General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This Government has shown consistently its commitment to health since it came to office. The health sector desperately needed that commitment, because throughout the 1990s it suffered neglect, neglect of workforce planning, and, most of all, underfunding. It needed stability, long-term planning, and policy. I ask members to compare that to the National Party and the ACT party approach. Their approach is knocking and nagging. They are the parties of knockers and naggers. That is all we hear from them, day in and day out. In fact, their policy is one of “it will be gone by midday”. That is their policy. It does not matter what it is, it will be gone by lunchtime: nuclear ships—gone by lunchtime; primary health organisations—gone by lunchtime; Pharmac—gone by lunchtime. That is the policy of the knockers and the naggers. I ask members to compare that to this Government.

This Government has turned round those problems of the 1990s, and we are now spending over $9 billion on health. That is a 50 percent increase in funding since we became the Government, and there will be another big boost in the next financial year that will take it to over $10 billion. This Government has shown it is committed to ensuring that the people of New Zealand have a good health service. Today I was proud to be able to announce the orthopaedic project, which will see the number of knee and hip-replacement operations being done in New Zealand double over the next few years.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Why wasn’t it done years ago?

That is a commitment that should have been made years ago. I agree with Dr Hutchison—one of those doctors who does not make one well but makes one sick. Dr Hutchison asked why it was not done years ago. Well, this Government has worked with the Orthopaedic Association, something the National Party was never able to do. We worked through a policy and an implementation of that policy, so that today the association has come out in support of the Government and said that what we are doing is the right thing—not just for today but for the future. We are future-proofing it, because we know that New Zealanders are living longer and longer, and we welcome that. We compare that with Dr Brash, who could not care less if some New Zealanders die earlier than others. He said that if we want to improve the health of the whole population, it must be race-based policy. We say that all New Zealanders should have the right to good health, and they should have the right to access to major hip and knee-replacement operations—and they will get them from this Government.

We have committed a lot of money to primary health-care in order to ensure that it is affordable primary health-care. I know there are many members of this Parliament who would back up that policy. But what did the National Party say? It said primary health organisations would be gone by lunchtime—they would be all over. National is not committed to primary health-care. It will just give some money to doctors. Well, if National Party members know anything about primary health-care, they will know that it is not about just doctors. It is about doctors, nurses, pharmacists, specialists, podiatrists, and many, many other health professionals. This party has committed itself to reducing the cost of primary health-care and the barriers to accessing it. I know that that is welcomed by New Zealand First, which, in its own way, made an attempt to reduce the cost for under-6-year-olds. That would not have happened had it not been for New Zealand First, and we know that if we do not remain the Government it will not continue in the future. It will be scrapped by a National-led Government. If New Zealanders want affordable primary health-care, then they know where they ought to look in terms of support.

There are parties in this Parliament whose commitment to health is so little that they do not even make it one of their priorities. If I read what Dr Brash has said, I can see that health is not one of National’s big priorities. Its big priorities do not include health—tax cuts maybe, but not the health of New Zealanders. National thinks so little of health that its spokesperson on health does not even sit on the front bench any more. The National spokesperson on health used to sit where Nick Smith sits, but that spokesperson has been taken off the front bench and put on the second bench. Health is not important enough, but it is to New Zealanders. They know that this Government is helping to improve the health of New Zealanders. This Government will look at those things that lead to poor health, and it will put in the investment of money to ensure that improvement happens. I am very proud with what we have been able to achieve in a very short time.

When New Zealand First fought an election campaign we said we would deal with three things if we were in Government. We are in the Opposition, but we have carried on with that pledge to deal with those three things. The first was the treaty gravy train, the second was immigration—and the Government has finally admitted that we are not xenophobes or racists but that we are right, and it is moving to correct those gaps—and the third was law and order. However, I have to say that it is very hard to deal with law and order in this country when we have a Government that continues to shoot itself in the foot and a Leader of the Opposition who is never here to debate the issues. Where is the great debater to help me on a day like this when I need him here? But I probably do not need his help, because I am quite capable of dealing with this Government and that Minister.

Members should look at the issue of law and order and what an absolute shambles it is. The Department of Corrections is now reputed as being a department of corruptions. Why do people say that? Well, they look, firstly, at the Minister of Corrections—a Minister who began with so much promise but has delivered absolutely nothing; a Minister who was probably set up by his Prime Minister, because he represents “Swainy and the boys”, and we know we do not like that. I have provided that Minister with truckloads of evidence on what is going on in his department, and he has done nothing. Let us look at his track record, and at home detention, for example.

More than a year ago, New Zealand First pointed out that home detention was in chaos, but people would not listen. What do we see today on our front pages? We see Mr Les Williamson—a man who was stabbed in the head, back, arms, and hands—sitting with his family, totally aghast that the man who attempted to kill him is on home detention. That man received 4 years’ jail, and he is out on home detention in about 4 months. How does that happen? That happens because we have a Government that is weak on law and order, a Minister of Corrections who is weak on law and order, and a bunch of people sitting on the Parole Board who—well, I do not know what they do, other than let dangerous criminals back into the community. Members should look at the issue of deferred sentencing, where this Government has allowed people who have been convicted and sent to jail to go home on holiday and then run away. Then we do not know where they are, and then we say: “Oh my gosh, they committed another crime.”, and we still cannot catch them. Those problems have still not been dealt with.

