my view, a senior moment.

But when we look at Don Brash’s varying positions on all sorts of things, it seems that he is having lots of senior moments. I take taxation as an example. When he first came into office as the leader of the National Party, he said he was going to slash the tax burden on high-income earners. In April 2003 he said he would reduce the top personal tax rate to 33c in the dollar. He said that the biggest winners would be the rich, but that that would be fair because they pay the lion’s share of tax. Realising that that statement had the political flight of a lead balloon, the National Party then changed its position and said its top priority for tax reductions was tax relief for low to middle income families. That was another change.

Another example is asset sales. The National Party said—again, this was said by Dr Don Brash: “The Government still owns major trading activities that could in principle be privatised: New Zealand Post, the Electricity Corporation and its progeny, Contact Energy, and the ACC, just to name three.” Those all are lined up for privatisation, like Kiwibank, etc. Then when Georgina te Heuheu was ready to put out that statement, Dr Don Brash came out and said: “There has certainly been no discussion on the sale of any assets, at all.” So what is the policy? What are we supposed to believe? That was another senior moment, I think.

Let us look at the position on superannuation. It was then to “raise the age at which people become eligible for New Zealand superannuation, reflecting the gradual increase in life expectancy and improved health amongst the elderly”. What is the position now? It is: “No Government of which I will be a part will be touching the age of eligibility.”

💬 Darren Hughes: Yeah, right!

Exactly. But he did not go on to say “only for those above 50 years”. Everybody under 50 is now on notice that National under Don Brash is going to chop their superannuation, just as National is going to cut people’s 4 weeks’ annual leave, which was legislated for by this Government. Don Brash wants people’s holidays—their holidays.

I have to say that while all these flip-flops are going on, the country is cruising along very, very well. Hawke’s Bay, which is well known for its position on socialism, has put on page 3 of its local paper the fact that only 1,329 people are looking for jobs in Hawke’s Bay. Someone was saying the other day the he could not find work, and he has now finally got a job. Employers are saying they cannot find enough workers, because no one is answering firms’ calls for staff. Hawke’s Bay Today states there are now 6,000 fewer unemployed people in Hawke’s Bay since this Government came to power.

I just want to turn the debate around to the issue that confronts New Zealanders at the moment, which is the question of the upcoming Budget and the steps many New Zealanders would like to see taken care of in the Budget, from the point of view of the elderly and the family person. Many of the issues New Zealand First has raised have been taken care of since the last election, at least in part. We have seen our Treaty of Waitangi issue taken up by the National Party, immigration is down, and Ron Mark works extremely hard on law and order. Since the last election, one of the issues that cropped up about 12 months ago has been the port and sherry tax. I really insist, hope, and expect that the Minister of Finance, with a $7 billion surplus, will ensure that the port and sherry tax goes. Why was it introduced? It was introduced to stop binge drinking by young people. Members know that binge drinking by young people is still continuing, so the only people who are being affected by that tax are the elderly. The Labour Government may not be interested in the well-being of the elderly and the small enjoyment they may get from drinking port and sherry, but I will be very, very disappointed if that particular tax is not eliminated.

It has been interesting to hear that Mr Anderton has suddenly had another one of those Labour - Progressive Coalition, lights-on-the-way-to-Damascus experiences. He has now changed his mind on under-age drinking. I understand that he was one of the members in this House who voted to lower the drinking age to 18.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he?

It is my understanding that he did, last time. I may be wrong, but that is what I have been told. Anyway, Mr Anderton now agrees that the drinking age should be raised to 20. Well, New Zealand First has a member’s bill ready to be introduced in this House, if Mr Anderton is really serious about that. As a Government Minister, he can take steps to introduce the bill himself, if he wants to do so. Just how serious is this Labour Government about this ever-increasing problem? One only has to go out in a taxi, late on Friday night or in the early hours of Saturday morning, to see young people in all sorts of states of drunkenness on the streets as a result of lowering the drinking age. [Interruption] The member from Dunedin can take that view, but I am sure it probably happens in that city more often than in any other place. He does not care about the state of young people. But in New Zealand First we are very concerned about the whole situation.

Another of Jim Anderton’s views that comes to mind and that is very appropriate today is his view on petrol prices. Before the election in 1999, there was nothing he would not have done to the oil companies when petrol prices went up. He was going to get really stuck into them, and even in March 2000 he called for an inquiry into petrol price rises, according to the Dominion. He was also critical of various oil companies, and referred to predatory pricing and suchlike. But which issue confronting New Zealanders today will have a significant impact in the Budget? It is that there is a fuel price now of $1.29 a litre for 96 octane petrol in most cities. One of the reasons that the fuel price is being fuelled is the taxes being taken by this Labour Government for petrol. When the price goes up on a percentage basis, the tax goes up, and GST is added to it, as well. I expect Jim Anderton to do what he said he would do 3, 4, or 5 years ago about having a look at the real price of petrol. According to an article in the New Zealand Herald today an energy consultant, Alan Jenkins, says that the real price for petrol should be about $1.07 per litre. But $1.29 per litre is what we have. Part of the reason for that is this Government’s taxation policies, and its contribution to the price of petrol.

I would expect Mr Cullen, as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, to do something in this Budget to reduce the Government’s take on petrol, so as to help all the people who have to go to work at odd hours of the day and night when they cannot use public transport. A responsible Government would do something like that in its Budget. That is what New Zealand First wants to see done, and that is what Jim Anderton, when he was in Opposition, said should be done. He made some nominal effort when he was in Government to do that, but he has now given up on that issue. New Zealand First is concerned at the effect of petrol prices on homeowners and on people trying to get to work every day, especially in cities in New Zealand where they have a long drive to work. Taxi drivers are having trouble keeping their fares under control. I am told that Wellington’s largest fleet expects approval from the Land Transport Safety Authority for a 4.7 percent fare rise.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Ha ha!

It is all right for Clayton Cosgrove to laugh, because the Government pays his taxi fare, but what about all the people who cannot get the Government to pay their fares for them?

The Leader of the Opposition has continued down the track National has been consistently plodding down throughout its years in Opposition: misunderstanding Māori, misrepresenting their aspirations, and then encouraging the public to feel aggrieved about the imaginary patronisation of Māori people. He was wrong in February, when he claimed the nation’s universities were lowering their standards in order to pass Māori. He was wrong again last Sunday, when he claimed that Māori are failing in the tertiary education system. Māori enrolment in tertiary education is one of the great success stories of this Government. The number of Māori students in formal tertiary education has increased from 32,500 to 62,000 in 2003. How can such an increase be deemed a failure? That leader has to understand that very clearly. I am proud that more Māori learners are going to university straight from school, and that Māori doctoral enrolments are trebling right at this stage. The way Māori have embraced tertiary education is certainly a signal of how great this Government has been for Māori.

In the sense of a whole lot of things that are happening, the Opposition goes on and on about Māori getting more than their fair share in terms of the history, and certainly those members are scratching. I heard the famed, newly-promoted Phil Heatley talk about me being gutless. He is not very observant, but I am glad he noticed that I go for walks early in the morning, and that I am losing weight—not like some of the Opposition members, who are struggling. It is a disgrace! The biggest puffer in this Parliament has started to talk about how great the sense of having one’s brain fogged up is for one. That is not smart education; that is dumb. That is as dumb as some of the unendowed academics in Māoridom who are leading our people down an unreal trail to Utopia—to nowhere, and to misery. They want to keep us in the dungeons of doom and gloom, like the members on the Opposition benches do.

Let us look at Dr Brash. I feel very sorry for Dr Brash. It is very well known what Dr Brash is against, but members still do not know what he is for. There is a lot of pontification and brouhaha about what Māori are doing wrong and what this Government is not doing for Māori, but I have not heard a tinge or a faint suggestion of any constructive policy for Māoridom. That member should tell the House his policy, but he has nothing to tell us, as usual. That is disgraceful. A certain former woodwork teacher has a background in manual labouring, and that is where he wants to keep Māori. He wants us to keep on sawing bits of timber and taking bits of timber home after the class is over, to light the fires so as to keep one’s heart warm. This Government is advancing Māori more than that, but that is where the Opposition wants to keep Māori—doing home cookery and manual labouring, cutting wood, and all that sort of nonsense.