Parole is another example, and I shall mention a couple of names. First, I mention Mr Jarden, who was convicted of molesting and assaulting little girls. He was sent out on parole, and within weeks he did the very same thing again. This is the Government that said it was going to clamp down. It was going to get hard on law and order. It passed what it thinks is the wonderful Sentencing Act and the wonderful Parole Act—and what do we see? Mr Jarden is out on the street. What of Mr Isherwood? He was convicted of abducting, drugging, and raping a girl and putting her into prostitution. He was let out on parole, and in 12 days, under the control of this Minister of Corrections, Mr Isherwood drugged and raped another young girl. Is that what this Government means about being tough on law and order? It is certainly not what New Zealand First stands for, and, by hokey, we mean to hold this Government accountable one way or the other.

Let us look at the Auckland Central Remand Prison. This Government’s solution to its problems in the Department of Corrections is to close down the one shining light—the one prison that does not have inmates bonking prison officers, or prison officers getting pregnant to inmates. This Government wants to shut down that prison and hand it over to the management that has turned a blind eye to that sordid problem for years. The Minister said there were three, then he said there were five, and then he admitted there were some 17, and now we know that there are 21 such relationships. I have received information from a prison officer that in that prison alone there are 19 such inappropriate prison inmate/officer relationships, male and female. I have resisted saying this, but people have asked me: “What are they running in there? Comfort women for the prisoners?”. Well, that is a horrible thing to say when there are some damn fine prison officers out there doing a good job, but let us not forget that it was this Government that proposed the idea of providing conjugal rights to inmates. Maybe that is how it has been done.

It has been said that some doctors make people well, and others make people sick. As Associate Minister of Health I am proud to work alongside Annette King, with her outstanding record. Our job is to point out to the country that the National Party is led by someone who would make this country sick. Dr Brash was proud to say that he has had private health insurance for a long time, that he is OK, and that he does not need to use the public health system. We have to look at what that man may possibly do to lead this country down a path of sickness. In the past National has not shown any ability to lead the public health system in this country to a point where it can deliver on the health needs of New Zealanders.

I shall quote a philosophical statement from Mr Brash: “Prices in a competitive market are usually a more reliable indicator of where resources should be allocated than political or bureaucratic edict. The problem in the area of health care can be solved through the price mechanism.” He then goes on to be a little uncertain about his knowledge: “I’m certainly not going to step into a political maelstrom, which is the health-care debate, at least in part because I simply do not know what to suggest or recommend.” Dr Brash would lead this country into sickness. He does not have a clue about what is needed in the health system of this country. The National Party has a record of attempting to privatise some services in the health system. Dr Lynda Scott is on record as saying that she would get rid of the primary health organisations, and Don Brash has also said that he would get rid of them. Those members would sell Pharmac and put all the profits into the hands of the international pharmaceutical companies.

It is very, very important that every New Zealander knows where the health system is heading. We have put more money into health than has ever been put into it in the history of this country. We have developed primary health organisations and bolstered the district health boards. We have increased the number of surgical services that are conducted in this country. Dr Brash would put it all back into the hands of the competitive market, because he says price signals should determine where health services are needed. Dr Don Brash has not worked out that very few people in this country choose when or where they need to access the health services. Therefore, the idea of the market as an indicator is an absolutely bunkum theory. People never know when or where they may need to access the health services. A competitive market situation would destroy this country.

I shall just point out very briefly some of the good things we have done in rural health, which supports the backbone of this country. That is something that we as a Government have appreciated from the time of coming into power in 1999. The rural sector turned its back on the National Party. The rural sector knows that the reintroduction of a competitive market system for health by National would see that party again turn its back on people in the rural areas of this country. We have done numerous things to help and support people in rural New Zealand. We have set up reasonable rostering systems, with money being directly injected to help doctors and nurses in rural areas to decrease the pressure they are under. We know that those people have been leaving because the work pressure is intense, so we have poured money into that. We put $535 million into the primary health-care strategy. That goes directly to people at the front line, so that we can get to them before their problems become chronic and we have to spend thousands of dollars on them every day they are in hospital. We have put more doctors into training—20 more places. That number had not been increased for 20 years. During the 9 years of the previous National Government, did it put more doctors into training? No, it did not. It did not put one extra doctor into training to address the rising population in this country. We have done that. We have put money directly into the rural general practitioner network, to recruit general practitioners for rural New Zealand.

This afternoon I want to expose the deliberate dishonesty of this Government on the single most contentious issue of this parliamentary term. Everybody acknowledges that the issue of the foreshore and seabed is the issue this Parliament has been focused on. The Minister for Land Information does not have a huge portfolio. This is not a job that appears in the newspaper every single day. But on the single issue of relevance to the public of New Zealand, he got it so awfully wrong.

Let us go through the paper trail. On 18 July last year the Minister specifically sought a report from his officials on how much of the foreshore and seabed was privately owned. The officials came back with only a one-page report, explicitly stating that the quantum was very small.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: When did they say that?