Let me tell members that the times are changing. For the third year in a row, Māori exceeded non-Māori in the total entrepreneurial activity stakes. Just over 17 percent of the Māori population has attempted to start a business in the past 3 years, as opposed to 13.3 percent of the other people in this country. Globally, the Māori entrepreneurship rate surpasses all but three countries in the global entrepreneurship monitoring report—all but three. So Māori are pretty smart. They know what they are doing, they know how they want to do it, and they know where they want to get to. At the end of the day, Māori do want to be business owners and business managers. Māori are starting to find their way. Māori unemployment—let me repeat this—is at an all-time low of 9.4 percent, as against 4.3 percent for general unemployment. That is an outstanding performance, and the fact that we have put 32,564 Māori into jobs over the last 2 years is outstanding. Their income has gone up by $152 a week on average, and that is a long way towards going forward to where they need to be. The sooner the Opposition realises that, the better.

Māori are intertwining into the fabric of this country. By their greatness, by their right as tangata whenua, and by wanting to live in contemporary times and to be as well-educated as some of our industrious leaders, they will get a hang of a way further than they are now. In Huntly, over the last 2 months, since bringing in the He Ara Tika programme, 200 Māori have gone off the unemployment benefit and into jobs. There are simple things like that. In the Western Bay of Plenty it was found that the kiwifruit industry was struggling for workers, and three buses were got together to take 120 people—a lot of them Māori—from Rotorua to Te Puke to work for 4 months of the year. That is good stuff—simple operational stuff and simple practices that I know some members will not understand. At the end of the day, this is a good Government for Māori.

I am delighted to hear that that hapless Minister is taking morning walks, because in 12 months’ time he will be walking right out of this place. He will be walking right out of the Treasury benches. If ever there is a measure of this Government’s failure, it is what is reflected by its promises—by its pledges in that now-infamous, airbrushed pledge card of 1999. What did Helen Clark say? She said Labour would cut the waiting times for elective surgery. And what did she do? What duplicitous action did she take? She created the active waiting list. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders were not only taken off the surgical waiting list but were put right back out there to wallow in the community, and not even given a chance of being on the waiting list. Then what did she say on that infamous, airbrushed pledge card? She said Labour would cut back on the health bureaucracy. Well, what has this hapless Labour Government done? It has created the most complex, cumbersome, inefficient health bureaucracy in the history of New Zealand—if not in the history of the universe. Then the Labour Party had the gall to say that it would deliver. That is what it had the gall to say back in 1999 before the election.

When I first came into Parliament in 1999, I remember a somewhat arrogant Minister of Finance, the Hon Michael Cullen, saying: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. What does the Dominion Post state this morning? A headline states: “More money, less surgery—what’s wrong?” What is wrong is this appalling Labour Government. The article in the Dominion Post goes on to state that public hospital operation numbers have dropped, despite bulging waiting lists and massive funding injections into the health system—and those figures are compiled in the Government’s own Treasury report. To make matters even worse, I saw the letter that the Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, wrote to Annette King. What does it state? “Analysis of Ministry of Health data suggests that despite significant revenue increases, volumes in the sector are static, if not declining.” Dr Cullen cannot make up his mind whether those volumes are static or declining, but I can tell members they are declining.

Let us have a look at those volumes. In 1999 we see that 160,000 operations were carried out, and in 2002-2003 the number was 157,000. Well, it is only 3,000 fewer—not quite static, but certainly declining. But let us really look more closely at the analysis of major joint replacements—and there are thousands of New Zealanders around New Zealand who are suffering intense pain, and who are in need of major joint replacements. In the time of the last National Government, 1998-99, 5,252 of those operations were carried out, but in the 2002-03 year there were 4,481. That is 682 fewer operations. Despite more money, less surgery is being carried out. We can go to cataract operations, and look at what has happened there. We can see there were 5,200 cataract operations in 1998-99, but the number has gone down to 4,481 under Labour.

“More money, less surgery—what is wrong?” This Labour Government is simply not delivering. It has created one of the most complex and over-peopled health bureaucracies in New Zealand’s history—as I say, not just in New Zealand’s history but probably in the world’s history—and what results from that is “More money, less surgery …”. This beleaguered minority socialist Government has indeed failed the people of New Zealand. It has failed the people on the waiting lists. Not only are many of them waiting on those lists, but they have given up hope. They fear, every day, that they may be moved off into the community and put on the active waiting list, where there is no hope for them. There are thousands of people wallowing on our waiting lists who have given up hope because of this Labour Government.

I can commend to the House this publication for the first quarter. It is independently written by the Otago Outlook organisation, which is a trans-regional body of district councils in Otago. It makes amazing reading, and I will table it after my comments. The key thing about this document is that every indicator of economic success not only points in the right direction but measures hugely significant quantifiable gains.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about exports?

Retail sales in Otago are up 14 percent, I can tell Mr Peters. Residential building consents are up 22 percent, the value of non-residential building consents is up 62 percent, and—most interesting—the net inflow of long-term arrivals to the region has increased by 100 percent. Possibly the most important thing of all, and members will be able to see this, is that only one arrow is pointing down. That is because it refers to the number of registered job seekers, and that is down by 24 percent. This is a story the region is very proud of, and it is worth trumpeting.

But let us not be fooled that success like that is happening in isolation. I am glad to be able to tell this House that this good-news story is being repeated the length and breadth of this country. The country’s provincial heartland and its cities are in very good shape. The reason why is the good shape of this economy. Under the prudent financial management of this Labour-Progressive Government, every economic indicator is as good as the regional ones I have just mentioned for Otago. The latest household labour force survey shows unemployment dropping to 4.3 percent—the lowest rate of unemployment in 16 years. More New Zealanders are in work, and these results confirm that the number of jobs in the economy continues to grow. There are 17,000 more people in work since last December, and 61,000 more than there were a year ago. [Interruption]

Do not let that pathetic member tell us that this Government is not delivering. Things are good. They are very good, so we should not be surprised at the tactics of the dirty and the desperate—dirty, divisive, downright dishonest—from a party over there with neither policy nor principle, and with only one angle. We have all been waiting—

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last few words from that member in talking about dirty, dishonest, and divisive tactics from the “party over there”—which could be any of about four parties in this Parliament—I am sure are totally out of order. We cannot say “dirty” or “dishonest”, and that must be a matter for withdrawal and apology.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. We are not required to know to whom it was directed. It is unparliamentary, and the member will please withdraw.

I withdraw. So what did that National Party trot out last week? National’s spokesperson on defence, Simon Power, number three in the pecking order, committed New Zealand’s troops to go wherever the United States wanted them—when and wheresoever. With wording like that, no slip could ever be so pompous and ponderous.

It was also the week in which their dithering leader had to acknowledge that he had, after all, made remarks to visiting US senators that New Zealand’s nuclear policy would “change by lunchtime, even” if National came to power. May I remind him that he was the person who challenged Mr Goff to produce the evidence. I tell that member he cannot have it both ways, but if he were more forthright in the first place he would not have difficulties like that.

It was a week that National’s spokesperson on the environment, one of their most experienced parliamentarians, Nick Smith, indicated that the position of the US and Australia on the Kyoto Protocol would be the driver of whether New Zealand actually followed through on its international commitments on global warming. Yes, we wanted the debate to be moved on, but what did we get? There were three National members in a row singing “Yankee Doodle Dandy”. I do not know who the “Yankee” is, and I do not know who the “Dandy” is, but the “Doodle” has certainly identified himself.

We all know what it is that National stands against—every single policy initiative of the current Labour Government. It is easy to be in Opposition and oppose things. But we want National members to start debating what it is they stand for. Except that we know they do not stand for very much. The Labour Government has funded 6,500 Modern Apprenticeships, guaranteeing the right of young people to get into the workforce. How many apprenticeships did National give this country? It left it to the market, and that is why National members are sitting on the Opposition benches.

This Labour-Progressive Government set up Kiwibank. That bank has met or beaten every financial and performance target since it opened for business in February 2002. What does the ditherer want to do? He wants to sell it off, of course. He is unable to unhitch his party from that sad privatisation bandwagon that got the party unelected in 1999. National will do anything to advance the cause of the elite, self-appointed few who back it. This Labour Government is committed to keeping New Zealand nuclear-free—end of story. What does the “uncomfortable” one say? He may or may not be thinking about the possibility, or impossibility, of letting nuclear-propelled, or perhaps not nuclear-armed, ships, sometime, definitely, possibly, enter.