They said that on 18 July. However, they said that it was a preliminary view. One week later they came back with a further report confirming that view, and went further by stating that the amount of privately owned seabed and foreshore was very small. That was on 25 July. We then had from the Minister a systematic spin job—orchestrated, no doubt, by the ninth floor of the Beehive—to deliberately confuse the public. We had a headline in the newspaper stating that one-third of the foreshore was off limits. Mr Tamihere, the “Minister of Misinformation”, said that one-third of the foreshore was privately owned. He said that in the New Zealand Herald, on the Holmes show, and up and down New Zealand.

I talked to surveyors. They said that that could not possibly be true. I went to the Parliamentary Library and asked for information. The paper trail showed that the Parliamentary Library went to Land Information New Zealand, sought advice from the Minister, and decided not to provide it. The Minister then came to the House—not once, not twice, but three times—and asserted that he was correct.

He went even further. I produced a 1993 report from the Department of Conservation stating that less than 1 percent of the foreshore and seabed was privately owned. The Minister said that was garbage, yet we know now he had information in his hands at that very time, and knew all those things were incorrect.

He went even further. Today in the House he said that it was not a question on notice. It was! We can check the record. He had 3 hours to check and read the one-page report, which he had specifically received from Land Information New Zealand, to find out that he had been misleading this Parliament.

There is a longstanding principle that if one misleads the House, one comes to the House to apologise and correct the record. It is extremely serious that even today—9 months later—the only person who will admit that the Minister was wrong is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that he made a mistake. Why does the Minister for Land Information not have the courage to come—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I withdraw and apologise. Why does he not come to the House to correct the record? The Prime Minister said that it was an innocent mistake. Well, well, well! The record shows something very different.

I want to know why the Government has two different standards for Lianne Dalziel and John Tamihere. We know! This is a weak Prime Minister who is so much at risk with her Māori constituency that she will allow any low standard of ministerial accountability. There is no standard any more; otherwise, if John Tamihere were a man of honour, he would resign his portfolio. It is absolutely clear—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was standing outside listening to that speech. It is absolutely out of order to suggest that a member lacks honour. That member just did that, and you did not stop him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already pulled up the member for using the words “lack of courage”. I think that the Minister has a good point. Honour can actually refer to courage, and often it does in different instances. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw. Is it not interesting that Lianne Dalziel—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You required the member to withdraw and apologise. He did not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I was under the impression that the member had withdrawn and apologised.

I am happy to withdraw and apologise. Trevor Mallard is so sensitive about covering up for mates like John Tamihere, who gave three lots of conflicting answers. Lianne Dalziel did the honourable thing. Why is John Tamihere not following?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: He’s a Māori.

My colleague Gerry Brownlee has put his finger on the button. There are two different standards in this Government. John Tamihere should go. [Interruption]

Members will recall that the first meeting of this Parliament in 1854 was recorded as being “all chaos”. Today we have another opportunity to distance ourselves from that dim, dark beginning, and we will have order.

I promise not to bring chaos to this House. It appears that there is more than one doctor on the Opposition benches who has the potential to make this country sick, and I have just listened to one. My colleague the Hon John Tamihere is an honourable person. The only paper trail that really matters, in terms of the foreshore and seabed, is the legislation currently on the table. The member who has just spoken should take up the challenge, and identify the disadvantages and advantages for all New Zealanders.

I want to congratulate my Government colleagues on the way they have spoken about health in this country, in terms of this Government’s commitment to improving the health care of all New Zealanders. In particular, I want to refer to primary health organisations. This Government is committed to making primary health-care more affordable and accessible. Early intervention in primary care means improved health outcomes for all New Zealanders. Primary health organisations are the key vehicles for delivering primary health-care and improving the health of all New Zealanders. The Government is making a difference.

The Government is making health care more accessible and affordable. More than 3 million New Zealanders are now enrolled in 68 primary health organisations throughout the country, and more than 1 million have access to low-cost primary care through their primary health organisations. Last October all 16 and 17-year-olds involved in primary health organisations were added to the low-cost scheme, and from July of this year all those aged 65 and over who are enrolled in primary health organisations will have access to low-cost care. That is a major commitment from this Government, and the results are showing.

However, there is a reality around primary health, particularly in the area of Māori life expectancy. As we know, Māori life expectancy for both males and females is lower than for non-Māori. There is a higher suicide rate. The number of probable asthmatics is higher than that for non-Māori. The occurrence of overweight and obesity in both males and females is higher than among non-Māori. Fewer Māori have medical insurance cover, and they have a greater chance of developing diabetes.

But progress is being made. Primary health organisations are already making health care more accessible and affordable for Māori and Pacific Island peoples. In this way, health-care problems can be tackled early. The majority of Māori—over 333,000, which is more than 50 percent—are enrolled in primary health organisations. This Government launched the He Korowai Oranga health strategy, and developed a permanent, annual Māori provider development fund of $10 million to expand services for Māori, by Māori, within the appropriate workforce.

Of course, Dr Brash would ask why we need Māori doctors. This Government began funding smoking cessation initiatives for Māori; before 1999 the Ministry of Health did not fund programmes to assist New Zealanders to stop smoking. The Māori health strategy, He Korowai Oranga, and the Māori health action plan, Whakatātaka, provide long-term frameworks for improvements in the delivery of health services to Māori. The frameworks push for the involvement of Māori at all levels of the sector in decision making for the development of specifically focused Māori health provider programmes that can focus on health care in a culturally sensitive way. As members will be aware, that is a big issue for many Māori throughout the country.

The Government’s policies are working. Statistics show the first significant improvement in Māori life expectancy. They show that targeted health services are making a real difference, confirming what we all knew: that programmes for Māori, by Māori, together with a commitment from the Government, are working. According to statistics, non-Māori now live 8.5 years longer than Māori, which is a major improvement compared with the difference of 9.1 years recorded between 1995 and 1997.

A number of well-known health spokespeople around the country have congratulated the Government on its initiatives. Mr Peter Glensor, chair of the Hutt Valley District Health Board, said that the Government’s policy vindicates policies that address Māori health inequalities. The Waipareira Trust said that the statistics are the result of strong targeting of Māori health needs, often by Māori themselves. Finally, the Public Health Association suggested that targeted health-care is beginning to turn the tide.

All these acknowledgments fly in the face of what the leader of the National Party has said about race-based funding. Mr Brash believes that all the Government’s policies are race based. They are not. They are needs based.

Tomorrow, the Government has an opportunity to do something meaningful for the people of New Zealand. There are many aspects to the Budget that need attention, but New Zealand First wants to focus on just one: the scandalous and insidious decline in law and order in this country. We have heard from my colleague Ron Mark this afternoon about the dreadful state of our prisons today under this minority Labour Government. New Zealand First makes this promise to the House and to the country: if this minority Government—and it is a minority Government, which needs Opposition support from time to time, and I am looking across at United Future—uses the Budget tomorrow to double the police force, New Zealand First will support that part of the Budget. If the Government proposes real measures to address the war on drugs and gangs, not just limp-wristed token gestures, we will vote for them. When the Government is serious about real Parole Board reform, it should come to talk to New Zealand First. We will do something about it. We said we would do something about it at the last election, and I can assure the minority Labour Government that “Yes, we can.” If the Government wants to ensure the Land Transport Safety Authority and the police redefine their roles to focus the work of the police on solving crime, then New Zealand First’s door is always open. And they can laugh—

💬 Jill Pettis: He doesn’t get out much.

What is that member trying to yell out across the House? I could not hear a word. Those members are making so much noise.

R Doug Woolerton: She’s asking you for a date.

She would be lucky! New Zealand First promised to fix the lawless state of our society, at the last election. We were serious then and we are serious now. We have seen immigration numbers come down dramatically, as we promised. We have attended to Treaty of Waitangi issues, and we even have the National Party on board. I was hoping that the “great debater” would support us on this issue today, but—

R Doug Woolerton: Where is he?

Exactly—where? Not one National Party person is willing to speak out about the state of lawlessness in our society today. We are determined to do something about it. The security and welfare of our citizens depend on it.

Policing, sadly, has become little more than a revenue-raising exercise. What happens today? People who are driving down the road and getting up in speed to around 110 to 111 kilometres an hour are being stopped by the police, and, bang, they get a fine of about $100. In the meantime, their house could be getting burgled, their grandmother could be being murdered, and their brothers and sisters could be getting beaten up. There are all sorts of problems—children in hospital are getting assaulted—and what do the police do? They give out tickets on the State highway. That is policing today.

That is not what the police and the courts themselves want. They want to be solving crime. They want the resources to address the P epidemic and the growing drug culture. They want to take the fight to the gangs. They want to tackle youth offending. Some police have been distracted by various allegations, but most are committed. They are all committed to their reasons for joining the police. We know that the public wants tougher law and order in this country, because over 90 percent of people said so in the 1999 referendum on tougher penalties for violent crime. What has this Government done? In the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) it made sexual misconduct even more available to young New Zealanders. What an appalling state of affairs! That is the sort of thing that this minority Labour Government is focusing on.

The police and the public want action. What is stopping them from taking it? It is only this minority Labour Government that is stopping them, because if it were willing to work in concert with New Zealand First on this issue, we would be making sure that the nation’s citizens could feel safe in their homes and could walk the streets and the foreshore safely. Today walking the streets is a risky activity, and more are likely to be fined for traffic offences than for other matters.

The nation is very, very concerned about law and order. Our newspapers and our television screens are raging with tales of doom because of the lawlessness in our society. [Interruption] With rabble like that across the floor of the House in the person of the Labour member of Parliament for Whanganui, it is hardly surprising that there are domestic violence cases, and suchlike. That is no example to set for the young people of our society. Here in Parliament we should be setting an example of debating issues properly, not screaming across the House like a fishwife or something like that. We in New Zealand First intend to fix the law and order issue. We will support a doubling of the police force tomorrow—and any time.