In case people are the slightest bit interested—and I am sure they are not—that speech was made by the Minister of Fisheries, who told the Otago Daily Times just recently that his only qualification for the job of Minister of Fisheries is that he was born under the star sign of Pisces and that he enjoys fish and chips. Well, “ain’t that the truth”, brothers and sisters!

I suspect that every Opposition MP would give his or her eye teeth at the moment to listen in on a Labour Party caucus that is tearing itself to pieces. It is obvious that gone is the unity that used to be shown, and gone is the confidence of that party. I must say that one thing still remains: the arrogance. Watching the Government’s show of unity is like watching an Irish river dance performed in bare feet. The Government is having no impact, is painful to watch, and is a painful performer, and I can guarantee that the public of this country will never require an encore. The Government’s performance is abysmal. It backs down at every turn; as soon as the pressure is turned up, it caves in.

The public has had it with this Government, and no lolly scramble in the forthcoming Budget will save it. That is very clear. This Government, and its members, is on the last train to Clarksville. How did the old song go? Members will remember that song; I think it was by The Monkees. “Take the last train to Clarksville, and I’ll meet you at the station.” Let me say that rural voters will not meet that lot at the station, or at the polling booth. They will remember the “fart tax”, the holiday legislation, the Kyoto Protocol, the dog tax, the fuel tax, and the sherry tax—they will remember every one of those broken Labour promises.

What about the hard-working families of this country, like the Gilbert-McLachlan family that featured in the Sunday Star-Times just recently? That family has an income of $55,000, and is being taxed into poverty by this Government. They will not vote for another trip to Clarksville—that is perfectly clear.

I can assure members that the people earning $60,000—a whole $5,000 more; the rich people of this country—will not be buying a return ticket to Clarksville, either! People earning $55,000 cannot make ends meet under this Government, but the Government considers people earning $60,000 to be rich. What arrant nonsense!

What about Māori? I was on the steps of Parliament recently, and I seem to remember that something like 15,000 Māori turned up on the hīkoi. They bought a ticket to ride—I thought a hīkoi was something one walked on—on the train to Clarksville. They arrived in Wellington and what did they see? They tried desperately to find the Prime Minister, but there was not even a reflection of her—not a skerrick, nothing. Where was she? Where was the Prime Minister of this country when 15,000 of the people who surely voted for her at the last election came down to talk to her? Nowhere. She was gone; she was no more. So I imagine that Māori will be off to meet Tariana Turia at her station.

Who will vote for this Government at the next election? There is always the cloth cap brigade—they are always good for a few votes. There will be those who retire at the age of 18, and, of course, the beneficiaries who hop on board the Government’s gravy train, hoping that it will never end. Well, let me tell them that it will end. They will continue to vote for this Government, and the Government will buy their votes on the 27th of this month. There is nothing surer than that. But the trip is coming to an end. The Government’s gravy train will run out of steam—and why? I ask this question. It will run out of steam because there will be nobody left to stoke the boilers.

Will the real Don Brash please stand up, wherever he is? That leader and those National Party members change their minds and their policies nearly as often as this Government introduces great initiatives and policies for New Zealanders. Dr Brash and the National Party members put up ideas that they think are winners; then, if they get bad press, simply change their mind.

Let us look at some examples. Who wants to scrap this country’s proud nuclear-free status, a policy near and dear to the vast majority of New Zealanders’ hearts? When questioned, Dr Brash says that he has a personal view, but, at this point, he has not expressed it.

Regarding defence policy, poor Simon Power—where is he today?—brimming with youthful exuberance and enthusiasm, declared with pride his party’s policy of support for its close allies whenever called upon. When he received some bad press, he received a clip from his leader. Then we found that almost identical statements were put out by the National Party in media releases.

Dr Brash says that he is the original peacenik. He belonged to the Foundation for Peace Studies Aotearoa/New Zealand for some time. Although he stated that America did not handle Iraq as well as it might have done, when pushed he said that he would have gone to war with Iraq, but that he does not know why. Peacenik? Yeah, right!