I am delighted to speak in this debate today. At least New Zealand First has a policy. I say: “Bring it on, New Zealand First. You’ve got a policy that says you will double the number of police.” That says a lot more than National is saying about its policy on health. National’s policy is all over the show. Today this Labour-led Government is putting its money where its mouth is. We are the best Government for health. We have had a signature announcement today that shows our commitment to health. We have shown a doubling of resources and funding going into orthopaedic surgery, and no one in this House can carp at that—even that doctor sitting opposite. We are proud of our announcement. In fact, “hip op” today for the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Minister of Health!

In my community of Rotorua, we are to nearly double hip and knee surgery. That is a huge commitment. All over the country those surgical procedures will be increasing until 2009, and that is big news for the older people of our country. The district health boards, with their community representatives, will decide where those extra elective operations will be done. We are not even opposed to tenders coming in from private hospitals, although the Opposition seems to state constantly that we are opposed to that philosophical approach. We have put capital funds into developing facilities for this surgery, and we have even announced some positions for specialist nurses so that they can develop their skills in orthopaedic surgery. Today is a wonderful day for the older people around the country. It is wonderful, also, for us to have a close look at the policies we are seeing emerge from National—if it gets its way.

I want to talk about one of our other keystone Crown entities that we think is a bit of a flagship. It is Pharmac. In our eyes, it does a damn good job. It has actually saved millions of dollars in the health budget of this country—millions of dollars that we have invested into health services. Why on earth would Dr Hutchison go out there and say that a free-trade agreement with America is more important to National than Pharmac, that Pharmac will be reviewed, and that Pharmac will go? What an appalling, expedient remark, supported by the Leader of the Opposition—it will be gone; gone by lunchtime! That is quite clear. In fact, that is about the only clear thing we are seeing other than that public health organisations will be scrapped, and that is National’s health policy. It is tragic, absolutely tragic.

Will Dr Brash over there make political decisions for his mates as to who will get access to subsidised drugs? Pharmac will be gone. It will probably be those old mates in National who can pay their support to the party, who will get their drugs. Brash will slash, and he will be supported by his doctor mates—Dr Hutchison and Dr Scott.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member please withdraw.

I withdraw.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For saying exactly the same thing I was asked to leave the House this afternoon. I would suggest that, in the interests of consistency, the member on her feet should be asked to leave the House. It would also be a kind mercy; the rest of us will not have to listen to her.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. The member will continue her speech.

We are also very aware that “Dr Slash” over there—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Many times in this House during general debates you have pointed to the fact that members must be referred to by their correct titles, and I would ask you to enforce that particular rule on this member.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: For once I am going to agree with the member. I think the “Slashing Dr Hutchison” would be a better approach.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no, that just compounds the situation and actually leads to disorder. The word is out of context. Can I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise, but I must say that it makes one feel rather uncomfortable; the policy to slash Pharmac is something we all should be very afraid of. Pharmaceutical companies, international companies, are exerting huge pressure on other countries not to control their pharmaceutical costs. Do we want to be at their mercy, especially for the cost of a free-trade agreement? No, this is, indeed, a very mean and “brash” prescription. Pharmac has been supported in the past, and I congratulate those luminaries in the Opposition who did understand about pharmaceutical subsidies and prioritisation. Wyatt Creech, Bill English, Jenny Shipley, and Simon Upton all understood about Pharmac, the need to have a system of prioritisation, and the need to put that system in the hands of skilled clinicians and definitely not politicians and bureaucrats. I would not want to see Pharmac go. Dr Brash does admit to not knowing much about health. He does understand that patients are economic units of value and not people, but this party over here certainly puts patients before profits.

One knows that the Government is in severe trouble when its members come down to the debating chamber for the general debate, make a blanket allegation that the National Party has no policy, then spend their entire debate attacking National Party policy. That is when one knows they are in trouble. So desperate are they to make some impact on the public that the Minister of Education—known as the Labour Party bovver boy—is hardly able to recover from his jet lag after his extensive overseas junket before he is wheeled into the House to take point of order after point of order, which, of course, are all totally pointless.

Well over 12 months ago, Bill English, Nick Smith, and I called a press conference outside the gates of the Islington substation in Christchurch. We did that for the purpose of highlighting the very serious issue of electricity supply constraints in the South Island, particularly in the northern part of the South Island from Ashburton upward. When we were able to point out to the Government that this problem existed—and we were well supported by Transpower’s own information and by information from the Centre for Advanced Engineering and other independent observers of the electricity industry—all that Pete Hodgson could say was: “You’re wrong, and you’re scaremongering.” Well, here we are, about 12 months later, with a headline in the Christchurch Press entitled “Peak-time cuts likely”. Well, what the headline should state is “Pete’s blind cuts likely”, because Mr Hodgson has failed in his duty to ensure there will be adequate electricity supplies to the top half of the South Island. [Interruption] Mr Cosgrove, the member for Waimakariri, might sit over there saying that there is no problem, but let me tell members that when it comes to the ballot box Mr Cosgrove will have many, many problems, because his area is one of those that will go black later this winter if we have some particularly cold snaps.

I cannot understand why the Government has sat on its hands for so very long. Today I went through the Hansard of about the same time last year and was interested to reacquaint myself with some of the pathetic reasons the Government came up with for abandoning the proposal to build a hydro scheme at Dobson on the West Coast. Had that scheme gone ahead, the huge investment in heavy cabling that is now needed to ensure security of supply in the upper South Island would not be necessary. But the Government said, no, it thought that a patch of gorse, a pile of mud, and a few old rocks here and there were far more important than keeping New Zealanders warm in their homes, and keeping New Zealanders’ industries afloat so there were jobs for them.

What we have seen today, with the announcements from Transpower, is the total folly of that sort of policy. Even if Transpower were able to get the cable together, it would take the company years to do it. The reason is that this Government has not been able to get a change to the Resource Management Act that would make it possible for Transpower to work with any degree of speed at all. I think it is important that Mr Hodgson comes down to the House, apologises for having his head in the sand so very far, recognises that his electricity commission is a joke and a failure, and tells the people of New Zealand what he is going to do to guarantee supply of electricity. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

One would think that the concept of a blackout is something that would have been considered outrageous 40 years ago, let alone now in the year 2004. But perhaps it is the hallmark of a Labour Government that it is determined to drag New Zealand back to a time when people suffered a heck of a lot more than simply the degradation of not being able to warm themselves by an electric heater. It is a Government truly focused backwards. Never could that be more evident than by the fact that it is proclaiming this week’s Budget to be a great effort, yet not one of its members has spoken to it in today’s debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member, Mike Ward.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to say right upfront that I think I have had an incredibly rough spin from the Chair today. You sat through a tirade of interjection during that speech and never once uttered the word “Order”. Presumably, that is because there is a certain iconic Minister on the other side who seems unable to be affected by anything the Chair says. Further, I noticed at the end of my speech, while you were calling it to an end, that no such intervention was made on Ms Chadwick or previous Labour speakers, and we are getting very tired of this inequitable treatment.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member very much for his remarks, but the Hansard will show that I did actually call the members on my right to order during the course of the member’s speech. I appreciate the point the member has made.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While you were ruling, correcting the member on his misrepresentation to the House about your previous ruling, he said: “No way.” It is gross defiance of the Chair to contradict you while you are on your feet. How long is this to be allowed to continue?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard for that. If the member on my left did say that, then that is trifling with the Chair and I ask him to withdraw and apologise. I have to take the member’s word for it.

This week another disaster movie hit local cinemas. The Day After Tomorrow depicts an accelerated global warming scenario. The film is fiction; global warming is not. Global warming will not hit us all overnight, but it will hit us. Global warming and its consequences are almost certainly the result of our profligate fossil-fuel consumption, and it is already happening. For some on the planet those consequences are already irreversible and devastating. Increases in carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million prior to the industrial revolution to 375 parts per million today—just 95 parts, or 30 percent—and less than 1 degree of warming have already resulted in large parts, and, up until recently, productive parts, of northern China and Inner Mongolia turning to desert. Extreme weather events are already devastating people’s lives all over the planet.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is reported in the February edition of the Ecologist as predicting a carbon dioxide climb that, were it to remain roughly where it is right now, would be at a rate of something like 1 degree of warming. Even 1 degree of warming would wreak havoc. Glaciers and sea ice will in all probability vanish and the number of extreme climate events such as floods, landslides, heat waves, and violent storms is bound to increase. Agriculture will be affected, as a lack of rain during the growing seasons, landslides, and heat waves will devastate food supplies. However, that scenario is unlikely. In the last month it was announced that carbon dioxide has increased by three or four parts per million each year for the past 3 or 4 years. That is something like 1 percent growth in carbon dioxide levels per year, or a 100 percent increase over the next century.

It gets worse. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested that our growing demand for fossil fuels could lead to a fourfold increase in greenhouse gases—the highest in 40 million years. Forty million years ago sea levels were 12 metres higher than they are now. A 12-metre rise in sea level and the possibility of 8 degrees of warming mean conditions that are virtually unsurvivable. Unless we can be persuaded to dramatically change our ways, the future for my grandchildren, and in all probability my children, is grim. It is not just our infatuation with motorcars—they are bad enough—but we are just so extraordinarily wasteful. The products we use require vast amounts of energy to produce and to transport and are likely to end up very, very quickly in our landfills. But even if we managed to recycle all of them, the consequences of the embodied energy and the resultant carbon dioxide emissions are irreversible.

This might seem a little frivolous, but encouraging parents to adopt reusable nappies is one attempt to reduce that waste. Using disposable nappies may not be the worst thing we do, but it would be a relatively simple task to persuade and enable parents to move to products that use three and a half times less energy, as well as eight times less non-renewable and 90 times less renewable resources to produce than each of the 570 million nappies New Zealand babies get through every year. Reusable nappies may seem a little inconvenient. That inconvenience pales into insignificance when compared with a 12-metre rise in the sea level and a planet that is 8 degrees hotter.

💬 Ron Mark: What sort does the member use?

With my children and my children’s children, it was always the cloth ones. Although reusable nappies may be inconvenient, that is trifling in comparison with a 12-metre rise in sea level and a planet that is 8 degrees hotter. The same is true in relation to unheated towel rails, walking or catching a bus to work, choosing to live closer to the places that we need to be, or spending our money in our own community and avoiding products and packages that we do not need. The task of good government is to make the good choices more attractive and to persuade us to avoid those choices that threaten our future. To those who say that it will not happen, I say that wishful thinking is no substitute for hard evidence, and the evidence is clear. It may not happen overnight but it is already happening, and nothing less than a commitment to a major culture shift can avoid the unimaginable. If members cannot imagine it, they just lack imagination.