Regarding superannuation policy, after National stated publicly that we need to raise the age of eligibility—whoops! There was another change. No Government of which Don Brash is part will touch the age of eligibility. Regarding tax policy, Dr Brash first stated that tax reductions were for the rich. He consistently made many statements about that. Now he claims that his top priority is National’s core constituency—low and middle income families in New Zealand. Yeah, right!

His policy on asset sales? After declaring a preference for selling off State assets, he is reneging on that one, too. That is another as-yet undecided policy. We know that Dr Brash is opposed to workers having 4-weeks’ holiday, and that he would dump the policy were he ever in Government. That was that week; this is this week. Put a bit of heat on and I am sure that Dr Brash and the National Party members will change their mind on that one, too.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: What about next week?

Exactly—what about next week? Dr Brash questions the need for a Ministry of Women’s Affairs, but should there be a bit of criticism from women, amnesia will probably kick in again.

That leader and that party do not have a clue as to what leadership is about. Leadership is not about chasing votes and trying to be all things to all people. It is not about having a personal view, and wanting to keep that secret, for now. It is not about changing one’s mind to fit the occasion. It is not about having selective memory, temporary amnesia, or senior moments—call it what you will. It is not about making claims that are simply not correct. Come clean! Spit it out! What are National’s policies? Give us one. They are about pillaging and plundering. They are about cutting public spending; tax cuts for the rich; slashing workers’ rights and conditions; selling off our assets; pushing privatisation in both health and education; not supporting women’s policies—and I can see those members nodding their heads eagerly—attacking those on benefits; and dividing our nation. Who wants that? If we want to see leadership, we have to look to this party and to this Government.

I wish to further expand on this Government’s fiscal incompetence, whereby a lack of forecasting has meant that the Government has frozen equipment funding for the sick, the aged, and the disabled. But oh, no, it does not care. Those people are most vulnerable in society—what does the Government think about that? It does not care. It is the Government’s fiscal incompetence that has done that, and what has it resulted in? It has resulted in a loss of dignity, and in frustration and hardship on families already struggling to care for children, spouses, and other family members.

The Minister of Health should ask those families, as I have done, about the effects that a virtual shut-down of essential services is having on their lives. She may sit there and be very comfortable, but a lot of people are not. They need essential equipment to have even some degree of quality of life—something that the Minister quite clearly takes for granted. I can tell the Minister that those families are sick of having to fight every step of the way for the essential things they need for a reasonable quality of life. To quote one mother, it seems like every way they go, there is some hurdle or brick wall that they come up against. The Minister might do well to listen to that.

They would like to say to the Minister of Health and the Minister for Disability Issues that they would like them both to spend a day in their shoes, looking after their children, spouses, or family members. For example, a 7-year-old girl in my electorate who suffers from progressive lung disease, hip disease, and a multitude of other disabilities, will face the winter at risk of severe chest infections. She needs a ventilation system and a special bed, which would mean that she would have some degree of health and be able to attend school on a much more regular basis. That is the child’s wish, the parents’ goal, the disability strategy’s vision, but the Minister’s failure.

In another case, some basic bathroom alterations could significantly ease the stress on a 58-year-old woman whose husband, a diabetic, chose to have his leg amputated so that he could get his life back. But that will not happen under the current funding policies, where people are just cut off at the knees.

There are plenty of stories from all around the country. Those people do not want to complain, and given the problems they face every day, they do not have the strength to do that. The Minister is supposed to have someone there to represent their concerns and issues, and address their needs, but that is not happening. They have had enough. They are sick of having to fight for a quality of life that this Government pretends they deserve.

The Minister should come clean on the Government’s real policy for the disabled. Is the message “out of sight, out of mind” until it suits the Budget? That is exactly what those people are feeling. Already, one service provider has had to lay off staff, and qualified staff are hard to come by and may not come back. I have asked the Minister what she will be doing to address the growing backlog in equipment. She says that the Ministry of Health is in the process of establishing how it will allocate its disability support. She goes on to say that it will include “consideration”, and that it will take account of unmet demand. I am quoting the Minister’s response to my question.