At the beginning of this week members stood up one after the other and talked proudly of the lead that New Zealand had given to the world in women’s suffrage and our particular brand of democracy. We may not be able to save the world on our own, but we owe it to our children and to all of the planet’s other species, communities, and generations to demonstrate a new level of leadership and a singleness of purpose, if our descendants are to have the same opportunity to thank us in 150 years’ time.

This week we have celebrated the 150th anniversary of this House of Representatives. As part of the celebration, later on this year, in the month of August, we will be gathering the youth of this country together for what is known as the Youth Parliament. Earlier this year I was asked to be on a panel of three judges to judge eight young finalists who were going to represent me. Two things that they spoke on stood out as I heard them make 5-minute speeches. First, I was impressed with the qualities and the abilities of the youth of this nation. I believe that they are outstanding. They all spoke with passion, they all had a heart for this nation, and they had a desire to work alongside others to build a better New Zealand.

Second, these young people came from a variety of backgrounds. Some came from traditional homes, some came from broken homes, but there was a common thread that ran through all of their 5-minute speeches that I would like to take this opportunity to pick up and focus on today, because I believe that it is important for this House to hear. It was: where are our boundaries and our guidelines? It was not about asking where were the rules and regulations; it was about boundaries and guidelines. Clear boundaries and guidelines are an essential part of freedom.

Many would know that I am a petrolhead. Nothing gives me a greater kick than travelling in my rally car at speeds of up to 200 kilometres an hour on a loose gravel, closed public road. It is exhilarating. On the other hand, I have also experienced the pain of leaving that fine road at great speed, entering a deep ravine, and coming to a sudden stop. There is an incredible amount of freedom in a car as long as it stays on the road. Once it loses the road it has lost its freedom. Many members may not have experienced something as dramatic as that, yet I know that many of them would have driven around a corner, experienced sun strike, found suddenly that the road ahead can no longer be seen, and not really known where they were going. Or perhaps members may have experienced a dark night when it is raining and hard to see and driven around a corner to find they are facing a car’s headlights, making it impossible to see. We know that pilots fly on flight paths and that as long as they maintain them everything is safe.

These youth were consistently asking, as they spoke on a wide variety of topics, where the boundaries were, where they should walk, how far they should go, what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable. I really felt that they were saying to us: “If you really loved us, you would let us know.” Many had had dreams that adults, through their actions, had shattered, and they wondered whether it was safe to dream again. These ones had chosen to dream again, because the alternative was not worth contemplating. I believe that as legislators we have an obligation to inspire the dreams of our young people and give them a clear pathway to follow. The current influx of liberal legislation will be rejected out of hand by the up and coming conservative younger generation who have woken up to the fact that much of what they were taught as being right, has been proven by the experiences in their own life to be wrong. Many are now choosing chastity over promiscuity and are discovering that the rewards for a little discipline far outweigh any fleeting moment of pleasure. This should be encouraged, as it is the right path to follow. This Government is beginning to feel the pressure of ignoring conservative New Zealanders for too long, and it ignores the warnings that are there at its peril.

I conclude by saying that there is nothing wrong with our youth, but, as in Auckland, it is time to pay far more attention to the roads we are building. Put the wrong road in front of our current youth and they will reject it out of hand. They have been told what to think for too long. But there is now a generation arising that has found out how to think, so we should watch out because they know and appreciate the importance of a proper and correct foundation. They are looking for a good road, a clear pathway to follow. I believe that for too long we as legislators have given them a wide range of alternatives. They have had to go down some wrong roads. They have known what it is to feel the pain of wrong decisions. I believe that we as legislators need to stand here, in a place like this, to give them clear directions, to show them the right roadway, the right pathway, and I believe—just wait and see—that we will see a generation that will turn this nation round, for good.

This week Parliament celebrated the 150th jubilee of its existence, and this is a good time to reflect on the past and look forward to the future. A part of that future was touched on by the previous speaker, who talked about the future face of this country—a future face that is forward-looking, a future face that is a changing demographic, and a future face that includes very young, vibrant, innovative, and creative faces, many of whom are Māori. My contribution to this debate today is to talk about some of the gains this Government has made in health care. The issue is about making health care affordable and accessible, and that is what has been achieved in this term of Government. It is about making health gains, and contributing to improving the health status of many of the people in our communities, so that they can have a better quality of life. We are targeting need, and are making a difference in health. This Government has initiated a primary health-care strategy, to get the balance right. There are 68 primary health organisations currently in existence throughout New Zealand, and that is significant. It shows that we are starting to really look at improving health in all our communities, across all our populations. Why are we doing that? Because we want people to have a better quality of life and to contribute to society. More than 3 million New Zealanders, many of whom are Māori, are enrolled today in primary health organisations. They are enrolled in their communities, where they can receive improved access to health care at a low cost.

What have been some of the achievements in this term of Government? Last October, 17-year-olds were added to the low-cost formula, so the Government has improved their access to the health-care services. From 1 July this year, all those aged over 65 years will receive low-cost health-care services and there will be a $3 prescription charge for our kaumātua. Those are significant gains, because they are some of the bread and butter issues that people do not talk about very often, but that really make a difference in everyday life. In rural health, in the rural communities that a lot of our families live in and a lot of our families are returning to, there have been some steady gains. Initiatives for new postgraduate diplomas for rural health nurses have allowed at least 40 rural nurses to study full-time over 2 years, so they can go back into their communities, serve those communities, and help to improve health in those areas. We have extended the primary health-care nurse practitioner scholarship scheme. I think that is significant, especially in a day and an age when it is hard to attract people into rural communities. Recruitment schemes for rural communities have made a significant difference, because those of us who come from rural areas know how hard it is to attract people to come into a community long term and to be committed to the gains, outcomes, and benefits for that community. There has also been relief support to take the roster pressure off rural doctors and nurses, and that, too, is significant.

One of the things I want to talk about in my contribution to the debate is the mobile surgical services bus. I had the opportunity last week to visit that service while it was in Pukekohe. What is significant is that it is a public service that goes into rural communities like Gore, Hāwera, Oamaru, Pukekohe, Taihape, Te Puia Springs, Wairoa, and Warkworth—and that is to name just a few places. By going into those communities, the service is able to relieve some of the pressure on the waiting lists of the district health boards in those areas. That is significant, because the non-urgent cases that exist in those communities would not otherwise be seen if it were not for a service like that. A number of children from our families have been able to have a simple grommet operation, which takes less than 10 minutes. Many kids, Māori children, who have had that operation immediately have an improved quality of life, because they can hear better. Parents say that behavioural problems are immediately reduced, and their children can participate in education and enjoy a full life. Those are some of the gains achieved by that service. It is significant that the number of operations has been vastly improved by that service. It should continue to grow.

What we are seeing from this Government, particularly as has been exemplified in this Chamber today, is that it is losing its moral authority. There is now no doubt about that. It has happened at a speed that has surprised even me. But let us just go through the issues that have been dealt with today. Steve Maharey has spent 5 years on a tertiary education strategy. He has lost his credibility in the sector, and now he is losing it in the House. That is because his strategy adds up to nothing. It consists of 14 reports over 5 years, and a blowout of $18 million on the least strategic, lowest-value courses the country has. We can imagine what the students will say to him about that when he turns up to meet them. He will not have moral authority.

The Hon Phil Goff has spent years garnishing his credentials as a hard man on law and order, only to be caught out in the worst possible situation: now being labelled in public as having a dangerously liberal attitude towards teenage sex. And then we found out today something that I am sure he told his colleagues and that they agreed with, which is that it is now to become legal for foster parents to have sex with their foster children, provided they do not use coercion—foster parents with State wards, and the Government is going to sanction that! That is Phil Goff. He has lost his moral authority.

Then there is the Prime Minister—

💬 Darren Hughes: Who’s obsessed about it?

I bet the ninth floor is. Speaking of the ninth floor, how will the Prime Minister regain any moral authority on race issues? She will not. The only thing she could think of was to put Trevor Mallard in as Minister responsible for race relations. That tells us just how empty the bank account is. But how can she regain any moral authority on race relations? She has said nothing to New Zealand about those issues for 5 years. Which New Zealander would believe anything Helen Clark said about the most important issue our nation faces over the next 15 months? Not one—and she knows that, which is why she is saying nothing. When a Government loses its moral authority, it is worse than losing its policy credibility.

One person stands above that, and he is Dr Michael Cullen. On Dr Cullen’s broad shoulders rests the burden of rescuing this Government. But, of course, he has made a fundamental mistake: his Budget looks like the last Labour Budget, not like one with four more Budgets to come after it. This is the pay-off. What happens after the pay-off? I can tell members that my voters in Southland have figured that out already. Labour saved up the money for this Budget. At least Labour did talk about having to earn it. Now that the Government has all the money it has saved, it is going to give it away. What will happen next? Will Labour suddenly turn back into an enterprise Government? No. But Dr Cullen, of course, is not without his own ambition.

I am sure there are thoughts deep in his mind about why he has to work so hard to keep Helen Clark in office as Prime Minister of New Zealand, because every problem the Government has, he has to solve.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s right. Mr Mallard, too?

No, he has become part of the problem, with school closures, the NCEA, and various problems like that. The education portfolio is out of control. So Michael Cullen is sitting there on the Government benches, wondering why he has to do all that. Why was it that Dr Cullen gave the speech yesterday that had to be given by the Government, attacking judges and judicial activism—which I agreed with? Why did Helen Clark not make that speech? Because no one would take any notice of her, and she did not actually think of doing it in the first place.

I thought that the speeches on Monday exemplified the growing gap at the top of this Government. Helen Clark has spun herself into a corner she cannot get out of. She has got on the wrong side of an issue that she cannot get on the right side of, and no one is waiting around to see what she can say. It is now up to Dr Cullen to buy Labour’s way out. Unfortunately, he has had Phil Goff make this the worst lead-up to a Budget a Government could ever want to have.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.