So far we have “establishing”, “consideration”, and “take account”. There is absolutely no indication of any extra funding for the 2004-05 Budget to meet the growing backlog. There is absolutely no comfort for people in the disability sector who are getting nothing from this Government and who need that equipment for some degree of quality of life.

The Minister does not care, because she is not meeting that demand. She is not indicating that she will even address the issue. She has made no indication of that in the answer to my question and, therefore, no indication to people in the disability sector. What assurances do they have, as they struggle to have a reasonable quality of life? Absolutely none! It is about time that that was addressed. I urge the Government to take urgent action and address the issue, so that people in the disability sector have some degree of quality of life and some assurances as they go into the new financial year, because right now they are getting nothing.

The previous speaker’s contribution is perhaps best encapsulated by a comment made by the great Winston Churchill in the House of Commons—an empty cab arrived outside Parliament and out jumped Sandra Goudie.

We have had to witness, over the last 7 months, one of the greatest acts of purgatory ever inflicted upon the people of New Zealand. This is the 7-months anniversary of the appointment of one Dr Donald Brash as the Leader of the Opposition. We all know about purgatory, but this is disgraceful. During the last 7 months we have heard nothing from the former Reserve Bank Governor, who has a doctorate in economics, about the economy, the exchange rate, business, the exchange, or anything at all from that paragon of the economy.

What we have heard the Leader of the Opposition banging on about is Māori-related matters. He has to be a specialist in that regard. He understands and knows, quite carefully and clearly, why he can get out to the communities and tell them we should dislike one another. For 7 long months, speech in and speech out, he has poured petrol on racial fires in this country. We do not need that type of leadership. It is about time that Kiwis started to ask the real questions of the Leader of the Opposition. What are the solutions to the problems? By all means, he should mention them and make acknowledgment of them, but it is time for solutions, because out there in the heartland they are starting to ask the real questions. What is this bloke up to? Where is he coming from? What is his real agenda? Is it taking a scalpel to the nation politic—to the body of this great country? Yes, it is.

Why is it that wonderful Kiwis—I do not want to overstate and mislead Parliament, so I will just say “a Kiwi like Gerry Brownlee”—like the members opposite do not bring their leader to heel on that particular issue? They know that their constituencies—and we know, because we hear it—have had a gutsful of that banging on about Māori-related matters. It is one thing to ask for scrutiny, accountability, and a robust approach. It is another thing when it tips. Here is how it tips. The day a Māori can get a degree from one of our august tertiary institutions, it is a poor degree and it is an incompetent person. Why? Because that person is Māori. That is when it tips. That is when it becomes absolutely unfair. Kiwis out in the heartland understand what Mr Brash is banging on about.

What else did he say? He questioned community bridging courses, which have shifted tens of thousands not just of Māori but of young Kiwi, Pākehā kids who did not get well serviced by mainstream education. Those bridging courses have got them into tertiary education, and we say we should rejoice in that. We say we must send messages out to our young people in this country—black, white, brindle, or whatever their creed is—that they are good, that they have potential and capacity, and that we live in a progressive and a positive nation. What we have got from the Leader of the Opposition and the National Party, day in and day out for 7 months, is why we should dislike one another. It has all been about hate, hunger, and hurt, and we have to sort that out. I shall use a couple of examples. Dr Donald Brash got his PhD from the Australian National University. Just down the road is the Canberra Institute of Technology. One can graduate from that institute with a recreation certificate. I strongly recommend that to Gerry Brownlee.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: A bridging programme.

Down the road from that august university one can take a course on creative writing. Dr Wayne Mapp has taken several courses on that and we know they are far from the truth. There is also a fitness programme. That would be another one for Gerry Brownlee—and a programme on the storage, handling, and use of explosives.

Once again, it does not matter whether bridging courses are available in New Zealand or Australia. They are part and parcel of a wonderfully robust system of education. Whilst we must ask for quality and accountability, we must not say to Māori children that the system is no good, that they are no good, or that the quality of education they are undertaking in tertiary institutions up and down this country is not good. That is not on. It is an outrage and a blight on the leadership of the National Party.

It is about time that we asked the National Party what its real agenda is and what its smokescreen based on racial policy is all about. Is it about selling assets or putting the surcharge back on superannuitants?

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.